The puzzle: why have rising temperatures been on a ‘Twenty-year hiatus”?

Not sure that “sceptical fringe” would apply here, but I’ll take the press where we can get it. See my comments below. – Anthony

20year_australian

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled | The Australian

DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

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.
Another paper published by leading climate scientist 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.

For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it’s good news that probably won’t last.
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.

But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models’ range within a few years.
“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,” he says.
Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

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. 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.” The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century. “The mismatch might mean that for some unexplained reason there has been a temporary lag between more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures in 2000-2010.

“Or it might mean that the 1990s, when temperatures were rising fast, was the anomalous period.”

The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.

Read it all here: http://m.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/twenty-year-hiatus-in-rising-temperatures-has-climate-scientists-puzzled/story-e6frg6z6-1226609140980

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

The fact is temperatures between 2000 and 2010 are still almost 1C above their level in the first decade of the 20th century.

I think siting and adjustments, along with natural variation, account for a good part of that, as I demonstrate here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

While the effect is only quantified in the USA for now, there is anecdotal evidence that it is a worldwide problem.

About these ads

213 thoughts on “The puzzle: why have rising temperatures been on a ‘Twenty-year hiatus”?

  1. The ever-trumpeting equivocation between global warming (not happening now) and climate change (happening all the time), as a means of ‘cautioning’ those ready to ‘deny’ that it is ‘real’ (or state that it is a delusion). Hogwash. Hogwash. Did I mention hogwash?? Straw flying everywhere. Hansen’s statement is nonsensical (“it’s CO2, I tell ya!!!”) as is Mann’s ongoing revisitation of the Schtick, reconfirmed by more bad science.

    What’s a guy to do?

  2. Hansen’s MO seems to be: if temperature rises, blame CO2; if temperature holds steady or declines, blame coal. No matter what happens it’s our fault and we must take drastic action now.

    One wonders just when they will admit there’s even the tiniest possibility the problem is with their theory and models.

    “Nevermind. We’ve decided there really isn’t a problem and we don’t need that massive new carbon tax. Sorry to have disturbed you.”

    Not holding my breath.

  3. 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.

  4. “The magazine explores a range of possible explanations including higher emissions of sulphur dioxide, the little understood impact of clouds and the circulation of heat into the deep ocean.”

    But doesn’t mention the adjustments Anthony has covered or that big yellow nuclear furnace up in the sky… Still some way to go, but the message is getting through. Well done everybody.

  5. 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.

  6. The Climateers are getting nervous. Expect ever more curious and unconventional science. The Climateers (not just Warmists anymore) are at their best when explaining data that goes against the ‘consensus’.

  7. the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by” the fact that no one knew, or knows, what they’re talking about, and the “prediction” of GHG-driven temperatures was so much b*ll*cks.

    Willie Soon let me know that Al Gore is coming to speak on climate at Stanford, by the way. Sponsored by the Woods Institute. In an event to honor Stephen Schneider. Stanford includes a hotbed of sustainability consciousness and Al will probably leave with the skin of his major midlevel muscle group chapped from all the kisses.

  8. I know that natural variation will likely bring us into higher temperatures in the next few years, but MAN i hope they don’t just to see all the articles desperately trying to explain it away!

  9. 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 “

  10. Turning the tables on their labeling, it’s about time the overwhelming majority caught up with the minority of rational thinkers in observing the growing climate model errors compared to actuals. The next step will be for the laggard overwhelming majority to look at the taxpayer-funded climate monitoring systems for themselves and see the very real potential or outright global surface temperature declines in place of flat lines or return to upward momentum. The head-in-the sand approach of the laggard, overwhelming majority continues.

  11. ‘I think siting and adjustments, along with natural variation, account for a good part of that, as I demonstrate here:”

    Except that CRN stations match the existing record (USHCNV2) over the period in question.
    That is, if you look at USHCNv2 and compute the area average using the most precise methods we have, and if you compare that to the area average using the most precise method and best data ( CRN ), the two curves are statistically indistinguishable.

    REPLY: Sorry, but that’s not what is being examined, and the premise still holds, but you’ll have to wait for the paper to see why – Anthony

  12. It is weird that for such obvious results there is so little specific reaction.

    Note the specific, not general places where the Arctic ice is lost, and the timing. For “more open water” to be a source of more cold/more snow, the areas of more open water than long-term average are just the eastern “seas”, and during only a portion of the year. Another global result from averaging regional effects?

  13. 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”.

  14. Isn’t the definition of a climate scientist being one who thinks that temperatures are rising? Thus, of course they’re puzzled.

  15. Does anyone know what year the models in the Economist article made their prediction. It looks like it might be 2005 or 2000. Is there anyway to see the IPCC model from 1990? This model should have 23 years of forecasting history. If that model has done a good job, CAGW has a strong empirical base to stand on. I’m guessing that since I’ve been trying for years to get the data w/o success that the actual temp increase is well below forecast. That’s why no one is talking about it. Anyone know where I can get the data. Thanks.

  16. 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…

  17. I will hazard a guess that the reason global temperatures haven’t risen while CO2 levels have, is very simply because CO2 never caused the warming in the first place. I am applying logic rather than a belief to reach this conclusion.
    As for the unexplained temporary lag in temperature increase; what planet are these people on?
    CO2 has either caused GW or it hasn’t. It is incapable of having a hissy fit, to confound “scientists” and make global temperatures remain static. Physics does not work like that.
    Trillions of £/$ spent dealing with this “problem”, economies threatened with disaster due to energy costs, my flights and petrol costs are through the roof and the best these clowns can come up with is this??
    It really beggars belief!!

  18. “…if we had included….”, “A slower growth rate of the net climate forcing may have contributed to the standstill of global temperature in the past decade,” “…the new climate dice…” When they start listing as many possibilities they can think to explain this we have then showing their colors: they would rather be world saviors and prophets than objective scientists studying it all with an open mind.

  19. 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.

  20. With the stagnation of warming being accompanied by the most quiescent Sun we’ve had since the Dalton Grand Solar Minimum, one would think more analysis would be done on how our Sun affects the climate.

    But I suppose that’s insufficiently ‘politically correct’.

  21. 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.

  22. 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

  23. Steven Mosher says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:32 am

    Except that CRN stations match the existing record (USHCNV2) over the period in question.

    You need to come up with better spin than that. CRN stations have only been around ten years. The problem with the non-compliant stations is the INCREASE in local warming over decades, most of which occurred during the 1960s-1980s when air travel became the norm, air conditioners replaced fans, and asphalt replaced concrete and grass.

  24. 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!!

  25. I don’t really think they are puzzled at all. I think they are pi**ed off but not puzzled. They thought their ‘new world order’ would have been implemented they would be collecting their CAGW pensions by now. But like with any belief syatem they still have faith.

  26. 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…..

  27. 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.

    No Pachauri, it is already making your projections a laughing stock. The IPCC got it wrong and as each year goes by withought warming the worse the ‘wrongness’. ;-)

  28. 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. Myself coming from East Europe, personally blame Russians for everything including the cold winters.
    Back to the climate change; all indications are that the Siberian change of direction has taken place about a decade ago (blue & green curves)

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMF.htm

    Today this may not be exact science, or according to some not science at all, but you never know about tomorrow. :) , :)

  29. mwhite says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:29 am

    You are referring to a graph published in the Guardian two days ago. That graph diverges wildly from the graphs under discussion here which were published in the Economist a day or two earlier. Having scanned the Guardian article, my guess is that the authors are imploding on the Marcott-Mann model.

  30. < 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.

    That is strange. Earlier, he said that the temperature was rising due to the increase of CO2, which was due to burning coal. But now burning coal gives cooling!

  31. Heck guys, you can ding me on this if you like, but honestly I’ve never understood why anybody expected any rapid warming in the first place. Isn’t the surface like 70% water? Obviously it’s going to take a lot longer to heat up water than atmosphere for a given energy increase. Don’t SST’s essentially drive atmospheric temps? ~shrug~

  32. 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.

  33. “if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then”

    They would be in jail for fraud, insider trading, theft by deception, mail fraud, and misleading statements … the regulators would be building careers on their backs.

  34. From Tips and Notes comments:
    leon0112 says:
    March 27, 2013 at 4:19 pm
    Dr. Don Easterbrook testified before a Washington State Senate Committee hearing on climate change. He gave this

    http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/Handler.ashx?MethodName=getdocumentcontent&documentId=OM6RXr5xY6Q&att=false.

