A Sea Change for Climate Science?

By David Stockwell writing in Quadrant Online

As CO2 climate models falter and even the IPCC backs off its estimates, it just may be that a radical shift in thinking is looming. Wouldn’t it be funny if it was the sun all along?

Remember Thomas Kuhn and his paradigm shift?  According to his Structure of Scientific Revolutions, theories change only when anomalous observations stress the ”dominant paradigm” to the point that it becomes untenable. Until then, failure of a result to conform to the prevailing paradigm is not seen as refuting the dominant theory, but explained away as a mistake of the researchers, errors in the data, within the range of uncertainty, and so on. Only at the point of crisis does science become open to a new paradigm.  So, does Kuhn inform the current climate debate, help identify important information or an alternative paradigm?

Climate models can be seen as encapsulating the dominant theory, even though they are composed of many different theories regarding land, the ocean and atmosphere.  Despite their differences they are also similar in many ways, sharing terminology such as the ‘radiative kernel’.  Lets agree, for the purpose of argument, that the dominant AGW paradigm is of global temperature’s high sensitivity to  CO2 doubling, resulting in an increase of around 3°C, which appears to be about the central estimate of the climate models. 

Does the 15-year ‘pause’ in global temperatures stress this theory? Certainly to some, the stress has already reached a ‘crisis’; while to others the divergence can be explained away by natural variation, uncertainty, and errors in the data.

Do failed models and their predictions of increasing extreme events, like hurricanes, droughts and floods, stress the climate models?  Possibly not.  From a physical perspective, these phenomena lie at the boundaries of the theory.  Hurricanes, droughts and floods are ‘higher order’ statistics — extremes not climate averages. Surface temperature is only a part of the greater global climate system. Because anomalous behavior at the margins can be discarded without sacrificing the main theory, their power to confirm or reject the dominant paradigm is somewhat limited.

Ocean heat content, however, is in a unique position.  The world’s oceans store over 90% of the heat in the climate system.  Arguably, therefore, increases in ocean heat determine overall global warming.  Ocean heat represents the physical bulk of the global heat store, and so should carry the most weight in our assessment of the status of AGW. Observations of ocean heat uptake represent the crucial experiment  — observations capable of decisively dismantling a theory despite its widespread acceptance in the scientific community.  The ARGO project to monitor ocean heat with thousands of drifting buoys is the crucial experiment of the AGW stable.

A number of climate bloggers have remarked on the very low rate of ocean heat uptake (here, and here, and here), much lower than predicted by the models (here, here, and here).  The last link is about Nic Lewis, a coauthor on Otto et al. 2013, who feels that recent findings of low climate sensitivity, many based on ocean heat content, have led a number of prominent IPCC authors to abandon the higher estimates of climate sensitivity. That may not be a ‘catastrophe’ for the dominant AGW paradigm, but it is certainly a lurch by insiders towards the lower ends of risk and urgency.

The IPCC panel preparing the AR5 report may not have been devastated when they changed the likely range of climate sensitivity, which had stood at 4.5–2°C since 1990. The lower extimate has now been dropped from 2°C to 1.5°C. What has not been appreciated is that increasing the range of uncertainty is impossible in a period of Kuhnian ‘normal science’, where new information always decreases uncertainty.

The ‘blow-out’ in the range of likely climate sensitivity can only mean one thing: We are no longer in a period of ‘normal’ science, but entering a period of ‘paradigm shift’.

Until the scientific revolution, explaining away anomalous results will be the normal behavior of the status quo.  For example, Nic details a series of erroneous statements and misrepresentation by the UK Met Office of peer-reviewed studies observing relatively modest aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity (here and here).

