The puzzle: why have rising temperatures been on a 'Twenty-year hiatus"?

Always interesting that point on the roller coaster ride when you’re at the top of the incline and then briefly almost level and then …

“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.”
Yes it does.

In real science, when the model doesn’t predict reality, you know the model is WRONG.
But that doesn’t seem to work in climate science.
Must be like Keynesian economics, it’s just too politically useful to be wrong.

It’s quite simple really.
There is no evidence of the Tropical Troposphere warming despite an eleven year watch by the Aqua Satellite and twenty years of weather balloons. Furthermore AGW “scientists” stand accused or ramping up positive feedback predictions and ignoring the negatives. On top of that the biggest blunder was to factor in CO2’s ability to create heat as linear when it is logarithmic.
Therefore theory fails the test.

It all depends on how you torture the data
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming
“The paper, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature Geoscience, explores the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree”
“The climate forecast published in 1999 is showed by the dashed black line. Actual temperatures are shown by the red line (as a 10-year mean) and yellow diamonds (for individual years). The graph shows that temperatures rose somewhat faster than predicted in the early 2000s before returning to the forecasted trend in the last few years. Photograph: Nature Geoscience “

Puzzle? The puzzle is how 16 years has become 20 within 2 months.
But there’s no puzzle over why the fringe dwellers are able to deceive. They have cherry picked a period of a very strong El Niño warming event followed by a very strong La Nina cooling event.
Meanwhile the heat content of the oceans continues to grow, the seas are rising, the Arctic is melting, weather has gone haywire and WUWT shows why it remains at the fringe and happy to use a deception to “get their press”.

tallbloke says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:13 am
But doesn’t mention […] that big yellow nuclear furnace up in the sky…
And for a good reason, as the Sun has very little to do with this. Of course, every ’cause’ has its own holy grail, so dream on…

James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
If the temps had continued to rise it would have been due to burning coal. Amazing stuff that burning coal.

wws says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:10 am
‘“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.”
Yes it does.’
It darn sure means that computer models of climate are a delusion. Actual temperatures are on the verge of dropping out of the error bars. Yes, the error bars. It is not just that the computer projections have all proved to be wrong; rather, they are wrong even when taking into account the generously fat error bars that modelers attached to their projections. In other words, the temperature slump is beyond the wildest dreams of even the modelers.

When she [Leona Marshall Libby] and Pandolfi project their curves into the future, they show lower average temperatures from now though the mid-1980s. “Then,” Dr. Libby added, “we see a warming trend (by about a quarter of 1 degree Fahrenheit) globally to around the year 2000. And then it will get really cold – if we can believe our projections. This has to be tested.”
How cold? “Easily one or two degree,” She replied, “and maybe even three or four degrees. It only takes 10 degree to bring on and Ice Age.”
From St. Petersburg Times (Florida USA) January 1, 1979

Here’s my theory as to why: Because the climateers aren’t able to adjust the recent temperatures — too high profile. If only they could adjust the whole past downwards, then warming would be restored! How many are skulking in their labs, thinking of ways… who’s that tapping on my shoulder… oh no, it’s Lewandowski!! Nailed, aaagh!!

Well it seems that finally the AGW is falling we can now quote mainstream media saying that they are beginning to doubt. Now once they realize it was a fraud all along they are going to go after the culprits like you would not believe it. It will be the new story…..

James Hansen … says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.
Setting aside the Could be nonsense.
Given G.W. Alarmists past claims, this has to be one of the most sanctimonious pieces of rhetoric to ever be put forth. Good god can’t these G.W. Aers admit they were blowing hot air and wrong?! Hansen’s latest desperation makes me more determined to see him and G.W. Aers tried for fraudulent use of government resources and funding.

My apologies. I got it all wrong. The Guardian now says the models were right afterall.

Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/27/climate-change-model-global-warming

When observations diverge from predictions just do an analysis and make necessary adjustments and voila!

So Hansen now sees “coal trains of salvation” rather than “coal trains of death”?

Hansen blamed coal for global warming AND blames coal for the temperature standstill. Yet he also blamed soot in the past for global warming saying it was twice as effective as co2 in warming air temperatures. Is there anything coal can’t do?

From the article “Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.”
Just trying to buy another 20 years before he thinks he can be demonstrated a charlatan.

Or it could be the theory is wrong, Occam’s Razer and all that good stuff.

Starting to look more and more like a similar scientific ‘consensus’ a century ago when they stamped their feet and insisted that mathematically man cannot fly!

As BillClinton might have said ‘its natural variability stupid.’
tonyb

dbstealey says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:42 pm
Found a rare pic of Hansen, Pachauri, Mann and Schmidt all together here [taxpayer is on left].
=====================================================================
Can’t find the like button. Where is the like button Anthony!!! LOL

Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Why ask why? Take it from the drone, bots and clones, they have all the answers. Never mind when they seem to make no sense.

Interestingly, in an earlier paper (2011) Hansen realized that his predictions were thrown off somewhat by solar influence. Now he blames nitrogen coal emissions from China and India and the bigger stronger CO2-gobbling plants we’re now growing. What this comes down to is the CO2-driver theory of earth temperature control is dying the slow, but well deserved, painful death it was supposed to receive 100 years ago.
We can expect other warmer scientists to hop on the bandwagon with their own contributions, but the meaning being offered here is completely clear, “The results have been completely disproved, and I was always right.”

@Paul Homewood
Richard Black has left the BBC, Roger Harrabin/David Shukman/Jonathon Amos on that watch now.

“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.”
Whatever, the missing warming does indicate G.W. scientists were utterly wrong.

