Linking the ENSO and PDO induced rainfall of the Pacific Northwest to proxy data in tree rings and lake sediments

Castor Lake, one of the lakes where sediments samples used in this study were taken from. Credit: University of  Pittsburgh

From Penn State , another Mann paper with proxy sets, and a divergence problem. At least they are talking about the MWP, or as they call it, the Medieval Climate Anomaly which had been erased in previous papers Mann had been involved with. The attempt to link paleo data to the PDO is interesting too. Mann was not lead author, and hopefully none of the flawed PCA math he’s used to mess up other papers made it into this one. I’m hopeful, as the SI contains some equations/code.

The gist of the paper is this: they wanted to determine patterns of drought in the Pacific Northwest, so the authors used proxy data obtained both from tree rings and from oxygen isotopes related to lake sediments.

According to lead author Byron Steinman.“The data matched up on a short-term, decadal scale, however, on a longer-term, century scale, the records diverged. The tree-ring data suggests dry conditions during the Medieval Climate Anomaly summers while the isotope data suggest wetter-than-expected winters.”

New methods help scientists shed light on ancient climates

Tree ring and oxygen isotope data from the U.S. Pacific Northwest do not provide the same information on past precipitation, but rather than causing a problem, the differing results are a good thing, according to a team of geologists.

The researchers are trying to understand the larger spatial patterns and timing of drought in the arid and semiarid areas of the American West.

“We generally understand that the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a warm period in much of the northern hemisphere that occurred about 950 to 1250 was a dry period in the American West,” said Byron A. Steinman, postdoctoral researcher in meteorology, Penn State. “But there is complexity to the patterns of drought and it may not have been dry in winter in the Pacific Northwest.”

East of the Cascade Mountains, the Pacific Northwest is dry and hot in the summer and wet in the winter now.

Estimates of past precipitation are made from proxies like tree rings, which can record amounts of precipitation and temperature. But tree rings are better at recording what happens during the spring and summer, when the tree is growing, than in the winter when the tree is not.

Steinman, who worked with Mark B. Abbott, professor of geology and planetary science, University of Pittsburgh, his Ph.D. advisor, looked at oxygen isotopes found in 1,500 years of sediment at the bottom of lakes. The isotopic composition of these sediments can reflect the amount of water that enters the lake, especially during the wet season.

The analyzed lake sediments contain calcium carbonate in the form of calcite. The oxygen isotope ratios in this mineral relate directly to the isotope ratio of water in the lake. The researchers looked at sediment from two small lakes in Washington state. Castor Lake is on a plateau and water inflow is only from precipitation and groundwater. This lake has no outflow, so most water loss is through evaporation. Lime Lake, on the other hand, loses the majority of water through a permanent outflow stream, although all water enters in the same manner as for Castor Lake. By comparing the two lakes, the researchers could determine the water balance between evaporation and precipitation.

The researchers looked at two stable isotopes of oxygen — oxygen 16 and oxygen 18 — in the sediments. Oxygen 16 is lighter than oxygen 18, so during evaporation and lake draw down, more oxygen 16 evaporates out and the calcite in the sediments contain more oxygen 18. If the lakes are full of water, then there will be more oxygen 16 in the calcite. The layers of sediment that are laid down each year can be dated either by using carbon 14 dating of organic material or by locating layers of tephra — volcanic ash, that signifies known — dated volcanic eruptions. In this way, the researchers could pinpoint when drought occurred.

“The tree ring data and isotope data match up on a short term, decadal scale,” said Steinman. “On a longer term, century scale, the records diverge.”

While the decadal ups and down remain the same for both proxies, when viewed on a 100-year or longer scale, the proxies show differences. The tree ring data suggest dry conditions during the Medieval Climate Anomaly summers, while the isotope data suggests wetter than expected winters.

Comparing the lake sediment records to existing records of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a warming or cooling of the coastal waters off the Pacific Northwest, the researchers report in the current online issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences “a strong centennial timescale relationship over the past 1,500 years between winter precipitation amounts in eastern Washington and Pacific Decadal Oscillation temperature anomalies.”

The PDO is linked to the El Nino Southern Oscillation, a tropical phenomenon that influences global weather patterns. During and before the Medieval Climate Anomaly, the North Pacific Ocean was warmer and Washington had greater precipitation than during the Little Ice Age, which occurred from about 1450 to 1850, when there was less precipitation.

Steinman used a previously published and validated model based on established lake physics and modern recorded precipitation and temperature to determine the amounts of rainfall indicated by the isotopic record

“The best thing we could do now is to produce additional quantitative precipitation records, this time with different lake systems,” said Steinman.

###

Other researchers on this project were Michael E. Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center; Nathan D. Stansell, former Ph.D. student at the University of Pittsburgh, now a research fellow, Byrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University and Bruce Finney, professor of biological sciences, Idaho State University.

The National Science Foundation funded this research.

=============================================================

Paper: 1500 year quantitative reconstruction of winter precipitation in the Pacific Northwest, by Byron A. Steinman, Mark B. Abbott, Michael E. Mann, Nathan D. Stansell, and Bruce P. Finney, PNAS, 2012.

Abstract

Multiple paleoclimate proxies are required for robust assessment of past hydroclimatic conditions. Currently, estimates of drought variability over the past several thousand years are based largely on tree-ring records. We produced a 1,500-y record of winter precipitation in the Pacific Northwest using a physical model-based analysis of lake sediment oxygen isotope data. Our results indicate that during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) (900–1300 AD) the Pacific Northwest experienced exceptional wetness in winter and that during the Little Ice Age (LIA) (1450–1850 AD) conditions were drier, contrasting with hydroclimatic anomalies in the desert Southwest and consistent with climate dynamics related to the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). These findings are somewhat discordant with drought records from tree rings, suggesting that differences in seasonal sensitivity between the two proxies allow a more compete understanding of the climate system and likely explain disparities in inferred climate trends over centennial timescales.

About these ads

147 thoughts on “Linking the ENSO and PDO induced rainfall of the Pacific Northwest to proxy data in tree rings and lake sediments

  1. “The tree ring data and isotope data match up on a short term, decadal scale,” said Steinman. “On a longer term, century scale, the records diverge.”

    The article itself is behind a paywall, so I wonder: in most other reconstructions (e.g. MBH98, Gergis et al, …), tree ring series are screened for correlation with the actual temperature record, and series that don’t match up on a short term are simply excluded.

    If this paper does the same, shouldn’t the above read “we only look at data that match up on a short term. On a longer term, century scale, the records diverge”?

  2. …the proxies show differences. The tree ring data suggest dry conditions during the Medieval Climate Anomaly summers, while the isotope data suggests wetter than expected winters.

    The proxy for *summer* conditions indicates the summers were dry and the proxy for *winter* conditions indicates that winters were wet — why was that an unexpected development?

  3. “the Medieval Climate Anomaly which had been erased in previous papers Mann had been involved with. “

    Hardly erased. Mann’s 2008 PNAS paper says, for example:
    “The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century, then fell abruptly. By contrast, the CPS reconstructions indicate more uniformly colder conditions, with peak Medieval warmth that does not breach the mean warmth of modern reference period (1961–1990), and a long-term, more steady decline in temperatures before 20th century warming.”

  4. I have not read the paper, but from the abstract one might ask if it was proven or assumed that calcite growth and chemistry had reached equilibrium. 1,500 years is but a blink in geology.

    The authors note “Tree ring and oxygen isotope data from the U.S. Pacific Northwest do not provide the same information on past precipitation, but rather than causing a problem, the differing results are a good thing, according to a team of geologists.”

    This is more commendable that the belief of the Australian Prime Minister, who says that there will be more wet periods and more droughts. Sure, these differning results are a good thing, on average.

  5. “The tree ring data suggest dry conditions during the Medieval Climate Anomaly summers, while the isotope data suggests wetter than expected winters.”

    Isn’t that sort of a way to say that the two agree with each other but make it sound as though they don’t?

  6. Nick Stokes,

    I would be careful about citing Mann08. It’s been debunked, you know. Tiljander.

  7. “The tree ring data and isotope data match up on a short term, decadal scale. On a longer term, century scale, the records diverge.”

    Translation: Tree ring and/or lake sediment isotope data appear to suck as climate proxies, but we don’t know which one or why.

    Two thoughts:
    1. How ironic is it that Mann co-authors a paper that refutes his steadfast faith in tree rings as temperature proxies?
    2. Hats off to Byron Steinman for being truthful. I suspect his life expectancy as a climatologist will be short.

  8. “Medieval Climate Anomaly” – I guess this is what used to be called the medieval warm period or MWP. But of course we can’t use word “warm” as it would be politically incorrect.

    PC science. Oh joy.

  9. “Expected” on the basis of theory as usual. If you’re going to “expect” something logically and rationally, you should look at facts instead of theory.

    Fact: In this part of the country, winters are the wet season. Most of the precip falls in winter. That holds true in cooler times like the ’80s and in warmer times like the 2000s. So you should “expect” it to hold true in another warmer time like the 1100s.

  10. When did the MCA start getting used? I see some Google refs to 2009, e.g.

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N27/EDIT.php :

    In a paper recently published in Science, Trouet et al. (2009) tell how they constructed a 947-year history (AD 1049-1995) of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), using a tree-ring-based drought reconstruction for Morocco (Esper et al., 2007) and a speleothem-based precipitation proxy for Scotland (Proctor et al., 2000). This history begins in the midst of what they call the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), which they describe as “a period (~ AD 800-1300) marked by a wide range of changes in climate globally [our italics],” which interval of medieval warmth, as they describe it, is “the most recent natural counterpart to modern warmth and can therefore be used to test characteristic patterns of natural versus anthropogenic forcing.”

    (Sorry, too lazy to put there italics back in.)

    Then there’s this from Google:

    Scholarly articles for “Medieval Climate Anomaly”
    … of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly – Mann – Cited by 202
    … mode dominated the medieval climate anomaly – Trouet – Cited by 174
    … drought pattern during the Medieval Climate Anomaly – Helama – Cited by 26

    Ah yes, I’d forgotten that the coiners of the MCA kept the LIA. Scumbags.

    Hmm, that wasn’t very nice of me. Perhaps “Rogue’s list” will do:

    Science 27 November 2009:
    Vol. 326 no. 5957 pp. 1256-1260
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1177303

    Report

    Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly

    Michael E. Mann1,*,
    Zhihua Zhang1,
    Scott Rutherford2,
    Raymond S. Bradley3,
    Malcolm K. Hughes4,
    Drew Shindell5,
    Caspar Ammann6,
    Greg Faluvegi5 and
    Fenbiao Ni4

    + Author Affiliations

    1Department of Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
    2Department of Environmental Science, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI 02809, USA.
    3Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003–9298, USA.
    4Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
    5NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025, USA.
    6Climate Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80305, USA.

    *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mann@meteo.psu.edu

    Abstract

    Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.

  11. Are they expressing surprise that rainfall could substantially different trends in different seasons on a centennial timescale? They shouldn’t be surprised such a thing could happen at all! It’s just happened over the entire US in the last century or so! Specifically, only one season shows precipitation increases from 1895 to the present of any magnitude close to being significant: Fall. For the US average, every other season is flat: basically zero trend. Clearly for whatever reason, nature can decide to arbitrarily partition long term rainfall trends by season. One doesn’t need questionable proxy evidence for this: one has the observed precipitation record!

