Dr. Nicola Scafetta summarizes "why the anthropogenic theory proposed by the IPCC should be questioned"

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf
““OCEAN ACIDIFICATION” – THE EXTREMISTS’ FALLBACK SCARE
First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years, and cooling for 9, so they hastily renamed it “climate change”. Then they noticed the climate was changing no more than it ever had, so they tried “energy security”, and even named a Congressional Bill after it. Then they noticed that most Western nations already had bountiful energy security, in the form of vast, untapped domestic supplies of oil, gas, coal, or all three, so they switched to “ocean acidification”.”

Very interesting. Downloaded at once.

Blimey – best get my reading specs on!

This is a wonderfully clear and impressive presentation. Very welcome, very recommended. Thank you.

Well now. Maybe the Sun and the Oceans really do have something major to say? Whodathunkit?

Prof. Horst Malberg , retired director of Berlin Free University’s Institute of Meteorology has just published “La Niña – El Niño and Solar Influence: Climatic Trends 1950 – 2008” and “Solar influence on long-term climate change, globally since 1860, in Central Europe since 1672” — a pair of real game-changers for the climate debate that demolishes AGW and, IMHO, deserve widest-possible dissemination. Can’t fit them in here, so please e-mail me an address.
R.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I actually hadn’t heard of this work before. I shall download and read Dr. Scaffeta’s entire report “Climate Change and Its Causes” with much interest.
From a quick preview, it appears that he believes that we are in for a period of global cooling, bottoming out in 2030 or so, and it’s got nothing to do with GH gases, but is related to solar and astronomical cycles. Is this correct? And if this is what he predicts, then his hypothesis can be put directly up against the AGW hypothesis, which would state that we should see many new record global high temps between now and 2030, along with the disappearance of summer arctic sea ice, etc.
Both theories can’t be correct, and it even looks as though, according to Dr. Scaffeta’s own graphs, that we should already be seeing a downward plunge in temperatures heading to that 2030 low. If we see a new global record warm year in 2010, as the Met Office (and I believe) will likely happen, what problems would that represent for Dr. Scaffeta’s hypothesis?

The author’s first name is Nicola, not Nicolas. Yes, he is a man; see
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/
Reply: Fixed ~ ctm

Dr. Scafetta has recently honoured us participating in a meeting held in Italy on february 27th. In that meeting I asked him the permission to make an on line interview with questions directly from the readers. The discussion (in italian) is ongoing here http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=8378.
gg

Found it, buried deep in his PDF. TSI = total solar irradiance.

Is Scafetta going to let RealClimate have the code that he used for his paper?
Or is he going to use the same excuses that Michael Mann, Tamino, & Co have been using?

?? The figure shows the global surface temperature (black) detrended of its quadratic fit function as done in Figure 1. ??
?? The 60 year modulation of SCMSS has been time-shifted by +5 years ??
So the detrended temperatures fit the variation in the sun if we shift it by 8% .
So what causes the trend? Now there must be a study there?

Discover Magazine has a very interesting two part interview with Judy Curry and Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann. Judy seems to have caught on to the importance of the oceanic oscillations to the cooling from the ’40s to the ’70s and the subsequent warming, whereas Mann seems to willfully disregard it. Found through tomnelson.blogspot.com
==============

Thank You Dr. Scaffeta for presenting your work to the general public. I look forward to reading it in depth.
Best Regards,
John from California

For heavens sake, I download the pdf and the title page was the first surprise. Many apologies to Dr. Nicola Scafetta NOT “Scaffeta” as it appears in the headline of this article and my last comment.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

One of the major cycles in the Chinese astrological calendar, which was/is used a lot for determining ‘lucky’ days for planting etc., consists of 60 years. This is made up of the 12 animals, which change every year, and the 5 elements, which change every two years. Each animal/element therefore occurs every 60 years.
The point being that maybe the cycle observed by Dr. Nicola Scaffeta has been observed in the past over an extended period of time.

Ron (13:19:58) :
R Shearer (11:13:40) :
“Wait a minute, how could we possibly influence the center of mass of the solar system?”
Ron, Shearer was being sarcastic. If we are going to force these uncanny natural cycles to match the IPPC models, how much world-wide taxation would we need?
hoho!