Here is how global temperatures should have developed over the past 15 years, according to the IPCC, compared with how things really played out:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/detrend:-0.3/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998
A nice, steadily rising CO2+pos.feedback ‘background’ trend superimposed on the natural year-to-year (mostly ENSO-induced) ups and downs. Too bad the real world doesn’t work like that. In the real world, ENSO also sets the trend. Global temperatures simply follow.

The red line and the black dashed line do seem to go along nicely. No explanation of the solid black line and the shaded area. I assume that the solid line is a different prediction and the shaded area is the span of predictions. Heck, with that broad a band to hit, you can’t miss the accurate prediction.The chart proves you need how many wrongs to make a right?
CO2 “temporarily” lags temperatures? I’d expect CO2 to always lag temperatures based on some silly idea about solubility of dissolved gasses versus temperature. I believe CO2 has pretty much lagged temperatures for a very large span of years.
This is the most amazing mishmash of silly statements I’ve read for a while. Nice chuckle on a Friday afternoon.

I think the field of public communication, or more accurately, propaganda, is where the real science of CAGW is taking place.

“The Economist says the world has added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010, about one-quarter of all the carbon dioxide put there by humans since 1750.”
The effective volume of the Earth’s atmosphere is about 4.2 billion cubic kilometers. If (high estimate) measurements of anthropogenic CO2 are only one quarter of a 0.004% mole fraction out of 4.2 billion kilometers of atmosphere then obviously a mole fraction of 0.001% is not going to control or influence in anyway the other 0.003% mole fraction of CO2. The tiny amount of CO2 compared to 4.2 billion kilometers of atmosphere makes a 100 billions tones look like a dot.
Somewhere along the way temperature attribution to human CO2 production has been grossly exaggerated beyond logic, obviously we are seeing the result of this gross error through failed model projections and failed and failing doomsday scenarios. 25 years of hype and policy has been a huge wasteful exercise.
Without attributing a temperature to the mole fraction measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere it becomes a dimensionless quantity of which it is and here is what it looks like.
http://thetempestspark.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/visualizing-400-parts-per-million/

Some day soon they’ll switch gears and say global cooling is going to kill us all, and the way to fight it is by doing the same exact things we’ve been doing to fight global warming.
It ain’t about the climate. It’s about control over the peasants.

I feel we are already in a Mini Ice that started in 2008. Man made static is distorting the data and Man made BTU Heat emmisions is keeping flat temps. Please look at the world tempature chart and you will see in 2008 when the world economy was at a stand still the temps fell.
Man’s BTU consuption and heat relaeased into the atmosphere every day is like having 4 volcanios world wide releasing BTU heat into the atmosphere. One is in the sky for all the Jet engins Blower BTU heat exhust. N hem is where nost of the BTU heat energy is being released.
Please comment, sorry for typos, mobil post.

I quote:
‘This mismatch between rising greenhouse gas emissions and not-rising temperatures is among the biggest puzzles in climate science just now, The Economist article says.
“But it does not mean global warming is a delusion.” ‘
I beg to differ. It is a delusion because past temperatures have been falsified to show warming where none existed. These tricks so far are found in ground-based temperatures such as GISTEMP, HadCRUT and NCDC. So far they have been unable to doctor satellite records and that is why they all pretend that satellites do not even exist. The satellite record goes back to 1979 and begins with a series of ENSO oscillations, El Ninos alternating with La Ninas, for 18 years. During this period temperatures go up and down by half a degree while global mean temperature stays constant. This is another standstill longer than the present one but we have not been told about it. What ground-based temperature curves have been showing instead is a warming they call “late twentieth century warming” that looks impressive but is a complete fraud. That was true until late last fall when I discovered that all three ground-based temperatures in synch simply changed their temperature data for the eighties and nineties to conform to satellite data. Nothing was said about it and it has not appeared on long-term temperature curves yet. But it means that the satellite era standstill from 1979 to 1997 should appear on all new renditions of the above land-based temperature curves from now on. This long standstill was followed by the super El Nino of 1998, the highest El Nino peak in a century. It carried so much warm water across the ocean that a step warming followed. In four years, global temperature rose by a third of a degree and then stopped. There has not been any warming since then and there was none back to 1979 as I just explained. This leaves no room for any greenhouse warming since 1979. And the step warming brought to us by the super El Nino and not some imaginary greenhouse effect is responsible for the very warm first decade of this century. Hansen’s observation that nine out of ten warmest years fall into this period says nothing about the existence of global warming. They are warm simply because they sit on top of the warm platform the step warming created for them. I pointed this out three years ago in “What Warming?” but nobody listened. I am gratified that all three ground-based temperature curves have finally taken notice.

I’m not sure if anyone else noticed this and posted it. If so, sorry for the redundancy.
I found the wording of this bit interesting:
““The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations,” says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change,””
That seems to be putting the theory above observations. Shouldn’t that be the other way around, like this?
“If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of the consensus theory of climate change becoming incompatible with global observations,””

CET for March in the UK, currently at -2.6c http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cet_info_mean.html and could drop further, every month this year has been colder than the previous month, hope that stops soon, by the way is this what they mean by global warming or just weather?
Keith Gordon

Worth noting that compared to the rest of the world Australia has a huge number of the most rabid Warmists embedded in positions of authority. The Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO, the various Environmental bodies, Carbon Councils, and State Broadcasters like the ABC, incessantly bang on about ‘Climate Change’ mainly because the Government that supplies their funding has, for the last 6 years, been of the Warmist Tendency.
As the Green Labor Government spirals to oblivion, the strict ‘consensus’ enforced by the Political Wing of Warmism is crumbling.

