No joy in Mudville – mighty Gavin has struck out

As for a decade or 15 years of no warming: I think it is important to
consider a period of a decade or somewhat more with minimal magnitude
of linear trends of ENSO and AMO.
Perhaps, the 13 year period from the beginning of 1999 to the beginning
of 2012. The linear trend in HadCRUT3 over that decade is .044 degree/decade.
I used the woodfortrees tool for that.
This *may be* close to the actual warming rate from anthropogenic increase
of CO2. I figure that would mean climate sensitivity to CO2 change being .67
degree C per factor-of-2 change of CO2 (logarhythmic response at this rate
when CO2 is 120-900 PPMV).
Other analyses of mine support climate sensitivity to CO2 being .8-1.5
degrees C per factor-of-2 change of CO2, mostly .82-1.3 degrees C per
2x CO2.

John West said:
>Schmidt swings again:
>”that the stratosphere is not cooling as expected (this is a cleaner test than
>the surface temperatures because there are less extraneous factors)”
I had a look at “lower stratosphere” temperature trend, by RSS/REMSS:
http://www.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/tls/plots/sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tls_v03_3.png
Found within: http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_amsu_trend_map_tls
What I see: Strong downward trend, noted as -.303 degree/decade.
One thing else I see: Some of that linear trend is due to volcanic peaks in
the 1st half of the time period covered. I estimate the trend exluding these
was about -.25 to -.26 degree/decade.
Something else I know: About 20-25% of anthropogenic GHG effect growth
from 1978 to the mid 1990’s was from anthropogenic GHGs other than CO2,
and whose increase was largely stalled in the mid 1990’s. So, this could
account for about ~12-13% of anthropogenic GHG growth from the beginning
of 1979 to now, meaning that lower stratosphere temperature trend due to
factors other than growth of non-CO2 GHGs could be more like -.22 to -.23
degree/decade.
This still sounds high in magnitude to me. Perhaps PDO and/or AMO and/or
change in solar activity or something else non-anthropogenic explains part
of this change. Possibly poor measurement in the first few years?
Possibly slight reversal of ozone depletion after the mid 1990’s? Ozone
warms the stratosphere by absorbing UVC and a fair amount of UVB.
Something else I see: Bouncy behavior in response to major tropical
volcanoes. The pattern appears to me to be spike, then plunge, and then
spend several years resisting the longer-term downward trend. I expect
the downward trend to soon resume, but at a rate with lower magnitude than
that of -.22 or -.23 degree/decade. Maybe TLS will hardly resume its decline
if stratospheric ozone achieves a major recovery.

Gavin Schmidt is bad at sums
The IPCC asserts that all the warming since 1850, (about +0.7°C) is wholly due to Man-made CO2 emissions. However there are other published and peer-reviewed opinions that differs on the actual level of the impact of Man-made additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.
A well-accepted view is provided by CDIAC, the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) , (this reference has since been deleted).
The CDIAC figures can be transposed into parts of the 33°C total Greenhouse Effect are as follows:
Water Vapour ~95% of effect ~31.35°C
Greenhouse Gases ~5% ~1.65°C
Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv ~75% non H2O GHGs ~1.24°C
Natural CO2 ~86% (assuming 50% emissions since 1850 Man-made) ~1.07°C
Man-made CO2 2010
(50% of the 110 ppmv increase from 280 ppmv of 390 ppmv ) ~14% ~0.17°C
Other non H2O GHGs gases ~25% ~0.41°C
The CDIAC figure of ~0.17°C for Man-made influence since 1850 is roughly a quarter of the measured temperature rise of ~0.7°C since then. That level accords well with the notion that the temperature increase can be allocated roughly 50/50% solar influence and 50/50% natural / Man-made CO2 emissions.
A value in the region of ~0.17°C for the effect of worldwide emissions to date has been accepted in correspondence with Professor David MacKay, the chief scientific advisor of the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.
On the other hand, Gavin Schmidt of NASA GISS, one of the topmost scientists involved in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming cause, published in his 2010 peer reviewed paper clearly lays out the following calculation:
Water Vapour ~75% of effect ~24.75°C
Greenhouse Gases ~25% ~8.25°C
Carbon Dioxide at 390 ppmv of non H2O GHGs ~7.84°C
Natural CO2 ~86% (assuming 100% emissions since 1850 are Man-made) ~5.63°C
Man-made CO2 2010
(100% of the 110 ppmv increase from 280 ppmv of 390 ppmv ) ~14 ~2.21°C
Other non H2O GHGs gases as above ~0.41°C
As the reported and well reported temperature increase since 1850 is only ~0.7°C in total, Gavin Schmidt’s assertion has to be in error.
