German skeptics Lüning and Vahrenholt respond to criticism

Foreword: Dr Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, authors of a new controversial skeptic book now hitting German bookstores, have asked me to post their response to comments made by climate scientist Georg Feulner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in an interview by NTV television. Feulner insists that CO2 plays the major role in climate change and that the sun has little impact.

You can read about the new book just published in Germany that is causing an uproar in the German green establishment here. The response is so vitriolic that one is newspaper (TAZ) is  headlining “Skeptics are like viruses“. Greenpeace Germany has now gotten into the act, denoucing Lüning and Varrenholt (formerly a champion of the global warming cause) as an Ice Cold Denier.

The website (in German) for the new book (that has become a bestseller on three outlets) from Lüning and Vahrenholt is here. An English version is also planned which I will announce at WUWT. Sincere thanks to Pierre Gosselin of notrickszone.com for translation.  -Anthony

Georg Feulner of the PIK runs in circles

Guest post by Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt

On the Germany television website Georg Feulner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research comments on our recently published book “Die kalte Sonne”. As we have criticized his work in our book, we are not at all surprised by his rejection of our position.

First he disputes global warming has stopped for the time being. To do this he uses a special chart from a blog depicting a stepwise temperature development, which makes no sense for the particular topic at hand. The temperature plateau that we’ve had since the year 2000 is disputed by Feulner. However, the missing warming of the last 12 years is no fabrication made up by the authors of “Die kalte Sonne“. Anybody can plot it by going over to Woodfortrees.org. Or you can read up about it up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, e.g. Kaufmann et al (2011). Even Prof. Ottmar Edenhofer of Feulner’s own Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research seems to see it the same way. Climate researcher Prof. Jochem Marotzke of Hamburg just confirmed it once again in a recent interview with the German TAZ daily (9 February 2012).

Next, Feulner tries to score points by using the 30-year climate rule. In some official definitions, climate is defined as the 30-year mean of weather. While this makes sense for some considerations, this rigid rule obstructs the discussion on the mechanisms that are involved in climate. It’s becoming increasingly clear that natural decadal cycles have been greatly under-estimated in the past. For example the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is characterized by a warm and a cold phase, each lasting 20 to 30 years. They have a significant impact on global temperature. Should that 30-year-climate window unfortunately get placed between both phases, then the trends get mixed up and we end up comparing apples and oranges. The corresponding “climate“ results end up depending more on the choice of the start point of the 30-year window and less on the real, shorter-scale temperature trends. Consequently, looking at 10-year temperature trends is not only legitimate, but it also makes sense.

In discussing the sun, Feulner attempts to show that in the event of an impending significant drop in solar activity to Dalton or Maunder Minimum-levels, which he foresees as well, no considerable cooling is to be expected. Here he fails to mention that he forgot to include any solar amplification in his climate models. This is essential because it is only with such solar amplifiers that one is able to explain the synchronicity between the sun and the temperature, with at least a 1°C pulsating climate development, over the last 10,000 years. The climate model used by Feulner cannot explain the past, and therefore naturally is not suitable for projecting the future. To explain the Maunder-Minimum 300 years ago, Feulner resorts to the dubious volcano joker. But this still does not explain the overlying fundamental problem that there is a good sun-climate coupling over the other well-documented millennial cycles of the last 10,000 years.

When it comes to the Svensmark solar amplification effect, whose existence is supported by much evidence in peer-reviewed literature (see Chapter 6 and Svensmark guest contribution on page 209 in “Die kalte Sonne”), Feulner simply pushes it off the table without providing a good argument. Not a word on the independent confirmations of the important sub-processes of the effect (e.g. Usoskin et al. 2004, Laken et al. 2010, Kirkby et al. 2011).

The NTV interview illustrates just how much Georg Feulner runs in circles with his arguments. The arguments he presents are weak. When will the Potsdam Institute get around to addressing the millennium cycles of the last 10,000 years? On page 68-75 of our book (“The sun’s impact over the last 10,000 years”) we find one of the most important keys to the climate discussion. Strangely not a single media report following publication of our book has looked into this. Day eight and counting.

image

Example for millennial climate cycles: Studies of dripstones in Oman for the period 7500-4500 BC show a high degree of synchronicity between solar activity and temperature development. Figure modified after Neff et al. (2001)

About these ads

201 thoughts on “German skeptics Lüning and Vahrenholt respond to criticism

  1. Very interesting times in Germany. Still a lot of work needed to change the political world, as long as people like Schellnhuber from PIK still is the scientific advisor of Angela Merkel on climate items. But this is a first step, a small hole in the dike… I never expected to see that within the next years. But it happened and can’t be undone! Once Germany starts, I am sure the rest of Europe will follow…

  2. Why don’t Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show cosmic rays and temperature during the past 50 years?

    Cosmic rays have been flat and temperatures have risen. Why wouldn’t they show that? Disturbing.

  3. That ‘step wise’ chart is an invalid statistical technique and could be modified to show a step wise decrease depending on the end points selected. If that’s the best Dr Feulner can do, he’s really off the mark.

  4. The corresponding “climate“ results end up depending more on the choice of the start point of the 30-year window and less on the real, shorter-scale temperature trends.

    That’s a money quote, there.

    What I’ve repeatedly found annoying was how when someone points out the flat temperatures over the past decade or so, one of the usual comebacks from the warmists is to deny it and point to the trend line for the past 30 years. Apples and oranges, as Luning and Vahrenholt point out.

  5. The last graph is captioned “Figure modified after Neff et al. (2001)”

    One modification made is that the y-axis of the 2nd graph in Neff et al is not labeled “temperature” at all. In fact the paper itself says “The variation of the d18O signal is very unlikely to be directly related to temperature changes”. So how do Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt justify this modification?

  6. Re Bill Marsh:
    “That ‘step wise’ chart is an invalid statistical technique and could be modified to show a step wise decrease depending on the end points selected. If that’s the best Dr Feulner can do, he’s really off the mark.”

    Surely the point of the chart is to show that globe warms in steps, not in a perfect line, so therefore a step or plateau is not evidence that the warming has stopped. The chart for example shows global temperature plateaued for a few years in the 80s but that didn’t herald the end of warming.

  7. I have a very simplistic argument to share. If all of the CO2 were taken out of the atmosphere, what would happen to the global temperature? It most likely would drop a few degrees at most. Now, if the sun were taken away, what would happen to the global temperature? It would get very cold very quickly! Which has the most effect on the global temperature? By saying that sun plays a very small role in the global temperature makes no sense.

  8. “Why don’t Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show cosmic rays and temperature during the past 50 years?”

    Probably waiting on Hansen to finish all of his temp ‘adjustments’. Could be a while.

  9. Its at times like this , your reminding of the ‘religions zeal’ that some AGW proponents have, for like most religions ‘the cause ‘ is far harder on those [who] are ‘heretics’ that is those [who] fail to believe in the right way or have questioned the ‘the cause ‘, than they are on those that have never believed in the first place .
    Lüning and Vahrenholt should be grateful we no longer live in the middle ages , for as ‘heretics’ they would have been burnt at the steak.

  10. @nomnom Cosmic ray activity has been anything but flat. http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/query.cgi?startdate=1964/01/13&starttime=00:00&enddate=2012/02/13&endtime=17:20&resolution=Automatic%20choice&picture=on Minimums were lower through 1991. Maximums were about the same up to this last cycle at which point they have begun to increase substantially. One can argue about the effect of the sharpness of the 1987 peak, but there is insufficient data in the series to say much about that. You could make an argument that fewer integrated cosmic rays over the period would lead to less overall cloud formation and a warmer planet. But that is just a hypothesis. Of course, you remember the declining temperatures into the 1970s, correct? The oncoming Malthusian ice age starvation and all from the ZPG folks.

  11. nomnom, there are mutiple factors (read above) besides cosmic rays. The hypothesis would be that an increase in cosmic rays would lead to aerosols, leading to clud formation, etc. Obviously, changes in the midst of constant cosmic rays are due to something else, just as rising CO2 in the last 10-15 years is being counter-acted by some other effect or has little or no effect at all.

  12. Now you know how it feels if they ignore you.

    Vahrenholt:

    For years, I disseminated the hypotheses of the IPCC, and I feel duped. Renewable energy is near and dear to me, and I’ve been fighting for its expansion for more than 30 years. My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared TO PAY HIGHER ELECTRICITY COST for wind and solar (energy). Then the conversion of our energy supply will lack the necessary acceptance.

    All I’m saying is that CO2 is a climate gas, but that its effect is only half as strong as the IPCC claims. Nevertheless, we still have to reduce CO2 emissions through WORLDWIDE EMISSIONS TRADING. And there are also other reasons to burn fewer fossil fuels. We don’t have that much coal, oil and gas left in the world, so we have to economize more. We also have to become less dependent on imports from totalitarian countries

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/quote-of-the-week-i-feel-duped/

    I have a BIG problem with that

    In the book there is nothing we don’t know. It’s all old stuff.

    Professor Bob Carter 2UE Radio Interview 9.2.12

    talking about : Vahrenholt, windpower, cold Europe, global cooling, carbon tax Australia.

  13. Great to have this posted here. Looking forward to comments. Given where they’re coming from and what they’re up against, I’m fairly confident that anyone seeking to easily poke holes in their basic accuracy or honesty won’t be able to.

  14. You have no idea how vicious, vindictive and vitriolic the attacks are until you dare to question the prevailing wisdom. Bullying his not just a problem in our schools. I warned many over the years of the reactions they would get if they went public about disparities between ‘official’ climate science and their findings. Ernst-Georg Beck contacted me early and I warned him to be prepared. I warned Martin Durkin, producer of the Great Global Warming Swindle. He said he was used to negative reactions, but later told me he was surprised by the differences with his experience.

    I often tell people to try it out. Announce to friends or in a social gathering that you don’t believe humans are causing warming or climate change and see what happens.

    There are many explanations, such as the role of environmentalism as the new religion; the use of climate as a vehicle for a political agenda; selling your soul for funding; groupthink among the core people at CRU who effectively controlled the IPCC; and the threat of potential loss of professional standing. However, it will get worse as they are cornered trying to defend an indefensible position. Fortunately, the increasingly hysterical and nasty reactions make more people question what is happening and the entire debacle unravels. I have written often about this role of the extremists in defining the limits of a new paradigm, in this case environmentalism and its subset climate. The days of intellectual bullying on these issues at least are almost over.

  15. Nice to see how polite and well behaved these two guys write. It will win them lots of “friends”.

    Maybe there is hope, after all.

  16. Just looked at Die Kalte Sonne’s scores on Amazon.de. Unsurprisingly, it’s utterly polarised between 5-star reviews and 1-star, with the warmists (1 star) outnumbering the sceptics. There’s a similar split for CAGW and CAGW-sceptic books on Amazon’s US and UK sites.

    This stuggle between rational folks and green apocalypse-merchants is far from over. The pseudoscience of global warmery is collapsing fast but their propaganda machine may endure for years to come.

  17. @nomnom: The abstract on the original paper says:

    “The 18O record from the stalagmite, which serves as a proxy for variations in the tropical circulation and monsoon rainfall, allows us to make a direct comparison of the 18O record with the 14C record from tree rings5, which largely reflects changes in solar activity6, 7. The excellent correlation between the two records suggests that one of the primary controls on centennial- to decadal-scale changes in tropical rainfall and monsoon intensity during this time are variations in solar radiation.”

    So I guess that L&V are saying that rainfall and monsoon intensity (in that area) are proxies for temperature.

  18. @ nomnom,

    It isn’t all cosmic rays that Svensmark believes cause the effect. IT is the High Energy galactic cosmic rays (different from the cosmic rays originating from the sun) that cause the effect. His book, “The Chilling Stars” is instructive and contains some interesting correlation work wrt high energy galactic cosmic rays and temperatures. The correlation is quite good (or at least a good deal better than the correlation between temperatures and CO2 at any rate)

  19. “this rigid rule obstructs the discussion”

    I doubt that anyone makes a rigid rule about 30 years. What is more important is statistical significance. Because without it, you are basing your argument on something that could have arisen by chance. It is something that you could expect based simply on past observed random fluctuations.

    Sure, you can see negative trend segments at WoodForTrees. You can even look here to find them at a glance. But if you look here you’ll see a different picture. Almost all those trends are insignificant. You have to pick rather carefully a period ending in the cold year 2008 to find something significant. And time moves on.

  20. nomnom says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:27 am
    Why don’t Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show cosmic rays and temperature during the past 50 years?

    Cosmic rays have been flat and temperatures have risen. Why wouldn’t they show that? Disturbing.
    ————————————————

    Solar activity has been the main climate driver, when short term influences are averaged over mutliples of ocean cycles, at approx. 70 years or 200 years.

    Almost perfect correlation in North Atlantic over 9000 years

    http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf

    Almost perfect correlation in the Alps over 9000 years

    http://www.uibk.ac.at/geologie/pdf/mangini07.pdf

    Perfect correlation in Oman

    http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate

    2 degrees drop looming + additional drop when AMO flips.

  21. Tim Ball;

    I have met very few people recently who believe in man-made global warming (here in the Netherlands). I must have bought up the subject probably 5 times to new people I met in the last 2 months, and not one of them believed in it.

  22. To the book authors: I regret, you did not include variations/the osculation and libration
    of the Earth’s orbit in your book……
    because orbit osculations clearly explain centennial temperature cycles of the Holocene
    from the first Oman dripstone cycle until the present (cycles of about 800 years)…. of which
    half a cycle from the cold bottom ( 17 Cty Little Ice Age) to the present warm top plateau
    (21 Cty top plateau) last 395 years….-the top plateau is the top plateau from where temps cannot increase ANY further………transparently calculated for everyone in my booklet
    ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4…..
    …….solar amplification effects can stem from 1. increased solar output, 2. osculation
    and libration of the Earth’s orbit, 3. Svensmark’s cloud effects + ENSO…..
    The grand problem is that effects of 1 and 3 do not explain the whole story…..number 2:
    the orbit has to be added ……
    The CAWG-proponents at PIK, Feulner, Rahmstorf etc. know my booklet (I sent them a copy)
    but keep hiding it as long as they can in the “Poison cabinet” because it would shatter
    their CO2-lies….and they know it all….. therefore, no respect for the climate villains…..
    JS

  23. I was in Bavaria this spring and did the touristy things, including taking the train out to Fussen to see the Neuschwanstein Castle. Along the way were fields and fields of solar panels, which our tour guide proudly explained as Germany’s way of reducing CO2 output and saving the planet from global warming.

    This brought only an eye roll from me, as I hadn’t the slightest inclination of becoming the lone American sceptic in a car full of European believers.(Though with my degree in geology and what I’ve read on the subject, I wouldn’t have hesitated to do so if challenged.)

    It’s very interesting now to see the change in Germany regarding their solar investment and CAGW in general. $100B Eu altogether; whew!

  24. It would be nice if the warmists would just let it go but as the climategate emails clearly demonstrate, warmists don’t play….well….nice.
    And it would be nice if this just involved ego-driven ‘climate’ scientists. But that isn’t the case either.
    Simply put, a certain former politician turns a deranged theory into a pop-culture phenomena, dreamy eyed scientists, media and politicians jump on board, taxpayer money is given to the right ‘friends’……all in the name of saving the planet of course, the ‘friends’ then donate a portion of this taxpayer money back to the politicians reelection campaigns — Rinse and repeat. For a variety of reasons, this whole cabal is not going to go awary quietly.
    As I’ve stated time and again, the AGW scam won’t end until someone goes to jail for fraud. But as an example, when you have the US Department of Justice defending NASA in court against The Competitive Enterprise Institute for simply requesting emails under FOIA, I don’t see any warmist fraud going to jail in the near future. The most transparent Administration, blah, blah….
    And besides the taxpayers, the environment suffers – we do remember that is what the AGW scam is supposedly based on – the environment….don’t we? Think of all the recycling plants (and accompanying jobs) that could have been built using the money thrown away on Solyndra, First Solar, etc, etc…..i.e. – the ‘friends’.

