Gavin was for solar forcing of climate before he was against it

Readers may recall when Dr. Gavin Schmidt appeared on a television program with Dr. Roy Spencer, but by Gavin’s cowardly choice, not at the same time.

After listing the known causes for climate change aka global warming, Gavin Schmidt said:

“We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun. We’ve looked at volcanoes; it’s not volcanoes. We’ve looked at the orbit; it’s not the orbit.”

Interestingly, Gavin lists solar forcing as  primary cause of colder temperatures during the Maunder Minimum and “little ice age” in this 2001 paper co-authored with Mike Mann: 

Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294 no. 5549 pp. 2149-2152 DOI: 10.1126/science.1064363

Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum

Drew T. Shindell1, Gavin A. Schmidt1, Michael E. Mann2, David Rind1, Anne Waple3

+ Author Affiliations

  1. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025, USA.
  2. Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22902, USA
  3. Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA

Abstract

We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the late 17th-century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases. This leads to colder temperatures over the Northern Hemisphere continents, especially in winter (1° to 2°C), in agreement with historical records and proxy data for surface temperatures.

The full paper is here at PSU: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/Shindelletal01.pdf

The conclusion reads (bold mine):

The GISS model results and empirical reconstructions both suggest that solar-forced regional climate changes during the Maunder Minimum appeared predominantly as a shift toward the low AO/NAO index. Although global average temperature changes were small, modeled regional cooling over the continents during winter was up to five times greater. Changes in ocean circulation were not considered in this model. However, given the sensitivity of the North Atlantic to AO/NAO forcing (37), oceanic changes may well have been triggered as a response to the atmospheric changes (38). Such oceanic

changes would themselves further modify the pattern of SST in the North Atlantic (39) and, to a lesser extent, the downstream air temperature anomalies in Europe.

These results provide evidence that relatively small solar forcing may play a significant role in century-scale NH winter climate change. This suggests that colder winter temperatures over the NH continents during portions of the 15th through the 17th centuries (sometimes called the Little Ice Age) and warmer temperatures during the 12th through 14th centuries (the putative Medieval Warm Period) may have been influenced by long-term solar variations.

==============================================================

In the paper: A History of Solar Activity over Millennia  (PDF) it is demonstrated:

The modern level of solar activity (after the 1940s) is very high, corresponding to a grand maximum. Grand maxima are also rare and irregularly occurring events, though the exact rate of their occurrence is still a subject of debates. These observational features of the long-term behavior of solar activity have important implications, especially for the development of theoretical solar-dynamo models and for solar-terrestrial studies.

image

Figure 15: 10-year averaged sunspot numbers: Actual group sunspot numbers (thick grey line) and the reconstructions based on 10Be (thin curve, Usoskin et al., 2003c) and on 14C (thick curve with error bars, Solanki et al., 2004). The horizontal dotted line depicts the high activity threshold.

More here: Paper demonstrates solar activity was at a grand maximum in the late 20th century

Another paper recently published  predicts the sun is headed for a Dalton-like solar minimum around 2050

The author notes solar activity has been at a higher level in the 20th century saying”

“the Sun has emerged from a Grand Maximum, which includes solar cycle 19, the most active solar cycle in the last 400 years. Earth was cooler in Grand Minima. The trend line indicates we have entered a period of low solar activity.”

Note the red horizontal line on the graph below shows 50-year mean solar activity was at the highest levels of the past 300 years during the latter half of the 20th century.

Ahluwalia_fig1

Annual Mean Sunspot Numbers. Annotation numbers indicate solar cycles. Red horizontal lines show 50-year mean sunspot numbers were highest during the solar Grand Maximum in the latter half of the 20th century. DM= Dalton Minimum of solar activity during the Little Ice Age. We are currently in cycle 24 which shows a drop.