If your furnace is on low heat, your fan is on low speed, all your local electrical auxillary heaters are off and your door is open , it should not be a surprise if your house gets colder inside.
In my judgement , these are are the main reasons[ in order of impact] why the global temperatures have been dropping the last 10 years and why there has been no furher warming for 16 years . It will go on for another 20-30 years. These are not short term cycles as some would have us believe
SOLAR
Lowest sunspot numbers in 100 years [since 1906]. Current cycle is very low. We could have three such low cycles in a row. Although the mechanism is not completely understood, low sunspot periods correlate with reduced global air and ocean temperatures when measured on a decadal basis.
GLOBAL SST
Global SST trend is negative or cooling during the last 10 years at a rate of 0. 007 C per year Northern Hemisphere oceans is cooling twice as fast as Southern Hemisphere. When solar cycles and ocean cycles are in sync and both are in decline or cooling, atmosphere temperatures also tend to decline.
AO
Winter AO was negative 3 of the last 4 years and declining from positive to negative since 1989. When the AO[ Arctic Oscillation] is negative like it was this past winter , more cold Arctic air creeps south with the presence of weakening westerlies.
STRATOSPHERIC WARMING
Sudden warming of the Stratospheric air sends cold stratospheric Arctic air to lower troposphere elevations which then spreads cold air from the Arctic to lower latitudes and brings freezing temperatures and cold winds.[ see events early 2013] Stratospheric warming events happen when large atmospheric waves called Rossby waves, rise beyond the troposphere altitudes and into the stratosphere.

TheInquirer says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
…
But there’s no puzzle over why the fringe dwellers are able to deceive. …
and WUWT shows why it remains at the fringe and happy to use a deception…
———————-
Sorry, what exactly is the deception you’re referring to?
Also, not that this particularly matters, but having won the bloggies for the Best Science Blog three years in a row, I think WUWT’s arguably a lot less fringe than SkS, for example.

IPCC forecasts (starting when they made, not the hindcasts for which historic data was available) versus the observations to date.
http://s12.postimg.org/rit10tlpp/IPCC_Forecasts_vs_Obs_Feb_2013.png
Off by 0.30C for the forecasts made more recently to as much as 0.65C for forecasts made over 20 years ago.

Global Warming without warming is no warming.
Case closed.

‘I think siting and adjustments, along with natural variation, account for a good part of that, as I demonstrate here.
I agree, but I also think there is a real phenomena of surface warming without troposphere warming occurring. This is the opposite of what the GHG theory predicts. Therefore, the surface warming results from some other cause or causes. The likely cause of surface warming is reduced aerosols and (aerosol seeded) clouds. Perhaps with secondary aerosol effects on tropical thunderstorm efficiency and precipitation efficiency generally. See Willis’s recent post.
The bottom line is, any amount of surface warming isn’t evidence for GHG warming, without a larger amount of troposphere warming also occurring.

Thousands of words that say one simple thing: ‘If you can’t measure it, I don’t believe it.’

The Inquirer says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
“Puzzle? The puzzle is how 16 years has become 20 within 2 months.
But there’s no puzzle over why the fringe dwellers are able to deceive. They have cherry picked a period of a very strong El Niño warming event followed by a very strong La Nina cooling event.
Meanwhile the heat content of the oceans continues to grow, the seas are rising, the Arctic is melting, weather has gone haywire and WUWT shows why it remains at the fringe and happy to use a deception to “get their press”.”
I too have noted the ever-expanding ‘no warming’ period with some amusement.
But having made a valid point, you go on to spoil it with a load of overblown rhetoric.
I do get annoyed at those who, in the face of many many papers to the contrary, want to claim that the weather has gone ‘haywire’ (translates as more weather extremes), or that the heat has ‘gone into the oceans’, the seas are rising etc etc. And in all of this, they are so certain.
When I was a kid Mum used to take us to church on Sundays. It was an isolated country church on a cold and windswept plain sheltered from the worst of the weather by encircling pine trees.
After the service, the old folks (particularly the men in their big felt Sunday hats) would stand in sociable circles, resting their frames upon one leg, as country folk are wont to do, and they would talk. Some smoked, others chewed on a stem of grass. But, being country folk, it would be rare indeed if they did not at some point discuss the weather.
And country folk do not simply mention the weather in passing – ‘hullo, nice day…’ and all that. No, they really talked about it. Inevitably, they would draw comparisons…”I’ve never seen it as dry as this.” or “Old Joe McIntyre has lived in this area all his life and he told me the other day that it’s never been so wet.”.
In short, at an early age I received a thorough grounding in comparative meteorological analysis for periods up to and including, a ‘lifetime’. That was 60 years ago (and yes, I know, nearly a lifetime…you don’t have to rub it in).
When I see people worrying over events happening on timescales of 30, 40, 50 or so years, my memory takes me back to the little church on the Breadalbane plains on a cold and wet (or dry and hot) Sunday morning and I recall that “it has never been as …..”
To get any sort of argument about global warming going, one needs to show that things are not ‘normal’. But simple common sense will tell you that, over periods of 100 years or so, the what is ‘normal’ is hard to say. And it is entirely natural to make comparisons over periods with which we are familiar – any period that fits within a lifetime will fit the bill.
So unless someone comes up with something which shows that what is happening really is unusual over a scale greater than a lifetime, it’s hard to get very excited about it. Personal observations of how cold it is this year compared with ‘when my father was a lad’ and all of that, just do not cut it with me. And that is why Dr Mann’s hockey stick is so important to the argument. Without anything unusual to explain there is ….well….nothing to explain!

richardscourtney says:
March 29, 2013 at 4:00 pm
————
I generally agree with you, but not necessarily on this. Sure, mostly the arguments are stupid, and often the trolls are too lame to give sport, but every once in a while I think they come up with interesting arguments.
Still, I take your point and out of consideration for you and other readers will endeavor to keep my impulses under reasonable restraint.