  25. As soon as the book came out, the rapid response team was acting like crazy. My favorite stupids have been the ZEIT, which started a series of counter articles, lead by a Greenpeace propagandist Thomas Staud and the environmental contributors. Agressive, ad hominem, super-weak in facts. Unimaginable for a German newspaper nowadays, I’d thought:
    “In Germany, the ‘climate skeptics’ as they call themselves, now almost meaningless pettifoggers the right of the political establishment – the place where Islam haters, German and other neocons despise liberal ‘Gutmenschentums’ romp.”
    Missing pedophiles still …
    So their book must be good. Having read, it really is.

  26. First he disputes global warming has stopped for the time being. To do this he uses a special chart from a blog depicting a stepwise temperature development, which makes no sense for the particular topic at hand.

    That chart doesn’t make any sense, for any topic. It is the same drivel that is being put up on the “SkepticalScience” blog. It is nothing more or less than a graphical strawman. It presents an argument that actual sceptics do not make, and pretends it is the same as the argument that sceptics do make.

    Per HadCRUT3: There has been a global cooling trend for the last 10 years. There has been no significant warming for at least the last 15 years. Warming has not exceeded half the 0.2C/decade IPCC prediction for the last 18 years. These are substantial time periods for each of those conditions. They are running into the realm of statistical significance and model falsification. If they continue for much longer, there are important negative implications for the scientific underpinnings of CAGW arguments.

    This fact is recognized not just by sceptics, but by the climate establishment. They are currently flailing about, trying to explain the divergence between their observations and their predictions. They are attempting to escape the travesty by looking for the missing heat, and they are “finding” it everywhere from the depths of the unmeasured ocean to the heights of Chinese aerosols to the vast expanse of their grossly underestimated error bands. But they are looking, because they acknowledge the problem they have.

    Only a few die-hard warmists deny the current status of the temperature trend, and take refuge in nonsense like this “stepwise” graph. It makes use of short time periods with cherry picked endpoints, and pretends that this invalidates longer trends that all reference the present. Sorry, but no.

  27. I think the point of the chart was to show the sun’s activity relates to temperatures on Earth (something that is in dispute) and isn’t provided to zoom in on the current 50 year span, which is quite small.

  28. @Robertvdl says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:52 am
    I have a BIG problem with that. In the book there is nothing we don’t know. It’s all old stuff.

    Robert, in Germany they did not have a lot of well-written books about climate and definitely none of the sceptic flavour. It was about time to give the doubters there some facts.
    Good for you, if you know everything already. Others don’t.

  29. Do you suppose that Herr Fuelner actually believes that out of every 100,000 molecules of air that there are 39 rogue molecules fo carbon dioxide that are overheating the other 99,961 molecules? Amazing that some body with that much education would swallow such a proposition.

  30. @Brent Hargreaves says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:13 am

    Good point… and further, the CAGW legislative overhang will bedevil us for some time to come.

  31. “The response is so vitriolic”

    Lots of money at risk. No crisis, no money.

    There is also a religious-cult like element. For many the adoption of the Arrhenius equation as an explain-all truth is not unlike the pseudo-scientific Marxist embrace of the Ricardo’s labor theory of value as the explain everything. It is their form of monotheism.

    These German dissenters are extremely threatening to the cultists and profiteers because they cannot be dismissed as American-style right wing cranks, you know, the type that mess up any discussions of the AGW scams with talk about eliminating the EPA and banning unions and similar.

  32. Anthony,

    OT. For some reason, I have been unable to post this on your TIPs page. You might consider a post on, “After vowing to take on radical environmentalists determined to stop the Northern Gateway pipeline, the Harper government released a new anti-terrorism strategy on 02/10/2012 that targets eco-extremists as threats.”

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-new-anti-terrorism-strategy-lists-eco-extremists-as-threats/article2334975/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2334975

  33. nomnom says: “Surely the point of the chart is to show that globe warms in steps, not in a perfect line, so therefore a step or plateau is not evidence that the warming has stopped.”

    Last I checked, radiation occurs at the speed of light. There is no “pipeline” in which atmospheric heat gets inventoried and then suddenly released into the climate. Trying to store solar heat via natural processes is like trying to smuggle candles in a bucket of ice cubes. Putative CO²-related warming would follow the atmospheric CO² concentration, which is continuously rising. Global warming in steps actually proves that the warming is very likely NOT greenhouse-gas related. Thanks for all the fish, nomnom. Sorry about the hole in the bottom of your barrel.

    • This is true….. if it were the CO2-increase as cause, such as 20 ppmv per decade, there should
      be an immediate response in global temps and it takes only 7 min for the solar energy to reach Earth and CO2 should immediately act [if it were capable] and why should there be a step+plateau-wise temp hold-back?
      After all, I remember a work of Dr. Coss et al [UEA] on carbon cycle feedbacks, claiming
      that the 20 ppmv increase leads to EXCEEDING warming, such as interest on interest
      compounded…..
      Who can point to a single work of the Milleniums edition TAR of 2001, forecasting an ensuing
      temp plateau about to materialize? …… I remember only temp rising forecasts….
      (cut out the word plays prognosis, prediction, projection and use FORECAST as anybody
      else) …..
      Help please….
      JS

  34. JJ says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm
    Per HadCRUT3: There has been a global cooling trend for the last 10 years. There has been no significant warming for at least the last 15 years. Warming has not exceeded half the 0.2C/decade IPCC prediction for the last 18 years. These are substantial time periods for each of those conditions.
    ===============================================
    JJ, wouldn’t that mean if and when CO2 forced warming resumes…
    ….temps would have to jump up 1 whole degree to catch up

    If it was “normal”, then temps would just assume the normal incline like nothing had happened

  35. JamesS, the “Green/B90Party” here in Germany is basicly the political wing of Greenpeace, with a strong input from Fiends of the Earth and other tree huggers. There is a strong “gegener” movement kicking off now against the building of more “Wind Farms” mainly composed of those whose lives, homes, vistas and so on are blighted by the infernal things.

    Hopefully as the AGW scam unravels more and more the Greenpeace frauds will be exposed and they will lose both support and influence.

  36. Joachim Seifert
    …you did not include variations/the osculation and libration
    of the Earth’s orbit in your book……

    Joachim, English is a perverse language and English spelling extremely so. I think you mean ‘oscillation’ and ‘vibration.’ Osculation is what true believers do to the IPCC. Google ‘kiss up to.”
    : > )

    • Juan:
      there is oscillation…we know, but different is OSCULATION, which the Earth’s orbit does….
      Problem for the public is that Warmist alterated/”cleaned” the ORBITAL pages on Wikipedia
      last August, in order to hide the effect of the orbit and they eliminated all previous details of
      the true trajectory and all perturbations….. this obviously was done by someone
      connected to the Belgian VSOP program Warmist team, since you can see how they praise
      the high quality of VSOP and not mention NASA JPL Horizons or Russian programs…very
      suspicious this self-gratulation in Wikipedia….If there is nothing in the orbit….”only CO2
      remains” – is the message…….too bad now for the public…I wonder how one gets the previous non-Warmist view back again in Wikipedia……Sorry…
      JS

  37. Sorry for being off topic, but I have posted up why I think the current energy balance models are more fiction than reality. I have a lot of problems with the black/grey body based models, as I have commented on many times here on posts discussing the topic.

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18073

    Using brand new images from NPP-Soumi, it is clearly shown taht the energy balance equation for the earth is much more complicated than the current IPCC model, therefore making the IPCC claims indefensible.

    We need to step up our collective game here and dig into this puzzle with eyes open to the true complexity in the natural world. Only then will we be able to claim precisions in understanding that equate to fractions of a degree over decades.

  38. There, ordered Die kalte Sonne in its original! My all but faded grade school-level German will certainly not be up to the task, and perhaps as some say, there isn’t anything in the book we haven’t already read about here, in the skeptics’ Agloshpere, but…but what counts right now is the support we can give in this high-stakes battle.

    With governmental and private funding overwhelmingly skewed on the side of the alarmists, versus the harsh and disproportionate financial and social penalties for skeptics, let’s remember that we as private individuals are the sole source of support, comfort and even safety for our side’s advocates anywhere in the world and in all languages. Besides, given the impact this book will have on Germany and the rest of Europe, I predict that an original edition of Die kalte Sonne will be quite the collector’s item in time!

  39. http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/resource.html

    Not enough oil in the world? According to the Province of Alberta, the recoverable oil in this one province “….. has proven oil reserves of 171.3 billion barrels, consisting of bitumen (169.9 billion barrels) and conventional oil (1.4 billion barrels). These reserves make up the third-largest proven crude oil reserve in the world, next to Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. This is enough oil to meet Canada’s current oil demand for almost 400 years.” This one province in Canada and not the whole country. This does not include Sasketchewan, where they still do not know how much bitumen lies waiting for plunder/developement. This does not include Alaska, etc. Wait: then there is coal. Not enough coal in the world? This link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves
    says that there are 930 billion tons of recoverable coal. I would bet that in both cases the amounts are vastly underestimated because of undiscovered fields and because some oil and coal is deemed too expensive right now to be rated as recoverable. That will change with technological improvements.

    To consider the sun as a non-event in global warming is insane. What then caused all of the pre-human long cycles (I mean very long) of ice ages, if not for the sun combined with volcanism? Starve the world of CO2 and we’ll likely see small scale die-offs in the Amazon jungle.

  40. We are on the verge of recognizing another monumental science research scam in Michael Mann and NASA’s Hansen that is distinguished for being the basis of the greatest science-based policy debacle in the history of humankind! The methods of enforcement of this science scam have been every bit as ruthless as in previous scams and we can only hope it blows away as quickly and thoroughly as the ether theory that came before it.

  41. Nick Stokes says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:22 am

    “I doubt that anyone makes a rigid rule about 30 years. What is more important is statistical significance. Because without it, you are basing your argument on something that could have arisen by chance. It is something that you could expect based simply on past observed random fluctuations.”

    The problem as I see it Nick, is that statistical significance can only be measured with respect to the 130 years worth of data held within the Global Surface Temperature record. If we were able to extend that record back in time to encompass the entire 11,000 years of the Holocene, or even 90,000 years back to encompass the previous Glaciation, would any of the recent data retain its statistical significance?

  42. nomnom says: “Surely the point of the chart is to show that globe warms in steps, not in a perfect line, so therefore a step or plateau is not evidence that the warming has stopped.”

    ————–

    I don’t think that was the point of the chart at all. The point the chart (at least for Dr Feulner) and the ‘step trends’ in it was to try to falsify the proposition that there has been no warming over the last 15 years or so. As I said earlier it is an invalid statistical method. I could construct a similar chart showing stepwise decreases in temperature from the same base data. For instance you could draw lines showing decreasing (rather rapid ones too) temperatures in steps from 1982 – 1985, 1991 -1993, 1995 -1997, etc.

    The fact of the matter is that there has been no statistically significant warming (any increase in temperature falling with the error bars) since 1995 and there is no way to avoid that, as even Dr Jones admits.

  43. JJ says: February 13, 2012 at 12:10 pm

    “Per HadCRUT3: There has been a global cooling trend for the last 10 years. There has been no significant warming for at least the last 15 years.”

    So warming has to be significant, but cooling not? The cooling trend is not significant either.

  44. nomnom says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:27 am
    “Why don’t Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show cosmic rays and temperature during the past 50 years?

    Cosmic rays have been flat and temperatures have risen. Why wouldn’t they show that? Disturbing.”

    I would argue with an energy imbalance – highly active sun, strong solar magnetic field, suppression of cloud formation by cosmic rays – resulting in decades of warming oceans and rising temperatures.

    In other words, the thermal capacity of the oceans operators as an energy storage, much like the capacitor in an RC low pass.

  45. Anything is possible says: February 13, 2012 at 1:12 pm

    “The problem as I see it Nick, is that statistical significance can only be measured with respect to the 130 years worth of data held within the Global Surface Temperature record. If we were able to extend that record back in time to encompass the entire 11,000 years of the Holocene, or even 90,000 years back to encompass the previous Glaciation, would any of the recent data retain its statistical significance?”

    You measure statistical significance relative to what looks like the current level of random variation. In fact it’s just the period of the trend, but the variation over the last 130 years doesn’t look markedly different.

    Yes, if you go back a long way (eg Ice ages) you see much bigger variations. But no-one thinks they are random fluctuations of the current circumstances. They would be significant (ie, explanation needed).

  46. expect this madness every Feb:

    13 Feb: Weather Channel: How Weather Around the World Impacts Chocolate
    by Mark Elliot and weather.com
    Above Video: A Chocolatier Discusses Weather’s Effect on Cacao
    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the narrow range in the tropics that supports chocolate production could certainly see these shifts occur. The IPCC states that lower latitudes, especially tropical regions, would see crop productivity decrease for even small local temperature increases (1-2°C)…
    Further, increases in the frequency of droughts and floods are projected by the IPCC, and this is already a challenge for the cacao tree. It is also projected by the IPCC that there is a potential for rainfall to occur in shorter, heavier, bursts…

    http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/weathers-effect-on-chocolate_2012-02-13

    13 Feb: Fox News: (from LA Times) Valentine’s Day Destroyed by Climate Change?
    That’s right. Global warming is very bad for chocolate…

    http://nation.foxnews.com/global-warming/2012/02/13/valentines-day-destroyed-climate-change#

    11 Feb: Accuweather: Vickie Frantz: Weather Impacts Chocolate and Roses
    A report by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) released on Sept. 29, 2011 outlined an increase in temperature due to climate change will adversely impact the production of cocoa in West Africa…

    http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/weather-impacts-chocolate-and-1/61452

  47. 10 Feb: UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction: IPCC report on climate change and risk coming soon
    VIDEO: A video introducing the Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation, showcases it as the first IPCC report that integrates the work of researchers studying disaster risk management with climate science, climate impacts, and adaptation to climate change…

    http://www.unisdr.org/archive/25093?utm_source=unisdrcomms&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=IPCC%2Breport%2Bon%2Bclimate%2Bchange%2Band%2Brisk%2Bcoming%2Bsoon

  48. The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real. (its 97% to 3% but it varies 1 to 2% based on what poll your using) Deniers are betting millions of lives, destruction and devastation, and damages that could bankrupt the world. And even if there is no global warming, which I highly doubt, going “green” is still a smart choice.

  49. Steven says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real. (its 97% to 3% but it varies 1 to 2% based on what poll your using) Deniers are betting millions of lives, destruction and devastation, and damages that could bankrupt the world. And even if there is no global warming, which I highly doubt, going “green” is still a smart choice.
    ============================================
    Steven, you’ve been had……………

  50. jaypan says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    Robert, in Germany they did not have a lot of well-written books about climate and definitely none of the sceptic flavour. It was about time to give the doubters there some facts.
    Bart van Deenen says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:27 am
    Tim Ball;
    I have met very few people recently who believe in man-made global warming (here in the Netherlands). I must have bought up the subject probably 5 times to new people I met in the last 2 months, and not one of them believed in it.

    How many well-written books about climate of the sceptic flavour you think there are in Dutch? Germans are unable to read or understand English?. Or if it’s not in German it doesn’t it exist.Germans do not go to school to learn something? There is no internet in Germany?Have they ever heard of Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen or Willie Soon (and many others)? But now that energy prices soar, thanks to their ……….. representatives, now they wake up.