From the WUWT Solar reference page, Dr Leif Svalgaard has this plot comparing the current cycle 24 with recent solar cycles. The prediction is that solar max via sunspot count will peak in late 2013/early 2014 (now):

solar_region_count

Predictions are that cycle 25 will be even lower: First Estimate of Solar Cycle 25 Amplitude – may be the smallest in over 300 years

Based on the slowing of the Sun’s “Great Conveyor Belt”, NASA solar scientist David Hathaway predicted that

“The slowdown we see now means that Solar Cycle 25, peaking around the year 2022, could be one of the weakest in centuries.” He is very likely to have got the year wrong in that Solar Cycle 25 is unlikely to start until 2025.

In this paper: http://www.probeinternational.org/Livingston-penn-2010.pdf,

Livingston and Penn provided the first hard estimate of Solar Cycle 25 amplitude based on a physical model. That estimate is 7, which would make it the smallest solar cycle for over 300 years.

Yet according to Gavin in his recent television interview,

“We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun.”

Right, apparently the sun can only force climate one-way.

So in the upcoming two decades, as solar activity wanes, if it becomes globally cooler, will Gavin and Mike blame the sun, or will the disavow their previous work, pointing to studies like this one?

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

The old Shidell et al. paper from 2001 was based on the erroneous Hoyt-Schatten reconstruction of TSI, so cannot be used anymore. The notion that solar activity in the 20th century was at an all-time high is also incorrect. When the data used to infer relationships are in doubt, anything goes, and no valid conclusions can be reached. My own reasoning is here: http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf

ConfusedPhoton

Dr Gavin Schmidt is merely reflecting the elastic properties of climate “science”. Nothing is inconsistent with climate astrology. Just make things up as you go along!

Sweet Old Bob

Oh mann..hoisted on their own petard?

Gavin Schmidt & Mann inadvertently discovered one of many solar amplification mechanisms that have been described in the literature: solar forcing of the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO], which in turn has large scale effects on global climate.
Many other peer-reviewed papers corroborate solar forcing of the NAO [as well as other ocean/atmospheric oscillations such as PDO/ENSO]
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+nao
But, they ignore their own inconvenient work and conveniently only talk in public about the 0.1% change of total solar irradiance during solar cycles as being insufficient to force climate, which ignores the fundamentally different effects of wavelength shifts during solar cycles on climate, as well as solar amplification mechanisms.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-climate-models-dismiss-role-of-sun_21.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+amplification+mechanisms

Ulric Lyons

From the abstract:
“However, regional temperature changes are quite large. In the model, these occur primarily through a forced shift toward the low index state of the Arctic Oscillation/North Atlantic Oscillation as solar irradiance decreases.”
More like when the solar wind is slower.

albertalad

The more studies that appear on all sides it becomes even more apparent no one understands climate, not to mention none of them can predict weather five days out, yet the public actually listens to these fortune tellers? There are so many forces at play at the same time that constantly shift and change just as constantly, studies can at best describe a single moment in time for a specific place that has no bearing a few miles away. The fact remains we do not yet understand climate factors at play.

tomdesabla

I also found Ridley very credible in the video. He pointed out other positive aspects of fossil fuel use that simply do not fit into the one-dimensional, over-specialized, over-hyped paradigm of modern “climate science” T.M.
Lots of things can kill people, including not enough food. More people die from hunger today than could ever be killed from a scientifically credible increase in temperatures.

Cheshirered

Schmidt lost any professional respect that may have been due with that utterly feeble, truly pathetic display of ego. If he had the ‘science’ to support his claims he would not have needed to play such an embarrassing game, which would certainly have been deeply insulting to a fellow professional like Dr Spencer.
Painful to watch, but nonetheless a great lesson in the consequences of misguided hubris.
PS. Respect to Dr Spencer for being prepared to over-indulge the spoilt rat.

Paul Westhaver

Gaven Schmidt looked like a cockroach scurrying on and off the set with his head down And his transparent self serving lie of an excuse for not debating Roy: I want to get [MY] word out.
yeah sure Gavin… I agree. It is pretty hard to get your unreasonable opinion out when there is a voice of reason there to say that you are unreasonably
What a gutless faker. The Herald of a socialist… conceal your socialism as science and then lie about the facts and refuse to debate it.
You fooled nobody you dullard.
Hurricane Sandy’s destruction was due to Global Warming he said. What a bull%$^&er.
I think hurricanes are destructive in their own right and Sandy was a direct hit on a populated area.

