A note of sincere thanks

Unfortunately for some good o’l DA has been the only one that got nearly all the predictions right (except the 0.4c temp drop ). The solar SSN is on course to max ~40. The temps anomaly will likely fall more than 0.4C in coming months see R spencer SST

Was at the Newcastle presentation. Enlightening but also a confirmation that Anthony and co are real people not just a name on a blog. I was fortunate enough to win a copy of David’s book.
Tallbloke There is a shorter e-version which I found here http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
the book is two years more up to date. I’ve sent it to a number of friends who found the explanations and graphs convincing.

UK next Anthony!

Lawrie — I realize a rose by any other name is just as sweet — Lawrie \la(w)-rie\ is a variant of Lawrence (Latin), and the meaning of Lawrie is “from Laurentum”. Lawrie is an uncommon first name for men but a very common last name for both men and women.
Off topic, I realiZe, but them names have a long history and I can’t resist being just a little smartalecky.
Anyway, I’m just teasing. I didn’t know that the Australians and British fought at Thermopylae too. That is fascinating.
Lucky them!

Anthony,
Don’t forget you have friends to the north of you as well.
I wish to thank you for your work in keeping science honest. Without you and others, government policies would go through on bogus science and we ALL would be paying the price.
Going through the effort to be informative rather than make a buck.
Al Gore and others are in it for the buck and charge accordingly and it is not even their science fields.

Once again, thanks for your great presentations Down Under. It was an absolute pleasure to meet you in Perth, Western Australia. I agree with you re David Archibald. He stayed at the marina I manage (Port Bouvard Marina – Western Australia) and gave me a copy of his first book, “Solar Cycle 24”. It opened my eyes to alternatives regarding climate change. I went searching and discovered WUWT, Climate Audit, Jo Nova and many others. I’ve never looked back. Never have so many owed so much to so few! Cheers, Kim.

Roger Carr says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:14 am
David’s best quote, to me, is:
Our generation has known a warm, giving Sun, but the next generation will suffer a Sun that is less giving, and the Earth will be less fruitful.
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States
David Archibald — International Conference on Climate Change — March, 2008
_________________________________________________________________
This and the take over of our food supply by the international cartels has been giving me nightmares for half a decade.
It is why the wealthy have taken his advice to heart and are buying up farmland. I first saw this advice in 2008, here it is again:
“Morgan Stanley research guru turned hedge fund manager Barton Biggs… advises that you buy a farm a good distance away from a city and, he advises, make sure that your doomsday safe-haven:
* Be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food
* Be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc
And get a gun, he says, because “a few rounds over the approaching brigands’ heads would probably be a compelling persuader that there are easier farms to pillage.”
The problem is compounded by a few cartels intent on grabbing control of the world’s food supply and making home gardening illegal… For your own good of course.
Food Security, Farming, CAFTA and the WTO
HR 2749: WELCOME TO THE GLOBAL PLANTATION
OFFICIAL UN/WTO information supporting above article:
UN/WTO Guide to Good Farming Practices
Patenting of seed: FAO is supporting harmonization of seed rules and regulations in Africa and Central Asia
Nicole Johnson’s well researched pieces on the threat to our food supply:
Food ‘Safety’ Reform and the Enclosure Movement
“History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con Job”
The Festering Fraud Behind Food Safety Reform
Other Articles from my collection:
Small Farmers Hold Key to Feeding the World
Undermining Abundance: The Big Business of Creating Scarcity
Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply
By Vandana Shiva

Loco says:
July 3, 2010 at 5:30 am
Once again, thanks for your great presentations Down Under…. It opened my eyes to alternatives regarding climate change. I went searching and discovered WUWT, Climate Audit, Jo Nova and many others. I’ve never looked back. Never have so many owed so much to so few! Cheers, Kim.
____________________________________________
I second that. Thank you Anthony, David, and the rest for your dedication to science and the truth. History, if written by honest people, will remember you as heroes.

vukcevic says:
July 3, 2010 at 5:40 am
In my view the UK summer months are more likely to respond directly to the solar activity then the rest of the year when the Gulf Stream is predominant. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm
In tropics response to the sun is probably more or less constant throughout the year, the higher latitudes would depend on the rate the Gulf Stream is pumping warm water…..
_____________________________________________________
Thanks for the response.You seem to have the correct idea. Instead of looking at Global climate change look at regions. My state (North Carolina) is certainly dominated by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
North to south through the middle of the state
North – Raleigh NC
Middle – Fayetteville NC
South – Lumberton NC
Unless of course the weather station is sitting at an airport.
href=”http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425723080040&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1″>Norfolk City and Norfolk International Airport

Leif Svalgaard says: July 3, 2010 at 7:38 am
anna v says: July 3, 2010 at 7:08 am
………………
The 300 year monthly CETs show that there is some response to solar cycle (usually in summer months, (when the sun is at its highest above horizon) but not always; occasionally it is totally reverse.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm
Inconclusive !
see also:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm

Murray Duffin says: July 3, 2010 at 8:47 am
Vuk, the relationship in question is cycle length vs temp, not sunspot number vs temp.
I think cycle length has only meaning if you assume energy integration. A short powerful cycle like SC 19 input far more energy into the ‘climate system’ than slightly longer but much weaker once, such as SC 13 &14.
I am sure Dr. S. could give you more scientific answer.
Gail Combs says: July 3, 2010 at 8:12 am
You seem to have the correct idea. Instead of looking at Global climate change look at regions.
The graphs relate to the CET (Central England temperatures), for which accuratelog term data are available. This is the area enclosed by triangle Lancashire, London and Bristol.
Global averaging temperatures are a bit of nonsense.

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 7:00 am
For example this illustration (from his slide show) is very interesting
You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work. Figure 5 strongly suggest that during SC22 the temperature was 9.6C and during SC23 it was 8.2. In actual fact the numbers were: SC22: 9.50, SC23: 9.97.
You’re right, leif. But if you challenge David on this he moves the goalposts. He claims that the temperature decline will happne over then next solar cycle (SC24). However this is not the way Butler & Johnson have presented the analysis since they clearly state that the data points are the 11 year mean temperatures centred on the maximum and minimum of the solar cycle (see legend).
In any case if David’s ‘method’ was correct we should have seen a drop in temperatures over solar cycle 21, since that followed SC20 (the ‘long’ cycle). David Archibald’s work is full of holes. I’m surprised Anthony promotes it so readily.