Dr. Scafetta, thank you for your work and for publishing this for free. It is a fascinating article. I sent the link to numerous colleagues.
This will create conversation for many years, I am sure.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

Why is it that when I read the posts on this web site I get angry?
You may not agree, but I am a true skeptic.
What I keep seeing here is not skepticism but political machinations.
I do not see a desire to find the truth, and to thus come to a logical conclusion.
rather I see blind parroting of “slogans” and outright toadyism.
This is not science. It is anti-science.
sad just sad
The really sad part is 50 years from now, what will your children and grand childrens opinion be of you?

read all….
15 March: UK Times: John Houghton: We climate scientists are not ecofanatics
If the IPCC has a fault, it is that its reports have been too cautious, not alarmist
A third myth is that the IPCC has refused to recognise that there has been no significant increase in global average temperature in the past decade or so. Sceptics cite this as evidence against human-induced global warming. But the level of natural year-to-year variability in the temperature record shows that a decade is too short a time to establish a change in the long-term trend…
Perhaps there is a criticism that can be made of IPCC scientists: they have been too slow publicly to defend their integrity. They have not been willing or able to hit the airwaves or make their case in newspapers. But scientists are now faced by powerful lobbies who are working to distort and discredit the science behind climate change. We scientists have facts on our sides — we must not be afraid to deploy them.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7061646.ece

Guido Guidi (12:05:23) “Dr. Scafetta […] on line interview with questions directly from the readers. The discussion (in italian) is ongoing here http://www.climatemonitor.it/?p=8378. “
For those who may not know, just:
1) drop that webpage-address into the box on this http://translate.google.com/ webpage,
2) set the form to Italian-to-English, and
3) hit the “Translate” button – (scroll over to the far right to find it on narrower screens).
The translation isn’t perfect, but errors are rarely problematic. Scafetta tells all in the interview.

aqz (13:30:36) : Chinese astrological calenda
Today is pi day and a good day to search on this phrase:
numerological 60

“Henry (14:09:14) :
[…]
The really sad part is 50 years from now, what will your children and grand childrens opinion be of you?”
The Hansen line, “Storms of my Grandchildren”. Do you have a factual argument to make, Henry? Bring us your best evidence.

The fit looks fairly good, but what is the mechanism?

kim (11:28:18) : You wrote, “Note the cycle of the PDO is about the same as that 60 year cycle.”
The assumption is, the 60-year cycle of the PDO continues back in time. It does not. I’ve just finished the graphs on a post of PDO paleoclimatological reconstructions. Here’s the short-term comparison graph:
http://i39.tinypic.com/rvzrt5.png
Not one of them shows a 60-year cycle, and none seem to correlate with 30-year smoothing. I’ll try to write up the post tomorrow morning.

pat says:
March 14, 2010 at 2:10 pm
……”recognise that there has been no significant increase in global average temperature in the past decade or so. Sceptics cite this as evidence against human-induced global warming. But the level of natural year-to-year variability in the temperature record shows that a decade is too short a time to establish a change
in the long-term trend…”
wait a minute! The point of Mann’s hockey stick graph of 1998 is that the temperature was going up up up, significantly in a decade . Well , it’s 2010 and no increase, so now we are cautioned by the AGW crowd that the climate doesn’t work that way, that there are decadal fluctuations. Then why did Mann et al. claim in 1998 that a decadal rise was significant and unprecedented. Give me a break! Do these guys even listen to themselves?

A silly Q , but could nuclear power generation affect mass of earth?

Bob Tisdale @ 14:58:21
Thanks for that graph. That answers several questions I’ve had that I am too lazy or too ignorant to discover the answer for myself. I’d wondered if there were six solar cycles in each cycle of the PDO, also.
===============

O/T from the main thrust of this thread, but is there a calculation of how high Earth’s temperature could get, theoretically, with the atmosphere we have?

Robert of Ottawa (11:19:58) : You asked, “What is meant by ‘de-trended’?”
The easiest way to explain it is to show you. The following is a graph of the Sea Surface Temperature (SST) anomalies of the North Atlantic. Also included on the graph is the linear trend line:
http://i44.tinypic.com/10funtv.jpg
To detrend the North Atlantic SST anomaly data, subtract the values of the linear trend from the values of the North Atlantic SST anomalies:
http://i39.tinypic.com/2crm2s5.jpg
And by detrending the North Atlantic SST anomalies, one creates the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation dataset. I discussed it in this post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/04/atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation.html
Regards

I suppose this would be yet one more argument that we should be using a 60-year period for calculating “normal” temperatures and not a 30-year.