What new theory could possibly replace the dominant paradigm? Clearly there is a great deal yet to know about natural climate variation and the influence of the Sun on global temperature and climate.  While many studies have found a strong correlation between the sun and climate, other studies have discounted a strong solar influence.  I personally think that miss-specified models have contributed dismissal of solar influence, and have developed an alternative ‘accumulative’ theory of solar influence (here, here and here).

chart stockwell

UC Berkely professor Richard Muller has said,  “Anyone claiming another cause would have to show that it correlates with the temperature record at least as well as CO2.”  As shown in the figure above, a simple regression model of accumulated total solar insolation (CumTSI) with global temperature gives a higher correlation than greenhouse gas and total solar insolation.  In large part this is because accumulation shifts the phase of solar effects by 90 degrees bringing it into phase with global temperature, even though the pattern is obscured by the timing of major volcanic eruptions last century. In the accumulation theory, global temperature rises while solar activity is above the long-term solar constant. It is an immature theory, admittedly, but it works over annual- to million-year time scales and explains some very specific features such as ‘chaotic’ dynamics, 20th century warming and the current ‘pause’.

Climate skeptics don’t want to say we told you so but, well, we told you so. Even though we do not yet have an accepted theory of solar influence, there are 25 unique models in the AR5-sponsored CIMP5 archive, most with a climate sensitivity untenable on observations from the last decade.

Take out Occam’s razor and cull them – deep and hard.

Dr David Stockwell, Adjunct Researcher, Central Queensland University

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jer0me

It is rare, and very good, to hear sense on CAGW from our Aussie Academia.

Similar to your model, sunspot time integral and ocean oscillations explain 90-96% of global temperature observations
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/08/natural-climate-change-has-been-hiding.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/climate-modeling-ocean-oscillations.html

Steve Oak

Thank you for an interesting article.
When I began my personal investigation into to viability of GHG related AGW the CO2 theory quickly dissolved but early on the sun rose as a likely suspect. (No puns intended, of course.)
I never could understand why the proponents of the AGW could give serious consideration to a theory that predicted an increase of 3 deg C in a century when on a daily basis the temperature in the vast majority of locations on the earths surface vary that much in a few hours and do so every day. This intra day change being induced by the sun or lack therof.

I LOVE the title!

Olaf Koenders

“..failure of a result to conform to the prevailing paradigm is not seen as refuting the dominant theory, but explained away as a mistake of the researchers, errors in the data, within the range of uncertainty, and so on.”

I’d like to see how the IPCC would use that considering their “95% certainty” 😉

See - owe to Rich

David S,
Does your article, with emphasis on ocean temperatures, then suggest that if ARGO buoys were to show significant warming below (say) 700m then you would be happy to avow AGW as real and dangerous? Personally, I’m not buying that.
Rich.

Henry Clark

The temperature history in the chart in this post, from the CRU of Climategate, has been rewritten by those activists to be more towards a hockey stick rather than the actual double peak appearance of 20th century temperature history in original readings. Without that, there is not so much need for heavy accumulation adjustments, as implied in the solar-climate matches in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg
While the deeper oceans have thermal inertia and would have lag, the surface temperature record is easier to reconstruct from relatively reliable sources. Too predominately deep ocean temperature change is reported in joules to be deliberately misleading, amounting to mere hundredths of a degree or less, not sufficiently independently verifiable from sources other than the same kind of activist-dominated institutions which have repeatedly and not honestly rewritten surface temperature history by whole tenths of a degree (as illustrated in the prior link).

Henry Clark

To clarify in my prior comment, I’m referring to CRU-depicted temperature history over the whole 20th century, not just the 1950-onward shown in that one chart.

zeeshanakhter2009

oh my god whts going on ……………

Roy

It is my impression that those scientists who are interested in the philosophy of science tend to prefer the ideas of Karl Popper to those of Thomas Kuhn. Popper was the high priest of falsification. However, as has often been pointed out, climatologists have been reluctant to say what could disprove their theory that man-made CO2 is the main driver of climate change. Consequently Kuhn’s idea of a paradigm shift seem more relevant to climatology.
As Max Planck, the father of quantum theory, put it:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
Perhaps the paradigm shift will get underway as soon as some of the leading lights of the CAGW theory reach retiring age.

