The warming ‘plateau’ may extend back even further

Despite recent claims by Justin Gillis in this NYT piece that the plateau in surface temperatures is misunderstood by scientists…

…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.

…and that it is just some start point issue…

As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.

The starting point is almost always 1998…

It can be shown that the plateau may extend further back than that, and that nature still rules the climate system, more so than man. I’m not sure why Gillis thinks 15 years is the number people use starting at 1998, I don’t know of anyone making that claim recently. Even CRU’s Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995, a point also brought up in 2008 by Dr. Richard Lindzen at WUWT when he said: “Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?”

More importantly, the kickoff point for this most recent discussion by The Mail’s  David Rose started 16 years ago, in 1997. The 15 year/1998 choice seems like a purposeful misdirection by Gillis. Using 1997 as preferred by Rose, we are fast approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17 year test, and if we use Jones and Lindzen’s 1995 start point, we’ve passed it. What will Gillis say then? – Anthony

More here in this essay By Dr. David Whitehouse via The GWPF

The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science. It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability.

In all this discussion what happened to global temperature immediately before the standstill is often neglected. Many assume that since the recent warming period commenced – about 1980 – global temperature rose until 1998 and then the surface temperature at least got stuck. Things are however not that simple, and far more interesting.

As Steve Goddard has interestingly pointed out recently using RSS data going back to 1990 the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 had a very important effect on global temperatures.

screenhunter_131-jun-09-06-19

The Pinatubo eruption threw more sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the stratosphere since the Krakatoa outburst in 1883. Its millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide reduced incident sunlight and had a maximum of 0.4 deg C cooling effect on global temperatures and an influence that lasted for several years.

The result of this temperature decrease is to increase the difference between the global temperatures of the 1990s and the 2000s. Removing this volcanic dip reduces quite significantly the temperature increase seen over the 1990 – 2013 period. When the errors are taken into account it is not impressive.

There was another very important volcanic eruption in the 1980s – El Chichon in 1982 – whose aerosols actually reduced solar irradiance by an even greater extent than Pinatubo.

mlotrans_web

Removing this volcanic signal also reduces the statistical significance of the rise in temperature seen since 1980. (In fact, statistically speaking, one is hard-pressed to find any statistically significant warming between 1980 – 1995.)

The El Chichon eruption is interesting because one of the strongest El Nino events, some say the strongest ever, occurred just after it. These two events had an interesting interplay for it seems that the global temperature rise induced by the warm water of the El Nino was offset by the cooling effect of the stratospheric aerosols from El Chichon. It is interesting to speculate what might had happened if El Chichon had not gone off. Would the 1982 El Nino have been as dramatic as the 1998 one? And would it have left in its wake elevated global temperatures, as 1998 seems to have done? What would have been the impact on environmental thinking, and on James Hansen’s global warming warning in 1988?

In the post-1980 global temperature data the effects of the El Ninos and La Ninas are obvious both as discrete events and as a source of ‘noise’ in the temperature of the past 16 years. The statistically significant increase in global temperature since 1980 occurred in the years after the Pinatubo eruption’s dip had ended, and before the onset of the strong 1998 El Nino. If strong El Ninos are a mechanism for changing global temperatures in a stepwise fashion we may have to wait for another strong one before the current temperature standstill ends. Perhaps we should also be looking at the link between the lifting of the post-volcanic aerosol burden and its possible effect on the initiation of El Ninos.

The Unthinkable

One of the interesting aspects of the current temperature standstill is that it persists despite several El Ninos and La Ninas.Since 2006 the influence of these events has been more pronounced in satellite data; El Ninos in 2007 and 2009-10, La Ninas in 2008, 2010–2012. These events have increased the ‘noise’ of the global temperature data in recent years.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_May_2013_v5.5

(Courtesy Dr Roy Spencer – www.drroyspencer.com)

Removing this noise is tricky, but without it there is a hint, just a hint, that sans El Nino/La Nina effects and volcanic dips, the global temperature might be reducing. As usual, five more years of data will be fascinating to analyse.

About these ads

122 thoughts on “The warming ‘plateau’ may extend back even further

  1. The bottom line still remains; CO2 isn’t the climate driver it was made out to be. If we’re all going to freeze or fry, it won’t be due to CO2.

  2. If you remove the Pinatubo dip and the El Nino hike, you are left with fairly stable temps until about 2001/2. However, after that 2001/2 hike (if you do this on RSS on woodfortrees) you get a slight drop of tropo temps since 2002 on RSS and a straight line on UAH. Rather than CO2 causing steady rises in temp, what we appear to get are ‘hike-ups’. The same applies to the Central England Temperature at the 1980 point. That rise is really quite striking. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/ What causes these rather sudden ‘hike-ups’? As a layman, that’s what I see when I look at graphs of temperature. Is this what you would get if CO2 is forcing – it seems odd to me. Again, as a layman I would have expected a steady forcing up if the physics is accurate. Hikes seem attributable to something else.

  3. Perhaps the plateaux goes back over 2000 years ! The “Yamalia” tree-ring chronology recently published by Briffa et al. 2013 shows remarkably stable temperatures in arctic regions. There is a recent warming trend but not significantly greater than that which occurred around 250 AD.

    see graph here

  4. Speaking of global cooling – I seem to recall the Washington Post in 1971 carrying a story about the coming ice age. I believe they quoted scientists who were using Jim Hansen’s Venus Atmosphere model and predicted an ice age in the next 50 years due to fossil fuel emissions. I wonder if that means Hansen’s software demonstrated that fossil fuels are so evil they will either boil us or freeze us. There again it might mean his modelling is just crap.

  5. Mr. Gillis, the longer the standstill persists or cooling commences the harder it’s going to be to accuse sceptics of cherry picking. Global warming has stopped, it is a dead parrot (for the time being at least). Is Phil Jones a cherry picker?

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
    —–
    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
    —–
    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
    —–
    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
    [A] “Yes, but only just”.

    Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
    We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
    Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012

  6. It seems more and more likely that the publicly funded modellers have wrongly guessed the ranges, and/or perhaps the polarity of climate sensitivity. They are fully aware that scientists, sceptical of their models, have floated this idea for years.

  7. The posting by Dr. Whitehouse concludes with “Removing this noise is tricky, but without it there is a hint, just a hint, that sans El Nino/La Nina effects and volcanic dips, the global temperature might be reducing.”

    Well … I thought this had been done? Foster & Rahmstorf (http://tinyurl.com/czdx6va) do exactly that and address this issue with disturbing results.

    I wonder if Dr. Whitehouse might comment on the Foster & Rahmstorf paper, perhaps unpacking how and why his conclusions differ?

  8. Note that merely using the oxymoronic phrase “warming plateau” you already concede the argument. The phrase “temperature plateau” is descriptive (and even still contains the implication that the flat stretch is high rather than low). The correct way to phrase it is “interval of neutral temperature changes” (for example) — this correctly implies the slope of the curve without making assertions about whether or not the neutral slope is the interruption of an ongoing warming trend (that will eventually resume), a true maximum in the complete timeseries (certainly not true for any timeseries that stretches back more than 2000 years), a flat peak about to descend (which is what a plateau technically is, so in one sense this is a poor word choice even for those seeking to twist perception). Of course we don’t know what future temperatures are going to do. They could spike up/resume warming. They could extend the “plateau” (neutral interval). They could descend, representing global cooling. All three are within the normal bounds observed on the planet in the past.

    The wordsmiths who present CAGW and a fair number of its defenders are rather articulate and, by framing the dia- — I mean monologue in terms of phrases like this, they win the battle with many even before the discussion or presentation starts.

    If by any chance temperatures do descend, I am certain that we will hear it described in the media as a “warming descent”, or a “warming hiatus” or a “pause in the warming” — anything but calling it cooling, any more than anyone describes the present as an interval of stable temperatures.

    rgb

  9. “So, if past is prologue, this current plateau will end at some point, too, and a new era of rapid global warming will begin. That will put extra energy and moisture into the atmosphere that can fuel weather extremes, like heat waves and torrential rains.”
    For the still-Faithful, hope springs eternal. Deep down though, they know the very basis for their manmade warming/climate/weather is crumbling. You can smell the fear and desperation as they cast about wildly for excuses and maybes, all the while keeping up a steady barrage of the use of varying forms of the word “denial”. Oddly, it is they who are denying the situation, and who are in classic psychological “denial” mode.

  10. We can argue about the plateau, but what I find significant is their admission that they haveno explanation. In other words, they really don’t know everything about what drives the climate. Therefore why should I believe their hypothesis that the globe will continue to warn in the future when they couldn’t predict the plateau?

  11. I sure am glad we have global warming here. June 12th 5:32 AM MDT and we are at a record setting high of 4C.My goodness.By noon we may hit 10C and all fry! Opppsss,time to go feed the two mallard ducklings on my front deck.Funny thing.Seems their parents left this hot clime for some place cooler.

  12. “There was another very important volcanic eruption in the 1980s – El Chichon in 1982 – whose aerosols actually reduced solar irradiance by an even greater extent than Pinatubo.”

    The way this is worded one would get the impression that a volcanic eruption would have an effect on the Sun itself. These volcanic aerosols reduce INSOLATION.

  13. Okay…. no, even without Pinatubo forcing the temperature would be a bit lower than the “plateau” one. Or you would be disproving Bob Tisdale and his El Nino Step Change theory. But honestly I don’t see it there in my wildest fantasy.
    But I also find disputes about length of the “plateau” about as important as disputes about numbers of angels dancing on a needle tip. The important fact is that real world values more and more significantly deviate from model projections and that happens regardless of whether we want to see a plateau in the data or not.

  14. Using 1997 as preferred by Rose, we are fast approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17 year test, and if we use Jones and Lindzen’s 1995 start point, we’ve passed it. What will Gillis say then? – Anthony

    Furthermore, if we use 1979 as the start of the recent warming, then we have warming between 1979 and 1997 (18 years) and plateau/hiatus/insignificance between 1997 and 2013 (16 years). If we use 1996 as the inflection point, then both periods meet the Santer criterium. So if anyone claims that is too short to be significant, then I suggest the warming period is also too short to be significant.

  15. Understanding climate requires realistic thinking using realistic models. Neither are used at present. Clearly reality dictates that GHG’s do not drive climate.

  16. …given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on.”

    Well, there you have it – the central reason for the corruption of climate science. These people (specifically the CAGW warmists) have so much “riding” on their “forecast” that they will stop at nothing to pervert the science to make it come true…

  17. I wnder about the surprise at step wise temperature increase with el ninos. If the “normal” temperature trend were an increase in El Niño and a decrease in La Niña, and if we overlaid a gradual warming on that, wouldn’t the result be:
    – in La Niña years, the natural cooling offset by underlying warming = static/plateau
    – in El Niño years the natural warming + underlying warming equals sudden increase.

    I’m not saying this is happening, I’m just surprised that people keep saying the model doesn’t predict this behaviour. Surely it’s exactly what the model predicts?

  18. fredb says:
    June 12, 2013 at 3:42 am
    “The posting by Dr. Whitehouse concludes with “Removing this noise is tricky, but without it there is a hint, just a hint, that sans El Nino/La Nina effects and volcanic dips, the global temperature might be reducing.”

    Well … I thought this had been done? Foster & Rahmstorf (http://tinyurl.com/czdx6va) do exactly that and address this issue with disturbing results.”

    Foster & Rahmstorf would rather drop dead than using UAH data.

  19. DirkH: Can you substantiate your allegation? Perhaps email the authors and ask before jumping to conclusions? Perhaps redo the analysis yourself with UAH to demonstrate your implied meaning?

