The warming 'plateau' may extend back even further

The link to Dr. Spencer is a dead end at GWPF

Speaking of global cooling – I seem to recall the Washington Post in 1971 carrying a story about the coming ice age. I believe they quoted scientists who were using Jim Hansen’s Venus Atmosphere model and predicted an ice age in the next 50 years due to fossil fuel emissions. I wonder if that means Hansen’s software demonstrated that fossil fuels are so evil they will either boil us or freeze us. There again it might mean his modelling is just crap.

I disagree with everything Ryan is going to say 😉

The posting by Dr. Whitehouse concludes with “Removing this noise is tricky, but without it there is a hint, just a hint, that sans El Nino/La Nina effects and volcanic dips, the global temperature might be reducing.”
Well … I thought this had been done? Foster & Rahmstorf (http://tinyurl.com/czdx6va) do exactly that and address this issue with disturbing results.
I wonder if Dr. Whitehouse might comment on the Foster & Rahmstorf paper, perhaps unpacking how and why his conclusions differ?

The children of Central England won’t know what snow is. 🙂 This claim for the UK was brought to you by a climate modeler at CRU called Dr. David Viner. Why should I give any weight to what these Climastrologists have to say.
“Mean Central England Temperature Annual anomalies, 1772 to 9th June 2013”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/

We can argue about the plateau, but what I find significant is their admission that they haveno explanation. In other words, they really don’t know everything about what drives the climate. Therefore why should I believe their hypothesis that the globe will continue to warn in the future when they couldn’t predict the plateau?

“There was another very important volcanic eruption in the 1980s – El Chichon in 1982 – whose aerosols actually reduced solar irradiance by an even greater extent than Pinatubo.”
The way this is worded one would get the impression that a volcanic eruption would have an effect on the Sun itself. These volcanic aerosols reduce INSOLATION.

“…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on.”
Well, there you have it – the central reason for the corruption of climate science. These people (specifically the CAGW warmists) have so much “riding” on their “forecast” that they will stop at nothing to pervert the science to make it come true…

fredb says:
June 12, 2013 at 3:42 am
“The posting by Dr. Whitehouse concludes with “Removing this noise is tricky, but without it there is a hint, just a hint, that sans El Nino/La Nina effects and volcanic dips, the global temperature might be reducing.”
Well … I thought this had been done? Foster & Rahmstorf (http://tinyurl.com/czdx6va) do exactly that and address this issue with disturbing results.”
Foster & Rahmstorf would rather drop dead than using UAH data.

DirkH: Can you substantiate your allegation? Perhaps email the authors and ask before jumping to conclusions? Perhaps redo the analysis yourself with UAH to demonstrate your implied meaning?
I do agree it would be interesting to see the analysis with all appropriate data sets.
Nonetheless, however you feel, I would love to hear Dr. Whitehouse give a response here.

Kasuha says:
June 12, 2013 at 4:53 am
………The important fact is that real world values more and more significantly deviate from model projections and that happens regardless of whether we want to see a plateau in the data or not.

We often drift away from this core issue. On the other hand NOAA and Santer give us 15 and 17 year tests respectively.
How much longer does this need to go one before we see a white flag? Someone on their side needs to step up to the block and say ‘we were mistaken. It’s not as bad as we thought. Draconian measure no longer required.’

The temperature plateau after 2000 has been predicted by the astronomical harmonic model of climate change that I proposed in my peer review literature.
Essentially, there are large decadal and multidecadal cycles of astronomical origin that the models do not reconstruct and, because of this, the models overestimate the anthropogenic effect to fit the data.
see here for more information
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
At the bottom page is my model with the updated temperature

If these people can’t explain the slowdown, then why in the world would anyone believe that they can explain or predict the warming?

Warming starts with a La Nina, not the peak of al El Nino. It is an equatorial oceanic clear sky solar heating phenomenom, not an air temperature phenomenom, and starts before the El Nino peak of 98. Why we talk of the heat associated with the 1998 El Nino, I don’t get. El Nino’s cool the planet, eventually. Heat is released, not taken in (granted the released heat moves through the atmosphere on its way out). Without the heat releasing thus cooling El Nino’s we would indeed become a cooked planet.

“The starting point is almost always 1998…”
NO.
In the various calcs of the length of the stable temperature period we are currently enjoying, the starting point is never 1998. The starting point is always the present. The length of the model-falsifying plateau is then calculated by answering the question “How far back can we go without a slope to the linear regression of temperatures.”
By pretending that the ending point of such analysis is the starting point, Justin Gillis and other similarly dishonest warmist propagandists attempt to dismiss the lack of their predicted warming with a false charge of cherry picking. .Starting at the present is not cherry picking. The present is the necessary starting point for analyzing current trends. The stopping point, whether that is 1998 or some other year, is not picked – cherry or otherwise. Instead, it is the result of the dataset that is used and the criteria of significance (the degree of warming, flat, or cooling) that is applied.
Starting at the present, the period of flat temps extends back to 1995-1998. Starting at the present, the period of warming extends back to well before CO2 could have been a measurable factor in the rise. For the near future, any assessment of the length of the period of insignificant warming will end in the vicinity of 1998. This result demonstrates that the vicinity of 1998 is when the trend of the surface temp of the earth flattened. According to ‘global warming’ theory, in the vicinity of 1998 and since, the trend of the surface temp of the earth should have been accelerating. These are very inconvenient facts for adherents of the ‘global warming’ religious/political belief system.