    Big ‘Hat Tip’ to leaon0112 !
    This is a great pitch that Dr. Easterbrook provided to a committee hearing in the Washington State Senate. What You Need To Know About Global Warming Climate Change Climate DisruptionExtreme Weather, Ocean Acidification and Issues in Senate Bill 5802

    http://app.leg.wa.gov/m/cmd/Handler.ashx?MethodName=getdocumentcontent&documentId=OM6RXr5xY6Q&att=false.

    I saw part of Dr. Easterbrook’s video presentation on a local (Seattle area) service channel. If I can find a link to the video, I’ll post it.
    MtK

  35. if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then

    They would be in jail for insider trading, misleading public statements, mail fraud, government contracting fraud, securities violations, etc. Whole agencies of regulators would be building their careers on their backs.

  36. 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?

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

    Hmmm…I seem to remember Hansen saying something about coal “death” trains leading to a runaway Venus like atmosphere. He appears now to be setting himself up to be able to say that coal is the reason we are going to go into a new ice age, if “we don’t stop burning it now!” I wonder if he has shorted coal companies…?

    I honestly think he sees all of the natural patterns we skeptics do and front runs the swings with press releases/grant requests to study the “change” and prove it is “unnatural”. We all know what he said in 1988 in front of Congress, does anyone know if he said anything about the Coming Ice Age in the 70’s?

  39. 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!

  40. 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. Myself coming from East Europe, personally blame Russians for everything including the cold winters.
    ==========================================================================

    Us Canadians don’t blame anyone (except for those that live in Toronto or Vancouver) for the cold weather. We just shrug. The Yanks however blame “Alberta Clippers” or “cold invading from Canada” LOL. Seems they can’t fend us off. First the war of 1812 then Snowbirds and cold weather ;-)

  41. Jimbo says:
    March 29, 2013 at 12:23 pm
    “My apologies. I got it all wrong. The Guardian now says the models were right afterall.”

    Not quite. Notice that the article is about one model. The Guardian says that this one model got it right. Quite a change in the topic there, wouldn’t you say? The Economist and the rest of us have been talking about an ensemble of 25 models or so. Also, note that the graph shows a rise in temperature from 1996 to 2013 of about .7C. Preposterous. Looks like a meltdown to me.

  42. 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

  43. Harold Ambler said;

    “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 …”

    Is Britain firmly on that dowanrd trip? Answers to THe Met Office, Exeter.

    tonyb

  44. 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.”

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

  46. Ahhh, the ever popular deep ocean once again offered up as the hide hole for that elusive captured excess heat at the same time defecting radiation by pollution offered up why there is no excess heat. Make a pick, warmist people, please.

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

  48. “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.”

    I thought the Global Warming crisis started in 1976 (after climate scientists abandoned the Ice Age is here due to CO2 doom) and ended in 1998. They use a 22 yr period to initiate their theory, but now want a 30-40 yr period “at least” to disprove it?

  49. 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.

  50. I think I can help these confused climate scientists out, via Feynman:

    “In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

    ————————————————————————————————————

    So (maybe) 20 years of warming is enough to make it so, but we need twice that or ore to make it not so?

    Someone in the mainstream really needs to start tackling them on that or they’ll be able to stretch it out indefinitely!

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

  54. 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.

  55. “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/

  56. More evidence of lack of warming: we were going to see the cherry blossoms in DC and were told they are delayed by at least a week. And here I thought spring has been arriving earlier every year?

  57. 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.

  58. “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.”

    How convenient. He know that the last cooling was about 30+ years. THen we warm again. He is mimicking the normal 60-70 year warming/cooling pattern that we have followed for 100s of years. The fact is that the warming they predicted has failed totally and that clearly CO2 is NOT doing what he claims. For CO2 to continue to rise and have no warming for 30-40 years clearly indicates that the warming we had recently could NOT have been due to CO2.

  59. 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.

  60. TheInquirer says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am

    Meanwhile the heat content of the oceans continues to grow, the seas are rising, the Arctic is melting, etc. etc. etc., blah blah blah…

    If the facts don’t suit your argument, make up ones that do. After all, it’s worked for the last 25 years.

  61. 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.

  62. Whether it’s temps are warming or cooling or stagnant, some men will blame Man for it and claim to have “the answer”. That answer, when implemented, will result in some men having more authority over other men.

  63. TYPO! “Whether it’s temps are warming or cooling or stagnant,”
    Should be: “Whether temps are warming or cooling or stagnant,”

  64. I find the way David Whitehouse states things reveals how he gives more weight to computer models than actual observation. Take his first statement:

    “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change.”

    What he should have said is:

    “If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of the consensus theory of climate change becoming incompatible with global observations.”

    Models should always be the (possibly incorrect) variable, not observed temperature—the foundation of reality. It’s as if the world isn’t obeying their climate models!

    For shame!

    Then it goes on:

    Whitehouse argues that whatever has happened to make temperatures remain constant requires an explanation because the pause in temperature rise has occurred despite a sharp increase in global carbon emissions.

    The Economist correctly points out that ~100 billion tonnes of carbon has been added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010 and the mismatch is the biggest puzzle facing climate scientists. They state:

    ”But it does not mean global warming is a delusion”

    That’s only because so many equate “Global Warming” with CO2. However, there’s little evidence now that CO2 is the culprit “climate scientists” think it is.

    That’s the crux of the whole argument and satisfies the explanation Whitehouse is looking for.

  65. 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,””

  66. Actually, this is rather demeaning for the vast majority of the population that a) there has been a 20-year hiatus and they were not told or they were assumed to be too stupid to look it up themselves from their own taxpayer-funded data systems, b) this lack of trend is close to invalidating all of the climate model predictions their carbon tax schemes and policies are based on, and c) they have to resort to quoting The Economist magazine to get at the truth in secondary sources of information! They are laughing at them in the back rooms and behind the curtains of power and influence and yes they will press ahead with wrong policy and money plays until such time it stops working.

  67. 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.

  68. James Griffin says: “…On top of that the biggest blunder was to factor in CO2′s ability to create heat as linear when it is logarithmic.”

    In 1000 hours of following global climate blogs, I’ve never seen anyone do that. Have you a reference link, James?

  69. Leif says…
    “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…”
    Okay, but with the 100-year low in the solar cycle coming up in combination with decline in the PDO, turning of the AMO and likely decline in Global sea surface temps after the 20 year flat line, there is going to be a need for continuous explanations of correlation vs. causation for an extended period and with high frequency. Better get the keyboard short cuts programmed now because you have your work cut out for you…….for say the next 15-25 years.

  70. TheInquirer 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”.

    Wow, did you miss any AGW talking points?
    Ocean heat content rising? Citation please. Trenberth has been looking for it, he would like to know where it is too.
    Seas rising? Yep ever since the LIA, same rate nothing new here
    Arctic is melting? – admittedly on a downward trend since satellite records have been kept, possible inadvertant cherry picking since the satellite era coincided with the end of the 30 yr cold cycle, good news though, Antarctica is growing in area and thickness despite melting on the peninsula.
    Weather gone Haywire? Based on . . . . . ?

  71. 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.

  72. ‘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.’

    May I recommend that Mr. Pachauri take a remedial course in ‘End Times Religious Beliefs’. Now, the wiggle words, “at least”, will likely get him off the hook, but only for so long. He needs to follow the successful ‘End Times’ religions and not the failures. The successful ETs always put their judgement days, their savior come back among us days, their world end days, at some nebulous time in the future which could maybe be like really soon enough to be scary, or maybe not quite so soon – keep ‘em guessing. I mean, c’mon Mr. Pachauri, let’s not nail that damn date down. Keep it flexible, guy! I know you think ’30 to 40 years “at least”‘ has given you and yours enough breathing space for enough of those coin flips to flip in your favor. But don’t bet on it. Remember, those ET religions (which means all of them) which disappeared did so because they nailed a date down, and when that date came and went (as they always do) those very same religions, well, came and went too.

    Whoops. On second thought, don’t listen to a word I said. We’ve got enough religions already.

  73. 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.

  74. IPCC forecasts (starting when they made, not the hindcasts for which historic data was available) versus the observations to date.

    Off by 0.30C for the forecasts made more recently to as much as 0.65C for forecasts made over 20 years ago.

  75. TheInquirer says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:40 am
    “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 don’t remember a prediction from the warmists “Weather will go haywire”. Is “haywire” warming or cooling? I do remember predictions of warming by the warmists… Yes I did hear the post facto explanations for “haywire” weather by the warmists…. but the hallmark of a theory is to make correct predictions, not correctly-sounding hindcasts… the arrow of time and all that…

  76. Didn’t Hansen (or was it Mann) also say 6 or 7 years ago that, if temps did not increase for a period of ten years you’d have to question the validity of his theories?