tango

it is the sun that controls earths weather not CO2 the sun magnetic poles are about to reverse . http://www.space.com/22271-sun-magnetic-field-flip.html

richardscourtney

David Stockwell:
Whatever Kuhn thought, it is not necessary to have an alternative theory to falsify an existing theory. The AGW-hypothesis has been falsified by several observations: it is wrong.
But the falsification of AGW as the dominant effect in climate variation does not imply that any other effect (e.g. solar variation) dominates climate variability.
Climate does vary and its variations probably result from several influences such as response to solar variation, and/or as an outcome of internal variation of the oceanic thermohaline circulation, and/or as a harmonic effect of climate oscillation, and/or as … etc..
The most important scientific statement is always WE DON’T KNOW.
Richard

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

Good Morning, David. Permission to repost your article? With links back to Quadrant ans WUWT, of course.

‘UC Berkely professor Richard Muller has said, “Anyone claiming another cause would have to show that it correlates with the temperature record at least as well as CO2.” ‘
The hindcasting works- the projections don’t. The hindcasting – the right result for the wrong reasons.

Jimbo

Does the 15-year ‘pause’ in global temperatures stress this theory? Certainly to some, the stress has already reached a ‘crisis’; while to others the divergence can be explained away by natural variation, uncertainty, and errors in the data.

I don’t know about ‘stress’ or ‘crisis’ but I know someone who is certainly worried. Journalists should ask why he is worried.

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
———————————-
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Karl Popper wrote as a philosopher, while Kuhn wrote as a historian of science. Kuhn wanted to be considered a philosopher but the philosophers would not have it.
The philosophical question that Popper addressed was, if we cannot know the “truth”, can we at least discover what is “false”?
Kuhn did not deal with the question of truth. He showed that scientists function like other social groups in following the crowd. Only at unusual times does someone speak in a way that the crowd listens. [In similar fashion only a few investors recognize a market bubble and move to cash before the market crashes.]
Kuhn was describing how scientists behave. Others including Kuhn himself have elevated this descriptive approach.
So the new norm for scientific endeavour [and for awarding grant money] is discern the direction of the crowd and to follow. Of course you end up with a scientific “bubble” which may or may not be about to burst. Depends a lot on whether or not the cold winters persist for very long and whether the arctic ice recovers.
Seems bizarre to me that changes in climate of less than 60 years is even considered evidence of secular change. Sixty year ocean cycles have been well known for a very long time, so the idea that climate is the average weather over 30 years should have been abandoned long ago.
Focusing on any period shorter than 60 years seem to me no better than augury, in other words no better than looking at the entrails of chickens.

Village Idiot

So, it’s the sun (again)
Shouldn’t we be moving on from the graph matching stage, to rewriting coupled climate models that show just how the sun does it, to demonstrate this ‘alternative paradigm’?
Or is this ‘accumulation theory’ too ‘immature’ as yet to move into the major league?
Surely, history shows that when the ‘the point of crisis’ is reached there’s a credible ‘alternative paradigm’ waiting in the wings take it’s place, not a vacuum. In this case the vacuum consists of vague ideas revolving around “it’s the sun”. If it’s so obvious it’s the sun wot did it, why are the proofs and mechanisms so elusive? And if they are so elusive, why are we so sure they’re there waiting to be discovered?

Ken Hall

Richard Courtney, I agree. Just because we do not have the fully worked out alternative to a wrong theory, that does not mean that the theory we know to be wrong, remains right, until an alternative understanding is “settled science”…That would repeat the mistake of ever believing that the C02 basis for CAGW hypothesis was correct, in the first place.
The scientific thing to do is accept the data, correctly announce the falsification of the CO2 driven CAGW hypothesis and announce that we do not know exactly what are the many and varied contributary driving factors in climate change. Or rather, we do not of many different drivers, but we do not yet know exactly how they all interlink and inter-react at any given moment to be able to predict future climate change with any degree of confidence.

