Why is 20 years statistically significant when 10 years is not?

Very, very interesting and important.
My only quibble is about the Sun. For several years the Sun has been quiet. As the PDO shifts the level of solar activity is minimal.
Or, perhaps I am wrong.

1900-1944:
This period is largely warming. What could possibly be the cause of that?
———
From the graph it’s seems that James associates warming with increased sunspot activity. And this seems to be consistent with theories about the origin of the little ice age.
So why dont we see a little ice age every 11 years? And the answer has to be backed by evidence, not hand waving or speculation.

Bernard J
So are you claiming that all the causation effects of the sun on our atmosphere (all the known knowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns) are included in climate models?
If so maybe you could expand a little and let us all in on the secret!

R.M.B. says:
November 5, 2011 at 1:44 am

I have held the view for some time that due to surface tension the sun controls the ocean. The agw theory holds that the “excess heat” created by green house gas being heated is stored in the ocean, I say no. Surface tension acts rather like double glazing, it will allow the sun’s rays to penetrate but will block physical heat therefore you cannot “store” heat on this planet. If you want to check this out try heating a bucket of water with a heat gun. The results are very surprising. There is no immediate transfer of heat. It takes about 10 minutes for the heat of the gun to break down the surface tension and only then does heat transfer take place. My view is that the atmosphere never has anything like the temperature needed to break down the oceans surface tension. This would explain Trenberth’s missing heat, the argo buoys under reading and the fact that despite co2 climbing we are having very cold winters. Put graphs of ocean temperatures and sun activity together and I’ll bet they match exactly. R.i.p. agw.

I have two reasons to dispute what you say. Firstly the sun is not a heat-ray, and the radiation is of much shorter wavelength, ie light. That will get through the barrier you believe exists. Secondly long and rigorous experimentation sitting by my pool in the summer tells me that when it has been sunny, the water is much warmer.
If anyone has the spare budget, I’d love to test the theory out all around the world. Only good quality hotels have the right kind of pools, however, so research could be expensive. It would be hard work, but I am prepared to put up with it…

There are far better statisticians around here than me, but a brief explanation of statistical significance.
Tests of statistical significance measure the probability that a result could have occurred by chance.
Generally 95% is considered the threshold for statical significance. Which means there are 5 chances or less out of 100 that a result could have occurred by chance.
The number of years is irrelevant, except to the extent that more years means more data points and more data points means a greater chance of finding statistical significance, assuming there is a real effect.
The argument that you need 30 years to detect the AGW climate signal is because the data is noisy.
But then climate scientists seem to misunderstand noise even more than they misunderstand statistics.

Why is 20 years statistically significant when 10 years is not?

More importantly: Is (Tmax + Tmin) / 2 meaningful or statistically valid?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html

In effect the statistically significant year length is a function of how useful any period is to support AGW while the inverse is the case for anything that does not , which is why it flexible in practice. For example 10 years is enough for data that supports AGW but no where there nothing for that which does not . Further if the data from 12 years fails to support that is because you need to collect data from any higher number years to fully prove the case , there of course being no amount of data that can disprove it .
It works a similar situation with predictions of climate doom , the doom will always happen at some time in the future so if the forecast of 10 years turns out to be nonsense that is becasue it will be a number of years higher than 10 in the future , there is of course no possibility of the forecast being wrong in the first place.
Essentially like so much in climate science it not an actual argument around facts but an argument around politics which drive what is ‘needed’ and how you use it .

Interesting post but the title seems a misnomer, or at any rate, I could not see any attempt to explain why 10 years or 20 years or some other period may be statistically significant.
As regards the length of required periods, I recall that about 18 months ago Phil Jones (in an interview for the BBC) conceded that the temperature change (on his case a slight warming) was not these past 15 years statistically significant. Then with 2010 being the warmest or 2nd warmest year on record, last year Phil Jones argued that the warming these past 16 years (with 2010 data it was now 16 years) was stastically significant. When 2011 temperature figures come in, one can anticipate that if Phil Jones is asked whether the temperature change these past 17 years (it will then be 17 years) is statistically relevant, he will reply no.
So how come can it be the case that 16 years of data can yield a statistically relevant result whereas 15 and 17 years of the same data set cannot?

Bernard J. says:
November 5, 2011 at 1:08 am
The sun seems to be the obvious answer. It is so obvious in fact that even most mainstream climatologists admit its influence in these years.
And the same climatologists include the sun’s influence in their analyses.
Or are you claiming that they do not?
Err, well yes! Well at least not much. If the UN IPCC & its oh so cleverer than anybody else scientists (allegedly) keep making SPM statements that basically say, & here is the boring bit yet again, “we don’t really know exactly how element “A”, (Sun) affects element “B”, (Earth’s Climate), but we know for a fact that element “C”, (manmade CO2), overpowers element “A”!!!!! It’s obvious really in that case. Try reading a Summary for Policymakers & see for yourself, it’s all in the tables of forcings! Can they not realise how stupid that makes them look, or is it just arrogance too?:-)

It’ll be interesting to see if the statement changes over the coming decade:
“10 11 12 13 14….etc….years isn’t a significant period to characterize the global temperature…..blah…blah….blah….”

Let’s see… statistical significance… Seems I remember something about that from all those stat classes I took. Ok, here’s one on “Statistical Signficance” that gives what I believe to be an easily understood example and might very well be used to determine the answer to this 10 year vs. 20 year question: http://www.statpac.com/surveys/statistical-significance.htm
Then we have WIkipedia weighing in on the subject here (which I also like because it ties Type 1 and Type II errors into the testing framework regarding the probability of rejecitng or accepting the null hypothesis): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
And since three references should be sufficient, here’s a third I find very informative: http://www.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa696/696stsig.htm
Based on the relative sample sizes (for number of data points is the critical factor in determining whether the differences are statistically significant) one simply needs to compare temperature data for the last 10 years with the prior 10 years; if the difference in the two are statistically significance then yes, you can say there’s been a difference in the last 10 years vs the prior 10.
I’ve not crunched the numbers, but it would be an interesting exercise for someone with the time and tools to do so. (It pretty much depends on the signal to noise ratio of the two groups of data sets.) It would be interesting to do that on daily datasets and on those averaged weekly, monthly, quarterly, and so on, although obviously no test for statistically significant difference can be made if we have averaged down to just two data points–the most recent decade and the one just prior. At some point there are insufficient data points to say the diffence is statistically significant but the averaging would certainly lower the signal to noise ratio.

you need to extend the sunspot data to 2011 in the first figure.