There is a fundamental flaw (well… many, really) in the way people like Gillis address the Skeptical argument. They seem to think that we don’t believe that CO2 is a green house gas, or that the planet hasn’t warmed since the end of the LIA. This is absurdly false.
The problem is that I can argue that CO2’s greenhouse effect contributes to Global climate in direct proportion to it’s atmospheric concentration of GHGs, or about 1.6% of total warming and be called a “denier” while agreeing that CO2 is a GHG.
We are skeptical of their “forcing” hypothesis, we are skeptical of their adjustments to the climate record… in short, we are skeptical of all those claims that they assert that CO2 warms the atmosphere beyond it’s chemical capacity to trap heat.

In the face of continuing increases of CO2 in the atmosphere, for how many years of stable or falling temperatures do we have to wait before scientists begin to ask themselves if there can possibly exist a “greenhouse effect”? Statistics are so readily abused because people concentrate on esoteric numeric manipulations and ignore the most basic and easily learnt foundations of the craft. If inaccurate and poorly representative data is combined with an effect that has no properly stated paradigm nor demonstrated existence, then where is the claim for ‘science’?

DirkH: sorry, but thats a load of opinion. Which of course you are entirely entitled to. I’ll rather wait for a substantive response from Dr Whitehouse (or someone who’ll do the analysis … not sure I’m comptetent to do it myself).

Joe Ryan says:
June 12, 2013 at 6:59 am
There is a fundamental flaw (well… many, really) in the way people like Gillis address the Skeptical argument. They seem to think that we don’t believe that CO2 is a green house gas, or that the planet hasn’t warmed since the end of the LIA. This is absurdly false.
The problem is that I can argue that CO2′s greenhouse effect contributes to Global climate in direct proportion to it’s atmospheric concentration of GHGs, or about 1.6% of total warming and be called a “denier” while agreeing that CO2 is a GHG.
We are skeptical of their “forcing” hypothesis, we are skeptical of their adjustments to the climate record… in short, we are skeptical of all those claims that they assert that CO2 warms the atmosphere beyond it’s chemical capacity to trap heat.

The AGW fanatics and doomsayers love to use strawman arguments instead of discussing the real concerns of the skeptics. It’s another tactic they use to marginalize the dissidents.
BTW: You will find some people posting on this blog that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. This is not a mainstream skeptical argument, however.

” I wonder if that means Hansen’s software demonstrated that fossil fuels are so evil they will either boil us or freeze us. There again it might mean his modelling is just crap.”
It is very easy to write software that tells you what you want. It’s very, very hard to write software that tells you something you didn’t already know.

@William Howard Astley
The JASON Defense Advisory Panel wrote about what would happen under CO2 induced global warming, including arctic amplification here: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/co2.pdf
•The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate, JSR-78-07, April 1979
“They found that a doubling of carbon dioxide content raises the average temperature 2.9′ and the calculations indicate a warming of 8′ to 20′ in the high latitudes with smaller than average increases in the equatorial regions.” (pp. 23-24)
———
so, yeah, things are moving along pretty much exactly like they were understood back in 1974 when these calculations were made by Manabe and Weatherald in the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
———–
It is hard to believe in your theory of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle (re: solar magnetic cycles) when you think that arctic amplification is supposed to be caused by variances in CO2 concentrations. This is just plain wrong.
the predominant theory behind Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles is that they are caused by interruptions and restarts of the AMOC.
———-
Finally,
If you remove the cooling from El Chichon and Pinatubo and then reduce the warming from the El Ninos and reduce the cooling from the La ninas you get a graph that shows a very real and increasing rate of temperature increase, even using the RSS data which misses 7.5 degrees of latitude in the furtherst northern region where the amplification has been occurring.
here is the increase without the corrections showing surface, UAH and RSS temperatures: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html
Here is the increase with the corrections: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/ see figure 5 it shows a clear global warming signal of 6.5 degrees since 1945.
Of course he has objections so he says,
1) F&R assume that temperature change from for exaple El Nino or period of raised Solar activity etc. will dissapear fully immidiately after such an event ends. F&R assumes that heat does not accumulate from one temperature event to the next.
2) Missing corrections for PDO
3) Missing corrections for human aerosols – (supposed to be important)
4) Missing corrections for AMO
5) F&R could have mentioned the effect of their adjustments before 1979
None of which detracts from the point which is,
If you remove the signals from volcanoes (which there were some effects after 1991) and then correct for ENSO values (ocean heat moving out of the ocean or into the ocean due to less or more mixing during wind events) and then correct for the 11 year solar cycle you get 6.5 degrees of consistent warming since 1945.
and that is why this site uses RSS data almost exclusively along with only showing temperature values since 1997 to include the largest el nino in recorded history.