Actually there is an accepted theory of solar influence centred round the work of solar physicist H Abdussamatov working at Polkovo Astronomical Observatory in St Petersburg. his analysis points to a declining bicentennial component of the total solar irradiance which will gather pace over the next few decades. This in turn points to an approaching ice age..www.ccsenet.org Applied Physics research Vol 4 No February 2012

Oatley

Brilliant! I was just thinking the same thing about CO2!

Ian E

The trouble is that the sun has become the cAGW crowd’s get-out-of-jail free card. They now have an alibi for the ‘pause’ which will last for a good 20-30 more years while they finish their work of taking most of the West (but not, of course, China, India, Brazil etc) back to the stone age. It’s role has become one more fudge factor to add to their models – and they will shortly be telling us that this is all predicted once said fudge factor has been incorporated.
Truly, there is no stopping the evil that is Ed Davey/Lord Deben/Tim Yeo/etc/etc.

William Astley

In reply to:
“The IPCC panel preparing the AR5 report may not have been devastated when they changed the likely range of climate sensitivity, which had stood at 4.5–2°C since 1990. The lower estimate has now been dropped from 2°C to 1.5°C. What has not been appreciated is that increasing the range of uncertainty is impossible in a period of Kuhnian ‘normal science’, where new information always decreases uncertainty.”
The climate wars have blocked the process of normal science. To publish research that questions EAGW is to risk ones career, advancement, access to journals, and so on. Editors have been fired for daring to publish material that challenges EAGW. It is astonishing and disheartening that the scientific community allowed climategate type of practices to occur. There are multiple fundamental observations and analysis any one of which could have created a crisis to dispute EAGW. The standard theory should have based on these observations and analysis changed from EAGW to lukewarm AGW. The rapid decline in the solar magnetic cycle may be the game changer. Based on what has happened in the past the earth will cool due to the decline in the solar magnetic cycle.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/28/bbc-real-risk-of-a-maunder-minimum-little-ice-age/
“According to Professor Lockwood the late 20th century was a period when the sun was unusually active and a so called ‘grand maximum’ occurred around 1985. Since then the sun has been getting quieter. By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, he has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years. Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years. He found 24 different occasions in the last 10,000 years when the sun was in exactly the same state as it is now – and the present decline is faster than any of those 24.”

cd

Dr Stockwell
In my humble opinion this is the best, non-technical article I have read on the subject.

VI: Its a good question, which is why I have been archiving results on how to simulate the model, fingerprints of ghg vs solar forcing, and most importantly the physical basis for the correlation. But you have to read the papers first, and there is no point in asking the questions unless you have read the papers. The starting point of simulating a climate system is a semi-diagonal difference matrix – nothing less.The “proofs and mechanisms” are elusive because the assumptions are wrong.

laterite

WA: I have something of a bone to pick with Professor Lockwood. His papers have been very influential in discounting solar influence. IMHO this is because he used too short a decay period. In the model, a certain part of the climate system has a very long time decay – around 100,000 years (assume deep ocean). Other parts are less, depending on altitude. The time decay, and hence the apparent climate sensitivity depends on the part of the climate system where the perturbation takes place, not so much on what is perturbed.

laterite

Roy: Popper’s falsification (in the popular understanding) is normative, i.e how one should practice science. Kuhn was descriptive – how one does practice science. You can win the battle but that’s not the war.

laterite

TJ: I was not aware that Abdussamatov was accepted. I will look into that.

