Dr. Nicola Scafetta has written an extensive summary of the state of climate science today. He’s done some very extensive analysis of the solar contribution that bears examination. Pay particular attention to this graph from page 49:
WUWT readers may remember him from some previous papers and comments he’s written that have been covered here:
Scafetta: New paper on TSI, surface temperature, and modeling
Scafetta: Benestad and Schmidt’s calculations are “robustly” flawed.
He writes to me with this introduction:
On February 26, 2009 I was invited by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) and National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) to present a talk about my research on climate change. I thought that the best way to address this issue was to present an overview of all topics involved about the issue and their interconnections.
So, I prepared a kind of holistic presentation with the title “Climate Change and Its Causes, A Discussion about Some Key Issues”. Then, a colleague from Italy who watched my EPA presentation suggested me to write a paper in Italian and submit it to an Italian science journal which was recently published.
========================
Download the report here (PDF -warning over 10 MB – long download time on slow connections)
This work covers most topics presented by Scafetta at a seminar at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, DC USA, February 26, 2009. A video of the seminar is here:
The Italian version of the original paper can be downloaded (with possible journal restrictions) from here
========================
Here is the table of contents, there’s something in this report for everyone:
Climate Change and Its Causes: A Discussion About Some Key Issues
Introduction … 4
The IPCC’s pro-anthropogenic warming bias … 6
The climate sensitivity uncertainty to CO2 increase … 8
The climatic meaning of Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature graph … 10
The climatic meaning of recent paleoclimatic temperature reconstructions … 12
The phenomenological solar signature since 1600 … 14
The ACRIM vs. PMOD satellite total solar irradiance controversy … 16
Problems with the global surface temperature record … 18
A large 60 year cycle in the temperature record … 19
Astronomical origin of the climate oscillations … 22
Conclusion … 26
Bibliography … 27
Appendix…29-54
A: The IPCC’s anthropogenic global warming theory … 29
B: Chemical vs. Ice-Core CO2 atmospheric concentration estimates … 30
C: Milky Way’s spiral arms, Cosmic Rays and the Phanerozoic temperature cycles … 31
D: The Holocene cooling trend and the millennial-scale temperature cycles … 32
E: The last 1000 years of global temperature, solar and ice cover data … 33
F: The solar dynamics fits 5000 years of human history … 34
G: The Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age – A global phenomenon … 35
H: Compatibility between the AGWT climate models and the Hockey Stick … 36
I: The 11-year solar cycle in the global surface temperature record … 37
J: The climate models underestimate the 11-year solar cycle signature … 38
K: The ACRIM-PMOD total solar irradiance satellite composite controversy … 39
L: Willson and Hoyt’s statements about the ACRIM and Nimbus7 TSI published data .. 40
M: Cosmic ray flux, solar activity and low cloud cover positive feedback … 41
N: Possible mechanisms linking cosmic ray flux and cloud cover formation … 42
O: A warming bias in the surface temperature records? … 43
P: A underestimated Urban Heat Island effect? … 44
Q: A 60 year cycle in multisecular climate records … 45
R: A 60 year cycle in solar, geological, climate and fishery records … 46
S: The 11-year solar cycle and the V-E-J planet alignment … 47
T: The 60 and 20 year cycles in the wobbling of the Sun around the CMSS … 48
U: The 60 and 20 year cycles in global surface temperature and in the CMSS … 49
V: A 60 year cycle in multisecular solar records … 50
W: The bi-secular solar cycle: Is a 2010-2050 little ice age imminent? … 51
X: Temperature records do not correlate to CO2 records … 52
Y: The CO2 fingerprint: Climate model predictions and observations disagree … 53
Z: The 2007 IPCC climate model projections. Can we trust them? … 54
Re Bob Tisdale (16:02:50) :
Thanks Mr Tisdale for the info about the 1945 discontinuity existing also on other datasets, this was new for me.
Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55)
I think my Leif number is imaginary.
Meanwhile…
Leif, in your 14 points, I’m not sure how you view lunar influences. Internal or external?
I still cannot get past the fact that we have “thousands” of reports of climate variations on decadal and bidecadal time frames. It seems to me that this can easily be explained by a combination of lunar and solar influences. I.e., take your ~0.1C variation in temperature (though I recall you calculating it more precisely to be 0.07C), and combine this with the lunar nodal cycle, and we have a mechanism for these decadal and bidecadal variations.