Didn’t NOAA predict a very warm Spring and continuation of drought in the U.S.?

jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
Here is the increase with the corrections:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/17/frank-lansner-on-foster-and-rahmstorf-2011/ see figure 5 it shows a clear global warming signal of 6.5 degrees since 1945.
It is only 0.65 C in 60 years which is about 1.08 C in 100 years.

I have a theory that, when all else is said and done, most people, without even knowing it, will fairly quickly drop clues as to what they’re really all about (yours truly included). I think the following statement by Justin Gillis is such an example, and not in the way he thinks:
‘…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on.’
What is “riding on the scientific forecast” is the reputation and trust in the IPCC (and thus in the UN itself), in the governments and their taxing bodies that forwarded policies that damaged their constituents, in the members of the scientific community that sucked on the same teat of those taxpayer funds, and finally, in the slavishly ennobling media that rode, and continues to ride, on this same train wreck. Continuing that train ride is what the stakes are. That’s what Justin Gillis is truly concerned about.

Dr Scafetta’s 114.79 year solar cycle in my estimation has not received the attention it deserves. It should bottom out somewhere around the year 2029. The 61 year climate cycle should bottom out somewhere around 2024. Also the Sun appears to be finally settling down and possibly preparing for the minimum (~2020). If there is a major cooling in the cards, it should happen incrementally over the next 16 years.

To Rud Istvan:
Actually, it was NOAA that set the 15-year goalpost in 2008, not NASA.

Its been clear for a long time that the ‘essential ‘ time line is has long as it needs to be to support ‘the cause ‘ so one year is more then enough to prove it and 15 years not enough to disprove it .
And they there is the very unscientific fall back of ‘its going to happen ‘ a claim that although meaningless is also very hard to disprove . A factor that plays a large part in the change from alarmist making forecasts for the next year years to ones a century ahead when none of them will be around to be called out on their BS.

William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 8:40 am
As the solar magnetic cycle has been interrupted
You have never specified what ‘interrupted’ means. By any sensible definition, your statement is simply wrong. To my knowledge there has been no ‘interruption’ of anything, so please educate me.

jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 11:45 am
“Keep your eyes on the arctic people something pretty incredible is happening right now up there.”
Could you give me a hint? From my view the Arctic is almost always doing something incredible, but I just did a quick scan of the Sea Ice Page and almost all the sources there seem to be pretty average incredible at the moment.

From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 11:45 am:

there is essentially no deviation between the RSS and UAH data. both are significantly flawed and underestimate warming.

Since both are measuring the same thing as well as scientifically possible, and can be using the same raw satellite data with the only great difference being the processing, of course they should be very similar.
But they are verified against radiosonde balloon measurements, etc, proving they are not “significantly flawed” and measure what they measure accurately.
That they refuse to show the warming of the knowingly-corrupted surface records indicts the surface records, not the satellite records.
And if that’s all the reply you have now that you’re been found out, you should ask yourself, is this job worth it? I noticed you popped up in the “summer job” season, you can’t be making much above minimum.
Really, please consider honest work, like pizza delivery. The tips are great, you can triple your on-the-books income. Granted, for a Gaia-lover as committed as you’ve portrayed yourself to be, you’d need three fully-charged Nissan Leafs to get through a full shift, but hey, it’d be more honest than what you’re doing now!

Dave,
You won’t see it up there for another few weeks. the hint I will give you is in the comparison with the arctic Ice concentration comparison with 2007. This is something we have never seen before. It indicates that the arctic has entered into a new state.
Chrisy
according to wood for trees we have had .5 warming since 1978 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:20/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:500/mean:20/plot/gistemp/last:500/mean:20/plot/rss/mean:20/plot/uah/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:420/trend/plot/gistemp/last:420/trend/plot/rss/trend
that’s half a degree centigrade in 35 years. Which means that in the next 87 years (2100) we will experience an additional 1.2C warming. However, that is assuming that the warming is going to be linear when we know that the rate of warming is increasing.
And, that the current warming trend is the result of the CO2 emitted 30 years ago because of the delay in temperatures caused by the mixing of the ocean and the delay factor in reaching thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth won’t reach equilibrium for another 500 years or so. That means we have an additional warming locked in that is 2.5C at today’s CO2 concentration and that is not including the loss of arctic sea ice as a positive albedo feedback.