Louis Nettles (@tmitsss) says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:08 pm
When she [Leona Marshall Libby] and Pandolfi project their curves into the future, they show lower average temperatures from now though the mid-1980s….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a link to that WUWT: Old prediction may fit the present pattern

vukcevic says:
March 29, 2013 at 12:18 pm
In North West Europe the cold winter is always blamed on cold blast from Siberia. I believe the USA and Canada have something cold ‘Siberian Express’ too….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think the term is Polar Express.

Matt says:
March 29, 2013 at 1:19 pm
WTF,
“But like with any belief syatem they still have faith.”
In my opinion the only thing they have faith in is that their checks from the government will clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If they are in the EU they had better rethink that theory too. Germany Just Taught Europe Some Tough Lessons

@njsnowfan says:
March 29, 2013 at 1:34 pm
I feel we are already in a Mini Ice that started in 2008….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See these two WUWT articles link and link

While here on the BC coast, where the dogwoods are a couple of weeks later than in NC (usually), the daffodils are a couple of weeks old. Flowering plums are great, and the John Deere has made short work (bad wording) of the grass without leaving ruts. The daffies, as opposed to the daffodils, are Weavering the storm.

@ vukcevic
“Today this may not be exact science, or according to some not science at all, but you never know about tomorrow. 🙂 , :)”
Beautiful, and elegant, vukcevic. Tomorrow is coming sooner than many expect, is my belief.
I think I’m starting to ‘get it’…been immersed daily, since our last comment exchange, in watching SOHO, Stereo, SDO, GOES, GONG, the HAARP Data Meters and the ENLIL spiral, and reading voraciously everything I can get my hands on…
Just BTW, I’m following a guy online who is, in turn, following the frequency and intensity relationships between helio- and geo-centric planetary alignments, earth-facing coronal holes, – and earthquakes (surely not as a sole factor, of course). Me not good at stats but apparently his method is running ~ +80% predictive power…something like that – setting 6.0 Richter as the pass gate – he calls ‘watches’ when the factors align, and reports daily. About 78,000 subscribers, and it’s his hobby, given freely.
He’s just put it out Open Source, and asking for contributors and collaboration – perhaps it’d be of interest for you to contact him, as it appears you’re examining the same gem, different facets.

Anecdotally, I freaked myself out the other day…was watching one of those 10 min. loops on EVE couple of days ago when SS-1710 was just cresting the limb (wasn’t numbered yet). While I was watching it made a wee little “wink”, followed by the usual ‘snow’, and…I swear I saw the instrument shake as it peaked going by. Made my hackles stand up. Maybe I imagined it…but….
A lot of things fell into place for me at that instant.
Including, with greatest respect for the ‘religion’ of many here, I’m sure, the necessity to start meditating on just what a hollow sun {or rather, anything but a ‘nuclear furnace in the sky’} is gonna MEAN, for so much of what we think, “we know”. I mean, it’s just about getting to that point – ’cause between a choice to ‘believe in’ “Dark Energy” and “Dark Matter” making up most of the known universe, and the redshift fiasco, and supernova computer simulations that won’t blow up, and young stars with plentiful hydrogen going nova – the list goes on – and believing my lying eyes, …I think I’m just going to have to choose the latter.
Having grasped a ‘lay understanding’ of what’s emerging as the 4th phase of water, it’s becoming both apparent and obvious to me on multiple fronts and via diverse disciplines – Our weather here is being driven by that big Arc Light in the sky, and the dance we all do in it’s sphere of influence.
Where he is dancing (Sol), and with whom, is well and WAY beyond my pay grade….
@ resourceguy
“Better get the keyboard short cuts programmed now because you have your work cut out for you…….for say the next 15-25 years.”
😀

International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the long-term warming trend.

This demonstrated LIAR and climate clown is trying to deceive. It has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age ~1850. The revered ‘consensus’ says man began having a discernible effect on climate post 1950. Pachauri’s statement is an attempt at deflection away from the FAILED IPCC projections. They are failing now so we don’t need to wait 30 to 40 years to prove him and his outfit wrong. They are wrong now.

I agree with AW I suspect that ALL the rise is/was due to bad sitting/setting and artificial “adjustments”. In other words there has been no significant change in real data since 1880 (flat line). I think CET really shows this

RS says:
March 29, 2013 at 11:12 am
In real science, when the model doesn’t predict reality, you know the model is WRONG.
But that doesn’t seem to work in climate science.
Must be like Keynesian economics, it’s just too politically useful to be wrong.
Unlike those economic theories that gave us the Great Depression or those that have given us the worst slump since the 1930s?
Your general point, that climate models are no more reliable than economic models in general (including those based on whatever version of economics you approve of) is correct, however.

Actually Mr Hansen you should be considering the definite probability of a Klingon cloaking device!

Natural climate change deniers?

slow to follow:
Here you go:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html
“Here we show that these spectral changes appear to have led to a significant decline from 2004 to 2007 in stratospheric ozone below an altitude of 45 km, with an increase above this altitude. “

Nick Stokes says:
March 29, 2013 at 4:50 pm
“The Inquirer says: March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
“Puzzle? The puzzle is how 16 years has become 20 within 2 months.”
Indeed, that’s the hockey stick of the year. We might reach the century by June.”
I think it depends on which dataset you use. RSS probably has the longest hiatus – not sure if its 20 years though.

They do not understand how the world’s climate system works, no one does. They created models which fitted and produced historic results which matched and then matched a few years in the future, and then they jumped the gun. PUBLISH.
I read so many alarmist stories about the arctic melting etc. When the arctic melts more than normal it seems to be because of a -ve arctic oscillation. The arctic also appeared to have melted more in the LIA.
It occurred to me that if the arctic melts due to polar blocking (-ve AO) and the lower latitudes are more snow covered then the planet would have an increased albedo. This being due to the lower latitudes being more oblique to the sun and having more albedo effect that the arctic which presents a shallower angle to the sun. A totally natural negative feedback mechanism in effect. Perhaps a mega melt is something to be alarmed about for an entirely different reason.

