Despite recent claims by Justin Gillis in this NYT piece that the plateau in surface temperatures is misunderstood by scientists…
…given how much is riding on the scientific forecast, the practitioners of climate science would like to understand exactly what is going on. They admit that they do not, even though some potential mechanisms of the slowdown have been suggested. The situation highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system, some of which cannot be closed until we get better measurements from high in space and from deep in the ocean.
…and that it is just some start point issue…
As you might imagine, those dismissive of climate-change concerns have made much of this warming plateau. They typically argue that “global warming stopped 15 years ago” or some similar statement, and then assert that this disproves the whole notion that greenhouse gases are causing warming.
The starting point is almost always 1998…
It can be shown that the plateau may extend further back than that, and that nature still rules the climate system, more so than man. I’m not sure why Gillis thinks 15 years is the number people use starting at 1998, I don’t know of anyone making that claim recently. Even CRU’s Phil Jones admitted in a BBC interview that there had been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995, a point also brought up in 2008 by Dr. Richard Lindzen at WUWT when he said: “Why bother with the arguments about an El Nino anomaly in 1998?”
More importantly, the kickoff point for this most recent discussion by The Mail’s David Rose started 16 years ago, in 1997. The 15 year/1998 choice seems like a purposeful misdirection by Gillis. Using 1997 as preferred by Rose, we are fast approaching Dr. Ben Santer’s 17 year test, and if we use Jones and Lindzen’s 1995 start point, we’ve passed it. What will Gillis say then? – Anthony
More here in this essay By Dr. David Whitehouse via The GWPF
The absence of any significant change in the global annual average temperature over the past 16 years has become one of the most discussed topics in climate science. It has certainly focused the debate about the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing of the climate versus natural variability.
In all this discussion what happened to global temperature immediately before the standstill is often neglected. Many assume that since the recent warming period commenced – about 1980 – global temperature rose until 1998 and then the surface temperature at least got stuck. Things are however not that simple, and far more interesting.
As Steve Goddard has interestingly pointed out recently using RSS data going back to 1990 the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 had a very important effect on global temperatures.
The Pinatubo eruption threw more sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the stratosphere since the Krakatoa outburst in 1883. Its millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide reduced incident sunlight and had a maximum of 0.4 deg C cooling effect on global temperatures and an influence that lasted for several years.
The result of this temperature decrease is to increase the difference between the global temperatures of the 1990s and the 2000s. Removing this volcanic dip reduces quite significantly the temperature increase seen over the 1990 – 2013 period. When the errors are taken into account it is not impressive.
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.
Removing this volcanic signal also reduces the statistical significance of the rise in temperature seen since 1980. (In fact, statistically speaking, one is hard-pressed to find any statistically significant warming between 1980 – 1995.)
The El Chichon eruption is interesting because one of the strongest El Nino events, some say the strongest ever, occurred just after it. These two events had an interesting interplay for it seems that the global temperature rise induced by the warm water of the El Nino was offset by the cooling effect of the stratospheric aerosols from El Chichon. It is interesting to speculate what might had happened if El Chichon had not gone off. Would the 1982 El Nino have been as dramatic as the 1998 one? And would it have left in its wake elevated global temperatures, as 1998 seems to have done? What would have been the impact on environmental thinking, and on James Hansen’s global warming warning in 1988?
In the post-1980 global temperature data the effects of the El Ninos and La Ninas are obvious both as discrete events and as a source of ‘noise’ in the temperature of the past 16 years. The statistically significant increase in global temperature since 1980 occurred in the years after the Pinatubo eruption’s dip had ended, and before the onset of the strong 1998 El Nino. If strong El Ninos are a mechanism for changing global temperatures in a stepwise fashion we may have to wait for another strong one before the current temperature standstill ends. Perhaps we should also be looking at the link between the lifting of the post-volcanic aerosol burden and its possible effect on the initiation of El Ninos.
The Unthinkable
One of the interesting aspects of the current temperature standstill is that it persists despite several El Ninos and La Ninas.Since 2006 the influence of these events has been more pronounced in satellite data; El Ninos in 2007 and 2009-10, La Ninas in 2008, 2010–2012. These events have increased the ‘noise’ of the global temperature data in recent years.
(Courtesy Dr Roy Spencer – www.drroyspencer.com)
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. As usual, five more years of data will be fascinating to analyse.
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.
jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm
This is something we have never seen before. It indicates that the arctic has entered into a new state.
Highly doubtful. But keep blowing smoke. It amuses us.