This may not explain the degree of temperature variation we see on centennial scales, but it may contribute to the “internal” factors that may drive temperature changes on that scale. To illustrate what I mean, the following image shows the effect of combining two cycles, one with approximately decadal frequency, and the other with bidecadal frequency, into a combined beat wave:
http://i39.tinypic.com/10xy0is.jpg
I’ve arbitrarily set these up to start at 1850, to give some frame of reference to the scale of time involved. What is interesting is that there is a multidecadal pattern ~60 years in the amplitude envelop, in which at the beginning of such a period, the amplitude is at a maximum negative value, and at the end of the period it is at a maximum positive value. Moreover, there is an upward trend in the troughs of the shorter cycles through these periods.
I note that Scafetta attempts to attribute 60 year cycles to certain “external” influences (I had to read the paper to determine what SCMSS referred to) that you consider unscientific. What I’m suggesting is that we do not have to go that far to explain ~60 year patterns in global temperatures. They can result simply from the interaction of shorter cycles that have less controversial origins.
Finally, while the bottom pane of the image linked above is “hypothetical,” it actually happens to match up fairly well with the actual historical record of global temperature over the last 160 years. I.e., a pattern of warming in the early 20th Century, a period of cooling, or at least stasis, about mid-century, followed by more warming. If the pattern is repeating, then we may be at the end of a 60 year cycle, and entering a period of stasis, if not cooling.
And I didn’t have to resort to SCMSS to get there.
Leif Svalgaard (19:40:28) :
the barycenter of the solar system is irrelevant because the Sun and all the stuff in the solar system are just in free fall in their combined gravitational field and feel no forces from that.
Ah, back to a priori Newtonian thought experiments.
You have no proof of this.
The sun is not a rigid point object for one thing. This means it’s going to undergo differential forces from one side to the other. If the quasi regular motion causes the resulting bulges to be reinforced rather than diminished, this could produce a significant effect building up over long periods of time. Of course, the bulges are pulled back to the suns average oblatene by it’s high surface gravity, but there will be a resultant meridional flow which wil accelerate sideways around the solar equator.
Given that the mainstream solar physicists (including Leif) still don’t know why the equatorial flow is faster than the higher latitude flow, they are in no position to make sweeping statements about the sun feeling no forces.
Phenomenological Models run certain risks simply because of what they ignore.
If one believes that the surface temperature is determined by a flux balance and that the fluxes are functions of temperature, GHG concentrations, solar irradiance, etc. and that they are locally linear functions of these known and unknown factors then you have the standard forcing/sensitivity model.
dT = (δF/δT)*(Fghg +Ftsi +Funknown -dE/dt) {where dE/dt is the rate of increase of global enthalpy}.
Now dE/dt is widely ignored in general, in this paper it is mentioned but does not seem to be quantified in any way.
Once ignored we have:
dT = (δF/δT)*(Fghg +Ftsi +Funknown)
and here lies a potential trap.
If we know dT and say that Ftsi (forcing due to TSI) is more significant than is indicated by the computer models that implies that (δF/δT)*Fghg is less significant implying that either (δF/δT) is smaller (the climate is less sensitive) or Fghg is smaller (GHG produce less forcing) or both.
If it were (δF/δT) that was smaller, then the necessary increase in Ftsi must be greater by a factor of 1/(δF/δT) than would otherwise be necessary. Now the known variance in TSI is small and has to be multiplied many times to get the required effect postulated in the paper.
Alternatively Fghg could be smaller implying that we have simply got all the radiative transfer equations wrong by a large factor/
Much of the same is true if one postulates that their is a significant Funknown.
Now that does not mean that (δF/δT) is not much smaller than the IPPC figures, it probably is, but if it is, there are a whole lot of things that suddenly do not seem to make a lot of sense. The prime one being how the effective forcing Ftsi is such a large multiple of the known variation in TSI. How large that multiple is would depend many further assumptions (see below).
The paper notes this discrepancy in the standard case but I do not see that it highlights the issue that I have mentioned, in that reducing the warming contribution due to GHGs makes things much more awkward. A factor of three or five is mentioned in the statndard case (page 15) but reducing the sensitivity down to say one third would require these multipliers to be nine and fifteen.
