The puzzle: why have rising temperatures been on a 'Twenty-year hiatus"?

The fact that WUWT? and a multitude of other climate sites constantly debating the exact opposite of your statement is pretty solid evidence that your statement is flawed.

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

David Ball says:
March 30, 2013 at 8:10 pm
The fact that WUWT? and a multitude of other climate sites constantly debating the exact opposite of your statement is pretty solid evidence that your statement is flawed.
The fact that this is still debated almost 400 years after Riccioli in 1651 first suggested a causal link between solar activity and climate is pretty solid evidence that my statement is not flawed. Or do you suggest that the ‘science is settled’ and that there is such a causal link? We do not any longer debate whether the Earth revolves around the Sun [or the other way around] or whether the Earth is flat or round. Rational people no longer debate whether Evolution or the Big Bang took place. Your argument is like saying that smoking must be healthy because millions do it.
So, one again: solar activity is now back to where it was a century ago but the climate is not.
vukcevic says:
March 31, 2013 at 2:00 am
North Atlantic’s ridge tectonics, which again in turn is correlated to the solar activity.
Now, there is a ridiculous statement if we ever saw one.

M.C. Kinville says:
March 29, 2013 at 1:17 pm
I think the field of public communication, or more accurately, propaganda, is where the real science of CAGW is taking place.
————————————
You may be right.
************Note: I believe this was part of CG1 information.*************
Some quotes from:
“The Rules Of The Game”
“Why were the principles created?
The game is communicating climate change; the rules will help us win it.
Changing attitudes towards climate change is not like selling a particular brand of soap –
it’s like convincing someone to use soap in the first place.
However, these principles are a first step to using sophisticated behaviour change modelling and comprehensive evidence from around the world to change attitudes towards climate change. We need to think radically, and the Rules of the Game are a sign that future campaigns will not be ‘business as usual’. This is a truly exciting moment.
1. Challenging habits of climate change communication
Don’t rely on concern about children’s future or human survival instincts.
Recent surveys show that people without children may care more about climate change than those with children. “Fight or flight” human survival instincts have a time limit measured in minutes – they are of little use for a change in climate measured in years.
Don’t create fear without agency
Fear can create apathy if individuals have no ‘agency’ to act upon the threat. Use fear with great caution.
Don’t attack or criticise home or family
It is unproductive to attack that which people hold dear.
3. linking policy and communications
These principles clearly deserve a separate section. All the evidence is clear – sometimes aggressively so – that ‘communications in the absence of policy’ will precipitate the failure of any climate change communications campaign right from the start:
10. Everyone must use a clear and consistent explanation of climate change
The public knows that climate change is important, but is less clear on exactly what it is and how it works.
11. Government policy and communications on climate change must be consistent
Don’t ‘build in’ inconsistency and failure from the start.
For the full evidence for these rules, and the climate change communications strategy itself, please visit: http://www.defra.gov.uk
If you are inspired or sceptical, have questions or want to know more, then please contact:
sustainability communications
020 7733 6363
http://www.futerra.co.uk
climate@futerra.co.uk”
————————————————————————-
This is the pamphlet:
http://www.futerra.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/RulesOfTheGame.pdf
cn

Dr. Svalgaard is now resorting to alarmist talking points (tobacco? really?). How the mighty have fallen. No discussion of time period selection for his statement, as a certain select time period agrees with his assertion. When viewed in toto, his statement is incorrect. Selecting only that evidence (time period for example) which supports your assertion is poor science.
The worst of the warming has been shown to be 0.7C. This is highly contentious when considering that half of that warming is attributable to poor data collection (Watts et al). This is just one chink in the armour that brings us into the realm of solar influence. There are many more.
Dr. Svalgaard uses the poor data collection meme when it suits him (sunspot count) but as is atypical of narcissistic academia, refuses to consider evidence that refutes his weak assertions.
I expect better from Stanford. Black is not white, no matter how condescendingly it is stated.

Walter Dnes says:
March 30, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Thank you.
Do you have Hadsst2 and GISS as well? Thanks!