  51. @fred houpt

    I believe the figure for coal in Mongolia is on the order of 1 trillion tons. That will mean finding more, but it is conceivable. They are listed with lower numbers now, but they have not looked that hard.

    Somewhere also largely uninvestigated is the DR Congo. It is a huge country. Also, one must remember that many countries reduced their ‘recoverable reserves’ figures a great deal (Germany’s dropped to nearly zero for reasons that are unknown, even though the reserves are).

    As with oil, there is so much lying going on no one really has much idea is ‘down there’. The vastness of abiotic oil reserves may be part of the unsuspected riches that come to light in each century.

  52. Dr. Tim Ball thanks for the hard work you have done for so many years.They have attacked you on all possible ways but you stood firm in the storm. Never have so many owed so much to a man so humiliated.

    Robert van de Leur

  53. “The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real.”

    Meh.Eighty years ago, you’d have gotten the same results polling about the necessity of eugenics.

  54. R. Shearer says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:52 am
    nomnom, there are mutiple factors (read above) besides cosmic rays. The hypothesis would be that an increase in cosmic rays would lead to aerosols, leading to clud formation, etc.

    There is a large aerosol effect in the temperatures over the last 150 years.

    And we know next to nothing about GCR aerosol interactions.

    For these reasons I find the paleo data more persuasive than the temperature record data (normally I’d say the reverse).

  55. Robertvdl says:
    February 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm
    “How many well-written books about climate of the sceptic flavour you think there are in Dutch? Germans are unable to read or understand English?. Or if it’s not in German it doesn’t it exist.Germans do not go to school to learn something? There is no internet in Germany?Have they ever heard of Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen or Willie Soon (and many others)? But now that energy prices soar, thanks to their ……….. representatives, now they wake up.”

    Robertvdl, we Germans routinely use English as the language of choice for contracts or technical documentation. But regarding leisure activities, and informing yourself by reading the news or blogs is a leisure activity with regards to climate change, all American movies and TV shows get overdubbed so most of my fellow citizens are much less adept at reading regular – or scientific – English than for instance the Swedish or the Dutch. The everyday English vocabulary of the common German is next to non-existant, even when he’s an engineer. Germany is big enough to have a kind of insular culture in this regard; and big enough to have voice actors overdub the movies and TV series we import.

    So, there really is a language hurdle for the Germans, due to their laziness – much like an American can’t be bothered to read German news in the original.

    And that’s why culturally, Germany is usually five years behind the curve. Information only trickles in through the filter known as the MSM and the public media. Most Germans still think that a majority of Americans love their current president. Go figure.

  56. Hey Steven:

    Steven says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real. (its 97% to 3%…

    (Questions only for Steven) – Where did you get those figures? How many “scientists” were included in that statement?

  57. “Steven says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real. (its 97% to 3% but it varies 1 to 2% based on what poll your using) Deniers are betting millions of lives, destruction and devastation, and damages that could bankrupt the world. And even if there is no global warming, which I highly doubt, going “green” is still a smart choice”

    Steven,

    Your insight is brilliant. Obviously someone of stunning intellect and perception.

    Please contact me ASAP . . . I have an amazing deal for you on a slightly used bridge, only crossed by nice old ladies on sunny Sunday mornings.

    Buying it would be a really “smart choice”

  58. The german administration and its political “commisars” are mainly from old DDR. Unless one can construct an alternative that is even more authorative, then the AGWers will remain the same until they enter the bunker. However, at least one could make the greens turn away from the so called renewal sources by manufacturing the wind power propellers in the shape of swastikas? Nein?

  59. Marvellous, Sebastian! I see you have continued to show your independent streak displayed so well in a core lab in Tripoli…back in 2007. Glad to see you have punched a hole in the leaky scow of Climate Change Religion.

    Dr. Mike

  60. Steven says:
    “Deniers are betting millions of lives, destruction and devastation, and damages that could bankrupt the world.”

    Global cooling deniers, like Steven, are betting billions of lives, trillions of dollars, destruction and devastation, famine and mass unemployment that will bankrupt the world and send survivors back to the stone age without any technology, let alone “green” technology.

    ‘And even if there is no global warming, which I highly doubt, going “green” is still a smart choice.’

    I have no problem with going “green” if It will do the job and I can afford it. But it should be my choice. Forcing me to choose pseudo green, fairy-tale energy solutions that are unsustainable, unreliable, unaffordable, and which still end up being more destructive of the environment (electric cars, ethanol, etc.) than fossil fuels is sheer nonsense. Even Hansen doesn’t believe that spending trillions on schemes like cap and trade will do anything to curb global warming gasses.

    So, basically, once you have bankrupted the world trying and failing to reduce CO2, we will still have to adapt to whatever the future brings. Wouldn’t it make more sense to simply save that money for a “rainy day” and use it to adapt to climate change as it occurs (if it occurs)?

  61. Steven says: …going “green” is still a smart choice.

    Check out the 1010 Video No pressure and think again.

  62. The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real. (its 97% to

    Sorry to disappoint you, steven- no, actually Pleased to disappoint you, but:

    Your 97% is based upon the following:

    10257 scientists surveyed.
    Less than 3200 responded.
    The final figure was based upon 79 scientists, of whom 75 answered in the positive to two heavily biased questions.

    That’s .74% of the survey sample, stevie.

    This is your consensus?

  63. Steven, as you are evidently a believer in the man-made warming paradigm, I commend you for coming to this site to discuss your views. You will get a fair hearing but vigorous debate. Your comment exemplifies the problem in this debate because in just over 4 lines you have managed to encapsulate so many misunderstandings that it would take pages to correct them. I will try to be brief.

    “Deniers”, as you call them, do not deny global warming. This is a straw man argument. Skeptics are well aware that the climate is constantly changing and, for the last 300 years, has been on an upward trend. What we “deny” is evidence that this is (a) leading to a catastrophe, or (b) caused primarily by man-made greenhouse gases.

    (a) For extreme weather events which happen frequently enough to permit trend analysis, e.g. hurricanes, empirical evidence demonstrates that these are not getting worse. For other events such as droughts and floods it is difficult to produce trends but there are plenty of historical records to show that these have always happened. The world is so big that once in a 100 year events are bound to happen somewhere every year.

    (b) The theory of radiative heat transfer says that for a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere we should get a temperature rise of about 1 degC. The climate models reckon that this will be amplified roughly 3-fold by strong positive feedback from water vapor. It is these feedbacks which are the crux of the global warming scare. But empirical evidence shows that these feedbacks are not actually happening. Indeed, there is more evidence almost every week showing that feedbacks are actually negative, i.e. the climate system has natural thermostat mechanisms and the effect of CO2 is trivial.

    The “97% of scientists agree” theme has been discussed in previous threads and, if you search, you can find the details of the survey from which this claim arose. The 97% of scientists in this survey comprised just 75 people. In any event, it cannot be stressed too strongly that scientific truth is not determined by holding a head-count. It is determined by scientific evidence.

    Many thousands of people die every year as a result of extreme weather events. But, many thousands also die as a result of policies to combat climate change ( e.g. the switch of arable land from food production to biofuels ) and as a result of poverty which could be alleviated if developing countries were able to access cheap and abundant energy. If the CO2 global warming hypothesis were true and our climate change policies were effective then we would be substituting death and poverty for one group with death and poverty for another group. But if (i) extreme weather events are not being made worse by global warming, OR (ii) they are being made worse but global warming is primarily due to natural causes, OR (iii) they are being made worse due to man-made greenhouse gases but our policies will be ineffective, then the deaths and poverty from climate change policies will be in addition to those which were going to happen anyway from natural events. We must not follow climate mitigation policies “to be on the safe side” because there is no safe side. Buying an insurance policy, which is a common analogy, is immoral if the premium is being paid by people in the Third World with their lives. There is no alternative but to get the science right and then base policy on the correct science.

    Finally, is “going green” sensible ? Present technology cannot meet baseload energy requirements without fossil fuels and/or nuclear power. So-called renewable energy sources require back-up from conventional power stations. They are so expensive that they need massive subsidies which is severely impacting on economies, and they don’t even save CO2 largely because of the need for back-up. Of course, we could abandon baseload power altogether and go back to the 19th Century level of industrialisation. In this case, someone needs to explain the mechanism which will be used to reduce the world population to a level which can be supported by this level of GDP.

  64. I was curious about the chart depicting a stepwise temperature development. I plotted the non-hansenized version of GISS i.e. the version that doesn’t include data from Arctic stations that don’t actually exist. That data set is here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

    I did a linear regression from 2001/01 thru 2011/12 (132 months). I then created a “mobile” 132 month linear regression that I could move across the data with a spinner. I started moving it back in time looking for a 132 month period with a slope equal to or less than that of the 2001/01 thru 2011/12 period. The last time that occurred in the non-hansenized GISS data was the period from 1968/12 thru 1979/11. That was at the end of the cool period. I converted the chart to a pdf file. It can be downloaded here:

    http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?buf01cbrgph8in7

    I had a similar result with NOAA Land & Oceans and HadCRUT global.

    With the hansenized version of GISS I saw a totally different result. The data set is here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

    There were many periods during the most recent warming period that had a slope similar to the 2001/01 thru 2011/12 period. The hansenized GISS is the only temperature data that has that.

    I was curious to see what effect hansenization had on the GISS data so I plotted the hansenized and non-hansenized sets together I also did a plot showing just the difference between them. Those charts can be downloaded as pdf files here:

    http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?dfwkc9d4uf7cbhv

    The hansenized GISS includes additional data going all the way back to 1880. They created 130 years of data through the miracle of interpolation. It is just amazing what determined climate scientists can do. [sarc]

    The hansenization process appears to reduce the rate of the first warming period from around 1916 to around 1947 and increase the rate of the second warming from around 1961 to present.

    p.s. I’m an optician. I’m not a climate scientist. I hope that if there is a problem with my charts, someone will be kind enough to set me straight.

  65. nomnom says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:27 am
    “Why don’t Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show cosmic rays and temperature during the past 50 years?

    Cosmic rays have been flat and temperatures have risen. Why wouldn’t they show that? Disturbing.”
    =================

    Maybe because ‘cosmic rays’ haven’t been ‘flat’ the past 50 years?
    “2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19 percent beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” Doesn’t sound very flat to me.

    http://www.space.com/7349-cosmic-rays-hit-50-year-high.html

  66. Latitude the 97% turns out to be 75 people are you claiming that there only 77 scientists in the world?
    Actual no one even knows how many scientists there are in the world, so until this is known, logically and mathematical its simply not possible to claim any number of scientists represent the majority in any way that has scientific meaning. Not that stop proponents of ‘the cause ‘ from making grand claims , but then nothing stops that especially not the facts.

  67. “The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real.”
    ============

    Even if accurate (and it isn’t), it doesn’t mean it is correct.

    In the 1950’s the ‘majority of scientists’ concluded that space was empty, they tried to run Dr Parker, who proposed the idea of the solar wind) out of the scientific community.

    Consensus is not science.

  68. Oh, the rule is very rigid when you talk in terms of time less than 30 years. You should see the responses I got by showing the decadal trend in the last Monckton ruckus. Which makes this all the sweeter for me! Validation! :-)

    And, as the authors point out, there’s a huge difference between statistical significance and significant. Confining ourselves to the 30 year quasi-rule, we will miss the nuances of events which are occurring now and in the more recent past. I posit something happened around 1998 which changed things.

    But, concerning the most recent plateau, 15 years is more than 10% of the 130 years. But, we had much longer periods of time which temps did not respond to rising CO2 levels.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/30-years-is-needed-to-confirm-the-null-hypothesis/

    Another commenter was asking about the speed of light and the nature of CO2. And he’s right. CO2 can’t be driving our temps because of the length of time the temps don’t respond to increases of atmospheric CO2. The very nature of CO2 eliminates this possibility. Unless someone posits that CO2 takes a timeout and doesn’t excite for several years……

    And towards the volcano rationalization, from what I can glean, the effects of a volcano are very transient at most.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/volcanoes/

  69. “”””” nomnom says:

    February 13, 2012 at 10:42 am

    Re Bill Marsh:
    “That ‘step wise’ chart is an invalid statistical technique and could be modified to show a step wise decrease depending on the end points selected. If that’s the best Dr Feulner can do, he’s really off the mark.”

    Surely the point of the chart is to show that globe warms in steps, not in a perfect line, so therefore a step or plateau is not evidence that the warming has stopped. The chart for example shows global temperature plateaued for a few years in the 80s but that didn’t herald the end of warming. “””””

    So nomnom, a rising Temperature is certainly NOT evidence that warming has stopped; so if a constant Temperature is NOT evidence that warming has stopped, and a falling Temperature is NOT evidence that warming has stopped; what in your expert opinion WOULD constitute evidence that warming has stopped ?

    How else would one designate WARMING other than by Temperature information ?

    I can tell you that my sister who lives on the shore of Lake Geneva; or whatever they call that lake at Geneva, where last week all the boats and sidewalks and fencing at the marinas around the lake were solid ice, truly believes that warming has stopped, and evidently she like most of the residents of geneva can’t wait for warming to continue. Of course those people typically characterize warming as consisting of rising Temperatures; unlike what they now are seeing.

  70. KnR says:
    February 13, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    Latitude the 97% turns out to be 75 people are you claiming that there only 77 scientists in the world?
    ===========================================
    lol, KnR, Latitude was responding to Steven….. While I can’t speak for most, I’m pretty comfortable about saying that Lat definitely doesn’t put any stock in any 97% consensus stuff.

  71. “The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real. (its 97% to 3% but it varies 1 to 2% based on what poll your using)
    =============================================
    A very carefully selected sample of scientists were in 97% agreement, which is true… But I should point out that it is not difficult to create such agreement if you (1) opt to study a small group, (2) decide in advance who will be in that group, and (3) ask a vague question that even most sceptics would agree to.

    It would be unsurprising that 97% of those published in the psychoanalytic literature feel strongly that their field is credible. Although it would be remiss to fail to note that the vast majority of scientists outside that field, including psychologists, think those researchers are writing nonsense.

  72. Steven says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    Let’s see if this passes the “space aliens” test…

    The majority of scientists have concluded that space aliens are real. (its 97% to 3% but it varies 1 to 2% based on what poll your using) Deniers are betting millions of lives, destruction and devastation, and damages that could bankrupt the world. And even if there are no space aliens, which I highly doubt, going “green” is still a smart choice.

    Yep. Just as believable as the global warming version! And I bet 97% of all scientists DO believe in space aliens…

    Frank K.

    Remember “Green Greed is Good…”

  73. The very uninformed Stevens opines….

    1. “The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real.” -FALSE

    2. Deniers are betting millions of lives, destruction and devastation, and damages that could bankrupt the world. – FALSE

    3. And even if there is no global warming, which I highly doubt, – FALSE, very flawed thinking

    4. going “green” is still a smart choice. – FALSE, It’s not always a smart choice.

    Thanks for playing.

  74. “The response is so vitriolic that one is newspaper (TAZ) is headlining “Skeptics are like viruses“. Greenpeace Germany has now gotten into the act, denoucing Lüning and Varrenholt (formerly a champion of the global warming cause) as an Ice Cold Denier.”

    No shocker there. One only need to look at the european newspapers from the 1920’s to see the advent of the same garbage spewed by Greenpeace’s likeminded, the nazis, the fascists, and the communists.

    It’s been going on a couple of weeks now, the lefty media and the former conservative media in EU have been letting out steam against the skeptics and other politically incorrect people in general it seems.