Rondack (11:33:07) : No need to copy and paste the paper or the abstract. Please provide a link.

annie (15:16:27) :
A silly Q , but could nuclear power generation affect mass of earth?>>
Of course. E=MC^2 is the formula for how much energy is produced when matter is converted to energy by nuclear power generation. Leaving equipment on the moon also reduces the mass of the earth. As does sending space probes out to Mars and Jupiter.
But the actual amount is insignificant in comparison to the mass of the earth. Its not even significant compared to the amount of dust earth’s gravity captures from space every year.

Henry (14:09:14) : You wrote, “Why is it that when I read the posts on this web site I get angry?”
There’s a very simple cure for your anger. Stop reading the posts on this website! ;^)

“Anu (13:28:07) “It has recently been proven that if a report or article has any errors at all, the entire content is rendered meaningless, or perhaps even a hoax.”
Equating a spelling mistake with deliberate manipulation and deception is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? And surely the point regarding AR4 is not that there are “mistakes”, but that there aren’t any at all – only lies!

“Phil Clarke (15:47:51),
What a perfect opportunity to avoid charges of hypocrisy, by demanding that Mann and the rest must make their data, code and methods transparent.”
Mann had a funny way of padding his data. If you don’t know what that means: When you do a filtering operation on a time series like a running average you have the problem that the length of the filter makes it impossible to run it to the end of the data; the right half of the filter will dangle in the air. Rahmstorf and Hansen have also been caught doing funny things in this situation:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/03/the-secret-of-the-rahmstorf-non-linear-trend/
As this affects the output, the nice graphs they’re publishing, especially at the interesting end – where they meet the present – it is of rather big importance to find out how the researcher handled this situation, and it is not nasty or hypocriticical to ask this question at all. It is a matter of honesty and the duty of the researcher to answer such a legitimate question.
“Smokey (15:56:38) :
The reason they don’t can be seen in the Harry_Read_Me file, in which 13 years of temperature station data is invented, rather than admitting it doesn’t exist.”
Link:
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-0.html

I have been avoiding opening this video for fear it would be completely biased however, conservative talk radio host Amy Holmes added good balance to the discussion. She even mentioned sunspots and the Himalayan glaciers in the debate. Maher showed the Al Gore naked magazine cover and the front page of the USA Today article on waning support for MMGW. That in itself made it worth watching.
Bill Maher: The Environment Is The Ultimate Health Care Issue (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/13/bill-maher-the-environmen_n_497781.html

Anu (13:28:07) “It has recently been proven that if a report or article has any errors at all, the entire content is rendered meaningless, or perhaps even a hoax.”>>
Methinks you have it backwards. should read:
If the entire content is a hoax, then any errors discovered are evidence.

Nick Stokes (14:36:38) :
Really? He only submitted his PhD in 2001, the year AR3 came out. His collaboration with West started 2003, but then they were writing about human gait. It wasn’t till 2005 that they turned their attention to climate matters.

I was working from memory of his academic and professional history and in retrospect, would have been more accurate to have left the “late 90’s out of my comment. His academic works did date to the late 90’s while his firs professional climate related publications arrived in the early 2000’s.
Scafetta received his Laurea Dottore in Physics in 1997 (Universita di Pisa) and his Ph.D in physics in 2001. His work in the climate climate sciences began as early as 2002, not 2005 as you state. True, Scafetta worked also on a few studies on human gait as well as some interests in economic models in that time frame. It is clear his interests refocused on climate sciences in 2002. His earliest published work in climatology was in 2002, not 2005:
“Temperature reconstruction analysis” N Scafetta, T Imholt, P Grigolini, J Roberts – 2002 arXiv:physics/0202012
“Solar flare intermittency and the Earth’s temperature anomalies” – 248701 N Scafetta, BJ West – Physical review letters, 2003
“A stochastic analysis of the solar and non-solar forcings on global climate during the solar cycles 21-23 (1978-2003).” N. Scafetta with B.J. West
To name a few of his earlier publications.
My point remains that his earlier work overestimated the anthropogenic contribution. When he downgraded the anthropogenic contributions in his later works, it placed him in bad light with the alarmist community, relegating him to be somewhat of an outsider. That was my central point.