So in the upcoming two decades, as solar activity wanes, if it becomes globally cooler, will Gavin and Mike blame the sun, or will the disavow their previous work,…
My view (not accepted by many, if any) is: In order for a solar cycle to produce global cooling, its magnetic polarity has to be opposite in phase to small but measurable decadal changes in the Earth’s magnetic field. Amplitude also maters, stronger the cycle is it’s effect is more pronounced the warming or cooling. Good example of this is SC19 which was strongest on the record, but it was followed by significant cooling.
Here is what calculations show:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
I do not do predictions, but do extrapolations of my equations.So what the extrapolation shows?
Using another of my equations (see second part of this post) indicates low amplitude of two next cycles, amplitude of the geo-change isn’t known but phase is, this translates into a more moderate cooling/warming than if the SSN numbers were large.
In 10 days time, it is exactly 10 years since publication of my solar formula approximation. So you may ask, how did ‘solar formula’ do ?
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Call it coincidence, numerology or whatever you wish, but may I remind you that at the time the top NASA scientists (Hathaway and Dikpati) were predicting SC24 as the highest ever.

Wait until the E=GREENS find out that Photovoltaic cells are made using ARSENIC – and like the last decade miracle the compact fluorescent bulb was found to contain MERCURY a dangerous hazardous waste material that goes in our water and fish.
Yes, they are going to save us by making energy cost five times more and then poison us so there will be less human population and the world will then be sustainable. Oh yes, did the HARD E=GREENS like Sierra Club, Greenpeace and others that fund a think tank put their CHIEF SCIENTIST on TV a while back and he said the E=GREEN movement wants to reduce the human population by 2/3 – Only 1/3 can be allowed to live and reproduction will be a government granted permit – like EPA now issues.

Leif…If there was no long term variability of solar activity as your work seems to show, then what natural causes can there be for the periodic and fairly regular shifts in climate – such as the MWP and LIA? Shindell also directed attention to the UV element of solar variability. The ap index also is a measure of the solar wind and this clearly does vary from trough to peak in the solar cycle – as does UV….so logic would say that if there is a prolonged ‘trough’ as in the Maunder Minimum and shorter Dalton Minimum, then these factors would likely be affected.
And a note to ‘Confused Photon’……please stop directing your ire at ‘astrology’…..it has nothing to say about climate, nor climate about astrology. Take some direction from Sir Isaac Newton, and go study it as deeply as he did….in the days before scientists focused solely on matter and became paranoid of any other dimension of reality.

Tobias Smit

IPCC =International POLICEFORCE on Climate Change and do not forget it!

stevek

Seems to me there needs to be much more work done in climate science before AGW or lack of is understood with a high level of certainty.
The media and politicians have picked up on a story that they want to be true. It reminds me of all the times we hear about an apparent cure for cancer, diabetes , obesity, AIDS on the news that was found by some researcher, but the cure never seems to make it to reality.
At one time I believed in AGW but when the models missed their predicted warming, I knew the from high school science that the models had to be rejected because they did not agree with the real world data. A model is simply an hypothesis. We certainly cannot accept an hypothesis that doesn’t match the data.

vukcevic says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Call it coincidence, numerology or whatever you wish, but may I remind you that at the time the top NASA scientists (Hathaway and Dikpati) were predicting SC24 as the highest ever.
They were as wrong for cycle 24 as you are for cycles 20 and 10. So, both their and your ideas fail in predictive [or even descriptive] ability. This is the predictable fate of ‘predictions’ based on faulty science [them] and no science [you]. Hathaway at least has the honesty to admit he was wrong. You still have to get to that point.

Peter Taylor says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Leif…If there was no long term variability of solar activity as your work seems to show, then what natural causes can there be for the periodic and fairly regular shifts in climate – such as the MWP and LIA?
All complicated non-linear systems can have internal, natural variability, and the climate is no exception.