  12. The earliest WUWT reference may be from 2008, see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/23/another-chance-to-make-comments-on-climate-change/#comment-33452

    There are several references from 2009, here are a few links:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/31/dr-roger-pielke-senior-support-for-cato-letter-and-advertisement/#comment-109718 points us to http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5923/78.abstract which starts with:

    Science 3 April 2009:
    Vol. 324 no. 5923 pp. 78-80
    DOI: 10.1126/science.1166349

    Report

    Persistent Positive North Atlantic Oscillation Mode Dominated the Medieval Climate Anomaly

    Valérie Trouet1,*,
    Jan Esper1,2,
    Nicholas E. Graham3,4,
    Andy Baker5,
    James D. Scourse6 and
    David C. Frank1

    + Author Affiliations

    1 Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow, and Landscape Research (WSL), Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
    2 Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, Erlachstrasse 9a, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
    3 Hydrologic Research Center, 12780 High Bluff Drive, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92130–2069, USA.
    4 Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093–0225, USA.
    5 School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
    6 School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales Bangor, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, UK.

    * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: trouet@wsl.ch

    Abstract

    The Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA) was the most recent pre-industrial era warm interval of European climate, yet its driving mechanisms remain uncertain. We present here a 947-year-long multidecadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA. Supplementary reconstructions based on climate model results and proxy data indicate a clear shift to weaker NAO conditions into the Little Ice Age (LIA). Globally distributed proxy data suggest that this NAO shift is one aspect of a global MCA-LIA climate transition that probably was coupled to prevailing La Niña–like conditions amplified by an intensified Atlantic meridional overturning circulation during the MCA.

    Hmm, that article was cited by: “The Rhone Glacier was smaller than today for most of the Holocene Geology 1 July 2011: 679-682.” Interesting. That glacier was the first one where iceflow was studied.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/26/mann-has-a-new-paper-he-apparently-discovers-the-medieval-warm-period/ says:

    Mann and his colleagues reproduced the relatively cool interval from the 1400s to the 1800s known as the “Little Ice Age” and the relatively mild conditions of the 900s to 1300s sometimes termed the “Medieval Warm Period.”

    “However, these terms can be misleading,” said Mann. “Though the medieval period appears modestly warmer globally in comparison with the later centuries of the Little Ice Age, some key regions were in fact colder. For this reason, we prefer to use ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ to underscore that, while there were significant climate anomalies at the time, they were highly variable from region to region.”

  13. The “MWP” is now the “MCA.” Because they say so. And yet it lasted for 300 years.

    Which also raises the obvious question: if there was a Medieval Climate Anomaly, why can’t their be a naturally occurring Modern Climate Anomaly?

    Anyone?

  14. “Medieval Climate Anomaly” … Ah, yes, that would be the Mediaeval Climate Optimum, I presume … but of course ‘some’ people could never call it that. D#mn this Newspeak!

  15. Ian H says:
    July 5, 2012 at 4:53 am
    “Medieval Climate Anomaly” – I guess this is what used to be called the medieval warm period or MWP. But of course we can’t use word “warm” as it would be politically incorrect.

    PC science. Oh joy.

    Obviously, to anyone with an historical perspective, we have warm periods and cool periods. But to the Acolytes of Climate Science, any deviation from the long, smooth handle of the Icon of the Hockey Stick would be heresy. Never mind that the Medieval Warm Period is a well-established term among climatologists. If it must be acknowledged at all, then it must be an ‘anomaly’. Climate is not supposed to change, because change is evil and besides, man is responsible.

    If these ideologues were not responsible for so much misspent effort (and dollars), they would be laughable.

    /Mr Lynn

  16. @Nick Stokes
    > Hardly erased …

    … but certainly weasel-worded to death, thus effectively erasing any competition to recent (i.e. post 1990) “unprecedented” weather. The “body English” on this carefully crafted sentence is plain to see.

    “The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade)”

    :-|

  17. tree ring series are screened for correlation with the actual temperature record, and series that don’t match up on a short term are simply excluded.
    ===========
    The divergence problem is the result of faulty mathematics by climate scientists.

    As soon as you, the climate scientists, use the results to “calibrate” (select) trees, it is the climate scientists (not climate) that is determining the tree rings statistically. This causes the trees to diverge from actual climate outside of the calibration period, because it is no longer climate that is determining the tree rings.

    Using the “results” to determine the trees to include in a sample is statistically forbidden. Formally it is known as “selection on the dependent variable”. What this means is that any trees that have been “calibrated” cannot be trusted as a proxy for climate. Which includes just about every tree used by climate science over the past 20 years.

    What you have is pseudo science that results from a faulty application of statistics.

  18. Mike M says:
    July 5, 2012 at 4:06 am

    “The tree ring data suggest dry conditions during the Medieval Climate Anomaly summers, while the isotope data suggests wetter than expected winters.”

    Isn’t that sort of a way to say that the two agree with each other but make it sound as though they don’t?

    No, it’s a way of saying they don’t agree, but maybe we dont need to acknowledge that tree-rings are totally mixed up as proxies and should only be used for ring counting dendrochronology for C14 calibration.

    Note the comment about they’re betting for spring and summer… also note the total absence of their sensitivity to CO2 levels.

    What they are finally recognising in and backhanded and opaque way is that tree rings are no bloody use as long term temperature proxies. In fact, long term anything.

  19. I remember seeing some old maps of America dating from the early eighteen hundreds. Several of those maps labeled the area east of the Rockies and west of the Mississippi as “the Great American Desert”. I’ve also read the Lewis and Clark papers, which also describe the aridness of the territory away from the immediate vicinity of the rivers. So aridity is hardly something new to the West and Northwest. And since the rivers of the Mississippi’s western drainage area do have water in them most of the time for the entire Summer and Fall, it stands to reason that the bulk of precipitation occurs during the late Fall, Winter and early Spring. Therefore it stands to reason the same cycles probably took place in the Medieval Warm Period. So what was the purpose of this paper?

    Jay Davis

  20. Oh for crying out loud! I grew up in the south west. My main interest was desert aquatic habitat. Decades ago, before the Marxist go around to rewriting the history, it was generally understood that the great droughts happened during periods of global cooling but the warm periods brought rain, like that which wiped out the Sonoran Indians’ irrigation systems!

  21. Yeah, using ‘MCA’ instead of ‘MWP’ scrubs away the nature of what happened no different than their lame switch from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’. Next they’ll change ‘LIA’ to PMCA – Post Medieval Climate Anomaly. (Is it just me or are they calling everything that’s natural an ‘anomaly’?)

  22. If lake levels drop enough, lake outflows can cease if the lake level drops below the outflow point.

  23. Can’t see the whole paper, but on the surface, here we go again…
    By comparing the two lakes, the researchers could determine the water balance between evaporation and precipitation.
    Um, no. They could estimate a “water balance” between evaporation and precipitation of two specific lakes. Does sample size and variable parity not mean anything to “climate” scientists? (that, btw, is a rhetorical question). To his credit, the lead acknowledges a weakness in this regard.

    Growth rings on trees are not only correlated with temperature and water. Rings of some trees may be, but sample size is critical for any ring proxy, with the possible exception of dendrochronology, which is temperature and moisture independent (mostly – even here there can be exceptions). The study has not been done that boxes the question about statistical robustness of sampling trees for growth based on free environmental variables.

    We are looking again at grad student research supervised by a cohort of questionable supervisors. This isn’t to take away from the possibility that the research is decent, but, my tree ring and tea leaf proxies suggest the positive correlation is exceedlingly low.

  24. Re “anomaly” – meant to include this in previous post. This constant insistence on the use of the word “anomaly” by Mann et all is (other than an affectation) apparently premised on the belief that climate soldiers on in fixed lockstep with a very narrow range of variables,viz. the GHGs, especially CO2, and that the relationship is linear, simple and persistent. You could argue that that assumption is the real anomaly.

  25. “We generally understand that the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a warm period in much of the northern hemisphere that occurred about 950 to 1250 was a dry period in the American West,” said Byron A. Steinman, postdoctoral researcher in meteorology, Penn State. “But there is complexity to the patterns of drought and it may not have been dry in winter in the Pacific Northwest.”
    ===
    Is this fellow in meteorology or what? Since when a warm period means dry everywhere? Post modern meteo is truly pathetic.

  26. The area around Castor Lake is very contorted with lots of pot hole lakes. It was buried under the Okanogan tongue of the Cordilleran glacier and there is a lot of evidence of ice age dynamics all around the area. Our state is far enough north to have very long daytimes and we get lots of sunshine from the northeast and northwest during the summer months, and that part of the state is in the rain shadow of the Cascade range. Jet streams are a major weather driver. Not an easy place to understand without spending a lot of time there.

  27. @Mike M.

    Yeah, using ‘MCA’ instead of ‘MWP’ scrubs away the nature of what happened no different than their lame switch from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’. Next they’ll change ‘LIA’ to PMCA – Post Medieval Climate Anomaly. (Is it just me or are they calling everything that’s natural an ‘anomaly’?)

    In ordinary usage, the term ‘anomaly’ denotes a event that is very strange or very unexpected. But in meteorology and climatology it has a more specialized mathematical meaning, denoting a signed deviation from a trend or norm:

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

    This usage is justified because it is relatively hard to make two thermometers agree exactly on absolute temperature values, because of baseline calibration issues. But they will more often agree on relative changes in temperature. So, while they might differ by a degree or so on some absolute reading, they will be more likely to agree on a temperature increase or decrease of 1 degree.

    This is especially true for temperatures derived from ‘proxies’ like tree rings or ice cores. Changes in temperature are more accurately discerned than baseline values.

    Actually, _all_ thermometers depend on a proxy of some sort. e.g. expansion of a liquid or metal element, electrical current flowing through a thermocouple, detection of IR spectral components etc. All of these kinds of devices rely on the thermal behavior of some substance or process, thus are subject to errors of calibration and observation. There is no such thing as a thermometer that read temperature “directly”, without relying on some kind of “physics model”.

    Having said that it should be noted that:
    1) some thermometers are much more accurate than others
    2) defining “MCA” as an “anomaly” that extends over 300 years is, IMO, an “anomaly” (in the ordinary sense of the word). Especially when these same folks who defined MCA insist that a recent decade or two is “climate”.

    :-|

  28. I hate to say this about my home state university and one of it leading professors. Any climate change claims coming out of Penn State or with an association to Mann must be accepted with a not believed until verified state of mind

  29. Nick Stokes inserted a quote from a Mann study

    “Hardly erased. Mann’s 2008 PNAS paper says, for example:
    “The EIV reconstructions suggest that temperatures were relatively warm (comparable with the mean over the 1961–1990 reference period but below the levels of the past decade) from A.D. 1000 through the early 15th century, then fell abruptly. By contrast, the CPS reconstructions indicate more uniformly colder conditions, with peak Medieval warmth that does not breach the mean warmth of modern reference period (1961–1990), and a long-term, more steady decline in temperatures before 20th century warming.””

    This raises the question of accuracy of short time scale responses in the referenced studies. Is it possible to differentiate a relatively short, 10 year period from the record? I am doubtful that the analysis is that fine on a decadal timescale. My point is, can Mann claim that the current warm period is warmer than the MWP based on the referenced analysis, or is he overreaching a bit?

  30. When will these idiots come to understand that tree rings are not a proxy for anything but time.

  31. “We generally understand that the Medieval Climate Anomaly, a warm period in much of the northern hemisphere that occurred about 950 to 1250 was a dry period in the American West,” said Byron A. Steinman, postdoctoral researcher in meteorology, Penn State. “But there is complexity to the patterns of drought and it may not have been dry in winter in the Pacific Northwest.”

    No shirt, Shylock. Ever talked to anybody who lives there?

  32. Could we please have dates for the “medieval warm period-climate anomaly”, whatever you call it alongwith a rough idea of the affected area?

  33. I agree with DesertYote:

    The importance concepts of this paper, glossed over by the warmista are:

    Warm is wetter, Cold is drier.

    In what conditions do plants grow better?