Leif Svalgaard (15:42:04) said:

There is increasing evidence that perhaps the Maunder minimum was not such a quiet period, and that solar activity lately has not been unusually high.

A shocking thought. I shudder at its implications.

Leif
How can you continue posting here?
Having read all of your papers, I find you a good solid scientist.
Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
It is politics.
So do are you thus Politically in the camp of these here.
Or are you really a scientist interested in finding the truth.
I think at some point you will have to decide if you can keep stomaching the posts here.
I think it is time for some retrospective……

Bob Tisdale,
Thanks for drawing attention to these upthread:
http://s5.tinypic.com/i3um47.jpg
http://s5.tinypic.com/15dnb4i.jpg
http://s5.tinypic.com/2w5um3a.jpg
Looking forward to your forthcoming 60 year &/or/vs. PDO write-up. I agree that imagining a 60 year cycle running indefinitely both forward & backward in time is silly. Analyses like yours help with speculation about more realistic envelopes (as opposed to overly-simple cycles).
Cheers.

Wow. How embarrassing! Beck’s nonsense and Douglass et al. (who apparently don’t understand the fundamental difference between standard error and standard deviation) all rolled into one!
And, this from a physicist, no less. I thought Scafetta was better than this. I was wrong. Why publish work in physics journals when you can get it published by Science and Public Policy Institute, the organization of which Lord Monckton is the Chief Policy Advisor.? It is kind of sad to see serious scientists sink to this level.

P.S.
Paid by Exxon.
No worries folks, it will be out eventually, and all the skeletons in the closets of the posters here wiil eventually be out.

Mia Nony (11:02:22) :
First, they called it “global warming”. Then they noticed there had been no warming for 15 years,
———-
What I like about WUWT is that people here go off and get the actual data and test statements by scientists, journalists, bloggers and other commenters.
Shall we ?
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
The most recent data is from Dec 2009.
15 years before that was Dec 1994
So, was there any warming in the last 15 years ?
Dec 1994 global temp. anomaly 0.217
Dec 2009 global temp. anomaly 0.407
Yup, the planet warmed 0.19 deg C.
These anomalies are with respect to the average for 1961-1990.

Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55) :
“Considering the above, I don’t know what you would call me. And I don’t care.”
Objective? Impartial?Pragmatic? And this kinda attitude has no place in climate science, either side o the divide!;-) Good on yer.

Leif,
You have to consider that:
1. Our current metrics may not be sufficiently sensitive to detect a solar effect on our climate.
2. We may be looking at the wrong metrics.
You sound way too over-confident about our current abilities to detect fluctuations in solar forcings. You sound like Louis XIV’s physician who said in the early 18th century that “medicine is now so advanced that we will not learn anything new for centuries”.

Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55)
“Temperatures are higher now than 100 years ago.”
Ah, but are they any higher than 70 or 80 years ago?

Re:
JP Miller (13:34:27) :
It’s interesting that one of Scafetta’s main arguments seems to be similar to, dare I say it, a “Landscheidt” approach to explaining climate cycles. If this is right, it would be ironic that the one “scientific” topic banned on this skeptic’s site, which has done so much to challenge AGW, is a discussion of exactly that climate mechanism. Or, am I off base here?
REPLY: Yes I noted that, but I decided that the best approach is to face it head on, if it is junk, it will shake out. – Anthony
Thanks, Anthony. So long as there at least some sensible effort to connect data to a physical explanation (even if tortured) for how shifting solar system gravity could drive climate, then the theory ought to be examined. And there’s no better place than here. Reminds me of the tectonic plate argument circa 1915.

2 years ago I found multivariate patterns in local climate data suggesting the following harmonic spectrum (in years): 3.2, 6.4, 12.8, 25.6, 51.2, along with 6.4 year beats with the terrestrial year: 1.185 years = 433 days (Chandler wobble), 2.37 years = 28.4 months (QBO = Quasi-Biennial Oscillation).
Studying solar system dynamics alerted me to the existence of such spectra in: Jupiter-Neptune relations, Earth-Venus relations, & higher derivatives of solar system barycentric motion.
Cautionary Note for solar system barycentre enthusiasts:
The same spectrum arises in Earth-Sun-Moon relations.
Based on draconic month harmonics & the nearest Gregorian (used for purposes of illustration) year harmonics:
(13.60611)*(13.5275) / (13.60611 – 13.5275) = 2341.389811 days = 6.410507569 years
(28.09557692)*(27.21222) / (28.09557692 – 27.21222) = 865.4972869 days = 2.369651086 years = 28.43581303 months
2.369651086 / 2 = 1.184825543 years = 432.7486434 days

If every researcher were required to know the mechanism of every pharmaceutical drug’s effect on the human body, how many would see the light of day?
http://tinyurl.com/ylja32r
In the same light, if the various solar effects mechanism is not known on their influence of earth’s weather/climate system, does that still render them “pseudoscience”? Just because they are not understood?