    Apparently, lefty extremism is now supposed to be viewed as “normal” or so themselves and their propaganda outlets in the formerly known conservative and lefty media claim, because they are the ones that are the essence of what is politically correct. IPCC’s AGW scare is politically correct, hence skeptics are haters and what ever. Feminism, Environmentalism, EU version of state controlled segregated enforced by law non-educated multi-culture-ism, financial trading taxes in absurdum, … you name it but if you criticize it you’re a “virus” and a “parasite” something that “hates” our fragile politically correct society.

    I think it’s hogwash. Socialism made europe into a horror zone for a hundred years and still the socialists fail to learn they are the root cause of the problem. The problem really is that they always take everything to the extreme, like TAZ.

    Maybe the biggest problem is that honest people never seem to want to make a fuzz of things, so a big cudos to Mr Lüning and Mr Vahrenholt for making a fuzz.

  75. “”””” DirkH says:

    February 13, 2012 at 2:31 pm

    Robertvdl says:
    February 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm
    “How many well-written books about climate of the sceptic flavour you think there are in Dutch? Germans are unable to read or understand English?. Or if it’s not in German it doesn’t it exist.Germans do not go to school to learn something? There is no internet in Germany?Have they ever heard of Tim Ball and Richard Lindzen or Willie Soon (and many others)? But now that energy prices soar, thanks to their ……….. representatives, now they wake up.”

    Robertvdl, we Germans routinely use English as the language of choice for contracts or technical documentation. “””””

    DirkH, on my one and only trip to Germany (Bavaria) circa 1982, I visited with scientists and engineers at the Siemens research labs, in Munich, Erlangen, and Regensburg, and they told me that if they attended a technical conference in Germany, even with all German attendees, that they preferred that the presentations be conducted in English. Clarity of meaning, was their reason; not any disenchantment with the German language. Would that my German was 1% as good as their English was.

    Well to hell with it, I still refuse to listen to Wagner’s “Ring” in anything but German, even though I can hardly understand the words. Well I don’t need to; I know all 18 hours of the music by heart anyway; so I know exactly what is going on, without understanding any of the words.

    PS French was simply “unacceptible” ;or however you say that in German.

  76. jorgekafkazar says:
    February 13, 2012 at 12:36 pm
    //////////////////
    The basic physics behind the theory does not allow for step changes.

    Every time there is an increase in CO2 concentration, this must as a matter of the basic physics lead to a corresponding increase in temperature simply because the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere the more molecular radiation there is in the atmosphere; more CO2 does not result in there being the same amount of molecular radiation, or less molecular radiation. It is a one way journey only and that is why the CGM did not project the termperature stall that has been seen these past 15 years (or so).

    Of course, it is possible that some other forcing acting in the opposite direction either neutralises the CO2 forcing thereby leading to a flat temperature for that year, or even exceed the positive CO2 forcing keading to a drop in temperature for that year.

    However, for the CO2 theory to be correct those supporting the theory need to explain on a yearly basis why when there has been an increase in CO2 no corresponding temperature increase has been observed. Of course, they could resort to the unexplained natural variation argument but in so doing, this acknowledges that CO2 is not the dominant driver of temperatures and natural variation(s) can overrule it.

  77. That “stepwise temperature development” chart is an “escalator” from skepticalscioence.com. It was created by “dana1981″. (S)he took a BEST temperature record and a ruler, drew several blue lines trending down like \ \ \ and labeled them “How skeptics view global warming”. No references to anything. Asked where the graph came from, (s)he replied “from my computer”.

  78. Bart van Deenen says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Tim Ball;

    I have met very few people recently who believe in man-made global warming (here in the Netherlands). I must have bought up the subject probably 5 times to new people I met in the last 2 months, and not one of them believed in it.

    Bart
    I have also noticed the more open reaction, and point out that thanks to our climate gate whistle blowing hero who leaked the contents of CRU emails, the revelation of climate “scientists” behaving badly was exposed for all to see and that took a lot of pressure off. But for those like Dr Tim Ball the academic push back still continues as they “have” to protect and deny even if it means smearing. Keep up the good work Dr Tim, time will vindicate you and truth reign.

  79. George E. Smith; says:
    February 13, 2012 at 4:33 pm
    “DirkH, on my one and only trip to Germany (Bavaria) circa 1982, I visited with scientists and engineers at the Siemens research labs, in Munich, Erlangen, and Regensburg, and they told me that if they attended a technical conference in Germany, even with all German attendees, that they preferred that the presentations be conducted in English. Clarity of meaning, was their reason; not any disenchantment with the German language. Would that my German was 1% as good as their English was.”

    It’s nothing compared to ordinary folks in the Netherlands and Scandinavia. They get all the movies and US TV series with subtitles and their own TV is as interesting as watching paint dry, mostly, so they all acquire a full English vocabulary.

    As for the clarity of meaning of the English language; well, if these were Siemens people, they lied to you – they obviously had the order from their management to use English; Siemens is an international company so they need to force their German employees to use English. Same at Bosch – they constantly get offers of free English courses paid for by the company, on company time, to prevent them from writing their documentation in German, which at least the older ones would prefer.

  80. Charles Bruce Richardson Jr. says: February 13, 2012 at 3:39 pm

    The difference between the Ts+dSST and the Ts files isn’t “hansenization”. The first is land+ocean, the second land (met stations) only. In fact, Ts+dSST is dominated by SST (ocean>land), so they are very different.

    I linked above to this plot. You can look up the trends you want by finding 11 years on the right axis, and then tracking the 45° line (some faint white lines are shown) to see what happens to the 11-year trend as you go back in time. If you go to the second link and tinker with the time series graph, you can use the purple arrows (top right) to move a fixed time period (eg 11 years) through the whole range. The trends are printed below the plot.

  81. Latitude says:

    JJ, wouldn’t that mean if and when CO2 forced warming resumes…
    ….temps would have to jump up 1 whole degree to catch up

    I’m not sure exactly what you are asking. To catch up to what? The climate is the climate, whatever that is. Whether substantial CO2 forced warming is a component of the current climate or not, global average temperature doesn’t have to catch up to anything.

    The only time it is appropriate to talk about “catching up” is WRT people’s opinions and predictions about what climate should be or will be. In that case yes, if certain predictions are to be held to be close enough to the truth to be useful, then any period of low, no, or negative warming will require similar periods of greatly accelerated warming to catch the average temp up with what some folks want it to be. The longer these periods of low, no, or negative warming last, the faster and longer any future warming periods will have to be to meet their expectation. Longer periods of faster change are less probable. How much less probable?

    Interesting question. Here’s what I think is an interesting answer

    IPCC models predict 0.2C/decade rise in global average surface temp for the period from the end of the last century to about the middle of this current one. As that is a fairly long time wrt the doom and gloom scenarios, one would expect that rate of temp increase, or something near it, would occur over half that period – about 25 years. Temps have been dead flat since 1997, 15 years. What is the liklihood that it will warm enough over the next 10 years to raise the trend for the preceeding 25 year period – currently 0.0C at year 15 – to 0.5C?

    Well, that would require a trend of about 0.55C/Decade. How often has that kind of warming happened, in the “instrumental record”? Starting at the beginning of HadCRUT3 in January 1850, and advancing 1 month at a time there have been 1825 intervals of ten years.

    Of those 1825 ten year periods, how many had a warming trend of 0.55C or higher?

    Zero.

    Well, what about 0.5C? How many times has that happened?

    Zero.

    How about 0.45C? How many times has that happened?

    Zero.

    In fact, the maximum ten year warming trend over that entire 162 year record – if you “cherry pick” your start and end points for maximum effect – was 0.42C/decade. Of the 1825 ten year periods of the “instrumental record”, only 4 (0.2%) show a warming trend of even 0.4C/Decade. Even during the “global warming era” – about 1970 to present in terms of the most rapid rise in temps – the number of ten year periods with a warming trend of 0.4C/Decade or higher is still less than 1%.

    So, for global temps to “catch up” with IPCC projections for the current flat period extended to a length of 25 years, they are going to first have to jump up about 0.2C instantly (to start at the average temp of the last 15 years, which we are currently below), and then rise 30% faster than they ever have before, so far as we know, according to the best data Phil Jones managed to not lose while he fiddled with it. It seems very unlikely that CO2 could make this happen, given that CO2 concentration increase is approximately linear, but the radiative forcing effect of CO2 is logarithmic and thus incrementally decreasing.

    Suppose the next ten years really rip, though. Lets say they rise at the 75th percentile rate for the “global warming era”. That will put us up 0.25C for the 25 year period, or about 0.1C/decade – half the IPCC rate.

    If we get average “global warming” for the “global warming era”, we will be up 0.17C for the 25 year period, or about 0.06C/Decade – one third the IPCC rate.

    Of course, for the last 11 years temps have been trending down. Taken in consecutive ten year increments as above, the rate of cooling is increasing, and is now the highest it has been during the “global warming era”.

    If a fellah were a betting man – his own money, not someone elses – where should he put it?

  82. “I have met very few people recently who believe in man-made global warming”
    ===============================
    “Belief” in AGW is most likely related to the string of cold winters in Europe since 2008, and has much less to do with the activities of sceptics. This is not surprising as the string of warm winters prior to 2008 were attributed by some (unwisely) directly to CO2. So now having oversold the public, the public in turn will tend to be more cynical.

  83. This comment “First he disputes global warming has stopped for the time being. To do this he uses a special chart from a blog depicting a stepwise temperature development, which makes no sense for the particular topic at hand. The temperature plateau that we’ve had since the year 2000 is disputed by Feulner. However, the missing warming of the last 12 years is no fabrication made up by the authors of “Die kalte Sonne“. Anybody can plot it by going over to Woodfortrees.org.”

    Well, better than going to a third party blog, why not go to a climate agency that processes the data? The data that really matters. The data that shows what is happening in the oceans which is the main game in the climate. Here: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ Look at graphs 1 & 2 in their animation. 0-700 metres and 0-2000 metres.

    The oceans have kept right on heating through the 2000’s, its just that the heat is being drawn down deeper into the ocean so it doesn’t show up in the surface layer. And since the ocean surface layer has plateaued, the air temps have plateaued as well. But warming is continuing unabated. Its just the heat is going somewhere else at the moment.

  84. @nomnom on February 13, 2012 at 10:38 am:

    “One modification made is that the y-axis of the 2nd graph in Neff et al is not labeled “temperature” at all. In fact the paper itself says “The variation of the d18O signal is very unlikely to be directly related to temperature changes”. So how do Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt justify this modification?”

    Yeah, really dumb of them not to have used those thermometers that were kicking around in 4500 BC.. For ten sceptic points, what do you think tree rings are supposed to represent?

  85. Richard Verney

    “However, for the CO2 theory to be correct those supporting the theory need to explain on a yearly basis why when there has been an increase in CO2 no corresponding temperature increase has been observed. Of course, they could resort to the unexplained natural variation argument but in so doing, this acknowledges that CO2 is not the dominant driver of temperatures and natural variation(s) can overrule it.”

    Because you are misunderstanding the theory. The direct consequence of GH gas increases is that additional heat accumulates within the climate system. This additional heat can have multiple effects, depending where it goes – melts ice, warms the land, warms the atmosphere, warms the oceans. The observed distribution of how much of the extra heat has gone where is Ice 3%, Land 4%, Air 3%, Oceans 90%. You seem to expect that rising CO2 levels will translate into a direct correlation with the changes in Air Temperatures which is incorrect. What should approximately correlate is total heat content of the system and CO2 levels. But even that is still approximate since the CO2 change produces an immediate forcing change. But it takes time for this forcing change to cause the associated accumulation of heat.

    However, read my previous post, go and look at the ocean heat contenet graphs at the NODC. Look at graph 2. Still going up, hasn’t stopped.

    The ‘theory’ says that extra CO2 will make the Dog move. We can’t judge whether it is by just looking at its Tail.

  86. “”””” DirkH says:

    February 13, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    George E. Smith; says:
    February 13, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    As for the clarity of meaning of the English language; well, if these were Siemens people, they lied to you – they obviously had the order from their management to use English; Siemens is an international company so they need to force their German employees to use English. Same at Bosch – they constantly get offers of free English courses paid for by the company, on company time, to prevent them from writing their documentation in German, which at least the older ones would prefer. “”””””

    Well Dirk, I can only relay what they told me; as for my German skills, I astonished them by telling them that I was able to literally tour all over Munich on the weekend by picking a road and following that road all over the city. They didn’t know of any such road so they asked me which road that was; “Einbahnstrasse” was my reply. They then clued me in as to what street that really was.

  87. George E. Smith

    “So nomnom, a rising Temperature is certainly NOT evidence that warming has stopped; so if a constant Temperature is NOT evidence that warming has stopped, and a falling Temperature is NOT evidence that warming has stopped; what in your expert opinion WOULD constitute evidence that warming has stopped ?”

    See my previous comments.

    Temperature most certainly an indicator of warming. So long as you look at the temperature change of EVERY PART of the climate system and weight them up according to their thermal mass. If total heat of the oceans were to plateau for some years while GH gases climbed without some major additional factor like a huge El Nino or a major volcanic eruption, then that would be evidence. But just looking at Air temperatures, 3% of the climate system in energy terms, doesn’t tell you anything. You can’t judge the Dog just by its Tail.

  88. “The oceans have kept right on heating through the 2000′s, its just that the heat is being drawn down deeper into the ocean so it doesn’t show up in the surface layer. And since the ocean surface layer has plateaued, the air temps have plateaued as well. But warming is continuing unabated. Its just the heat is going somewhere else at the moment.”
    =====================================
    You do realise I hope, that if the deep ocean is heating (or even the upper troposphere or the moon, or other places like that), that means AGW is not a problem any more, right? The deep ocean is so cold it will take tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousand of years for them to heat up even slightly.

  89. Gary Meyers

    “I have a very simplistic argument to share. If all of the CO2 were taken out of the atmosphere, what would happen to the global temperature? It most likely would drop a few degrees at most. Now, if the sun were taken away, what would happen to the global temperature? It would get very cold very quickly! Which has the most effect on the global temperature? By saying that sun plays a very small role in the global temperature makes no sense.”

    Actually, if all the CO2 where removed, from the atmosphere (and you would have to remove it from the oceans as well) eventually that change alone would lower temperatures by something of the order of 10 degC or so. But this would take time as the heat in the oceans would have to be dissapated. Then as the air gets colder the H2O content of the atmosphere would drop as well and its contribution to warmth would also drop. The net result would be something likea 30 DegC drop, probably more since the Earth would now be covered by ice and be very much more reflective.

    The comparable change in the Sun’s output needed would be something like a 10% drop. All the discussion of changes in the Sun’s output whether due to Cosmic Rays, solarcycles etc is only talking about fractions of 1%. To go to a time when the Sun’s output was 10% lower you would need to go back in time about 1.5 Billion years.

  90. darn it guys you went and chased off Nomnom and steven before I had a chance to weigh in no fair for you to have all the fun. Oh well maybe they learned and are now reading hoping to learn more (and I am 110 pounds and female).