  34. Evidence supporting the existence of climate change is pummeling the United States this summer, from the mountain wildfires of Colorado to the recent “derecho” storm that left at least 23 dead and 1.4 million people without power from Illinois to Virginia. The phrase “extreme weather” flashes across television screens from coast to coast, but its connection to climate change is consistently ignored, if not outright mocked. If our news media, including—or especially—the meteorologists, continue to ignore the essential link between extreme weather and climate change, then we as a nation, the greatest per capita polluters on the planet, may not act in time to avert even greater catastrophe.

    More than 2,000 heat records were broken last week around the U.S. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency that tracks the data, reported that the spring of 2012 “marked the largest temperature departure from average of any season on record for the contiguous United States.” These record temperatures in May, NOAA says, “have been so dramatically different that they establish a new ‘neighborhood’ apart from the historical year-to-date temperatures.”

  35. In the olden days it was called Medieval Climate Optimum. Is there a scientific justification for inventing new terms for an established concept?

    With the same effort we could rename all the elements of the periodic table. That would be fun, would not it?

    Could start with Nefarium (Atomic number: 6, Atomic weight: 12.0108).

  36. David Brown says:

    If our news media, including—or especially—the meteorologists, continue to ignore the essential link between extreme weather and climate change, then we as a nation, the greatest per capita polluters on the planet, may not act in time to avert even greater catastrophe

    So you blame the media for “ignoring the link”? Really? Hasn’t the news has been totally saturated lately with ‘extreme’ temperatures, wind, fire, and you-name-it?

    Why do you look for MSM leadership in this matter?

    What about your government leadership in Washington? Should not President O’Blamo take some ‘heat’ for this too? If this situation is really leading to a “catastrophe” (as you claim), then it shouldn’t take a lot of courage to take a stand on this, against a “catastrophe”, duh.

    Then why is the President silent on this matter?

    Maybe he’s trying to figure out a way to blame it on Bush. Or is it the case that he and his advisors know that whining about this particular “impending catastrophe” will not get him re-elected?

    So which is more important: saving the world or re-electing O’Blamo?

    (And China is the world’s worst polluter, not the U.S.)

  37. “Medieval Climate Anomaly” has been around for some time (since the early ’90s at least). Other phrases for the same period include the Medieval Drought and the Medieval Climate Optimum. The preference tends to be geographically varying and appears to be influenced by where the user lived. In California it was referred to as a drought, sometimes the “Medieval Drought.” Effects in the Sierra were fairly catastrophic with prolonged periods during which mountain streams on the east side did not flow and Lake Tahoe did not discharge. The problem is that there is a four-fold set of relative states climate can move into: “warmer/drier”, “warmer/wetter”, “cooler/drier: and “cooler/wetter”. About the only “proxies” that really help differentiate those four contingencies are actual plant distributions. Stable isotope ratios that are tied to temperature won’t tell anything about precipitation intensities. In Oregon dramatic east/west movements of the sagebrush-pinyon paired with the yellow-pine-Douglas fir zones are visible in the pollen record, which probably reflect rain fall rather than temperature. These movements are also probably not sensitive at less that multicentury scales, since forests and brush lands can’t migrate like animal herds.

  38. In ordinary usage, the term ‘anomaly’ denotes a event that is very strange or very unexpected.
    And implicitly, something we can’t explain.

    Like others, I haven’t read the paper (paywwalled), but they found 2 proxies that didn’t agree. The rest is speculation.

    Until I see properly controlled greenhouse experiments that determine the variables that govern tree ring growth, I consider tree rings to be a proxy for something(s), but we don’t know what.

  39. “…MWP set to off. MCA repeater set to squawk mode B. O18 unit set to scramble. Both hands flapping, wrist strain nominal. Ready of takeoff on runway AR5. Remember people, keep a sharp lookout around Law Dome. That’s where the last crew bought the farm. The Grey Baron may be in the area…”

  40. there is no evidence to suggest that the MWP was warmer than today. it was also a ”natural” warming period. todays warming is not. also the MWP was purely a northern hemisphere event . it was not global.

  41. Johanus, the heat wave has been in the media but the reasons for it are ignored. and America is a bigger polluter than China ”per head of population”. i agree with you Obama is no better than Bush. [ in all areas, especially foreign policy ] lets face it both are and were appalling specimens. and Romney is just as bad

  42. @Philip Bradley
    > And implicitly, something we can’t explain.

    In the ordinary sense of ‘anomaly’, perhaps.

    But I think you’re overlooking the specialized, strictly mathematical sense of the word (as it used in meteorology and climatology):

    http://mel.xmu.edu.cn/group/carbon/kcjs/Environmental_Oceanography/glossary/Anomaly.html

    In this second sense of the word, it denotes anychange from a norm or trend, even very tiny ones. And they don’t have to be unusual or unexpected changes, just different than the trend.

    Now the definition and calculation of the baseline trend or norm (from which anomalies are measured) is another matter, and always needs to be verified for soundness and accuracy.

  43. tim clarke. warmer is wetter in some areas. increased heat means increased evaporation. in dryer areas increased heat can mean increased drought. however what is the situation globally, seeing that you are talking regionally? plant growth is dependent on a number of things, wetter may mean flood which is no good for growth. drought is obviously no good for growth, weeds and toxic plants can also thrive in the right conditions. not preferable. bigger plants also need more nutrition and more water. not going to happen in a drought

  44. Philip Bradley says: “I consider tree rings to be a proxy for something(s), but we don’t know what.”

    Presumably favorable conditions for tree growth (or not). Which would involve non linear combinations of a large number of factors two of which are climate variables we may be interested in (rain and warmth) but which is most important when is unknown. But what we can say for certain when a bunch of trees show enhanced growth: something (or everything!) was going good for them. And the reverse when they all show diminished growth.

  45. david brown says:
    July 5, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    there is no evidence to suggest that the MWP was warmer than today. it was also a ”natural” warming period. todays warming is not. also the MWP was purely a northern hemisphere event . it was not global.

    Please support this with something beyond blind assertions. Historical evidence shows the idea that the MWP was not warmer than the present is wrong on the face of it, on the basis of Greenland and England histories alone, or are you splitting hairs to say that today the northern hemisphere atleast has finally warmed back to historic levels? Also, the MWP period appears in the Antarctic stable isotope record suggesting that the event was global or had global atmospheric effects – whether it was actually warmer everywhere or not. As regards “today’s warming” in what way is it different than yesterday’s? There are no “unprecedented” rates of warming, no unprecedented warmth, the fires in Colorado are not unprecedented (look up Ranger Edward Pulaski). There is also every reason to anticpate that forest fires will in fact be worse for a long time – at least until the excesses of the “only you can prevent forest fires” attitude is gone. Major fires are a product of weather, fuel, and ignition sources. Importantly fuel has been increasing in national forests and other public and private lands for decades as a consequence of fire management practice that grew out of policy responses to major fires in the early 20th C. It has almost nothing at all to do with climate, though dry thunderstorms can provide ignition points – but thunderstorms are just weather, right?

  46. david brown says:
    July 5, 2012 at 5:27 pm
    Johanus, the heat wave has been in the media but the reasons for it are ignored. and America is a bigger polluter than China ”per head of population”.

    The phrase you wanted was “per capita.” The US may produce more CO2 per capita than China — and CO2 is not pollution, despite what you may believe — but 16 of the 20 most-polluted cities in the world are in China…

    http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20071102-33814.html

    …40% of it’s rivers are too polluted to drink safely, with half of those in Category V (too toxic to touch), and

    http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120217000048&cid=1105&MainCatID=11

    …up to 40% of its farmland is unsafe for growing crops due to cadmium, arsenic, and mercury contamination,

    http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/thread-753470-1-1.html

    Word around this part of Asia is “Don’t eat anything grown in China” — so your concern about the US producing more CO2 per capita than China is seriously misplaced.

  47. duster ,the mwp was not warmer than today. every study confirms this . it is hardly based on”blind assertions ”. it is also irrelevant as MWP was a natural event . today we are discussing AGW. global temp at the time was cooler than today anyway . again you mention countries like greenland or england, countries in the ”northern hemisphere” ? where is your evidence for the southern hemisphere being effected ? please include sources . there are reasons for climate change it does not happen by magic, it is forced to change. what caused the MWP what was the solar output at the time? today the sun is in minimum and the planet increases in warming. so what is causing it ?. all previous warm periods had a logical explanation eg increased solar activity, a change in the earths orbit etc. present warming does not. the rise of c02 is unprecedented in speed. it can take 5000 years or more for c02 levels to raise 100 ppm when natural, not 150 years as is the case now . the speed of the rise is ”unprecedented” the fires are unprecedented in ”recorded history ”. which is no more than a few hundred years.

  48. duster, mwp was caused by increased solar activity and decreased volcanic activity. todays warming is far different. the national academy of science studies show the warm period was not global. some parts of the world [ some south pacific regions were cooler ]

  49. Prior temperature reconstructions tend to focus on the global average (or sometimes hemispheric average). To answer the question of the Medieval Warm Period, more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years (Mann 2009). The Medieval Warm Period saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures were even as warm as today. However, certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average.

  50. @David Brown
    >there is no evidence to suggest that the MWP was warmer than today.

    Then how do you explain this?

    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html

    This falsifies the CAGW argument, because it is the alarmists who have no conviincing evidence for their hypotheses.

    Their best arugment (that increased CO2 is causing ‘runaway destruction’) is that current temps and CO2 are now both at “unprecedented” high levels. So one of them must be causing the other. “What else could it be?”

    The MWP shatters this argument. It appears that Greenland was “recently” much warmer than it is now, and it didn’t destroy the Earth.

  51. john day, MWP is irrelevant. that was a natural warming and despite what you say there is no peer reviewed published work that indicates it was warmer than today .and if it was it still proves nothing, as the reasons for it are different. eg increased solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, those two things are not factors for present warming. the sun is in minimum and volcanic activity is not decreasing. there is as i have mentioned before no evidence that MWP was global. some parts of the planet were actually cooler then.[ tropical pacific ] natural c02 was also absorbed by the sinks as it was part of the carbon cycle. manmade c02 is not absorbed by the sinks thats why it is accumulating at such a rapid rate. sunny suffolk only proves that a ”northern hemisphere ” country had increased warming. and that is not a ”global” observation

  52. john day. that site you used as a source [ sunny suffolk] is actually pro AGW. you should have read all of it. c3 editor.MWP was warm enough to grow grapes and generally have a pleasant life that is not ”unprecedented warming ”. unprecedented warming would have meant drought and no grapes. grapes thrive in a certain temp range. you also cannot mention one southern hemisphere country where temp increased. all your evidence is for the northern hemisphere only. a study by the national academy of science, covering 2000 years of climate confirmed that some areas were cooler during MWP. that means the warming was not global

  53. bill tuttle, in regards to c02 being a pollution. some countries classify it as such. it depends how you define pollution. if c02 is causing climate change and that change is damaging the environment [ and things like flood damage the environment ] then it could be classified as pollution. per capita, per head of population it makes no difference? america is still a massive polluter. [ using the dictionary definition of a pollutant ]. what you say about chinese rivers etc is true. but we not discussing heavy metals or arsenic. we are discussing c02

  54. per head of population america is a bigger emitter of c02 than china johanus. america is a massive emitter of c02 even if you ignore china altogether. your analogy is a poor one as monaco and luxembourg have tiny economies regardless. no. the strongest argument for agw is the fact that there is no other explanation for present warming.. if c02 is responsible for climate change, and climate change is damaging the environment, that means using the dictionary definition of the word pollution, then c02 is a pollutant. the present heat wave in america is a catastrophe. flooding in australia was a catastrophe. how many more examples do you need?

  55. @david brown
    > … how many more examples do you need?

    I happen to believe that all frogs come from rain drops. I have very convincing proof of this.

    Every time it rains I start to hear frogs croaking in my yard. When the rain stops the frogs’ croaking stops soon afterward. I even found a frog in my rain spout once (unprecedented!).