    I do agree it would be interesting to see the analysis with all appropriate data sets.

    Nonetheless, however you feel, I would love to hear Dr. Whitehouse give a response here.

  20. Not to mention the Hansenian finger on the scale, fudging data downward in the 30’s and 40’s, upward recently, to create/increase any heating rate. And UHI, which does much the same thing, over time. And possible changes in the ionosphere from solar UV fluctuations, affecting the black body temperature of the sky, giving more exogenic heating.

  21. Kasuha says:
    June 12, 2013 at 4:53 am

    ………The important fact is that real world values more and more significantly deviate from model projections and that happens regardless of whether we want to see a plateau in the data or not.

    We often drift away from this core issue. On the other hand NOAA and Santer give us 15 and 17 year tests respectively.

    How much longer does this need to go one before we see a white flag? Someone on their side needs to step up to the block and say ‘we were mistaken. It’s not as bad as we thought. Draconian measure no longer required.’

  22. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says, June 12, 2013 at 2:31 am:

    “Rather than CO2 causing steady rises in temp, what we appear to get are ‘hike-ups’. (…) What causes these rather sudden ‘hike-ups’? (…) Is this what you would get if CO2 is forcing – it seems odd to me. (…) I would have expected a steady forcing up if the physics is accurate. Hikes seem attributable to something else.”

    Heard of a guy called Bob Tisdale? He posts regularly on this blog. The answer you’re looking for can be summed up in one word, four letters: ENSO.

    I can’t but laugh when reading about the bewilderment and desperate ‘ad hoc‘-ing of the ‘climate scientists': “…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.”

    Indeed, if believing steadfastly that the rise in CO2 is and must be what controls the evolution of global temperatures, of course you will be somewhat flailingly at a loss by now. If your inclination is rather towards actually looking at what the real-world observational data is telling us, the answer is right there in front of you. It’s as obvious as it’s simple: ENSO. CO2 since the 1970s? Zilch:

  23. The temperature plateau after 2000 has been predicted by the astronomical harmonic model of climate change that I proposed in my peer review literature.

    Essentially, there are large decadal and multidecadal cycles of astronomical origin that the models do not reconstruct and, because of this, the models overestimate the anthropogenic effect to fit the data.

    see here for more information

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model

    At the bottom page is my model with the updated temperature

  24. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system

    There is no gap in our knowledge. The problem was because IPCC assumed the 30-years warming trend from 1974 to 2004 of 0.2 deg C per decade as a secular climate signal instead of a transient climate signal. The IPCC models do not take into account the multidecadal oscillation.

    In a paper that includes Mann as a coauthor the above has been explicitly stated:

    http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/indices/amo_reference/knight2005.pdf

    … the
    AMO is a genuine quasi-periodic cycle of internal climate
    variability persisting for many centuries, and is related to
    variability in the oceanic thermohaline circulation (THC).
    This relationship suggests we can attempt to reconstruct
    past THC changes, and we infer an increase in THC
    strength over the last 25 years. Potential predictability
    associated with the mode implies natural THC and
    AMO decreases over the next few decades independent
    of anthropogenic climate change

    ….
    The quasi-periodic nature of the model’s AMO
    suggests that in the absence of external forcings at least,
    there is some predictability of the THC, AMO and global
    and Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures for several
    decades into the future. We utilise this to forecast decreasing
    THC strength in the next few decades. This natural
    reduction would accelerate anticipated anthropogenic THC
    weakening, and the associated AMO change would partially
    offset expected Northern Hemisphere warming. This effect
    needs to be taken into account in producing more realistic
    predictions of future climate change.

    So they knew about the current plateau but it was not included in the fourth assessment report.

  25. If these people can’t explain the slowdown, then why in the world would anyone believe that they can explain or predict the warming?

  26. Warming starts with a La Nina, not the peak of al El Nino. It is an equatorial oceanic clear sky solar heating phenomenom, not an air temperature phenomenom, and starts before the El Nino peak of 98. Why we talk of the heat associated with the 1998 El Nino, I don’t get. El Nino’s cool the planet, eventually. Heat is released, not taken in (granted the released heat moves through the atmosphere on its way out). Without the heat releasing thus cooling El Nino’s we would indeed become a cooked planet.

  27. I’ve been pulling the natural drivers out of the temperature series for a long time now. Its not difficult and can be reasonably accurate (although there is stil a +/- 0.2C random noise error in this process – the weather and the climate is variable of course).

    Here is the model of the average of UAH and RSS.

    This is how the various components such as the ENSO, the AMO and the Volcanoes affect the temperature trend. Its a busy chart but might be interesting. One can see that the different components are sometimes amplifying each other, sometimes dampening each other.

    Solar by itself. I’m tempted to take this out now because there is just no solar cycle signal in the residual when the other drivers are removed. A hint or there, but that is it.

    So that leaves a warming trend in UAH and RSS of just 0.052C per decade since 1979. I see it as continuing over the whole period although it is just so small, one could call it stable over the whole period as well. Naturally, the climate models are far off the trend (on the same baseline) now.

  28. Kristian:

    The only flaw in your analysis is that it requires LOGIC!

    (Do I need to put the /sarc?)

    Mark H.

  29. Whatever the actual effect of CO2 and co-amissions — I don’t think they are zero, but they are likely much less than the IPCC says, more like what Pat Michaels and all the new articles about climate sensitivity say — Gillis’ piece is propaganda. Here is why:

    In the second paragraph, Gillis says:

    “True, the basic theory that predicts a warming of the planet in response to human emissions does not suggest that warming should be smooth and continuous. To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.”

    Two problems with this:

    1. That isn’t what Gillis and the people this article represents were saying a couple of years ago, they were denying there was any significant flattening of temperatures, while they denigrated the people who pointed out the diversion between model and reality; and
    2. The models say this shouldn’t be happening, contrary to Gillis’ new spin about natural variability.

    So this is more propaganda: deny anything is wrong with the models (who is the “Denier”?} until it gets too obvious that there is an issue, relative to reality. Then and only then do you admit to the obvious, fail to apologize to those you denegrated or acknowledge that they were right, and say that, OK, the models and reality aren’t exactly in sync, but you wouldn’t really expect them to be in sync. The opposite of what you said a few years ago.

    These are standard tools of a politician, not of a reporter (especially a science reporter), or of a scientist.

    Deeper into the article, Gillis says:

    “So the real question is where all that heat is going, if not to warm the surface. And a prime suspect is the deep ocean. Our measurements there are not good enough to confirm it absolutely, but a growing body of research suggests this may be an important part of the answer.”

    Note how this sentence silently slides by another, very likely possibility: that because we don’t understand how clouds work at the microphysics level, it is possible that more of the heat that Gillis asserts must be building up somewhere might actually be escaping to space. In other words, he still implicitly assumes the models are right in every important way, but doesn’t say this explicitly, or his readers might actually think for themselves and recall the issue of modelers not understanding cloud microphysics.

    Does Journalism school now teach propaganda as a vital part of the curriculum?

    I can certainly understand why the NY Times wouldn’t allow comments on this article. Their intelligent but easily herded followers might be exposed to ideas that might open their eyes!

  30. “The starting point is almost always 1998…

    NO.

    In the various calcs of the length of the stable temperature period we are currently enjoying, the starting point is never 1998. The starting point is always the present. The length of the model-falsifying plateau is then calculated by answering the question “How far back can we go without a slope to the linear regression of temperatures.”

    By pretending that the ending point of such analysis is the starting point, Justin Gillis and other similarly dishonest warmist propagandists attempt to dismiss the lack of their predicted warming with a false charge of cherry picking. .Starting at the present is not cherry picking. The present is the necessary starting point for analyzing current trends. The stopping point, whether that is 1998 or some other year, is not picked – cherry or otherwise. Instead, it is the result of the dataset that is used and the criteria of significance (the degree of warming, flat, or cooling) that is applied.

    Starting at the present, the period of flat temps extends back to 1995-1998. Starting at the present, the period of warming extends back to well before CO2 could have been a measurable factor in the rise. For the near future, any assessment of the length of the period of insignificant warming will end in the vicinity of 1998. This result demonstrates that the vicinity of 1998 is when the trend of the surface temp of the earth flattened. According to ‘global warming’ theory, in the vicinity of 1998 and since, the trend of the surface temp of the earth should have been accelerating. These are very inconvenient facts for adherents of the ‘global warming’ religious/political belief system.

  31. If Mr Gilis really believes in co2 forcing then he should acknowledge that co2 has saved us from calamitous natural cooling.

  32. There is a fundamental flaw (well… many, really) in the way people like Gillis address the Skeptical argument. They seem to think that we don’t believe that CO2 is a green house gas, or that the planet hasn’t warmed since the end of the LIA. This is absurdly false.

    The problem is that I can argue that CO2’s greenhouse effect contributes to Global climate in direct proportion to it’s atmospheric concentration of GHGs, or about 1.6% of total warming and be called a “denier” while agreeing that CO2 is a GHG.

    We are skeptical of their “forcing” hypothesis, we are skeptical of their adjustments to the climate record… in short, we are skeptical of all those claims that they assert that CO2 warms the atmosphere beyond it’s chemical capacity to trap heat.

  33. Nicola Scafetta says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:09 am
    The temperature plateau after 2000 has been predicted by the astronomical harmonic model of climate change that I proposed in my peer review literature.
    Your model predicts 0.15C warming from 2011 to 2015…

  34. In the face of continuing increases of CO2 in the atmosphere, for how many years of stable or falling temperatures do we have to wait before scientists begin to ask themselves if there can possibly exist a “greenhouse effect”? Statistics are so readily abused because people concentrate on esoteric numeric manipulations and ignore the most basic and easily learnt foundations of the craft. If inaccurate and poorly representative data is combined with an effect that has no properly stated paradigm nor demonstrated existence, then where is the claim for ‘science’?

  35. fredb

    Dr Whitehouse has discussed Grant and Foster’s attempt to remove transient ‘signals’ from the global temperature series. he mentions it in his GWPF report “The Global Warming Standstill.” I think it’s fair to say that Dr Whitehouse was rather underwhelmed by what Grant and Foster had actually achieved as opposed to what they had said they had done.

    And so am I.

  36. The Foster & Rahmstorf paper is a cherry picking nightmare starting close to the end of the last cooling period and ending in 2010 with a strong El Niño. In addition, it does nothing to determine the actual cause of the warming (80% concurrent with PDO warming period).

  37. fredb says:
    June 12, 2013 at 5:48 am
    “DirkH: Can you substantiate your allegation?”

    Yes. Rahmstorf is the chief warmist drone of Schellnhuber who craves the Grand Transformation of the entire world’s society. These people are mad.

    ” Perhaps email the authors and ask before jumping to conclusions?”

    Rahmstorf has produced so much pseudoscience, specifically the most ridiculous hockeystick imitations that I don’t feel terribly inclined to.

    “Perhaps redo the analysis yourself with UAH to demonstrate your implied meaning? ”

    My implied meaning that the global warmist movement hates, hates, hates UAH and RSS? Well of course they hate it as they can’t fudge the past cooler with the GISS homogenization tricks.

  38. NASA originally set to goalpost in 2008 at 15 years. Santer mover them to 17 years. Depending on which data set and definition of statistical significance, the pause is not exceeding that. The cheery picked endpoint argument is only because (2013-15) is 1998. Use 17 years, it goes away, and the point is still carried. The models are falsifying themselves by the modelers own criteria. Fun to watch them wiggle. “missing heat” skipped surface layers and hiding below 700 meters (Trenberth) is the most sophisticated and disingenuous of the lot. Expect more temperature homogenization adjustments, also.