This is common to any model that proposes very low values for the sensitivity. The problem with low sensitiviites is the low sensitivity, it implies that it is very difficult to budge the temperature up or down. Hence the need for known fluctusations like the solar cyclce signature to be driven by large and totally unexplained variations in the effective solar forcing. If you like, a large positive TSI temperature feedback mechanism (page 16). Unfortunately that would not fit easily with the already difficult Faint Young Sun Paradox.
Like I said a problem with such models is what they ignore. It is one thing to indicate that there are complexities that are not dealt with in the computer models but to ignore the implied ramifications of postulating that GHGs have a much smaller effect than in the standard models is, I feel, a little reckless.
Personally I doubt that there is a lot of wiggle room in the models except on the high side (sensitivities above 3C which I find doubtful). I think that once you try and lower the sensitivity below 2C, you open up a whole can of worms and you start causing more problems than you are offering solutions. This is something that I think is ignored. The paper descirbes its approach as holistic, my point is that it is not in terms of the larger picture. It is all very well to indicate realtionships between data sets on the basis that we do not understand the science and we are still grasping for a pattern. But we do understand much of the science and we are capable of seeing the implied ramafications of notions like more than 60% of the warming since 1970 is due to a 60 year cycle.
Lastly this statement:
“Human emissions can have contributed at most the remaining 40%, or less, of the
warming observed since 1970 (if no overestimation of the global warming is assumed as Section 8 would suggest), not the 100% as claimed by the IPCC.” (Page 20)
does not sit very easily the phenomenological approach. There is an indication that there is something to be explained but that is a long way from such a categorical assertion. Particularly considering that the paper gives a completely different and more likely value for the amplitude of the 60 year cycle in Appendix U.
It is also very different to:
“At least 60% of the warming of the Earth observed since 1970
appears to be induced by natural cycles which are present in the solar system.” (Abstract)
Now I would prefer to believe that the author does realise the problems posed by the speculation of low values for climate sensitivity, so one must wonder why they do not seem to be highlighted (there is certainly nothing in the conclusions).
Alex
I think there is an error in the caption to the graph at the head of the post. The bottom figure shows the global temperature in red, not black, which is representing the solar motion relative to the barycentre.
Anu (22:12:26) :
“Sure, they “made up data for a 13 year stretch”.
I guess the Parliament investigation forgot to bring that one up. Which high schooler MySpace page did you find this out on ? I’d like to take a look at her evidence.”
You look foolish discussing something while being ignorant of the underlying information. Here, let me help you out.
From the Harry_Read_Me.txt file:
1990 – 2003 = 13 years of fabricated CRU data.
There’s more. Go read the file. Show us that MySpace part.
Correction to mine above:
In all cases (δF/δT) should of course read (δT/δF)
Apologies
Alex
Pity of Appendix B, this degrades the credibility of Scafetta’s work big time.
Apologies for the incorrect spelling of Scafetta.
Trouble is correlations will work, Scafetta or not, cold is due.
Smokey’s comment above at (03:56:03) is the reason why EVERY BIT of the CRU’s data, emails, papers, calculations, even napkins w/ notes should be open to the public and inspected by Scotland Yard. Let’s find out what happend once and for all.
Then we’ll go to NASA and do the same thing. The courts will have a heyday!
Re: Basil (Mar 15 03:40),
The Tsonis et al paper used the PDO ENSO, NAO, NPO cycles in a neural net program and came up with the fall of temperatures for the next twenty years, too, without invoking other mechanisms except chaotic beats in these currents.
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aatsonis/www/2007GL030288.pdf
Leif Svalgaard (16:12:55)
Thank you very much for making this “Leif Score” list. It provides an excellent frame work for understanding. But, I need some clarification.
5) What is “Long Term Variation”. Do you mean “No TSI Variation other than Annual (from its elliptical orbit)”?
10) Would you please provide a pointer to info on the Solar Polar Fields as predictor?
11) Yes, I see that current Climate Models are not very successful. No, I don’t see how Climate Models can work even in principle due to the nature of chaotic systems.
So, my Leif Score is 1111?1111??111 at present.
Also, could you post this ‘Leif Score” list on your own site for constant reference? Thanks.