  91. Will Nitschke
    My point first of all was that warming HASN’T stopped. And the evidence is that it hasn’t. Secondly the oceans wont take 10’s of 1000’s of years to warm. the lag time for their warming is decades to centuries. Thirdly, this heating pattern is being driven by increased circulation patterns in the open ocean that cycle water between the surface and the middle depths, not the abyssal deeps. Next increasedwarming lower down will then tend to slow these circulations again and warming will resume happening nearer the surface so warming of the atmosphere will resume. And this sort of pattern, of ‘hiatus’ periods followed a return to more ‘normal’ warming patterns is predicted by a number of the climate ,models. They can’t predict when a hiatus period will occur but they do predict that they do occur from time to time, typically lasting about a decade. Read Meehl et al (2011)

  92. Robertvdl says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:52 am
    Nevertheless, we still have to reduce CO2 emissions through WORLDWIDE EMISSIONS TRADING. And there are also other reasons to burn fewer fossil fuels. We don’t have that much coal, oil and gas left in the world, so we have to economize more. We also have to become less dependent on imports from totalitarian countries

    In doing so we become the totalitarian country. It is a nonsense that we don’t have enough coal left in the world. Carbon trading is promoted because we have so much coal it is a serious threat to the price of oil. The US has a 200 year supply. They practically give the stuff away in the US. More than enough time to develop alternatives.

    The rest of the world have barely begun to tap its supplies of coal. The stuff is everywhere. Cut a road through a hill for a recently industrialized nation to drive its cars and you will find coal. It isn’t like the world had a shortage of tress for the past 500 million years. All you have to do is dig them up.

  93. “The net result would be something likea 30 DegC drop, probably more since the Earth would now be covered by ice and be very much more reflective.”
    ============================
    The entire greenhouse effect of the atmosphere, water vapour, CO2, methane, etc., is estimated at around 33C. So you are attributing 30C of that directly to CO2. Or in other words, 90% of the greenhouse effect is attributable to CO2 and 10% to the rest of the greenhouse gases. So a trace gas which is 0.039% of the atmosphere by volume causes 90% of the heating effect according to your claim. CO2 is a very remarkable gas.

  94. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    “Well, better than going to a third party blog, why not go to a climate agency that processes the data?”

    Wood for trees is not a “third party blog”. It is a site that maintains and distributes climate data, and that provides a handy interface for performing basic analyses. It is telling that some guy in his basement has come up with a more public friendly user interface for climate data visulaization than all the governments of the world. His method lets you look at the data you want, the way you want to look at it, instead of being told a canned story that someone else wants you to hear.

    “The data that really matters.”

    The data that really matters to a discussion about surface temperature trends is … surface temperature data. And for the last 30+ years, we have been told that this is the data that matters when making multi-hundred trillion dollar decisions impacting personal freedom and the sovereignty of nations. Please have IPCC issue four very contrite retractions and disband before chastising the rest of us.

    “The data that shows what is happening in the oceans which is the main game in the climate. Here: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ Look at graphs 1 & 2 in their animation. 0-700 metres and 0-2000 metres.”

    Yes, look at that flat spot in the 0-700m ocean data. Ponder how much it resembles the flat spot in surface and atmospheric temps. Then compare it against the steeply rising prediction for 0-700m of the IPCC models.

    Then look at the 700-2000m data. Ponder how little of it there is. Then wonder how much of the “main game in the climate” is deeper than that, where there is effectively no data at all.

    “The oceans have kept right on heating through the 2000′s, its just that the heat is being drawn down deeper into the ocean so it doesn’t show up in the surface layer.”

    Being drawn deeper? How about not being drawn as deep, so it doesn’t disappear into the 75% of the ocean that you aren’t even looking at?

    “But warming is continuing unabated. Its just the heat is going somewhere else at the moment.”

    Another faith commitment.

    Ask yourself this … if heat can “go somewhere else at the moment”, then why do we care? Is it because you think that it can come back from the deeps to affect us at the surface? Really?

    Then ask yourself if you can point to the parts of the current climate models that account for heat having come back from the deep previously …

    Then ask yourself what the error bars of a measurement of such diffuse heat contained in such a large mass would be …

  95. Nick [Stokes], I really appreciate the heads up. I hate getting things so wrong. I don’t remember where I was led to believe that one set was with the additional Arctic data and the other was without. However, in retrospect, I should have known that such a smoking gun would not have been so easily available for comparison. I should have been more careful.

    Clearly the GISS is the outlier. NOAA and HadCRUT don’t have the same warming. Also my mobile regression for both NOAA and HadCRUT doesn’t find periods similar to 2001/01 to 2011/12 going back until getting into the cool period.

    Are you aware of any source for GISS data before hansenization?

  96. Glenn Tamblyn says:
    “My point first of all was that warming HASN’T stopped.”
    ===============
    No that’s not the point Glenn. This point is, will the warming be harmful to humans or life on this planet? If this warming goes somewhere else, as some now claim, then it would appear that those worries were exaggerated, no?

    Now all your talk of circulation changes in the deep ocean, etc., is interesting to speculate over, but more science fiction than science fact at this stage, given our level of understanding. But you do raise an interesting question as one or two others here have. Maybe the warmth from the atmosphere is being sucked into other things (ice melt, deep ocean, radiated back into space, etc.). This is what Trenberth refers to as the “missing heat”. What he complained about was not that the heat wasn’t there – he believed it was – but rather that scientists do not have the necessary tools to measure it. That’s not an unrational point of view, but it does present a problem for the sceptically minded. Since you assume something is there that you can’t measure (or believe it’s going somewhere else which will be far less harmful) how does one falsify such claims? Perhaps it’s not unreasonable to request that you come back and worry about AGW once you have observational rather than hypothetical concern?

  97. Tim Ball says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:56 am
    You have no idea how vicious, vindictive and vitriolic the attacks are until you dare to question the prevailing wisdom. Bullying his not just a problem in our schools. I warned many over the years of the reactions they would get if they went public about disparities between ‘official’ climate science and their findings…………..I warned Martin Durkin, producer of the Great Global Warming Swindle. He said he was used to negative reactions, but later told me he was surprised by the differences with his experience……..’
    ——————————————————————————————————–
    I re-watched that documentary the other day. Stependous!! I love documentaries but It, though, has to be one of the greatest of all time. Most documentaries are about the past whereas it was about the future. Right when it was wrong, and now even more so in both extremes!!! Any chance of contacting Mr. Durkin and getting him to pick up the trail from where he left off with that series and bring us up-to-date? Particularly in light of the FOIA revelations? And thanks for being brave enough to be on it—that took some guts. There should be a link to it here @ WUWT. Nothing has really changed on all the points it made. Although, the Sun’s role is not as route-one as I thought it would be when I got involved in this…which was before that docu came out,. I brought AGW hook line and sinker until I started hearing the Skeptical views which rang true. That documentary however, was a game changer.!

  98. George E. Smith; says:
    February 13, 2012 at 6:42 pm
    “Well Dirk, I can only relay what they told me; as for my German skills, I astonished them by telling them that I was able to literally tour all over Munich on the weekend by picking a road and following that road all over the city. They didn’t know of any such road so they asked me which road that was; “Einbahnstrasse” was my reply. They then clued me in as to what street that really was.”

    :-)

    For Non-German readers: Einbahnstrasse is one-way street, and Munich’s centre is full of them… so you would be able to continue your journey seamlessly from crossing to crossing by following those signs. Paris, BTW, is even worse in this regard.

  99. Charles Bruce Richardson Jr. says: February 13, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    “Are you aware of any source for GISS data before hansenization?”

    GISS’s main source for station data is GHCN. They have just switched to Version 3. They also use USHCN for US data, and a special Antarctic set SCAR. There is no special Arctic data, so you won’t find a no-Arctic version of their index.

    It’s true that Arctic data is sparse. You can get a perspective on GHCN station coverage there from this map. Click on the top R map to get N Pole in the centre (of the aphere), then “Show Stations” and Refresh. My own view is that the main Arctic difficulty is not station sparsity but how to handle SST’s when the water is intermittently frozen.

  100. Glenn Tamblyn says:

    “Actually, if all the CO2 where removed, from the atmosphere (and you would have to remove it from the oceans as well) eventually that change alone would lower temperatures by something of the order of 10 degC or so. But this would take time as the heat in the oceans would have to be dissapated. Then as the air gets colder the H2O content of the atmosphere would drop as well and its contribution to warmth would also drop. The net result would be something likea 30 DegC drop, probably more since the Earth would now be covered by ice and be very much more reflective.”

    Really? A 30C drop -probably more – just from removing CO2?

    The current “accepted” figure for the greenhouse effect of the entire atmosphere is only 33C. I’m not sure if the models accurately reflect this new knowledge of yours, that more than 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to the 0.03% CO2. You better call IPCC. Right away.

  101. the missing warming of the last 12 years

    Naturally this depends on the data set that is used. RSS, for example, has the longest trend of no warming whatsoever for a time of 15 years and two months, from December 1996 (slope = -9.04377e-05 per year). And once the February numbers are in, I expect this to increase by several more months. See:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1996.92/trend

    In lieu of comments by various warmists in the past, I wish to draw your attention to two things in the graph above.
    First of all, we were often criticized for starting a graph at the height of an El Nino and ending at the bottom on a La Nina. However notice in this case that while the right side of the green slope line is at a low spike, the left side is ALSO at a very low spike.
    Secondly, I read that this La Nina is the warmest La Nina on record. I will not dispute that, however look at the low spike for January 2012. It is very close to the low spikes of the 1996 La Nina. So if these people want to make a big deal of this fact, they must not have much to prove their case.

  102. Glenn Tamblyn says:
    February 13, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Well, better than going to a third party blog, why not go to a climate agency that processes the data? The data that really matters. The data that shows what is happening in the oceans which is the main game in the climate. Here: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ Look at graphs 1 & 2 in their animation. 0-700 metres and 0-2000 metres.
    ======================================================
    Yes, do that. Glenn, I haven’t looked into all of this much, but I guess I will……. But, there’s something very wrong with those graphs……. First of all, the first view is a bit misleading in their graphical representation….. you should click on the link below that says,”figures with error bars”…… There you’ll see that the warming at 0-700 meters range has stopped or nearly stopped since about 2003. But, yes, the 0-2000m seems to say that the oceans are getting warmer.

    Now a non-skeptic would look at that without critically thinking, simply accept it and then go pronounce that the end is nigh…….

    So, a review of the theory is in order….. the CO2 intercepts and absorbs IR energy. It sends it back to the earth. You correctly have stated that much of the earth is oceans, so most of the energy goes to the oceans……. there, it somehow travels downward beyond 700 meters without detection and then sits and heats up the 2000 and up, but not it isn’t heating the 700 meters and up as much. Is that about right?

    Tell me, what physical process has NOAA described that allows this heat to defy otherwise accepted laws of physics? Heat rises, and if heat rises and the heat source of the 2000-700m comes from above that, then the 700m-0 would be consistently hotter than 2000-0m.

    This is brilliant, we no longer need power lines to send energy, we can just call NOAA and have them teleport it.

    I wish someone would criminally investigate NOAA….. regardless of their rationalization, this is pure bs.

  103. As this whole tragedy is a religious one, consider a historical parallel.

    Once upon a time, not so long ago, there was a monk who didn’t like the way that the church was being run (in many ways). So he made up a list of complaints and nailed them to the doors of a cathedral. He then married a nun.

    The monk still believed in God, etc. etc, but he stopped believing in the old church.

    The converts to the reformed church gather while the old church denounces them as Satan’s spawn.

  104. JamesS says:
    February 13, 2012 at 11:51 am

    I was in Bavaria this spring and did the touristy things, including taking the train out to Fussen to see the Neuschwanstein Castle. Along the way were fields and fields of solar panels, which our tour guide proudly explained as Germany’s way of reducing CO2 output and saving the planet from global warming.

    Wow, that’s too bad. I visited there while serving in the US Army in the early 80s. It was a beautiful region. I can’t imagine it being polluted with solar panels. I weep.

  105. Steven says:
    February 13, 2012 at 1:54 pm
    The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real. … And even if there is no global warming, which I highly doubt, going “green” is still a smart choice.

    Those 97% were asked about AGW (“global warming”); but the debate is about CAGW.

    The reason such a high %age of scientists back the warmist cause is that they think there’s no downside to CO2 mitigation, or only a temporary one, and that “renewable energy” (going green) is fundamentally sound. It’s gradually becoming evident that the latter isn’t the case–that renewable energy has been greatly oversold. As this seeps into people’s awareness over the years, support for CO2 mitigation will decline, including among scientists.

  106. KnR says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:48 am
    ,,,.
    Lüning and Vahrenholt should be grateful we no longer live in the middle ages , for as ‘heretics’ they would have been burnt at the steak.

    Now, now. Heretics were not turned into steaks! Stake your word on it.

  107. DirkH says:
    February 13, 2012 at 8:11 pm
    For Non-German readers: Einbahnstrasse is one-way street, and Munich’s centre is full of them… so you would be able to continue your journey seamlessly from crossing to crossing by following those signs. Paris, BTW, is even worse in this regard.

    Paris is indeed worse and we now have cyclists allowed to ride the wrong way down one-way streets it is twice as terrifying.

  108. Yes, just when we thought the science was settled (we did, didn’t we?), these two guys come along and try to unsettle it, even in the greenest of our 190+ nations. The bandwagon of settled science in climatology has done a lot of what Vahrenholt says Feulner tried, to just sweep contradictory findings under the rug/off the table. Pretending the studies don’t exist – how childish is that? Especially when you get caught at it!

    We may not be winning yet, but we aren’t doing too bad. When we finally win, will we be better winners than the Hockey Team/Feulner?

    I can’t wait for the English version. I could possibly muddle through the German one, but I may not live long enough to finish it. LOL

    Steve Garcia

  109. There is something deeply uncomfortable about Germans calling people “deniers” and seeking to discredit, isolate and throw hate at people who challenge the “concensus”.

    The lessons of the past are obviously lost in Merkels Green Reich.

  110. Robertvdl says:
    February 13, 2012 at 2:25 pm
    Dr. Tim Ball thanks for the hard work you have done for so many years.They have attacked you on all possible ways but you stood firm in the storm. Never have so many owed so much to a man so humiliated.

    Robert van de Leur

    I’ll second that.

  111. DirkH @ February 13, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    George E. Smith; says
    “Well Dirk, I can only relay what they told me; as for my German skills, I astonished them by telling them that I was able to literally tour all over Munich on the weekend by picking a road and following that road all over the city. They didn’t know of any such road so they asked me which road that was; “Einbahnstrasse” was my reply. They then clued me in as to what street that really was.”
    :-)
    For Non-German readers: Einbahnstrasse is one-way street

    Don’t spoil it. I like to show videos of the Autobahn to illustrate that they all lead to “Ausfahrt” ;-)

  112. We have but one source of energy, It supplies us heat , magnetic flux and a stirring of gravity, the moon and planetary stirrings, effect the pudding a little as does our position in the galaxy. Thus the sun is our main man, it is a tad temperamental, I would suggest in a feminine way, that makes it some what unpredictable but in the long term understandable kind of, if your live long enough.

    I respect people such as these, who have a slow long look around and come to a conclusion totally at odds with which they have been associated. Well done.

  113. Dr. Svalgaard’s “Sun has nothing to do with climate” nonsense is officially finished, I hope?

    Whatever is the exact nature of the functional connection between the Solar activity and the Earth’s climate (I suspect that there are several such mechanisms interrelated, as usual in nature), to deny that there is such a connection would be a sheer obscurantism now (personally, considering the amount of power, money and human resources behind the AGW establishment, I always suspected that Dr. Svalgaard was marching in a column next beyond the fourth one).

  114. Dripstones in Oman contain both the cosmic ray and temperature trends for the past 8,000 years? Who would have known?

  115. Will Nitschke and JJ:
    You’re both misreading Glenn Tamblyn about the 10 degrees and the 30 degrees. Tamblyn did not attribute 30C directly to CO2. He attributed 10C directly to CO2.

    Glenn Tamblyn:
    Your remarks to Gary Meyers are probably not helpful to him. He seems to be arguing that the sun is responsible for far more warming (i.e., from absolute zero or something) than is claimed for CO2. No one denies that. In fact, no one even claims that CO2 warms the earth in the sense of being a furnace. But Gary seems to think that it falsifies global warming by CO2.