Björn says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:31 am
Gail Comb says:
July 3, 2010 at 5:43 am
“….. This and the take over of our food supply by the international cartels has been giving me nightmares for half a decade. ……”
————————-
well few days back I stumbled over a short article at website run by Credit Suisse with the title
“The Hunt for Land Has Already Started”
that set some red lights blinking in my brain, I do not rally know what to make of it but it appears appears to me as the big players with money surplus money on hand , be it countries or corporations , are out to use that money to grab possession of all of the worlds farmland ( arable land ) they can get their hands on either through direct buy or long term lease arrangements. (And the bankers drooling to get a part of the action as facilitators. ) . So perhaps there is good reason to have nightmares.
_________________________________________________________________
Thanks for the link.
I and a bunch of other farmers worldwide have been following this issue for several years. Believe me there is a very good reason to have nightmares. Here are a few:
Thanks to NAFTA “According to a study by Jose Romero and Alicia Puyana carried out for the federal government of Mexico, between 1992 and 2002, the number of agricultural households fell an astounding 75% – from 2.3 million to 575, 000“ click (Well that accounts for a few million illegals in the USA.)
A Farmer is Committing Suicide Every 32 Minutes
“Now the full toll—surely among the largest sustained waves of suicides in human history—is becoming apparent. And as Sainath emphasizes, these numbers still underestimate the disaster, since women farmers are excluded from the official statistics… It is important that the figure of 150,000 farm suicides is a bottom line estimate…. As Professor Nagaraj puts it: “There is likely to be a serious underestimation of suicides…what has driven the huge increase in farm suicides, particularly in the Big Four or ’Suicide SEZ’ States? “Overall,” says Professor Nagaraj, “there exists since the mid-90s, an acute agrarian crisis. That’s across the country. In the Big Four and some other states, specific factors compound the problem…. Cultivation costs have shot up in these high input zones, with some inputs seeing cost hikes of several hundred per cent… Meanwhile, prices have crashed, as in the case of cotton, due to massive U.S.-EU subsidies to their growers. All due to price rigging with the tightening grip of large corporations over the trade in agricultural commodities.” click
Europe is also targeted as well as the other western countries.
“After clearing her throat and leaning slowly forward, the chair-lady said: “I don’t think you understand what EU policy is. ….. To do this it will be necessary to shift around one million farmers off the land…
There in a nutshell you have the whole tragic story of the clinically instigated demise of European farming over the past three decades. We protested that with unemployment running at 20 percent how would one provide jobs for another million farmers dumped on the streets of Warsaw? This was greeted with a stony silence, eventually broken by a lady from Portugal, who rather quietly remarked that since Portugal joined the European Union, 60 percent of small farmers had already left the land. “The European Union is simply not interested in small farms,” she said.” click
“Today I resigned from the staff of the International Monetary Fund after over 12 years, and after 1000 days of official fund work in the field, hawking your medicine and your bag of tricks to governments and to peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean and Africa. To me, resignation is a priceless liberation, for with it I have taken the first big step to that place where I may hope to wash my hands of what in my mind’s eye is the blood of millions of poor and starving peoples. Mr. Camdessus, the blood is so much, you know, it runs in rivers. It dries up too; it cakes all over me; sometimes I feel that there is not enough soap in the whole world to cleanse me from the things that I did do in your name and in the name of your predecessors, and under your official seal. ”
With those words, Davison Budhoo, a senior economist with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for more than 12 years, publicly resigned in May, 1988….” click
The World bank/IMF Structural Adjustment Programs are what Mr. Budhoo is talking about click
“SAPs often result in deep cuts in programmes like education, health and social care, and the removal of subsidies designed to control the price of basics such as food and milk. So SAPs hurt the poor most, because they depend heavily on these services and subsidies.
SAPs encourage countries to focus on the production and export of primary commodities such as cocoa and coffee to earn foreign exchange. But these commodities have notoriously erratic prices subject to the whims of global markets which can depress prices just when countries have invested in these so-called ‘cash crops’.
By devaluing the currency and simultaneously removing price controls, the immediate effect of a SAP is generally to hike prices up three or four times, increasing poverty to such an extent that riots are a frequent result. “

Steinar Midtskogen says:
July 3, 2010 at 8:11 am

I think the temperature is meant to suggest what the temperature will be after the cycle, and we have to wait ten years or so to know that.
That’s not what the graph says – and it’s not the way B&J did the original regression analysis. David Archibald just makes it up as he goes along.

Leif Svalgaard says:

See, how D.A. has misled you. What he has been saying is that since he [following what blows in the wind] predicts Sc24 to be very low [and hence longer than even SC23] that we are in for a severe cooling. This is based on a flawed Figure.

Well, my attention was on statements like “Solar Cycle 22 was 9.5 years long. On the basis that Solar Cycle 23 is thirteen years long, there will be a 2.2 degree celcius decline in temperature in Hanover, New Hampshire over the next decade”. He may be, probably is, wrong about the physics determining solar activity and climate changes, but that doesn’t prove that there can’t be some (unexplained) correlation between the length of a cycle and temperatures during the next (locally or globally). Which is what caught my attention.

Leif Svalgaard says:

He is wrong in Figure 5 as presented here. […] This is bad ‘science’

The Y-axis simply states “mean temperature”, not for which period. I agree that it could be clearer, but I don’t think it makes it bad science (or ‘science’) for that reason, to require the reader to read the text as well (which also could be more explicit). I’d rather say it’s poorly communicated. Many years at university and exams have taught me that also real scientists may lack writing skills though their understanding of the science is impeccable.
Anyway, even if D.A. did everything wrong, that hasn’t convinced me that there is no correlation between cycle length and temperature during the next cycle.