Now, for those who want to know what the research says about why a period greater than 17 years is required to see the anthropogenic signal through short-term fluctuations, see:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD016263.shtml
The only quibble with this paper I might have is that it really didn’t consider longer-term solar cycle fluctuations such as we might see during a Dalton or Maunder minimum, which would push that period even longer of course. But, as a general rule, greater than 17 years is the minimum to see the anthropogenic signal, and so anyone pointing to a shorter period as proof the anthropogenic signal is not there simply is misguided or intentionally trying to deceive.

Nice article.
… alchemical;
… teleported;
… public dogma and internal mysteries.
Good descriptions.
————-
Statistical significance is based on random chance. To be able to determine significance, we must determine how the climate can change randomly, how much it can change by by chance.
To be able to do that, we have to determine how the climate changes “without” chance, what other forces drive the climate. To be able to do that, we have to determine what those other forces actually are. Then we have to determine how much those other drivers can also change by chance themselves.
The climate goes up and it goes down. We can’t figure it out and we don’t know what all the drivers are. We do know that chance and the other drivers not included in a climate model can overwhelm the greenhouse forcings in the climate models for a long period of time because none of them have been right since the first ones were run 29 years ago.

Bill Illis says:
“To be able to determine significance, we must determine how the climate can change randomly, how much it can change by by chance.”
—–
This is muddled thinking at it’s worst. The climate does not change by chance.

Richard Lawson.

So are you claiming that all the causation effects of the sun on our atmosphere (all the known knowns, unknown knowns and unknown unknowns) are included in climate models?

I was claiming nothing more than that climatologists “include the sun’s influence in their analyses”. I was asking James Padgett if he was claiming that climatologists were not, in their analyses, accounting for the sun’s output.
Your own question, with the Rumsfeldian litany of unknowns, is a strawman, as is Alan the Brit’s waffle. The fact remains that the sun’s output, and changes to such, are accounted for in climatological analyses, and certainly at the level of solar physics mentioned by James Padgett.
I simply asked, and I will ask again, if James Padgett is claiming that climatologists do not, in their analyses, account for the sun’s output. Of course, the obvious supplemetary question for James Padgett and others to answer, if they think that the first can be answered in the affirmative, is to indicate which analyses are deficient in accounting for solar output, where such deficiency occurs, and exactly what are these supposed deficiencies.
The rancorous responses above don’t actually address the point of my questioning.

Nope.
Coal and oil are too valuable to burn. Much more practical to consider them raw materials for production.
Use Hydrogen plus nickel (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/28/test-of-rossis-1-mw-e-cat-fusion-system-apparently-successful/

A fine article though I’d like to point out there is no such thing as “fundamental chaos” in nature. Choas Theory is a mathematical concept. Just because something appears chaotic doesn’t mean it is. One should never confuse mathematical models with reality. Chaos and Randomness are merely expressions of lack of knowledge. There is no theoretical reason that the underlying processes will not be discovered. Otherwise, the basic mission of Science is futile. If von Neumann made an error it was in underestimating the complexity of the problem possibly by several orders of magnitude.

The premis of this article is ridiculous, bearing in mind that huge groups of people in ‘educated’ countries don’t believe that continental drift ever happened.
God made the planet in 6 days remember. There were no dinosaurs, despite the evidence, the president is not American, despite the evidence, the world is not warming, despite the evidence.

Here is a simple elegant peer reviewed study which explains the temperature since records began very well.
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
In a nutshell there is a 1/2 ° per CENTURY warming due to solar increase and feedbacks. This warming is real but of interest only to climate scientists.
On top of this there is a 60 year PDO cycle which explains the short term variation very well.
This warming and cooling doesn’t add any actual warming or cooling but it annoys the alarmists very well.
The pattern fits for 120 years but let’s just look at 1940 on.
1940 to 1978 — Cooling because PDO was negative [Aerosols aren’t needed to explain this ]
1978 to 1998 — Warming because the PDO was positive and there were more El Ninos than La Nina’s.
1998 to present Flat because El Nino’s equal La Nina’s
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
The cooling of 1940 to 1978 caused climate scientists to decry global cooling. The warming of 1978 to 1998 caused them to decry global warming.
As of 2005 the cycle has turned down.

LazyTeenager says:
November 5, 2011 at 12:55 am
1900-1944:
This period is largely warming. What could possibly be the cause of that?
———
From the graph it’s seems that James associates warming with increased sunspot activity. And this seems to be consistent with theories about the origin of the little ice age.
So why dont we see a little ice age every 11 years? And the answer has to be backed by evidence, not hand waving or speculation.

Once we realize we don’t know the answer, we can start looking for it. But as long as we’re zero-ed in on the CO2 boogey-man, we will probably never attempt to find out.

R. Gates says:
November 5, 2011 at 6:21 am
…
This is muddled thinking at it’s worst. The climate does not change by chance.

You can make the argument that nothing happens by chance. For instance it is, in theory, possible to predict what numbers will come up when you throw the dice. All you need is a bunch of data and a good computer.
Given that you, personally, are unable to predict how the dice will land when they are thrown by a human being, you are stuck with talking about chance.
Given that we don’t have:
1 – sufficient data
2 – sufficient computer power
3 – sufficient knowledge of the underlying processes
we are stuck with talking about chance when we talk about the climate. We describe it as a chaotic system because its sensitivity to initial conditions makes accurate predictions almost impossible no matter how much computer power we can bring to bear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

wayne says:
November 5, 2011 at 12:49 am
Since a twenty year period is also a 240 month period, are those 240 data points enough to be significant? And in reality we are measuring daily. Are 7300 data points enough to be significant? Never could figure out the logic right there but would love for a statistician explain it to me (and others).
Who is setting these rules here? Pure mathematics or the climate scientist community (aka IPCC)?
================================================================
Wayne, rather than waxing poetic about the issue, I’ll simply refer you to this: http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/statsoft-textbook-search/?Name=significance

I like the simplicity of the article, but it seems to be lost on those who insist on analytical analysis.
Back to the comparison to plate tectonics – complex theories might “explain” things, but stepping back and looking at the big picture (the continental puzzle) was more correct. This is another example of Occam’s Razor. The AGW crowd (and some of our commenteres here) believe that they need to keep building a more and more complex model to explain global warming. But every complexity is subject to the biases of the researcher and the lack of a significant period of observed data.
Such is the arrogance of modern human intelligence. “If it happened, then humans must have contributed to its happening”. Or the belief that humans can do a damn thing to stop it. I firmly beleive we cannot. It’s a planet. Can we do anything to change the magnetic field? Can we preserve forests by keeping all fires (even natural ones) from happening? Better to sit back and observe for another century or two before taking drastic action. Too many real human lives are at stake.