Crispin in Waterloo

@Village Idiot
It is often assumed that causing the downfall of a corrupt and venal government will only be followed by ‘something better’. The idea that nothing could be worse is inviting and cuddly.
Never assume anything. The inevitable collapse of CAGW might provoke a sweeping anti-scientist revolution in attitudes that will take decades to overcome. The whole apparatus of modern science is base on a moral foundation that religions lie to us and scientists always tell the truth. An eternal claim of religion is that without a religious foundation scientific freedom inevitably leads to materialistic despotism and mass extermination.
CAGW claims a moral imperative: protection of the long term viability of life and comfort and the common weal. Those making this claim are as adamant in it as they are hostile to the spiritual authority of priesthoods. It truly is as false a religion as the panaceatic creations of televangelists.
Make no assumptions that what follows the fall of an empire is peace and happiness. Between one paradigm and the next is a period of moral and intellectual anarchy that will much later be described as ‘creative’.

knr

No chance , the IPCC etc relies on AGW for [their] very reason to exist, Whole careers and university departments have been built on it while its a wagon hitched on to by 101 political ’causes’ None of that could stand the change to ‘it was the Sun wont do it ‘
The reality is if man cannot be blamed , to many people stand to lose a great deal for this change , regardless of the facts , to come about quietly.

Roy

Crispin in Waterloo says:
The whole apparatus of modern science is base on a moral foundation that religions lie to us and scientists always tell the truth.
Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton and Michael Faraday would not agree with you, nor would they think that all religions are the same.
An eternal claim of religion is that without a religious foundation scientific freedom inevitably leads to materialistic despotism and mass extermination.
Can you cite evidence of this “eternal” claim, or do you think the last 5 minutes seemed like eternity?

knr says:at 3:34 am
“The reality is if man cannot be blamed , too many people stand to lose a great deal for this change , regardless of the facts , to come about quietly.
This is the naked truth!

Roy,
And religion, presumably, doesn’t lead to despotism and mass extermination?
Maybe, just maybe, you should exercise your synapses a bit, say, 5 minutes every day?

„UC Berkely professor Richard Muller has said, “Anyone claiming another cause would have to show that it correlates with the temperature record at least as well as CO2.”
As shown in the figure above, a simple regression model of accumulated total solar insolation (CumTSI) with global temperature gives a higher correlation than greenhouse gas and total solar insolation.”

As shown in the figure:
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/hadcrut4_vs_sun14.gif
a simple regression model accumulating 14 solar tide functions (GHI 14) with global temperature gives a higher correlation than total solar insolation (CumTSI) with global temperature.

Mike Brown

Mr. Watts,
Posted the url of one of your charts at http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/ask-ars-about-the-new-ipcc-report/?comments=1&start=120
Scott Johnson the site writer and others took great exception to your website.
SO I followed up with the url for your website. WOW they really don’t like you much.
I tried to explain that my experience in marine science doing field work does not support the IPCC modeling.
GEEEZZZZZ
Thanks For All You Do
Mike Brown

Richard Muller :“Anyone claiming another cause would have to show that it correlates with the temperature record at least as well as CO2.”
But the warming DOES NOT correlate with CO2!

Ben Wouters

A paradigm shift will come about once this basic question is going to be asked:
how did the deep oceans (below ~1000m) get their present high temperatures?
Average deep ocean temperature ~275K, already 20K above the infamous 255K Effective temperature for Earth. More relevant 275K is almost 80K above the average surface temperature of our Moon.
Since solar doesn’t reach much deeper than ~200m, downward conduction fighting upward convection reaches another couple 100 meters at most and warm water doesn’t sink into much colder water, warming from above isn’t going to work.
(the idea of the atmosphere warming the deep oceans is too silly to consider)
Given that our Earth consists mostly of molten rock, with a core of molten metal, the place to look seems obvious to me. And no, I’m not talking about the ~100 mW/m^2 flux through the oceanic crust.
Just in case the question gets asked, I DO have an answer.

When I first came across the name Bruno Latour it was in connection with the book Higher Superstition which assumed the dispute over how science is taught had something to do with a dispute over the actual nature of the world. (I explain the relevance of Constructivism globally in math and science in Chapter 3 of a book that was just published).
Since then though I have read Latour’s 2004 book published by Harvard, Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Nature, which makes it quite clear that the desired shift is against the very objectiveness of science. It fails to yield to political power and in a world that seeks to reshape social institutions, that objectiveness about the nature of reality is the real issue.
For decades the planners have been using economic models and pretending that’s how economies work. It brought many of the credentialed power, money, and careers. When skeptics dispute the objective reality underlying climate models like the IPCC or Limits to Growth in the early 70s, we are missing their true purpose–to serve as the justification for further centralization of social and economic decision-making under political power.
It’s not just Latour or Donella Meadows who have been graphic about this over the decades. So have Daniel Bell and Anthony Giddens. If we treat the dispute as legitimately about science, we look in the wrong places for a desired remedy.