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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 12, 2013 at 11:43 am
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.
I cannot speak for William, I understand the reduction of solar activity in comparison with previous cycles. Btw, a solar scientist once told me that all solar activity is more or less in sync.
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.
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 12, 2013 at 7:00 am
“Your model predicts 0.15C warming from 2011 to 2015…”
Well Leif, also the temperature increased a little bit since 2011. That increase is in perfect agreement with my model.
Look more carefully at the data in the figure, at the bottom of my web-site:
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/#astronomical_model-1
Moreover, we are not yet in 2015, aren’t we? Let us wait two years and see what happens. I say that the temperature may increase slightly in the next two years following my model shown in the figure.
lsvalgaard says:
June 12, 2013 at 11:55 am
Scafetta claims that his theory predicted the ‘plateau’, but an even better fit [rather than his cycles] is simply a straight line with no variation and Occam’s razor stipulates “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity” so there is no need for Scafetta’s ‘prediction’.
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. Give a close look at my figure here
http://people.duke.edu/~ns2002/figure7.png
“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
Doug said:
If these people can’t explain the slowdown, then why in the world would anyone believe that they can explain or predict the warming?
——
That is spot on. They cannot explain anything outside their famed models. Have they explained anything but the opposite to what is happening around us at the moment. Real world V Unreal world.
[Snip. Read the site Policy page. Your insulting pejoratives put you in violation. — mod.]
In reply to:
jai mitchell says:
June 12, 2013 at 9:33 am
@William Howard Astley
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.
William:
Nice try. Your link does not work.
The Medieval warm period was caused by solar magnetic cycle changes. The Little Ice age was caused by the Maunder minimum. Do you acknowledge that Maunder minimum occurred and the planet cold?
Mann’s attempt to eliminate the Medieval warm period was also a nice try.
There are cosmogenic isotopes changes that correlate with the Dansgaard-Oeschger cyclic temperature changes. That is proof that the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are caused by solar magnetic cycle changes.
What proof do you offer for the hypothesis that ocean current changes causing the Dansgaard-Oeschger warming and cooling cycle that follows the exact pattern that we are seeing in the warming in the last 70 years?
Any explanation for why there has been no warming for the last 16 years? The subject of this thread.
Any comments concerning the current abrupt change to the solar magnetic cycle?
Leif Svalgaard any explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly? Any explanation as to why sunspots are turning into pores? The logical next step is no sunspots. There is no need for me to get to far ahead in the explanation as to what is happening. Observations rather than theory are going to drive the next rounds.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
P.S. The warmists are intervening to assist with sunspot counting. Rather than use the traditional visual count they have thoughtful shifted to spectral analysis as it becomes more and more difficult to see the pores. No worry, the sun will be anomalously spotless by the end of this year. Fudging the observations does not change the physics of what is happening.
Any explanation as to why Antarctic sea ice is anomalously high now for all months? Winds? Difficult to use melt water hypothesis as there appears to be no time when the Antarctic is warmer. There does seem to be a significant amount cooling in the Antarctic region.
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2013/anomnight.6.10.2013.gif
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Are you concerned about the recent cooling in the high Arctic?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are not caused by changes to the North Atlantic drift current. That is wishful thinking without proof by those who do not want solar magnetic cycle changes and long term changes to GCR to be the principal driver for planetary climate.
Wishful thinking does not change reality.
http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond%20et%20al%202001.pdf
Persistent Solar Influence on the North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
Surface winds and surface ocean hydrography in the subpolar North Altantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output (William: The mechanism by which the sun changes planetary temperature is not solar output, TSI, but rather changes to the solar magnetic cycle. As shown below based on changes to cosmogenic isotopes the solar magnetic cycle was at its highest level in 8000 years at during the latter half of 20th century.) The evidence comes from close correlation between inferred changes in production rates of the cosmogenic nuclides carbon-14 and beryllium-10 and centennial to millennial time scale changes in proxies of drift ice measured in deep-sea sediment cores. A solar forcing mechanism therefore may underlie at least the Holocene segment of the North Atlantic’s “1500-year” cycle. … … A solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic. Indeed, previous studies have tied increases in the C14 in tree rings, and hence reduced solar irradiance, to Holocene glacial advances in Scandinavia, expansions of the Holocene Polar Atmosphere circulation in Greenland; and abrupt cooling in the Netherlands about 2700 years ago…Well dated, high resolution measurements of O18 in stalagmite from Oman document five periods of reduced rainfall centered at times of strong solar minima at 6300, 7400, 8300, 9000, and 9500 years ago.”….
http://rivernet.ncsu.edu/courselocker/PaleoClimate/Bond%20et%20al%201999%20%20N.%20Atlantic%201-2.PDF
The North Atlantic’s 1-2 kyr Climate Rhythm: Relation to Heinrich Events, Dansgaard-Oeschger Cycles and the Little Ice Age Gerald Bond et al.