  39. DirkH: sorry, but thats a load of opinion. Which of course you are entirely entitled to. I’ll rather wait for a substantive response from Dr Whitehouse (or someone who’ll do the analysis … not sure I’m comptetent to do it myself).

  40. The lack of warming is only one of the many anomalies that the warmists have ignored. One of the reasons the fundamental errors concerning atmospheric processes and the sun-climate connection has not been resolved is no one has summarized the problem situation which presents the anomalies and observations as a set noting how logically certain key anomalies and observations have eliminated hypotheses and point to the correct solution. When the problem situation is written out the solution drops out. The observations and anomalies fit together similar to a physical puzzle to form one image, one solution. (i.e. This is constrained problem. There is a physical explanation for all events in the past and the future. The correct solution explains all anomalies.)

    The latitudinal anomaly in planetary warming, points to what truly caused the warming in the last 70 years. The CO2 warming mechanism based on its theory should have cause a specific warming pattern. That pattern is not observed. The mechanism that caused the warming in the last 70 years must explain the pattern of warming.

    CO2 concentration varies less than 4% with latitude. Therefore the potential (the word potential is used as the actual forcing is determined by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space at the latitude in question prior to the increase in CO2) for CO2 forcing with latitude should be roughly constant.
    In the tropics the actual forcing due the CO2 increase (based on the warmist theory not on observation) should be proportionally larger than other latitudes on the planet, as the potential for forcing due to the increase in CO2 is roughly the same in the equatorial region and there is the largest amount of long wave radiation (the multiplier that determines the magnitude of forcing before feedbacks) that is emitted off to space in the tropics and as there is amply water in the equatorial region to amplify the CO2 forcing based on the warmist theory.
    The observations do not support the assertion that warming in the last 70 years was caused by increases in atmospheric CO2.

    The temperature anomaly in the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics (not including the tropical region) is 4 times greater the temperature anomaly of the tropics and twice the temperature anomaly of the planet as whole. This same temperature pattern occurs during a Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles where not caused by changes to CO2. The same forcing function (modulation of planetary cloud cover by solar magnetic cycle changes) caused the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and caused the warming in the last 70 years.

    Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    As the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted (the same pattern of solar magnetic cycle changes occurs to create the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and more sever Heinrich event.)

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

    Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
    If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels 2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].

    We have examined the temperature anomalies at the various latitudes enumerated above for three data sets: HadCRUT3v, and MSU_LT from UAH and from RSS. All show similar behavior. However, as explained above, we only present the results from MSU_LT_UAH.
    Figure 2 shows the UAH_LT anomalies for NoExtropics, Tropics, SoExtropics and Global. The average trends over the range 1979-2007 are 0.28, 0.08, 0.06 and 0.14 ºK/decade respectively. If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing.

    Latitude bands. The temperature anomaly data can be partitioned into averages over latitude bands that are used in this paper. There are the familiar global (85S-85N) and tropical (20S-20N) latitude bands. North of the equator there are: NH(0-85N), ExTropics (20N-85N), and NoPol (60N-85N). There are corresponding latitude bands south of the equator.

  41. Joe Ryan says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:59 am
    There is a fundamental flaw (well… many, really) in the way people like Gillis address the Skeptical argument. They seem to think that we don’t believe that CO2 is a green house gas, or that the planet hasn’t warmed since the end of the LIA. This is absurdly false.

    The problem is that I can argue that CO2′s greenhouse effect contributes to Global climate in direct proportion to it’s atmospheric concentration of GHGs, or about 1.6% of total warming and be called a “denier” while agreeing that CO2 is a GHG.

    We are skeptical of their “forcing” hypothesis, we are skeptical of their adjustments to the climate record… in short, we are skeptical of all those claims that they assert that CO2 warms the atmosphere beyond it’s chemical capacity to trap heat.

    The AGW fanatics and doomsayers love to use strawman arguments instead of discussing the real concerns of the skeptics. It’s another tactic they use to marginalize the dissidents.

    BTW: You will find some people posting on this blog that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. This is not a mainstream skeptical argument, however.

  42. here

    Is it too much to ask that folks who write such things as “it’s cold here” do us the favor of identifying where “here” is?

    A general idea is all that is necessary to distinguish between Oymyakon, London, or Tucson. Thanks.

  43. ” I wonder if that means Hansen’s software demonstrated that fossil fuels are so evil they will either boil us or freeze us. There again it might mean his modelling is just crap.”

    It is very easy to write software that tells you what you want. It’s very, very hard to write software that tells you something you didn’t already know.

  44. One critical statement in the article is

    “To the contrary, in a climate system still dominated by natural variability, there is every reason to think the warming will proceed in fits and starts.”

    If a climate system is dominated by natural variability, it is not dominated by man made CO2 production. The natural climate change will be the dominate reason for changes in the climate. Anti-carbon exercises by man will not have a significant impact on the climate.

    Climate models where temperature is driven by CO2 emissions are wrong if natural variability dominates the climate system. Government policies based on existing climate models are ill-advised as the models are wrong. The New York Times says so.

  45. @William Astley

    The JASON Defense Advisory Panel wrote about what would happen under CO2 induced global warming, including arctic amplification here: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf

    •The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate, JSR-78-07, April 1979

    “They found that a doubling of carbon dioxide content raises the average temperature 2.9′ and the calculations indicate a warming of 8′ to 20′ in the high latitudes with smaller than average increases in the equatorial regions.” (pp. 23-24)

    ———
    so, yeah, things are moving along pretty much exactly like they were understood back in 1974 when these calculations were made by Manabe and Weatherald in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
    ———–

    It is hard to believe in your theory of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle (re: solar magnetic cycles) when you think that arctic amplification is supposed to be caused by variances in CO2 concentrations. This is just plain wrong.

    the predominant theory behind Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles is that they are caused by interruptions and restarts of the AMOC.

    ———-
    Finally,

    If you remove the cooling from El Chichon and Pinatubo and then reduce the warming from the El Ninos and reduce the cooling from the La ninas you get a graph that shows a very real and increasing rate of temperature increase, even using the RSS data which misses 7.5 degrees of latitude in the furtherst northern region where the amplification has been occurring.

    here is the increase without the corrections showing surface, UAH and RSS temperatures: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

    Here is the increase with the corrections: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/ see figure 5 it shows a clear global warming signal of 6.5 degrees since 1945.

    Of course he has objections so he says,

    1) F&R assume that temperature change from for exaple El Nino or period of raised Solar activity etc. will dissapear fully immidiately after such an event ends. F&R assumes that heat does not accumulate from one temperature event to the next.
    2) Missing corrections for PDO
    3) Missing corrections for human aerosols – (supposed to be important)
    4) Missing corrections for AMO
    5) F&R could have mentioned the effect of their adjustments before 1979

    None of which detracts from the point which is,

    If you remove the signals from volcanoes (which there were some effects after 1991) and then correct for ENSO values (ocean heat moving out of the ocean or into the ocean due to less or more mixing during wind events) and then correct for the 11 year solar cycle you get 6.5 degrees of consistent warming since 1945.

    and that is why this site uses RSS data almost exclusively along with only showing temperature values since 1997 to include the largest el nino in recorded history.

  46. Bill Illis says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:28 am

    I find your graphs very illuminating. The 0.052C/decade you find in the UAH/RSS data is, I believe, around one tenth of the value that the UKMO includes in all supercomputer climate models (varies with scenario). No wonder they are guaranteed to be wrong!

  47. What is the significance of the warming when we remove obvious step corrections up for the warming period and step changes down for the previous cold period. It is always very instructive to take the CAGW proponents’ own data and show its hypotheses and projections wrong. But it is getting time to correct the corrections and really dump this odious load.

  48. I have a theory that, when all else is said and done, most people, without even knowing it, will fairly quickly drop clues as to what they’re really all about (yours truly included). I think the following statement by Justin Gillis is such an example, and not in the way he thinks:

    ‘…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on.’

    What is “riding on the scientific forecast” is the reputation and trust in the IPCC (and thus in the UN itself), in the governments and their taxing bodies that forwarded policies that damaged their constituents, in the members of the scientific community that sucked on the same teat of those taxpayer funds, and finally, in the slavishly ennobling media that rode, and continues to ride, on this same train wreck. Continuing that train ride is what the stakes are. That’s what Justin Gillis is truly concerned about.

  49. From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 9:33 am:

    and that is why this site uses RSS data almost exclusively along with only showing temperature values since 1997 to include the largest el nino in recorded history.

    And this is how we know “jai” is some sort of troll, sourcing his smears from elsewhere, as he clearly has NO idea what temperature data is used on WUWT.

    Really, RSS is pretty rare. For satellites UAH is used, since we like Christy and Spencer and they keep it honest. Otherwise Hadley-something is often used for earlier periods as that’s not as obviously biased as GISS. Unless it’s US-only, then NCDC, GISS. Sometimes BEST is used, although largely just for laughs, least to my view.

    Shall we observe standard anti-troll protocols and just completely ignore him, at least until he gets assigned a new handle and sent back into the fray against the evil Gaia-slaying oil-funded Climate Deniers?

  50. Dr Scafetta’s 114.79 year solar cycle in my estimation has not received the attention it deserves. It should bottom out somewhere around the year 2029. The 61 year climate cycle should bottom out somewhere around 2024. Also the Sun appears to be finally settling down and possibly preparing for the minimum (~2020). If there is a major cooling in the cards, it should happen incrementally over the next 16 years.

  51. One thing is clear; trying to pin down the Climatists on the issue of the at least 16- year lack of further warming despite the continued increase of C02 to the “dangerous” level of 400ppm is like trying to catch eels with your bare hands. When they aren’t claiming the heat must be hiding somewhere, they claim it’s a cherry-pick, getting the start date (today) completely the wrong way around. The grasping at straws (and straw men) is both hilarious and sad at the same time.

  52. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 did not include the AMO. Here is what the methodology looks like without the AMO. A clear 60 year cycle.

    Also Foster and Rahmstorf actually inverted the solar irradiance data. I mean really, temperatures go down at the top of the solar cycle and go up at the bottom. What really happened is they deliberately used the old PMOD composite solar irradiance data which is known to be suffering from degradation in the sensors in one of the satellites it uses. It has a spurious decline in recent periods and F&R 2011 had to invert the data because their regression coefficient was Negative (while it has to be positive). They did all this so they could take advantage of the spurious recent data and assign that little extra margin to CO2 warming instead. The fact that this step got through peer review is ridiculous.

  53. Its been clear for a long time that the ‘essential ‘ time line is has long as it needs to be to support ‘the cause ‘ so one year is more then enough to prove it and 15 years not enough to disprove it .
    And they there is the very unscientific fall back of ‘its going to happen ‘ a claim that although meaningless is also very hard to disprove . A factor that plays a large part in the change from alarmist making forecasts for the next year years to ones a century ahead when none of them will be around to be called out on their BS.

  54. Ric Werme says:
    June 12, 2013 at 4:56 am
    Using 1997 as preferred by Rose, we are fast approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17 year test, and if we use Jones and Lindzen’s 1995 start point, we’ve passed it. What will Gillis say then? – Anthony

    Furthermore, if we use 1979 as the start of the recent warming, then we have warming between 1979 and 1997 (18 years) and plateau/hiatus/insignificance between 1997 and 2013 (16 years). If we use 1996 as the inflection point, then both periods meet the Santer criterium. So if anyone claims that is too short to be significant, then I suggest the warming period is also too short to be significant.