John says:
June 12, 2013 at 6:45 am
Whatever the actual effect of CO2 and co-amissions — I don’t think they are zero, but they are likely much less than the IPCC says, more like what Pat Michaels and all the new articles about climate sensitivity say — Gillis’ piece is propaganda. Here is why:
True John, very much agree with your points
John says: Two problems with this:
1. That isn’t what Gillis and the people this article represents were saying a couple of years ago, they were denying there was any significant flattening of temperatures, while they denigrated the people who pointed out the diversion between model and reality; and
2. The models say this shouldn’t be happening, contrary to Gillis’ new spin about natural variability.
Indeed, Gillis and the CAGW crowd have long tried to deny – and even now some of them do – the significant flattening of the temperatures. And yes they denigrated the people who pointed that out and the diversion between model and reality.
This needs saying and being clearly highlighted.
John says: So this is more propaganda: deny anything is wrong with the models (who is the “Denier”?} until it gets too obvious that there is an issue, relative to reality. Then and only then do you admit to the obvious, fail to apologize to those you denegrated or acknowledge that they were right, and say that, OK, the models and reality aren’t exactly in sync, but you wouldn’t really expect them to be in sync. The opposite of what you said a few years ago.
True.
I would add to your analysis that furthermore in the article Gillis is trying to point to a potential escape route: the heat is going into the ocean. What he is again not correctly mentioning is that we have a better idea of the ocean heat content since the ARGO deployment – which covers a good part of the mentioned stalling interval, and he again misses to acknowledge that the ocean heat shown by ARGO is in great discrepancy to what the models predict.
So how can he suggest that the extra heat is going into the oceans when not even the “normal” heat as forecasted by the models can be found there.
I remember Bill Illis had some very good charts comparing the models forecasted heat and the real measured heat. The same with Bob Tisdale,
So again, the article is (grudgingly) admitting the temperature stalling, but continues to be a dishonest propaganda article, not a balanced scientific view.
William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 8:40 am
The lack of warming is only one of the many anomalies that the warmists have ignored
Thanks William, it is always good to reread your posts, it is clearly explained how the models do model the CO2 warming:
William Astley says: The CO2 warming mechanism based on its theory should have cause a specific warming pattern. That pattern is not observed…..the potential …. for CO2 forcing with latitude should be roughly constant.
In the tropics the actual forcing due the CO2 increase (based on the warmist theory not on observation) should be proportionally larger than other latitudes on the planet
Whereas what we observe is warming in the Arctic areas.
(Btw as a side note: have not GISS and HARDCRUT added Arctic temperature data to their new versions?)
William Astley says: The temperature anomaly in the Northern hemisphere ex-tropics (not including the tropical region) is 4 times greater the temperature anomaly of the tropics and twice the temperature anomaly of the planet as whole.
Thanks for pointing this additional discrepancy between models and reality, as it may be a major flaw in understand what warmed and understand what caused the warming.
This comes in addition to the admition that the base 3.7 W/m2 warming thought to be caused by a CO2 doubling is now being reduced to 3.44 W7M2.
From your above explanation that the models show a wrong pattern of warming, would further derive that the CO2 doubling warming is even smaller then this and there are other factors at play.

more soylent green! says:
June 12, 2013 at 9:09 am
“BTW: You will find some people posting on this blog that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. This is not a mainstream skeptical argument, however.”
The mainstream? Is that the sceptical consensus by any chance? Is scepticism subject to boundaries? My position for some years on this and other blogs is not that CO2 alone is not a greenhouse gas, but that a ‘greenhouse effect’ does not exist per se. I am not aware that I have been moderated in this respect on this blog.

“Keep your eyes on the arctic people something pretty incredible is happening right now up there.”
Yep.. its called FREEZING.
The current Ice level is well above any of the past 10 or so years.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area_small.png
and the mean temp above 80degN is sitting below the 40 year average.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2013.png

[Snip. Read the site Policy page. Your insulting pejoratives put you in violation. — mod.]

Nicola Scafetta says:
June 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Not really, Leif. The problem with your “straight line” model is that it does not fit the temperature before 2000, while my model fit it before and after 2000.
Fitting the past is no big deal, everybody claims to do that. And BTW your ‘model’ was a very poor [perfect anti-fit] fit around 2010…

From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm:

according to wood for trees we have had .5 warming since 1978 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:20/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:500/mean:20/plot/gistemp/last:500/mean:20/plot/rss/mean:20/plot/uah/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:420/trend/plot/gistemp/last:420/trend/plot/rss/trend
that’s half a degree centigrade in 35 years. Which means that in the next 87 years (2100) we will experience an additional 1.2C warming.

At this time, for the record, do you wish to declare that your call-out for that graph was not a deliberate act of deception, but instead was due to mere ignorance and/or incompetence?
From the Raw Data link, as the data currently stand:
On your trend lines, see the range displayed:
System–Period
UAH 1978.92 to 2013.42
HADCRUT4 1978.33 to 2012.33
GISTEMP 1978.33 to 2013.33
RSS 1979.00 to 2013.42
Notice how they don’t match? Unless you want to pull a less-than-scientific “Close enough, rounds up the same”, it’s better to do a specific call-out rather than “last 420” or whatever. What you did was actually invalid.
The 20-mo smoothing is also strange, 13 months centered (6 months on each side) is a good amount. Use just enough to dampen the sharp squiggles without losing the overall bump detail.
And all four certainly did not yield 0.5°C warming, as you called it out RSS was only 0.44, round to 0.4, for example.
Let’s see what a proper call-out looks like, identical start and stop dates, with a 13-mo smoothing.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend
Voila!
UAH rose 0.0138°C per year, 1.38°C/century, would rise 1.20°C by 2100 if the trend holds.
HADCRUT4 rose 0.0156°C/yr, 1.56°C/century, 1.35°C by 2100.
GISTEMP rose 0.0157°C/yr, 1.57°C/century, 1.37°C by 2100.
RSS rose 0.0123°C/yr, 1.23°C/century, 1.07°C by 2100.
See, only UAH had the “additional 1.2C warming”, and the average was actually 1.25°C.