Bob Tisdale (14:58:21) :
Bob,
The simple reason that your PDO proxys do not show any correlation is the fact that you have not (carefully) read how they created.
There are two broad groups amongst the tree ring PDO proxies. One group of PDO proxies (e.g. the Biondi and MacDonald data) are based upon trees that have tree ring growth that is sensitive to precipitation. While the second group (e.g. D’Arrigo) are based upon trees that have tree ring growth that is by and large sensitive to temperature.
Comparing temperature sensitive and preciptation senstive PDO tree-ring proxies is like comparing apples and oranges. Only one of these two factors (i.e. precipitation and temperature) correlates well with the sea surface
temperature distribution patterns associated with the positive and negative phases of the PDO.
The way to tell which are the correct proxies is to compare the PDO
tree-ring reconstructions with those obtained by an independant method.
If you compare the tree-ring PDO proxies with ionic ratios measured is South Sea corals whic are a proven indicator of sea surface temperatures, you find
the ONLY the temperature sensitive tree-ring PDO proxies of D’Arrigo
provide a valid PDO reconstruction.
I respectfully ask that you look a little deeper into the use of tree-ring PDO reconstructions before you talk about your results.
Here is the abstract of a paper that will be published in the next month or
so in Russian by Prof. Klige in a compendium of papers.
Are Changes in the Earth’s Rotation Rate Externally Driven and Do They Affect Climate?
Ian R. G. Wilson
ABSTRACT
Evidence is presented to show that the phases of two of the Earth’s major climate systems, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), are related to changes in the Earth’s rotation rate. We find that the winter NAO index depends upon the time rate of change of the Earth’s length of day (LOD). In addition, we find that there is a remarkable correlation between the years where the phase of the PDO is most positive and the years where the deviation of the Earth’s LOD from its long-term trend is greatest.
In order to prove that the variations in the NAO and PDO indices are caused by changes in the Earth’s rotation rate, and not the other way around, we show that there is a strong correlation between the times of maximum deviation of the Earth’s LOD from its long-term trend and the times where there are abrupt asymmetries in the motion of the Sun about the CM of the Solar System.
At first glance, there does not appear to be an obvious physical phenomenon that would link the Sun’s motion about the Solar System’s CM to the Earth’s rotation rate. However, such a link could occur if the rate of precession of the line-of-nodes of the Moon’s orbit were synchronized with orbital periods of Terrestrial planets and Jupiter, which in turn would have to be synchronized with the orbital periods of the three remaining Jovian planets. In this case, the orbital periods of the Jovian planets, which cause the asymmetries in the Sun’s motion about the CM, would be synchronized with a phenomenon that is known to cause variations in the Earth’s rotation rate, namely the long term lunar tides.
The periodicities seen in the asymmetry of the solar motion about the CM are all submultiples of the 179 year Jose cycle, with the dominant periods being 1/5 (= 35.87 yrs), 1/9 (= 19.86 yrs) and 1/14 (12.78 yrs). In addition, the realignment time for the orbits of Venus, Earth and Jupiter is a ¼ of the 179 year Jose cycle (= 44.77 yrs).
Through what appears to be a “Grand Cosmic Conspiracy” we find that:
6.393 yrs = (the 179 year repetition cycle of the Solar motion about the CM) / 28
6.396 yrs = (the 44.77 year realignment time for Venus, Earth, and Jupiter) / 7
which just happens to be realignment time for orbits of the planets Venus, Earth and Mars (= 6.40 yrs).
The significance of the 6.40 year repetition period is given added weight by the fact that if you use it to modulate the sidereal year of the Earth/Moon system, the side-lobe period that is produced, almost perfectly matches the 2nd harmonic time interval over which there are the greatest changes in the meridional and zonal tidal stresses acting upon the Earth (1 ¼ TD = 433.2751 days = 1.18622 years, where TD is the draconitic year).
We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus, Mars and Jupiter. In addition, we known that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus, Mars and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes the lunar orbit. When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit. Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances.
re Leif Svalgaard’s many comments on this thread:
Most of the regular commenters on this blog are interested in understanding things, as are many times more readers who comment little or not at all. Dr. Svalgaard would be more helpful in this regard if he just explained things instead of making glib, and often derogatory, statements that need to be interpreted in “just the proper way”. This shouldn’t be a classroom test to see who the bright students might be.