Dear Anthony, with Dr.Archibald´s constant company, check if you are not already in free fall around the barycenter. ☺

Leif Svalgaard says: July 3, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Your best argument that convinced me is that TSI is 10 zillion times stronger than HMF B, so there is no reason to expect that the length of one solar cycle will affect the temperature in the next:
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/Solar%20Cycle%20-%20Friis-Chr_Lassen-.pdf
So any “relationship” remains a mystery!
Watson: “This is indeed a mystery,” I remarked. “What do you imagine that it means?”
Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theories before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts…
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Did I hit a raw nerve there?
OK, I’ll leave poor D.A. in peace for now. No need to grind his nose in it anymore, is there? But it would be nice if you could stick to the science rather than being personal.
Irony – it’s what’s for dinner!
Especially since you started with “You can always count on D.A. to do sloppy, misleading work.”
Yeah, that’s very objective and sciencey. Nothing personal there, nooooooo.
As someone who doesn’t even play a doctor on TV, I prescribe 250mg “chill” 3x day until the swelling goes down.

vukcevic says:
July 3, 2010 at 5:40 am
Gail Combs says: July 3, 2010 at 4:24 am
Since the air temperature is driven by the oceans and the oceans act as a giant “capacitor” absorbing heat….
In my view the UK summer months are more likely to respond directly to the solar activity then the rest of the year when the Gulf Stream is predominant. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETm.htm
In tropics response to the sun is probably more or less constant throughout the year, the higher latitudes would depend on the rate the Gulf Stream is pumping warm water.
One could also speculate that the saline warm waters are likely to be impeded by the magnetic field; since the GMF is variable than the CETs would respond appropriately.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm (with reversed scale for GMF )
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC10.htm
Cumulative effect of rising solar activity (rising temperature in the Equatorial Atlantic) and dramatic fall in strength of the Earth’s magnetic field may have caused sudden uplift in temperatures in early 1700’s.
Next rapid decline in GMF was 1910-1950 and then from 1975 – present.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TGa.gif
vukcevic,
Aren’t you forgetting just one wee tiny detail in all of that? The Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation.

David Ball says:
July 3, 2010 at 2:25 pm
Merovign says:
July 3, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Just MHO from a psychological viewpoint of problems of long term specialization.
What we have here is the results of a lifetime of researching and forming opinions using new approaches to old problems, reporting what he knows, and building a body of work that reflects his knowledge base.
There are many among us that have a wider base of viewpoints that are not what he has studied and confounds him to entertain new ideas that may be / may not be congruent with what research he has done in the past. The problem of being in the lime light and publishing so much for so many years, is there is a body of his past expressed opinions that are being, questioned by others newer to the scene and with different basic ideas on how the electromagnetics of the solar system interacts to give results he has not entertained in the past.
At some point in the gradual transition in the understood science as new ideas enter the mainstream and modify or replace older ones, those that do not deeply consider the new approaches and incorporate them into their way of thinking get defensive in areas where yielding to a compromise is unforgiving.
Gate keeping, stonewalling, and outright dismissal are the usual signs of a past prime scientist, too busy with maintenance of previous opinions to learn the leading edges of the area of expertise as it expands rapidly in all directions, hence the frustration well established professionals exhibit under pressure from multiple fronts, that they don’t have time enough or interest enough to study.
That is why usually break throughs come from the sidelines where pressure and defensive actions (and impressions such as those by the two commenters above, as a result) don’t slow down the new curious seeker of the truth.

I certainly do not believe any (including Archibald) have all the answers. Truthfully we are a long, long way from that. What I find distasteful is the presentation of ones own views as being all encompassing and absolutely correct. This is hubris of the highest order. Leave the childish egos out of it. At least Willis E. is willing to admit that what we do not know, far outweighs what we do know. Including the interaction between the earth and the sun. I believe it is I who touched a nerve.

Goodness!! How did this thread turn into a “pile on Leif” party??
Sorry, Leif! Some folks seem pretty new to WUWT and don’t appreciate your rapier wit AND dry Scandinavian humor! (not to mention your Encyclopedia Galactica-style of scientific knowledge!)
Meanwhile, the minimum grinds on…. fascinating event!

Molon Labe
It’s you Yanks that have the funny accent. Anthony has a hearing impairment.

899 says: July 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm
vukcevic,
Aren’t you forgetting just one wee tiny detail in all of that? The Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation.
No, Gulf stream current is an offshoot of an interconnected complex Atlantic currents system http://www.bigmarinefish.com/map_currents_atlantic.jpg
which regardless of time of the year (revolution, tilt or nutation) it always catches range of insulations (including maximum) from both hemispheres, which eventually averages out due to its high velocity . Its effect is felt all the way from tropics to the Arctic., there is more to it than IPCC’s CO2.
BTW. Correlations for the AMO index and the Arctic temperatures are now calculated and are here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm

I stand corrected but I thought RC claimed a 2x CO2 = 2DegC. Not 2% increase in TSI

When is the DA temperature response to Solar Cycle Length
David has clearly managed to confuse WUWT readers on this issue. Understandably so, I claim that David simply creates his own ad hoc temp/SCL relationship depending on the period under discussion.
The following is from this paper http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Solar%20Cycles%2024%20and%2025%20and%20Predicted%20Climate%20Response.pdf (available on David’s web site). Here David is discussing THE RECENT TEMPERATURE RECORD IN NORTH AMERICA (~5th page). Th esecond paragraph reads:
The temperature profile over the period shows three distinct trends: a relatively
stable period from 1905 to 1953 averaging 16.3°C, a relatively steep decline of 1.4°C
over the 15 years to 1968 due to a weak solar cycle 20 , and then a slight rise to the
current day with an average of 15.8°C to 2003.
According to David the 1.4 deg decline between 1953 and 1968 was “due to a weak solar cycle 20”. But solar cycle 20 didn’t begin until 1964 (and ended in 1976). Apparently this cycle caused a temperature decline more than a decade before it started. According to David’s ‘latest rule’, the decline should be over the following cycle. In other words, temperatures should have started to fall from ~1976 onwards. In fact, the temperature decline at these US stations (and these are the ones he’s carefully selected) began just about the time the strongest cycle ever recorded (SC19) was starting.
This is not an isolated case. David’s work is littered with contradictions – some of which, I note, he has now removed. The original Armagh research by Butler & Johnson used temperature data (11 years mean) centred on the maxima and minima of the cycle in question – not the next cycle. In the above plot, B&J have included the data points for SC21. They clearly state that the temperature data is from 1796-1992. This gives them data for 5-6 years after the SC21 minimum (in ~1986) which is enough to calculate the 11 year mean.
The original timeframe for David’s predicted temperature decline shows his prediction to be demonstrably wrong – so he’s changed it. Easy!