However, that is assuming that the warming is going to be linear when we know that the rate of warming is increasing.

Gee, let’s look at the historical rates of temperature change, over ten year periods. We’ll use GISTEMP as it clearly had the highest rates of linear warming thus offhand should yield the “worst case” scenario.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2003/to:2013/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/to:2010/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1997/to:2007/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1994/to:2004/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1991/to:2001/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1988/to:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1985/to:1995/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1982/to:1992/trend
I’d say the rate of warming is clearly decreasing, and that’s according to the “most extreme” dataset. Feel free to change it to the other systems for comparison.
There it is buddy, you can see it for yourself. Numbers don’t lie.

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 12, 2013 at 4:01 pm
“Fitting the past is no big deal, everybody claims to do that. And BTW your ‘model’ was a very poor [perfect anti-fit] fit around 2010…”
Well Leif:
1) despite that “Fitting the past is no big deal” as you claim, your “straight line model” does not fit it for sure so your model can be trashed, doesn’t it?
2) My model is not just a “fitting” but uses specific harmonics from astronomical considerations.
3) My model greatly outperforms all IPCC models in reconstructing the past temperature.
Scafetta N., 2012. Testing an astronomically based decadal-scale empirical harmonic climate model versus the IPCC (2007) general circulation climate models. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 124-137.
4) My model uses harmonics from 9 year period and above, that is the reason why the fast 2-year ENSO oscillations are not reconstructed as in 2010 and elsewhere. The model is simply not supposed to reconstruct the ENSO oscillation.
5) My model extends for millennia. See here
Scafetta N., 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 80, 296-311.
Or at least read my summary here:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
You do not have arguments any more, don’t you? And use so naive comments that even the most inexperienced of the WUWT readers would be able to find it out and laugh at you.
(let us hope that Antony reads)

jai mitchell-
“that’s half a degree centigrade in 35 years. Which means that in the next 87 years (2100) we will experience an additional 1.2C warming. However, that is assuming that the warming is going to be linear when we know that the rate of warming is increasing.”
This must be the royal ‘we’ of which you write. The Ocophobes agree that warming has slowed or stopped over the last 10 or 15 or 20 or more years, which is longer than the warming trend that convinced Hansen that CACC was 99% certain back in 1988. Recent trend estimates are here-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/#more-79260
“For this analysis, data was retrieved from WoodForTrees.org and the ironically named SkepticalScience.com. This analysis indicates how long there has not been significant warming at the 95% level on various data sets. The first number in each case was sourced from WFT. However the second +/- number was taken from SkepticalScience.com.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.136 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.143 +/- 0.173 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.098 +/- 0.113 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hacrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.
For GISS: 0.116 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996”
More from jai-
“And, that the current warming trend is the result of the CO2 emitted 30 years ago because of the delay in temperatures caused by the mixing of the ocean and the delay factor in reaching thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth won’t reach equilibrium for another 500 years or so.”
In 1988, when the science was already dead-certain settled, Hansen predicted that, if CO2 emissions stopped after the year 2000, global temperature rise would stop in 3 or 4 years.
More from jai-
“That means we have an additional warming locked in that is 2.5C at today’s CO2 concentration and that is not including the loss of arctic sea ice as a positive albedo feedback.”
Positive albedo feedback from Arctic sea ice loss is, as usual, only part of the story. Arctic sea ice loss creates a huge cooling (i.e. negative) feedback for more than 9 months of the year.

hmm, Guess I will have to restate it then
This is the year when deniers/doubters/contrarians are proven to be either just not up to speed on the real science, (for varying reasons) or working to intentionally cloud the debate on the reality of the science because they are actually working for PR firms who are hired by the fossil fuel industry, just like those same organizations were hired by the tobacco companies (except the fossil fuel industry has considerably more money and political influence).
I won’t use the UAH since it is a faulty indicator-published by a sceptic who receives money indirectly from the fossil fuel industry through the heartland and marshall institutes. It is not indicative of actual global temperatures (it is tropical and tropospheric) nor will I use the RSS values since it excludes the arctic which warms much more than the rest of the plant, bringing a lower value of temperature rise. Both of the satellite series show more rapid cooling rates after each El Nino spike due to lower moisture contents at the region being analysed. Therefore they are not accurate for determining surface temperature changes. The Hadley is the most reliable method and has been confirmed by the Berkeley earth study which compared it with over a billion individual surface temperature readings.