An example of unnecessary obscurity is the matter of an “effective” global temperature. As Dr. Svalgaard says, it is certainly possible to define such a quantity thermodynamically and, with an adequate system of satellites, measure it “backwards” from the radiation output of the entire planet at any moment. What isn’t possible, in any meaningful way for Planet Earth, is to “measure the average temperature” by “averaging a bunch of temperatures“, as I’m sure he well knows.
/dr.bill
Clive E Burkland (03:20:54) :
Point taken. You’re correct, per wiki 500,000 km + 696,000 km, that’s clearly outside. And my memory was about the earth-moon com being alway within. My calculation for kim is now too low, it’s ~0.0006%, still tiny. Thanks for pointing that out.
If you want to see the image associated with the following text you will have to go to:
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010/03/synchronization-between-solar-inertial.html
You may have to get a password to blogspot to see the plot. Go to
the astroclimateconnection blog.
Figure 6. The main curve shows the distance of the centre-of-mass of the Solar system from the sub-Jupiter point between 1220 and 2020 A.D. The sub-Jupiter point1 is located just above the solar surface on a line joining the centre of the Sun to Jupiter. Marked above this curve are years in which the Earth experienced exceptionally strong tidal forces over the last 800 years.
Figure 6 shows that the times when Solar/Lunar tides had their greatest impact upon the Earth are closely synchronized with the times of greatest asymmetry in the Solar Inertial Motion (SIM). Over the last 800 years, the Earth has experience exceptionally strong tidal forces in the years 1247, 1433, 1610, 1787 and 1974 (Keeling and Whorf, 1997). A close inspection of Figure 6 shows that these exceptionally strong tidal forces closely correspond in time to the first peak in the asymmetry of the SIM that occurs just after a period low asymmetry. These first peaks in asymmetry in the SIM occur in the years 1251, 1432, 1611, 1791, and 1971, closely correspond the years of peak tidal force.
Thus, there appear to be periodic alignments between the lunar apsides, syzygies and lunar nodes that occur at almost exactly the same times that the SIM becomes most asymmetric for the first time after a period of low asymmetry in the SIM. It means that precession and stretching of the Lunar orbit (i.e. the factors that control the long-term variation of the lunar tides that are experienced here on Earth) are almost perfectly synchronized with the SIM.
We know that the strongest planetary tidal forces acting on the lunar orbit come from the planets Venus, Mars and Jupiter. In addition, we known that, over the last 4.6 billion years, the Moon has slowly receded from the Earth. During the course of this lunar recession, there have been times when the orbital periods of Venus, Mars and Jupiter have been in resonance(s) with the precession rate for the line-of-nodes the lunar orbit. When these resonances have occurred, they would have greatly amplified the effects of the planetary tidal forces upon the lunar orbit. Hence, the observed synchronization between the precession rate of the line-of-nodes of the lunar orbit and the orbital periods of Venus, Earth, Mars and Jupiter, could simply be a cumulative fossil record left behind by these historical resonances.
Of course, the orbital periods of Jupiter and the other Jovian planets are responsible for the periodicities observed in the motion of the Sun about the Solar Sytem barycentre. Hence, the apparent link between the Sun’s barycentric motion and the orbit ofthe Moon may just be an artifact of the fact that both are heavily influenced by the periodicities in the motion of the Jovian planets
OK, so why discard the professional opinions of 32,000 (plus!) professionals in engineering, science, weather and statistics – while blindly accepting the (biased and proven worng) opnions of less than 50 “scientists” who are getting 80 billion in public funds and research – plus many hundred thousands in personal (!) monies – to promote THEIR view of global warming on the economies of the world.
You left out the medical doctors, chiropractors, dentists and vetinarians, some of whom also signed up. I don’t ignore them – I just note that of the available pool of such people, 32,000 (over a decade) is a tiny fraction, a lot less than 1% – so to present it as a meaningful representation of scientific/medical/engineering opinion is dishonest.
I suspect the 80 billion split 50 ways (1.6 billion each? Really?) must include the budget for the various satellite climatology programmes, so that is hardly relevant either. And there are rather more than 50 practising climatologists – EOS magazine sampled over 700 and found that all but 2% supported the assertion that the planet is warming and manmade influences are significant.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Ninderthana (05:14:51) : You wrote, “The simple reason that your PDO proxys do not show any correlation is the fact that you have not (carefully) read how they created.”