  116. Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:07 am
    Dripstones in Oman contain both the cosmic ray and temperature trends for the past 8,000 years? Who would have known?
    —————————————————
    What is a ‘drip stone’. How do they record ‘cosmic ray’ trends and ‘temperature trends’ (presumably seperately) and where in Oman are they located and who’s working on it?? Are their fingings published??
    Interesting comment Steve.

  117. @Will Nitschke
    The results of all 3200 who responded was published and they result was around 90% thought that temperatures had risen when asked
    “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively consta
    nt?”
    82% thought that human activity is a significant contributing factor when asked

    “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

    The 79 scientists are those actively publishing in climate science were 97% answered yes to the 2nd question. Even outside of those working in climate science the agreement is very convincing!

    Profession polling companies can estimate election results to within 1% based on a survey sample of around 0.0001%. You are criticising the sample size but that would only be a problem if statistically this group wasn’t representative of the population as a whole and the probability of that is extremely low I’m afraid. This figure is likely to be with a 1% of the opinion of the whole population.

    “ask a vague question that even most sceptics would agree to.”
    Really? So how many skeptics here think “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”?

  118. “John” says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:43 am

    The 79 scientists are those actively publishing in climate science were 97% answered yes to the 2nd question. Even outside of those working in climate science the agreement is very convincing!

    60 years ago, 100% of Soviet scientists polled would say in public that genetics is a bourgeois pseudo-science, and that so-called “geneticists” are paid agents of the decaying capitalist regimes unfit for any serious scientific publication (and deserving to die in labor camps) — for the very same reason you boast your “global warming consensus” today.

    Disgusting.

  119. John,

    The problem with the survey you quote is what is known as a self selecting sample. In other words, any answers that come from such a survey are merely confirmation of the prejudices of the sample population, and are utterly useless.

    In answer to your question, yep human activity would seem to be a significant contributor to changing global mean temperatures. It is, after all, humans who are constantly fiddling the data to get the results they want to see. Although I am not at all sure what use such a metric is in any event, other than PR.

    Earlier some have wondered what effect removing all CO2 from the atmosphere would be on temperatures; Really, it hardly matters since almost all life would be extinguished when the level fell below 90ppm, most higher forms at around 140ppm.

  120. Shaviv has quite clearly demonstrated that a solar amplification mechanism exists. He did that by showing that the amount of heat going into the oceans in the solar cycles is much larger than what you would expect from the variations in the solar flux alone. This implies that anyone trying to explain past climate variations with just changes in the sun’s brightness is doomed to fail.

    Have a look here: http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter

  121. Regarding 30 years as a base for calculation of average weather:
    The number 30 comes from random statistical sampling. With a RANDOM
    set of 30, taking a sample using the t test , you’re at the 95%
    confidence interval with a standard deviation of 1.7. The NORMAL
    distribution, with an infinite set has a standard deviation of 1.645
    at the 95% level. Using a normally distributed set of 30, you can
    disregard the t test for small samples when making 95% probability
    statements. The problem with the 30 years is that each year is not an independent random event- temperatures run in cycles.

    Consider these propositions and note the similar fallacy:

    30 is a reasonable number for a statistical test, so if I check the
    temperature 30 times over the next 30 minutes I will have a reasonable
    average for the temperatures for the whole day with 95% confidence.

    If I take the high and low temperatures over the next 30 days, I will
    be able to project the average temperature swings for the full year
    with 95% confidence,

    30 YEARS is NOT a normal random climate subset due to PDO cycles of 60
    years or more, 22 year solar cycles, etc., just as 30 minutes is NOT a
    random sample of daily temps, nor is 30 days a random sample of YEARLY
    temps.

  122. Johnnythelowery says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:39 am

    Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:07 am
    Dripstones in Oman contain both the cosmic ray and temperature trends for the past 8,000 years? Who would have known?
    —————————————————
    What is a ‘drip stone’.
    —————————————————
    Stalactites and stalagmites. Minerals precipitated out of water as it drips into sub-surface cavities, the precipitates forming layers of stone, providing a sequential history of minerals and their isotopes.

  123. John says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:43 am
    @Will Nitschke
    The results of all 3200 who responded was published and they result was around 90% thought that temperatures had risen when asked
    “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

    If those people are “scientists” with any knowledge of the planets climate, then shouldn’t that figure be “risen” 100% or at least 98% with a +/- of 2%?

    If one doesn’t know that we’ve been warming since the end of the LIA, then their opinion really is worthless in this discussion in my opinion. (Note we are not being specific on the rate or amount of the increased warming, just that it has occurred.)

    The survey is useless except as a demonstration of how not to conduct a proper survey.

    It does not surprise me that supporters of the CAGW by CO2 concept embrace it.

  124. John,

    Prior to 1800 the world was in the grip of the Little Ice Age. Of course scientists, including climate skeptics, agree that the world has warmed since then. The 10% who voted “no” were possibly thinking of the Medieval Warm Period or one of the other several warm periods which also occurred before 1800. It’s a pity the question wasn’t phrased more tightly. But what does this prove ? If the world weren’t warmer than in the Little Ice Age then we would really have something to worry about !

    Has the contribution of humans to this warming been significant ? Well, what do you mean by significant ? Most ( but not all ) skeptics are lukewarmers, meaning that they agree that CO2 warms the world, but by nothing like the amounts postulated by the IPCC. Such skeptics would probably say that maybe 0.3 degC out of the 0.8 degC warming since 1850 might be due to CO2 or some similar figure. Is this significant ? It’s significant as a proportion of the total warming but insignificant as an absolute level of warming. So how should a skeptic answer the question ? Again, it should have been more tightly phrased.

    And how many of the people who took part in the survey have actually studied the evidence as opposed to assuming that “the scientists” must know what they’re talking about. It’s a natural human trait to jump on a bandwagon ? Most of the people who frequent this blog started off as CAGW believers until they began looking at the evidence for themselves and using their critical thinking skills.

    And what about the scientists who weren’t invited to take part ? The survey was distributed to Earth Scientists. So, solar physicists who may find the cosmic ray theory convincing were not polled. Engineers who may assert that the whole greenhouse gas theory breaks the laws of thermodynamics were not polled. Botanists who are aware that stomata studies contradict the accepted history of CO2 concentrations were not polled, Etc, etc.

    And finally, SO WHAT !!!! Science is not decided by consensus, but by evidence.

  125. Those that hang on to tiny solar variability are marching in the fourth column with those who hang onto tiny CO2 variability. Earth’s own intrinsic drivers of variability have WAY more energy in the many oscillations to create cooling and warming trends.

    Unbiased, unfudged math should trump belief, and the null hypothesis should prevail on both sides. But in reading the comments above from both sides (solar vs CO2), belief trumps all and the null hypothesis has been hijacked.

  126. Alexander Feht says:
    February 14, 2012 at 2:47 am

    Dr. Svalgaard’s “Sun has nothing to do with climate” nonsense is officially finished, I hope?

    Can you please show us where Dr. Svalgaard has ever said such a thing? I believe what you meant to say is that he has shown that TSI from the Sun isn’t variable enough to account for large climate shifts. That’s a far cry from saying “Sun has nothing to do with climate”.

  127. Steven says:
    The majority of scientists have concluded that Global warming is real. (its 97% to 3% but it varies 1 to 2% based on what poll your using) Deniers are betting millions of lives, destruction and devastation, and damages that could bankrupt the world. And even if there is no global warming, which I highly doubt, going “green” is still a smart choice.

    JF: Cut that majority ( consensus) Gump, it does not wash! If you want to believe in CAGW that is up to you. But do yourself a favour and crack a few books. You will find you have been conned.

  128. ScienceBlogs has an article titled, “Global Warming Is Ruining The Minnesota Winter”, and of course places the blame for the above average warmth in the continental US on global warming. It concludes with “Yup, Global Warming is a) Real; b) complex and c) a serious matter.”

    I just left the following message and I’m curious to see what response I get, if any, or even if it passes the moderator’s shepherds hook.

    In the meantime, “global warming” has killed 600 people in Europe, with more to follow. There’s snow in the Sahara desert. The Danube is frozen over. Regional anomalies do not indicate a trend – in either direction. Attributing all recent warming to increased CO2 is simply wrong and for all the fear mongering about a warmer climate, it is the cold that is killing us now.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/02/13/at-least-600-across-europe-die-in-deep-freeze-215-in-russia-alone/

  129. Johnnythelowery says:
    February 14, 2012 at 4:39 am

    How do they record ‘cosmic ray’ trends and ‘temperature trends’ (presumably separately) and where in Oman are they located and who’s working on it?

    Johnny,
    From Neff et al paper in Nature, May 2001:
    “The 18-O [oxygen isotope] record from the stalagmite, which serves as a proxy for variations in the tropical circulation and monsoon rainfall, allows us to make a direct comparison of the 18-O record with the 14-C [carbon isotope] record from tree rings, which largely reflects changes in solar activity. The excellent correlation between the two records suggests that one of the primary controls on centennial- to decadal-scale changes in tropical rainfall and monsoon intensity during this time are variations in solar radiation.”

    Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show a graph of cosmic ray (intensity?) versus time and temperature versus time to show the close correlation between temperature change and cosmic ray intensity. The correlation is quite incredible (it makes me wonder if it is real). The correlation is so incredible in fact, that I wonder why this is not done routinely from every tropical cave containing stalagmites (and if it is – who is hiding the data). They can’t use stalactites because the correlation is inverted .

  130. John:
    “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

    “The 79 scientists are those actively publishing in climate science were 97% answered yes to the 2nd question. Even outside of those working in climate science the agreement is very convincing!”

    Profession polling companies can estimate election results to within 1% based on a survey sample of around 0.0001%. You are criticising the sample size but that would only be a problem if statistically this group wasn’t representative of the population as a whole and the probability of that is extremely low I’m afraid. This figure is likely to be with a 1% of the opinion of the whole population.
    ============================
    Unfortunately, the question was intentionality deceptive because to the wider public “significant” means “major” but to the scientific community, “[statistical] significance” means measured within specified certainty bounds. A measurable 5% effect with 95% confidence can therefore be “significant”.

    Given that criteria, as a sceptic myself, I would also have to answer ‘yes’ to such a question. There are virtually no scientific sceptics who disagree with the proposition that CO2 has an effect. The disagreement is that most sceptics consider it relatively small, while most alarmists consider it huge.

    The problem with your second claim is that the tiny size of the sample is not the only problem, but the selection criteria. It is telling that the author of the study had a much larger sample they could have reported on, but did not choose to do so. Why? One can only speculate but a reasonable surmise might be that the larger sample did not achieve the desired rhetorical effect.

  131. Glenn Tamblyn says:
    February 13, 2012 at 6:30 pm

    Well, better than going to a third party blog, why not go to a climate agency that processes the data? The data that really matters. The data that shows what is happening in the oceans which is the main game in the climate. Here: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ Look at graphs 1 & 2 in their animation. 0-700 metres and 0-2000 metres.

    The fallacy if interpreting NOAA’s OHC graphs as “the missing heat” overlooks that in reality they represent nothing more than the ocean’s latent response to the warming of the earth throughout the Holocene interglacial and possibly rebound from the LIA. I would expect to see increasing OHC. For those who don’t understand the charts, they’re not measuring temperature but rather estimated heat content calculated from water density, salinity, halosteric and thermosteric changes, and temperature. There are other factors involved which are difficult to quantify but could be significant. Since NOAA doesn’t lay out their calculations we’re left to guess at whether OHC has any true relevance to the AWG narrative but it’s a good straw for alarmists to grab onto.

    To claim that OHC is rising and somehow capturing the heat gone missing during stagnation of global warming over the past decade and that it will later result in a sudden release of that heat requires that we resolve several rather problematic propositions:

    1) The OHC graphs don’t appear to be accounting for the missing warming of the past decade else there would be a sudden uptick coincidental to it and it isn’t there. If you zoom in on graph 1, there appears to be the opposite – a leveling trend of OHC from 2002 forward. OHC is not increasing to account for the global warming hiatus.

    2) We accept that there is a switch of unknown mechanism that flipped, causing the ocean to suddenly start storing heat and that switch will un-flip at some point in the future to suddenly resume global warming with a vengeance. There exists no such switch except possibly the transport speed of the thermohaline conveyers which you allude to but…

    3) The thermohaline conveyors must speed up and slow down suddenly to change the heat transport between ocean and atmosphere. The inertial mass of the conveyers dictate that this can’t happen in the course of a few years as would need to happen to account for the hiatus. What is the mechanism that causes the sudden shift of gears (please don’t quote models)?

    4) The sudden conveyance of SST heat to lower depths somehow snuck past the entire ARGO array.

    5) This unknown mechanism is a powerful negative feedback. AGW theory relies on positive feedbacks to explain the role of CO2 in GCM’s. If this powerful negative feedback switches to positive somehow, then how do we rule out that it has been driving the warming of recent decades?

    • Hank H…..
      you are right that there must be a powerful mechanism out there, to this day little known.
      This mechanism is Earth’s orbital forcing due to orbit OSCULATION, easy explained
      in my booklet, on German Amazon.de: ISBN978-3-86805-604-4,
      Das Ende der globalen Erwaermung
      The mechanism is demonstrated in detail, no models used, all based on plain facts…
      JS

  132. Since there have been a number of resplies I will respond to them consecutively here.

    I did not say that CO2 directly causes the 30C or so decrease if it is removed. I said that CO2 would cause around 10 C decrease. But that this temperature decrease would then cause are sufficient decrease in Water vapour levels that the reduction in water vapour then supplies most of the rest of the cooling. So CO2 removal DIRECTLY causes around 10 C then indirectly via its impact on whater vapour levels causes the rest. Water vapour levels in the atmosphere are constrained bt air temperature. The water vapour feedback that is a part of the AGW theory suggests a 2-3 fold multiplication of the warming from CO2 due to wter vapour levels increasing, and some question this.

    However what cannot be questioned is that as air is cooled it is unable to hold as much water vapour. The Clausius Claperon eqn requires this and all the science and technology used in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning confirms it. To de-humidify air as part of an Air-Conditioning plants operation the air is cooled to a low enough point to force water to condense. In humid environments AC equipment often includes chillers to drive the moisture out of the air and then heaters to partially re-warm the drier air.

    So while hypothetical mechanisms might be suggested that inhibit the water vapour feedback role in a warming world, no mechanism is possible that can prevent colder air from drying out. The approximate figure used for the relationship between temperature and water vapour content is that a 1 DegC change in temperature will cause a 6.5% change in water vapour content.So a 10 DegC cooling would drop water vapour levels by around 2/3rds. And this drop in water vapour levels in turn has a further cooling effect.

    So the point of the oft quoted 30 (or 33) DegC cooling in a GH free world is that CO2 contributes part of that and declining water vapour levels contribute the rest.

    This 30/33 figure is only approximate however. In a much colder & drier atmosphere clouds would diminish markedly since there is much less evaporation to support their existence. Since different cloud types have warming or cooling effects, what the net impact of cloud cover changes would be is hard to gauge. So mayber more than 30/33 cooling, maybe less. However, since it only takes a 6-8 DegC cooling to constitute a full Ice Age, cooling of 20-30- DegC would involve the spread of Ice Sheets to much lower latitudes than anything seen during a simple Ice Age. And with somuch more reflective ice at lower latitudes, covering a larger proportion of the Earth, with a more front on aspect to the Sun, reflection of Sunlight from the surface would increase substantially, adding a further cooling effect. The 30/33 figure is very much an ‘All Else Being Equal’ number. In reality the real GH free Earth would probably be much colder again.