    It’s even worse when you consider that previous to the late 70s inflection point, there was more than 30 years of flat to declining temps from about 1940, the negativity of which depends on whose funky numbers you want to embrace and whether you use current versions or the versions from before the data manipulators efforts to give the Dust Bowl days the Mann MWP treatment. Basically, in almost three quarters of a century virtually all of the observed trend was generated in 20 years, or probably less, of the record

  55. William Astley says:
    June 12, 2013 at 8:40 am
    As the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
    You have never specified what ‘interrupted’ means. By any sensible definition, your statement is simply wrong. To my knowledge there has been no ‘interruption’ of anything, so please educate me.

  56. @kadaka

    there is essentially no deviation between the RSS and UAH data. both are significantly flawed and underestimate warming.

    Keep your eyes on the arctic people something pretty incredible is happening right now up there.

  57. TLMango says:
    June 12, 2013 at 10:37 am
    Dr Scafetta’s 114.79 year solar cycle in my estimation has not received the attention it deserves.
    Scafetta claims that his theory predicted the ‘plateau’, but an even better fit [rather than his cycles] is simply a straight line with no variation and Occam’s razor stipulates “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” so there is no need for Scafetta’s ‘prediction’.

  58. The “plateau” really extends back to the 1930s, which were the hottest years of the Modern Warming Period. Despite minor ups and downs, the trend overall for 75 years, not 16 or 17, is downward, not even flat. 75 years doesn’t look a whole lot like cherry picking, plus there is the evidence cited by Russian scientists (not getting rich on fat “research” grants) that solar behavior is indicative of a long-lasting cooling trend coming.

  59. jai mitchell says:
    June 12, 2013 at 11:45 am

    “Keep your eyes on the arctic people something pretty incredible is happening right now up there.”

    Could you give me a hint? From my view the Arctic is almost always doing something incredible, but I just did a quick scan of the Sea Ice Page and almost all the sources there seem to be pretty average incredible at the moment.

  60. jai mitchell-

    Thank you for visiting WUWT and authoritatively stating the true global temperature trend of 6.5 degrees Celcius since 1945. This is a valuable contribution to the discussion, because it is so hysterically wrong.

    First, starting from 1945 is wrong. The IPCC AR4 models declare that anthropogenic effects are not significant until around 1970.

    Next, the global warming should be based on satellite data. Since it does not extend back far enough, the next best dataset is the ocean surface, which comprises more than 70% of the Earth’s surface. The worst dataset is land surface temperatures, which are hopelessly contaminated with ocophobic adjustments, and represent less than one-third of the globe.

    Next, polar temperatures can be ignored because the measurement data is almost nonexistent, and the polar regions represent less than 2% of the globe.

    This leaves you with about 0.5C warming since 1970, or about 0.1 C/decade.

    Next, the temperature trend from 1910 to 1940, when anthro CO2 had no IPCC-modeled effect on temperatures, was also 0.1 C/decade.

    Next, Hansen and others have admitted this year that natural climate forcings such as sunspot activity may be responsible for the recent temperature plateau, completely reversing their view 10 years ago that anthro effects had completely overwhelmed natural forcings.

    So, some of that 0.1 C/decade is natural.
    Some is solar sunspot activity.
    Some is soot.
    Some is land use changes.
    Some is cosmic ray impacts on clouds.
    Some is natural cloud density variations.
    Some is natural cloud height variations.
    Some is natural specific humidity variations.
    Some is measurement error.
    Some is natural precipitation variations.
    Some is natural El Nino/ La Nina step changes in surface temperatures.
    etc
    etc
    etc.

  61. From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 11:45 am:

    there is essentially no deviation between the RSS and UAH data. both are significantly flawed and underestimate warming.

    Since both are measuring the same thing as well as scientifically possible, and can be using the same raw satellite data with the only great difference being the processing, of course they should be very similar.

    But they are verified against radiosonde balloon measurements, etc, proving they are not “significantly flawed” and measure what they measure accurately.

    That they refuse to show the warming of the knowingly-corrupted surface records indicts the surface records, not the satellite records.

    And if that’s all the reply you have now that you’re been found out, you should ask yourself, is this job worth it? I noticed you popped up in the “summer job” season, you can’t be making much above minimum.

    Really, please consider honest work, like pizza delivery. The tips are great, you can triple your on-the-books income. Granted, for a Gaia-lover as committed as you’ve portrayed yourself to be, you’d need three fully-charged Nissan Leafs to get through a full shift, but hey, it’d be more honest than what you’re doing now!

  62. Climate change is over. It is not a plateau. We now have climate stability.

    Now if we start getting global cooling, will the eco loons start calling for an increase in the use of carbon fuels to forestall the global catastrophe of another ice-age? Or will they then abandon and twist their own logic and continue their attack on energy and industrial progress?

  63. Dave,

    You won’t see it up there for another few weeks. the hint I will give you is in the comparison with the arctic Ice concentration comparison with 2007. This is something we have never seen before. It indicates that the arctic has entered into a new state.

    Chrisy

    according to wood for trees we have had .5 warming since 1978 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:20/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:500/mean:20/plot/gistemp/last:500/mean:20/plot/rss/mean:20/plot/uah/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:420/trend/plot/gistemp/last:420/trend/plot/rss/trend

    that’s half a degree centigrade in 35 years. Which means that in the next 87 years (2100) we will experience an additional 1.2C warming. However, that is assuming that the warming is going to be linear when we know that the rate of warming is increasing.

    And, that the current warming trend is the result of the CO2 emitted 30 years ago because of the delay in temperatures caused by the mixing of the ocean and the delay factor in reaching thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth won’t reach equilibrium for another 500 years or so. That means we have an additional warming locked in that is 2.5C at today’s CO2 concentration and that is not including the loss of arctic sea ice as a positive albedo feedback.

  64. jai mitchell says:
    June 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm
    This is something we have never seen before. It indicates that the arctic has entered into a new state.
    Highly doubtful. But keep blowing smoke. It amuses us.

  65. John says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:45 am
    Whatever the actual effect of CO2 and co-amissions — I don’t think they are zero, but they are likely much less than the IPCC says, more like what Pat Michaels and all the new articles about climate sensitivity say — Gillis’ piece is propaganda. Here is why:

    True John, very much agree with your points

    John says: Two problems with this:
    1. That isn’t what Gillis and the people this article represents were saying a couple of years ago, they were denying there was any significant flattening of temperatures, while they denigrated the people who pointed out the diversion between model and reality; and
    2. The models say this shouldn’t be happening, contrary to Gillis’ new spin about natural variability.

    Indeed, Gillis and the CAGW crowd have long tried to deny – and even now some of them do – the significant flattening of the temperatures. And yes they denigrated the people who pointed that out and the diversion between model and reality.
    This needs saying and being clearly highlighted.

    John says: So this is more propaganda: deny anything is wrong with the models (who is the “Denier”?} until it gets too obvious that there is an issue, relative to reality. Then and only then do you admit to the obvious, fail to apologize to those you denegrated or acknowledge that they were right, and say that, OK, the models and reality aren’t exactly in sync, but you wouldn’t really expect them to be in sync. The opposite of what you said a few years ago.

    True.

    I would add to your analysis that furthermore in the article Gillis is trying to point to a potential escape route: the heat is going into the ocean. What he is again not correctly mentioning is that we have a better idea of the ocean heat content since the ARGO deployment – which covers a good part of the mentioned stalling interval, and he again misses to acknowledge that the ocean heat shown by ARGO is in great discrepancy to what the models predict.
    So how can he suggest that the extra heat is going into the oceans when not even the “normal” heat as forecasted by the models can be found there.
    I remember Bill Illis had some very good charts comparing the models forecasted heat and the real measured heat. The same with Bob Tisdale,

    So again, the article is (grudgingly) admitting the temperature stalling, but continues to be a dishonest propaganda article, not a balanced scientific view.

    William Astley says:
    June 12, 2013 at 8:40 am
    The lack of warming is only one of the many anomalies that the warmists have ignored

    Thanks William, it is always good to reread your posts, it is clearly explained how the models do model the CO2 warming:

    William Astley says: The CO2 warming mechanism based on its theory should have cause a specific warming pattern. That pattern is not observed…..the potential …. for CO2 forcing with latitude should be roughly constant.
    In the tropics the actual forcing due the CO2 increase (based on the warmist theory not on observation) should be proportionally larger than other latitudes on the planet

    Whereas what we observe is warming in the Arctic areas.
    (Btw as a side note: have not GISS and HARDCRUT added Arctic temperature data to their new versions?)

    William Astley says: The temperature anomaly in the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics (not including the tropical region) is 4 times greater the temperature anomaly of the tropics and twice the temperature anomaly of the planet as whole.

    Thanks for pointing this additional discrepancy between models and reality, as it may be a major flaw in understand what warmed and understand what caused the warming.

    This comes in addition to the admition that the base 3.7 W/m2 warming thought to be caused by a CO2 doubling is now being reduced to 3.44 W7M2.
    From your above explanation that the models show a wrong pattern of warming, would further derive that the CO2 doubling warming is even smaller then this and there are other factors at play.

  66. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 11:43 am
    William Astley says:
    June 12, 2013 at 8:40 am
    As the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
    You have never specified what ‘interrupted’ means. By any sensible definition, your statement is simply wrong. To my knowledge there has been no ‘interruption’ of anything, so please educate me.

    I cannot speak for William, I understand the reduction of solar activity in comparison with previous cycles. Btw, a solar scientist once told me that all solar activity is more or less in sync.

  67. more soylent green! says:
    June 12, 2013 at 9:09 am

    “BTW: You will find some people posting on this blog that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. This is not a mainstream skeptical argument, however.”

    The mainstream? Is that the sceptical consensus by any chance? Is scepticism subject to boundaries? My position for some years on this and other blogs is not that CO2 alone is not a greenhouse gas, but that a ‘greenhouse effect’ does not exist per se. I am not aware that I have been moderated in this respect on this blog.

  68. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 7:00 am
    “Your model predicts 0.15C warming from 2011 to 2015…”

    Well Leif, also the temperature increased a little bit since 2011. That increase is in perfect agreement with my model.
    Look more carefully at the data in the figure, at the bottom of my web-site:

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model-1

    Moreover, we are not yet in 2015, aren’t we? Let us wait two years and see what happens. I say that the temperature may increase slightly in the next two years following my model shown in the figure.

    lsvalgaard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 11:55 am
    Scafetta claims that his theory predicted the ‘plateau’, but an even better fit [rather than his cycles] is simply a straight line with no variation and Occam’s razor stipulates “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” so there is no need for Scafetta’s ‘prediction’.

    Not really, Leif. The problem with your “straight line” model is that it does not fit the temperature before 2000, while my model fit it before and after 2000. Give a close look at my figure here

  69. “Keep your eyes on the arctic people something pretty incredible is happening right now up there.”

    Yep.. its called FREEZING.
    The current Ice level is well above any of the past 10 or so years.

    and the mean temp above 80degN is sitting below the 40 year average.

  70. Doug said:
    If these people can’t explain the slowdown, then why in the world would anyone believe that they can explain or predict the warming?
    ——
    That is spot on. They cannot explain anything outside their famed models. Have they explained anything but the opposite to what is happening around us at the moment. Real world V Unreal world.

  71. [Snip. Read the site Policy page. Your insulting pejoratives put you in violation. — mod.]

  72. In reply to:

    jai mitchell says:
    June 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
    @William Astley

    It is hard to believe in your theory of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle (re: solar magnetic cycles) when you think that arctic amplification is supposed to be caused by variances in CO2 concentrations. This is just plain wrong.
    … the predominant theory behind Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles is that they are caused by interruptions and restarts of the AMOC.
    William:

    Nice try. Your link does not work.
    The Medieval warm period was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. The Little Ice age was caused by the Maunder minimum. Do you acknowledge that Maunder minimum occurred and the planet cold?
    Mann’s attempt to eliminate the Medieval warm period was also a nice try.
    There are cosmogenic isotopes changes that correlate with the Dansgaard-Oeschger cyclic temperature changes. That is proof that the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.