Leif Svalgaard says:
June 12, 2013 at 6:33 pm
“Subtracting a linear trend is responsible for the fit.. The linear trend has no basis in solar activity as solar activity in the last half of the 18th century was even higher than today.”
Which linear trend are you talking about? The result of the test comparing the astronomical harmonic model and the IPCC models is not influenced by that. Also the IPCC models get the upward trend. The difference with the astronomical harmonic model is in the ability of the latter to get correctly the climate oscillations, such as the 20, 20 and 60 year oscillations, which the IPCC model do not get.
Moreover, the test uses the data since 1850, not 1750 as you misinterpret.
Finally, solar activity in the last half of the 18th century reached a brief maximum, as my model predicts too, and it caused a warming as the system came out of the Little Ice Age. So, what?
That it was higher or not than the current solar maximum in 2000 is debated.
In any case, you also do not get the point that the climate does not respond linearly to solar forcing, don’t you?
And do not get the point that even if the sun may reach a maximum, it does not imply that he temperature too increases linearly with it. The temperature goes smoother.
Try to do some experiment at home with a pot of water on the fire and a thermometer.
Start with cold water. Put the water in the pot and the thermometer in the pot to measure the water temperature. Now put the fire (which simulates the sun) at high for 5 minutes and record the temperature at the end. Then turn off the fire for 3 minute. Then turn the fire to high again for 5 minutes and record the temperature at the end, and turn off for 3 minutes. And continue in this way for a while.
You may discover that while the fire “maxima” were all equal, the temperature maxima were not, but gradually increased for accumulation of absorbed heat.
Leif, you really look to be suffering of some painful disorder that is not letting you to get and/or acknowledging the reality of the things. I really wish you well.

Nicola Scafetta says:
June 12, 2013 at 8:44 pm
You may discover that while the fire “maxima” were all equal, the temperature maxima were not, but gradually increased for accumulation of absorbed heat.
disregarding your other nonsense, your example predicts ever-increasing temperature ad infinitum.
Leif, you really look to be suffering of some painful disorder that is not letting you to get and/or acknowledging the reality of the things. I really wish you well.
This seems to be your level of scientific discourse.

William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Your above comments (pores merging to form sunspots) is not correct.
Perhaps some excerpts from the literature will help you.
Here is what the respected solar physicist Peter Foukal says in his textbook on solar activity [Solar Astrophysics, ISBN 3-527-40374-4, from 2004, Wiley, page 240]: “A spot is born by the darkening and growth in diameter of a pore … Only a small fraction of the many pores observed turn into spots, and over half of these spots, in turn, last less than 2 days … Subsequent growth of spots that are longer lived than about a day takes place mainly by coalescence of smaller spots … Large spots that are formed by coalescence of smaller spots generally seem also to divide first into smaller spots, which then decay in situ”.
And here is what C. A. Young suad in his celebrated book ‘The Sun’ from 1881 [Appleton and Co, New York] page: “Generally, for some time before the appearance of the spot, there is an evident disturbance of the solar surface, manifested especially by the presence of numerous and brilliant faculae, among which, ‘pores’ or minute black dots are scattered. … The ‘pores’, some of them, coalesce with the principal spot, some disappear, and others constitute the attendant train [between the spots] before referred to.
Bray and Loughhead in the classic work ‘Sunspots’ [Dover, New York, ISBN 0-486-63731-X, 1964] say: “Sunspot pores are sma;;, long-lived, dark regions … it is believed that all sunspots begin their lives as pores [page 52] … It has been known since the time of the early visual observers that all sunspots begin their lives as pores [page 72] …”
And so on.
Now, unfortunately some people often forget what has been known for centuries only to re-discover the truth when new data becomes available. Here is a good example of a persistent myth that you also seem to subscribe to:
“The Hinode observations of emergent sunspot 10926 challenge traditional views of sunspot formation. Before Hinode data came on line, a solar physicist might have described the birth of a sunspot as follows:
“Sunspots are formed when a ‘rope’ of strong magnetic field beaches the visible surface of the sun (the photosphere). Magnetic ropes develop deep below the photosphere and emerge as an arcade-like structure….”
The trilobite data show a different process at work:
“The emergence of the sunspot magnetism progressed in a very complex manner, with small pieces appearing to self-assemble into larger, more coherent structures,” says Marc DeRosa, a scientist from Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, Calif. From http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/18sep_trilobite/

From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 7:42 pm:

This is the year when deniers/doubters/contrarians are proven to be either just not up to speed on the real science, (for varying reasons) or working to intentionally cloud the debate on the reality of the science because they are actually working for PR firms who are hired by the fossil fuel industry, just like those same organizations were hired by the tobacco companies (except the fossil fuel industry has considerably more money and political influence).

Thus this year is identical to the previous five-plus years when they said they’d “prove” those same things. This much longer, all they’ve done is make piles of unproven accusations that might be prosecutable as slander/libel if skeptics had as much money to sue as the warmists have to defend themselves. Hell, we have to start a legal defense fund if a skeptic has to consult a lawyer.

I won’t use the UAH since it is a faulty indicator-published by a sceptic who receives money indirectly from the fossil fuel industry through the heartland and marshall institutes. It is not indicative of actual global temperatures (it is tropical and tropospheric)…

See the UAH lower troposphere “kitchen sink” file with all the monthly values from the start:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
The ranges are at the bottom:
Global 85°S-85°N, North Hemisphere 0-85N, South Hemisphere 85S-0, Tropics 20S-20N
North Extratropic 20N-85N, South Extratropic 85S-20S, North Polar 60N-85N, South Polar 85S-60S.
Where are they only tropical?
UAH datasets, as seen in the last directory name of the URL above, are lower troposphere (t2lt), middle troposphere (t2), and lower stratosphere (t4). UAH is not tropospheric only, it’s just the lower tropospheric set that usually gets mentioned.