    And CO2 ( and the other non-condensing GH gases to a lesser extent) is the driver of this. Not because of its direct effect. But because of its impact on other factors that magnify its impact. This is why it is referred to as the Biggest Control Knob for the Climate. It’s smaller level effects impact on other things that act as positive feedbacks.

    Now you may dispute whether these positive feedbacks will occur in the context of warming. But the positive feedbacks in a reduced CO2 world cannot be disputed, not unless you want to explain to every Air Conditioning and Refrigeration technician in the world how they actually know nothing about their profession.

  133. “The data that really matters to a discussion about surface temperature trends is … surface temperature data.”

    I completely disagree. When we are looking at data and trying to draw conclusions from it, we cannot simply say – ‘this bit of data says X, therefore we can reach conclusion Y”

    We have to apply our understanding of how the system we are looking at works. We may not know everything about that system but what we do know has validity. So if we are interested in what is happening to surface temps, and what might happen to them in the future we need to look at all the data that has a bearing on why surface temps are doing what they are doing. Just looking at what surface temps are doing doesn’t automatically tell us anything useful about why they are doing it. If we don’t bring even a basic understanding of the underlying mechanisms that are the cause of the surface temps, every bit of data we have is worthless because we aren’t using it to inform our understanding.

    So when the amount of accumulated heat from AGW over the last 1/2 century has gone 90% into the oceans and only 3% into the Surface Temps, we REALLY REALLY REALLY need to consider the 90% before draw any conclusions about the 3%. You cannot understand the Dog just by considering its Tail

    So when discussing Surface Trends. We can look back at past surface trends as a rather dry and dusty exercise in record keeping. But if we want to look at the possible future surface trends, which presumably is the whole point of why we are blogging rather than drinking beer, watching sports and discussing the endless trivialities of celebreties lives, we need to ask what drives these future trends. Just looking at numbers and projecting them out is given the unflattering but all to accurate label of Mathturbation. Real discussion is always about the why questions.

    Put simply, if the Tail has stopped wagging, what does that mean? Has the dog died? Is it exhausted? Has it seen a cat? Has it seen a rabbit? Has it seen a bitch dog on heat? Has it seen a rival? Is it afraid of being hit for chewing the slippers? Sadly we can’t make any conclusions about this by just looking at its tail. If you are interested in what the tail might do in future, you need to look at the whole dog.

    So back to the point. The discussion isn’t about surface temperature trends. Thats just dusty history. The discussion is about what we can conclude about likely future surface temperature trends based on what we can see now. And current surface temperature trends tell us diddly-squat about future trends unless we ask the WHY questions. You can’t predict what the tail will do tomorrow based just on what the Tail did today unless you underestand why the tail did what it did today. To do that you need to understand the Dog.

    Anything else is Mathturbation

  134. “Yes, look at that flat spot in the 0-700m ocean data. Ponder how much it resembles the flat spot in surface and atmospheric temps.” Well spotted. They are actually well linked. Thats Thermodyamics. Flat upper ocean equals flat SSt’s equals flat Air Temps. Tails and Dogs again.

    “Then compare it against the steeply rising prediction for 0-700m of the IPCC models.” Could you give me a citation for this specific prediction for 0-700M from the models? And how much does it matter if the models are a little bit wrong. The predict so much for 0-700 and so much for 0-2000 and they are WRONG!!! A little bit. That is like arguing that although most pieces in a jig-saw puzzle suggest a farmland scene, just like it shows on the box, a fiew pices make it look like a picture of an Apollo Launch. So its ALL WRONG!!!

    Then this: “Then look at the 700-2000m data. Ponder how little of it there is. “!!
    Do you mean time span, coverage, what? Very vague. How little of what? If I assume that you mean time span, so what? The point is that during the period where Argo gave us 0-700 & 0-2000, the net of 0-2000 (which just happens to include and thus subsumes 0-700) continued warming. And given that the average depth of the oceans is around 3800 metres, Argo is giving us about 1/2 the ocean.

    Then this: “main game in the climate” is deeper than that, where there is effectively no data at all.”

    NOT TRUE! Although there is nothing like the continuous coverage given by ARGO or the Earlier XBT’s, sampling of the deep ocean continues. Its expensive and slow – ship stops, lowers instrument platform over the side to the sea bottom, not just 2000 metres, recovers instrument platform, moves on, repeat process. Oceanographic research vessels from many nations are doing this all the time. Enough to get an approximate sense of what is happening down deep, below the range of Argo. What do they see? A bit of warming, particularly in the bottom waters around the Antarctic. But no indication of some vast deep pool of warming that could be coming up from the deeps.THe abyssal ocean has warmed, but not enough to be the source of the mid level warming seen by Argo.

    Besides, if there was already this warmth down in the true deeps, that has now come to the mid-depths, this would not cause an increase in sea level due to thermal expansion. After allowing for sea level rise due to added water from melting ice, a reasonable component of sea level rise has been caused by thermal expansion of sea water. If the heat at the mid-depths is simply unaccounted for heat from the great deeps moving upwards, the net effect on sea level would be zero. Instead we are seeing the upper half of the ocean accumulating heat. Sea level rise says this can’t be coming from deeper in the ocean since it is extra heat – hence the sea level rise. The only available source of additional heat is from above. If the Thermosteric component of sea level rise was constant then maybe heat fro the abyss might be an explanation. But Thermosteric eal level rie say this is additional heat. The only possible source of this is from above. Warming hasn’t stopped. But it is being cycled deeper. It can’t be coming from deeper down because the sea level data precludes this possibility.

  135. “Ask yourself this … if heat can “go somewhere else at the moment”, then why do we care? Is it because you think that it can come back from the deeps to affect us at the surface? Really?”

    Because the fact that it is going ‘somewhere else’ means that warming is still occurring, contrary to what some might wish to believe.And eventually that warming will effect everything. Might more heat be drawn into the oceans quicker than models predict? Yes, maybe. Or this might be a temporary hiatus that will reverse in a few years which is what the models seem to predict. Either way, the idea that warming has stopped is false. So eventually eveything will be affected. And tat is what we are concerned about. The time scale is decades to perhaps centuries. Maybe the oceans warm faster than expected. Maybe this is a temporary hiatus and atmospheric warming rates will resume in a few years. Either way, as long as warming somewhere is continuing, eventually everywhere will be warmer. And that is the whole point.

  136. “Then ask yourself if you can point to the parts of the current climate models that account for heat having come back from the deep previously …”

    You are misunderstanding this. Heat doesn’t ‘come back from anywhere’. Rather if somewhere gets ‘filled up’ with heat, later it will be other places that start filling.

  137. “No that’s not the point Glenn. This point is, will the warming be harmful to humans or life on this planet? If this warming goes somewhere else, as some now claim, then it would appear that those worries were exaggerated, no?”

    Faulty reasoning. The warming has to go into all parts of the climate system, in proportion to the capacity of each part to absorb energy. Whether different parts may or may not absorb energy faster or slower than we currently think (or more likely that the rate of absorption of the different components may experience fluctuating rates of absorption), ultimately the question is ‘how much energy will each of the compenents in the system absorb and what impact will that have on us. To be told that other parts of the system might absorb more for a while compared to the part of the system I live in is cold comfort if I know that my part of the system will eventually reacy as well. Whether some thing terrible happens to me slowly and steadily, with a rush at the beginning, or with a rush at the end is all rather moot. If the terrible thing is going to happen, I just want to prevnt it – period.

  138. “Maybe the warmth from the atmosphere is being sucked into other things (ice melt, deep ocean, radiated back into space, etc.)”

    Possibly. However, when we look at possibilities like this we can’t just pose such hypotheticals in purely qualitative terms. It isn’t just whether heat may be moving to/from A, B or C. It is how much heat – quantitative thinking. And it is here that the huge heat capacity of the oceans limits what is possible in terms of other distributional possibilities. The Argo data suggests additional heat added to the oceans in recent years at around 1 * 10^22 joules per year. Such an amount of heat added to the ocean warms the ocean by small fractions of a degree. However, in contrast, if such an amount of heat were added to the atmosphere each year it would increase air temps by roughly 2 DegC per year. So redistribution of heat can occur. But as soon as any significant change in heat content occurs in the oceans, the scale of it precludes any other terrestrial cause. Warmin in the oceans in the last 5 years can’t be due to something local like heat from the atmosphere – that would be the equivalent of an Ice Age temperature change in just 5 years.heat

  139. “Tell me, what physical process has NOAA described that allows this heat to defy otherwise accepted laws of physics? Heat rises, and if heat rises and the heat source of the 2000-700m comes from above that, then the 700m-0 would be consistently hotter than 2000-0″

    Yes, if the only driving force for heat flow was local buoyancy forces due to the vertical temperature gradient. However, the oceans are a bit more complex than that. Other forces drive various circulation patterns that are stronger than local buoyancy. Cold currents rise from the deeps to the surface, creating great fishing grounds, warm currents sink. This is driven by the engine of Thermo-Haline Circulation. In the open oceans circulation patterns called Gyres dominate local circulation patterns. The vertical thermal gradient does limit downwards heat flow generally, but these types of current systems can overwhelm the local buoyancy forces in some locations, allowing warm water to sink and cold water to rise. Looking at just thermal gradients as the driver of ocean movements is a bit simplistic. What appears to drive the heat exchange I am describing, and remember these are observations, is changes in the flow rates of tropical gyres in the major oceans.

  140. @Glenn Tamblyn says:

    “Because the fact that it is going ‘somewhere else’ means that warming is still occurring, contrary to what some might wish to believe.”

    If the heat goes into space why care? That’s if the missing heat actually exists at all to boot and is not just statistical fantasy that seem to riddle so much else of the climatological adventures and their results.

  141. @John

    “Profession polling companies can estimate election results to within 1% based on a survey sample of around 0.0001%. ”

    No they can’t. Serious “Polling companies” use previous observed outcomes in compare with their poll to claim a projection, but for that to have any value they can’t work with a fart sized sub group out of only a mere 30% who answered. It is those 30% that should’ve been at least 70% for there to be enough data to work to make some sort of qualified analysis. You can’t make a serious analysis with one third of the data points and to claim there are professionals who does it with about 3% of those pathetic 30% are bunch of lying hippies.

  142. Glenn a few of us made fun of your assertion that CO2 drives 90% of the atmosphere’s temperature. You start off by pointing out that this is not what you meant then write a long post that reinforces that this is what you meant…

    The other point you seem to waffle around is that if the missing heat is being diffused into the deep ocean (unfortunately, where we cannot measure it either, so we have to take your word on this), then it is perhaps rather simplistic to imply that it will somehow just “pop back out’ later and bite us. That diffused heat is for all intents and purposes gone for tens, or thousands of years, or possibly longer.

    “Whether some thing terrible happens to me slowly and steadily, with a rush at the beginning, or with a rush at the end is all rather moot.”

    I suspect the sentence above says it better than anything else you’ve written. We may not have any scientific evidence to support your speculations, but nonetheless you are convinced it will come back all at once and suddenly. It sounds a little too much like an apocalyptic vision to me…

  143. The cold wind of reality doth blow.
    It blows through chinks in crumbling walls,
    It blows through cracks beneath the door.
    Draught protection is no avail,
    The cold wind of reality is becoming a gale.

    Its cooling, folks.

  144. Joachim Seifert says:
    February 14, 2012 at 3:10 pm </blockquote

    This is getting most interesting. Is the abstract or manuscript available in English. My German is bad to non existent. Orbital oscillation, angular momentum, wobble, and all is certainly in play but I'm curious about how you correlate orbital oscillation to decadal or multidecadal climate regimes.

    Kind regards,

    Hank

    • To HankH:
      I will have a paper in English ready by summer…
      But I believe, with over 30 graphs in the booklet, one should get a good grasp of
      demonstrations and what has been left out on purpose by the IPCC/Warmists…
      all is unrefuted or better unrefutable….
      JS Author

  145. “Cold currents rise from the deeps to the surface, creating great fishing grounds, warm currents sink. This is driven by the engine of Thermo-Haline Circulation.”

    This is sheer nonsense, on par with the fantasy that deep oceanic waters are warmed without warming the near-surface waters. By definition, thermohaline circulation is a GRAVITY-driven phenomenon, in which water density is the ONLY variable. Upwelling that brings colder subsurface waters to the surface is WIND-driven and usually confined to continental shelves. Those who seek to rescue the idea of “missing heat” from the workings of entropy drown their credibility in oceanographic ignorance.

  146. @ Pamela Gray and Jeff Alberts:

    Dr. Svalgaard asserted, many times and in many different ways, that changes in Solar activity (not only in TSI but also in the number of sunspots, in the intensity if the UV radiation, etc.) cannot drive the Earth’s climate, that there is no mechanism connecting Solar events with Earth’s temperature, no interaction whatsoever between the Solar magnetic field and that of Earth, etc., etc. While it is possible that he didn’t express his opinions in exactly the same words that I have chosen for brevity, the essence of his view, as it is understood by the majority of people reading his posts, is exactly that the Sun has nothing to do with the Earth’s climate.

    Moreover, Dr. Svalgaard prefers to express his views on this subject in very sarcastic and, quite often, insulting terms addressed to Mr. Archibald, Mr. Scaffetta, and many others. Yes, I don’t like Leif Svalgaard’s arrogant, condescending attitude, his semi-literate English (which, I suspect, is just a handy way of obfuscation), his habit of evading direct answers by resorting to links leading to his own works (as if they prove anything), and his narrow-minded denial of possibilities extending beyond the limits of the existing college textbooks. And I don’t see any reason, why I should be always silent about it. But if you prefer to waste your time discussing abstract advantages of the “null hypothesis,” and to demand exact quotes from the complete collection of posts by Dr. Svalgaard, I am no game. Life is too short.

    I am interested in the explanation of the obvious relationship between the Solar activity and the climate around us, such as Dr. Svensmark’s theory, rather than in the endless squabble about superannuated textbook maxims and personal egos, masqueraded as “scientific discussion.”

  147. @John

    “Profession polling companies can estimate election results to within 1% based on a survey sample of around 0.0001%. ”

    Polling companies try to make that 0.0001% a random selection from the population as a whole. When only 30% of those being polled respond, you cannot assume that’s a random sample. When they saw the questionnaire, and how biased the questions were, maybe the 70% who don’t believe in CAGW, and saw the poll as CAGW propaganda, threw the junk mail in the garbage.

  148. “Glenn Tamblyn says:

    “The data that really matters to a discussion about surface temperature trends is … surface temperature data.”

    I completely disagree.

    You don’t disagree at all, let alone completely. You just talk past the discussion, hitting your talking points.

    Once again, we have been sold a bill of goods for the last thirty some odd years. This meme and its predetermined conclusion were conceived, defined, developed, communicated, “settled”, and declared to be “incontrovertable” based on global average surface temperature. Period. If you don’t like that, you need to take it up with those who pulled those stunts. They have names like Hansen, Mann, Schidt and Patchouli, and you won’t find them here.

    You don’t get to condescendingly chastise us for responding to their position in the terms with which they defined it, on the playing field that they laid out. Doing so is nothing more than a lousy and very transparent attempt to prop up and continue the promotion of their conclusions, which you (correctly) claim are based on an incomplete conceptualization of the issue. Jimmy and Mikey fiddle with the data and hide the decline and tell us we are all going to die if we dont cede them authority, because surface temperatures are going up. When surface temperatures stop going up, and even fall for a while, Glenn says “that’s dusty record keeping – look over here”.

    No.