    The more it rains the stronger becomes my belief in froggy-hydro-genesis.

    What else could it be? How many more examples do you need?

    Do you know what “confirmation bias” is? (Yes, both sides, CAGW and Skeptic, practice it).

    :-|

  56. david brown says……
    ______________________________
    David Brown ignores the evidence which show the Holocene is not only doing just fine but is gradually cooling down not warming. The Holocene has a more even temperature than any of the past four interglacials. Also the last graph of CO2 and temperature show an increase in CO2 has not effected temperature in the Holocene.

    Greenland GISP Ice Core – Last 10,000 years

    Antarctic Vostok Ice Core – Last 10,000 years

    five interglacial temperature and CO2 data from Vostok Ice Core

    David also ignore this paper showing higher temperatures in the Holocene.
    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    “..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…”

    David you want to go all hyper on something look at the time intervals of those last four interglacials and compare it to the Holocene. Based on the end of the Younger Dryas, the Holocene this year is 11,715 years old. We are at the long end of the precession cycle at 23,000 years and we are due to head into glaciation not “Global Warming”

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

    …Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”

    And from this link (which I suggest you read.)

    In discussing the Late Eemian Aridity Pulse (LEAP) at the end-Eemian, Sirocko et al (A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception, nature, vol. 436, 11 August 2005, doi:10.1038/nature03905, pp 833-836) opine:

    “Investigating the processes that led to the end of the last interglacial period is relevant for understanding how our ongoing interglacial will end, which has been a matter of much debate…..”

    “The onset of the LEAP occurred within less than two decades (see the core photograph in Fig. 4), demonstrating the existence of a sharp threshold, which must be near 416Wm22, which is the 658N July insolation for 118 kyr BP (ref. 9). This value is only slightly below today’s value of 428Wm22. Insolation will remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” Sirocko, et al, Vol 436|11 August 2005|doi:10.1038/nature03905.

    ….We may only have about the next 4,000 years, a little less than half the time since we “Homos” learned how to write, where climate sensitivity will be alarmingly close to glacial inception.

    This suggest we are in the “Danger Zone” for the next 4,000 years and anything that decreases the solar insolation at the earth’s surface could very well tip us into the onset of glaciation which could occur within less than two decades.

    The biggest problem with these papers and the CAGW theory, is they assumes no changes in the energy from the sun received by the earth yet we know the sun is a variable star. Several scientists such as Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk Yung, John Eddy, Alexandre Joukoff, physicist Richard Willson, and Henrik Svensmark to name just a few are working on the problem of how the sun varies and what effect it has on climate. And then there is Dr. Nir J. Shaviv’s article The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection That is just the outside variables and does not include , clouds, albedo, volcanoes and what ever else such as Bond Events. Bond Events are climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events. We are do for a Bond Event now. link

  57. david brown says:
    July 6, 2012 at 6:10 am
    bill tuttle, in regards to c02 being a pollution. some countries classify it as such.

    Some countries also classify ketchup — a condiment — as a vegetable. In neither instance is there any scientific reason for doing so.

    it depends how you define pollution. if c02 is causing climate change and that change is damaging the environment [ and things like flood damage the environment ] then it could be classified as pollution.

    Provide the proof that CO2 is responsible for climate change and natural disasters. So far, you have only made unsupported statements without providing any proof.

    per capita, per head of population it makes no difference? america is still a massive polluter. [ using the dictionary definition of a pollutant ].

    The dictionary defines pollution as “the contamination of air, water, or soil by substances that are harmful to living organisms.” Using that definition, China is the biggest polluter (per capita) on Earth — it has poisoned 40% of its farmland and 40% of its rivers with arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. We have problems with pollution in the US, but none of our rivers are Category V — which means the water is too toxic to even touch.

    what you say about chinese rivers etc is true. but we not discussing heavy metals or arsenic. we are discussing c02

    We are discussion pollution. You keep insisting that CO2 is a pollutant, “using the dictionary definition of a pollutant.” I quoted the dictionary definition (above), and in order to continue to claim CO2 is a pollutant, you have to produce some proof that it is harmful to living organisms.

  58. david brown says:
    July 6, 2012 at 9:13 am
    no. the strongest argument for agw is the fact that there is no other explanation for present warming..

    You need to do some research on how much the climate has fluctuated in the past and the multitude of reasons for the changes — Gail’s links (July 6, 2012 at 10:54 am) are an excellent start. The strongest arguments *against* AGW are that

    1. we have been in a cooling phase for over a decade while CO2 has continued to rise and

    2. none of the so-called “fingerprints” of AGW have been found — no tropospheric hot spot, no dramatic increase in the altitude of the tropopause.

    I’ve lived long enough to see multiple instances of floods, droughts, wildfire seasons, blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other disasters that warmists claim are “unprecedented,” and most of them are only claiming that because they haven’t lived long enough to have seen them before…

  59. Nick Stokes says:
    July 5, 2012 at 4:05 am
    “the Medieval Climate Anomaly which had been erased in previous papers Mann had been involved with. “

    Hardly erased. Mann’s 2008 PNAS paper says, for example:”

    Nick what about the stick? Yeah by 2008, he had to back-pedal. Are you not alerted by the change from MWP with the word warming to the MCA which “hides the incline”. Yes he’s had to accept the existence of the MWP, but he’s darn well not going to grace it with a warm name. and note he makes reference to it becoming cooler but doesn’t give any idea how severe the LIA was – one third of all Finns died, New York harbour, the Thames and the Bosphorous froze over .,,,,And, with the significant error bars on the proxies, how can he say that MWP was perhaps warmer than up to 1990 but fell short of the next decade! Give me a break if you have not sold your soul to the devil. After climategate, which changed the world, and then the egregious whitewashes and then some of the penitent, like P. Jones who acknowledged that it hasn’t warmed in a statistically significant sense since 1995. Please tell me Nick that you’re certainty of CAGW 15-20 years ago has been softened by some doubts or at least modifications in your thinking. Afterall, you weren’t aware of the cooking, cherry picking, the blackballing, the coercion, the blacklisting and forced resignations of editors and other shenanigans until climategate broke (you don’t also believe they were hacked, too, I hope). Anyway why would all this chicanery be necessary if what was going on was good robust science. History is not going to be kind to the ‘consensus’.

  60. bill turtle, we have not been in a warming phase for the last decade. the last decade has been the warmest on record according to the world met. increased flooding, heatwaves and drought are not associated with cooling. there is also no missing hotspot. the hotspot is a sign of ”any” warming it is not specific to agw anyway. the real indicator of warming is a cooling stratosphere. that is an indication that less heat is escaping the troposphere. you mention floods, droughts, fires etc have always happened? that is true. but increased heat is usually caused by an increase in solar activity . there has been a solar minimum for 40 years. so the heat related things you mention have not been caused by increased solar activity. so what is causing them? nick stokes. saying scientific findings have been ”erazed ” is just a conspiracy theory. you must prove allegations. mann’s hockey stick has been confirmed by multiple proxy studies. conspiracy theory is not science

  61. bill tuttle. the last decade has been the hottest on record according to the world met. heat waves, flooding and drought are not signs of cooling. the hotspot is also not missing. the hotspot is a sign of ”any” warming it is not specific to agw anyway. a cooling stratosphere is an indicator of a warming stratosphere. it means less heat is escaping. and guess what.? it is cooling. previous floods, heat waves etc are usually associated with increased solar activity. we have been in a solar minimum for 40 years. so there is no natural explanation for present warming

  62. gail combs, all the periods you mention were before industrialization and have no relevance to the discussion. we are discussing agw not naturally occurring warming. we are heading into another ice age in around 9,000 years. scientists are well aware of the warming cycles after any major ice age. and they consider they do not apply to the present situation. you are skeptical of scientific data and methodology and yet you or your sources use the same methodology to produce your data. the difference is your conclusions are not endorsed by any major scientific group. from nasa to the world met, to the royal society to every academy of science on earth.. that does not necessarily mean you are wrong. but there is a very high possibility that you are

  63. david brown says:
    July 6, 2012 at 5:56 pm
    bill tuttle. the last decade has been the hottest on record according to the world met. heat waves, flooding and drought are not signs of cooling.

    You are what Eric Hoffer termed a “True Believer” — your mind is made up, and no facts will change it. If this were the hottest decade on record and heat waves, flooding, and drought were only signs of warming, then why did they happen in the past, when it was supposedly cooler? Or are you saying that the temperature has been warming continuously for three-plus billion years?

    the hotspot is also not missing. the hotspot is a sign of ”any” warming it is not specific to agw anyway.

    Where is it? The AGW crowd would love to find it, and they can’t — because it’s *not there*.

    a cooling stratosphere is an indicator of a warming stratosphere. it means less heat is escaping. and guess what.? it is cooling.

    That is a physical impossibility. If less heat is escaping the stratosphere, it must therefore be remaining in the stratosphere, which means the stratosphere will *not* be cooling.

    previous floods, heat waves etc are usually associated with increased solar activity. we have been in a solar minimum for 40 years. so there is no natural explanation for present warming

    Previous floods, heat waves, etc. are usually associated with weather patterns, and the sun is only one of at least a dozen factors influencing the weather — and *all* of them are natural.

  64. david brown says:
    July 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm
    pollution is something that damages the environment. c02 damages the environment by changing climte

    1. Prove that CO2 changes the climate, and don’t just say “World Met says it does,” because there is no proof that it does, and don’t say, “It can’t be anything else,” because there is no proof of that, either.

    2. If climate change does not damage the environment — the environment adapts to the climate. You have the odd notion that the environment is supposed to be static, and it isn’t.

  65. Warmer than usual summers, with lots of sunshine, and wetter than usual winters.

    Sounds like a pretty good deal for growing things and humans! Bring back the global MWP, please.

  66. bill tuttle, lower solar activity means a cooler planet under natural conditions. how can less energy coming from the sun mean anything else ? though there are other forcing agents besides the sun eg albedo, volcanic and of course greenhouse effect .prove that c02 changes climate? well c02 certainly effects the temperature and that has been known for well over a century. . the greenhouse effect is basic physics. how do you explain the planet warming [ and empirical measurements prove that it is ] when the sun is cooling? explain the physics of that .? i did not say increase in temp is responsible for weather. increase in temp intensifies weather. eg more evaporation means more rainfall which means flooding is intensified. and the stratosphere is cooling because less heat is escaping from the” troposphere”. as i said the hot spot is not missing. i suggest you look at nasa satelite images. the hotspot is a sign of ”any ” warming. it is not specific to agw. so why would the scientists be desperate to find it ? flooding heat waves etc happened in the past because it was warmer. but it was naturally occurring warming. it was not warming caused by an energy imbalance as is the case now. it can take 5000 years for c02 levels to rise 100 ppm under natural conditions. we have experience a 100ppm increase in less than 200 years now. that cannot be normal. it is ”unprecedented ”. i will not check the links you sent because i have heard it all before. and i have my own peer reviewed links to draw on. maybe you should go over to ”the other side” and see things from a more scientific perspective?

  67. bill tuttle, i know climate and global temp has changed in the past. and all of those changes can be explained eg, increasing or decreasing solar activity, a change in the earths orbit, volcanic activity etc. however please explain present warming giving an example of what forcing agents are at work. and i know what a solar minimum is.[ a decrease of energy coming from the sun.] its a little like the decreasing credibility coming from your argument. you do not understand the hotspot, the cooling of the stratosphere, the properties of c02, the difference between climate and weather, the difference between natural and unnatural. and you claim to be more of an authority on global temp than the world met? it hardly inspires confidence in the links you gave me. i prefer to get my info from nasa, the world met, the csiro, the royal society, the american geophysical union and the american academy of science. because they do not endorse your position at all.