R. Gates says:
November 5, 2011 at 6:21 am
Bill Illis says:
“To be able to determine significance, we must determine how the climate can change randomly, how much it can change by by chance.”
—–
This is muddled thinking at it’s worst. The climate does not change by chance.
——————-
Statistical significance, by definition, requires that something can change by chance. It is what the field is all about. Otherwise, there is no significance to measure. All changes, no matter what they are, are significant: they are deterministic. Any cooling trend is therefore significant.
My point is that noone really knows how to measure statistical significance for the climate. We need to be able to measure the probability of change by chance. We can’t. I would say, however, it is a non-Zero quantity unlike your claim.

James, James, James…
Correlation is not causation.
The classic cautionary tale is to plot shoe size against income. Very high positive correlation – the bigger the shoe the larger the income.
The CO2 correlation has the distinct advantage of a proven modus operandi. The sunspot correlation does not. Even a fifth grader should know that so if I were you I’d be more careful about who I was calling not smarter than a fifth grader – people who live in glass houses shoudn’t throw stones.

Bill Illis says:
November 5, 2011 at 8:23 am
R. Gates says:
November 5, 2011 at 6:21 am
Bill Illis says:
“To be able to determine significance, we must determine how the climate can change randomly, how much it can change by by chance.”
—–
This is muddled thinking at it’s worst. The climate does not change by chance.
——————-
Statistical significance, by definition, requires that something can change by chance. It is what the field is all about. Otherwise, there is no significance to measure. All changes, no matter what they are, are significant: they are deterministic. Any cooling trend is therefore significant.
———-
We are talking about separating signal from noise when taking about long-term climate changes, versus shorter-term, thus the significance of any change must be measured against the appropriate scale of time. It is finding that appropriate scale for the anthropogenic signal that is really the core issue, and that’s what this excellent bit of research was about:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2011JD016263.shtml
If I measure the temperature at 3 a.m. and then again at 3 p.m. And note the 30 degree difference, it would be inappropriate to conclude anything about Milankovitch cycles from that difference even though of course the difference is statistically significant and certainly not by chance. So too, if I take the temperature at the the height of a big El Nino, and then again 10 years later at the bottom of an series of La Nina, and try to draw any conclusion from that about anthropogenic forcing from CO2, that would be an inappropriate application of scale. The research referenced above make a very strong case as to why.

DAV says: “A fine article though I’d like to point out there is no such thing as “fundamental chaos” in nature. Choas Theory is a mathematical concept. Just because something appears chaotic doesn’t mean it is. One should never confuse mathematical models with reality. Chaos and Randomness are merely expressions of lack of knowledge. There is no theoretical reason that the underlying processes will not be discovered. Otherwise, the basic mission of Science is futile. If von Neumann made an error it was in underestimating the complexity of the problem possibly by several orders of magnitude.”
DAV says: “A fine article though I’d like to point out there is no such thing as “fundamental chaos” in nature. Choas Theory is a mathematical concept. Just because something appears chaotic doesn’t mean it is. One should never confuse mathematical models with reality. Chaos and Randomness are merely expressions of lack of knowledge. There is no theoretical reason that the underlying processes will not be discovered. Otherwise, the basic mission of Science is futile. If von Neumann made an error it was in underestimating the complexity of the problem possibly by several orders of magnitude.”
Let me expand slightly on what Cherry Pick has said. The chaos theory of the 1970s is a fundamentally new way of analyzing much of what we see in nature. I would respectfully disagree that what we see in nature is not chaos. The fundamental properties needed for chaotic behavior are non-linear behavior and reiteration, i.e., each succeeding moment is a function of what the immediately prior moment was. You are correct that chaos and randomness are often conflated — especially in common speech — but the two are actually very different. We know that physics has been especially successful over the years in reducing complex phenomena to the interaction of simple forces. Chaos theory does the same and has found that much of what happens in the world appears to be random — but is actually deterministic. True randomness cannot be predicted, not even in theory. Chaos, on the other hand, even though it appears to be random, can be predicted. It is deterministic, it is a system responding step by minute step to predictable natural rules. So what is the big deal, what makes chaos any different from normal, everyday physics problems? Chaos can be predicted, but there is a catch. Actually, two catches, and they are both very big. Chaotic systems can be predicted only if we have infinitely exact knowledge of all the beginning physical states, and only with a computer or calculating system at least as complicated — if not more complicated — the system which is being analyzed. Von Neumann’s mistake is completely understandable. Up until the 1970’s is was believed that all phenomena –- such as weather – were inherently simplifiable. There would be, so it was thought, a method of reducing large systems into smaller more easily analyzed systems. Chaos explains that this is not so.
So where does that leave us? Obviously, not all phenomena are chaotic – otherwise physics and science in general would have never gotten off the ground. Even chaotic systems have regularities which can, in fact be predicted, but we now know that all such predictions have specific limits. Chaotic systems tend to do “quantum jumps” from one state to another. Each specific state, if you look more closely, tends to have finer substates to it. Certainly, if we look at long time scale charts of Earth’s climate or temperature, we see large jumps, mostly bounded by the thermal properties and phase change states of water. More recently, in the 20th Century we see small step changes in temperature (like the one in the late 90s.) Instead of being able to predict what climate – or weather – we will have, we can only (at best) be able to say, “It is most likely to fall within a certain range, with these regions being most likely.” And just like a rock bouncing down a mountain slope, with each state shift, the results become more and more unpredictable. Using the world’s most powerful computers, we can give rough prediction of weather only a week or so out before it becomes too error laden to be useful. As the article points out, the addition of more data, that is oceanic and solar states, may allow us to make better (though still not arbitrarily good) predictions of longer term climate.
Chaos is not randomness, so at least we have the possibility of approaching useful prediction, but we are very limited in how close we will ever get to what von Neumann expected.

ferd berple says:
November 5, 2011 at 9:14 am

In which case the future is written and there is no such thing as free will. All our future choices are already determined by our current state. In which case the future is rather pointless. Quantum mechanics suggests otherwise. That the future is not deterministic. That is an illusion of scale. The future is not a place we are traveling to. The future is a probability.
For example: When you say you are going on vacation next week that is not entirely accurate. You are planning to go on vacation, and are taking steps to increase the probability that you will in fact go on vacation, but events are also in motion which could prevent you from going. Until the vacation actually arrives, you don’t know for sure that you are in fact going to go on vacation.
We like to believe that if we knew all the events going on in the world, we could determine in advance if we were actually going to go on the vacation. Our current level of understanding of the physical world is such that you cannot calculate this in advance, even with the computer that has not yet been built, at a very fundamental level.