    You want to talk about heat content of the thermosphere? Then return to first principles and formulate the “global warming” argument on that basis. You dont get to pretend that you can just pick up where the last line of propaganda stumbled and carry on with “the Cause”. Changing the basis isn’t just for this point forward, it has to be performed on every step that got you here.

    Woof, woof.

  149. Yeah, right, BRILLIANT.

    Keep clapping, morons. No doubt the next ‘final nail in the coffin’ of climate science will appear any day now for you to bray over. How many have there been so far anyway? That should be one well-nailed coffin. But the science keep stubbornly marching on.

    Have fun being on the wrong side of history.

    [this may well be appropriate comment elsewhere but it doesn't add much to the debate does it? In fact it makes you look like a troll which I am sure is not the case but please try and add rather than subtract . . thank you . . kbmod]

  150. Steven Sullivan says:
    February 15, 2012 at 9:02 am
    That should be one well-nailed coffin. But the science keep stubbornly marching on.

    Let me rephrase that. The data keep adding more nails. One has to go back to the 1940s to find a time when a previous high temperature mark was not beaten for 10 years according to the Hadcrut3 data. See:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

    The 1953 mark was beaten in 1963, which was beaten in 1973, etc. So in ten years or less, a new modern day record was set. However their mark of 1998 has not been beaten yet and this year does not look promising either. The HadCrut3 data for January is not out yet, but the January RSS data would put 2012 in 26th place if that anomaly continued for the rest of the year. In my opinion, every year that goes by without the 1998 record being beaten by HadCrut3 is another nail in the coffin for CAGW.

  151. It’s interesting that so many people repeat the 97%-of-all-scientists meme, but no one repeats the claim from An Inconvenient Truth that in a sample of (I think it was) 928 scientists, 100% said they accept the global warming thesis.

    I suspect this is because 97% sounds more plausible. But I have to admire Al for refusing to go only part-way.

  152. To Alexander Feht:
    Get my booklet (In German) from German Amazon.de ISBN 978-3-86805-604-4
    explaining in detail the astronomical aspects and the substantial forcing of the orbit OSCULATION…..
    (not oscillation)….too bad, Leif Svalsgaard has a bad attitude…..he reckons, he
    knows it all, whereas there is substantially more, which he refuses to look at…
    typical Warmist ignorance…..obstinance….
    ….I have hope that one fine day he will exercise self-criticism…
    JS

  153. I has a scratch around John Cooks place where they’re discussing this.
    A huge graph is put up Fig 1 on this page
    It says that Global Heat Content has risen by 200*10e21 Joules since 1960. That is one huge scary number and it is one scary looking graph.

    But, there are 1.2*10e21 kg of water on the Earth, hence less than 200 Joules of extra energy per kilogram.

    The Specific Heat Content of water is 4200J per kg per deg C so surely that means the world’s water has warmed by 200/4200 degrees centigrade, or, about 0.05’C

    What is so scary about that? What is wrong with those people?

  154. “too bad, Leif Svalsgaard has a bad attitude…..he reckons, he
    knows it all, whereas there is substantially more, which he refuses to look at…”
    =================
    Here is my observation: Leif is a sceptic in the best sense of the word. He talks about what he does know and is silent on those topics that are currently unanswerable. (The opposite habit, perhaps, of most of the posters here.) Now, nothing wrong with speculation, but some posters here tend to blur the line between imparting information and speculating about causes.

  155. Will Nitschke says:
    February 15, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Here is my observation: Leif is a sceptic in the best sense of the word. He talks about what he does know and is silent on those topics that are currently unanswerable.

    Get better glasses. Svalgaard speaks often, loudly, and rudely, about “topics that are currently unanswerable,” including cosmology, elementary particles, and other things he knows nothing about. He is not a skeptic, he is a stick in the mud.

    • In astronomy, its a standard term….there are osculating elements….
      in this case it concerns the the Earth’s ecliptic plane of the orbit, which does not stay fixed
      but moves slightly up and down and the planet Earth ” touches (kisses) slightly alternately the top
      and the bottom ecliptic plane… go into the astronomy…..and look for the osculating elements….

  156. “”””” Joachim Seifert says:

    February 15, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    In astronomy, its a standard term….there are osculating elements….
    in this case it concerns the the Earth’s ecliptic plane of the orbit, which does not stay fixed “””””

    Nothing wrong with your English Joachim; as you say, I believe you are correct in saying that “osculating” ; aka “kissing” is in fact a detail of orbital elements, and the word is used because of that ordinary “kissing” connotation. It is one of those orbital details along the lines of “nutation” where for example, the moon shows us slightly more of itself than one half, because its orbit about earth is NOT perfectly circular.

    If the lunar orbit were a perfect circle, and the moon had locked onto earth so that one face always faced earth, then the orbital frequency would exactly math the rotation frequency; but since the orbit is NOT circular, then the moon slows down and speeds up in its orbit; but its rotation rate is essentially fixed, because the moment of inertia of the moon, simply will not allow it to have any significant frequency modulation component. It would take an enormous torque to rock the moon back and forth on its axis, speeding up and slowing down to match the orbital speedchanges, so that we only ever saw one half of the face. So the constant rotation rate of the moon allows it to rotate a bit ahead of itself when furthest from earth and slowest in orbit, and then it catches up by the time it is at perigee, and then it gets behind as the orbital angular velocity is now higher than the rotational.
    So no need to hit the English books Joachim; you got your astronomical kissing osculation term correct.

  157. Right on as always, George. But sadly I’ve lost a gif of the moon’s wobbling face as seen from earth. It was a time lapse that showed that the moon exposed a little more than 50% of it’s face to we earthlings over the course of a month. It was fascinating. It’s out there in cyberspace somewhere, but I’ve been unable to locate it. [I read all of your posts, BTW, and appreciate your immense knowledge & experience.]

    • This movement of the Moon is in Wikipedia under “Libration” ….. this movement allows
      more than 50% of the Moon to be seen… Libration is a spiral shaped motion, the Moon spirals
      or “ligates” around its mean progressive path…..Now, what has been left out by the IPCC is
      that the Earth itself also spirals/ ligates around its progressive path, and there even is a trojan
      object in the Earth’s orbit, following Earth in spiral/ligating/librating movement….see trojan libration….
      Since spirals always have a diameter, on can put a bottom ecliptic plane to the spiral bottom and the real Earth trajectory touches or “kisses” (I believe, an astronomic aficionado invented this term) this plane from above….the second plane is put from above and the spiral progresses in between the two planes…..
      thus osculating between the lower and the upper plane….
      Actually, this movement is underrated by NASA JPL……and therefore missing in the climate
      discussion… everybody focusses on atmospheric events, while one has to look to something
      energetically stronger for climate change than Ninas, cloud formation, CO2 etc…..
      JS

  158. It was related to the comments (Joachim, George, Smokey). I just wanted to help and posted a link to lunar libration with animations.

    [REPLY: That thread seems to have wandered a bit. Go ahead and repost your animations. -REP]

  159. Seifert, Smith, Smokey, Edim….

    Thanks for the enlightenment. Learn something new every day. But I gotta get a bigger dictionary.
    : > )

  160. If it is spoken of solar activity and/or ‘cosmic ray’, whatever that mean, and cycles until 9000 years ago, the question comes up, what kind of ‘engine’ these strange cycles effects global temperatures. There are unfortunately no precise NASA ephemerides for the objects prior to 3000 BCE, and so it is a problem to verify the stalagmite spikes in the figure from Neff et al.
    But because the main cycle is fixed to 2/1827 years maybe a shift of some periods can bring more light in that Neff et al. spikes.

    It must be said that the oxygen marker differs from the carbon marker, but it seems that some of the GHI 3 spikes are coincident with some Neff et al. spikes. Maybe a blow up for this time window can show more.

    That there is this astronomic cycle in effect shows the temperature reconstruction of E. Zorita (ECHO) for one millenium.

    However is seems, that I am the only one studying and interested in the relation of solar tide spectra and terrestrial global temperatures, despised all the linarar fits and extrapolations of decades.

    V.

  161. Looks like “nutation” is the axis wobble of a run down top; I blieve that is the 26,000 year wander of the pole star.

    Dunno where Wikileaks gets an orbital spiral from; well without an atmosphere.

  162. From an astonomy study site:

    … real trajectories can be modeled as a sequence of Keplerian orbits that osculate (“kiss” or touch) the real trajectory.

  163. Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 14, 2012 at 1:28 pm
    From Neff et al paper in Nature, May 2001:
    “The 18-O [oxygen isotope] record from the stalagmite, which serves as a proxy for variations in the tropical circulation and monsoon rainfall, allows us to make a direct comparison of the 18-O record with the 14-C [carbon isotope] record from tree rings, which largely reflects changes in solar activity. The excellent correlation between the two records suggests that one of the primary controls on centennial- to decadal-scale changes in tropical rainfall and monsoon intensity during this time are variations in solar radiation.”

    Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt show a graph of cosmic ray (intensity?) versus time and temperature versus time to show the close correlation between temperature change and cosmic ray intensity. The correlation is quite incredible (it makes me wonder if it is real). The correlation is so incredible in fact, that I wonder why this is not done routinely from every tropical cave containing stalagmites (and if it is – who is hiding the data).

    I think some background thoughts are helpful.

    I think it is no wonder that carbon and oxide marker on the globe Earth are coherent because of the Sun’s heat anomalies, which mechanism is not known today. But the miss of a plausible mechanism does not mean that this phenomenon can’t be an object of science, especial climate science. Each spike and gap in the marker data indicates an physical process as evident on the Sun, as well as luminosity of Neptune that correlates with the reconstructed global Earth temperature (Lockwood, Flagstaff). I am tired to read uncounted measurements or defined ocean indices, like the indices from the Wallstreet. They are idols to the climate folk, but not physics. I do not know what the measurements of Neff et al. which were cited by V. and S., should show.

    Science always makes steps in the chain of recognized nature and new data must found to fit in this chain. To put out millions of papers without a conclusion from well recognized elements in science is no science, if there is nobody who put it in the knowledge of science.
    Spectra of global temperatures with its hidden frequencies are well known by laymen and by the climate folk. And a part of the people belief in the Sun and her up and downs, the rest belief in that, what authorities pray from the ivory towers

    Finding some relations to the data from Neff et al. I have plotted their data and have compared it to the graph showing both the oxide isotope and the carbon isotopes. I was wonder that there was some confusing mismatch in that plots. This is a problem if I would make some comparisons with the data from Bond et al 2001, or the GHI, I have taken from the solar tide functions of slow moving bodies.

    Because there is a main pattern of 2/1827 years which can be found in the global spectra it is also of interest, whether the profile of the Oman stalagmite fits in the periods. But there is a general problem to do that because unfortunately there are no NASA ephemerides available, prior to 3000 BCE or 5000 y BP.

    In this dilemma I have tried simple to shift the astronomical pattern 5 times 2/1827 or 913.5 years back in time, hoping to see any phase coherence between the Neff et al. data and the GHI.

    But the result was a not fitting of the curves.
    Now, the given error in the time of BP is given as 360 years and 260 year. So I have shifted the GHI seeking a match and as I have shifted the GHI by 260 years there was a weak correlation:

    One point here is that no one is asking on the absolute (astronomical) time value, look only for a correlation, but if the isotope data from the same sample (H5), there is no wonder that there is a correlation.

    I don’t like the dimension BP, I prefer the dimension BCE or CE in years kyears. For accurate proposes it is best to make use of the Julian day because historians do not make use of the year 0.

    Ok, I can understand if V. and S. make their job to inform the crowd that the Sun by no means runs as the corruptive scientist teach, but it must be clear, that the press and popular books cannot replace the work of science. Moreover, if there is an interest in truth, the science community itself must arrange a multidiscipline climate science of solar physicians, astronomers, maybe quantum physicians because the roll of Neutrinos, and geologists with their best tools.

    There seems to exist a further phenomena that no scientist would shift to new areas where is only one ‘idiot’ at work. It is said: ‘Lord, there are many about the well, but no one in the well.’ means: There are many people close to knowing the truth, but none that truly do.

    However, thanks to A.W. who gives space to alternative thoughts.

    V.

  164. Joachim Seifert says:

    February 16, 2012 at 11:33 am

    This movement of the Moon is in Wikipedia under “Libration” ….. this movement allows
    more than 50% of the Moon to be seen… Libration is a spiral shaped motion, the Moon spirals
    or “ligates” around its mean progressive path……. “””””

    The moon’s orbit around the sun, is of course always “convex” like earth’s, so the center of curvature always lies on the sun side.

    So I don’t understand where wikileaks get the “spiral” from. Seems to me that a spiral path involves a continually increasin (or decreasing)orbital radius.

  165. Volker Doormann says:
    February 17, 2012 at 6:28 am

    … Finding some relations to the data from Neff et al. I have plotted their data and have compared it to the graph showing both the oxide isotope and the carbon isotopes.
    I was wonder that there was some confusing mismatch in that plots.
    This is a problem if I would make some comparisons with the data from Bond et al 2001, or the GHI, I have taken from the solar tide functions of slow moving bodies.

    How can this be?

    V.

  166. Great to have this posted here. Looking forward to comments. Given where they’re coming from and what they’re up against, I’m fairly confident that anyone seeking to easily poke holes in their basic accuracy or honesty won’t be able to.

    They have changed the labels in their last graph, swapping in ‘temperature’ variation for rainfall and mosnoonal variation. No explanation is given. No amount of blog speculation on the virtue of making this link undoes the fact that they have blatantly misrepresented the reference material. nor does such speculation ennoble it. The concluding remarks in the paper itself belie the faked and simplistic correlation projected by L&V.

    • The Warmists had their chance back in the year 2000, with their greatly laudated MILLENIUMs
      report TAR, comprizing the most accurate climate warming models of more than 40 Warmist
      institutes and issued then in March 2001……
      Warming forecasting result from the time of issuing TAR : TAR Forecast 2001-2011 was 0.2 C global warming….vs. todays
      observation Febr. 2001 – Feb 2011 global warming NIL for the decade, see graphs for this decade….
      The Tars Milleniums performance: Only waste of money, forecast accuracy: NIL…..
      This false performance feeds scepticism, which is on the upswing by looking for alternative
      climate interpretations….. AGW forecast performance is just too bad, which answers your
      question: Whom to believe…..Its is obvious by now….
      JS

  167. the essence of his [Leif Svaalagard's] view, as it is understood by the majority of people reading his posts, is exactly that the Sun has nothing to do with the Earth’s climate.

    That is a very precise statement. I challenge you to corroborate it.

    It might be worth revisiting his first ever post at this site.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/the-solar-radio-microwave-flux/

    As Svaalgard never made an argument about solar correlation with global temps in that post, it was warmly received by the regulars, and rightly so. The man is a decades-long expert in his field.

    When his opinion is asked, he gives it in clear terms, When questioned, his answers have been direct, highly rational and free of molly-coddling. This ascetic rigour isn’t everyone’s up of tea. I find it refreshing.

  168. “…TAR Forecast 2001-2011 was 0.2 C global warming…”

    A prediction for a single decade with no error margin? Horsepucky. I would love to see a reference for exactly this from the actual TAR.

  169. Focus Online here in Germany has a whole subsection on climate with about five articles from a
    (mostly) skeptical point of view (I believe some of them were in the print edition mentioned
    in Pierre Gosselin’s blog). Looks like the MSM here is starting to let other voices appear
    (or they’re too busy with other scandals :) ).
    Freeman Dyson article is here: (sorry, it’s in German, if someone could translate…)

    http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissenschaft/klima/schwenk-zur-sonne-waermer-ist-besser_aid_708094.html

    (After the last couple of weeks a little warmth would be nice, especially for those of us
    who drive Diesels….).

Comments are closed.