  77. So if we have to wait 30 to 40 years “at least” to break the trend, as Pachauri said, wouldn’t we still be waiting for proof of warming? I believe the count was 13 years when Hansen told us all we “had to act now”. Surely he should have kept quiet to see if that warming really did break a trend, putting us into… oooh, well, it would be later than now and the answer would be “No, the warming HASN’T broken any trend because it is no longer warming.”

    So this CAGW nonsense SHOULDN’T HAVE BEGUN IN THE FIRST PLACE.

    So… er… we spend all that money for what exactly? And why aren’t we looking more closely at Hansen and his motives AND those politicians who said, “Yes, all right, we MUST ACT NOW” without looking at the evidence or at least replication of the “science”?

    Seriously, some trials are awaiting. Massive amounts of wasted money. Massive amounts of pocketed money. Massive numbers of increased deaths from fuel poverty and starvation the world over. Industry and economics on the point of collapse. All due to dodgy science by knowing participants (else they would have shown their data and methods).

    This is NOT an accident. The is NOT a mistake. This is FRAUD – this is deliberate deception. To my mind, this is also TREASON – a willful act deliberately to bring down civilization through deindustrialization and economic destruction. It’s an attack on capitalism and on the security of our nations.

    It’s time those responsible for a huge amount of pain and suffering are made accountable. It’s time we make fear-mongering without verifiable proof of the claims, ILLEGAL.

    That would stop this problem popping up again and again and again. I can’t be the only one sick of watermelon tricks. We need to protect ourselves from those who seek to destroy our way of living simply because of their misguided concept that humans are some kind of blight on the planet. Their concepts surely should be THEIR problem – not OURS.

  78. So wait, first Mann/Hansen blames burning coal for warming, now he blames burning coal for no warming?

  79. The reporter Graham Lloyd was cast out of the enviro journo’s union some time ago for apostasy.

    One of his articles which most exploded his colleagues’ heads was about the uselessness of wind turbines, where he reported Hamish Cummings work on the actual empirical CO2 savings of wind farms in South Australia (which has our largest wind industry). (Link to original ($) article here)

    The Australian newspaper is also viscerally hated by our local Greens who use Rupert Murdoch’s name in the same way as the Koch’s name get used in the US. And for that you can give an assist to the brave Mr Lloyd.

  80. Harold Ambler says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:02 am

    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 …

    Well according to Piers Corbyn, its not so much a matter of not selling your coat – as not taking it off. He now thinks the climate is in a definite slide into the cold. So wave your (gloved) hands if you wish – but do wear your coat as we drop who knows how far.

    http://www.weatheraction.com/displayarticle.asp?a=525&c=5

  81. ‘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.

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

  83. “I think siting and adjustments, along with natural variation, account for a good part of that, as I demonstrate here:”

    Above and beyond the call of duty. When a scientist offers an explanation for a phenomenon and his critics show that the explanation is falsified experimentally, his critics do not have a further duty of explaining the phenomenon. “Yeah, but how do you explain the warming, then, if it isn’t CO2 and AGW? You see? There is no other explanation!” is not an epistemically licit retort. The facts are:

    1. His theory has been falsified.
    2. His critics do not owe him an explanation for the phenomenon.

    The fact that “there is no other explanation” for a phenomenon does nothing whatsoever to support the explanation on the table.

  84. 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!

  85. dccowboy on March 29, 2013 at 2:36 pm
    So wait, first Mann/Hansen blames burning coal for warming, now he blames burning coal for no warming?”

    My first thought too when I read the article. Priceless isn’t it?

  86. Friends:

    I was relishing the fact that everyone had ignored the nonsense from the ‘izen wannabe’ posting as ‘The Inquirer’. But people have started to address his/her/their/its nonsense.

    Please ignore the silly troll. The intent of such trolls is to divert threads by posting untrue nonsense which leads to discussion of the falsehoods and – they hope – this obscures truth from disinterested onlookers.

    The real issue is simple.
    1.
    Hansen said 10 years of stasis in global temperature would cause problems for the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models which project global temperature.
    2.
    In 2008, when temperature trend was indistinguishable from zero for over 10 years, NOAA said 10 years of stasis was commonly indicated by the models but the model ”rule out” 15 years of such stasis.
    3.
    When 16 years of such stasis had been observed then climastrolagists started talking about 17 to 20 years for falsification of the models.
    4.
    Now it seems that 17 years is nearly certain and 20 years is likely, Pachauri says 30 to 40 years is needed.

    The only issue is the ‘moving goal posts’ for assessing the AGW hypothesis as represented by the climate models, and this’ movement of goal posts’ is a rejection of science.

    In my opinion, trolls who attempt to deflect this thread onto other issues are best ignored.

    Richard

  87. By the time the actual temperatures fully depart from the model forecast error bands on the low side in a few years the dependency on carbon tax revenue steams will be embedded in budgets and programs to the extent that an army of advocates will be called on to keep them intact.

  88. 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.

  89. The Inquirer says:

    “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.”

    This argument seems to me in favor of natural variation having a bigger impact on the climate than CO2. I agree that natural variation has a large impact on global temperatures. Only graphing global temperatures against CO2 levels is deceiving. Please tell Michael Mann and the Team they should stop doing that.

  90. 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.

  91. Mr. Africa says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:25 am

    I know that natural variation will likely bring us into higher temperatures in the next few years, but MAN i hope they don’t just to see all the articles desperately trying to explain it away!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Chances are better than even that we are looking at a cooling spell. Nir Shaviv’s paper and Jan. 8, 2013 NASA article on the Sun (you can also look at what is happening with the oceans PDO, NAO, ENSO) graph

    The long view:
    link And graph 1 and graph 2 and graph 3

    Article 1 and Article 2

  92. Just a few months ago, I was hearing in WUWT that we had 16 years
    of no warming. A couple months ago, I was hearing 17. And now it’s 20?

    I look at smoothed HadCRUT3, and I look at UAH according to Dr. Roy
    Spencer, and it looks to me more like 12 years since the warming trend
    stopped. Late 1997 through mid 1998 was an isolated narrow and
    exceptionally tall spike.

  93. There are couple of other interesting points from the Hansen paper ( other than those mentioned in posts above). In the conclusion they talk about the Fraustian bargain –it is like they saying, to some extent, that here is our paper with our data and discussion but really we don’t believe what we have written.
    Also in the conclusion they site a paper that shows the rapid growth of the number of coal fired power stations being built in China and India and say all the particulates from them is the big reason for their findings. But they ignore the fact that in China, in particular, they are building very high tech. coal fired power stations which have very low particulate emmisions ( if any) –they are doing this to reduce their air pollution and related health issues.
    So I think these guys are just scrambling in any way they can to try to “save face”

  94. James Griffin says in part, on March 29, 2013 at 11:17 am:

    “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.”

    I don’t hear Dr. Roy Spencer accusing IPCC or the climate scientists
    considered by them of claiming a linear effect of increasing CO2. The
    scientists on both sides of this debate agree that the effect of change of
    CO2 is logarhythmic. What they disagree about is effects of feedbacks.

  95. 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.

  96. Eric says:
    March 29, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    James Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies,…. We all know what he said in 1988 in front of Congress, does anyone know if he said anything about the Coming Ice Age in the 70′s?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Here is a link

  97. 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

  98. David L. says:
    March 29, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    More evidence of lack of warming: we were going to see the cherry blossoms in DC….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Cherry blossoms? I am 300 miles south and waiting to see my daffodils finally bloom.

  99. @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

  100. Mark Besse says:
    March 29, 2013 at 12:32 pm

    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.

    He’ll be six feet under by then and won’t have to endure the ignominy of it all…….

  101. 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.

  102. Matthew R. Epp, P.E. says: @ March 29, 2013 at 2:13 pm
    …. Arctic is melting? – admittedly on a downward trend since satellite records have been kept, possible inadvertant cherry picking since the satellite era coincided with the end of the 30 yr cold cycle, good news though, Antarctica is growing in area and thickness despite melting on the peninsula.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Are you SURE that is good news? It is called the bipolar seesaw……

    Can we predict the duration of an interglacial?
    Perspective by William McClenney on the paper of the same title by:

    P. C. Tzedakis, E.W. Wolff, L. C. Skinner, V. Brovkin, D. A. Hodell, J. F. McManus, and D. Raynaud

    “We propose that the interval between the “terminal” oscillation of the bipolar seesaw, preceding an interglacial, and its first major reactivation represents a period of minimum extension of ice sheets away from coastlines….

    “…thus, the first major reactivation of the bipolar seesaw would probably constitute an indication that the transition to a glacial state had already taken place.”