You had no real choice in writing the above, of course, nor in your belief that you possess free will. And I of course had no real choice but to make exactly this response.
Seriously, the jury is still out on determinism vs. nondeterminism. There is no consensus even among quantum physicists. Even Stephen Hawking famously lost a wager to Leonard Susskind over this. Hawking argued that information could be destroyed, or at least hidden forever inside a black hole, because once something fell in the only way out was via particles quantum tunneling through the event horizon (Hawking Radiation). He argued that the tunnelling was predictable only statistically and so information about the particle before it entered the black hole was lost when it tunneled back out. This actually violates a fundamental tenet of quantum mechanics – conservation of information – and Susskind argued that you can’t get around that rule even with a black hole. The mathematical details are beyond my ken but after ten years and every theoretical physicist in the world throwing in his two cents Hawking conceded and conservation of information, and thus absolute determinism which follows from it, is still safely ensconsed.

ferd berple says:
November 5, 2011 at 9:23 am
R. Gates says:
November 5, 2011 at 6:21 am
This is muddled thinking at it’s worst. The climate does not change by chance.
God plays dice with the climate.
_____
Nice sentiment, but they’d have to be loaded dice.

Responding to RockyRoad
November 5, 2011 at 9:58 am
_____
How could you find the minimum period in which the anthropogenic signal could be seen if you didn’t include the anthropogenic forcings? Should they have run the models with CO2 and other GH gases being held at a year 1600 level? Did you read the entire paper? Sound like perhaps not…

I wonder how shoe sizes work with the short man syndrome ?

ferd berple says: November 5, 2011 at 7:02 am
…Gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics, these are some of the greatest triumphs in modern physics. Where is the physical mechanism to explain them? What causes time to pass slower in a gravitational field? What is the speed of gravity? What is the physical mechanism underlying the uncertainty principle? How can these great theories have any value without there being a physical mechanism to explain them?
Science has one great power – and only one. True science can DEMONSTRATIVELY and REPEATEDLY and RELIABLY predict the future
Well said ferd.

The scientific community is regularly wrong en masse, not just for plate tectonics. Other notable gaffes include the failure to accept mitochondria as bacterial inclusions; the continued belief in the savannah theory of human evolution, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary; the failure of medical doctors to wash their hands in spite of overwhelming empirical evidence that it could reduce disease spread (Ignace Semmelweiss)(okay M.D.s aren’t scientists, but after hundresds of years of evidence, they still don’t wash their hands properly); the problems that evolution had gaining acceptance (and still does, but I mean in the scientific community); and many others. Max Planck summed it up “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” So until we get twenty or thirty years of non-warming data and the current warmista cadre all dies or retires, this seemingly irrational argument will continue. And truth won’t win the minds of the public as long as reporters are too lazy or too poorly educated to read the scientific literature themselves rather than having Al Gore (or David Suzuki in Canada) interpret it for them.

Some researchers have attributed the lack of warming in the last ten years to a mysterious drop in water vapor in a relatively thin layer of the stratosphere. Of course, they are doing this in a belief context that temperatures should be increasing with CO2 at a rate that implies a near runaway degree of positive feedback magnification of the raw effect. Perhaps they should be asking what might have put that extra water vapor up there in the first place.
Scientific American:
“Is Water Vapor in the Stratosphere Slowing Global Warming?”
“A mysterious drop in water vapor in the lower stratosphere might be slowing climate change”
By David Biello – January 29, 2010
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-water-vapor-in-the-stratosphere-slowing-global-warming

Jason Calley says:
November 5, 2011 at 9:27 am
RE: chaos . Excellent post! The distinction between chaotic and random behavior in particular. I use to have this conversation (pre-retirement) with various aerospace managers and it usually resulted in glazed over eyes. 😉

LazyTeenager says:
November 5, 2011 at 12:55 am
1900-1944:
This period is largely warming. What could possibly be the cause of that?
———
From the graph it’s seems that James associates warming with increased sunspot activity. And this seems to be consistent with theories about the origin of the little ice age.
So why dont we see a little ice age every 11 years? And the answer has to be backed by evidence, not hand waving or speculation.
###
If you can’t answer that for yourself, then I doubt that you have the sapience to contribute anything useful, but most of us knew that already.

Lucy Skywalker says:
November 5, 2011 at 11:01 am
Volker Doormann says: November 5, 2011 at 7:14 am
‘Simple summation of solar tide functions from couples of six slow moving planets suggests that the main global temperature effect on Earth is controlled by the solar system:
http://volker-doormann.org/images/hadc_ghi6_1850.gif ‘
What strikes me is how good the fit is, ie to me, visually, this looks like a statistically significant correlation, even if not perfect, and I trust my …eyes.
But there is more: in Doorman’s first comparison graph, it is not just the overall picture, but even more the details, the nuances, that bob up and down together, over and over and over again. Now how does one measure statistical significance when we are clearly dealing with at least two scales of effect, one being over years and the other being over decades and centuries?”
As I wrote above, relevant in climate science is the correlation coefficient of two different functions, but not any statistical significance, because a high correlation coefficient shows a strong geometric relation between two functions.
In climate science a real source has to be shown for real global temperature anomalies; it is not the question in physics whether there is a source or not.
All people who are involved in global temperature reconstructions do know that there are differences in timescale functions and amplitudes. Taking the time scale from the astronomic functions alike eclipses, heliocentric positions of celestial bodies can be determined in seconds in time and arcseconds of an ecliptic longitude angle.
Because of this fact it is not the question whether astronomy functions fit to the temperature proxies ( “14C” ), but more whether the assumed time scales of the temperature proxies fit to astronomy functions.
I wrote also on a global temperature frequency range of about four orders of magnitude (some month to 1.8 ky). It is self explained that it is not possible to show a comparison of all these frequencies in detail in one graph. Taking the saw tooth frequencies of 1/94.5 ky^-1 , 1/41.2 ky^-1, 1/29 ky^-1 or 1/23.6 ky^-1 from the Vostok core of Great Ice Ages the range of climate frequencies extends to about five orders of magnitude.
So I think the scientific climate question is, ‘Why do the imperfect reconstructed global temperature frequency spectra correlate with solar tide functions from real planets and its positions?’
Who in climate science cares on the statistical significance of a time decade or two?
V.