David Ball says:
March 31, 2013 at 8:32 am
Selecting only that evidence (time period for example) which supports your assertion is poor science.
The worst of the warming has been shown to be 0.7C. This is highly contentious when considering that half of that warming is attributable to poor data collection (Watts et al). This is just one chink in the armour that brings us into the realm of solar influence. There are many more.
Well, the time since 1900 is important because that is where most of the increase in temperature has taken place and the data is best. For the solar part, one could have chosen 1880, it doesn’t change anything. There is no debate about solar activity now being what it was more than a century ago, so you now think that global warming is in debate. Contrast that with Jeff’s comment:
Jeff Glassman says:
March 30, 2013 at 1:54 pm
The best confirmation of the Wang et al. [2005] model is that it leads to an accurate prediction of the global average surface temperatures estimated by HadCRUT3.
I expect better from Stanford. Black is not white, no matter how condescendingly it is stated.
Stated again:
Solar activity is now what is was a century+ ago, but the climate is not.
vukcevic says:
March 31, 2013 at 10:23 am
“Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” – Lord Kelvin
You are now comparing yourself to Lord Kelvin…DK again?
But the correct statement is that there is no evidence for your assertion which is also not plausible on physical grounds. There are words for your fallacies: cum hoc ergo propter hoc and Ignoratio elenchi

In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity – the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels – would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded……
Surely in the financial world any accounting that compared one organisation’s gross outputs with another’s net ones would be held to be so fraudulent as not to have been rated in the first place.
Climate scientists always compare man’s emissions which are in effect gross values, with that of the atmosphere or the net natural value, not that of all natural sources.