    What proof do you offer for the hypothesis that ocean current changes causing the Dansgaard-Oeschger warming and cooling cycle that follows the exact pattern that we are seeing in the warming in the last 70 years?

    Any explanation for why there has been no warming for the last 16 years? The subject of this thread.

    Any comments concerning the current abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle?

    Leif Svalgaard any explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly? Any explanation as to why sunspots are turning into pores? The logical next step is no sunspots. There is no need for me to get to far ahead in the explanation as to what is happening. Observations rather than theory are going to drive the next rounds.

    P.S. The warmists are intervening to assist with sunspot counting. Rather than use the traditional visual count they have thoughtful shifted to spectral analysis as it becomes more and more difficult to see the pores. No worry, the sun will be anomalously spotless by the end of this year. Fudging the observations does not change the physics of what is happening.
    Any explanation as to why Antarctic sea ice is anomalously high now for all months? Winds? Difficult to use melt water hypothesis as there appears to be no time when the Antarctic is warmer. There does seem to be a significant amount cooling in the Antarctic region.

    Are you concerned about the recent cooling in the high Arctic?

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are not caused by changes to the North Atlantic drift current. That is wishful thinking without proof by those who do not want solar magnetic cycle changes and long term changes to GCR to be the principal driver for planetary climate.
    Wishful thinking does not change reality.

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

    Persistent Solar Influence on the North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
    Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Altantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output (William: The mechanism by which the sun changes planetary temperature is not solar output, TSI, but rather changes to the solar magnetic cycle. As shown below based on changes to cosmogenic isotopes the solar magnetic cycle was at its highest level in 8000 years at during the latter half of 20th century.) The evidence comes from close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic’s “1500-year” cycle. … … A solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic. Indeed, previous studies have tied increases in the C14 in tree rings, and hence reduced solar irradiance, to Holocene glacial advances in Scandinavia, expansions of the Holocene Polar Atmosphere circulation in Greenland; and abrupt cooling in the Netherlands about 2700 years ago…Well dated, high resolution measurements of O18 in stalagmite from Oman document five periods of reduced rainfall centered at times of strong solar minima at 6300, 7400, 8300, 9000, and 9500 years ago.”….

    http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF

    The North Atlantic’s 1-2 kyr Climate Rhythm: Relation to Heinrich Events, Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycles and the Little Ice Age Gerald Bond et al.

  73. Nicola Scafetta says:
    June 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm
    Not really, Leif. The problem with your “straight line” model is that it does not fit the temperature before 2000, while my model fit it before and after 2000.
    Fitting the past is no big deal, everybody claims to do that. And BTW your ‘model’ was a very poor [perfect anti-fit] fit around 2010…

  74. jai mitchell says:

    “…we know that the rate of warming is increasing.”

    False. That is simply not happening.

    On all time scales, there has been zero acceleration of global warming. This, despite the ≈40% rise in [completely harmless, beneficial] CO2. As a matter of fact, global temperatures have been falling.

    You can get away with your alarmist nonsense and misrepresentations on alarmist blogs. But not here on the internet’s “Best Science” site, where your false assertions get corrected by people who know better.

  75. From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm:

    according to wood for trees we have had .5 warming since 1978 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:20/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:500/mean:20/plot/gistemp/last:500/mean:20/plot/rss/mean:20/plot/uah/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:420/trend/plot/gistemp/last:420/trend/plot/rss/trend

    that’s half a degree centigrade in 35 years. Which means that in the next 87 years (2100) we will experience an additional 1.2C warming.

    At this time, for the record, do you wish to declare that your call-out for that graph was not a deliberate act of deception, but instead was due to mere ignorance and/or incompetence?

    From the Raw Data link, as the data currently stand:

    On your trend lines, see the range displayed:
    System–Period
    UAH 1978.92 to 2013.42
    HADCRUT4 1978.33 to 2012.33
    GISTEMP 1978.33 to 2013.33
    RSS 1979.00 to 2013.42

    Notice how they don’t match? Unless you want to pull a less-than-scientific “Close enough, rounds up the same”, it’s better to do a specific call-out rather than “last 420″ or whatever. What you did was actually invalid.

    The 20-mo smoothing is also strange, 13 months centered (6 months on each side) is a good amount. Use just enough to dampen the sharp squiggles without losing the overall bump detail.

    And all four certainly did not yield 0.5°C warming, as you called it out RSS was only 0.44, round to 0.4, for example.

    Let’s see what a proper call-out looks like, identical start and stop dates, with a 13-mo smoothing.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend

    Voila!

    UAH rose 0.0138°C per year, 1.38°C/century, would rise 1.20°C by 2100 if the trend holds.
    HADCRUT4 rose 0.0156°C/yr, 1.56°C/century, 1.35°C by 2100.
    GISTEMP rose 0.0157°C/yr, 1.57°C/century, 1.37°C by 2100.
    RSS rose 0.0123°C/yr, 1.23°C/century, 1.07°C by 2100.

    See, only UAH had the “additional 1.2C warming”, and the average was actually 1.25°C.

    However, that is assuming that the warming is going to be linear when we know that the rate of warming is increasing.

    Gee, let’s look at the historical rates of temperature change, over ten year periods. We’ll use GISTEMP as it clearly had the highest rates of linear warming thus offhand should yield the “worst case” scenario.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2003/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2007/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1994/to:2004/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1991/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1985/to:1995/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1982/to:1992/trend

    I’d say the rate of warming is clearly decreasing, and that’s according to the “most extreme” dataset. Feel free to change it to the other systems for comparison.

    There it is buddy, you can see it for yourself. Numbers don’t lie.

  76. I agree with several others in this thread that Bob Tisdale’s extensive arguments and graphics seem to indicate that, without the effects of La Nina/el Nino there would be little or no warming of the oceans and thus the rest of the world (as the oceans are more likely to effect the air temp than the other way around). In some cases his graphs show some areas would have cooled (http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/skepticalscience-still-misunderstands-or-misrepresents-the-el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso/).

  77. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 4:01 pm
    “Fitting the past is no big deal, everybody claims to do that. And BTW your ‘model’ was a very poor [perfect anti-fit] fit around 2010…”

    Well Leif:

    1) despite that “Fitting the past is no big deal” as you claim, your “straight line model” does not fit it for sure so your model can be trashed, doesn’t it?

    2) My model is not just a “fitting” but uses specific harmonics from astronomical considerations.

    3) My model greatly outperforms all IPCC models in reconstructing the past temperature.

    Scafetta N., 2012. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 124-137.

    4) My model uses harmonics from 9 year period and above, that is the reason why the fast 2-year ENSO oscillations are not reconstructed as in 2010 and elsewhere. The model is simply not supposed to reconstruct the ENSO oscillation.

    5) My model extends for millennia. See here

    Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.

    Or at least read my summary here:

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model

    You do not have arguments any more, don’t you? And use so naive comments that even the most inexperienced of the WUWT readers would be able to find it out and laugh at you.

    (let us hope that Antony reads)

  78. William Astley says:
    June 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    Leif Svalgaard any explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly? Any explanation as to why sunspots are turning into pores? The logical next step is no sunspots.
    Sunspots form by the assembly of small pores and magnetic flux elements. If that process becomes less efficient the magnetic field will still be there [i.e. the magnetic cycle operates as usual] and cosmic rays will be modulated as usual and TSI will cycle as usual, but no visible sunspots will form. That is what the L&P effect is about. There is precedent for this: The Maunder Minimum. During the MM, the cosmic ray modulation was even stronger than in the last 50 years. That TSI will cycle as usual even when no spots are formed we can already see today: while the sunspot number is dropping TSI is reaching new heights and the number of CMEs is also not decreasing following the sunspot number down. So, the ‘magnetic cycle’ is not ‘interrupted’

    Nicola Scafetta says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    3) My model greatly outperforms all IPCC models in reconstructing the past temperature.
    Subtracting a linear trend is responsible for the fit.. The linear trend has no basis in solar activity as solar activity in the last half of the 18th century was even higher than today.

  79. jai mitchell-

    “that’s half a degree centigrade in 35 years. Which means that in the next 87 years (2100) we will experience an additional 1.2C warming. However, that is assuming that the warming is going to be linear when we know that the rate of warming is increasing.”

    This must be the royal ‘we’ of which you write. The Ocophobes agree that warming has slowed or stopped over the last 10 or 15 or 20 or more years, which is longer than the warming trend that convinced Hansen that CACC was 99% certain back in 1988. Recent trend estimates are here-

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/#more-79260

    “For this analysis, data was retrieved from WoodForTrees.org and the ironically named SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets. The first number in each case was sourced from WFT. However the second +/- number was taken from SkepticalScience.com.

    For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
    For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990

    For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
    For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

    For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
    For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994

    For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
    For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995

    For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
    For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996”

    More from jai-
    “And, that the current warming trend is the result of the CO2 emitted 30 years ago because of the delay in temperatures caused by the mixing of the ocean and the delay factor in reaching thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth won’t reach equilibrium for another 500 years or so.”

    In 1988, when the science was already dead-certain settled, Hansen predicted that, if CO2 emissions stopped after the year 2000, global temperature rise would stop in 3 or 4 years.

    More from jai-
    “That means we have an additional warming locked in that is 2.5C at today’s CO2 concentration and that is not including the loss of arctic sea ice as a positive albedo feedback.”

    Positive albedo feedback from Arctic sea ice loss is, as usual, only part of the story. Arctic sea ice loss creates a huge cooling (i.e. negative) feedback for more than 9 months of the year.

  80. …….Nicola Scafetta says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm
    AAA.) My model greatly outperforms all IPCC models in reconstructing the past temperature.
    ………Leif says:
    Subtracting a linear trend is responsible for the fit.. BBB.) The linear trend has no basis in solar activity as solar activity in the last half of the 18th century was even higher than today.

    ……..therefore, both AAA) and BBB) are correct, the only feasible way to reconcile
    both AAA with BBB is taking the spiral shaped orbital flight of Earth around the Sun
    into account and forget about Leifs curvilinear flight models, which were discarded
    a long 300 years ago, both by Newton and Leibniz…..At least, he agrees with Galileo,
    not bad mate; but he has trouble with Newton and Leibniz, no wonder….JS

  81. hmm, Guess I will have to restate it then

    This is the year when deniers/doubters/contrarians are proven to be either just not up to speed on the real science, (for varying reasons) or working to intentionally cloud the debate on the reality of the science because they are actually working for PR firms who are hired by the fossil fuel industry, just like those same organizations were hired by the tobacco companies (except the fossil fuel industry has considerably more money and political influence).

    I won’t use the UAH since it is a faulty indicator-published by a sceptic who receives money indirectly from the fossil fuel industry through the heartland and marshall institutes. It is not indicative of actual global temperatures (it is tropical and tropospheric) nor will I use the RSS values since it excludes the arctic which warms much more than the rest of the plant, bringing a lower value of temperature rise. Both of the satellite series show more rapid cooling rates after each El Nino spike due to lower moisture contents at the region being analysed. Therefore they are not accurate for determining surface temperature changes. The Hadley is the most reliable method and has been confirmed by the Berkeley earth study which compared it with over a billion individual surface temperature readings.