I debated a NASA Ph.D for two years over AGW and fossil fuels – he was a committed GRANT SCIENTIST – Next I introduced logic – how could you assume the sun emits the exact same amount of energy each minute and over the millions of years, where is any evidence to support that hypothesis. He had none but called names and went to peer reviewed consensus scientific papers all support AGW.
I then ask because I studied a long time ago for this new Scientific method to arrive at proofs – when did this become acceptable evidence of a proof. He again called my names and ran away. They are mostly like Gavin – no real data sets and all based on computer models and they will never release the raw data use to create the based data set – therefore in my old world no one can reproduce the test or the result.
This then provides all involved with a “F” and they should return their degrees as they are fake just like their science. To bad Politics has entered the world of absolute science using MONEY as the reward for failure.
If you want to really set them off just mention NUCLEAR power and the approval of it now by the retired President of the Sierra Club – he said he was sorry to have caused the financial ruin of the only source of energy that can replace Fossil Fuels and not emit CO2.

Pamela Gray

Gavin engaged in wriggle matching without serious attention to mechanism. As he currently also does. In both cases Gavin fails to consider other more probable mechanisms with the energy necessary to bring about, sustain and deepen weather pattern variations shifts. If he now agrees to consider other non-solar causes of historical shifts, he must consider other such causes for the modern one he is so focused on.

Gareth Phillips

albertalad says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:17 pm
The more studies that appear on all sides it becomes even more apparent no one understands climate, not to mention none of them can predict weather five days out, yet the public actually listens to these fortune tellers? There are so many forces at play at the same time that constantly shift and change just as constantly, studies can at best describe a single moment in time for a specific place that has no bearing a few miles away. The fact remains we do not yet understand climate factors at play.
@ Garethman, you are correct to a large extent albertalad in that climate science is extremely complex with much yet to be defined on how it varies and what factors impact to change from cold to warm etc. But there is one thing we do know, from observation, not models and not hypothesis, and that is that the world is warming. Past trends and behaviour are not a 100% fail-safe guide to future unknowns, but they are a good indicator and the only one based on evidence which is objective. There may be a slowing of that rise, but the overall trend is still up (change temperature for unemployment figures debated by politicians and it becomes clearer) If the temperature has not gone down,and I think we all agree they have not, and no other factors have been confirmed which would start that process, it’s a pretty good guess that they will continue to rise. If they fall for a few years we need to re-evaluate much of these conclusions, but at present the trend remains pretty obvious.

Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get.
Mark Twain

“We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun. We’ve looked at volcanoes; it’s not volcanoes. We’ve looked at the orbit; it’s not the orbit.”
——————————————————
We have met the climate – and it is us.
for the sardonically disabled: /sarc

Global versus regional.
Next.
There is no modern maximum in TSI.
Next.
REPLY: Oh yea of narrow possibilities. Not one mention of TSI. There are other mechanisms – Anthony

GeologyJim

I’ll accept Svalgaard’s caution about reading too much into solar-energy fluctuations, and especially about comparing modern observational records to proxy reconstructions of the past.
However (as objections always begin), I think the caution may be too selective. The Sun’s energy flux is variable on many timescales and across various parts of the EM spectrum, so simple measures of TSI or sunspot frequency are generally too coarse as metrics. The Sun’s particle wind and EM fields also interact with Earth’s electrical and magnetic fields, and these in turn interact with the electromagnetic fields created by atmospheric circulation of charged particles, lightning-induced EM currents, and the irregular flux of EM discharge from the bombardment of galactic cosmic rays on all of the above. None of this is factored into GCM climate simulations.
The IPCC paradigm that CO2 alone is the BIG KNOB that controls temperature (and thus, they presume, “climate”) is easily falsified by the last 15-17 years of history: CO2 rising conspicuously while global temps go nowhere. To quote Feynman, “If the facts don’t match the model, the model is wrong”.
As several recent posts have argued, the ocean-atmosphere system functions as a great heat engine that moves tropical heat upward and poleward, generally maintaining long-term stable climatic regimes. Changes to those regimes are driven by changes in the thermal gradients between tropics and poles, which seem to be most clearly associated with changes in solar output and/or the effects of solar variations on cloud cover.
Anyone who argues for “tipping points” in climate history is [sorry to say] completely ignorant of Earth history. Just in the last million years, Earth has cycled repeatedly from glacial to interglacial conditions [10C in the polar regions, 3-4C in tropical regions] without ever “running away”. Clearly, Earth has thermostats as demonstrated by the fact that glacial minimum temps and interglacial maximum temps all tend to be about the same.
If CO2 were so darned powerful, then why would glacial temps begin to rise when CO2 was minimal? If CO2 were so darned powerful, then why would interglacial temps begin to fall when CO2 was at it’s maximum level?
Common sense seems to be lacking in the climatology realm.