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…
jai mitchell says:
“…we know that the rate of warming is increasing.”
False. That is simply not happening.
On all time scales, there has been zero acceleration of global warming. This, despite the ≈40% rise in [completely harmless, beneficial] CO2. As a matter of fact, global temperatures have been falling.
You can get away with your alarmist nonsense and misrepresentations on alarmist blogs. But not here on the internet’s “Best Science” site, where your false assertions get corrected by people who know better.
From jai mitchell on June 12, 2013 at 1:08 pm:
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.
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.
I agree with several others in this thread that Bob Tisdale’s extensive arguments and graphics seem to indicate that, without the effects of La Nina/el Nino there would be little or no warming of the oceans and thus the rest of the world (as the oceans are more likely to effect the air temp than the other way around). In some cases his graphs show some areas would have cooled (http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/skepticalscience-still-misunderstands-or-misrepresents-the-el-nino-southern-oscillation-enso/).
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)
William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Leif Svalgaard any explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly? Any explanation as to why sunspots are turning into pores? The logical next step is no sunspots.
Sunspots form by the assembly of small pores and magnetic flux elements. If that process becomes less efficient the magnetic field will still be there [i.e. the magnetic cycle operates as usual] and cosmic rays will be modulated as usual and TSI will cycle as usual, but no visible sunspots will form. That is what the L&P effect is about. There is precedent for this: The Maunder Minimum. During the MM, the cosmic ray modulation was even stronger than in the last 50 years. That TSI will cycle as usual even when no spots are formed we can already see today: while the sunspot number is dropping TSI is reaching new heights and the number of CMEs is also not decreasing following the sunspot number down. So, the ‘magnetic cycle’ is not ‘interrupted’
Nicola Scafetta says:
June 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Leif Svalgaard says:
3) My model greatly outperforms all IPCC models in reconstructing the past temperature.
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.
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.
…….Nicola Scafetta says:
June 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm
AAA.) My model greatly outperforms all IPCC models in reconstructing the past temperature.
………Leif says:
Subtracting a linear trend is responsible for the fit.. BBB.) 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.
……..therefore, both AAA) and BBB) are correct, the only feasible way to reconcile
both AAA with BBB is taking the spiral shaped orbital flight of Earth around the Sun
into account and forget about Leifs curvilinear flight models, which were discarded
a long 300 years ago, both by Newton and Leibniz…..At least, he agrees with Galileo,
not bad mate; but he has trouble with Newton and Leibniz, no wonder….JS
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.
In reply to:
Leif Svalgaard says:
June 12, 2013 at 6:33 pm
William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Leif Svalgaard any explanation as to why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly? Any explanation as to why sunspots are turning into pores? The logical next step is no sunspots.
Sunspots form by the assembly of small pores and magnetic flux elements. If that process becomes less efficient the magnetic field will still be there [i.e. the magnetic cycle operates as usual] and cosmic rays will be modulated as usual and TSI will cycle as usual, but no visible sunspots will form. That is what the L&P effect is about. There is precedent for this: The Maunder Minimum. During the MM, the cosmic ray modulation was even stronger than in the last 50 years. That TSI will cycle as usual even when no spots are formed we can already see today: while the sunspot number is dropping TSI is reaching new heights and the number of CMEs is also not decreasing following the sunspot number down. So, the ‘magnetic cycle’ is not ‘interrupted’
William:
Solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle. We will have observational evidence by the end of the year (more or less) to support that assertion. What I am stating will be proven correct or incorrect based on observations. In addition to the public announcement of an explained solar magnetic cycle change there will be a public announcement of unexplained planetary cooling.
Yes. I know what happened during the Maunder minimum. Solar cycle 24 is however different than a Maunder minimum. You appear to have not accepted that fact. I notice however that the tone of your comments are different at this site than at the Solar 24 site. At the solar 24 site you acknowledge that you do not know why sunspots are turning into pores and you acknowledge at that site that solar cycle 24 is truly anomalous, unexplained. At this site your only concern appears to be repeating that solar magnetic cycle activity was not anomalously high during the last 70 years.
