UAH global temperature, down significantly

In reply to:
Jeff L says:
May 4, 2013 at 5:49 pm
William Astley says:
May 4, 2013 at 4:48 pm
William – Has this paper been published ? If so , in which journal?
Yes.
The paper in question is a review paper of the science and was published in the set of AGU review papers.
http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v141/141GM22/141GM22.shtml
It has been known for sometime that solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with cyclic climate change. It appears the sun is causing the cyclic climate changes. See for example the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles during the current interglacial, captured in the Greenland Ice sheet data. The D-O cycles have a periodicity of 1450 years (discrete plus or minus 500 years, 950 years, 1450 years, and 1950 years). The late Gerald Bond has able to track 23 of the D-O cycles and found that solar magnetic cycle changes correlate with all of the D-O cycles. What is not known is how the solar magnetic cycle changes cause what is observed.
As it appears the sun is moving in the strange magnetic cycle that causes either a D-O cycle or a Heinrich event we may have an opportunity to directly observe the mechanisms.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1999/QuatSciRevvGeel/1999QuatSciRevvGeel.pdf
“The role of solar forcing upon climate change”
When solar activity is high, the extended solar magnetic field sweeps through interplanetary space, thereby more effectively shielding the Earth from cosmic rays and reducing the production of 14C. Low solar activity lets more cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere, producing more 14C. So the 14C record is a good proxy for the solar radiant output (Bard et al., 1997).
However, explaining the observed changes in 14C concentration by production-rate variations alone is too simple an assumption, the more so when rapid 14C concentration changes appear to be coincident with significant changes in climate.
However, if we observe sudden, major 14C increases like the ones starting at c. 850 cal. BC and at c. 1600 AD (about 20 per mil), it is hard to imagine any change in the global carbon cycle that can bring about such a drastic fast change, simply because there is no reservoir of carbon with higher 14C concentration available anywhere on Earth. Even a sudden stop of the upwelling of old carbon-containing deep water could not cause the sudden (within decades) 14C concentration increases that are documented in the dendrochronological records. So, if we observe that such a sudden 14C increase, which must be caused by a production increase, is accompanied by indications for a change towards colder or wetter climate, this may indicate that solar forcing of the climate does exist. In theory, increased production of cosmogenic isotopes can also have a cause of cosmic origin such as a nearby supernova (Sonnett et al., 1987). We consider this scenario unlikely, and note here that events such as the 850 cal. BC peak are present in the dendrochronological curve with a periodicity of about 2400 years (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1989; see below).
“A number of those Holocene climate cooling phases… most likely of a global nature (eg Magney, 1993; van Geel et al, 1996; Alley et al 1997; Stager & Mayewski, 1997) … the cooling phases seem to be part of a millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independent of the glacial-interglacial cycles (which are) forced (perhaps paced) by orbit variations.”
“… we show here evidence that the variation in solar activity is a cause for the millennial scale climate change.”
Last 40 kyrs
Figure 2 in paper. (From data last 40 kyrs)… “conclude that solar forcing of climate, as indicated by high BE10 values, coincided with cold phases of Dansgaar-Oeschger events as shown in O16 records

So temperatures are back to where they were in 1983.
This is not what Hansen predicted five years ago. However this is what Bastardi predicted five years ago.
While I tend to feel a person is going out on a limb, and a bit crazy, to even try to predict the future weather of this amazing planet, I do try to give credit where credit is due.
So who does a layman trust more? Hansen or Bastardi?