…nor will I use the RSS values since it excludes the arctic which warms much more than the rest of the plant, bringing a lower value of temperature rise.

From the RSS site “Decadal trends” section, we have the coverage range:

Globally averaged trends computed over latitudes from 82.5S to 82.5N (70S to 82.5N for channel TLT) are shown in the table below, and include data through May, 2013:

So their “polar hole” up north goes to 82.5°, while UAH is 85°. Check around, it’s hard to find satellite data that doesn’t have a polar hole, even for Arctic sea ice.
So effectively, both UAH and RSS are covering the Arctic. UAH is covering 97-98% of the globe.
You should be complaining how RSS excludes so much of the Antarctic, much more than UAH. But according to the “kitchen sink” lower tropospheric data, the South Pole has actually been cooling, -0.03K/decade. That indicates if RSS did include more of the Antarctic in the TLT dataset, 70S to 82.5S, their global trend may be cooling even more.

Both of the satellite series show more rapid cooling rates after each El Nino spike due to lower moisture contents at the region being analysed.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2013.33/trend
They came down about as rapid as they went up, so what’s the issue? The amplitudes of the temperature movements are amplified in the lower troposphere compared to the surface sets. It works both ways, shouldn’t be an issue.

Therefore they are not accurate for determining surface temperature changes.

Of course not. Surface temperature datasets are set for daily high/low measurements, average those for the “average”. So if you have a 5° spike for 5 minutes, that’s the high the “average” is calculated from.
Satellites will get you the average of their measurements from their flyovers for a particular spot. Thus they won’t perfectly match the surface datasets. Being lower tropospheric, those datasets are also just high enough to avoid the contamination errors that plague surface temperature monitoring stations while still tracking the temperature changes close enough.

The Hadley is the most reliable method and has been confirmed by the Berkeley earth study which compared it with over a billion individual surface temperature readings.

Since when is “The Hadley” a method?
Oh well. The BEST papers were announced, accepted by warmists, languished as “publication pending”, then were rejected. Finally a new journal was started so the BEST papers could get published and the BEST temperature dataset could finally pretend to have legitimacy.
We actually prefer Hadley for times before the satellite era, as GISS is far more messed up. If you wish to endorse the slower-warming long term dataset, feel free. But using BEST for confirmation is kind of a negative endorsement. But we’ll still use Hadley anyway.

When I’m thinking about analyzing the climate I’m thinking about things like I see at Nicola Scafetta’s page.
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model
==========
Now listen up: I’m going to say this about once. Go through this presentation. If you’re in a hurry to see if I’m messing with ya, Go to minute 20:00 of this presentation: “we get THIS BLACK LINE.”

iframe=true&width=80%25&height=80%25
==========
You should listen to the whole thing but the guy’s english is so bad it’s hard for an American to understand.
He talks about climate “oscillations” ok – oscillations are repeated actions. When you drop a rubber ball down between two boards that are closer at the bottom, and the rubber ball goes back and forth swiftly, that’s an oscillation. When you see a pinball machine bounce the ball around quickly between two powered bumpers, that’s an oscillation. When you have a saw blade that goes one way then the other, back and forth or in an out, that’s an oscillation;
you have a hard time understanding sometimes what Nicola says.
He talks about the Heliosphere, but remember he’s coming to English from Italian, and that’s pronounced, “AaY-Lee-ohs-Feer.”
“Ayliosphere” is what an American hears.
The word “curve” he doesn’t pronounce clearly.
It’s worth listening to. It’s 28 minutes that will have you laughing in Magic Gassers’ faces even louder I guarantee you that.
He explains how, and shows you how, there are 9, 10-11, 20-22, 30, 60, 200, 1,000 year cycles,
all dependent, on the various weights, of the objects in the solar system, aligning to pull on, the gravitational center of mass,
of the sun, inside.
+++++++++
Nicola: record di avere qualcuno questa parola per parola di presentazione, che è un oratore naturale inglese.
Fate che Nicola. E ‘importante che le persone si mostrano come questo è facile.
+++++++++
NICOLA: have someone overlay this presentation you did in Japan with a natural English speaker saying what you say word for word.
Do that Nicola. It is important that you show people how easy this is.
++++++++++
Nicola Scafetta makes the sun gravitational center case look impregnable.
=========
He’s no fake hockey stick gazer like Jai Mitchell,
the ignorant clown squealing about Magic Gas.
=========
Jai Mitchell: pull a carbon dioxide signature out of THAT. LoLoLoL.
Go spray your pet rat on the mantle with some more pet safe adhesive, dump some more glitter on him, plug in those flashing lights you have nested around his cage, and get high until he tells you some more about CO2, Jai.
=========
From now on whenever someone tells me about Magic Gas I’m going to link to
the
Nicola Scafetta
talk called
“Empirical Evidences For a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and it’s Implications.”

jai mitchell says-
“hmm, Guess I will have to restate it then
This is the year when deniers/doubters/contrarians are proven to be either just not up to speed on the real science, (for varying reasons) or working to…” blah blah blah
This comment has convinced me that jai mitchell is a software app that blenderizes alarmist talking points together into meaningless pap. Note that either definition of pap applies.