Re: John Finn says:
July 4, 2010 at 4:12 am
A slight correction to my previous post. The statement for DA’s paper is not on the 5th page – but on page 4 of David’s paper (Page 32 of E&E) .
I’ve just noticed to-day’s date – does that mean US posters will be otherwise occupied for the rest of the day.

Leif Svalgaard says: July 4, 2010 at 5:51 am
Q: As a matter of interest how much do you think solar activity dropped during the Maunder and what effect did that have on temperature?
A: Less than 1 W/m2, corresponding to 0.05 C. http://www.leif.org/research/Does%20The%20Sun%20Vary%20Enough.pdf
If that assumption is correct then there is an alternative:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CETlmt.htm

I would be very interested indeed to read a scientific assessment by Prof. Svalgaard Dr. Jeff Glassman’s apparent evidence for an amplified signal of the Sun’s radiance in the ‘official’ surface temperature record from 1850.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html
Dr. Glassman’s analysis would seem to be either good evidence for some sort of amplified sensitivity or, if it were not, is just a remarkable coincidence of probabilities which, conversely, would have to cast doubt on the shape of the temperature record itself.
In other words, it is either a genuine finding or a poisoned chalice. To me this seems far, far more interesting than David Archibald’s rather shaky stuff.
I understand that Dr. Glassman is a respectable retired physicist (77) who, during his working career in avionics last century, was recognised as an authority on noisy signal analysis in telemetry. Although a PhD scientist myself of 30+ years experience my own field is very different (chemothermodynamics and geochemistry), therefore I have tried hard to get some careful technical reviewing from various Net-prominent AGW proponents on Dr. Glassman’s approach but have so far failed.

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2010 at 8:05 am
It is this kind of unfounded Alarmism that is dangerous and should be beneath serious work.
It is this type of hyperbole that is silly and just undermines what you say.
David is right, you really do protest too much. I suspect it’s because you feel threatened by his work. Wonder why?

“Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?”, Lockwood, Harrison, Woollings and Solanki 2010
From the conclusion: “The results presented in section 4 allow rejection of the null hypothesis, and hence colder UK winters (relative to the longer-term trend) can therefore be associated with lower open solar flux (and hence with lower solar irradiance and higher cosmic ray flux).”
Apprently, Michael Mann supports the conclusion of the paper :
“Michael Mann of Penn State University in the US says the research “appears to be a very solid analysis”, which “provides further support” for the idea that the Sun was behind Europe’s cold winters 300 years ago. He adds that he and other researchers have shown that fluctuations in solar activity can also explain the relatively warm winters that occurred in Europe about 1000 years ago. “

People should also be aware that Svalgaard’s numbers are based on “adjusted” GISS data. The collection of which we all understand to be in question. Svalgaard is trying to direct the discussion to a narrow focus. This is misleading. Do not fall for amateur debating techniques.

David Archibald says:
July 4, 2010 at 7:12 am
Friis-Christensen and Lassen theory says that the length of a solar cycle determines temperature over the following solar cycle.
Can you please give me a link to this theory? I have looked around but have only found
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
by Lassen.
It has an interesting similar plot from chinese blossoming times, but nowhere this : the length of the previous cycle determines the temperature of the next. The plots seem to me to be straight forward correlations of each cycle’s length and temperature.
The only place I found a displacement of 11 years was in fig7 of Butler and Johnson.

Svalgaard and Finn, please show whether this is adjusted data or raw. Just for everyone’s benefit. Data is important and certainly a big part of credibility. It is also worthy of note that this is not the only data source used by Archibald. A much broader analysis than the narrow scope of some.

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 3, 2010 at 10:16 pm

I have not been able to find any convincing analysis by D.A. [or others for that matter] that show that the length of the solar cycle predicts the temperature during the next cycle, but would be interested in what specific ‘exercises’ you refer to.

As I mentioned somewhere above there was an article in the latest issue (4/2010) of Astronomi published by Norsk astronomisk selskap which showed a similar trend as in D.A.’s Armagh figure for stations from different parts of mainland Norway. The author is honest enough to say that the correlations may be a coincident and prove nothing.
It should be pretty simple to check whether it seems to be a correlation (coincidental or not) and I’m a bit embarrased to have dived into this discussion without spending time to run some basic checks myself. So I just spent a few minutes at least to try the Armagh data. As a quick test I plotted the cycle length against the average temperature of the following cycle from its first year to its last inclusive (D.A. used fixed 11 year averages). This is what I got:
http://voksenlia.net/armagh.jpg
I used temperatures from (the last few years of SC23 are missing):
http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/browse/badc/armagh/data/air_temperature/mean_annual_temp/tm-an-maxmin-dtr.dat
And cycle lengths and transition years from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles
The plain data used for the plot:
9.8 9.38
12.4 9.17
11.3 9.05
11.8 8.54
11.3 8.94
11.9 9.00
11.5 9.10
10.0 9.12
10.1 9.44
10.4 9.48
10.2 9.39
10.5 9.26
11.7 9.07
10.3 9.48
9.7 9.97

There can be no objective discussion of Archibald’s material here. After enjoying 20 talks around Australia nobody is going to dis their “mate” are they ?
Of course they have been detailed prior reviews http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html
I note Robert E. Phelan has conferred an honorary PhD on DA too. hmmmm

vukcevic says:
July 4, 2010 at 12:54 am
899 says: July 3, 2010 at 5:21 pm
vukcevic,
Aren’t you forgetting just one wee tiny detail in all of that? The Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation.
No, Gulf stream current is an offshoot of an interconnected complex Atlantic currents system http://www.bigmarinefish.com/map_currents_atlantic.jpg
which regardless of time of the year (revolution, tilt or nutation) it always catches range of insulations (including maximum) from both hemispheres, which eventually averages out due to its high velocity . Its effect is felt all the way from tropics to the Arctic., there is more to it than IPCC’s CO2.
BTW. Correlations for the AMO index and the Arctic temperatures are now calculated and are here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMOFz.htm
Is that your way of saying that the Earth’s rotation, tilt, and nutation, have ~absolutely nothing~ to do with the oceanic currents as they are?