  68. Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global climate change may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, “…the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases…greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role…” The effects of global climate change are apparent (see section below) despite the fact that the Sun is once again less bright during the present solar minimum. Since the last solar minimum of 1996, the Sun’s brightness has decreased by 0.02% at visible wavelengths, and 6% at extreme UV wavelengths, representing a 12-year low in solar irradiance, according to this NASA news article (April 1, 2009). Also, be sure to read this more recent article: 2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade.

  69. john day, you frog analogy is a very poor one. is there any scientific evidence or even a theory that frogs come from raindrops? there is however empirical observations that the planet is warming and that the sun is cooling. there is even a law in relation to the greenhouse effect. is there any scientific groups actively pursuing the study of frogs and rain drops? it sounds very silly doesn’t it? but that is only because the premise of your argument is

  70. brian h. i bet the americans are really enjoying their massive heat wave and the russians their recently flooding, where so far 87 people have died?

  71. david brown says:
    July 7, 2012 at 5:30 am
    bill tuttle, lower solar activity means a cooler planet under natural conditions. how can less energy coming from the sun mean anything else ?

    First of all, you claimed that “we have been in a solar minimum for 40 years. so there is no natural explanation for present warming” — where did you hear that? There have been *four* solar cycles in the last forty years, which means that there have been four solar *maxima* to give plenty of natural warming — the following graph shows them all quite nicely:

    So where did you get that 40-year solar minimum? There hasn’t been one that long since the Maunder Minimum ended in 1715.

    though there are other forcing agents besides the sun

    The sun is not a “forcing agent” — the sun is the *source*.

    eg albedo, volcanic and of course greenhouse effect .prove that c02 changes climate? well c02 certainly effects the temperature and that has been known for well over a century. . the greenhouse effect is basic physics.

    You list only a very few of the many things that affect climate and temperature and then conclude that CO2 must be causing warming, which is a non-sequitur — and if CO2 causes warming, why did the Earth undergo a cooling spell between 1940 and 1965, which is the time frame that worldwide industrialization was pouring increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

    how do you explain the planet warming [ and empirical measurements prove that it is ] when the sun is cooling? explain the physics of that .?

    Empirical measurements prove that the planet hasn’t warmed since 1998 — in fact, the temperature has decreased and the trend is slightly negative:

    http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/

  72. david brown,

    Where I live in the U.S. temperatures are much cooler than normal. What you are describing is simply regional weather, nothing more. Global temperatures have not risen for the past 15 years.

    You posted five comments in a row. If you are trying to convince the rest of us that anything unusual or unnatural is occurring, you have failed. Get up to speed on the climate null hypothesis, then you will be able to understand that everything being observed is well within past parameters, when CO2 was very low. Until then, you’re just scaring yourself for no good reason.

  73. Okay, the coding on that one (7:45am) was really ugly — this should clarify things a bit:

    david brown says:
    July 7, 2012 at 5:30 am
    bill tuttle, lower solar activity means a cooler planet under natural conditions. how can less energy coming from the sun mean anything else ?

    First of all, you claimed that “we have been in a solar minimum for 40 years. so there is no natural explanation for present warming” — where did you hear that? There have been *four* solar cycles in the last forty years, which means that there have been four solar *maxima* to give plenty of natural warming — the following graph shows them all quite nicely:

    So where did you get that 40-year solar minimum? There hasn’t been one that long since the Maunder Minimum ended in 1715.

    though there are other forcing agents besides the sun

    The sun is not a “forcing agent” — the sun is the *source*.

  74. the sun is source of energy and a forcing agent bill . increased solar activity can ”force ” climate to change. that means it is a forcing agent. we are in a solar minimum. i suggest you check with the relevant scientific groups to confirm this . [ NASA ] solar cycles still take place during solar minimums. you are badly misinformed . american temp is not global temp. global temp is the entire heat content of the planet. global temp is not cooling. it has been an upward trend for the last 15 years. with natural variability eg volcanic activity having a temporary cooling effect. cooling from 1940 to 1965 was caused by industrial aerosols . they over rode the c02 effects. however when aerosols were limited, temp began to rise again. aerosols industrial or natural [ volcanos ] have a cooling effect global temp wise . your sources have been telling you that we are not in a solar minimum or that global temp is not increasing.? i very much doubt that that position is from peer reviewed published sources. it certainly is not endorsed by one major science group on earth. can you name me one that supports your position? [ is that the sound of silence i hear ? ] i would reread that posting of mine . it comes direct from nasa. it destroys you argument about global temp cooling over the last decade and your reluctance to accept the fact of a solar minimum. now who should we believe, Bill Tuttle or NASA? i think the answer is obvious don’t you? enjoy your coffee but i think you need something stronger to wake you up

  75. smokey. what i am saying is the global warming effects weather. it intensifies it. the things i mention were weather . however if you read my posts you will see that i know the difference between climate and weather. please read my post which is cut and pasted from NASA. the planet is not cooling mate. you are very badly misinformed. even skeptics agree that its warming though they do not accept AGW as the reason

  76. bill i mentioned the main forcing agents. there is not an infinite number. solar activity, albedo, greenhouse gases, volcanic activity. industrial aerosols, are the main ones. now can you show me what forcing agents are at work presently, warming the planet. [ or even cooling it ]. on one hand you say the planet is cooling and then say the sun is not in a minimum . how does the planet cool when the sun is increasing in activity as you say it is ?, that completely contradicts your argument .. and please note how i dealt with your argument about cooling from 1940 to 1965? i explained it logically and with information that you did not have. eg industrial aerosols cause cooling. the year 1940 is important. it was the beginning of the war when industry was in full swing. then you ban aerosols and voila, temp starts to rise again. it is so logical and obvious.

  77. The radiation balance can be altered by factors such as intensity of solar energy, reflection by clouds or gases, absorption by various gases or surfaces, emission of heat by various materials, and other factors related to climate change. Any such alteration is a radiative forcing, and causes a new balance to be reached. In the real world this happens continuously as sunlight hits the surface, clouds and aerosols form, the concentrations of atmospheric gases vary, and seasons alter the ground cover.
    [edit]

    please take note bill.” intensity of solar energy” is named as a forcing agent.

  78. david brown says:
    July 7, 2012 at 10:15 am
    the sun is source of energy and a forcing agent bill .

    Something cannot be both a source and a forcing agent. For example, ocean water is the source of a wave, but the “forcings” which create waves on a beach are wind, tidal effects, subsurface terrain, currents — even passing boats. The water is the source of the wave, but it doesn’t create the wave.

    now can you show me what forcing agents are at work presently, warming the planet. [ or even cooling it ]. on one hand you say the planet is cooling and then say the sun is not in a minimum . how does the planet cool when the sun is increasing in activity as you say it is ?,

    Putting words in my mouth will not win you any points. I said we’ve had four complete solar cycles, minima and maxima, where you insisted we’ve been in a solar minimum for the past forty years. I gave you a graph, which you obviously ignored.

    that completely contradicts your argument .. and please note how i dealt with your argument about cooling from 1940 to 1965? i explained it logically and with information that you did not have. eg industrial aerosols cause cooling. the year 1940 is important. it was the beginning of the war when industry was in full swing. then you ban aerosols and voila, temp starts to rise again. it is so logical and obvious.

    Logic FAIL. US industry did not go onto a war footing until 1942 and the EPA didn’t undertake any actions on aerosols until after it’s 1978 study — a decade *after* temperatures began to rise again.

  79. Solar minimums and maximums are the two extremes of the sun’s 11-year activity cycle.[1

    see bill. the eleven year cycle is actually part of the solar minimum. you still have solar cycles even during a minimum. and the sun is both an energy source” and a forcing agent”. why cant it be both? a forcing agent is anything that ”forces ” climate to change. hence the name. and increased or decreased solar activity forces climate to change. i suggest you ask a friend who knows more than you what a forcing agent is. or better still. read a basic science book. europe went to war in 1939 by the way. and american industry was contributing to the war effort well before 1942. industrial aerosols cool, just as aerosols from volcanos cool. that is an established fact. the increase or decrease in aerosols will effect the climate. if warming increased ten years before action was taken on aerosols, that could have been for a number of reasons. less aerosols due to better technology. less manufacturing or increased solar activity. . the final nail in your coffin is on one hand you say the sun is not in a minimum. meaning it is increasing in activity. but then you say the global temp is cooling.. that my friend, contradicts and destroys your argument

  80. “Medieval Climate Anomaly”
    Well, hopefully they are easing into it, given that there were earlier warm periods so the MWP as not an anomaly.

  81. During 2008-2009 NASA scientists noted that the Sun is undergoing a “deep solar minimum,” stating: “There were no sunspots observed on 266 of [2008's] 366 days (73%). Prompted by these numbers, some observers suggested that the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008. Sunspot counts for 2009 dropped even lower. As of September 14, 2009 there were no sunspots on 206 of the year’s 257 days (80%). It adds up to one inescapable conclusion: “We’re experiencing a very deep solar minimum,” says solar physicist Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” agrees sunspot expert David Hathaway of the National Space Science and Technology Center NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center.[6] It’s a natural part of the sunspot cycle, discovered by German astronomer Heinrich Schwabe in the mid-19th century.[6] A “clockwork pattern” that has held true for more than 200 years.[7]

    See bill. this is from NASA. it states clearly that we are in a solar minimum. and yet global temperature still rises. please explain?

  82. bill, you missed the moon as an integral point of ocean behaviour. i think your comparisons between the sun and the ocean is rather silly.. it has nothing to do with the fact that solar activity effects climate. and that by definition means it is a forcing agent

  83. david brown says:

    “Global temp is not cooling. it has been an upward trend for the last 15 years.”

    Wrong.

    Brown continues: “what i am saying is the global warming effects (sic) weather. it intensifies it. ”

    That misrepresents the situation. Temperature itself has no effect on weather. What matters is the temperature gradient. Furthermore, extreme weather events have been declining, not increasing.

    Brown says: “the planet is not cooling mate. you are very badly misinformed.”

    Pay attention. I have never said there has been no global warming. The planet has been warming along the same long term trend line since the Little Ice Age.

    The problem climate alarmists have is the fact that the long term natural rising temperature trend has not accelerated. [The green line is the trend. Note that it is decelerating.] You can see here that in eight large cities around the globe, the rising temperature trend since the LIA is not accelerating, thus falsifying the claim that CO2 will cause runaway global warming. Following a 40% increase in harmless, beneficial CO2, the long term trend has not accelerated. CO2 may have an effect, but it is too small to measure.

    CO2 does not have the effect claimed by the alarmist crowd, otherwise the 40% rise in CO2 would have caused the warming trend to accelerate, no? But that has not happened. Even Phil Jones admits that what we have observed recently has happened repeatedly in the past, before CO2 was an issue.

    Finally, global temperatures over the past three years continue to decline

    So relax. Nothing unusual is happening. Instead of worrying yourself silly over tenths of a degree natural fluctuations, look at the big picture.

  84. smokey i am not saying anything. i am merely repeating what NASA, the world met and every major scientific group on earth is saying. saying ”Wrong ” is not a counter argument. and the sources you give are not peer reviewed or published in the appropriate science journals. your arguments are pretty much of a cliche. it is the same misinformation eg it is not warming, it is natural, c02 is a harmless trace gas. temp has no effect on weather. it is warming after an ice age etc? you say that rather emphatically. the truth is you do not know and your position is not endorsed by a major science group. so you may well be wrong. extreme weather events are on the increase. you would have to be blind not to see it. heat waves, floods , drought etc are not in decline. please give sources and figures for that claim. temp effects evaporation [ simple physics ] which must influence rainfall. storms feed of heat. thats why the southern hemisphere, the warmest hemisphere has the more intense storms. warm water feeds the energy of a storm. what 40% increase in c02? what are you talking about? what have large cities got to do with anything. urban island heat effect is nonsense, temp rises in rural areas as well. we are talking global temp not regional. the LIA is not effecting present global temp. the LIA was not a major ice age.and is certainly not responsible for present warming. you contradict yourself. firstly you say it is warming a result of the LIA . and then you say its cooling. which is it? if its cooling, that destroys your LIA argument. if its warming i win. i would suggest you study the NASA temp data or the world met. they say that temp is accelerating. melting glaciers and ice caps seem to indicate that as well. i am not interested in non peer reviewed studies that are not endorsed by a major science group/ that they are ”definitely ” wrong. but there is a huge possibility they are

  85. smokey, what causes the warming after an ice age. what is the forcing agent? is it solar activity increase? what causes the warming? or do you think climate change happens by magic? i look forward to your response.