    OOPS…. As William McClenney says “Was the LIA a LEAP (Late Eemian Aridity Pulse)? Did the Holocene end 3kyrs ago based on this year’s polar ice?

    The slide into glaciation is chaotic.

  103. Hansen has just emailed me (and a million others, no doubt) as follows:

    A short scientific story, Doubling Down on Our Faustian Bargain, is available here and on my web site. It contains the main points in a paper just published in Environmental Research Letters. It is a sorrowful tale of missing climate data, which makes quantification of human-made climate change far more difficult than it needed to be — maybe enough to make one look for new work.

    ~Jim
    29 March 2013

    The “story” is at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdf

    Is this a threat that Jim will retire from NASA unless they get funding for a new aerosol satellite (that won’t fail to launch)?

    It’s certainly a major play for publicity. Maybe Jim wants to head off the dithering IPCC to take over thought leadership regarding the pesky standstill. The coal threat is worse than we thought!

    Willis’ article yesterday seemed to kill this Hansen angle stone dead. Can it be adapted to an op-ed and widely publicised?

  104. Donald: “Just a few months ago, I was hearing in WUWT that we had 16 years of no warming. A couple months ago, I was hearing 17. And now it’s 20?”

    There’s a temperature trend calculator at http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php. RSS data shows 23 years since the warming trend exceeded the error bars.

    But I think the 20-year reference includes the 5-year projection to 2018 published by the UK Met Office – and rounded to 20 years by the BBC.

  105. Implications and Consequence of Flat Temperatures for 16 plus years and No Tropical Troposphere Hot Spot

    The fact that there has been no planetary warming for 16 plus years and the fact that atmospheric temperatures have not increased at roughly 10 km above the surface, in the tropics as the CO2 warming theory predicts when CO2 increased, disproves the extreme AWG paradigm. A lack of warming can be explained away, in the short term, with heating hiding in the ocean or some unexplained mechanism that is cooling the planet. Hansen’s particulate reflection hypothesis fails to explain the lack of warming, as particulates do not move from hemisphere to hemisphere unlike atmospheric gases such as CO2 which equalize in about a year between hemispheres. The particulates are emitted in the Northern Hemisphere which is where the warming has occurred, particularly at high Northern Latitudes. The lack of warming has occurred in the tropics and in the Southern Hemisphere. (i.e. The lack of warming mechanism must explain the fact that observed warming has not been global.) There is no explanation for the fact that there is not observed warming of tropical troposphere (10 km) tropical troposphere hot spot. (The lack of a tropical troposphere hot spot is just ignored.)

    Unequivocal planetary cooling, as opposed to a lack of warming is a game changer. The public will require, will demand a definite, logical, physical explanation for global cooling. There is now observation evidence of the start of a mechanism change which will lead to significant planetary cooling. (If and when there is unequivocal evidence of cooling, I can provide an explanation of how the sun is causing the cooling and what to expect if a solar forced Heinrich event is unfolding.)
    It is difficult to imagine how the public and the media will react to planetary cooling, after years upon years of statements that the 20th century warming was cause by the 20th century increase in atmospheric CO2. The so called ‘skeptics’, ‘deniers’ have noted that that the planet was cyclically warmed and then cooled in the past in cycles, 1450 years plus or minus 400 years (Daansgaard-oescherger cycle) and roughly every 6000 years to 8000 years (inhibited during the interglacial period due to orbital position) abruptly cooled (Heinrich event).
    Implicit, fundamental to the extreme AGW warming paradigm is that observations and analysis confirmed by 1000s of specialists with 95% confidence, confirm that the planet will continue warm (possibly dangerously), if CO2 levels are not reduced from the current 0.039%, back to 0.035%. CO2 will increase by 2100 to around 0.0560% unless the world moves to a war type effort complete with multiple technical and economic science miracles to reduce CO2 to 0.035%.
    It is odd the specialists have not explained that there are periods in the paleoclimatic record of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 was high (0.15%) and the planet was cold and periods when CO2 was low and the planet was very warm (0.03%, i.e. no ice sheets and so on.). The proxy data indicates the greenhouse gas forcing mechanism saturates, it is expected due to physical processes in the atmosphere which resist climate changes and attempt to maintain the planet at a constraint temperature. It is odd the specialists have not explained that they do not understand what causes the glacial/interglacial cycle (there has been 22 past glacial/interglacial cycles) and that the past interglacial cycles have ended abruptly rather than gradually.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg

    What will the public reaction be to the obvious massive scientific effort to hide these facts and the media effort to push the extreme AGW paradigm myth if the planet starts to cool?
    The creation of the climate hockey stick (remove the Medieval warm period, remove the Holocene interglacial Optimum super warm period, remove the Little Ice Age, and so on) was necessary as the creation of the flat part of the hockey stick hides the observational fact that planetary temperature increased and decreased driven by an unknown forcing mechanism.
    If planetary temperature warmed and cooled cyclically in the past, then the late 20th century warming could also have been caused by the same cyclic forcing mechanism that caused cyclic climate change in the past.
    There is now the first observational evidence that planet is starting to cool. The planetary cooling is coincidental with an abrupt, unexplained change to the sun.
    It is odd that the paleoclimatic specialists have do not publically acknowledge that they do not understand what cause the glacial/interglacial cycle. Interglacial periods end abruptly rather gradually. There is evidence in the paleoclimatic record of cyclic abrupt climate changes that correlates with changes in ice core and sea floor sediment of cosmogenic isotope changes which indicates there is in every occurrence of the abrupt climate change event an abrupt change to the sun. It is only in the last 10 years that geomagnetic proxy analysis specialist have reached a consensus that there is an abrupt geomagnetic field change that is concurrent to the abrupt climate change event and to the abrupt solar change event.

    The proxy data (climatic and geomagnetic) indicates that there abrupt changes to both climate and to the geomagnetic field. As discovery of the abrupt changes was by proxy researchers who specialist in proxy researcher and do not not attempt to explain what physically caused what happened cyclically in the past, the first effort by the proxy researchers was to attempt to remove the anomaly rather than to create an anomaly that is physically impossible to explain based on the assumed mechanism for the creation of the geomagnetic field and for the mechanisms that affect planetary climate.
    For example, during the Younger Dryas abrupt climate (12,900 years ago) change cycle, the planet when from interglacial warm to glacial cold with 70% of the cooling occurring in less than 10 years. The discovery of abrupt climate change was not expected. There is no mechanism explanation for it. Due to mechanisms (what causes abrupt climate change and the interglacial/glacial cycle, during part of the cycles the Arctic warms while the Antarctic cools. This is called the polar see-saw by the specialists. The polar see-saw phenomenon inhibits the abrupt change event from the Antarctic ice sheet record. The evidence of cyclic abrupt climate change (Heinrich events) has discovered by analyzing the Greenland ice sheet ice cores. The ice core analysis specialist did not initially believe the evidence of cyclic abrupt change was correct and hence drilled a second ice core in the Greenland ice sheet to confirm there has cyclic abrupt climate change. (The specialists called the cyclic abrupt climate changes RICKIES rapid climate change events)

  106. James Griffin says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:17 am

    On top of that the biggest blunder was to factor in CO2′s ability to create heat as linear when it is logarithmic.

    The penultimate paragraph of the Economist article made that blunder: It said that a doubling and a tripling the amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere will add equal amounts of warming to the global temperature.

  107. There was not one mention of the sun in the article. It’s like the elephant in the room. Solar cycle 22 ended in May 1996. Cycle 23 was noticeably weaker than cycle 22 and 24 is much weaker than 23. The average EUV emissions of Cycle 24 are 61% of those in cycle 23. These emissions provide the energy to create ozone. This process has a byproduct of heat. So as a result the ozone layer has thinned and the stratosphere is colder. Hence the effect on the jet streams, which because of the sometimes more north/south or south/north movements slows the west/east progression of the weather systems. This results in more extreme weather.
    What bothers me is that instead of concentrating on the immediate risks posed by the change in the sun mankind is intent on finding a solution to a problem he thinks will arise more towards the end of the century.
    Consider if you were driving in 45 C deg heat in outback Australia and a 130 ton road train was coming towards you at 100km an hour on the wrong side of the road. What would you do? Drive off the road to avoid a collision or turn up the air conditioning?

  108. Brent Walker says:
    March 29, 2013 at 9:29 pm
    There was not one mention of the sun in the article
    And for a good reason: the sun has little, if anything, to do with it. Solar activity now and the past several cycles is what it was a century ago and the climate is not.