Andor says:
March 30, 2013 at 6:03 am
” The same idiots believing they landed on the moon are the same believing in AGW. ”
A mere twelve humans have walked on the moon. These are the guys your talking about?
Personally, I know NASA went to the surface of the Moon 6 times. And now contrary to NASA, I’m pretty sure a trace gas doesn’t drive the Earth’s temperature.
Alas the Golden age of NASA is long gone.

@TheInquirer –
There was a time when YOUR politics (obviously loony left) were “the fringe,” and in fact they still are. Your post reeks of desperation.
Also, the FACT is that not only are 1998-2013 temps lower than 1980-1998, but 1980-1998 were considerably lower than the 1930s. The downward trend extends back 80 years, not 15 or 16 or 20.

he fact is, this issue has been, and will continue to be, a political issue not a scientific one. When using the scientific method, experimental results (recent climate data) that do not conform to the hypothesis (global warming theory and its models) should either falsify it, or require revision. You will note that large amounts of data have accumulated over the past decade and a half that are consistent neither with the models nor the hypothesis. Yet, the scientists (and I use the word advisedly) behind the hypothesis doggedly hold on to their ideas, as though the import of their ideas trumps scientific falsification. You know you are treading in non-scientific quicksand when global warming advocates used a 17-18 year warming period (following a period of ice-age fears) to insist on the reality of global warming, and then say that 30-40 years of hiatus would be necessary demonstrate global warming is not a problem. In other words, one set of standards for me, and another for thee.

Leif Svalgaard (9:01 am) claims my characterization of his paper (8:27 am) on his IDV index, namely that he relied on Wang et al. [2005], is a “gross misrepresentation”. He claims instead that his work confirmed Wang’s “theoretical prediction that the Heliospheric Magnetic Field should scale with the square root of the Sunspot Number. Figure 8 of [his 2010 paper]”
The caption of his Figure 8 reads:
>>Figure 8. Average yearly values of IDV09 (dark blue curve) compared with median yearly values (light blue curve) and compared with published IDV05 (red curve). Svalgaard and Cliver [2010] p. 7 of 13.
where the authors inform us
>>Our determination of IDV09 is essentially identical to that of IDV05 except for the inclusion of more data. S&C, id., p. 1 of 13.
Dr. Svalgaard’s reliance on his Figure 8 is to no avail. It says nothing about LS confirming Wang, or vice versa, nor anything about the power of the dependence on the number of sunspots.
What LS actually said in this matter is this:
>>If these active regions emerge at random longitudes, their net equatorial dipole moment WILL scale as the square root of their number. Thus their contribution to the average HMF strength will tend to increase as R^1/2 (for a detailed discussion, see Wang and Sheeley [2003] and Wang et al. [2005]). Caps added, id., p. 3 of 13.
First a relevant point of grammar: the second “will” in caps should be “would” because “Thus” links to the first sentence, a hypothetical. Now LS did not write that his work confirms anything at all, nor is he offering measurements that would confirm anyone’s prediction anywhere. He says that if the reader needs more information on how the average HMF [Heliospheric magnetic field] strength varies with R, see Wang. As I said originally, LS relies on Wang for his theory of the IDV index.
Now Wang et al. [2005] says in what is presumably the relevant part to LS:
>>As noted in §3, [near-Earth radial IMF [Interplanetary Magnetic Field, in this application equivalent to LS’s HMF] strength … averaged over each of the 26 solar cycles] increases roughly as R_tot [the sum … of … yearly group sunspot numbers] in model S2 but as R_tot^(1/2) in model S1; the linear scaling is consistent with the original aa time series, whereas the square root dependence accords with the smaller long-term increase in geomagnetic activity found by Svalgaard et al. ([2003]). Since a more realistic model would allow for variations in both the number and strengths of BMRs [Bipolar Magnetic Regions], we conjecture that an optimized aa index would lie somewhere between the original version and that of Svalgaard et al. Wang et al., id., p. 533.
Thus, in their ultimate graph of “Annual averages of TSI for 1713-1996”, Wang et al. use the average of their two models, S1 (square root) and S2 (linear). Id., Fig. 19, p. 537.
To be sure, what LS claimed in 2003 was little different than what he said in 2010. More recently, he only claimed “there is a good LINEAR CORRELATION between IDV … and the square root of the sunspot number, R.” Caps added. How good? Compared to what? What is the fit? His 2003 position was as uncertain and qualified:
>> The correct functional form (IF ANY) is, of course, UNKNOWN. We ARBITRARILY assume a relation of the form a + bR^ß. The Group Sunspot Number [7], RG, and the Zürich Sunspot Number, RZ, show the same dependency within the accuracy of the data. The fit (R^2 ~ 0.7) is best with an exponent ß NEAR 0.5. We CHOOSE ß = ½ … . Caps added, Svalgaard et al. (2003) pp. 2-3.
So Svalgaard and Cliver do not confirm Wang et al., but instead rely on the latter to explain their model. But, lo, instead of explaining LS’s squishy square root model, Wang et al.’s “detailed discussion” finds the reliance on the square root of the number of sunspots not sufficiently realistic.
The best confirmation of the Wang et al. [2005] model is that it leads to an accurate prediction of the global average surface temperatures estimated by HadCRUT3. This is not a confirmation of prediction by measurements, but confirmation of model by model, which seems always to be bilateral. Both Wang et al. and the Hadley folks are to be congratulated, once science emerges to prevail over the “gross misrepresentations” of climatology and blows away the haze of CO2.