  86. Anecdotal evidence that the world’s weather is getting wilder now has a solid scientific basis in fact following a dramatic global assessment from the World Meteorological Organization.

    A study released Wednesday by the WMO — a specialized climate science agency of the United Nations — says the world is experiencing record numbers of extreme weather events, such as droughts and tornadoes.

    Laying the blame firmly at the feet of global warming, the agency warned that the number and intensity of extreme weather events could continue to increase.

  87. smokey , when thinking in terms of trends three years indicates nothing. what is the trend for the last decade? it is increased warming. what is the trend for the last century? it is warming and more warming. taking phil jones out of context is cherry picking. what did phil jones say in the entire statement? did he reject AGW? no. the trend line over the last century is upward. the LIA ice age has nothing to do with present warming. scientists would have considered LIA and rejected it

  88. nothing unusual is happening smokey? scientists and most people disagree. it is not ”natural fluctuations” there is nothing natural about it. the sun is in minimum the globe is warming. that is not natural. it is not ”natural ” for c02 levels to increase 100 ppm in 200 years. a natural increase of that much takes thousands of years. ”c02 has had an effect but it is too small to measure?” no it isnt. it is being measured and the results should cause humanity to worry. pardon me me if i accept what most scientists and every major science group on earth thinks as opposed to what you and your non peer reviewed sources think. put it down to commonsense

  89. that non existent global warming just killed 30 people in america. hundreds drown in flooding in russia. . extreme weather is just imaginary eh smokey?

  90. smokey, some of your graphs look like they were drawn by a five year old. your temp global mean chart comes with no sources. where does the graph come from? certainly not nasa. i suggest you upgrade and go to the nasa website. their graphs actually look scientific and includes in depth commentary.

  91. smokey, wood for trees org. the people you used as a source for a temp graph is not a scientific group. their data has not been through the scientific process. it has no credibility. they certainly do not have their own satelite and scientists. how can you compare them to nasa? simply absurd

  92. david brown says:
    July 7, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    bill, you missed the moon as an integral point of ocean behaviour.

    I clearly said “tidal effects.” It appears that English is not your first language, so I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

    i think your comparisons between the sun and the ocean is rather silly.. it has nothing to do with the fact that solar activity effects climate. and that by definition means it is a forcing agent

    It was an example of the difference between a source and a forcing. Your English comprehension is a only a minor problem — your major problems are

    1. that you demand scientific proof of skeptic statements and then either ignore the proof or deride it when it’s given, and

    2. you continue to put forth your own opinions as scientifically accepted facts without backing them up.

  93. david brown says:
    July 7, 2012 at 12:09 pm
    Solar minimums and maximums are the two extremes of the sun’s 11-year activity cycle.[1
    see bill. the eleven year cycle is actually part of the solar minimum. you still have solar cycles even during a minimum.

    You just shot down your own argument. Here is a basic primer — it may help:

    http://users.telenet.be/j.janssens/Engzonnecyclus.html

    and here’s an expansion on it.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/FORECASTING_SOLAR_CYCLE.pdf

    and the sun is both an energy source” and a forcing agent”. why cant it be both?

    The sun is the driver by definition. By your logic, a bus driver is also a passenger in the rear of the bus.

    a forcing agent is anything that ”forces ” climate to change. hence the name. and increased or decreased solar activity forces climate to change.

    “Driver” and “forcing agent” already have set definitions — you’re not allowed to make up your own definitions based on what you think they should be.

    i suggest you ask a friend who knows more than you what a forcing agent is. or better still. read a basic science book.

    I suggest you lose that self-appointed superiority. You’ve already demonstrated your ignorance of both science and the proper use of its terminology.

    europe went to war in 1939 by the way. and american industry was contributing to the war effort well before 1942. industrial aerosols cool, just as aerosols from volcanos cool. that is an established fact.

    The established fact is that *Europe* went to war in 1939, but US industry didn’t crank up to wartime footing until 1942. We didn’t start providing surplus weapons to Britain until mid-1941, and most of what we sent overseas prior to that was food and gasoline, which didn’t contribute squat to the amount of aerosols needed for the cooling your supposition requires.

    the increase or decrease in aerosols will effect the climate. if warming increased ten years before action was taken on aerosols, that could have been for a number of reasons. less aerosols due to better technology. less manufacturing or increased solar activity.

    You try to invent your own terms, you try to invent your own history, now you’re trying to invent your own technological advances, and then you assume that your unsupported suppositions prove your assertions. Major error.

    the final nail in your coffin is on one hand you say the sun is not in a minimum. meaning it is increasing in activity. but then you say the global temp is cooling.. that my friend, contradicts and destroys your argument

    I’ve told you before to *stop putting words in my mouth* – I never said that the sun was not in a minimum, and the graphs I linked to clearly show that we entered the present minimum in late 2003. What I *said* was that we haven’t been in a 40-year solar minimum. You claim that we are and haven’t presented anything in evidence except your statement – no citations, no quotes, no links, just your statement. Your NASA snippet only verifies that we’re in the minimum of the current 11-year solar cycle.

  94. david brown says:
    July 7, 2012 at 12:09 pm
    if warming increased ten years before action was taken on aerosols, that could have been for a number of reasons. less aerosols due to better technology. less manufacturing or increased solar activity.

    The industrial stack scrubber was only invented seven years after the temperature began to rise and wasn’t in widespread use until the ‘80s, after the EPA regulations kicked in — your “less aerosols” supposition won’t wash.

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3685262.pdf

    US manufacturing shifted from producing armaments to consumer goods in 1946 and heavy industrial manufacturing continued to *increase* until 1979 — your “less manufacturing” supposition won’t wash.

    http://www.stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1987/09/art4full.pdf

    So, the warming began after WWII despite all the aerosols and no reduction in heavy manufacturing, and the cooling in the ’60s and early ’70s was taking place while CO2 was increasing.

    Which — in the limited options you listed — leaves the sun as the driver for both.

  95. nasa and every group involved in the study of the sun say we have been in a minimum for 40 years. the sun is a forcing agent as it forces the climate to change. that is why forcing agents are called forcing agents. we are discussing climate, not oceans or bus drivers. you could have combined the two and your irrelevant analogy could have been the captain of a submarine. i am not ignorant of science. i am repeating what nasa and all major science groups say. and they know more about the subject than either one of us. the difference is i am not challenging the science and you are. the onus is on you to really know what you are talking about. and you clearly have very limited knowledge in the area bill.

  96. if we have been in a minimum since 2003 why is global temp still rising? because the study was from 2003 that does not mean that is when the minimum started. and again i ask how can the planet warm naturally during a solar minimum. the decade 2000 to 2010 was the hottest on record according to the world met and nasa. your sources are not on par with mine. i have every major science group on earth behind me, including nasa, i am not even sure who your sources are. can you name them and the individual peer reviewed papers they have released?

  97. bill you are forgetting germany and japans industrial output in aerosols. or do you think the allies fought themselves? Hitler’s preparation for war began in the mid 30s. as did japans. the uk was a massive manufacturing country even before the war.

  98. After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.

    The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

    The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

    The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.

  99. In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

  100. A common claim amongst climate “skeptics” is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the first year claimed by “skeptics” for “Global Cooling”. Then 1995 followed by 2002. ‘Skeptics’ have also emphasized the year 2007-2008 and most recently the last half of 2010.

    NASA and climate scientists throughout the world have said, however, that the years starting since 1998 have been the hottest in all recorded temperature history. Do these claims sound confusing and contradictory? Has the Earth been cooling, lately?

    To find out whether there is actually a “cooling trend,” it is important to consider all of these claims as a whole, since they follow the same pattern. In making these claims, ‘skeptics’ cherrypick short periods of time, usually about 10 years or less.

    ‘Skeptics’ also take selected areas of the world where cold records for the recent past are being set while ignoring other areas where all time heat records are being set.

    The temperature chart below is based on information acquired from NASA heat sensing satellites. It covers a 30 year period from January 1979 to November 2010. The red curve indicates the average temperature throughout the entire Earth.

    The red line represents the average temperature. The top of the curves are warmer years caused by El Niño; a weather phenomenon where the Pacific Ocean gives out heat thus warming the Earth. The bottoms of the curves are usually La Niña years which cool the Earth. Volcanic eruptions, like Mount Pinatubo in 1991 will also cool the Earth over short timeframes of 1-2 years.

    Figure 1: University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) temperature chart from January 1979 to November 2010. This chart is shown with no trend lines so the viewer may make his own judgment.

    bill, i am ”backing up ” my argument with peer reviewed published studies and studies from nasa. all of which confirm my statements. now i await your sources

  101. The main culprit is likely to have been an increase in sulphate aerosols, which reflect incoming solar energy back into space and lead to cooling. This increase was the result of two sets of events.

    Industrial activities picked up following the Second World War. This, in the absence of pollution control measures, led to a rise in aerosols in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere).
    A number of volcanic eruptions released large amounts of aerosols in the upper atmosphere (the stratosphere).
    Combined, these events led to aerosols overwhelming the warming trend at a time when solar activity showed little variation, leading to the observed cooling. Furthermore, it is possible to draw similar conclusions by looking at the daily temperature cycle. Because sunlight affects the maximum day-time temperature, aerosols should have a noticeable cooling impact on it. Minimum night-time temperatures, on the other hand, are more affected by greenhouse gases and therefore should not be affected by aerosols. Were these differences observed? The answer is yes: maximum day-time temperatures fell during this period but minimum night-time temperatures carried on rising.

    The introduction of pollution control measures reduced the emission of sulphate aerosols. Gradually the cumulative effect of increasing greenhouse gases started to dominate in the 1970s and warming resumed.

  102. Understanding what drives climate does not occur by a process of elimination. It’s happens by a process of integration. There are many influences of climate that all need to be considered together to gain the full picture. The following lists the radiative forcing, loosely defined as the change in net energy flow at the top of the atmosphere, from the various factors that affect climate (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). Positive radiative forcing has a warming effect (so obviously, negative radiative forcing has a cooling effect).

    Surface Albedo has changed due to activity such as deforestation. This increases the Earth’s albedo – the planet’s surface is more reflective. Consequently, more sunlight is reflected directly back into space, giving a cooling effect of -0.2 Wm-2.
    Ozone affects the climate in two ways. The depletion of stratospheric ozone is estimated to have had a cooling effect of -0.05 Wm-2. Increasing tropospheric ozone has had a warming effect of +0.35 Wm-2.
    Solar variations affect climate in various ways. The change in incoming Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has a direct radiative forcing. There is an indirect effect from UV light which modifies the stratosphere. The radiative forcing from solar variations since pre-industrial times is estimated at +0.12 Wm-2. Note that the radiative forcing from solar variations may be amplified by a possible link between galactic cosmic rays and clouds. However, considering the sun has shown a slight cooling trend over the last 30 years, an amplified forcing from solar variations would mean a greater cooling effect on global temperatures during the modern warming trend over the last 35 years.

    this is a comment from a phd in physics bill. note he shows various climate drivers[ forcing agents ] one of them is solar activity. which means the sun is a forcing agent. you say i do not ”back up ” my argument? i have included sources and peer reviewed published research. i have many more. but you get my drift.