  109. Thanks Gail for the link.

    So Hansen had a new computer model in 1971 that showed fossil fuel “dust’ was cooling the planet to a new ice age. In 1988, fossil fuels were adding CO2 which was going to fry the planet. Now, once again, in 2013, fossil fuel “dust” (i.e. coal) is going to cool the planet again….

    Can anyone anywhere in some position of power call BS on this guy and make it mean something?!

  110. @ 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.”
    :-D

  111. I find it interesting that CAGW advocates (CAGWa) can constantly talk from both sides of their mouth (at the same time) and are still treated as credible by the media and the population at large (more on this latter).

    A prime example is the “Extreme Weather” meme. I could probably find at least five news stories every day where Climate Change or Global Warming is credited with creating “Extreme Weather”, while elsewhere, perhaps from the same news source, we now can find admissions of stalled global warming. It amazes me that so many can’t synthesize these two issues.

    Another example revolves around the “Climate versus Weather” discussions. It is clear to those who are thinking critically that weather is trotted out by CAGW advocates when it suits them. A critical thinker who turns to address an aspect of this is circled by the advocates and is speared with either “You idiot, weather isn’t climate!” or “You idiot, climate is the sum of weather!”

    Some insight, and some confirmation of my sense of the discourse came from reading the Tyndall Centre’s 2004 study “The Social Stimulation of the Public Perceptions of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change”. This study models the public’s perception of reality and the best use of the phrase “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” base on an individual’s personal experience with weather.

    This study is then cited in “Design Empowerment: The Limits of Accessible Visualization Media in Neighborhood Densification”, which “…may help overcome the tension between the urban densification requirements of climate change planning and the political infeasibility of rapid change.”

  112. 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.

  113. Leif Svalgaard says in response to Tallbloke:
    “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…”

    Leif – I am interested to know why you ridicule anybody who suggests that the Sun may have some part in driving our climate (or changes that have been observed). I find it amazing that you (or anybody for that matter) could assume that you know all there is to know about the Sun and it’s effect on this planet. As with many scientific topics there is probably more we don’t know than what we do and will continue to be an endless path of discovery.

    If you are implying that all there is to know about the Sun and it’s effect on our climate has been discovered then surely the honorable thing to do would be to resign from your current university post and take up another endeavor of research where there is more to learn for the benefit of mankind.

  114. 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

  115. Brent Walker says:
    March 29, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    Broadly correct but with a problem in that the stratosphere cooled when the sun was active and may now be warming with the less active sun.

    Bear in mind too that one needs a warmer stratosphere above the poles to push tropopause height down and force the polar air masses to expand and surge across the mid latitudes.

    The solution is provided by recent data which showed that, unexpectedly, ozone amounts increased above 45km when the sun was becoming quieter between 2004 and 2007. An update is awaited.

    It seems that conventional climatology has the sign of the solar effect on ozone amounts wrong for the upper levels and it must logically be the case that the reverse sign effect above 45km dominates overall so as to produce the events that we observe.

  116. 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.

  117. kenskingdom
    A Reality Check on Global Warming
    « How Angry Was Summer?
    Warming Has Paused, BOM Says!

    Ken Stewart, 19 March 2012

    Sorry, that title is a little misleading, isn’t it. The Bureau of Meteorology didn’t actually say this, but the BOM’s own data does. Loudly and clearly.Acorn 1995-2012

    The Bureau’s brand-new, best quality dataset, ACORN-SAT (Australian Climate Observation Reference Network- Surface Air Temperatures) clearly shows the linear trend has been flat for 18 years.

    So what of the Climate Commission’s report on “The Angry Summer” , and the Bureau’s apparent fixation with maximum temperatures in the past summer?

    In the past, the BOM has been at pains to make clear that trends in climate can only be analysed over long periods of time. See for example, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/glossary/climate.shtml Three cold months have barely rated a mention in the past for this very good reason. So why all the fuss over three hot months? And if it is now OK for them to use a three month period in this way, surely it is OK for sceptics to point to a “pause” in warming over the past several years. A period of 18 years is 72 times longer than the “Angry Summer”!

    In my last post I demonstrated how well Acorn annual mean anomalies from the 1981-2010 mean, match with UAH (the dataseries of atmospheric temperatures since late 1978 compiled by the University of Alabama- Huntsville):Acorn UAH 79-12 new

    I was astounded that some commenters at the various sites where this was published had doubts about the accuracy of the UAH data. You can’t help some people. That’s why I decided to play the warmists’ at their own game, by using only the Bureau’s own data, which shows, among other things, that there has been zero trend in the data since 1995.

    Finally, as the Climate Commission is not likely to mention these, here are some other not so widely known facts straight from Acorn:

    2012 had the coldest winter minima since 1983 Acorn winter min
    2012, at +0.11C, was the 36th warmest year- equal with 1995, just ahead of 1957.
    The past three years- 2010, 2011, and 2012- were the coolest of the decade.
    2012 was cooler than 9 of the previous 10 years- beaten by 2011. 2011 was exactly at the median anomaly for the past 103 years, at -0.13C, according to Acorn’s homogenised record.

    Meanwhile the Climate Commission would have us believe that because a three month period has been a record, this is somehow proof of man-made global warming.

    Why? Because that’s all they’ve got left.
    About these ads
    .

    This entry was posted on March 19, 2013 at 8:42 am and is filed under climate, CO2, temperature, uah, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
    4 Responses to “Warming Has Paused, BOM Says!”

    anthony Says:
    March 19, 2013 at 12:19 pm | Reply

    Great work Ken.
    Ian Says:
    March 20, 2013 at 8:52 am | Reply

    Just a rant
    Comment from the BOM’s Special Climate Statement 43 on this summer.
    ‘However, the most extreme aspects of the 1972–73
    event were confined to inland areas, whereas in late 2012 and early 2013, 40 °C was reached at least once in every capital city except Brisbane and Darwin.’
    Makes you think – wow! A profound statement to make us believe that this summer was extremely hot. Until you check the data.

    In the summer of 1972/73, all capitals except Darwin, Brisbane and Sydney reached 40C. Sydney reached 39.9C at Sydney Obs but Sydney Airport reached 40C twice in Dec 72.
    So it’s true but only by 0.1C in Sydney.

    However, the Statement at least cites the real reason why both 1972/3 and 2012/13 were hot.
    ‘Like recent events, the 1972–73 heatwave coincided with the late onset of the northern Australian monsoon, preventing moisture and cloud of tropical origin from moderating temperatures inland.’

    I wonder what caused the hot summers of 1938/39 and 1894/95?

    Ken
    I can find the ACORN records for individual stations but not any trend graphs. Can you help me with the links for those?
    Ken Stewart Says:
    March 20, 2013 at 10:18 am | Reply

    Ian, I agree with you absolutely. It’s amazing what you find when you check the facts.

    There are no time series graphs for individual stations, you need to download the data from Acorn (AND from Climate Data Online for raw data) and make your own graphs, comparing raw data with Acorn. If you subtract Acorn from Raw you may find some surprises too.
    Ian Says:
    March 20, 2013 at 12:32 pm | Reply

    Thanks, Ken.
    Recently I ran the raw data for Bourke, Jan 1939 and compared it with ACORN. Every temp over 30C was adjusted downwards and temps under 30C adjusted higher.
    This adjustment reduced Bourke’s 17 day +40C heatwave to 11 days.
    By the way, still can’t find out why 2009 has gone from the second hottest year to the third hottest year (behind 2005 and 1998) in just 12 months.

    Leave a Reply Sorry mods for posting the whole lot in of Ken Stewart’s comment@march 29th at 8;13 pm
    It would be a good one to put into the ready refrerence on climate facts that may be used in debate.

  118. Gail,thanks for the article on Hansen, which goes to some length to prove my thoughts about him. He is a self-publicist who will jump on any passing bandwagon, and woe betide science getting in the way.

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

  120. Roy says:
    March 30, 2013 at 1:11 am
    “Unlike those economic theories that gave us the Great Depression or those that have given us the worst slump since the 1930s?”

    The Great Depression was a bubble bursting; inflated by a spending binge initiated by Hoover.
    The Big Financial crisis was caused by the bursting of the housing bubble; that bubble got inflated by Greenspan’s low interest rate policy before.

    So we can track both bubbles back to decisions of central planners. Was there an economic theory behind it? I would call that theory “interventionism”… or “central planning”… is it any different from Keynesianism? Dunno… I don’t see a difference… Central planners will use any pretense to interfere with the market.

  121. Stephen Wilde says:
    March 30, 2013 at 12:19 am

    “It seems that conventional climatology has the sign of the solar effect on ozone amounts wrong for the upper levels and it must logically be the case that the reverse sign effect above 45km dominates overall so as to produce the events that we observe.”