So this premier scientist supporting the concept of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming markedly exaggerates the Man-made effect by more than threefold than the actual rise since 1850.
Gavin Schmidt obviously did not carry out these trivial check sums before his publication and peer review. They would have shown that his figures grossly exaggerate Man-made influence on temperature.
His peer reviewing colleagues also did not do this simple check sum.
Nonetheless the alarmist Cause expects the Western world to revolutionise its economies based on this type of casual and sloppy calculation.
This is the type of trivial due diligence that seems never to be undertaken when radical and vastly expensive policies are formulated to address Global Warming.
Instead inaccurate assertions are regularly made and widely accepted by governments and the public
The NASA GISS the group, headed by Jim Hansen, is also one of the official repositories of global Temperature record. His organisation has been continually rewriting history, (1984 style), over the last 30 years.
Such retrospective and un-auditable revisions of the historic records have occurred particularly in the USA where the records of temperature earlier in the 20th century have been consistently lowered to emphasise warming. This has been a continuing process.
NASA GISS have also altered records outside the USA.
One the most egregious recent instances being the past records in Reykjavik Iceland which has seen past values amended in spite of protest from the Icelandic Meteorological Office.
These are the records and the experts that the World via the UN IPCC depends upon and on which the Western world is basing its costly policy decisions.

Norman Page says:
March 31, 2012 at 8:36 pm
William Astley Great Post – thanks . The Younger Dryas onset was more or less instantaneous and was certainly caused by an impact at about 12900 – wiped out the Meagfauna, http://www.pnas.org/content/109/13/E738.
A really intiguing question is -what caused the sudden warming about 1400 years later ?
Hi Norman,
This is likely not the best thread or best time to discuss cyclic abrupt cooling. Let’s restart this discussion when there is a more appropriate thread.
Best wishes
William
My point above is it is an accepted fact in the paleoclimatology circles (papers and textbooks) that there are cycles of warming and cooling. The past warming and cooling cycles were not caused by CO2 increases. Gavin Schmidt does not act like a climate scientist. A climate scientist is interested in explain what happened in the past and what happened in the past.
Gavin Schmidt appears to only be interested in pushing a hypothesis which past and current observations and analysis does not support. The science does not support the extreme AGW hypothesis. The paleoclimatic data does not support the extreme AGW hypothesis. The extreme AGW crowd are pushing the wrong mechanism. (See the link to climate for 4 big picture.)
What caused the past cycles of warming and cooling? The correct hypothesis must explain all of the observations. Cyclic climate (warming followed by cooling) change followed every 8000 to 10000 years by abrupt climate change (cooling type) requires a cyclic physical forcing function.
There is a suit of data that supports the assertion that a significant portion (roughly 75%) of the 20th century warming has caused by solar magnetic cycle changes not CO2 changes. I do not understand how Gavin Schmidt can ignore the observational data and analysis that disproves the extreme AGW hypothesis.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://climate4you.com/
P.S. I will start my own thread if there is significant cooling and/or evidence of an unexplained abrupt interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.
Comments:
A comet impact is not capable of causing what is observed during the Younger Dryas abrupt climate change period. There is a geomagnetic excursion at the same time as Younger Dryas. A geomagnetic excursion is capable of cooling the planet for 1000 years. There are cycles of Younger Dryas like cooling in the paleoclimatic record which are referred to as Heinrich events which also have geomagnetic excursions. It is appears cyclic solar changes caused the geomagnetic excursions. Let’s wait for another opportunity to discuss this subject. There needs to be either evidence of a solar magnetic cycle interruption or significant cooling, to make the geomagnetic excursion hypothesis interesting to a general audience.
There are roughly 30 different locations in the Northern Hemisphere that have burn marks. There is no crater at locations of the burn marks. 70% of the Younger Dryas cooling occurs within a decade and the planet particularly in the North Hemisphere cools for a 1000 years.
The ½ million Carolina Bay burn marks are dated at 100,000 to 60,000 years ago. There is evidence at the Carolina Bay of restrike which creates overlapping elliptical burn marks. As the earth turns during the strike all of the Carolina Bay burn marks are elliptical with the axis of the burn mark aligned in the North-west direction. Have look at the Carolina Bay burn marks in the attached. Think of a massive electrical discharge from the ionosphere to the planet’s surface.