Jason Calley November 5, 2011 at 9:27 am Chaos can be predicted, but there is a catch. Actually, two catches, and they are both very big. Chaotic systems can be predicted only if we have infinitely exact knowledge of all the beginning physical states, and only with a computer or calculating system at least as complicated — if not more complicated — the system which is being analyzed.
Pretty tall catch. Because of it, it follows then that you can never build chaotic models that predict. Which in turn means you can never prove them. At best, you can only say the system appears chaotic. Just because there are mathematical models with chaotic properties resembling the data does NOT mean they exist in nature.
Assigning a system to Chaos Theory is like assigning it to the Bogey Man. All you need to do is catch him to prove it. It’s the ultimate cop-out.
Chaos is not randomness, so at least we have the possibility of approaching useful prediction
But didn’t you say prediction was possible only with infinite knowledge and a Deep Thought class computer? So how then is there a possibility?

BCBill says:
November 5, 2011 at 11:11 am
“So until we get twenty or thirty years of non-warming data and the current warmista cadre all dies or retires, this seemingly irrational argument will continue. And truth won’t win the minds of the public…”
____
I think a large contingent of the so-called “warmista” would be well enough convinced that AGW is not occurring if we get 30 years of cooling…as it will be self-evident. But the cherry picking of data from the peak of an El Nino in 1998 to a period of multiple La Ninas during the quietest solar activity in a century as evidence that AGW isn’t a real phenomenon is hardly scientific or convincing. Furthermore, we’d have to know what the global temperatures would be like during the same period if you reduced the CO2 levels to 280 ppm or so. Interestingly, we can do that via the climate models, and we get something that looks a lot like the Dalton Minimum.
In term of wining the minds of the public…with the exception of the intellectuals (who are the first killed in any revolution) it generally really isn’t rational arguments that win the group-mind of the public, but circus acts and emotional appeals. This emotional appeal is strengthened by physical reality being thrown in their face…i.e. my house being washed away might be a great point of leverage to paying more in taxes to build up flood defenses.

G. Karst says:
November 5, 2011 at 1:16 pm
Curiousgeorge says:
November 5, 2011 at 12:34 pm
I see no reason why determinism and non-determinism should be mutually exclusive
Are you saying – that which has been determined is constantly being modified by that which has not been determined? The holographic projection of the big bang would apparently account for the determined source. However, what do you attribute the non-determined source to? The only thing that occurs to me is the introduction of intelligence, hence purpose, implying choice.
I admit – It all makes my head swim. GK
=========================================================================
I have no answer to your question. We are dealing with the “Unknown unknowns” with this. There is, of course, a faith based response. But, I won’t jump into that particular swimming hole. 😉

“Why is 20 years statistically significant when 10 years is not?”
“R. Gates says:
November 5, 2011 at 5:58 am
But, as a general rule, greater than 17 years is the minimum to see the anthropogenic signal”
I am confused now. Look at the following with the 95% confidence ranges.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
Hold a ruler from the BOTTOM of the 95% confidence range for the year 2011 to the TOP of the 95% confidence range for the years 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. I come to the conclusion that warming IS significant for the years 1989 and 1992, but NOT significant for the years 1990 and 1991. So my question to R. Gates or the author of this piece is: Are we seeing an anthropogenic signal or not?

It’s 15 years of no warming according to RSS data (1997-2011). If 2012 is cold, it will be 18 years (1995-2012) of insignificang warming for RSS data.

Ultimately, we ALL have to show our homework, ……..

joel says:
November 5, 2011 at 7:07 am
From the viewpoint of a physician.
Statistics is the science of how numbers behave. Not many people really care about or understand statistics…..
The worst thing that ever happened was the “statistics packages” for computers that allows people to plug numbers into a program without knowing any of the underlying math/statistics dos and don’ts. It is about like handing the keys to you ten year old and telling him to go drive your car just because most cars are now automatics.

Dave Springer says:
November 5, 2011 at 9:17 am
James, James, James…
Correlation is not causation.
The classic cautionary tale is to plot shoe size against income. Very high positive correlation – the bigger the shoe the larger the income…..
_____________________________
Bad example, at least “Classically” that is historically. I can name two factors that influence both shoes size and income… Make that three.
The first is age. A baby normally does not have a high income.
Second, women have smaller feet than men and women even in the same job earn less. A sex change would net me a higher salary than earning a masters degree(ACS salary survey several years ago)
Last, before 1900 shoe size would depend on getting enough to eat to grow to your full potential and that would depend on your parents income which would influence your education and future earning potential.
The reason we have a “theory” of how CO2 effects temperature is because a trillion dollars was thrown at the problem with the objective of coming up with an “explanation” Other information was cause for papers not to be published up to and including firing.
Reminds me of all the debates on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…

Bernard J:
‘The fact remains that the sun’s output, and changes to such, are accounted for in climatological analyses’
OK I’ll say it again slowly. The sun’s effect on our climate is not yet fully understood. Try googling CERN CLOUD and see what you get. At CERN they certainly don’t know all the effects the sun has on our climate. In fact they are starting to understand just how little they know about solar effects on cloud formation. If they don’t know then it is impossible to model it and therefore cannot be ‘accounted’ for in any model. You say the the sun’s output is accounted for. I say it cannot be. A strawman argument that ain’t!

Arguing who’s right and who’s wrong about the climate is NEVER going to prove anything,unfortunately.(i do like a good argument sometimes,lol)
The media love arguments about this stuff.
INSTEAD
How about starting a campaign(starting with yourself,obviously) of having every peer reviewed journal that publishes climate predictions/projections DEMAND that EVERY author starts their predictions/projections with the words….
“I think”

I’d like to thank NetDr for providing this link above- http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
Though no climate scientist, I have thought and argued for several years that the longer term trend from the LIA must be subtracted from the recent trend (since WWII) in order to infer the anthropogenic footprint, if any. That is exactly the thesis of this peer reviewed paper by an arctic and climate scientist, Syun-Ichi Akasofu. The paper, IMO, is a must read. I sure would Like Anthony to feature this paper on WUWT, perhaps ask its author if he can update any of the graphs and also take part in a discussion of it. It would be very educational to have warmist critics, the author, and the rest of us wrestle with the thesis presented.

Now they finally admit that temps are decreasing, or at least ‘pausing’.
Next they need to admit ditto for sea-level.
But their worst nightmare would be for CO2 to decline as well.
Can we ask in advance if that would make the Warmistas disband?
Already it turns out that the highest CO2 concentrations
are over the tropical forests, not here!
That could means that a cooling world
might lower its CO2 in spite of our combustion prodigies.
Truly we live in interesting times.