Anthony Watts says:
July 4, 2010 at 12:34 pm
I’m back in the USA now.
You know, Leif and Finn could do well to send a note of thanks too. You might not agree on the book and slide page presented, but surely you have thanks for David assisting me?
Anthony
I am more than happy to acknowledge David’s help and generosity during your visit. I don’t doubt that David is an obliging and courteous host. However, you haven’t just reported on his help during your visit. You now also appear to be actively promoting his book. I admit to having concerns about some of the David’s conclusions. But I am more concerned that David Archibald may be eventually viewed as a mainstream sceptic voice – on a par with Lindzen, Pielke, Spencer etc. Take it from me – the AGWers can blow David’s arguments out of the water in the bloink of an eye and the worry is that the whole ‘sceptic’ argument will be dismissed as loony nonsense from a bunch of crackpot deniers.
I have recommended your blog on several occasions. You may recall a Daily Mail article (by Richard Littlejohn) some time ago. It was me who sent the link to RL. I still have a copy of the email in which he thanked me. By all means continue to post the wide range of opinions as you have always done but be careful about endorsing a particular viewpoint until it’s been thoroughly scrutinised and discussed.
Cheers.
REPLY: Thanks for that, I’m sure people can read Archibald’s book and come to their own conclusions. – Anthony

David Ball says:
July 4, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Svalgaard and Finn, please show whether this is adjusted data or raw. Just for everyone’s benefit. Data is important and certainly a big part of credibility. It is also worthy of note that this is not the only data source used by Archibald. A much broader analysis than the narrow scope of some.
The key issue at this stage is not the data (raw or adjusted) but the methodology, i.e. how the data points (SCL v Temperature) are determined. It’s really up to David Archibald to make it clear what method he is using – as well as providing a reference to his data source.
Currently there appears to be 3 possibilities, i.e.
1. The temperatures are determined (e.g. at Armagh) by calculating the 11 year mean of temperatures centred on the maximum and minimum of the solar cycle. If you read the caption underneath the Fig 5 plot (see above) it suggests that this is, in fact, what has been done. However, if this is the case, it’s a fairly trivial exercise (as Leif has done) to show that the relationship has completely broken down.
2. The second possible method is exactly the same as (1) but in this case the temperature values are shifted to coincide with the corresponding max/min of the next solar cycle. This is discussed by Butler and Johnson (the original researchers) but there is no indication that this method was used to produce Fig 5. Furthermore, there is nothing in any of David Archibald’s papers which indicate that he has used this method.
3. Finally, we have the 1-2-2-2-1 filter which was employed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in their 1991 paper. This coud be used in combination with either (1) or (2) above. Basically, this seems to assume that temperatures are influenced by future – as well as past cycles. I’ve never quite seen the justification for this but it did seem to give F-C & L a decent fit over a limited period.
The problem is pinning down exactly which method is being used. Cynics might suggest that having 3 ‘metods’ on the go means that there is always another option if one happens to fail. Around 3 years ago (July 9th 2007) I questioned David on the warwick hughes blog about his method of calculation. His response was as follows:

David states that his “description of the process wasn’t exhaustive” . It was actually non-existant. To this day I’m still not sure what process he uses – despite careful reading of all his literature. Perhaps my questions to David in a earlier post will provide an answer.

Ric Werme: and once again the value of your Guide to Watts Up With That is demonstrated to me when I sought a link to a thread I wished to reference. Thanks.

#
#
David Archibald says:
July 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm
In the top four! No 2 after Fred Singer! Here’s the link: http://environment.change.org/blog/view/4_favorite_climate_change_deniers
____________________________________________________
I read the article at that link and now I need a shower. You know the science is weak when they have to resort to ad hominem. But somehow “chili power” lacks the punch of “Crazed Sex Poodle” Especially when Skeptics can’t even be blamed for coming up with the label since the MSM spread it all by their lonesome.

Steinar Midtskogen on July 4, 2010 at 1:26 pm
The best fit straight line is T = 12.12 – 0.267S (S is teh previous cycle length)
R^2 is 0.519 whcih I think is low

Archibald obviously has medical knowledge as well as solar physics. I’m sure Dr Svalgaard cannot match that.
http://www.communitywebs.org/SAProstateCancer/pages/psaadelaide/documents/2006/marnl.pdf

David Archibald says:
July 4, 2010 at 7:56 pm

Mr Finn and Dr Svalgaard find my work very upsetting and paw at it constantly. If Anthony will allow me, I might produce some more posts on this subject and torture you both further. Baiting warmers is such fun.
David
If there was any way I could be convinced about your methods, conclusions and predictions I would be more than happy to use them. I can point to a number of blog discussions where I have questioned mainstream AGW – including an exchange with Michael Mann where I challenged the methods he used to produce the hockey-stick. Steve McIntyre (CA) has referenced some of my blog discussions on more than one occasion. Your reference, therefore, to “baiting warmers” is not relevant in my case.
I don’t know why you are trying to make this personal. I am simply trying to scrutinise the methods you are using. That’s sort of what science is about. In a previous post I asked you a couple of questions. You ignored one and half answered the other. You say this:

Back to those temperature graphs, it does not matter what has gone before. Anyone can repeat what I have done. It is so simple that high school science students could do it. If there are any high school science teachers reading this, get your students to do it. Plot up solar cycle length against average temperature over that cycle, and also against temperature over the following solar cycle. The latter has a better correlation. As I have said above, I regard Butler and Johnson’s graph as the Rosetta Stone of solar-climate studies. Copying their methodology (don’t worry about filters or the like) is easy, it’s fun and it has major economic consequences!