The authors of the paper you linked to interrupt nanodiamonds, microspherules as evidence of comet impact (there is not iridium which rules out a meteoroid impact. The Firestone paper’s finding of iridium was shown to be incorrect.). Nanodiamonds and microspherules are also created by electromagnetic pulses.
“nanodiamonds, microspherules, and other unusual materials that date to the early Younger Dryas and are interpreted to result from an extraterrestrial impact.”
Reduced solar activity as a trigger for the start of the Younger Dryas?
This paper is a good review of the data concerning the Younger Dryas. It is interesting to look at the development of the different hypotheses and mechanisms from a scientific historical standpoint as well as pure science. The authors postulated TSI variance mechanism is not correct.
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/root/2000/QuatIntRenssen/
The Thermal Haline Conveyor (THC) interruption theory postulated by Wally Broeker has been shown to be incorrect.
Comment:
Gavin Schmidt is a co-author of a paper that tries to explain the polar see-saw phenomena where which is the name for cyclic periods where the Antarctic cools when the Arctic warms and visa versa (i.e. exactly what we are currently observing) on ocean current changes. The ocean current hypothesis has however been shown to be incorrect as the ocean current takes roughly a 1000 years to change and direct measurement of Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet temperature using temperature probes in the ice shows the cyclic polar see-saw is instantaneous. Other logic and analysis to disprove the ocean current hypothesis is recent measurement of ocean currents which has shown there is no ocean conveyor or Seager’s paper (see attached) which shows using a computer model (and a back of the envelope calculation) that a complete stoppage of the North Atlantic drift current is physically not capable of causing the Younger Dryas cooling (order of 10 times to small). In addition as Seager notes the melt water pulse which was alleged to cause an interruption to North Atlantic drift current occurred a 1000 years before the Younger Dryas cooling event.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
Cold Water Ocean Circulation Doesn’t Work As Expected
The familiar model of Atlantic ocean currents that shows a discrete “conveyor belt” of deep, cold water flowing southward from the Labrador Sea is probably all wet.
A 50-year-old model of ocean currents had shown this southbound subsurface flow of cold water forming a continuous loop with the familiar northbound flow of warm water on the surface, called the Gulf Stream. “Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn’t hold anymore,” said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. “So it’s going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean.”
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
The binge purge ice sheet theory has been shown to be incorrect. The ice sheets have been shown to simultaneously rush into the ocean. The ice sheets are geographically separate. There is no mechanism to regulate the building up of the ice sheets from geographical separate ice sheets.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/41/16016.short
Research Sites. Ten Clovis and equivalent-age sites were selected because of their long-established archeological and paleontological significance, and, hence, most are well documented and dated by previous researchers (see SI Table 2). Two are type-sites where unique PaleoAmerican projectile point styles were first named: the Clovis-point style at Blackwater Draw, NM, and the Gainey-point style at Gainey, MI. Three of the sites are confirmed megafaunal kill sites, and six of 10 have a black mat overlying the YDB. At Blackwater Draw and Murray Springs, the YDB is found directly beneath the black mat and overlying Clovis artifacts with extinct megafaunal remains.
The other sample sites were in and around 15 Carolina Bays, a group of approximately 500,000 elliptical lakes, wetlands, and depressions that are up to_10 km long and located on the Atlantic Coastal Plain (SI Fig. 7). We sampled these sites because Melton, Schriever (20), and Prouty (21) proposed linking them to an ET impact in northern North America. However, some Bay dates are reported to be _38 ka (22), older than the proposed date for the YD event. Each of the 10 Clovis-age sites displays a YDB layer (average thickness of 3 cm) that contains a diversity of markers (magnetic microspherules and grains, charcoal, soot, carbon spherules, glasslike carbon, nanodiamonds, and fullerenes with ET helium). The Ir levels are above background in both bulk sediment and magnetic fractions at up to 117 parts per billion (ppb), which is 25% of levels in CI (Ivuna type) chondritic meteorites (23). The YDB also exhibits uranium (U) and thorium (Th) in high concentrations that are up to 25_ crustal abundance. At the 15 Bay sites examined, basal sediments and rim sands contain peaks in the same ET assemblage found in the YDB at Clovis sites elsewhere.