Walter Dnes says:
March 30, 2013 at 5:05 pm
Hello Walter, my email has a glitch in it so I cannot email you at the moment, but can you please tell me the maximum time that GISS, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 have at least a slight negative slope. (I assume you have all February numbers now. If not, I can give them to you.) Thanks! (WFT has not updated these since November or December.)

The fact that WUWT? and a multitude of other climate sites constantly debating the exact opposite of your statement is pretty solid evidence that your statement is flawed.

Written with the genuine bewilderment of a flat-earther trying to understand why a ship at sea becomes hull-down on the horizon.

David Ball says:
March 30, 2013 at 8:10 pm
The fact that WUWT? and a multitude of other climate sites constantly debating the exact opposite of your statement is pretty solid evidence that your statement is flawed.
The fact that this is still debated almost 400 years after Riccioli in 1651 first suggested a causal link between solar activity and climate is pretty solid evidence that my statement is not flawed. Or do you suggest that the ‘science is settled’ and that there is such a causal link? We do not any longer debate whether the Earth revolves around the Sun [or the other way around] or whether the Earth is flat or round. Rational people no longer debate whether Evolution or the Big Bang took place. Your argument is like saying that smoking must be healthy because millions do it.
So, one again: solar activity is now back to where it was a century ago but the climate is not.
vukcevic says:
March 31, 2013 at 2:00 am
North Atlantic’s ridge tectonics, which again in turn is correlated to the solar activity.
Now, there is a ridiculous statement if we ever saw one.

M.C. Kinville says:
March 29, 2013 at 1:17 pm
I think the field of public communication, or more accurately, propaganda, is where the real science of CAGW is taking place.
————————————
You may be right.
************Note: I believe this was part of CG1 information.*************
Some quotes from:
“The Rules Of The Game”
“Why were the principles created?
The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it.
Changing attitudes towards climate change is not like selling a particular brand of soap –
it’s like convincing someone to use soap in the first place.
However, these principles are a first step to using sophisticated behaviour change modelling and comprehensive evidence from around the world to change attitudes towards climate change. We need to think radically, and the Rules of the Game are a sign that future campaigns will not be ‘business as usual’. This is a truly exciting moment.
1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human survival instincts.
Recent surveys show that people without children may care more about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of little use for a change in climate measured in years.
Don’t create fear without agency
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon the threat. Use fear with great caution.
Don’t attack or criticise home or family
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
3. linking policy and communications
These principles clearly deserve a separate section. All the evidence is clear – sometimes aggressively so – that ‘communications in the absence of policy’ will precipitate the failure of any climate change communications campaign right from the start:
10. Everyone must use a clear and consistent explanation of climate change
The public knows that climate change is important, but is less clear on exactly what it is and how it works.
11. Government policy and communications on climate change must be consistent
Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.
For the full evidence for these rules, and the climate change communications strategy itself, please visit: http://www.defra.gov.uk
If you are inspired or sceptical, have questions or want to know more, then please contact:
sustainability communications
020 7733 6363
http://www.futerra.co.uk
climate@futerra.co.uk”
————————————————————————-
This is the pamphlet:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
cn

Dr. Svalgaard is now resorting to alarmist talking points (tobacco? really?). How the mighty have fallen. No discussion of time period selection for his statement, as a certain select time period agrees with his assertion. When viewed in toto, his statement is incorrect. Selecting only that evidence (time period for example) which supports your assertion is poor science.
The worst of the warming has been shown to be 0.7C. This is highly contentious when considering that half of that warming is attributable to poor data collection (Watts et al). This is just one chink in the armour that brings us into the realm of solar influence. There are many more.
Dr. Svalgaard uses the poor data collection meme when it suits him (sunspot count) but as is atypical of narcissistic academia, refuses to consider evidence that refutes his weak assertions.
I expect better from Stanford. Black is not white, no matter how condescendingly it is stated.

Walter Dnes says:
March 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Thank you.
Do you have Hadsst2 and GISS as well? Thanks!

David Ball says:
March 31, 2013 at 8:32 am
Selecting only that evidence (time period for example) which supports your assertion is poor science.
The worst of the warming has been shown to be 0.7C. This is highly contentious when considering that half of that warming is attributable to poor data collection (Watts et al). This is just one chink in the armour that brings us into the realm of solar influence. There are many more.
Well, the time since 1900 is important because that is where most of the increase in temperature has taken place and the data is best. For the solar part, one could have chosen 1880, it doesn’t change anything. There is no debate about solar activity now being what it was more than a century ago, so you now think that global warming is in debate. Contrast that with Jeff’s comment:
Jeff Glassman says:
March 30, 2013 at 1:54 pm
The best confirmation of the Wang et al. [2005] model is that it leads to an accurate prediction of the global average surface temperatures estimated by HadCRUT3.
I expect better from Stanford. Black is not white, no matter how condescendingly it is stated.
Stated again:
Solar activity is now what is was a century+ ago, but the climate is not.
vukcevic says:
March 31, 2013 at 10:23 am
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” – Lord Kelvin
You are now comparing yourself to Lord Kelvin…DK again?
But the correct statement is that there is no evidence for your assertion which is also not plausible on physical grounds. There are words for your fallacies: cum hoc ergo propter hoc and Ignoratio elenchi

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded……
Surely in the financial world any accounting that compared one organisation’s gross outputs with another’s net ones would be held to be so fraudulent as not to have been rated in the first place.
Climate scientists always compare man’s emissions which are in effect gross values, with that of the atmosphere or the net natural value, not that of all natural sources.