I read the studies and understand the differences in how they were created. The primary point of the graph was to illustrate that there was no long-term 60-year cycle in any of the reconstructions.
Leif. How do you falsify this
“For
example, it is possible to adopt a model using only the major 20 and 60 year cycles plus a quadratic trend of the temperature and the reconstruction of Figure 13 is obtained. Other natural cycles associated with the Sun are evident in Figures 6 and 7. The model reconstructs with great accuracy the temperature oscillations since 1850. It suggests that until 2030-2040 the temperature may remain stable if the upward trend in temperature observed
from 1850 to 2009 continues in the near future21 or the global temperature cools if the trend of the secular solar activity decreases, as other independent considerations would suggest.”
Now That’s some falsifiable science! Note how the two forecasts in figure 13 diverge, one takes the high road and the other the low road. There’s nothing like THIS kind of science. it’s never wrong!
OH I have a refinement of his forecast model. Since HadCRu temperature has a .05C UHI warming bias from 1900 to present I removed that bias. Detrending after this correction with a quadratic I was then able to make even better forecasts that scaffetta And without that 5 year shift! So I have fit the elephant with even fewer parameters!
Leif Svalgaard (19:30:49) :
Henry (17:00:37) :
Yet here I find that science is not what is being done.
There is a lot of pseudo-science, but most people here are not scientists so one would not expect much science to be done here.
Implying that only scientists are allowed to do ‘scientific’ work, and follow scientific principles? Sounds a bit too egotistical. Having a scientific education doesn’t make one intelligent.
I was willing to give your comments due process, but when you throw out these statements, it demonstrates you aren’t actually very smart. Your ‘scientific’ statements come off as the catwailing: ‘I must be right because I am a scientist; you are wrong because you are not’.
You do realize that we are at the point where admission of being a scientist (in climate reasearch or related capacity) means that your opinion and motives are suspect and that by definition are not to be trusted?
Mike Haseler (02:18:31) :
1/f noise. Yup. WRT the bad science, Sorry RTE’s worked pretty damn well for me
Phil Clarke (06:19:09),
Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt, and pretend that a thousand OISM signers slipped through the vetting process.
A thousand is a lot of phony signatures. It is more than the total number of signers on many warmist petitions.
In fact, for the sake of the discussion let’s pretend that five thousand OISM signatures are fake. No… let’s pretend that ten thousand were completely fabricated and slipped by without getting caught.
That still leaves more OISM signers than all the warmist petitions, plus the IPCC, put together.
But to give you the chance to rebut, please post all the names, right here, that you claim are phony.
Contrast your accusation with the opinions of other scientists like these, who are not in the field of climatology, to see what they think: click1, click2, click3.
The opinions of the relative handful of alarmist climatologists and their IPCC enablers are magnified by the mainstream media — which doesn’t sell papers or TV commercials by reporting that there is nothing out of the ordinary occurring with the global climate, which is well within its normal historical parameters.
Sensationalism, panic and alarm sells, and the purveyors of the scare get the grant money while scientific skeptics don’t get cooperation regarding the empirical evidence they ask for, because there isn’t any verifiable, testable evidence for those scary claims. How can there be, when the raw data has been adjusted, re-adjusted, processed and mangled — after the original raw data is “lost”?
Since climategate broke their shenanigans wide open, the political appointees at the IPCC and its academic and government apologists have forfeited the right to say, “Trust us.” We don’t trust anyone who claims weather data is a secret. Why would you?
Ninderthana (05:30:35) :
Here is the abstract of a paper that will be published in the next month or
so in Russian by Prof. Klige in a compendium of papers.
….
In order to prove that the variations in the NAO and PDO indices are caused by changes in the Earth’s rotation rate, and not the other way around, we show that there is a strong correlation between the times of maximum deviation of the Earth’s LOD from its long-term trend and the times where there are abrupt asymmetries in the motion of the Sun about the CM of the Solar System.
I recommend Ian Wilsons paper to everybody remotely interested in solar system dynamics. Ian wrote to me last year recognizing the independence of my own research results on the links between planetary motion and changes in Earth’s length of day.
The case is getting stronger all the time.