  82. In reply to:
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    William Astley says:
    June 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm
    Leif Svalgaard any explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly? Any explanation as to why sunspots are turning into pores? The logical next step is no sunspots.
    Sunspots form by the assembly of small pores and magnetic flux elements. If that process becomes less efficient the magnetic field will still be there [i.e. the magnetic cycle operates as usual] and cosmic rays will be modulated as usual and TSI will cycle as usual, but no visible sunspots will form. That is what the L&P effect is about. There is precedent for this: The Maunder Minimum. During the MM, the cosmic ray modulation was even stronger than in the last 50 years. That TSI will cycle as usual even when no spots are formed we can already see today: while the sunspot number is dropping TSI is reaching new heights and the number of CMEs is also not decreasing following the sunspot number down. So, the ‘magnetic cycle’ is not ‘interrupted’

    William:
    Solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. We will have observational evidence by the end of the year (more or less) to support that assertion. What I am stating will be proven correct or incorrect based on observations. In addition to the public announcement of an explained solar magnetic cycle change there will be a public announcement of unexplained planetary cooling.

    Yes. I know what happened during the Maunder minimum. Solar cycle 24 is however different than a Maunder minimum. You appear to have not accepted that fact. I notice however that the tone of your comments are different at this site than at the Solar 24 site. At the solar 24 site you acknowledge that you do not know why sunspots are turning into pores and you acknowledge at that site that solar cycle 24 is truly anomalous, unexplained. At this site your only concern appears to be repeating that solar magnetic cycle activity was not anomalously high during the last 70 years.

    That comment seems incredulous based on the current solar cycle 24 observations and the fact that there is now observed cooling of the planet. (i.e. If there is now significant cooling due to solar magnetic cycle change it will be apparent to all that the warming in the last 70 years was primarily due to the solar magnetic cycle changes, which is the warming phase of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.)

    You still have not explained why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Nor have you explained why sunspots are turning into pores. The model you suggest where pores combine to form sunspots does not explain what we are currently observing. What we are observing in fact disproves that hypothesis.

    Your above comments (pores merging to form sunspots) is not correct. The solar magnetic cycle hypothesis that I am stating/working with is based on a model developed by Eugene Parker. The current cycle 24 observations indicate Eugene Parker’s tachocline model is correct with a few modifications. A mechanism at the tachocline creates magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun. That mechanism has been interrupted. As the magnetic field strength of the ropes decreases linearly, the ropes are no longer able to resist the turbulence forces in the convection zone and are hence being torn apart which explains why there are now pores on the surface of the sun rather than sunspots. The life time of the sunspot groups is decreasing. As the magnetic field strength of the ropes decreases further the ropes will be torn apart by convection forces in convection zone. There will be no sunspots on the surface of the sun, the solar magnetic cycle will no longer be functioning, which is as you note different than what was observed during the Maunder minimum.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Parker

  83. chris y says:
    June 12, 2013 at 7:20 pm
    jai mitchell-
    More from jai-
    “And, that the current warming trend is the result of the CO2 emitted 30 years ago because of the delay in temperatures caused by the mixing of the ocean and the delay factor in reaching thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth won’t reach equilibrium for another 500 years or so.”

    In 1988, when the science was already dead-certain settled, Hansen predicted that, if CO2 emissions stopped after the year 2000, global temperature rise would stop in 3 or 4 years.

    No he didn’t, what he wrote was: “even with the drastic, and probably unrealistic, reductions of greenhouse forcings in scenario C, a warming of 0.5ºC is attained within the next 15 years. The eventual warming in this scenario would exceed 1ºC, based on the forcing illustrated in Figure 2 and the feedback factor f ≈ 3.4 for our GCM”

  84. jai mitchell is a religious True Believer, who wouldn’t know real science if it bit him on the a …nkle.

    His comment above reeks of confirmation bias, with a heavy dose of cherry-picking: mitchell arbitrarily rejects an esteemed researcher, based on nothing more than mitchell’s own politics. Likewise, he rejects satellite data — a database that is accepted by both alarmists and skeptical experts alike.

    But HadCRU — which is supported entirely by tax money, appears to be A-OK — only because mitchell likes their conclusions [which are little different from the conclusions of RSS or Alabama]. Mitchell seems unaware that tax loot is not paid to people who tell the truth: that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening.

    In short, mitchell is a religious True Believer who will never accept the fact that global warming has not accelerated [despite the large rise in CO2]. Thus, science has nothing to do with mitchell’s cherry-picked belief system. He is merely an enabler of the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture. The good thing is that mitchell and his ilk are fading from the scene, as the public becomes aware of the true situation.

    It is very telling that someone like mitchell can post here freely, while skeptics still cannot post their point of view on alarmist blogs. The reason for that is simple: if alarmist blogs allowed fair debate, their runaway global warming nonsense would be deconstructed fast.

    But as it is, mitchell’s pseudo-science gets deconstructed here very easily by skeptics who use empirical, testable facts to make their arguments — verifiable facts that easily falsify the runaway global warming beliefs of the climate scam enablers.

    Finally, someone please wake me when mitchell starts posting without labeling as “deniers” everyone he loses a debate with. That sort of ad-hom argument takes the place of scientific facts. But at this point, it is the only kind of argument that people like jai mitchell have.

  85. Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 6:33 pm
    “Subtracting a linear trend is responsible for the fit.. The linear trend has no basis in solar activity as solar activity in the last half of the 18th century was even higher than today.”

    Which linear trend are you talking about? The result of the test comparing the astronomical harmonic model and the IPCC models is not influenced by that. Also the IPCC models get the upward trend. The difference with the astronomical harmonic model is in the ability of the latter to get correctly the climate oscillations, such as the 20, 20 and 60 year oscillations, which the IPCC model do not get.

    Moreover, the test uses the data since 1850, not 1750 as you misinterpret.

    Finally, solar activity in the last half of the 18th century reached a brief maximum, as my model predicts too, and it caused a warming as the system came out of the Little Ice Age. So, what?
    That it was higher or not than the current solar maximum in 2000 is debated.

    In any case, you also do not get the point that the climate does not respond linearly to solar forcing, don’t you?
    And do not get the point that even if the sun may reach a maximum, it does not imply that he temperature too increases linearly with it. The temperature goes smoother.

    Try to do some experiment at home with a pot of water on the fire and a thermometer.

    Start with cold water. Put the water in the pot and the thermometer in the pot to measure the water temperature. Now put the fire (which simulates the sun) at high for 5 minutes and record the temperature at the end. Then turn off the fire for 3 minute. Then turn the fire to high again for 5 minutes and record the temperature at the end, and turn off for 3 minutes. And continue in this way for a while.

    You may discover that while the fire “maxima” were all equal, the temperature maxima were not, but gradually increased for accumulation of absorbed heat.

    Leif, you really look to be suffering of some painful disorder that is not letting you to get and/or acknowledging the reality of the things. I really wish you well.

  86. William Astley says:
    June 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
    Solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.
    You repeat that like a mantra.
    But do not define what interrupted means.

    At the solar 24 site you acknowledge that you do not know why sunspots are turning into pores and you acknowledge at that site that solar cycle 24 is truly anomalous, unexplained.
    We do not know why the mechanism that assemble pores and elements into sunspots at times functions less efficiently, but with all the satellite data we will be collecting there is a good chance that we will figure it out. This will also explain why so few sunspots were formed during the Maunder Minimum.

    At this site your only concern appears to be repeating that solar magnetic cycle activity was not anomalously high during the last 70 years.
    That is what re-assessment of the sunspot and cosmic rays data show.

    That comment seems incredulous based on the current solar cycle 24 observations and the fact that there is now observed cooling of the plane
    Cooling of the planet is not a unique phenomenon. You seem to think that cooling implies magnetic cycle ‘interruption’. Since cooling has happened many time even as recently as the 1960s, there must have been many interruptions.

    The model you suggest where pores combine to form sunspots does not explain what we are currently observing.
    That is not a model, but rather a fact that has been known for more than a century.

    A mechanism at the tachocline creates magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun…the ropes will be torn apart by convection forces in convection zone.
    That happens in every solar cycle. Sunspots form when the torn apart ropes reassemble at the surface.

    the solar magnetic cycle will no longer be functioning
    If the solar cycle is stopped it will never get started again.

  87. Nicola Scafetta says:
    June 12, 2013 at 8:44 pm
    You may discover that while the fire “maxima” were all equal, the temperature maxima were not, but gradually increased for accumulation of absorbed heat.
    disregarding your other nonsense, your example predicts ever-increasing temperature ad infinitum.

    Leif, you really look to be suffering of some painful disorder that is not letting you to get and/or acknowledging the reality of the things. I really wish you well.
    This seems to be your level of scientific discourse.

  88. Janice: Hey, Jai! LOL, welcome back. So, what’s up?

    Jai: “Keep your eyes on the arctic people … .”

    Janice: The arctic people? Why, what are they up to?

    Jai: “… the hint I will give you is in the comparison with the … comparison … .”

    [several minutes later]

    Janice: I solved it! I solved it, Arthur, I mean Jai! I compared with the comparison and found …. your 2011 documentary:

    Arctic People!

    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Arthur+christmas+movie+elves&view=detail&mid=6D2482B36DF49C55858C6D2482B36DF49C55858C&first=0&FORM=NVPFVR

    Nice sweater, “Jai Mitchell.”
    **************************

    LOL, I don’t know if “Jai” is a true believer or drunk or Jack Nicholson having fun, but I do know that HE IS SO FUNNY!

  89. William Astley says:
    June 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
    Your above comments (pores merging to form sunspots) is not correct.
    Perhaps some excerpts from the literature will help you.
    Here is what the respected solar physicist Peter Foukal says in his textbook on solar activity [Solar Astrophysics, ISBN 3-527-40374-4, from 2004, Wiley, page 240]: “A spot is born by the darkening and growth in diameter of a pore … Only a small fraction of the many pores observed turn into spots, and over half of these spots, in turn, last less than 2 days … Subsequent growth of spots that are longer lived than about a day takes place mainly by coalescence of smaller spots … Large spots that are formed by coalescence of smaller spots generally seem also to divide first into smaller spots, which then decay in situ”.
    And here is what C. A. Young suad in his celebrated book ‘The Sun’ from 1881 [Appleton and Co, New York] page: “Generally, for some time before the appearance of the spot, there is an evident disturbance of the solar surface, manifested especially by the presence of numerous and brilliant faculae, among which, ‘pores’ or minute black dots are scattered. … The ‘pores’, some of them, coalesce with the principal spot, some disappear, and others constitute the attendant train [between the spots] before referred to.
    Bray and Loughhead in the classic work ‘Sunspots’ [Dover, New York, ISBN 0-486-63731-X, 1964] say: “Sunspot pores are sma;;, long-lived, dark regions … it is believed that all sunspots begin their lives as pores [page 52] … It has been known since the time of the early visual observers that all sunspots begin their lives as pores [page 72] …”
    And so on.

    Now, unfortunately some people often forget what has been known for centuries only to re-discover the truth when new data becomes available. Here is a good example of a persistent myth that you also seem to subscribe to:
    “The Hinode observations of emergent sunspot 10926 challenge traditional views of sunspot formation. Before Hinode data came on line, a solar physicist might have described the birth of a sunspot as follows:
    “Sunspots are formed when a ‘rope’ of strong magnetic field beaches the visible surface of the sun (the photosphere). Magnetic ropes develop deep below the photosphere and emerge as an arcade-like structure….”
    The trilobite data show a different process at work:
    “The emergence of the sunspot magnetism progressed in a very complex manner, with small pieces appearing to self-assemble into larger, more coherent structures,” says Marc DeRosa, a scientist from Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, Calif. From http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/18sep_trilobite/

  90. From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 7:42 pm:

    This is the year when deniers/doubters/contrarians are proven to be either just not up to speed on the real science, (for varying reasons) or working to intentionally cloud the debate on the reality of the science because they are actually working for PR firms who are hired by the fossil fuel industry, just like those same organizations were hired by the tobacco companies (except the fossil fuel industry has considerably more money and political influence).