Peter Taylor says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm
The ap index also is a measure of the solar wind
The ap index and the solar wind have shown no trend the past 170 years:
http://www.leif.org/research/Ap-1844-now.png and
Figure 6 of http://www.leif.org/research/Error-Scale-Values-HLS.pdf [the solar wind magnetic field is shown by the pink curve in the middle of the plot].
But I think there may have been an upward trend of global temperatures the past two centuries
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/28/loehle-vindication/

Max

Figure 15: 10-year averaged sunspot numbers looks to me to be a “solar hockey stick” 🙂
While Leif has said that TSI (may | does) not have a significant effect on climatic temperatures, the co-relation of prior cool periods with sunspots suggests there may be a relation through a mechanism not yet (well) understood. Hopefully through this coming period that mechanism will be discovered.

GeologyJim says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:55 pm
The Sun’s particle wind and EM fields also interact with Earth’s electrical and magnetic fields, and these in turn interact with the electromagnetic fields created by atmospheric circulation of charged particles, lightning-induced EM currents, and the irregular flux of EM discharge from the bombardment of galactic cosmic rays on all of the above
As per my previous comment there has been no long-term trend in those parameters either…

Claude Harvey

Maybe Mother Nature is simply a great gypsy who wanders wherever she chooses for no particular reason at all. And all the while, shaman-scientists study chicken bones and meditate over goat scat in their efforts to divine where The Great Gypsy may go next. Finally, our high priests reveal to us what we must sacrifice in order to placate The Great Gypsy (lumps of coal and barrels of oil are popular at the moment).

TB

Hockey Schtick says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:12 pm
Gavin Schmidt & Mann inadvertently discovered one of many solar amplification mechanisms that have been described in the literature: solar forcing of the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO], which in turn has large scale effects on global climate.
Many other peer-reviewed papers corroborate solar forcing of the NAO [as well as other ocean/atmospheric oscillations such as PDO/ENSO]
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+nao
But, they ignore their own inconvenient work and conveniently only talk in public about the 0.1% change of total solar irradiance during solar cycles as being insufficient to force climate, which ignores the fundamentally different effects of wavelength shifts during solar cycles on climate, as well as solar amplification mechanisms.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/12/how-climate-models-dismiss-role-of-sun_21.html
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/search?q=solar+amplification+mechanisms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I believe you are correct in stating that Solar minima affect weather due to variation in the Sun’s emitted wavelength output … however.
An increase or decrease in UV that affects the Strat (destroys O3 and therefore warms) is not a NET increase in solar energy absorbed by the climate system. At least not a sig one as it does not penetrate into the Troposphere.
To say that it influences weather – I mean that it rearranges the weather patterns but the heat processed by the it remains the same (bar the ~0.1% variation) in the Solar absorbed V IR emitted equation.
Our best demonstration of this is the correlation with Cold European winters and low solar (vis LIA). This via an induced –AO, due warming /disruption of the Strat vortex and down-welling of E’lies to the Surface.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
“Even though it only accounts for a minuscule fraction of total solar radiation, the impact of solar UV, EUV and X-ray radiation on the Earth’s upper atmosphere is profound. Solar UV flux is a major driver of stratospheric chemistry, and increases in ionizing radiation significantly affect ionosphere-influenced temperature and electrical conductivity.”
And
“The sunspot cycle variation of 0.1% has small but detectable effects on the Earth’s climate.[30] Work by Camp and Tung suggests that changes in solar irradiance correlates with a variation of ±0.1 K (±0.18°F) in measured average global temperature between the peak and minimum of the 11-year solar cycle”
From: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-7-1-3.html
“Approximately 1% of the Sun’s radiant energy is in the UV portion of the spectrum at wavelengths below about 300 nm, which the Earth’s atmosphere absorbs. Although of considerably smaller absolute energy than the total irradiance, solar UV radiation is fractionally more variable by at least an order of magnitude. It contributes significantly to changes in total solar irradiance (15% of the total irradiance cycle; Lean et al., 1997) and creates and modifies the ozone layer, but is not considered as a direct RF because it does not reach the troposphere. Since the TAR, new studies have confirmed and advanced the plausibility of indirect effects involving the modification of the stratosphere by solar UV irradiance variations (and possibly by solar-induced variations in the overlying mesosphere and lower thermosphere), with subsequent dynamical and radiative coupling to the troposphere (Section 9.2). Whether solar wind fluctuations (Boberg and Lundstedt, 2002) or solar-induced heliospheric modulation of galactic cosmic rays (Marsh and Svensmark, 2000b) also contribute indirect forcings remains ambiguous.”

