German skeptics Lüning and Vahrenholt respond to criticism

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.

Looking forward to reading the English version of the book.

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?

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.

“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.

@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.

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.

I havent read their book, but I hope they included the curve of page 6, here;
http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/Ice-ages/GSAToday.pdf

@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.

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.

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

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’.

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.

@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.

@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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

@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.

“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.

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.

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?

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

Steven says: …going “green” is still a smart choice.
Check out the 1010 Video No pressure and think again.

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?

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.

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.

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/

My remarks should have of course be aimed at Stevie.

By the end of the interview you realize Vahrenholt is a ‘lukewarmer’, still very much interested in CO2 reduction and alternative energy to mitigate “peak oil”.
I have presented some much less ambiguous view points in my page “Climate Change (“Global Warming”?) – The cyclic nature of Earth’s climate”, at http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm

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…”

“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.

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.

This is the result of goin green.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2100232/Frozen-death-fuel-bills-soar-Hypothermia-cases-elderly-double-years.html
In fact it is just the tip of the iceberg. With changes of land use for biofuels leading to less edible crop production and increases in food costs causing an increase in starvation in the poorer countries the death toll of this green folly will be substantial.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 …

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?

For those who are curious about it, check out this trailer for the series.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

“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.

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

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.

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.

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”.

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/

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 .

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?

@ 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.”

“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.

JJ Yeah. Brilliant. Withering!!

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.

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

“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.

Joachim:
I’ll confess, you have me guessing. If you don’t mean ‘oscillation’ can you suggest a synonym? ‘Osculation’ just doesn’t make any sense.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/osculation?show=0&t=1329363706
Definition of OSCULATION
: the act of kissing; also : kiss
— os·cu·la·to·ry adjective

George, Smokey,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Smoon4.htm
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap010218.html
Moderator, thanks.

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.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/neff_vs_ghi3_shift.gif
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.

From an astonomy study site:

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

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.

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.