My dear Henry, please take my advice. Your hysteria is showing and it seems to be about to overtake your soul. Have a piece of chocolate, or a nap. Have you a cat to pet? Or a dog to walk? I worry about you. Be good to yourself.
=============

I commented very quickly about this post BEFORE I had read and digested it. I pat myself on the back that I recognized its importance. I slightly modify my previous comment: THIS POST IS WHY WATT’S UP WITH THAT IS ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF TRUTH…..AND BEAUTY.

I have always found that Leif backs up his assertions with facts and invites proof that he is wrong. I have not seen the occasion where this proof has been given wrt TSI. So why is everyone piling on him? Seems that he has a very good grasp of the facts.

Leif,
I think your ‘Leif score’ is 3FFF not 2FFF.

“Leif Svalgaard (19:30:49) :
[…]
BTW, I note that nobody has manned up to give their ‘Leif score/number’ :-)”
I didn’t see anything i disagree with in your list.

In contrast to older reconstructions,[36] most recent reconstructions of total solar irradiance point to an only small increase of only about 0.05 % to 0.1 % between Maunder Minimum and the present.[37][38][39]
Having found this tidbit on wikipedia, I would venture to say that ANYONE should be able to see that small TSI changes are only PART of the evidence of the large changes that the sun causes here on earth. I hear all the time on the blogosphere, ” the sun only changes a little bit over the years, how can it be the cause of global warming?”.
Yet, when climate scientists start talking about amplification of CO2 they all nod their heads. I used to be a warmer, then I researched the science. I strongly believe that ANYONE who took the time to research AGW would become a skeptic over time. All warmers I have ever met, including myself, believe(d) because they felt it was true.

“DirkH (19:59:30) :
[…]
I didn’t see anything i disagree with in your list.”
well, okay, 2FFF. Gotta get used to that.

My official Leif Score is a 9.
[But I’m not sure mine carries much weight LOL].
😉
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Leif Svalgaard (14:22:12) :
Agreed.

Leif,
You have seemingly put your own views out as the standard by which all posters should measure themselves (e.g. ‘Leif score/number’). It does not surprise me that this has been pretty much ignored, given that this is not a particularly Leif-centric site.

I dunno, when someone resorts to quoting the infamous faked Oregon survey on the first page of the introduction, and the release of stolen emails on the second page, to support their thesis, it kind of makes a person a bit suspicious of the robustness of the paper.
And they’ve upped the ‘natural warming’ from 50% to 60% from the look of things. Are they going to release the code this time, I wonder? Or are they still afraid someone might find a few flaws in the calculations?
This little article reads more like a political manifesto than a scientific paper. But whatever turns you on.

tallbloke (20:14:50) :
I certainly respect your scientific mind, Tallbloke, and appreciate the diversity on here.
I have learned much from many of you on here. Hopefully we can all figure it out and get along in the process.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

AGW, what can’t it do?

Leif Svalgaard (19:40:28) :
wayne (19:25:48) :
No, the distance between the Sun and the Earth is not affected by this [because the Earth orbits the ‘barycenter’ determined by the Sun and the Earth [+the Moon], no matter what the Sun does. Just like the Moon orbits the ‘barycenter’ determined by the Earth and the Moon, no matter what the Sun does. If the Sun had a companion star [Nemesis] very far away, the barycenter of the total system would be way outside our planetary solar system. But [as we have discussed so often], the barycenter of the solar system is irrelevant because the Sun and all the stuff in the solar system are just in free fall in their combined gravitational field and feel no forces from that.
Careful Leif, sometimes you jump too fast, I programmed ephemeris systems for four years and have a close (I wish it closer) version of the Horizon system running on my older machine to my left, written by me from the ground up. I have different versions using nine or ten different ODE integrators to boot. Have you ever written an ephemeris software system? Try it, they are challenging!
Your statement is almost like the other planets gravitation fields do not also affect the Earths orbit. Are you sure of your statement? If it was only the Sun and the Earth I would concur with you.
Now if you are saying this small amount does not amount to much, I agree, but the fact that scientifically the difference exists and since it exists it must affect the TSI however tiny. Get my drift.
I hate to hide proper science, even how tiny its effect is, because it can confuse people that logically know it must have SOME effect. The amount of effect is for others to determine (and may have already determined). But please don’t jump on my attempts to teach people here, just make a comment that its effect is so small it can be ignored. Let’s build on each other, not tear each other apart. OK?