Svalgaard & Cliver (2010) says,
>> If these active regions emerge at random longitudes, their net equatorial dipole moment will scale as the square root of their number. Thus their contribution to the average IMF strength will tend to increase as RZ 1/2 (for a detailed discussion, see Wang and Sheeley [2003] and Wang et al. [2005]).
Faced with his own paper “relying on Wang et al. [2005]”, LS (130330 9:00 am) answered,
>>Not at all, that is a gross misrepresentation. What we referred to was our confirmation that their theoretical prediction that the Heliospheric Magnetic Field should scale with the square root of the Sunspot Number. Figure 8 of [link to Svalgaard & Cliver (2005)]
Obviously, that is not what was referred to by Svalgaard & Cliver (2010). LS switched citations from 2010 to 2005. The 2005 paper contains the same two sentences quoted above from the 2010 version, but it also contains this third sentence:
>> We find, indeed, that there is a linear relation between B and the square root of the RZ as shown in Figure 8.
Now defending switching references, LS (3/30/13 3:10 pm) corrected himself again, saying
>> We found back in 2003 http://www.leif.org/research/Determination%20IMF,%20SW,%20EUV,%201890-2003.pdf “Fig. 7. Correlation between monthly means (since 1963) of the near-earth interplanetary magnetic field magnitude and the square root of the Zürich Sunspot Number.”
This newly re-corrected citation is Svalgaard, L. et al, “Determination of Interplanetary Magnetic Field Strength, Solar Wind Speed, and EUV Irradiance, 1890-2003”, 2003. It was published two years before Wang et al. (2005).
LS (3/30/13 3:25 pm) claims
>> Unfortunately Wang’s reconstruction is already falsified [and hence the agreement with the global temperature]. In the Wang reconstruction most of the increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum took place in the time since 1900. See: e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png. Today we know that this increase did not happen, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf [Schrijver et al. (2011)] “drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change”
Schrijver, id., argues for an increase of the Maunder Minimum from 400-1100 ppm (0.54-1.51 W/m^2, id., p. 5 of 6) to 140 to 360 ppm (0.19-0.49 W/m^2, id., p. 1 of 6), relative to 1996, which has a local, peak-to-peak range of 1360.7 – 1361.8 W/m^2. The first range corresponds to the Wang (2005) Maunder Minimum of 1360.135. SORCE/TIM TSI Reconstruction. LS gives these values for the Maunder Minimum: Wang2005, 1365.017; LEIF2007, 1365.598. TSI-LEIF.png, above. Disregarding the baseline discrepancy of 4.88 W/m^2 (1365.017 – 1360.135), LS has raise the Maunder Minimum by 0.58 W/m^2, or 423 ppm. Schrijver confirms, having raised it between 260 and 740 ppm. But there’s more.
LS’s citation from Schrijver et al. expanded reads:
>>IF the 2008– 2009 solar magnetic activity is indeed similar to the Maunder Minimum level as we argue here, then it would appear that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’ s long‐term climate change. This implies that new studies are warranted concerning the Sun‐climate relationship, including the construction of the solar spectral irradiance that incorporates the persistence of the ephemeral‐region population, the diagnostic value of the geomagnetic indices, the differences between heliospheric and surface magnetic fields, the derivation of Earth’s temperature record during the Maunder Minimum, the feedback processes that may amplify the climate response to solar forcing, and the effects of volcanos [Crowley , 2000] and other climate drivers internal to the Earth system during and after the Maunder Minimum. Caps added, Schrijver (2011) p. 5 of 6.
The LS/Schrijver argument is a hypothetical.
LS (3/30/13 5:57 am) said,
>>This argument applies equally well to those who assert that ‘it is the Sun, stupid’. They assume that we know enough about the Sun and its effect on this planet’ to be able to state that the Sun is the main driver of climate. The main driver turns out to be Jupiter, not the Sun. The Sun simply does not vary enough. Citation deleted.
Apparently Jupiter is a driver of Earth’s climate in the same sense that CO2, El Niño, and other minor feedbacks are drivers. In the sense of thermodynamic drivers, the Earth of course has but three sources of heat: the Sun, orbital mechanics, and internal radioactive decay. But for the Sun, the oceans would be frozen and Earth would have a dry atmosphere and an uninteresting climate.
As LS recognizes above and by his IDV parameter, the Sun does vary. What he and Schrijver do not to appreciate in their work is that Earth’s climate has a positive feedback that amplifies solar variations. Stott, et al, “Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?”, 2003; Tung, et al., “Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response”, 2008. However, IPCC climatologists and these researchers have ignored the obvious source: cloud cover. It responds rapidly to TSI (positive feedback) and slowly to surface temperature (slow feedback). It does so by changing Earth’s albedo. That makes cloud cover the most powerful feedback in climate. And it’s absence in the GCMs is a big problem, recognized even by IPCC (“major source of uncertainty”, “somewhat unsettling”, “amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks … highly uncertain”, “albedo … highly significant”, “results … drastically altered”, 4AR, ¶1.5.2 Model Clouds and Climate Sensitivity, p. 114.) but never repaired.
LS and Schrijver need Wang to be wrong, so they publish fantastic new studies to prove their point. The importance of the Wang (2005) model coupled with the HadCRUT3 GAST model is two-fold. First, these records were approved and featured by IPCC in AR4 to promote its AGW model. Second, the two models agree by a relatively simple transfer function, showing all the things promised previously that contradict the AGW model. But climatologists have a problem with transfer functions, too. GCMs have no flow variables so they no place to insert a transfer function. These models are steady state fictions, relying on unrealistic, assumed states of equilibrium. Consequently, they have no heat capacitance and no reactive elements (lags) for the transfer functions. IPCC’s own data contradicts its pseudo-scientific model.
Far from being falsified, the Wang (2005) model, and not one of the solar scientists’ modifications, was current in AR4 and is still current. It is featured prominently on the SORCE TSI web page as the model for historical TSI reconstruction, updated as recently as 2/4/13. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
LS (3/30/13 3:10 pm) urges
>>IDV is not derived from a model but from 1,375,000 daily measurements (3775 station‐years) of the geomagnetic field. The measurements select Wang’s model S1 as the better one to use.
First, his emphasis is misplaced because no one claimed that the IDV was “derived from a model”. The claim is that the IDV is a model, a model for the variability in solar data.
Secondly, his conclusion that Wang’s S1 is the “better one” is unsupported. The competing TSI models estimate from multiple solar parameters, which generally are correlated. What is a best estimate for an included parameter does not generally produce the least error for the parent model. What is required for optimization is simultaneous regression on all parameters to minimize the error, here TSI, not the error in each parameter, such as IDV.
The several Svalgaard citations, above, are replete with records fitted by a linear regression onto other functions. Examples include B = 4.62+0.2731R^1/2 (2005, p. 7 of 9)), and IDV = 4.67+0.721R^1/2 (2003, p. 2), where R is one or another sunspot number. In 2004, LS estimates am = 5.6131-IHV_FRD -4.4941 or am = 4.697*IHV, and aa = 4.8304*IHV_FRD -1.7267, where IHV = Inter-Hourly Variability index and FRD likely stands for Fredericksburg. In some cases, these are least squares fits, and in others, “best-fit”.
So because the Wang model uses solar parameters, in particular the geomagnetic index, aa, and the total sunspot number R_tot, (Wang et al. (2005), id., p. 533), the best estimate for any other parameter, such as B or IDV, would be that parameter’s residue orthogonal to the other parameters. What is a best fit for estimating TSI is not the best fits for each parameter except when they mutually independent.
Wang et al. chose something between the S1 square root model and the S2 linear model because that produced the most accurate estimate of TSI. LS and Schrijver et al. prefer Wang’s model S1 because it is better for AGW enthusiasts —it reduces the predictive power of the Wang (2005) model, which inconveniently contradicts AGW at its core.