    Please do you have a source or link for that?

    Thank you.

  122. Tim from Australia says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:43 pm
    I am interested to know why you ridicule anybody who suggests that the Sun may have some part in driving our climate (or changes that have been observed). I find it amazing that you (or anybody for that matter) could assume that you know all there is to know about the Sun and it’s effect on this planet.
    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: http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf

  123. And while Europe and North America has deep winter, coldest since 18h00’s..hellooo does this ring a bell?…. now and will continue into April….it has to be global warming? The same idiots believing they landed on the moon are the same believing in AGW. If no one can see the similarities between the sunspot trend and weather, they are blind or do not want to see. The bigger Picture plan here…..nature will reduce human population drastically with the food shortages coming and that’s exactly what they want. The sun is the only driver here for us and life. Take the sun away and everything won’t exist and this is no rocket sience to believe!!

    REPLY: “The same idiots believing they landed on the moon are the same believing in AGW.”

    Go talk to Lewandowsky, your rants have no place here. – Anthony

  124. Stephen Wilde says:
    March 30, 2013 at 7:09 am
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7316/full/nature09426.html also states:
    “We also show, using the SIM data, that solar radiative forcing of surface climate is out of phase with solar activity. Currently there is insufficient observational evidence to validate the spectral variations observed by SIM, or to fully characterize other solar cycles, but our findings raise the possibility that the effects of solar variability on temperature throughout the atmosphere may be contrary to current expectations.

  125. 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.

  126. Leif Svalgard.
    “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…”

    Ah, but Tallbloke is referring to Al Gores mansion, not the sun.

  127. 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.

  128. Combined Solar and Earth’s influence on the climate via oceanic oscillations (the AMO) is clear to a few, but that may undermine their confidence in the views held.
    If two oscillations of different frequencies are combined in a responding receptor, then a phenomenon known as “beating” arises.
    Beating frequencies time line can be simply calculated as the sum Cos(A+B) and the difference Cos(A−B) of two primary components.
    Resultant can be plotted directly by calculating Y = Cos (A + B) + Cos (A – B) but this doesn’t allow for the non-stationary phase shift in the original frequencies.
    Alternatively phase difficulty this can be overcome by using a well known trigonometric identity
    Y = 1/2 [ Cos (A + B) + Cos (A – B) ] = Cos A * Cos B

  129. vukcevic says:
    March 30, 2013 at 7:54 am
    Combined Solar and Earth’s influence on the climate via oceanic oscillations (the AMO) is clear to a few, but that may undermine their confidence in the views held.
    If two oscillations of different frequencies are combined in a responding receptor, then a phenomenon known as “beating” arises.

    This works the other way too. It is quite common that a single periodic variation also has a variable amplitude [the sunspot number is a good example]. This will masquerade as beating of two different periods, where in reality there is only one. This is clear to a few, but may undermine the belief by others in cyclomania.

  130. Leif Svalgaard (3/29/13 11:47 am) takes Tallbloke to task for crediting the Sun for Earth’s temperature. LS says, “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… ”.

    What the Sun “has very little to do with” is any Global Climate/Circulation/Catastrophe Model (GCM), and that is by design. IPCC eliminated the Sun because it didn’t vary enough for its equilibrium models of climate which man was disrupting. It did so by neglecting cloud feedback.

    In 2010, LS with E.W. Cliver authored a paper, “Heliospheric magnetic field 1835-2009”, elaborating on his “Inter-Diurnal Variability (IDV) index”. They confirm their results explicitly by relying on Wang et al. [2005], the preferred TSI model relied on by IPCC in defense of GCMs. AR4 ¶2.7.1.2.1.1, “Reconstructions of past variations in solar irradiance”, p. 190. That same Wang model driving an elementary network with a couple of long lag time constants is sufficient to predict the Global Average Surface Temperature over the history of thermometers. It does so with an accuracy comparable to IPCC’s smoothed estimator for GAST from HadCRUT3.

    That prediction confirms the Wang (2005) model with the HadCRUT3 model. It eliminates the impossible, the assumption of Earth in any equilibrium. It accounts for ocean heat capacity and transport lags, effects not represented in the GCMs. It accounts for the most powerful feedback force in climate, cloud albedo, negative for warming and positive for TSI, and in part known to IPCC experts but omitted from the GCMs. The prediction shows that the signatures of man on climate are fantasy. It shows IPCC’s Climate Sensitivity is far too large. The prediction also shows GAST departing from the HadCRUT3 prediction and instead flattening beginning in 2000!

    The cause is AGW; the holy grail is anthropogenic CO2. And Tallbloke was correct.

  131. 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.

  132. Jeff Glassman says:
    March 30, 2013 at 8:27 am
    In 2010, LS with E.W. Cliver authored a paper, “Heliospheric magnetic field 1835-2009”, elaborating on his “Inter-Diurnal Variability (IDV) index”. They confirm their results explicitly by relying on Wang et al. [2005], the preferred TSI model relied on by IPCC in defense of GCMs.
    Not at all, that is a gross misrepresentation. What we referred to was our confirmation of their theoretical prediction that the Heliospheric Magnetic Field should scale with the square root of the Sunspot Number. Figure 8 of http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf

  133. lsvalgaard says:
    March 30, 2013 at 8:11 am
    ……..
    Agree, chance of either is fifty-fifty.
    However, if there is a set of related natural events satisfying both sides of the equation
    Y = Cos A * Cos B
    there is overwhelming probability that the phenomenon known as “beating” is the physical reality.

    Btw, once you institute the flat solar cycles amplitude, going all the way back to 1700, you are more than welcome to join the ‘cyclomania’ club as a fully paid up member..

  134. vukcevic says:
    March 30, 2013 at 9:22 am
    Agree, chance of either is fifty-fifty.
    No, you argue that the chance of winning the lottery is 50-50.

    However, if there is a set of related natural events satisfying both sides of the equation
    Y = Cos A * Cos B there is overwhelming probability that the phenomenon known as “beating” is the physical reality.

    No, just an example of confirmation bias.

    Btw, once you institute the flat solar cycles amplitude, going all the way back to 1700, you are more than welcome to join the ‘cyclomania’ club as a fully paid up member..
    More nonsense.

  135. @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.

  136. DirkH says:
    March 30, 2013 at 4:00 am
    Roy says:
    March 30, 2013 at 1:11 am
    “Unlike those economic theories that gave us the Great Depression or those that have given us the worst slump since the 1930s?”

    The Great Depression was a bubble bursting; inflated by a spending binge initiated by Hoover.

    That is a very US-centric view of history. There was a Great Depression in Europe too. There were booms and slumps long before Keynesian economics was invented. Your explanation of the current crisis puts all the blame on central bankers and absolves the commercial banking system. Who was it who wanted the Glass–Steagall Act to be repealed?

    By adopting a selective approach to history it is easy to make any pet economic theory appear to fit the facts. Prediction is another matter – just like it is in climate science.

  137. 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.

  138. 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.

  139. lsvalgaard says:
    March 30, 2013 at 5:57 am
    Tim from Australia says:
    March 29, 2013 at 11:43 pm
    I am interested to know why you ridicule anybody who suggests that the Sun may have some part in driving our climate (or changes that have been observed). I find it amazing that you (or anybody for that matter) could assume that you know all there is to know about the Sun and it’s effect on this planet.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    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: http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf
    ——————————————————————————————————-

    I agree with your comment Tim. Don’t be discouraged by Svalgaard’s response to your comment. He often uses this deflective defence to denigrate the people on this forum and likes to have the last word. This sort of response is an unfortunate trait and reflects badly on his ability to handle with civility opposing views. Svalgaard may well be an expert on the Sun per se but I would say based on his research record that the Sun’s influence on the Earths atmospheric and hydrological systems is outside his area of expertise. Perhaps we need to hear more of what Nir Shaviv has to say on this subject on interactions.

    http://www.sciencebits.com/calorimeter

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

    Now just watch how LS responds to this post to prove my point.

  140. Jeff Glassman says:
    March 30, 2013 at 1:54 pm
    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”.
    Amazing that you can misrepresent to grossly. Who knows best? You or the author of our paper.?

    The caption of Figure 8 reads:

    http://www.leif.org/research/The%20IDV%20index%20-%20its%20derivation%20and%20use.pdf

    “Figure 8. Yearly means of B derived from u and IDV (blue) and observed by spacecraft (red) as a function of the square root of the Zurich (International) sunspot number”

    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.
    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.”