Leif Svalgaard (20:45:56) :
I would say that the process of adding up temperatures about 6 feet off of the surface and averaging them out would seem like an exercise in futility.
As to measuring the radiation coming off of the Earth, isn’t that what Lindzen was measuring with CERES (I am pretty sure that is the right acronym)?

And Leif, I read you speaking of this “angular momentum” bit, I also am very leery of it. My only guess is they are trying to put some important sounding words (angular momentum) on some basic gravitational effects like the tiny difference I described and build a theory on it. It’s a fancy way of saying the planets orbits are all affected by the other planets. I hate fancy words! But to drag that into some sizeable effect on Earth’s climate system, I for one don’t buy that. Please don’t think I was describing that in my previous comment! I was not.

@ Smokey (20:58:39)
Google or bing ‘Oregon petition debunked’ for the story behind the fake Oregon Petition.
The Norfolk Police are investigating the theft of CRU emails. I don’t believe they have arrested anyone yet, but they should release their findings at some stage, whether they catch the thieves or not.
BTW – Thanks for responding to my post again, I think I’ve got a fan 🙂

Henry (17:48:05) :
P.S.
Paid by Exxon.
No worries folks, it will be out eventually, and all the skeletons in the closets of the posters here wiil eventually be out
Did it ever occur to simplistic twits like you that at the widely touted Exxon figure of 20 million bucks divided by all the sceptics equals a flat rate of about $1.85 each? You can make better money by collecting empty beer cans which is about your intellectual level.

Wayne, @ 20:38:09
Is there enough difference in the variable TSI by your mechanism to account for the wide variation in climate?
=================

Baa Humbag (21:00:27) :
Re: Anu (Mar 14 13:28),
Gee thanks for that contribution ANU.
You have also made a mistake in your post. You left out the ‘S’ at the end of your screen name.
—–
It started, before any comments had yet been posted, as a comical riff on the small errors which are used in the media to discredit entire thousand page reports by the IPCC.
I was then interrupted by my young daughter for two hours or so…
Later, uninspired, I finished up lamely and posted it.
It would have been dangerously, coffee-spitting funny if I had been able to finish it as originally envisioned.
No, really.

The question we’re all not paying attention to is: “Why are all the world leaders pushing for carbon trading?”

Smokey (18:23:49) :
You have the gall to quote CRU temperature data??
You do understand that rather than “actual data,” what we’re been given by CRU has been made up as they went along – in one case, for a 13 year stretch.
———-
Sure, they “made up data for a 13 year stretch”.
I guess the Parliament investigation forgot to bring that one up. Which high schooler MySpace page did you find this out on ? I’d like to take a look at her evidence.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, let’s look at that same data from NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, since they estimate polar temperatures left out by HadCrut and the satellite datasets (UAH, RSS):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
So, was there any warming in 15 years ?
Dec 1994 global temp. anomaly 0.25
Dec 2009 global temp. anomaly 0.58
Yup, the planet warmed 0.33 deg C.
These anomalies are with respect to the average for 1951-1980.
If your stock goes up by $3.30/share, it doesn’t matter how “statistically significant” this is. If you have 10,000 shares, you just made $33K.
Profited.
Warmed.
Get it ?

u.k.(us) (19:18:59) :
Henry (17:48:05) :
No worries folks, it will be out eventually, and all the skeletons in the closets of the posters here wiil eventually be out.
==========
God forbid, if all the skeletons of all the posters on this site wiil be out.
I prefer to think of them as “an eclectic series of unfortunate Life Experiences”…