Let’s take this one step at a time. What makes you think you have copied Butler & Johnson’s methodology.

Piñatas in science, as in every other field or birthday party, usually require more than one blind swack to crack and scatter the goodies. The scientist or child who shatters the shell and releases the bounty for all to enjoy may get the Nobel Prize for his/her “achievement”, but it was truly done after seemingly endless attempts and partial cracks by many others and not the one who gets the pat on the back. Indeed, it is, as in all things in life, more than likely that the one who gets the credit may have done the least of all.

Leif Svalgaard says:
July 4, 2010 at 10:13 am
And I wonder why you think so. There is no threat deriving from pointing out his sloppiness.
OK, let’s review:
You said: “It is this kind of unfounded Alarmism that is dangerous and should be beneath serious work.”
I said: “It is this type of hyperbole that is silly and just undermines what you say.
David is right, you really do protest too much. I suspect it’s because you feel threatened by his work. Wonder why?”
You referred to his work as “dangerous” and as “Alarmism”, and yet you are trying to say all you were doing was “pointing out his sloppiness”?
Nice try. Pardon me, but your agenda is showing.

Steinar Midtskogen says:
July 5, 2010 at 5:19 am
A much more interesting discussion would be whether this is a coincident (which I’m inclined to think since we have so few cycles to test against), or if it could be something to it.
Agreed but my experiences tell me to take it one step at time with David. However I have touched on the probability of a coincidence in this post.

John Finn says:
July 5, 2010 at 3:44 am

It isn’t just the fact that there are only a few cycles (as you pointed out), there is also the fact that those cycles broadly fall into 2 clusters. There are the 19th century cycles which tend to be 11+ years long. The 20th century cycles (beginning in 1913) tend to be nearer 10 years long (SC 20 is the exception). The 20th century was warmer than the 19th century so you naturally see a correlation. However the Armagh temperature varies just as much over a period when cycle length is virtually constant (e.g. 1913 to 1964) as it does when there are big changes in the cycle length.

John Finn says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:16 am

I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d like to see a coherent and credible argument from those who are sceptical of AGW.

The problem, I think, is that an alternative for something always appears more convincing than just saying that something is wrong or doesn’t exist. To really kill AGW find something that really explains climate variations, and AGW will appear as nothing but a splash in a turbid river. But, as I see it, one big problem for AGW proponents is their belief that there is one variable that weights more than the rest combined. I think that assumptation requires an extraordinary strong proof since we’re dealing with something chaotic as climate. Many “sceptics”, in their eager to disprove AGW, make exactly the same mistake. They come up with an alternative explanations (or several, sometimes conflicting), which depend on the same unproven assumptation.

Dear David,
The weather of one year differs from that of another year, the weather of one decade from that of another decade; why should not the climate of one century differ from that of another century?
C. E. P. Brooks I.S.O., D.Sc., F.R.Met.Soc. Ernest, Climate Through the Ages (1950)
Let us for a moment imagine that we will never understand our climate. That all our explanations, both for and against catastrophic manmade global warming are silly!
I think that it is unfair that the climate of one century should not differ from that of another century when the weather for one decade varies from that of another decade. And I think it is unfair that the climate should not differ from one century to another in the period between ice ages when the climate of the ice age differs so dramatically from the climate between the ice ages. To me it seems that the proponents of catastrophic manmade global warming accepts all sorts of natural oscillations, but not the kind of oscillations that may lead to medieval warm periods and a little ice ages – that’s unfair!
What kind of argument is this? Does it make sense to argue that something is unfair in physics? Yes, it does! In physics there are several laws and principles that imply a balance, symmetry or invariance for the world we live in. There are numerous examples like the conservation of energy, and this is something that all physicists are aware of.
We may be sillier than you think David. Please make yourself a good cup of coffee, sit back, relax and watch this video of Rayleigh Bernhard convection. Watch it several times. You may from time to time se a pattern, and then someone will shout: “Heeeeyyyy I understand this, I have found the golden rule, the DaVinci Code!”

But there is no golden rule. The world we live in may in places be completely dominated by reaction diffusion systems just like Rayleigh Bernhard convection. And my gut feeling is that our climate is possibly one of those places. Then the only reasonable we can conclude is that it would be unfair if natural climate variations should not be allowed cause medieval warm periods and a little ice ages.
So please change your mind about the sun controlling the climate David!
Best Regards,
Invariant

Spelling mistake in last post : “dinding” should be “finding” ..

(Spelling mistake in last post)
To me it seems that the proponents of catastrophic manmade global warming accepts all sorts of natural oscillations, but not the kind of oscillations that may lead to medieval warm periods and little ice ages – that’s unfair!

Excellent response from Dr. Jeff Glassman.
One can only hope that Prof. Svalgaard is sufficiently the intelligent fellow he appears to be to do Glassman the courtesy of acknowledging (unsaid) the fact that at age 77 and retired (after an honorable career that needs no promotion), he doesn’t have the luxury of submitting his work for peer review in the ‘regular’ literature.
In any case, IMO the ‘closed shop’ old paper-based world of the ‘peer reviewed’ literature is a dinosaur whose end is nigh in the face of the democracy and intellectual transparency which the Internet offers (and which true science should be all about).
Personally, I regard Jeff Glassman as a genuine ‘quiet hero’ of good quality sceptical climate science. The real deal.
That is why the AGW lobby (and curiously much of the sceptical lobby too) so very, very carefully ignores Glassman’s work. But I’ll take the words and ideas of Dr. Jeff Glassman ahead of the Archibald’s, Miskolczi’s and Courtney’s of this world any day.