    Thus this year is identical to the previous five-plus years when they said they’d “prove” those same things. This much longer, all they’ve done is make piles of unproven accusations that might be prosecutable as slander/libel if skeptics had as much money to sue as the warmists have to defend themselves. Hell, we have to start a legal defense fund if a skeptic has to consult a lawyer.

    I won’t use the UAH since it is a faulty indicator-published by a sceptic who receives money indirectly from the fossil fuel industry through the heartland and marshall institutes. It is not indicative of actual global temperatures (it is tropical and tropospheric)…

    See the UAH lower troposphere “kitchen sink” file with all the monthly values from the start:

    http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    The ranges are at the bottom:
    Global 85°S-85°N, North Hemisphere 0-85N, South Hemisphere 85S-0, Tropics 20S-20N
    North Extratropic 20N-85N, South Extratropic 85S-20S, North Polar 60N-85N, South Polar 85S-60S.

    Where are they only tropical?

    UAH datasets, as seen in the last directory name of the URL above, are lower troposphere (t2lt), middle troposphere (t2), and lower stratosphere (t4). UAH is not tropospheric only, it’s just the lower tropospheric set that usually gets mentioned.

    …nor will I use the RSS values since it excludes the arctic which warms much more than the rest of the plant, bringing a lower value of temperature rise.

    From the RSS site “Decadal trends” section, we have the coverage range:

    Globally averaged trends computed over latitudes from 82.5S to 82.5N (70S to 82.5N for channel TLT) are shown in the table below, and include data through May, 2013:

    So their “polar hole” up north goes to 82.5°, while UAH is 85°. Check around, it’s hard to find satellite data that doesn’t have a polar hole, even for Arctic sea ice.

    So effectively, both UAH and RSS are covering the Arctic. UAH is covering 97-98% of the globe.

    You should be complaining how RSS excludes so much of the Antarctic, much more than UAH. But according to the “kitchen sink” lower tropospheric data, the South Pole has actually been cooling, -0.03K/decade. That indicates if RSS did include more of the Antarctic in the TLT dataset, 70S to 82.5S, their global trend may be cooling even more.

    Both of the satellite series show more rapid cooling rates after each El Nino spike due to lower moisture contents at the region being analysed.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend

    They came down about as rapid as they went up, so what’s the issue? The amplitudes of the temperature movements are amplified in the lower troposphere compared to the surface sets. It works both ways, shouldn’t be an issue.

    Therefore they are not accurate for determining surface temperature changes.

    Of course not. Surface temperature datasets are set for daily high/low measurements, average those for the “average”. So if you have a 5° spike for 5 minutes, that’s the high the “average” is calculated from.

    Satellites will get you the average of their measurements from their flyovers for a particular spot. Thus they won’t perfectly match the surface datasets. Being lower tropospheric, those datasets are also just high enough to avoid the contamination errors that plague surface temperature monitoring stations while still tracking the temperature changes close enough.

    The Hadley is the most reliable method and has been confirmed by the Berkeley earth study which compared it with over a billion individual surface temperature readings.

    Since when is “The Hadley” a method?

    Oh well. The BEST papers were announced, accepted by warmists, languished as “publication pending”, then were rejected. Finally a new journal was started so the BEST papers could get published and the BEST temperature dataset could finally pretend to have legitimacy.

    We actually prefer Hadley for times before the satellite era, as GISS is far more messed up. If you wish to endorse the slower-warming long term dataset, feel free. But using BEST for confirmation is kind of a negative endorsement. But we’ll still use Hadley anyway.

  91. “Even CRU’s Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995…”

    Strange how you refer to a BBC interview but, rather than link to it, you link to the Daily Mail’s interpretation of it. Why?
    For anyone actually interested in the facts here, this is the actual interview on the BBC’s site :

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    And, to discover more facts, surely mention should be given to the follow-up interview :

    “Global warming since 1995 ‘now significant,”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

    Those are the facts concerning that particular Phil Jones quote. Why not reveal them all?

  92. When I’m thinking about analyzing the climate I’m thinking about things like I see at Nicola Scafetta’s page.

    http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model

    ==========
    Now listen up: I’m going to say this about once. Go through this presentation. If you’re in a hurry to see if I’m messing with ya, Go to minute 20:00 of this presentation: “we get THIS BLACK LINE.”

    ==========

    You should listen to the whole thing but the guy’s english is so bad it’s hard for an American to understand.

    He talks about climate “oscillations” ok – oscillations are repeated actions. When you drop a rubber ball down between two boards that are closer at the bottom, and the rubber ball goes back and forth swiftly, that’s an oscillation. When you see a pinball machine bounce the ball around quickly between two powered bumpers, that’s an oscillation. When you have a saw blade that goes one way then the other, back and forth or in an out, that’s an oscillation;

    you have a hard time understanding sometimes what Nicola says.

    He talks about the Heliosphere, but remember he’s coming to English from Italian, and that’s pronounced, “AaY-Lee-ohs-Feer.”
    “Ayliosphere” is what an American hears.

    The word “curve” he doesn’t pronounce clearly.

    It’s worth listening to. It’s 28 minutes that will have you laughing in Magic Gassers’ faces even louder I guarantee you that.

    He explains how, and shows you how, there are 9, 10-11, 20-22, 30, 60, 200, 1,000 year cycles,
    all dependent, on the various weights, of the objects in the solar system, aligning to pull on, the gravitational center of mass,
    of the sun, inside.
    +++++++++
    Nicola: record di avere qualcuno questa parola per parola di presentazione, che è un oratore naturale inglese.

    Fate che Nicola. E ‘importante che le persone si mostrano come questo è facile.
    +++++++++
    NICOLA: have someone overlay this presentation you did in Japan with a natural English speaker saying what you say word for word.

    Do that Nicola. It is important that you show people how easy this is.
    ++++++++++

    Nicola Scafetta makes the sun gravitational center case look impregnable.
    =========
    He’s no fake hockey stick gazer like Jai Mitchell,
    the ignorant clown squealing about Magic Gas.
    =========
    Jai Mitchell: pull a carbon dioxide signature out of THAT. LoLoLoL.

    Go spray your pet rat on the mantle with some more pet safe adhesive, dump some more glitter on him, plug in those flashing lights you have nested around his cage, and get high until he tells you some more about CO2, Jai.
    =========
    From now on whenever someone tells me about Magic Gas I’m going to link to

    the
    Nicola Scafetta
    talk called
    “Empirical Evidences For a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and it’s Implications.”

  93. In reply to:

    Leif Svalgaard says:
    June 12, 2013 at 8:54 pm
    William Astley says:
    June 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
    Solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.

    Leif: You repeat that like a mantra.
    But do not define what interrupted means.

    William: See below for an explanation and caveat.

    William: At the solar 24 site you acknowledge that you do not know why sunspots are turning into pores and you acknowledge at that site that solar cycle 24 is truly anomalous, unexplained.

    Lief: We do not know why the mechanism that assemble pores and elements into sunspots at times functions less efficiently, but with all the satellite data we will be collecting there is a good chance that we will figure it out. This will also explain why so few sunspots were formed during the Maunder Minimum.

    William: We need additional solar magnetic cycle observations to discuss. There are two possibilities. 1) Solar cycle 24 is the precursor to a Maunder or Dalton minimum and 2) solar cycle 24 is an anomalous change to the solar magnetic cycle, an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. The second possibility is highly speculative and is an unnecessary distraction from resolving the fundamental questions concerning the sun-climate connection. Let’s therefore park that speculative option. I will only bring it up again if there is a NASA announcement related to that subject.

    Now back to the standard hypothesis which is we are going to experience a Maunder or Dalton Minimum.

    It will be super to have actual observational data to settle some of the sun-earth connection questions. I would expect by this time next year there will be unequivocal cooling. There is currently early observational evidence of cooling.

    William: At this site your only concern appears to be repeating that solar magnetic cycle activity was not anomalously high during the last 70 years.

    Lief: That is what re-assessment of the sunspot and cosmic rays data show.
    William: As noted if the planet now cools your most recent re-assessment of sunspot and cosmic data will have been shown to be incorrect. The last change to a proxy data set is not necessarily the correct change. As I noted there has been 15 years of disagreements concerning the interpretation of the geomagnetic proxy record. The analysis of the geomagnetic field record converged to the new standard interpretation: the geomagnetic field is not as stable as once thought. The geomagnetic field intensity is reduced by a factor of 5 to 10 cyclically. There is no physical explanation as to why the geomagnetic field intensity is reduced by a factor of 5 to 10. The typical first step in analyzing an anomaly is for a group of people to try to make it go away by a re-interpretation of data sets.

    William: That comment seems incredulous based on the current solar cycle 24 observations and the fact that there is now observed cooling of the planet

    Lief: Cooling of the planet is not a unique phenomenon. You seem to think that cooling implies magnetic cycle ‘interruption’. Since cooling has happened many time even as recently as the 1960s, there must have been many interruptions.

    William: Yes cooling of the planet is not a unique phenomenon. Warming of the planet is also not a unique phenomenon. There is evidence of cyclic warming and cooling of the planet that correlates with solar magnetic cycle changes.

    It is asserted by a number of researchers, that the Dansgaard-Oeschger cyclic warming and cooling is caused by the typical solar magnetic cycle changes. There is no need to appeal to an interruption of the solar magnetic cycle to explain what is observed. An example is the Mediaeval Warm period that was followed by the Little Ice age.

    It has been assumed by the warmists that 100% of the warming in the last 70 years is due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. There are a number of observations that do not support that assertion. The alternative hypothesis is a significant portion of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.

    Observations over the next few years will settle that question. As I noted, the data indicates that some mechanism has inhibited GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover. As there is now the start of cooling, it appears we will return to the normal GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover mechanisms.

    William: The model you suggest where pores combine to form sunspots does not explain what we are currently observing.

    Lief: That is not a model, but rather a fact that has been known for more than a century.
    William: Perhaps fact is a little strong. It is fact that the sun is hot. I am not sure it is a fact that pores form in the convection zone and then combine to form sunspots. You movie does not resolve where the magnetic ropes came from that form sunspots on the surface of the sun. There is more than one solar magnetic cycle model. As I stated Parker provided theoretical reasons why sunspots where not created from pores in the convection zone.

    The alternative model is sunspots are formed from magnetic ropes that are formed in the tachocline. The magnetic field strength of the ropes is much stronger than the field strength of a sunspot on the surface of the sun. As the rope rises through the convection zone it loses strength. A minimum field strength is required for the rope to avoid being torn apart by turbulence in the convection zone. What we are currently observing, the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots decaying linearly, supports the assertion that the rope mechanism in the tachocline has been ‘interrupted’.

    It does not however follow that an ‘interruption’ to the rope mechanism will lead to the highly speculative ‘interruption’ of the solar magnetic cycle. What we are observing could be the physical reason for a Maunder minimum.

    William: A mechanism at the tachocline creates magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun…the ropes will be torn apart by convection forces in convection zone.

    Lief: That happens in every solar cycle. Sunspots form when the torn apart ropes reassemble at the surface.

    William: The magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots does not decay linearly across multiple solar cycles every solar cycle. Penn and Livingston’s observation is anomalous.
    William: the solar magnetic cycle will no longer be functioning

    Lief: If the solar cycle is stopped it will never get started again.
    William: A solar magnetic cycle interruption is highly speculative. Let’s park that subject. I do not want it be a distraction from the sun-climate connection which we will soon have observational data to discuss.