You are way off in the satellite era. I will describe it based on my book “What Warming?” The eighties and the nineties were a period where nothing much happened but alternating El Nino and La Nina phases of ENSO. The mean temperature stayed the same and there was no warming. But you connect an imaginary warming of that period with the 21st century across the 1998 super El Nino. This simply should not be done. The super El Nino did not belong to the ENSO system but brought its own large supply of warm water across the ocean. This raised the global temperature of the beginning of the 21st century by a third of a degree. It is this warming and not any greenhouse effect that was responsible for the very warm first decade of our century. There was no additional warming after that and according to the BEST temperature data there has not been any warming at all since our century began. This means that this one short spurt of warming was in effect a step warming, initiated by the 1998 super El Nino. Since there was no warming before or after it this gives us two horizontal, linear curve segments that flank it but do not meet. As to the early part of the century, my graph from the Met Office shows cooling from 1880 to 1910 followed by warming from 1910 to the beginning of World War II. From the end of the war till the 1998 super El Nino shows up there is essentially no warming while carbon dioxide keeps relentlessly increasing. Bjørn Lomborg assigned this early twentieth century warming to solar influence and I think he is right. But the fifty year stretch of no warming after the end of the war cannot be explained by the greenhouse effect. Lame attempts have been made to claim that warming was covered up by aerosols but the southern hemisphere cooled more than the northern hemisphere did even though the aerosols originated in the northern hemisphere. We thus have two stretches of twentieth century warming with a fifty year no-warming stretch in between. Since carbon dioxide was steadily increasing no way can this temperature history be explained by carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

R Gates,
The power of models is their ability to indicate dynamical trends and relationships. (i.e. more CO2=less Arctic sea ice, etc.).
Correction: (among) the power of models is alleged to be their ability to indicate dynamical trends and relationships. This remains an unsupported allegation wrt climate models, and a question that you persist on begging. You appeal to models to makes claims that are not apparent in the observational record, and attempt to cover it by more appeals to models.
The concept of what a model earth would be doing “now” or the real earth would be doing “now” is meaningless, as that is not what their intent is.
LOL. Yes, dear. The models are not intended model, and they certainly are not supposed to reflect anything now. They cannot be expected to tell us anything about now, their only power is to tell us with requisite certainty what now is going to be like at a politically convenient time in the future. Just far enough out that the prediction cannot be tested before policy must be made, but not so far out that the sense of imperative fizzles. I gather that the current optimum for that time frame is considered to be about 17 years.
Your misrepresentation of my comments perhaps indicates that you don’t really understand what models are for and aren’t for.
Sweetheart, I write models for a living. I know what they are for, and I know how they are often misused. I have seen it attempted by others abusing my own work, let alone the crap that is pulled with ‘climate models’ in these politicized times. Save your condescension.
In regards to what a Maunder or Dalton Minimum like solar event might do a model earth with both current levels and lower levels (as they were several centuries ago) is plug these into the model and see what trends and dynamics develops.
You forgot to finish that sentence with “… in the model.” It is important to remind the reader, as well as yourself, of the only realm wherein those results are relevant.
You float between pretending the models are not supposed to be indicative of conditions, and pretending that they are absolutely reflective – e.g. when you say that such models allow us to know what the actual earth would be doing now under 280 ppm CO2. LOL.
Know. LOL.
Of course, the models don’t currently include all the effects that a quiet sun has on the climate (as they are either not fully know or not fully quantified).
Yes, your models do not currently include all of the ad hoc excuses for flat to down trending temperature and energy balance that you now wish to appeal to. And you better plan ahead and gin up a few more bandaids for the future. People are only going to buy the situational reparamerization of aerosols for so long before they can’t hold in the laughter, and you can’t fill the holes with too much of the ‘quiet sun’ before the whole house of cards comes down on your head.
Funny how those deficits were not coinsidered of import before … in fact the whole notion that those unmodeled effects of a quiet sun were of an interesting magnitude was brashly denigrated by people like you, using the same condescension that you employ now.
Even funnier how you yet use the word know to describe what these painfully inadequately parameterized models spit out. Chutzpah, Bubby called it.

In the following plot, a 10 year and a 14 year cooling trend can be found in the early UAH data.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1987/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/uah
The period 1987 to 1990 is a decade of cooling. The period 1980 to 1995 represents a ‘cooling trend’ of 14 years. But neither of these represent the true signal in the data. they are more indicative of the noise in the data – otherwise known as ‘weather’.
Neither are statistically significant, but ‘skeptics’ would have been arguing back then that these represented some meaningful ‘slowdown’ in global temps. We have the advantage of hindsight here. Can we learn from it?
Just to compare, here is the last 10 (complete) years ‘trend’ and the ‘trend’ since 1998 for UAH;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1987/to:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1995/trend/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2011/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2011/trend
Neither are statistically significant, but they are both positive. So if one insists on using these periods to talk about climate trends, then compare with the cooling periods early in the record for similar periods and think again how meaningful the last 10 – 14 years is WRT the underlying signal.

Not since fifth grade.

I was there an undergraduate geology student in the the early 1960 when the continental drift thing all came down. The major question most of us young students and many of our professors had was simply, how do you move a continent? As soon as that was answered, it did not take long for myself and most others to accept the idea. That is called a paradigm shift. Climate stuff is, shall we say a bit more complex and the analogy brakes down quickly. The magnetic reversals of the oceanic crust moving out from the rift zones was clear and explanatory. (I saw the map and even before I read the article knew what the conclusion would be. I took it and ran to the geology department coffee room.) Not in detail but in the general. What I don’t see, and that may well be due to my near fossil status, is what might be found as a paradigm shift, something that lays open the driving forces behind ups and downs of climate. Many have their pet ideas. None seem all wrong but none seem quite right either.
Other points. Most models in geology and the bulk of the earth sciences are only predictive of the long haul. Geologic time is well geologic, that is you can put away your watch and probably your annual calendar too. In situation after situation we see geologic processes are complex and intertwined. The devil is always in the details. If my memory serves climatology is a branch of physical geography as in meteorology. Physical geography is like geology an, earth science. We are sciences and not pseudosciences; our hypotheses are testable, we realize our models explain but do not produce data. We know any model we would use in a predictive mode must be calibrated by empirical measures. We do not or know we should not confuse correlation with causation.

Anthnoy
The sunspot figure is covered with the “WUWT on Facebook” image.
Is it possible to move it down the page?
Thanks
[Reply: To make sure Anthony sees your request, please post it in Tips & Notes. Thanks, ~dbs, mod.]

Werner,
I read the Pat Michaels page. I’ll comment on it if you do me the courtesy of commenting on the points I was making in my post first. That would be politer than completely ignoring it and expecting me to follow your lead. Thanks.