ecoeng says:
July 6, 2010 at 1:16 am
So I’m unconvinced that the recent deep solar minimum somehow means that the jury has already delivered a verdict.
It depends on which proposition is in front of the jury. Leif is arguing that there cannot be direct effects from the sun since the latest measurements say that the sun changes less than 0.1% from cycle to cycle.
If we accept this premise, this does not preclude amplifications and resonances, coming from the fact that climate is the prime example of dynamical chaos.
Spend some time to contemplate this parametric pendulum in the chaotic state.
http://brain.cc.kogakuin.ac.jp/~kanamaru/Chaos/e/PP/index-small.html
Climate on the planet earth is a confluence of many effects and it could easily be that there exist amplification factors , as the galactic cosmic rays in tandem with the ocean currents affecting albedo, for example, and controlling climate. This has not been excluded in any way. Tsonis et al ( there is a thread here) using just oceanic currents have been predicting the observed temperature stasis and tendency to cooling in a neural net chaotic model. If GCRs enter the game stronger effects may develop. It is an open research field. Even plankton and UV may pull an oar in this melange.

“If we accept this premise, this does not preclude amplifications and resonances, coming from the fact that climate is the prime example of dynamical chaos. ”
True. For “dynamical chaos” (just as Judith Lean noted) read:
non-equilibrium thermodynamics.
For non-equilibrium thermodynamics read:
“Non-equilibrium thermodynamics and the production of entropy” Axel Kleidon and Ralph D. Lorenz (Eds). Springer, 2005.
So Glassman not only does not preclude, but explicitly explores (in a mathematically mature way) “amplifications and resonances”.
I guess it is just the all out hubris and overbearing assumption that everyone else is a chump (boring, boring) which eventually tends to gall.

John Finn says:
July 5, 2010 at 7:16 am
I can’t speak for Leif, but I’d like to see a coherent and credible argument from those who are sceptical of AGW. The most damaging thing that could happen is that a high profile study or piece of research is later shown to be amateurish nonsense.
There are plenty of “coherent and credible” arguments made by skeptics/climate realists. I suspect it’s because you aren’t really looking. In any case, the null hypothesis is that climate is driven by natural variations involving primarily the sun, the oceans, and clouds. Volcanoes play some role, and to a minor extent, so does man.
I fail to see how the work of Archibald’s can be “damaging” (and certainly not “dangerous”), except to those who are agenda-driven and for whom his work is seen as a threat. If his work is dis-proven later, fine, that is how science is supposed to work. Those claiming that the sun plays a minor role in climate have a tough row to hoe though, beginning with the paleoclimatic history, which they keep trying to rewrite.

And yet, and yet …..even people such as the Mike Lockwood who has supposedly ‘changed his mind’ are still producing papers like this, submitted as only recently as 12 March 2010 please note:
Environ. Res. Lett. 5 (2010) 024001 (7pp)
Are cold winters in Europe associated with
low solar activity?
M Lockwood1,2, R G Harrison1, T Woollings1 and S K Solanki3,4
1 Space Environment Physics Group, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading,
Earley Gate, PO Box 243, Reading RG6 6BB, UK
2 Space Science and Technology Department, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory,
Harwell Campus, Chilton, Didcot, Oxfordshire OX11 0QX, UK
3 MPI f¨ur Sonnensystemforschung,Max-Planck-Straße 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
4 School of Space Research, Kyung Hee University, Yongin, Gyeonggi 446-701, Korea
E-mail: m.lockwood@reading.ac.uk
Received 12 March 2010
Accepted for publication 31 March 2010
Published 14 April 2010
Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/5/024001
Abstract
Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere
mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on theoccurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic. We stress that this is a regional and seasonal effect relating to European winters and not a global effect. Average solar activity has declined rapidly since 1985 and cosmogenic isotopes suggest an 8% chance of a return to Maunder minimum conditions within the next 50 years (Lockwood 2010 Proc. R. Soc. A 466 303–29): the results presented here indicate that, despite hemispheric warming, the UK and Europe could experience more cold winters than during recent decades.
Keywords: regional climate, solar variability, blocking

A&A 467, 335-346 (2007)
DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066725
Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux
N. A. Krivova, L. Balmaceda, and S. K. Solanki
Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany
e-mail: natalie@mps.mpg.de
(Received 9 November 2006 / Accepted 23 February 2007)
Abstract
Context.Total solar irradiance changes by about 0.1% between solar activity maximum and minimum. Accurate measurements of this quantity are only available since 1978 and do not provide information on longer-term secular trends.
Aims.In order to reliably evaluate the Sun’s role in recent global climate change, longer time series are, however, needed. They can only be assessed with the help of suitable models.
Methods.The total solar irradiance is reconstructed from the end of the Maunder minimum to the present based on variations of the surface distribution of the solar magnetic field. The latter is calculated from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model.
Results.Our model successfully reproduces three independent data sets: total solar irradiance measurements available since 1978, total photospheric magnetic flux since 1974 and the open magnetic flux since 1868 empirically reconstructed using the geomagnetic aa-index. The model predicts an increase in the solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum of 1.3+0.2-0.4 Wm-2.
Only 4 months in peer review too – they must have got lucky (;-)

Bruce Cobb says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:14 am
There are plenty of “coherent and credible” arguments made by skeptics/climate realists. I suspect it’s because you aren’t really looking.
Ok – thanks for that, Bruce. Would this be an example of me “not really looking”?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/
Immediately below the first graph you will find the following
Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.
I am well aware of the main areas of uncertainty in the AGW argument.