Geoff Sherrington

In searching for analogies to climate variations I sometimes quote cycles of the human body. There are fundamental ones related to pulse, respiration, sleep, defecation, perspiration, etc at one level and a bunch of biochemical cycles like Krebs, Calvin Cori … it’s a long list but it is not needed to be complete to make the analogy clear.
Surely climate has cycles like this. They have a rhythm that can be independent of, or cross-correlated to each other, some weakly, some strongly. Different processes can affect the frequency and amplitude of a given cycle – or sometimes a common input, such as exertion or a febrile condition, can alter the variables of a number of cycles, but not in a way that is easy to predict or to analyse from first principles. It’s hard to even denote independent and dependent variables because without any one, life stops. In this sense they are all dependent.
A problem with grand climate models arises because the natural processes are not amenable to conventional statistical analysis, even the most complicated. (To me there’s a feel that old-fashioned analogue computers with purposeful noise added might be better than digital ones).
In hindsight, the present architecture of climate models had to be tried for completeness. Now, having failed, they should be abandoned. They should be abandoned because they cannot cope with complexity (illustrated by the analogy with the human body). Nobody that I know is modelling the human body that way, do correct me if I’m wrong. It would be an ambitious project.
Perhaps, using the analogy, the climate model problem arose from an urge to isolate global temperature and to study what affected it. This is somewhat akin to seizing on body temperature and trying to hitch known cycles to it.
Chances are that temperature is not the ultimate variable process-wise. Just as we are fascinated with what keeps a body alive, we should be asking what has stopped the world from dying.

Jud

Crispin.
I agree with your point on the loss of credibility science has suffered.
That may, in the end, prove the biggest loss of this whole mess.
I worry the consequences of this debacle will be severe.
However, it is still ‘job 1’ to move the world out of this pre-enlightenment phase we have unfortunately entered. We will have deal with the consequences when the time comes.

JPeden

Paul Homewood says:
November 1, 2013 at 4:38 am
Richard Muller :“Anyone claiming another cause would have to show that it correlates with the temperature record at least as well as CO2.”
But the warming DOES NOT correlate with CO2!

Where is it that ‘mainstream’ Climate Science has even done a correlation between the two? It looks like it has been assumed as a ‘tenet’.

chris y

From David Stockwell’s “On the Dynamics of Global Temperature”, abstract-
“Over the last century, annual global temperature rises or falls 0.063 C/W/m^2 per year when solar irradiance is greater or less than an equilibrium value of 1366 W/m^2 at top-of-atmosphere.”
The sensitivity of intra-annual surface temperature variations to seasonal solar insolation variations, given at any particular location by (summerT – winterT)/(summer TSI – winter TSI) (aka summer is warmer than winter) is around 0.04 – 0.12 C/W/m^2. This is in the same ballpark as David’s estimate.

Here is a quote from the last post on my blog at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
The whole post and accompanying cooling forecast was guest posted on WUWT on 10/29.
Seems very apropos to this discussion.
“2. A Simple Rational Approach to Climate Forecasting based on Common Sense and Quasi Repetitive- Quasi Cyclic Patterns.
How then can we predict the future of a constantly changing climate? A new forecasting paradigm is required .
It is important to note that it in order to make transparent and likely skillful forecasts it is not necessary to understand or quantify the interactions of the large number of interacting and quasi independent physical processes and variables which produce the state of the climate system as a whole as represented by the temperature metric.”