    In the high unlikely event there is a NASA announcement of a significant unexplained change to the solar magnetic cycle, I can provide a hypothesis to explain what is happening.

  94. jai mitchell says-

    “hmm, Guess I will have to restate it then
    This is the year when deniers/doubters/contrarians are proven to be either just not up to speed on the real science, (for varying reasons) or working to…” blah blah blah

    This comment has convinced me that jai mitchell is a software app that blenderizes alarmist talking points together into meaningless pap. Note that either definition of pap applies.

  95. Phil says-

    “In 1988, when the science was already dead-certain settled, Hansen predicted that, if CO2 emissions stopped after the year 2000, global temperature rise would stop in 3 or 4 years.
    ———————
    No he didn’t, what he wrote was: “even with the drastic, and probably unrealistic, reductions of greenhouse forcings in scenario C, a warming of 0.5ºC is attained within the next 15 years. The eventual warming in this scenario would exceed 1ºC, based on the forcing illustrated in Figure 2 and the feedback factor f ≈ 3.4 for our GCM””
    ———————

    The paper’s graph shows scenario C temperature reaches a plateau by 2004 or 2005, and remains flat out to at least 2030.

  96. ***
    jai mitchell says:
    June 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm

    And, that the current warming trend is the result of the CO2 emitted 30 years ago because of the delay in temperatures caused by the mixing of the ocean and the delay factor in reaching thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth won’t reach equilibrium for another 500 years or so.
    ***

    500 yrs? Evidence? Without evidence, I conclude you pulled that figure out of your behind. Models I’ve seen (linked by Dr Svalgaard) use a few yrs for land to experience 70% of CO2 changes, and 10 yrs for deep oceans.

  97. William Astley says:
    June 13, 2013 at 2:08 am
    Lief: That is what re-assessment of the sunspot and cosmic rays data show.
    William: As noted if the planet now cools your most recent re-assessment of sunspot and cosmic data will have been shown to be incorrect.

    The re-assessment [not just by me, but by a broad section of solar experts, e.g. http://ssnworkshop.wikia.com/wiki/Home and http://www.leif.org/research/swsc130003.pdf is based on solar and cosmic ray data. The assumption that the climate can be used as a solar indicator is putting the cart before the horse [circular logic].

    The analysis of the geomagnetic field record converged to the new standard interpretation: the geomagnetic field is not as stable as once thought. The geomagnetic field intensity is reduced by a factor of 5 to 10 cyclically. There is no physical explanation as to why the geomagnetic field intensity is reduced by a factor of 5 to 10. The typical first step in analyzing an anomaly is for a group of people to try to make it go away by a re-interpretation of data sets.
    Apart from being irrelevant to the re-assessment of the solar situation, your musings on the geomagnetic field are confused and wrong.

    The alternative hypothesis is a significant portion of the warming in the last 70 years was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
    It is not a question of THE alternative hypothesis, there are many other ones, e.g. changes in ocean currents.

    the data indicates that some mechanism has inhibited GCR modulation of planetary cloud cover.
    This is nonsense; a much simpler view is that the relationship was spurious to begin with, so it is no surprise that it has broken down.

    I am not sure it is a fact that pores form in the convection zone and then combine to form sunspots.
    Nobody says that. Rather, flux ropes are shredded on their way to the surface and emerge as a collection of little pores and scattered magnetic elements. These re-assemble to fom sunspots. The re-assembly is an observed fact.

    Penn and Livingston’s observation is anomalous
    It provides a simple explanation for the absence of visible spots during Grand Minima, even though the magnetic cycle is operating as usual.

    I can provide a hypothesis to explain what is happening.
    We already have a fairly good hypothesis for that [varying efficiency of the re-assembly process].

  98. William Astley says:
    June 13, 2013 at 2:08 am
    It is fact that the sun is hot.

    Not according to the fake fisics of the Greenhouse Effect – one the reasons given for the millions of degree hot Sun’s direct heat energy not reaching us is the claim the Sun is not hot, that it is only “6,000°C and radiates insignificant amounts of longwave infrared and only insignificant of insignificant reaches us”…

    The AGW Greenhouse Effect Illusion energy budget gets this figure by its planckian estimation of their Sun’s temperature from the narrow 300 mile wide visible light atmosphere around the Sun, the thin photosphere.

    Their Greenhouse Effect distracts from the fact that in its fantasy world they do not get any direct heat from their Sun to their Earth, which in the real world is the electromagnetic wavelength of heat thermal infrared longwave, by claiming that this photosphere ring of visible light is what we feel as heat and it is this light which heats their Earth’s land and water.

    Impossible physics of course in the real world.

  99. @beng

    it takes about 500 years for the oceans’ conveyor belt to complete one cycle.

  100. “jai mitchell is a software app” [chris y]

    Aw, Chris, you’re just mad because he called you “chrisy” above, LOL.

    Seriously, I think you are correct. I have (only intuitively) thought he/she/it smacked of artificial intelligence. Close-but-not-quite-on-target. And, in case I (and Chris) am wrong, Jai, given that I really believe (at this point) you to be the Magic Gas Software app, I’m only criticizing the shortcomings of its code writers.

    IT’S STILL A LOT OF FUN, THOUGH! Heh, heh, heh!

    Heh, heh, reminds me of “Uniblab” from an episode of “The Jetson’s” …. “Spacely’s a stupe! Spacely’s a stupe!”

    If you are a real person, get help. You are clearly in denial …. or something.

  101. { jai mitchell says:
    June 12, 2013 at 7:42 pm
    hmm, Guess I will have to restate it then
    Both of the satellite series show more rapid cooling rates after each El Nino spike due to lower moisture contents at the region being analysed. }

    hmmm, So you’re more interested in recording temperature, a relatively useless metric, than thermal energy, which includes humidity??

  102. dbstealey says:
    June 12, 2013 at 8:34 pm
    jai mitchell is a religious True Believer, who wouldn’t know real science if it bit him on the a …nkle.
    ….
    In short, mitchell is a religious True Believer who will never accept the fact that global warming has not accelerated [despite the large rise in CO2]. Thus, science has nothing to do with mitchell’s cherry-picked belief system. He is merely an enabler of the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture. The good thing is that mitchell and his ilk are fading from the scene, as the public becomes aware of the true situation.

    correct. I had an exchange of posts in the thread here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/08/by-the-numbers-having-the-courage-to-do-nothing/#comment-1332333

    where I had to repeat him several times that the Global Sea Ice Anomaly is above the average and he is looking only at the Arctic.
    From the exchange I also got the impression that he is a true believer, not a person really interested in understanding the science around climate, and not looking at the data as is, but only as it fits the belief.

  103. If we look at the temerature graph from 1964 to 2009 (solar cycles 20-23) we see four distinct upward steps. These steps are not linear, but are eliptical minor arcs punctuating these four solar cycles. What is revealing about the plateau is that solar cycle 24 breaks the upward trend and lies almost even with cycle 23. This may be as close to a cooling trend as we are going to get (or maybe not). These are very exciting times for researchers. This plateau represents the potential beginning of a pause in solar activity that happens every 115 years (Scafetta). If there is a cooling period on the horizon, it should happen incrementally over the next 16 years.

  104. First a common error out of the way. The discussion of volcanic cooling is off track. First, there is that superstition that the 1992/93 La Nina was caused by Pinatubo cooling. That is rubbish. Any and all so-called volcanic cooling incidents are nothing more than La Nina coolings misidentified as volcanic coolings because by chance they happened to be at the right distance from an eruption and got recruited for its volcanic cooling. Pinatubo just happened to erupt at the time when the La Nina cooling was beginning. El Chichon, on the other hand, just happened to erupt when an El Nino was beginning. That is how it got a nice El Nino peak instead of the volcanic cooling it was supposedly entitled to. The largest eruption of the twentieth century was Katmai and it, too, left nary a sign of cooling because it, too, erupted when an El Nino was forming. This applies to all volcanic “coolings” on record – just check it out yourself. The true cooling from an eruption is probably comparable to a cloudiness incident and indistinguishable from it. Now for Justin Gillis. He just tries to weasel-word his way around the fact that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. Fact is that atmospheric carbon dioxide level is the highest ever but it is not able to cause any of that greenhouse warming, the alleged cause of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) according to a gaggle of so-called “climate scientists.” I judge this fact to be sufficient to prove their greenhouse warming hypothesis wrong. The present standstill is not the only one on record. A study of satellite temperature records that begin in 1979 reveals another 18 year standstill of global temperature from 1979 to early 1997. This did not appear in ground-based temperature records which showed a “late twentieth century warming” in that same time slot. I pointed out the discrepancy in my book “What Warming?” but nothing happened. Until last fall, that is, when GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC temperature depositories in unison decided to give up this phony warming and adopt the satellite temperature values for the eighties and the nineties. I regard this joint action as an admission that they knew this warming was false. This means that we now have a no-warming period from 1979 to 1997 plus the entire twenty-first century. Between them is only a small window, enough to accommodate the super El Nino of 1998 and its associated step warming. That step warming raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius in only four years. It was oceanic, not atmospheric in nature. As a result, all temperatures of the twenty-first century are now higher than those of the nineties. Hansen noticed that and pointed out that of ten warmest years, nine happened after 2000. Not surprising because they all sit on that high platform created by the step warming of 1998. This leaves no room for any greenhouse warming since 1979, a total of 34 years without warming. In view of this, can anyone believe that warming prior to 1979 was greenhouse warming? Not likely. This should be the end of the global warming delusion.

  105. chris y says:
    June 13, 2013 at 5:09 am
    Phil says-

    “In 1988, when the science was already dead-certain settled, Hansen predicted that, if CO2 emissions stopped after the year 2000, global temperature rise would stop in 3 or 4 years.
    ———————
    No he didn’t, what he wrote was: “even with the drastic, and probably unrealistic, reductions of greenhouse forcings in scenario C, a warming of 0.5ºC is attained within the next 15 years. The eventual warming in this scenario would exceed 1ºC, based on the forcing illustrated in Figure 2 and the feedback factor f ≈ 3.4 for our GCM””
    ———————

    The paper’s graph shows scenario C temperature reaches a plateau by 2004 or 2005, and remains flat out to at least 2030.

    Figure 3 shows the 5 year running mean of ΔT increasing out to 2040!
    When I put ” ” around a sentence it means it’s a quotation, so no he didn’t make the prediction you said that he did.

  106. Phil. says-

    “Figure 3 shows the 5 year running mean of ΔT increasing out to 2040!
    When I put ” ” around a sentence it means it’s a quotation, so no he didn’t make the prediction you said that he did.”

    The paper’s graph shows scenario C temperature reaches a plateau by 2004 or 2005, and remains flat out to at least 2030. But I agree with you that Hansen predicted temperatures would continue to rise, exceeding another 0.5 degrees after the predicted plateau.

  107. ***
    jai mitchell says:
    June 13, 2013 at 9:46 am

    @beng

    it takes about 500 years for the oceans’ conveyor belt to complete one cycle.
    ***

    Actually, it takes about 1000 yrs. But the deep water is a remnant of colder temps/near-freezing meltwater, so does not increase temps significantly. Your 500 yr statement is absurd. Like I said, if you’re on land (most of us are), 70% of CO2 effect occurs in a mere few yrs. There’s little heat in the “pipeline”. That’s exactly what Trenberth was lamenting on.

  108. Curious that warmists are worried that warming has stalled. Since there is zero probability that China or India will cease accelerating CO2 release, they should be greatly relieved. Conclusion: concern is about losing power that these conspirators have managed to accumulate. Concern is not for the inhabitants of earth.

Comments are closed.