Well, Pooh Bear has an interesting poem:
The more it snows
the more it snows
the more it goes on
snowing.
I checked, and there are no chaotic dynamics considered in the review, and to me this is an important enough lack to dissuade me from reading it carefully.
I agree with Leif that barycenter influences are on the same level as ghost manifestations and should not be discussed seriously in realistic physics blogs ( one can have fun with higher dimensions etc. but those are different kinds of blogs). In real life physics the barycenter is a noetic construct, has no mass, and cannot affect matter with its convoluted motions, in the same way that epicycles, though real and still there if one plots a geocentric system, have no relationship to physical forces governing orbits. Fancy what those epicycles would do to the sun if their motion had a meaning. Galilean relativity holds in the macrocosm, and so any coordinate system is equally valid as any other. The heliocentric dominates because of the physical forces, and the barycenter has a meaning because it is needed to describe the center of mass of the solar system within the galaxy, no more.
Only through the tiny, mm, tides is the sun affected by the planets, and no mechanism is proposed for the amplification of these.
Back to deterministic chaos. Similar coupled differential equations give solutions that have similar characteristics. It was/is the basic principle behind analogue computers designed to solve specific differential equations : the elements solve the differential equations of electricity and magnetism in circuits and one makes analogues of the equations one wants to solve, by controlling the constants and the couplings.
The equations one wants to solve may be the planetary ones, does this mean that the analogue circuits which generate the planetary orbits, which will be completely in step by construction, create the planetary orbits?
Leif should add
15) correlation is not causation
Chaotic systems emerging from similar coupled differential equations will have similar solutions and could be correlated though completely a-causal.
Already somebody pointed up that just the Moon Sun Earth calendar gives similar correlations. That is all what any planetary clock can provide, a time scale against which changes in whatever can be measured. Climate, being chaotic, can, with shifts harmonics and whatnots, be brought to dance to any tune with similar frequencies.
I have linked here before how dynamical chaos can produce beats and order.
It is worth contemplating the cornstarch experiment.
If one were observing the fingers, could one guess that the physics behind it is a constant shaking frequency, the viscosity/elasticity of cornstarch and a small perturbation by a stick, by studying the numerology of the order of the fingers?

wayne: “Now if you are saying this small amount does not amount to much, I agree, but the fact that scientifically the difference exists and since it exists it must affect the TSI however tiny. Get my drift?”
Good post and good quote. I get your drift.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

“Anu (22:12:26) :
[…]
Meanwhile, back in the real world, let’s look at that same data from NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies, since they estimate polar temperatures left out by HadCrut and the satellite datasets (UAH, RSS):
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
”
You have the “estimate” right there.
Unfortunately we can’t say “measure” because they have nothing up there that measures anything. So much for your pompous “Meanwhile, back in the real world,”; i suggest a “Meanwhile, back in the brain of James Hansen”.

pat (14:10:02) :
read all….
But the level of natural year-to-year variability in the temperature record shows that a decade is too short a time to establish a change in the long-term trend…
I keep reading this, but then I happen to remember that the apprent warming thru the Period from the late 70’s to the late 80’s was sufficient to cause the creation of the IPCC.
Nuff said.

ANU @ 21:51:25
You might find it informative to look at Richard Tol’s takedown of the reliability of all of the IPCC reports. There aren’t just a few small errors, rather the reports are rife with bad science. I also note that many of the most fearful messages in the Summary for Policymakers have been found to be exaggerated. The reports are rubbish.
================

R. Gates (17:00:22) : writes:
“Just wondering, how does this graphic, showing the high temps we saw in January 2010 fit in with Dr. Scafetta’s model [should’t the planet be cooling?]”
As with everything that comes from Climategaters, they chose to make the data ambiguous and multiply so. They do not give a temperature reading for each day. Instead, they give an average of a daylight reading and a moonlight reading for each day. Of course, the causes of changes in the two temperatures might be altogether unrelated. UHI could have a powerful impact at night but little during the day. There is no reason to create this ambiguity in temperature readings. We have computers, for goodness sake, and we can record both. Good old Climategater procedure, corrupt the data from the very start and irretrievably so. Corrupt data never limits the imagination and imagination is the Climategater strong point.

kim (21:37:47) :
To the best of my research on him, he assumed in his calculations that the atmosphere orbited the Earth somehow? I could be wrong, since I am not the one to make wither claim, and am too busy to successfully research either.