  103. External forcing: a forcing agent outside the climate system causing a change in the climate system. Volcanic eruptions, solar variations and anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere and land use change are external forcings.

    this is the scientific definition of a forcing agent bill. please not ”solar variations ” is included.

  104. bill you fail to take into account increases in solar activity. this would increase temp, even if aerosols were having a cooling effect. that explains why there was warming before aerosols were limited. the bottom line is that for the last decade temp has been increasing while solar activity has been decreasing [ your own claim ] so what is causing the increase in temp? it is a simple question.

  105. david brown says:
    July 8, 2012 at 4:25 am
    improved technology would have meant less aerosols

    The improved technology wasn’t even invented until 1978, which you might have learned if you’d actually read the patent I linked to.

    And at July 8, 2012 at 4:34 am:
    nasa and every group involved in the study of the sun say we have been in a minimum for 40 years.

    Prove it by producing a link, or the statement itself. You’ve had days to do that, and you keep asserting it and refusing to provide proof.

    the difference is i am not challenging the science and you are. the onus is on you to really know what you are talking about. and you clearly have very limited knowledge in the area bill.

    The difference is that I’m giving you information and sources and you’re merely parroting AGW talking points.

    And at July 8, 2012 at 4:40 am:

    if we have been in a minimum since 2003 why is global temp still rising?

    You keep asserting the temperature is rising without providing proof except to keep repeating “world met” says so, yet you dismiss the empirical data Smokey provided which shows otherwise.

    I thought you said you understood science. You’ve made basic mistakes and said some fairly stupid things in your comments here – this one (July 7, 2012 at 7:04 pm): smokey, some of your graphs look like they were drawn by a five year old. your temp global mean chart comes with no sources, for instance tells me you’re not smart enough to decode the reference source, which was right at the top of the chart. And this one, because the study was from 2003 that does not mean that is when the minimum started tells me you not only don’t know the difference between a study and a website entry, you can’t even tell when it was written. The NASA article is from 2009, and one of the points on the accompanying graph was 2003.

    your sources are not on par with mine. i have every major science group on earth behind me, including nasa, i am not even sure who your sources are. can you name them and the individual peer reviewed papers they have released?

    You haven’t proven a damned thing, child, you’ve merely made an appeal to authority without providing a shred of actual information to back up your statement. You’ve also ignored that every reference I’ve given you has been either from NASA, from educational sites and sources that provide links to the *peer-reviewed* authors and papers they cited, which you first failed to read and then challenged me to provide sources.

    And at July 8, 2012 at 4:45 am:

    bill you are forgetting germany and japans industrial output in aerosols. or do you think the allies fought themselves? Hitler’s preparation for war began in the mid 30s. as did japans. the uk was a massive manufacturing country even before the war.

    Japan’s industrialization began in 1890 and her military industrialization began in the late 1920s – and the USSR wasn’t far behind. And yet, with all those aerosols floating around, the 1930s was the warmest decade of the 20th Century – at least it was until NASA/GISS began arbitrarily adjusting the historical temperatures downward.

    And at July 8, 2012 at 5:04 am:

    ”A common claim amongst climate ‘skeptics’ is that the Earth has been cooling recently. 1998 was the first year claimed by ‘skeptics’ for ‘Global Cooling’. Then 1995 followed by 2002. ‘Skeptics’ have also emphasized the year 2007-2008 and most recently the last half of 2010.”
    (remainder of AGW propaganda diatribe snipped)
    bill, i am ”backing up ” my argument with peer reviewed published studies and studies from nasa. all of which confirm my statements. now i await your sources

    You have provided *nothing* except some paragraphs that sound like they’re from Real Climate. Do you have one single clue what “providing sources” means?

    And at July 8, 2012 at 5:28 am:

    “Understanding what drives climate does not occur by a process of elimination. It’s happens by a process of integration. There are many influences of climate that all need to be considered together to gain the full picture.”

    That’s the first intelligent quote you’ve pasted. Where did it come from? IOW, what’s the source?

    this is a comment from a phd in physics bill. note he shows various climate drivers[ forcing agents ] one of them is solar activity. which means the sun is a forcing agent. you say i do not ”back up ” my argument? i have included sources and peer reviewed published research. i have many more. but you get my drift.

    WHAT IS THE SOURCE, OTHER THAN “A Ph.D IN PHYSICS”?!? Geez, it’s like pulling teeth…

    And at July 8, 2012 at 5:33 am:

    bill i hope you now realise that the sun is a driver of climate. a driver of climate and a forcing agent mean the same thing

    Okay, which one of you smarter-than-I-am commenters here can explain the difference between a driver and a forcing agent to brainchild, here?

    And at July 8, 2012 at 6:50 am

    bill you fail to take into account increases in solar activity. this would increase temp, even if aerosols were having a cooling effect. that explains why there was warming before aerosols were limited. the bottom line is that for the last decade temp has been increasing while solar activity has been decreasing [ your own claim ] so what is causing the increase in temp? it is a simple question.

    I’ve given you the answer and you keep refusing to accept that there was been *no* temperature increase during the last decade.

  106. aerosols have a cooling effect bill, be it industrial or by volcanos. that is why there is cooling after a major eruption. that is an undisputed fact .there may well have been a warming during heavy industrial periods. however that was simply caused by an increase in solar activity or by an increase in c02. without the aerosols it would have been much warmer. ”an appeal to authority” is simply appealing to an authority who knows more about the subject than i do. if my car broke down i would take it to a mechanic. that is appealing to authority as well. it is commonsense to accept what an authority tells you if they provide evidence to support their claim. or have a track record of being right .and nasa and the world met [ and mechanics ] do. do you not accept gravity as a fact, or natural selection or relativity? because they are the same people who tell you the planet is warming and that we are probably responsible. a ”driver” of climate means it [ the driver ] is driving climate to change , or ”forcing it to change”. they mean the same thing. the world met and nasa say the last decade has been the warmest on record. they provide research data and satelite observations to back their claim. you can find their conclusions online. you provide no data, no sources and repeat parrot like, that it is not warming. yet claim the sun is not cooling. there is a contradiction there. how can the sun be warming and the planet cooling. you need to appeal to authority mate. your present strategy is not working

  107. Figure 8: Solar contribution to global warming according to Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, blue), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, green), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, purple).

    It’s not the Sun
    As illustrated above, neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years. As Ray Pierrehumbert said about solar warming,

    here are some sources bill. lean and rind. i would also check the tung/ camp studies of solar activity. i am providing the sources. now it is up to you to do the rest. i have thousands if you are interested? something tells me you are not? it would mean accepting you are incorrect. climate skeptics tend to blindly cling to their ideology

  108. Solar-Cycle Warming at the Earth’s Surface and an
    Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity.
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6

    By Ka-Kit Tung and Charles D. Camp
    Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle Washington,
    USA

    a study for you bill. it is peer reviewed and published

  109. To say we’re currently experiencing global cooling overlooks one simple physical reality – the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction of the Earth’s climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth’s entire heat content.

    Church et al 2011 extends the analysis of Murphy 2009 which calculated the Earth’s total heat content through to 2003. This new research combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat through to 2008.

    see bill. global warming is not just surface temp as you seem to think it is. you can google the murphy study. go on appeal to authority. they know more about the subject than you

  110. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 114, D17107, 14 PP., 2009
    doi:10.1029/2009JD012105

    An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950

    D. M. Murphy
    Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    S. Solomon
    Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    R. W. Portmann
    Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    K. H. Rosenlof
    Chemical Sciences Division, Earth System Research Laboratory, NOAA, Boulder, Colorado, USA

    P. M. Forster
    School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    T. Wong
    NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, USA

    We examine the Earth’s energy balance since 1950, identifying results that can be obtained without using global climate models. Important terms that can be constrained using only measurements and radiative transfer models are ocean heat content, radiative forcing by long-lived trace gases, and radiative forcing from volcanic eruptions. We explicitly consider the emission of energy by a warming Earth by using correlations between surface temperature and satellite radiant flux data and show that this term is already quite significant. About 20% of the integrated positive forcing by greenhouse gases and solar radiation since 1950 has been radiated to space. Only about 10% of the positive forcing (about 1/3 of the net forcing) has gone into heating the Earth, almost all into the oceans. About 20% of the positive forcing has been balanced by volcanic aerosols, and the remaining 50% is mainly attributable to tropospheric aerosols. After accounting for the measured terms, the residual forcing between 1970 and 2000 due to direct and indirect forcing by aerosols as well as semidirect forcing from greenhouse gases and any unknown mechanism can be estimated as −1.1 ± 0.4 W m−2 (1σ).

  111. here is the murphy study bill. i am including sources to counter the accusation that i have nothing to back me up. you can see i have a lot to back me up. peer reviewed studies. and data from nasa. you seem to have nothing?

  112. I note that following my last post above, david brown got so flustered that he posted nine (9) consecutive replies.☺ Almost all of them contain brown’s usual misinformation.

    And I note that brown cannot answer Bill Tuttle’s questions, instead referring to imaginary links.

    The planet is still naturally emerging from the Little Ice Age, along the same long-term trend line. There is no acceleration where temperatures break out over their long term parameters, and despite the 40% rise in [harmless, beneficial] CO2, there is no measurable change in the trend:

    click1
    click2
    click3
    click4
    click5
    click6
    click7

    I have more such charts for Mr brown if he is interested, on many different time scales and from many different sources. The fact is that the large increase in CO2 has not affected the long term global warming trend since the LIA. The conclusion is inescapable: the effect of CO2 is much smaller than claimed. It is so small, in fact, that it is unmeasurable. It cannot be discerned in the natural warming trend. That debunks the “carbon” scare, no?

    Yes. Yes it does.

  113. david brown says:
    July 8, 2012 at 12:23 pm
    here is the murphy study bill. i am including sources to counter the accusation that i have nothing to back me up. you can see i have a lot to back me up. peer reviewed studies. and data from nasa. you seem to have nothing?

    Congratulations — the idea of providing a source finally seems to have sunk in.

    Your last sentence, however, tells me you either still haven’t read any of the links I provided or you have the attention span of a goldfish.

  114. are they peer reviewed published sources smokey. your last source was from a timber company. hardly scientific.’ the conclusion is inescapable the effect of c02 is much smaller than claimed? ” according to every major science group on earth ,including nasa and the world met your conclusion is very escapable. ”it is so small it is immeasurable?” no smokey it is not immeasurable. as a matter of fact it is constantly being measured. i will give you the measurements if you like? my links are not imaginary. the tung/ camp study actually exists. as does the murphy study. i have actually cut and pasted the papers. you can go to the link quite easily . they are all on line. i suppose NASA is an imaginary link too? what caused the LIA to end? shall i tell you?. an increase in solar activity. it did not end by magic as you seem to think. that increase in solar activity is no longer relevant. the sun is in a minimum at present. i will check your links again out of politeness. but i sincerely hope the standard is higher than the cave paintings you posted last time?

  115. ”wood for trees” is not a scientific link smokey. and your graphs contains no information as to who is responsible for them. who is the research group who did the measurements and formulated the graphs? . are they independent studies or done by a recognised scientific org ?you could have drawn them up for all i know. name the sources on which the graphs are based. and then as all good science studies do, please explain the conclusions with some kind of commentary . you know study papers. names, dates, .the names of the science journals the graphs are originally published in etc. i cant believe you expect to be taken seriously with the chicken scratchings you have posted. far more confirmed details please.

  116. you are wrong bill i browsed the links you posted. but if their conclusions are that the planet is not warming. or that aerosols do not cool climate. or that the sun is not decreasing in activity and is not a forcing agent . then they have little credibility.