Leif Svalgaard says:
November 5, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Volker Doormann says:
November 5, 2011 at 3:16 pm
“My plot shows a blue curve what IS the sum of solar tidal geometric functions of six planets”
So produce seven plots, one for each of the six planet and one for the sum.
It is senseless to give knowledge to a black hole.
My discovery of the main climate frequency of 2/1.827 ky^-1 of a couple of celestial bodies and its synodic tide pattern is able to make a terrestrial climate forecast for 1000 years. Adding other faster couples and it’s tide functions to this pattern the resolution of the climate frequencies can be higher until some month.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/ghi2_xx.jpg
Simple two couples do show that the time scale in the plot of Prof. Patzelt is not correct. And moreover the comparison does show that because of the knowledge of the movement of the bodies the coming climate in the next 1000 years is simple summing of solar tide functions.
This method is unique. No one ever has shown such a simulation of the terrestrial climate inclusive a forecast for 1000 years.
It is senseless to give knowledge to a black hole. Knowledge is only for those who respect knowledge.
V.

@Philip Bradley says:
November 5, 2011 at 4:49 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Philip
Perhaps the better interpretation is that it shows a lack of understanding of the extent and variability of the noise? At 15 years they cannot wean out the signal from the noise. At 16 years they think that they can wean out the signal from the noise (and hence the plea of now being statistically significant) but by the time 17 years of data comes in the signal remains lost in the noise. The 16 year declaration is based upon a lack of understanding and appreciation of the extent and variability of the noise which in practice swamps the signal being looked for.
This is why we do not know whether it is necessary to assess cliamte changes over 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 or 60 or 100 or 5000 or 1000 or 2000 or 5000 years etc.

James Padgett:

John von Neumann, believed that by the 1960’s our knowledge of atmospheric fluid dynamics would be so great, and our computer simulations so precise, that we’d be able to control the weather by making small changes to the system.

Could you provide a citation for this? The only things I can find are to do with his development of numerical weather forecasting and his proposal for reducing the albedo of snow areas in the event of an ice-age.

Rhys Jaggar said:
” So we are where we are. The warmists trying to add solar and oceanic influences onto their models, whilst continuing to ostracise those who always advocated that position.”
——
You have no idea that solar and oceanic dynamics have been part of global climate system models for decades? Furthermore, you have no idea that models are always evolving to include more and more dynamical processes once those processes can be fully quantified? Suggest you read:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/T_Nature1997.pdf
But in general, there isn’t any conceivable way that models will add some new found process that will suddenly show that increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases will not result in a warmer future in the long run , and furthermore, the current plateau in global temperatures is a general feature shown in many global climate models as likely occurring at various points during the course of the next century as we have a general trend upward in the long run. It would in fact be a negative against the accuracy and validity of those models if such periods did not occur!

R. Gates says:
November 6, 2011 at 6:53 am
“You have no idea that solar and oceanic dynamics have been part of global climate system models for decades?”
eally? They factored in the effect of solar magnetic field strength? Got a link to that, ya putz?

Electric Blanket says:
November 6, 2011 at 3:14 am
James Padgett:
John von Neumann, believed that by the 1960’s our knowledge of atmospheric fluid dynamics would be so great, and our computer simulations so precise, that we’d be able to control the weather by making small changes to the system.
——————-
Could you provide a citation for this? The only things I can find are to do with his development of numerical weather forecasting and his proposal for reducing the albedo of snow areas in the event of an ice-age.
———————–
It’s probably true. I didn’t find an matching quote but the following is conceptually close:
http://www.colby.edu/sts/climateengineers.pdf

John von Neumann, the multi-talented mathematician
extraordinaire at the Institute for Advanced
Study in Princeton, New Jersey, endorsed Zworykin’s
view, writing to him, “I agree with you completely. . . .
This would provide a basis for scientific approach[es]
to influencing the weather.” Using computer-generated
predictions, von Neumann wrote, weather and climate
systems “could be controlled, or at least directed,
by the release of perfectly practical amounts of energy”
or by “altering the absorption and reflection properties
of the ground or the sea or the atmosphere.” It was a
project that neatly fit von Neumann’s overall philosophy:
“All stable processes we shall predict. All unstable
processes we shall control.”

Dave Springer says:
November 6, 2011 at 10:48 am
Volker Doormann says:
November 6, 2011 at 12:41 am
“It is senseless to give knowledge to a black hole.”
Actually that’s the meat of a famous (if you’re a theoretical physics afficionado, that is) between wager between perhaps the two most recognized living theoretical physicists in the world today, Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking. Hawking said information is lost forever to the universe when it enters a black hole. Susskind says information can’t be destroyed and you can’t even cheat by hiding it forever in a black hole. After ten years of theoretical bickering and input from every two bit theoretical physicist on the planet Hawking conceded.
So, you see, it isn’t senseless to throw information into a black hole! Write the down! 🙂
The Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave. That was in 1893.
This blog is read some million times probably because climate science authority Michael E. Mann says: “The scientific consensus regarding human-caused climate change is based on decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world.” and in comments this fallacy is recognized by readers as fallacy giving the reason.
Argumentum ad numerum fallacy: “All I’m saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it.”
Neither a great number of years of work nor a great number of scientists are valid arguments for truth.
On the level of science the object is what IS. But not all sayings are on the level of science. A lot of sayings in this world are suggestions to fool other people to win. But as it is well known in physics a win is only possible if another lost it. That what IS in not to be destroyed or multiplied.
To come to the point, the discovery I did with the solar tide function of celestial couples is free for everybody to discover, because recognition is owned by nobody. In any case each recognition must be done by the self. And nobody can destroy information.
What we call destruction is a process of transferring energy into another structure. This happened all the time because of the motivation to win.
Leif says about my plot: “ the blue curve is not the sum of the tides” . He is the authority. He wins.
But it does no change the information, which is to discover in each present.
What is to be changed with motivation is the balance of power.
But that is irrelevant to science.
V.

“barry says:
November 5, 2011 at 11:57 pm
Werner,
I read the Pat Michaels page. I’ll comment on it if you do me the courtesy of commenting on the points I was making in my post first. That would be politer than completely ignoring it and expecting me to follow your lead. Thanks.”
Fair enough. You plotted several graphs. For example the HADCRUT3 graph for 1979 to 1999 had a certain positive slope. The HADCRUT3 graph for 1979 to 2011 had virtually the same positive slope. Your conclusion was that “Using only statistically significant periods, the trend in warming has not changed much post-1998.” However had you plotted just 1999 to 2011 for HADCRUT3, you would have gotten a negative or 0 slope. The significance of this negative or 0 slope of course is a different question.
In the interview with Phil Jones: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
“B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.”
Here, Phil Jones talks about two different trends while stating that both are not statistically significant. In my opinion, Judith Curry is exactly correct when she says there has not been much change since the late 90s. In your opinion, was she dead wrong to make this assertion? And if so, would it have been OK for her to say it if she had then added what Phil Jones said earlier, namely “but this trend is not statistically significant”. That assumes of course that this is indeed the case. I am not in a position to judge that, but see the quote below.
At the following, this quote is taken:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html
“Prof Ross McKittrick, a climate statistics expert from Guelph University in Ontario, added: ‘You don’t look for statistically significant evidence of a standstill.
‘You look for statistically significant evidence of change.”
Is he correct?