    Now Wang et al. [2005] says in what is presumably the relevant part to LS:
    “the square root dependence accords with the smaller long-term increase in geomagnetic activity found by Svalgaard et al. ([2003]).

    So Svalgaard and Cliver do not confirm Wang et al., but instead rely on the latter to explain their model.
    The relationship between IDV (and HMF B derived from IDV BnT = (2.06+-0.21) + (0.441+-0.021)IDV, R^2 = 0.869) and the square root of the sunspot number is an observed fact [discovered by us]. 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. Back in 2003 it was uncertain where the relationship came from. With the theoretical suggestion by Wang, the relationship finds a natural explanation, confirming that a good model for Wang to use is his S1. Whatever his model is has no bearing on the observed IDV index.

    once science emerges to prevail over the “gross misrepresentations”
    But you have not yet emerged from your GROSS misrepresentation of my position.

  141. An epic fail it is, where now 30 to 40 years are even mentioned

    Thanks for showing what fools you are and would find it difficult for anybody to believe your nonsense. The goalposts are changing regularly because your theory has failed.

    Just 8 years of actual global warming brought the scare out in Hansen’s 1988 testimonial. Now we are even to believe that 30 to 40 years are needed, we know you have failed and the science behind scary global warming scenarios falsified.

    How long do you lot have to continue lying?

    It is not warming any more because low cloud global levels have stopped declining. The much quieter sun has occurred precisely at the same time the jet stream has suddenly moved south in the NH and north in the SH. (largest affect so far in the NH) The natural climate shows that a longer period of non warming is almost upon us than warming period occurred in the first place..

    It has not been warming this long because the warming wasn’t driven by CO2 in the first place.

  142. 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.
    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 “drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change”

  143. Two decades of hiatus! Ok, then the temperature has never changed at all, you’re even worse than the Swedish climate contarians. Everything is big in America, smarter and, in your case, crazier :-)

  144. This reminds me of arguing against a tax-and-spend liberal, who’s pushing for an Olympic Games, or World’s Fair, or new arena, or whatever megaproject. Even when you run the numbers, and show them that there’s going to be a huge deficit, they’ll pull some “hidden benefits” number out of their rear end, which they use to show a net profit. Same thing here. When the numbers don’t show global warming, the warm-mongers invent “hidden global warming” to show AGW. E.g. ccean surface heat magically teleports from the surface to below 2000 metres, without first passing through the 700 metre level.

  145. lsvalgaard says:
    March 29, 2013 at 9:34 pm

    “Solar activity now and the past several cycles is what it was a century ago and the climate is not.”

    This is a highly debatable statement, Dr. S.

  146. 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.)

  147. David Ball says:
    March 30, 2013 at 5:30 pm
    “Solar activity now and the past several cycles is what it was a century ago and the climate is not.” This is a highly debatable statement, Dr. S.
    That solar activity is what it was a century ago is not debatable, so you seem to doubt that the climate has changed since them. Start debating then.

  148. lsvalgaard says:
    March 30, 2013 at 6:52 pm

    I wasn’t the one who made the unsupportable statement.

  149. 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.

  150. lsvalgaard says: March 30, 2013 at 6:52 pm
    ………………
    David Ball says:March 30, 2013 at 5:30 pm
    ………………
    There is little doubt that the sun is primary factor in the N. Hemisphere’s natural temperature variability but it is also affected by geo-magnetic oscillations. When two, solar and geo-magnetic are combined then the decadal natural variability for the past 150 years can be reconstructed in a fine detail.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/EarthNV.htm

    The long term (on century scale) up- or down- swings appear to follow the North Atlantic’s ridge tectonics, which again in turn is correlated to the solar activity.

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm

    Calculations are very clear but the physical process (fundamental forces gravity and electromagnetism) controlling it may or may not be disentangled in the near future
    Claim that sun doesn’t influence natural climate variability is bordering on ridiculous; on the other hand, to understand how solar influence is achieved, understanding of the Earth’s body response to solar activity is a necessary requirement.

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

  152. 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.

  153. It’s not a mystery. The magnitude of the warming effect of CO2 has been exaggerated by flawed climate models.

  154. 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

  155. Roy says:
    March 30, 2013 at 10:54 am

    DirkH says:
    March 30, 2013 at 4:00 am
    ***
    Roy says:
    March 30, 2013 at 1:11 am
    “Unlike those economic theories that gave us the Great Depression or those that have given us the worst slump since the 1930s?”

    The Great Depression was a bubble bursting; inflated by a spending binge initiated by Hoover.

    That is a very US-centric view of history. There was a Great Depression in Europe too.
    ***

    Roy, FYI, DirkH is German.

  156. 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.

  157. Leif Svalgaard says: March 31, 2013 at 7:23 am
    vukcevic says:
    North Atlantic’s ridge tectonics, which again in turn is correlated to the solar activity.
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    Now, there is a ridiculous statement if we ever saw one.

    You think and believe it is impossible.
    Hmmm…
    “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” – Lord Kelvin

  158. Walter Dnes says:
    March 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm

    Thank you.

    Do you have Hadsst2 and GISS as well? Thanks!

  159. 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

  160. Werner Brozek says:
    March 31, 2013 at 2:08 pm
    Thank you.

    > Do you have Hadsst2 and GISS as well? Thanks!

    I don’t follow Hadsst2. GISS is negative January 2001 through February 2013.

    I’m currently working on documenting my spreadsheet, so it can be uploaded here. Then people can download and customize it and add various data sets.

  161. 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.

  162. Leif Svalgaard says:
    March 31, 2013 at 6:53 pm
    “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.

    Hi Doc
    You got that the wrong way around, no surprise there, you often do it, but let me put you right:
    Vukcevic:” North Atlantic’s ridge tectonics, which again in turn is correlated to the solar activity.”
    Dr. Svalgaard implied: it is impossible that the tectonics in the North Atlantic ridge could correlate with solar activity.
    Lord Kelvin : “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”

    Lord Kelvin was wrong, and you are wrong too. I didn’t say it was caused, I said correlated.
    The evidence is in the data collected during four centuries, not only by geologists, but also authorities of Iceland:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAPa.htm

    Correlation is particularly strong since 1870’s , possibly due to more accurate SSN count.
    Btw: D-K explained

  163. vukcevic says:
    April 1, 2013 at 1:58 am
    I didn’t say it was caused, I said correlated.
    If not causal, it is spurious and thus not of interest.

  164. 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.
    He cannot lose as that is the duration of the cycle he and his cronies have derided for so long. That is when the climate will be in its next warming cycle regardless of CO2 emissions. It is sick that these arrogant and utterly inadequate apologies for scientists cannot even read literature or look at the dates of historic voyages round the northwest passage to see that this is not an aberration it is the norm for world climate. As for understanding that a tiny global warming cannot initiate a local temperature difference an order of magnitude larger by basic thermodynamics which is a reliable trusted and proven science unlike their woeful apology of an attempt seems to be utterly outside their league.

  165. lsvalgaard says:
    April 1, 2013 at 5:08 am
    If not causal, it is spurious and thus not of interest.

    I didn’t say it was or was not causal, because I do not know.
    You think you know, and that is fine with me; with deference to the true science, I do investigate all correlations ignored by the narcissistic academia.

  166. vukcevic says:
    April 1, 2013 at 11:17 am
    with deference to the true science, I do investigate all correlations ignored by the narcissistic academia.
    You are not doing science in any meaning of the word. There are good reasons for ignoring spurious correlations instead of proclaiming that they represent breakthroughs in understanding. Scientists are the ultimate skeptics, rather than narcissistic, wild-eyed armchair wiggle-matchers.

  167. 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.

  168. vukcevic says
    1. with deference to the true science, I do investigate all correlations ignored by the narcissistic academia.

    lsvalgaard says:
    2. You are not doing science in any meaning of the word. There are good reasons for ignoring spurious correlations instead of proclaiming that they represent breakthroughs in understanding.

    the assertion in 2. proves the observation in 1.

  169. Jeff Glassman says:
    April 1, 2013 at 11:38 am
    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).
    So clearly we were not relying on Wang et al. The succession of papers from 2003 through 2010 are all consistent and shows the evolution of our understanding of IDV and what it means [a measure of the Sun’s magnetic field – driven ultimately by solar activity proxied by the sunspot number]. Any model [as Wang’s] that claims to express quantities [such as TSI] must reproduce the empirical fact that variations of the solar wind magnetic field [at Earth] depend on the square root of the sunspot number.

    The LS/Schrijver argument is a hypothetical.
    All science is provisional. If some premise is met then one can infer something. The science consists of giving evidence that the premise holds.

    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.