I see ‘Anu’ is making free with the fog machine of cherry picked statistics?
Yes the earth has warmed very slightly though how a wholly artificial global average construct can be measured with any accuracy when the margin of error is larger than the supposed warming is beyond me.
We know that the very slight warming trend has been augmented by statisical machinations as measured by the ground stations and we also know the unreliable nature of space based measurement of global temperatures.
The nature of the uncertainty and the margins of error involved and the contamination of collected and collated data combined with the obvious vested political interests strongly suggests a full and thorough re examination of all the data.
The tiny variation in temperature over a very short period of time when combined with the known margins of error in measurements makes the supposed causes of that warming open to debate
It is almost a waste of time to calculate unknown and uncertain variables by applying adjustments based on theoretical models and then arrive at conclusions that actually mean anything.
We still do not know exactly how much warming has occured over what time frame.
We still do not know exactly how much warming is natural and how much is antropogenic.
We still do not know exactly what effects solar activity or lack of it has on the warming trend.
We still cannot account fully and exactly for the relative contribution of atmospheric gasses to the greenhouse effect.
We still cannot accurately model future climate states when the models are programmed with so many uncertainties and variables.
What our chronic lack of accurate knowledge does tell us very clearly is that untill we obtain a far more accurate picture of the planets state we are doing nothing more than dancing in the dark. The best course of action when faced with such uncertainty is obvious isnt it?

Clive E Burkland (22:15:13) :
wayne (20:38:09) :
Clive, respectably, I think you and I are on different wavelengths. I’ve never heard of Fred Bailey, sorry. You mentioned the word “yearly”. No, no. I am speaking of decades if not centuries. How often do the major gas planets align, conjunction or opposition. That is the time period between maximums and minimums of the sun’s actual center to the SSB. Sounds like the men in the paper were also speaking of yearly.
I will have to check your “about 1.5 million km”. I remember reading that the SSB never gets even one radius from the sun’s center. One and a half million kilometers would place it clearly outside the sun’s surface proper. I could be wrong on that, never gave it much thought or testing, interesting though.
The Horizons system should show that between 199x or so when they aligned (remember to newspaper articles) and some many decades forward or backwards when they align on the opposite side should show a rough reading to the suns’ orbit’s maximum diameter when you subtract those points. Be sure to use barycenter coordinates without light-time corrections if you try that.
Or simpler is to use a calculator, gravity equations, mass, and mean radius of the bodies with all bodies aligned, you won’t even need vectors. Sorry, I’m not going to do the calculations for you though.
Or, believe me, the effect I mentioned is absolutely real, tiny, and occurs over decades.

Leif,
With the following caveats,
1) As a human, I always resented being given a number, whether it was SS#, driver License, military draft number, etc
2) My college professor in Static and Dynamics gave me advice once, “In your engineering career you will always be asked for a number, I have found the number six to be highly useful. You are welcome to use it.”
3) My philosophical alter ego is whispering in my ear that some of the 14 Svalgaardian points should be reworded. I may do that eventually, but for now . . . .
4) I am willing to see where this leads me, that is, I am willing to see how deep the rabbit hole is. I am taking the red pill.
Here goes:
a) My Leif Score = 9
b) My Leif # = 16308 [Hex 0x3fb4 if I got the Deci to Hex conversion right]
John

wayne (00:28:19) :
Clive E Burkland (22:15:13) :
wayne (20:38:09) :
Clive, respectably, I think you and I are on different wavelengths.
Wavelengths are not important, we are dealing with distances that can be measured accurately. This is a science blog, please present your JPL evidence or retract.

I’ve got it! The dark matter near the center of the sun also orbits the barycentre and induces tidal flows in the sun. Sometimes it is even outside the sun. Disprove that Leif!
Creating an unknown force of unknown strength with unknown effects can explain anything, right? Well it might be good for a research grant…

I would like to know, what other people think about the subject matter, not what somebody called Leif Svalgaard thinks about other people.
This site is one of the best ever but I’ve had enough of Leif, thank you.

Clive E Burkland (00:53:22) :
I have nothing to retract. My evidence is Newtonian gravitation equations and a system of a sun and planets. JPL horizons was merely mentioned of a place on the web you could check positions years from now, forward or backwards if you wanted. If I offended you I didn’t mean to. Beside, this OT was for another commenter’s question and I think I have thoroughly explained what I meant to you.