That comment seems incredulous based on the current solar cycle 24 observations and the fact that there is now observed cooling of the planet. (i.e. If there is now significant cooling due to solar magnetic cycle change it will be apparent to all that the warming in the last 70 years was primarily due to the solar magnetic cycle changes, which is the warming phase of Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle.)
You still have not explained why the magnetic field strength of newly formed sunspots is decaying linearly. Nor have you explained why sunspots are turning into pores. The model you suggest where pores combine to form sunspots does not explain what we are currently observing. What we are observing in fact disproves that hypothesis.
Your above comments (pores merging to form sunspots) is not correct. The solar magnetic cycle hypothesis that I am stating/working with is based on a model developed by Eugene Parker. The current cycle 24 observations indicate Eugene Parker’s tachocline model is correct with a few modifications. A mechanism at the tachocline creates magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun. That mechanism has been interrupted. As the magnetic field strength of the ropes decreases linearly, the ropes are no longer able to resist the turbulence forces in the convection zone and are hence being torn apart which explains why there are now pores on the surface of the sun rather than sunspots. The life time of the sunspot groups is decreasing. As the magnetic field strength of the ropes decreases further the ropes will be torn apart by convection forces in convection zone. There will be no sunspots on the surface of the sun, the solar magnetic cycle will no longer be functioning, which is as you note different than what was observed during the Maunder minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Parker
chris y says:
June 12, 2013 at 7:20 pm
jai mitchell-
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.
No he didn’t, what he wrote was: “even with the drastic, and probably unrealistic, reductions of greenhouse forcings in scenario C, a warming of 0.5ºC is attained within the next 15 years. The eventual warming in this scenario would exceed 1ºC, based on the forcing illustrated in Figure 2 and the feedback factor f ≈ 3.4 for our GCM”
jai mitchell is a religious True Believer, who wouldn’t know real science if it bit him on the a …nkle.
His comment above reeks of confirmation bias, with a heavy dose of cherry-picking: mitchell arbitrarily rejects an esteemed researcher, based on nothing more than mitchell’s own politics. Likewise, he rejects satellite data — a database that is accepted by both alarmists and skeptical experts alike.
But HadCRU — which is supported entirely by tax money, appears to be A-OK — only because mitchell likes their conclusions [which are little different from the conclusions of RSS or Alabama]. Mitchell seems unaware that tax loot is not paid to people who tell the truth: that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening.
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.
It is very telling that someone like mitchell can post here freely, while skeptics still cannot post their point of view on alarmist blogs. The reason for that is simple: if alarmist blogs allowed fair debate, their runaway global warming nonsense would be deconstructed fast.
But as it is, mitchell’s pseudo-science gets deconstructed here very easily by skeptics who use empirical, testable facts to make their arguments — verifiable facts that easily falsify the runaway global warming beliefs of the climate scam enablers.
Finally, someone please wake me when mitchell starts posting without labeling as “deniers” everyone he loses a debate with. That sort of ad-hom argument takes the place of scientific facts. But at this point, it is the only kind of argument that people like jai mitchell have.
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.
William Astley says:
June 12, 2013 at 7:49 pm
Solar cycle 24 is an interruption to the solar magnetic cycle.
You repeat that like a mantra.
But do not define what interrupted means.
At the solar 24 site you acknowledge that you do not know why sunspots are turning into pores and you acknowledge at that site that solar cycle 24 is truly anomalous, unexplained.
We do not know why the mechanism that assemble pores and elements into sunspots at times functions less efficiently, but with all the satellite data we will be collecting there is a good chance that we will figure it out. This will also explain why so few sunspots were formed during the Maunder Minimum.
At this site your only concern appears to be repeating that solar magnetic cycle activity was not anomalously high during the last 70 years.
That is what re-assessment of the sunspot and cosmic rays data show.
That comment seems incredulous based on the current solar cycle 24 observations and the fact that there is now observed cooling of the plane
Cooling of the planet is not a unique phenomenon. You seem to think that cooling implies magnetic cycle ‘interruption’. Since cooling has happened many time even as recently as the 1960s, there must have been many interruptions.
The model you suggest where pores combine to form sunspots does not explain what we are currently observing.
That is not a model, but rather a fact that has been known for more than a century.
A mechanism at the tachocline creates magnetic ropes that rise up through the convection zone to form sunspots on the surface of the sun…the ropes will be torn apart by convection forces in convection zone.
That happens in every solar cycle. Sunspots form when the torn apart ropes reassemble at the surface.
the solar magnetic cycle will no longer be functioning
If the solar cycle is stopped it will never get started again.
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.