    LS and Schrijver need Wang to be wrong, so they publish fantastic new studies to prove their point.
    On the contrary, we show that Wang et al. are wrong. But is seems that you need Wang to be correct.

    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
    The Wang et al. model is based on the flawed Group Sunspot Number and is no longer valid. That it still is being used here and there is just an example of the usual inertia in science. It takes about a decade for wrong science to die away.

    LS (3/30/13 3:10 pm) urges
    The claim is that the IDV is a model, a model for the variability in solar data.
    IDV is a measurement of the response of the Earth to the sun’s magnetic field.

    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.
    Which explains your agenda-driven venomous missives. The facts are that solar activity by all the measures and indices we have of such are now back to what it was around 1900, but the model-derived [from flawed sunspot numbers] TSI reconstructions and the climate are not. As simple as that.

  170. Jeff Glassman says:
    April 1, 2013 at 11:38 am
    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 …
    In fact, the AGW proponents [which include the SORCE people] need something like the Wang model [also why it was in AR4] to explain the warming during the 1st half of the 20th century. You seem to side with the AGW proponents on this issue. I, clearly, do not: neither the Sun nor AGW have anything to do with the natural climate variations we observe. Well, actually, the Sun does have a small influence, on the order of 0.1 degrees C and I’ll not exclude a similar small effect from CO2.

  171. 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.

  172. Leif Svalgaard (4/1/13 1:34 pm) says,

    >>>> The LS/Schrijver argument is a hypothetical.

    >>All science is provisional. If some premise is met then one can infer something. The science consists of giving evidence that the premise holds.

    What you say is true. Scientific hypotheses make testable, non-trivial predictions, and if they pass the tests, the hypothesis is a candidate to be advanced to a theory.

    A hypothetical is different. Schrijver et al., on which LS relies, hypothesized:

    >>If the 2008– 2009 solar magnetic activity is indeed similar to the Maunder Minimum level as we argue here, then … .

    Is there any possibility of making a sensible estimate of the solar magnetic activity during the last half of the 17th Century? The Svalgaard/Schrijver model is permanently no better than a conjecture without proposing how that estimate might be made. As it stands, the S/S model shows that TSI hasn’t changed significantly for 350 years by a assuming that a major component of it at least wasn’t much different 350 years ago. The model is a bootstrap; it hypothesizes the truth of its conclusion.

  173. Jeff Glassman says:
    April 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm
    “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.

    Good to see that you read up on M theory. Here is some more to round off your education: http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovich.pdf

    Jupiter effects are not a substitute for TSI the Sun, which varies enough to account for Earth’s global average surface temperature
    Of course, Jupiter is not a substitute for TSI. Jupiter is MAJOR driver, while the response to TSI’s puny variation is barely measurable.

    the frustration in the movement is boiling over
    As you are in your strenuous attempts to invoke TSI as the major influence that it is not. Your frustration is understandable as humans need something, anything, to cling to in order to feel secure in their [even if mistaken] beliefs.

    Scientific hypotheses make testable, non-trivial predictions, and if they pass the tests, the hypothesis is a candidate to be advanced to a theory. […] Is there any possibility of making a sensible estimate of the solar magnetic activity during the last half of the 17th Century?
    To continue your education there are actually several such. E.g. as described long ago here http://climateaudit.org/2007/11/30/svalgaard-solar-theory/
    And possibly even more direct as it seems we are heading into another Maunder Minimum in the near future, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/SSN/Svalgaard12.pdf

    Already this solar cycle is on par with cycle 14 a century ago, but current TSI is much higher than the Wang et al. reconstruction. And you left out an ‘r’ when referring to the Wong model.

    vukcevic says:
    April 1, 2013 at 1:15 pm
    the assertion in 2. proves the observation in 1.
    One of the better April Fool’s joke this time around.

  174. Could it really be that the atmospheric effect of CO2 has finally “saturated” itself out. Oops! Can’t say that, I am only a Climate Denialist, level 1.

  175. 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.

  176. barry:

    I am copying all your disingenuous post at April 1, 2013 at 8:28 pm so it is clear that I am not responding out of context. You say

    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.

    There is a “hiatus” in global warming.

    To determine this then one has to start from now: any other date is cherry-picking. One then works back through a global temperature time series to determine if there is a trend which differs from zero at 95% confidence (i.e. the low confidence used in ‘climate science’). This determines how far back in time is required to obtain a warming or cooling trend.

    The various different time series of global temperature provide different periods over which there has been no discernible (at 95% confidence) warming or cooling up to the present. The obtained range of values is 16 to 23 years.

    In other words, there has been no discernible warming for at least 16 years (GISS) and depending on analysed time series possibly 23 years (RSS). The headline reports this as a “Twenty year hiatus” which is an accurate newspaper headline according to the data.

    This hiatus is important because IPCC WG1 AR4 Chapter 10.7 (2007) predicted “committed warming” at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

    This “committed warming” has disappeared (possibly eloped with Trenberth’s missing heat?).

    This prediction (n.b. prediction and not projection) of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.

    So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” over those two decades then global temperature needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.

    As you say, the IPCC uses ridiculously high climate sensitivity values but the missing “committed warming” demonstrates they are wrong. And the observed ‘Twenty year hiatus’ emphasises this fact.

    Richard

  177. lsvalgaard says:
    April 1, 2013 at 10:36 pm
    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    April 1, 2013 at 9:55 pm
    ….Svensmark is correct. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/28/dana-nuccitellis-holiday-trick-for-sobering-up-quick-put-a-little-less-rum-in-your-egg-nog/

    Another April Fool’s joke?
    Perhaps this will dampen your enthusiasm: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.7314.pdf

    …and a Happy Belated Easter to you, Lief! I was hoping that would draw you out!

    In all seriousness, I don’t believe we can discount Svensmark’s ideas out-of-hand. Results from CERN may be validating the theory, they are spending enough money on the research. http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

    Climate is far more complicated than the Team would have us believe. I heard that it snowed in Poland on Easter, the northern USA is quite chilly, but the Arctic Sea ice extent remains very labile. I’ll be damned if I know what’s going on!

  178. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    April 2, 2013 at 8:58 am
    In all seriousness, I don’t believe we can discount Svensmark’s ideas out-of-hand.
    Nobody is doing that, the dismissal is based on the lack of evidence [or the crumbling of the claims] for Ney’s ideas. Did you even read http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.7314.pdf ? or http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
    “It is concluded that the observational results presented, showing several years of disconnect between GCRs and lower-troposphere global cloudiness, add additional concern to the cosmic ray–cloud connection hypothesis. In fact, this has been done in the most dramatic way with the measurement of record-high levels of GCRs during the deep, extended quiet period of cycle 23–24, which is accompanied by record-low levels of lower-troposphere global cloudiness.”
    The data does not support the GCR-Cloud hypothesis.

    Results from CERN may be validating the theory, they are spending enough money on the research
    As I understand it the experiment is not ongoing, and it was not CERN spending money. Basically, the experiment just showed that the chamber had to very clean to avoid contamination from impurities.

  179. lsvalgaard says:
    April 2, 2013 at 9:44 am
    CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    April 2, 2013 at 8:58 am
    In all seriousness, I don’t believe we can discount Svensmark’s ideas out-of-hand.
    Nobody is doing that, the dismissal is based on the lack of evidence [or the crumbling of the claims] for Ney’s ideas. Did you even read http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.7314.pdf ? or http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
    “It is concluded that the observational results presented, showing several years of disconnect between GCRs and lower-troposphere global cloudiness, add additional concern to the cosmic ray–cloud connection hypothesis. In fact, this has been done in the most dramatic way with the measurement of record-high levels of GCRs during the deep, extended quiet period of cycle 23–24, which is accompanied by record-low levels of lower-troposphere global cloudiness.”
    The data does not support the GCR-Cloud hypothesis.

    Results from CERN may be validating the theory, they are spending enough money on the research

    As I understand it the experiment is not ongoing, and it was not CERN spending money. Basically, the experiment just showed that the chamber had to very clean to avoid contamination from impurities.

    Leif, according to the CERN website, these are the funding sources:

    The CLOUD project has received funding from:
    • CERN,
    • the EC’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 215072 (Marie Curie Initial Training Network “CLOUD ITN”),
    • the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (project number 01LK0902A and B, “CLOUD-09″),
    • the Swiss National Science Foundation,
    • the Academy of Finland Center of Excellence program (project no. 1118615).

    Atmospheric cloud production is very complex, I don’t believe that clouds in the lower troposphere are implicated in climate change as much as higher elevations. This is an excellent colloquium delivered to Fermilab National Laboratory:

    http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100512Norris/f.htm

Comments are closed.