David L. Hagen

An excellent example of Einstein’s Razor: “Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler”
Similarly, Murry Salby showed that CO2 fluxes are not exceptional because“gas diffuses in ice cores”, and nature dominates CO2 fluxes.

Jim Berkise

I was intorduced to the formal study of scholarly communication patterns using statistical modeling techniques (bibliometrics) as a graduate student in the early 90s at Drexel University, and it has always appeared to me that a bogus paradigm shift in the field of climate studies was engineered somehow in a relatively brief period. The publication of Mann’s hockey stick reconstructions first introduced the idea that abrupt climate chage was possible, yet by the time the Second Assessment Report was issued in 1995, after very little of the sort of process Kuhn’s model would lead us to expect, this was presented as the dominant paradigm. From a “Kuhnian perspective”, I’d say we’re seeing the system slowly righting itself.

Steve

I think the big thing being missed is that it doesn’t matter how many holes you shoot in the science of AGW. The people pushing this are not pushing this philosophy because they truly want to save the world from global warming. They want to control the economies of the world and this is a convenient excuse for why everyone should give them control of the world. There might be a paradigm shift, but it will be from one reason for control to another.

“In the accumulation theory, global temperature rises while solar activity is above the long-term solar constant.”
So is it also true that global temperatures fall while solar activity is below the long-term solar constant?
What is the lag time? When do temperatures start to fall?
I would like a prediction.

Kasuha

” As shown in the figure above, a simple regression model of accumulated total solar insolation (CumTSI) with global temperature gives a higher correlation”
______________________________
Aw come on, this has been disproven here on WUWT multiple times already. These cycles can be seen in data even before 1950, but if you look at them before that you’ll notice that they’re not that nicely in phase anymore. And besides, there is no known physical principle that would be able to integrate TSI over many decades, No, not even sea water.

James Cross
For a prediction see my comment at 5:56 AM above Here is a summary
” I have combined the PDO, ,Millennial cycle and neutron trends to estimate the timing and extent of the coming cooling in both the Northern Hemisphere and Globally.
Here are the conclusions of those posts.
1/22/13 (NH)
1) The millennial peak is sharp – perhaps 18 years +/-. We have now had 16 years since 1997 with no net warming – and so might expect a sharp drop in a year or two – 2014/16 -with a net cooling by 2035 of about 0.35.Within that time frame however there could well be some exceptional years with NH temperatures +/- 0.25 degrees colder than that.
2) The cooling gradient might be fairly steep down to the Oort minimum equivalent which would occur about 2100. (about 1100 on Fig 5) ( Fig 3 here) with a total cooling in 2100 from the present estimated at about 1.2 +/-
3) From 2100 on through the Wolf and Sporer minima equivalents with intervening highs to the Maunder Minimum equivalent which could occur from about 2600 – 2700 a further net cooling of about 0.7 degrees could occur for a total drop of 1.9 +/- degrees
4)The time frame for the significant cooling in 2014 – 16 is strengthened by recent developments already seen in solar activity. With a time lag of about 12 years between the solar driver proxy and climate we should see the effects of the sharp drop in the Ap Index which took place in 2004/5 in 2016-17.
4/02/13 ( Global)
1 Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 – 0.15
5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 – 0.5
6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.”

Anthony this is SAL, I thought you said it would only be 48 hrs before I could post. It is going on two weeks.
I thought this web-site was al about finding out the truth and featuring different points of views.
As far as Leif goes, you don’t agree with him yourself yet when I challenge him it seems to get you bent out of shape. Why is that? I sit because Leif is the representative solar scientist for Watts Up With That?
In any matter their are many web-sites to voice opinions on this subject and if you don’t want mine it is your loss and the web-site loss.
E

To portray AGW as a scientific paradigm is to give it legitimacy beyond its desert. It is a pseudo science. When science triumphs over a pseudo science, this is not a paradigm shift in the Kulnian sense. Climate science has been corrupted by politics — how that happened is what requires explaining. How that corruption can be corrected, that is what needs doing.