This is what Glassman says about the IPCC view (omitting his figures and math, some minor comments and in some cases splitting paras):
As a result of its selective and incomplete modeling, IPCC determined, with an admittedly low level of scientific understanding, that solar radiation is insignificant compared to its chartered model. Using its ambiguous standard of radiative forcing (RF), IPCC calculates that the RF from the Sun is 0.12 [0.06 to 0.30] Wm-2, only 7% of the 1.66 [1.49 to 1.83] Wm-2 it attributes to CO2 (AR4, Figure TS.5, p. 32), all based on a constant Bond albedo. IPCC puts the total solar RF at a third of just the uncertainty in CO2 forcing. That figure of 0.12 Wm-2 approximates the best fit linear increase in solar radiation since 1750 using the model of Wang, et al. (2005), but after applying 11-year smoothing.
Why did IPCC first apply 11-year smoothing, and then model the Sun by a single trend covering almost twice the span of temperature measurements? The answer to the smoothing question is that Earth does not respond to the 11-year cycle. That large component dominating the solar pattern is noise with respect to climate, and it masks underlying patterns. IPCC chose the 250 year trend to minimize any pattern in the solar output, thus reinforcing its conjecture that CO2 is the cause global warming.
IPCC’s transcending argument is that if multiple records are similarly unprecedented, then they must have a common cause; and if any one of them is arguably manmade, then all must be. Applied to the Sun, IPCC urges that the current solar irradiance is not unprecedented, being within 0.05% of its level just 250 years ago. Therefore, IPCC concludes the Sun is not among the parameters with a common cause, and so it ruled out the Sun as a cause.
IPCC says,
… the solid Earth acts as a low-pass filter on downward propagating temperature signals… . AR4, ¶6.6.1.2 What Do Large-Scale Temperature Histories from Subsurface Temperature Measurements Show?, p. 474.
and with regard to the gaseous Earth it says,
As early as 1910, Abbot believed that he had detected a downward trend in TSI that coincided with a general cooling of climate. The solar cycle variation in irradiance corresponds to an 11-year cycle in radiative forcing which varies by about 0.2 Wm-2. There is increasingly reliable evidence of its influence on atmospheric temperatures and circulations, particularly in the higher atmosphere. Calculations with three-dimensional models suggest that the changes in solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes of the order of a few tenths of a degree Celsius. Citations deleted, AR4, ¶1.4.3 Solar Variability and the Total Solar Irradiance, p. 107.
If the Sun had no effect on albedo, or any other amplifying process, IPCC’s calculation would put to rest any consideration that solar variability might be the cause of the modern temperature variations. IPCC’s mistake is to abandon consideration of the Sun as the instrument of climate change based on its first-order forcing calculation with everything else held constant. Albedo, for example, is not constant.
Cloud albedo is a positive feedback that amplifies solar radiation while at the same time it is a negative feedback that mitigates warming from any cause. Increased solar activity initially causes more shortwave energy to be absorbed in the atmosphere. This warms the atmosphere, reducing cloud cover at a constant humidity, and thus increasing insolation at the surface. Only later does the resulting warming of the surface increases humidity as the ocean absorbs the higher insolation. The ocean is both the primary agent and a slow agent because of its high heat capacity. The increased humidity increases cloud cover, provided a surplus of cloud condensation nuclei is available, increasing cloud albedo, and mitigating the entire effect.
In the proposed model, albedo is linear with ΔS (i.e. delta TSI), with a small quadratic component. Meanwhile, temperature and humidity have the complementary effect, showing the amplification of the solar output and the negative feedback of albedo. The albedo amplification of the Sun would be rapid, while its negative feedback would be slow because of the lag in the ocean to produce increased humidity.
This model is approximately linear over a wide range of useful values for the constants, which remain to be optimized. With increasing solar output, Earth’s temperature and atmospheric humidity increase while albedo decreases. Here is a sample set:
CLOUD COVER MODEL PARAMETERS
# Parameter Value Comments
1 A0 0.3 Nominal current value
2 T0 133.4 For anomalies
3 H0 30% Nominal current value
4 kH 0.0001 Nominal current value
5 kO 0.1
6 kS 0.1
7 kH 31 For T = 1.1ºC @ ΔS = 0.055
Between 1862 and 1998, temperature rose 1.1ºC (Figure 5) while TSI increased 0.22 Wm-2 (Figure 9, bold). Dividing by 4 for the geometric effect on Earth, the solar input increased by 0.055 Wm-2.
This cloud albedo model amplifies the Sun in the short term, and introduces the Earthly lags in the long term that tune the climate, making it selective to long term variations on the Sun. ……
IPCC employs centered symmetrical filters for its data records, which are unrealizable, meaning filters that are aware of the future. IPCC’s results are thus subjectively attractive, but to the extent that it applies such filtered data to its models, its work is physically problematic and not objective.
A prime example is IPCC’s unquantified attribution of the glacial cycles to the Milankovitch cycles (AR4 FAQ 6.1, with the humorous title “What Caused the Ice Ages and Other Important Climate Changes Before the Industrial Era”, bold added). Wikipedia falls in line, but steps over it to say, “Past and future Milankovitch cycles. VSOP [Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires] allows prediction of past and future orbital parameters with great accuracy.” Bold added. Wikipedia puts the lie to its claim by saying the Milankovitch Climate model is “not perfectly worked out” (as if perfection were ever achieved in any science), listing eight named problems, which IPCC minimizes. See for example AR4 ¶6.7 Concluding Remarks on Key Uncertainties, p. 483. Among those problems are a mismatch between the magnitudes of the orbital forcings and the climate response, and a causal problem with the penultimate glacial cycle.
IPCC tries to salvage its AGW theory by making CO2 an agent of the Milankovitch theory, amplifying the variations without triggering them. AR4 Ch. 6, Executive Summary, p. 435. When the CO2 proves insufficient as a positive feedback, IPCC adds water vapor as the next, most important, and as clouds, the least understood feedback. AR4 FAQ 1.3 What is the Greenhouse Effect?, p. 116; AR4, Ch. 8, Executive Summary, p. 593; AR4 ¶8.6.3.2 Clouds, p. 636.
This cascade of speculation about causes and effects arises out of a lack of causality coupled into a model for Earth’s climate that is only conditionally stable, on the cusp of being triggered into a new state by an unidentified event, or crossing a model “tipping point”.
Nature doesn’t have systems balanced on a knife edge, round boulders perched on the sides of hills, or cones standing on their tips. To be objective, investigators should model Earth as deeply stable, that is, requiring by definition cataclysmic events to dislodge it from its conditionally stable state, and instead responding gradually to causal forces.