Leif Svalgaard (4/1/13 1:34 pm) says,
>>>>Apparently Jupiter is a driver of Earth’s climate in the same sense that CO2, El Niño, and other minor feedbacks are drivers.
>>No, Jupiter is MAJOR driver of climate, mainly responsible for changing the Earth’s orbit causing glaciations.
The relationship between Earth’s orbit and glaciations has the name Milankovitch Cycle or M. Theory, after Milutin Milankovitch who assumed the lead on the theory in 1912. It has undergone updates over the year. A recent paper, Laskar, J., et al., “A long term numerical solution for the insolation quantities of the Earth”, Astrono & Astrophys, 5/23/04, provides an error analysis for the Theory, including the effects of Jupiter and Saturn. Laskar et al. conclude
>>The new orbital solution of the Earth that is presented here can be used for paleoclimate computations over 40 to 50 Myr.
NASA adds,
>> The authors of the present paper also show that if we do not search for a complete solution of the Earth orbit, but just for the main variation of its orbit eccentricity, a relatively stable modulation of 405 kyr, resulting from the perturbations of Jupiter and Saturn (that are more stable than the inner planets) can be used over the full Mesozoic era (up to about 250 Myr) for the astronomical calibration of sediments with an uncertainty of about 0.5 Myr after 250 Myr. This term is actually related to a geological cycle that is present in some jurassic and triassic sediments.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/display.cfm?News_ID=9976
But that’s far from the end of the story. Like LS claiming that he has a best estimate for IDV, which Wong et al.(2005) found unrealistic for estimating TSI, the most accurate orbital cycle estimates don’t begin to account for Earth’s major ice ages. Ray Pierrehumbert explains:
>> The gaping hole in Milankovic’s theory is that it predicts that ice ages should follow the precessional cycle. In particular, the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere should have ice ages in alternation every 10,000 years, with the severity of the ice ages modulated by the eccentricity cycle. This is not at all what is observed. …
>>The problem is not that the amplitude of radiative forcing associated with Milankovic cycles is small: it amounts to an enormous 100W/m2, with the amplitude determined by the eccentricity cycle. The problem is that the forcing occurs on the fast precessional time scale, whereas the climate response is predominately on a much slower 100,000 year time scale.
Pierrehumbert, R. T., “Principles of Planetary Climate”, 7/31/07, ¶8.5, p. 253. Also see same, 2010, in Google Books, p. 465 et seq.
LS exaggerates the effects of Jupiter as a replacement for his squelching of the Sun, a necessity for the AGW movement to survive. But if the Milankovitch model had worked, then Jupiter might have accounted for the ice ages, which is eons beyond the capabilities of the GCMs. Jupiter effects are not a substitute for TSI the Sun, which varies enough to account for Earth’s global average surface temperature, but just since the invention of thermometers, and it predicts the flattening of GAST for the last decade and a half. Thanks especially to Wong et al.
Even as we debate, the frustration in the movement is boiling over into its once supportive media. Climate Science, “A sensitive matter”, The Economist, 3/30/13. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions . E.g., “Today’s recommended economics writing: James Hansen on climate tipping points.” The Economist, 6/24/08.

The headline has no corroboration in the body of the article. There is no ‘twenty-year’ hiatus. Copy-editor messed up.
The most sensational quotes come from dedicated skeptical sources (eg Global Warming Policy Foundation). The rest are in line with the mianstream climate community, and the article distorts the progress of modeling and sensitivity studies, making out that lower projections sensitivities are newly appeared, when such results have been published over the last few decades – on this last, it makes it look as if improved calculations bring these results. But other results give higher estimates. The IPCC range for sensitivity (2 – 4.5C/doubling CO2) is the central estimate. The Australian framing of this is a litttle misleading.