Svalgaard & Cliver (2010) says,
>> If these active regions emerge at random longitudes, their net equatorial dipole moment will scale as the square root of their number. Thus their contribution to the average IMF strength will tend to increase as RZ 1/2 (for a detailed discussion, see Wang and Sheeley [2003] and Wang et al. [2005]).
Faced with his own paper “relying on Wang et al. [2005]”, LS (130330 9:00 am) answered,
>>Not at all, that is a gross misrepresentation. What we referred to was our confirmation that their theoretical prediction that the Heliospheric Magnetic Field should scale with the square root of the Sunspot Number. Figure 8 of [link to Svalgaard & Cliver (2005)]
Obviously, that is not what was referred to by Svalgaard & Cliver (2010). LS switched citations from 2010 to 2005. The 2005 paper contains the same two sentences quoted above from the 2010 version, but it also contains this third sentence:
>> We find, indeed, that there is a linear relation between B and the square root of the RZ as shown in Figure 8.
Now defending switching references, LS (3/30/13 3:10 pm) corrected himself again, saying
>> We found back in 2003 http://www.leif.org/research/Determination%20IMF,%20SW,%20EUV,%201890-2003.pdf “Fig. 7. Correlation between monthly means (since 1963) of the near-earth interplanetary magnetic field magnitude and the square root of the Zürich Sunspot Number.”
This newly re-corrected citation is Svalgaard, L. et al, “Determination of Interplanetary Magnetic Field Strength, Solar Wind Speed, and EUV Irradiance, 1890-2003”, 2003. It was published two years before Wang et al. (2005).
LS (3/30/13 3:25 pm) claims
>> Unfortunately Wang’s reconstruction is already falsified [and hence the agreement with the global temperature]. In the Wang reconstruction most of the increase in TSI since the Maunder Minimum took place in the time since 1900. See: e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.png. Today we know that this increase did not happen, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL046658.pdf [Schrijver et al. (2011)] “drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’s long‐term climate change”
Schrijver, id., argues for an increase of the Maunder Minimum from 400-1100 ppm (0.54-1.51 W/m^2, id., p. 5 of 6) to 140 to 360 ppm (0.19-0.49 W/m^2, id., p. 1 of 6), relative to 1996, which has a local, peak-to-peak range of 1360.7 – 1361.8 W/m^2. The first range corresponds to the Wang (2005) Maunder Minimum of 1360.135. SORCE/TIM TSI Reconstruction. LS gives these values for the Maunder Minimum: Wang2005, 1365.017; LEIF2007, 1365.598. TSI-LEIF.png, above. Disregarding the baseline discrepancy of 4.88 W/m^2 (1365.017 – 1360.135), LS has raise the Maunder Minimum by 0.58 W/m^2, or 423 ppm. Schrijver confirms, having raised it between 260 and 740 ppm. But there’s more.
LS’s citation from Schrijver et al. expanded reads:
>>IF the 2008– 2009 solar magnetic activity is indeed similar to the Maunder Minimum level as we argue here, then it would appear that drivers other than TSI dominate Earth’ s long‐term climate change. This implies that new studies are warranted concerning the Sun‐climate relationship, including the construction of the solar spectral irradiance that incorporates the persistence of the ephemeral‐region population, the diagnostic value of the geomagnetic indices, the differences between heliospheric and surface magnetic fields, the derivation of Earth’s temperature record during the Maunder Minimum, the feedback processes that may amplify the climate response to solar forcing, and the effects of volcanos [Crowley , 2000] and other climate drivers internal to the Earth system during and after the Maunder Minimum. Caps added, Schrijver (2011) p. 5 of 6.
The LS/Schrijver argument is a hypothetical.
LS (3/30/13 5:57 am) said,
>>This argument applies equally well to those who assert that ‘it is the Sun, stupid’. They assume that we know enough about the Sun and its effect on this planet’ to be able to state that the Sun is the main driver of climate. The main driver turns out to be Jupiter, not the Sun. The Sun simply does not vary enough. Citation deleted.
Apparently Jupiter is a driver of Earth’s climate in the same sense that CO2, El Niño, and other minor feedbacks are drivers. In the sense of thermodynamic drivers, the Earth of course has but three sources of heat: the Sun, orbital mechanics, and internal radioactive decay. But for the Sun, the oceans would be frozen and Earth would have a dry atmosphere and an uninteresting climate.
As LS recognizes above and by his IDV parameter, the Sun does vary. What he and Schrijver do not to appreciate in their work is that Earth’s climate has a positive feedback that amplifies solar variations. Stott, et al, “Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?”, 2003; Tung, et al., “Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response”, 2008. However, IPCC climatologists and these researchers have ignored the obvious source: cloud cover. It responds rapidly to TSI (positive feedback) and slowly to surface temperature (slow feedback). It does so by changing Earth’s albedo. That makes cloud cover the most powerful feedback in climate. And it’s absence in the GCMs is a big problem, recognized even by IPCC (“major source of uncertainty”, “somewhat unsettling”, “amplitude and even the sign of cloud feedbacks … highly uncertain”, “albedo … highly significant”, “results … drastically altered”, 4AR, ¶1.5.2 Model Clouds and Climate Sensitivity, p. 114.) but never repaired.
LS and Schrijver need Wang to be wrong, so they publish fantastic new studies to prove their point. The importance of the Wang (2005) model coupled with the HadCRUT3 GAST model is two-fold. First, these records were approved and featured by IPCC in AR4 to promote its AGW model. Second, the two models agree by a relatively simple transfer function, showing all the things promised previously that contradict the AGW model. But climatologists have a problem with transfer functions, too. GCMs have no flow variables so they no place to insert a transfer function. These models are steady state fictions, relying on unrealistic, assumed states of equilibrium. Consequently, they have no heat capacitance and no reactive elements (lags) for the transfer functions. IPCC’s own data contradicts its pseudo-scientific model.
Far from being falsified, the Wang (2005) model, and not one of the solar scientists’ modifications, was current in AR4 and is still current. It is featured prominently on the SORCE TSI web page as the model for historical TSI reconstruction, updated as recently as 2/4/13. http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm
LS (3/30/13 3:10 pm) urges
>>IDV is not derived from a model but from 1,375,000 daily measurements (3775 station‐years) of the geomagnetic field. The measurements select Wang’s model S1 as the better one to use.
First, his emphasis is misplaced because no one claimed that the IDV was “derived from a model”. The claim is that the IDV is a model, a model for the variability in solar data.
Secondly, his conclusion that Wang’s S1 is the “better one” is unsupported. The competing TSI models estimate from multiple solar parameters, which generally are correlated. What is a best estimate for an included parameter does not generally produce the least error for the parent model. What is required for optimization is simultaneous regression on all parameters to minimize the error, here TSI, not the error in each parameter, such as IDV.
The several Svalgaard citations, above, are replete with records fitted by a linear regression onto other functions. Examples include B = 4.62+0.2731R^1/2 (2005, p. 7 of 9)), and IDV = 4.67+0.721R^1/2 (2003, p. 2), where R is one or another sunspot number. In 2004, LS estimates am = 5.6131-IHV_FRD -4.4941 or am = 4.697*IHV, and aa = 4.8304*IHV_FRD -1.7267, where IHV = Inter-Hourly Variability index and FRD likely stands for Fredericksburg. In some cases, these are least squares fits, and in others, “best-fit”.
So because the Wang model uses solar parameters, in particular the geomagnetic index, aa, and the total sunspot number R_tot, (Wang et al. (2005), id., p. 533), the best estimate for any other parameter, such as B or IDV, would be that parameter’s residue orthogonal to the other parameters. What is a best fit for estimating TSI is not the best fits for each parameter except when they mutually independent.
Wang et al. chose something between the S1 square root model and the S2 linear model because that produced the most accurate estimate of TSI. LS and Schrijver et al. prefer Wang’s model S1 because it is better for AGW enthusiasts —it reduces the predictive power of the Wang (2005) model, which inconveniently contradicts AGW at its core.