  117. ”you have more such charts smokey?” heaven forbid. just go to the nasa website if you want good science. they include in depth analysis. what you offer is not even on a primary school level

  118. smokey. first please explain what caused the LIA.? then explain what caused the LIA to finish. what natural factors ? then explain how those natural factors are still relevant now? i just want to check that you understand the subject. please include sources, hopefully peer reviewed ones. but not necessarily. i look forward to your explanation of how the LIA is effecting climate now

  119. so smokey, you admit there has been a long term global warming trend since the LIA. bill would disagree with you. he says there was a cooling period from 1940 to 1965. and now he states that the last decade has seen no rise in temp. that means the LIA warming effect finished in 1940 according to bill? maybe you two should have a discussion to iron out your differences?

  120. david brown says:

    “”wood for trees” is not a scientific link smokey. and your graphs contains no information as to who is responsible for them. who is the research group who did the measurements and formulated the graphs?”

    Mr brown is new here, but that does not excuse his ignorance. All of the WFT graphs contain the information about who provided the data; brown just didn’t bother to look. He just made an assumption, which, like his other assumptions, turned out to be wrong.

    The rest of us know who is responsible for Wood For Trees [WFT]. It is a freeware site that uses empirical [real world] data provided by NASA GISS, HADcrut, RSS and UAH satellite data, CRUtem, HADSST2, NSIDC, MLO [Mauna Loa CO2], and other temperature and CO2 data that can be displayed and compared.

    WFT automatically converts the data into graphs, which commenters use here all the time. Brown’s is the very first complaint of WFT that I have seen like that, and it displays his ignorance for all to see. I would suggest that brown try using the WFT site, but I honestly believe that his science education is inadequate.

    Contrary to what brown says, WFT is real state of the art science. It is a valuable resource that is regularly used by both sides of the debate. Brown just doesn’t like it, because it debunks what he is trying to sell. The WFT graphs I posted show clearly and convincingly, based on real world measurements and observations, that the long term rise in temperature since the LIA remains within narrow parameters. Global temperatures are not accelerating, as the WFT charts show. Rather, they are rising at the same steady rate, despite the large increase in CO2. Brown doesn’t like that fact, but too bad. That’s reality.

  121. smokey , you are pulling my leg . if wood for trees uses graphs from nasa why do they resemble nothing like nasa has on their website? they look amateur .why is their nothing identifying the original source ?why is there no detail. why do the wood graphs differ from the graphs nasa has on their website? why would these graphs refute agw when nasa endorses it? why not just go directly to the nasa website? and you still have not answered my questions about the LIA.

  122. david brown,

    You have nine more comments to go before you set a new record.☺

    And since no one on either side of the debate has a problem with WFT — except for you – do you think everyone else is wrong, and you’re right? You sound like an eight year old pestering his mother with your endless questions. No one else cares that you can’t understand the WFT site, or how to use it.

    Your questions are easy to answer. But you’re a pest, and you will remember the answers much better if you find them yourself. Start with the WUWT archives. Learn something for a change, instead of repeating stupid talking points and asking questions that display your ignorance. And learn how to post a hotlink. It isn’t hard.

  123. in other words you do not know the answers smokey.? i know the answers i was just seeing if you did. and you do not. which means you have not fully researched the subject . .WFT is no substitute for NASA or the World Met

  124. david brown,

    You stated that ” ‘wood for trees’ is not a scientific link”, and then you went on to say that “your [WFT] graphs contains no information as to who is responsible for them.” FYI, NASA provides some of the WFT data. And please explain who the “World Met” is.

    Your ignorance is on display. Every WFT graph lists exactly where the data came from. And the top of every WFT page lists detailed information on how to construct graphs from data. In particular, read the Notes page.

    Now you are claiming that I don’t know the answers to the simple, inane questions you are always asking. But of course, I do. They are simpleton questions. You can get your answers in the WUWT archives. And the fact that you even ask those questions makes clear that you are a newbie and on the wrong track. Your responses exhibit monumental ignorance of the subject. Really, you sound like a very young know-nothing, who preposterously claims to know it all.

    Since you claim to be so smart, exlpain why the long term temperature trend has not changed for hundreds of years – while during that time CO2 has increased from 280 ppmv to 392 ppmv. Explain why CO2 has had no measurable effect.

    I have provided charts based on real world data and observations, showing definitively that there is no accelerated warming; it is an artefact of an arbitrary zero baseline chart, while you post cut ‘n’ paste nonsense based on always-inaccurate, repeatedly falsified computer models. Pay attention here: models are not scientific evidence. They are programmed opinion. GIGO: Garbage In, Gospel Out. Let’s stick with verifiable, testable evidence, per the scientific method. The claptrap you are posting is pseudo-science; models that cannot even hindcast! Get real.

    In the case of NASA/GISS, they mendaciously “adjust” the temperature record, as you can see here, and here, and here, with no explanation. And their ‘adjustments’ always show a more alarming rise in temperature. What are the odds of that?? Only a fool would trust them or their data.

    I am 64, retired after a 30+ year carreer in weather related instrument construction and calibration. Our Metrology Lab received all the professional literature from instrument manufacturers, gratis. So I have seen the alarmist narrative evolve from the global cooling scare to the global warming scare, and it is equally grant-based nonsense. What intrigues me is why someone like you would turn into a religious True Believer? What causes that?? It certainly is not scientific knowledge. You remind me of Winston Smith, who wondered: if everybody believes that 2 + 2 = 5, would that make it true? In your case, I think you would answer “Yes.”

  125. david brown says:
    July 8, 2012 at 1:50 pm
    you are wrong bill i browsed the links you posted. but if their conclusions are that the planet is not warming. or that aerosols do not cool climate. or that the sun is not decreasing in activity and is not a forcing agent . then they have little credibility.

    You said you browsed the links, but you have no idea what they said? Pardon me if I disbelieve that.

    Since you seem to believe that the WMO is the ultimate authority on climate temperature trends – so try to wrap your mind around this: The WMO gets its data from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit (HadCRUT) in East Anglia. HadCRUT data *shows* that the global temperature has not been increasing —

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/28/tisdale-a-closer-look-at-crutem4-since-1975/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/20/new-and-improved-crutem4-global-land-surface-temperature-data-vs-ipcc-ar4-cmip3-climate-models/

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/04/connect-the-dots-global-warming-hadcrut-warming-turns-cooling.html

    — yet the WMO, which has that exact same data, claims the temperature is increasing. So, who’s been lying to you – the Earth or the WMO?

  126. @ david brown I just saw Smokey’s comment to you — “Pay attention here: models are not scientific evidence. They are programmed opinion. GIGO: Garbage In, Gospel Out.”

    Read the post at this link carefully, the charts can be confusing to someone whose first language isn’t English; they alternate — odd numbered charts show what the models predicted and even numbered charts show the actual observations.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/20/new-and-improved-crutem4-global-land-surface-temperature-data-vs-ipcc-ar4-cmip3-climate-models/

  127. bill, models for climate have been around for decades. more than enough time to confirm their reliability. and reliable they are. extreme weather, melting glaciers and ice caps, the warming of the oceans etc was predicted long ago. proving that models are reliable. obviously models for the future eg the impact of global warming if c02 levels double is speculative up to a point. who can predict the future with 100 percent accuracy .? . but going on the past, there is a good probability those models will be correct as well. models are based on research and the collecting of data and empirical observations. this all takes place ”before ” the models are formulated. models are not just made up as you seem to believe. i do not think you or smokey are qualified enough to question the science. smokey cannot even explain the premise of his argument about the LIA. and you do not know that the sun is a forcing agent.. he has never even heard of the World Meteorological Org. they have been around since 1854. that level of ignorance in inexcusable in a debate about climate. it is akin to not knowing who Newton was , when discussing gravity. it totally undermines smokey’s position . it shows he has done no research. he says the ”wood” people are ”interpreting” the data from nasa etc to construct their graphs. why not just rely on nasa? his only argument is that nasa is ”shady ” or cannot be trusted . a silly conspiracy . if nasa cannot be trusted why take their data to the wood org in the first place ? it is another contradiction .Hadcrut endorse the consensus on climate change. as does nasa, the world met and the royal society. are they all not to be trusted? what are your and smokey’s sources. name one major science group that endorses your position. you cannot. where are you models? who is collecting your data? if nasa cannot be trusted who can be? you do not have a leg to stand on. no sources, no endorsements. no real understanding of the science. and unsubstantiated conspiracy. it is not a good position to be in

  128. bill, smokey said nasa cannot be trusted. and yet he takes their data to the ”wood ” people for interpretation, so they can construct their graphs. that makes no sense. he does not even know the premise of his own argument about the LIA. has no idea who the world meteorological org is. they have been around since for 1854. that shows he does not know the subject. you do not know that the sun is a forcing agent and yet you challenge the greatest scientific bodies on the planet. climate models are based on data and empirical observations. this is done ”before” the models are constructed. modelling has been around for 50 years are more. more than enough time to test their accuracy. science would not use the method if it was unreliable. going to the moon was based on a model of sorts. turned out to be pretty accurate. Hadcrut endorse the consensus on climate change by the way. as do every other major group. where are your sources? your data. who confirms your position?where are your models? you do not have much of an argument.

    [Moderator's Note: I was tempted to snip this for your own good, but that would have been counter-productive. You might have become better acquainted with WFT before denouncing it. You might have done a number of things. By the way, if your trip from Sydney to London back in May was via an American-made plane, it is very likely that Smokey's efforts are what helped keep it in the air. As the Royal Navy once put it: "For what we are about to receive, may the Good Lord make us truly grateful." -REP]

  129. Thank you, Mr Moderator.

    I’m moving on, this thread is four days old and almost no one is reading it any more. Some of us are still trying to educate david brown, but it isn’t working, sad to say.

    So Mr brown can have the last word as a consolation prize for his abysmal scientific knowledge [I should point out that the World Meterological Organizations' abbreviation is "WMO", not "World Met", which sounds like something from the Met Office].

    Anyway, Mr brown, have a nice day on your planet, wherever it is.☺ Cheers.

  130. Smokey says:
    July 9, 2012 at 4:10 pm
    Some of us are still trying to educate david brown, but it isn’t working, sad to say.

    You can’t teach aerodynamics to someone who insists magic carpets are real…

  131. mr moderator, you are supposed to be impartial.? smokey thinks i have abysmal scientific knowledge.? what i say comes from NASA and the CSIRO, so i think my knowledge is credible. needless to say, i do know what caused the LIA. and why the LIA could not be a factor now.i also know that the sun is a forcing agent. and also know that decreased solar activity cannot lead to increased natural warming. which is what mr tuttle and smokey think. i also know that the world met could not possibly mean ”world police force ”.i also see no need to take data from nasa too another party [ non scientific ] for graph construction. nasa has its own graphs, as does the world met. i suggest smokey study them. as for keeping my plane in the air? if id known smokey had anything to do with it, i would not have boarded. and smokey i am from planet earth. and that planet continues to warm. thanks mr moderator. i have enjoyed our little tussle. albeit rather pointless. may you receive a little knowledge on the subject of climate science. for that, we will all be truly grateful

  132. Bill Tuttle. To educate first you must know. And Mr Moderator. i have not flown in three years .And certainly not from Sydney

  133. bill, aerodynamics is endorsed by every major group involved in flight research . there is a world wide consensus what makes aircraft fly and what makes them crash. in other words you must ”appeal to authority” to get the correct answers. what you are proposing in regard to climate change does not have similar endorsements. no major science group endorses your position.if you were involved in aerodynamics your planes would not get off the ground. and magic carpet rides do not come with with a physics equation or empirical observations. AGW does. this is my last comment. i have enjoyed it. goodbye mr moderator.i hope you learn the meaning of impartiality soon?

Comments are closed.