La Nina conditions are picking up with the warm pool above New Guinea building and the cold tongue developing off Sth America gaining strength. There is a deep low pressure off the coast of Japan with that area also having a large warm pool as is typical in cool PDO periods. The prevailing winds from the low pressure are pushing the warmer water to the south which is solid evidence for ONE case of the PDO driving the ENSO state.
The Australian BOM ENSO update should show a strengthening of the trade winds across the equator on Wednesday.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
The severe NH winter outlook remains.

Keith says
One common-sense argument for a sun-led temperature plateau in the last 10 years is that if you turn the flame under a pan of water down to minimum, the water stops heating up almost instantaneously. Just as you may earlier have turned down the flame a small amount below maximum but the water continued to heat up. Whether it’s actually a major part of the reason for the temperature plateau we don’t know, but the basic, common-sense physical analogy isn’t contradicted by events. Or, to put it another way, recent temperature trends are consistent with saucepan theory…
———–
Rather than rely in common sense I think you need to do the experiment for yourself.
Suspend a thermometer in a saucepan of water and adjust the heat so the temperature is something like 70C. Let it sit for a while to equilibrate. Let’s say for the sake if the argument it is at setting 3. Drop the setting to setting 2.
During the process record and graph the temperature.
If I interpret your comments accurately you believe the temperature should plateau. I predict that initially the temperature will drop off rapidly at first and then level off to a new constant temperature.
You also say in the first part of your comment that if the temperature is rising initially then after turning off the heat it will continue to rise. Perhaps, but I believe this is due to the thermal inertia of an electric hot plate. I predict this effect will not occur if you use a gas fire or use an electric heater and raise the heat setting incrementally.
These latter expectations are also verifiable or not by experiment.
You could even write an article for Anthony’s blog describing the experiment and explain how wonderful common sense is.

R Gates,
But in general, there isn’t any conceivable way that models will add some new found process that will suddenly show that increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gases will not result in a warmer future in the long run , …
That is a stunning admission.

Volker Doormann says:
November 7, 2011 at 5:57 am
What we talk about is quality; the quality to verify and forecast terrestrial climate with methods of science.
Your statement is offensive. My research is based on JPL data of 6000 years with a daily resolution if required.
The plot in your link – ‘Earth’s Future Climate’ – shows five data points for the next 1000 years created with your method of analysing the angular momentum of the Sun.
Incorrect, there are six data points that are derived from many thousands of data points at a lower level. I am predicting solar output which is one important part of climate, solar output is governed by the amount of solar downturn experienced through solar grand minima that occur on a regular basis over the Holocene. This is all that is needed for predicting solar output at a higher level. I suggest you read the rest of my website and paper before making assumptions.
I am not sure what your research is suggesting, is it tidal effects on earths oceanic systems or tidal effects on solar output? If it is the latter you will need to expand your data as Leif suggests along with showing a repeating modulating frequency (around 172 years) that aligns with each grand minimum over the Holocene.

LazyTeenager says:
November 7, 2011 at 2:57 am
Keith says
One common-sense argument for a sun-led temperature plateau in the last 10 years is that if you turn the flame under a pan of water down to minimum, the water stops heating up almost instantaneously. Just as you may earlier have turned down the flame a small amount below maximum but the water continued to heat up. Whether it’s actually a major part of the reason for the temperature plateau we don’t know, but the basic, common-sense physical analogy isn’t contradicted by events. Or, to put it another way, recent temperature trends are consistent with saucepan theory…
———–
Rather than rely in common sense I think you need to do the experiment for yourself.
Suspend a thermometer in a saucepan of water and adjust the heat so the temperature is something like 70C. Let it sit for a while to equilibrate. Let’s say for the sake if the argument it is at setting 3. Drop the setting to setting 2.
During the process record and graph the temperature.
If I interpret your comments accurately you believe the temperature should plateau. I predict that initially the temperature will drop off rapidly at first and then level off to a new constant temperature.
You also say in the first part of your comment that if the temperature is rising initially then after turning off the heat it will continue to rise. Perhaps, but I believe this is due to the thermal inertia of an electric hot plate. I predict this effect will not occur if you use a gas fire or use an electric heater and raise the heat setting incrementally.
These latter expectations are also verifiable or not by experiment.
You could even write an article for Anthony’s blog describing the experiment and explain how wonderful common sense is.

It seems you misunderstand a little bit (this is why I tend to avoid analogies…) Allow me to pad it out and add some approximate numbers:
Take a pan of water from the cold tap, about 15C, and put it on a gas hob (year c.1700). Ignite the hob ring and set the flame to half power, until the water temperature reaches 50C (year c.1910). Now turn the flame to maximum power and heat the water until it reaches 90C (year c.1990). At this point, turn the flame down to three-quarters power, which should still be enough to boil the water, and wait until the temperature reaches 95C (year c.2000). Next, bring the flame down a small amount and watch the temperature reach a steady state for a while (year c.2009). Finally, turn the flame back down to half power or less, not off, and watch the temperature immediately start to drop (this decade and, perhaps, longer).
Heating began with a moderate heat source. This heating then accelerated under the influence of a maxed-out heat source. As the heat source was slowly turned down, heating continued for a short while, until a further decrease in power saw the temperature level off for a period. Once the power was turned well down, temperature dropped right away.
It’s not just fluctuations (and their directions) that are important, but the absolute level too.
I’ll save the analogy of the car accelerator pedal for another time.

Geoff Sharp says:
November 9, 2011 at 6:57 pm
I see no point in conversing with Volker, his work has no scientific basis ..
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#hominem
The basis of conversation in science are arguments; personal viewpoints or/and sayings are no arguments.
Science is not equal physics. Science is (p.e.) the discovery that an area of a square format has a square function to it sides. There is no physics involved.
EOD
V.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/physics.htm

You’re not being reasonable. You insist on simplifying the narrative to averages when it is GRADIENTS that drive circulation. And those aren’t curve fits.

Leif Svalgaard (November 12, 2011 at 7:59 pm)
“Without having already done the analysis […]”
So you’re falsely assuming.
Again: I’ll address your request if & when volunteer time & priorities permit over the months & years ahead.