***
jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm
And, that the current warming trend is the result of the CO2 emitted 30 years ago because of the delay in temperatures caused by the mixing of the ocean and the delay factor in reaching thermal equilibrium. The surface of the earth won’t reach equilibrium for another 500 years or so.
***
500 yrs? Evidence? Without evidence, I conclude you pulled that figure out of your behind. Models I’ve seen (linked by Dr Svalgaard) use a few yrs for land to experience 70% of CO2 changes, and 10 yrs for deep oceans.

William Astley says:
June 13, 2013 at 2:08 am
It is fact that the sun is hot.
Not according to the fake fisics of the Greenhouse Effect – one the reasons given for the millions of degree hot Sun’s direct heat energy not reaching us is the claim the Sun is not hot, that it is only “6,000°C and radiates insignificant amounts of longwave infrared and only insignificant of insignificant reaches us”…
The AGW Greenhouse Effect Illusion energy budget gets this figure by its planckian estimation of their Sun’s temperature from the narrow 300 mile wide visible light atmosphere around the Sun, the thin photosphere.
Their Greenhouse Effect distracts from the fact that in its fantasy world they do not get any direct heat from their Sun to their Earth, which in the real world is the electromagnetic wavelength of heat thermal infrared longwave, by claiming that this photosphere ring of visible light is what we feel as heat and it is this light which heats their Earth’s land and water.
Impossible physics of course in the real world.

dbstealey says:
June 12, 2013 at 8:34 pm
jai mitchell is a religious True Believer, who wouldn’t know real science if it bit him on the a …nkle.
….
In short, mitchell is a religious True Believer who will never accept the fact that global warming has not accelerated [despite the large rise in CO2]. Thus, science has nothing to do with mitchell’s cherry-picked belief system. He is merely an enabler of the repeatedly debunked CO2=CAGW conjecture. The good thing is that mitchell and his ilk are fading from the scene, as the public becomes aware of the true situation.
correct. I had an exchange of posts in the thread here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/08/by-the-numbers-having-the-courage-to-do-nothing/#comment-1332333
where I had to repeat him several times that the Global Sea Ice Anomaly is above the average and he is looking only at the Arctic.
From the exchange I also got the impression that he is a true believer, not a person really interested in understanding the science around climate, and not looking at the data as is, but only as it fits the belief.

First a common error out of the way. The discussion of volcanic cooling is off track. First, there is that superstition that the 1992/93 La Nina was caused by Pinatubo cooling. That is rubbish. Any and all so-called volcanic cooling incidents are nothing more than La Nina coolings misidentified as volcanic coolings because by chance they happened to be at the right distance from an eruption and got recruited for its volcanic cooling. Pinatubo just happened to erupt at the time when the La Nina cooling was beginning. El Chichon, on the other hand, just happened to erupt when an El Nino was beginning. That is how it got a nice El Nino peak instead of the volcanic cooling it was supposedly entitled to. The largest eruption of the twentieth century was Katmai and it, too, left nary a sign of cooling because it, too, erupted when an El Nino was forming. This applies to all volcanic “coolings” on record – just check it out yourself. The true cooling from an eruption is probably comparable to a cloudiness incident and indistinguishable from it. Now for Justin Gillis. He just tries to weasel-word his way around the fact that there has been no global warming for the last 15 years. Fact is that atmospheric carbon dioxide level is the highest ever but it is not able to cause any of that greenhouse warming, the alleged cause of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) according to a gaggle of so-called “climate scientists.” I judge this fact to be sufficient to prove their greenhouse warming hypothesis wrong. The present standstill is not the only one on record. A study of satellite temperature records that begin in 1979 reveals another 18 year standstill of global temperature from 1979 to early 1997. This did not appear in ground-based temperature records which showed a “late twentieth century warming” in that same time slot. I pointed out the discrepancy in my book “What Warming?” but nothing happened. Until last fall, that is, when GISTEMP, HadCRUT, and NCDC temperature depositories in unison decided to give up this phony warming and adopt the satellite temperature values for the eighties and the nineties. I regard this joint action as an admission that they knew this warming was false. This means that we now have a no-warming period from 1979 to 1997 plus the entire twenty-first century. Between them is only a small window, enough to accommodate the super El Nino of 1998 and its associated step warming. That step warming raised global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius in only four years. It was oceanic, not atmospheric in nature. As a result, all temperatures of the twenty-first century are now higher than those of the nineties. Hansen noticed that and pointed out that of ten warmest years, nine happened after 2000. Not surprising because they all sit on that high platform created by the step warming of 1998. This leaves no room for any greenhouse warming since 1979, a total of 34 years without warming. In view of this, can anyone believe that warming prior to 1979 was greenhouse warming? Not likely. This should be the end of the global warming delusion.

Phil. says-
“Figure 3 shows the 5 year running mean of ΔT increasing out to 2040!
When I put ” ” around a sentence it means it’s a quotation, so no he didn’t make the prediction you said that he did.”
The paper’s graph shows scenario C temperature reaches a plateau by 2004 or 2005, and remains flat out to at least 2030. But I agree with you that Hansen predicted temperatures would continue to rise, exceeding another 0.5 degrees after the predicted plateau.