RAH

What they could do is change the way sunspots are counted and then find some rational to change the historical record of sunspot counts (which by the way I believe is the oldest continuous scientific measurement man has made) just as they have done to the temperature records. After all their beliefs have nothing to do with science and everything to do with money and faith.

RAH says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:11 pm
What they could do is change the way sunspots are counted and then find some rationale to change the historical record of sunspot counts
Except that is not what “they” do. BTW, I do that [on sound grounds] http://www.leif.org/research/CEAB-Cliver-et-al-2013.pdf

Greg Cavanagh

According to wiki, fluorescent bulbs were invented in 1856.
It is tempting to belittle the greens for discovering in 2012 that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury.

geologyjim

Leif Svalgaard says “there has been no long-term trend in those parameters either …”
Are you denying the peak in sunspot/EM activity during cycles 21-22-23-24, as shown in your diagram?
solar-polar-fields-1966-now.png [see wattsupwiththat.com solar info page]
I fail to understand your reluctance to acknowledge the influence of the Sun, but I await your explanation

bones

lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:47 pm
Peter Taylor says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm
Leif…If there was no long term variability of solar activity as your work seems to show, then what natural causes can there be for the periodic and fairly regular shifts in climate – such as the MWP and LIA?
All complicated non-linear systems can have internal, natural variability, and the climate is no exception.
———————————————————————-
Well, that is a pretty weak answer. Changing global surface temperature a degree or two requires changing ocean temperatures to at least a few hundred meters depth. A lot of energy has to be sourced/sinked and variations of surface insolation are about the only way to do it. Natural variability won’t happen if the energy isn’t available.

geologyjim says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:26 pm
Are you denying the peak in sunspot/EM activity during cycles 21-22-23-24, as shown in your diagram?
Just pointing out that solar activity was just as high in the 1830-1870s and in the 1780-790s…

I like what Matt Ridley (second half of the video) said – “Fossil fuels is responsible for the end of slavery. Because energy is cheap, it is cheaper to build machines than hire lots of people. You either have cheap labour or cheap energy, and frankly it is better for people to have cheap energy”.
If you look at where slavery is most prevalent in the world, its in places like Africa, or undeveloped parts of central Asia, where fuel is expensive, infrastructure nonexistent, and the only way to escape endless drudgery is to force someone else to do the work.

Pamela Gray

The CO2-global warming connection is based on an unobserved (and extremely poorly measured) change in water vapor. Water vapor changes dramatically due to naturally occurring weather pattern variations. What that means is that any change or trend in water vapor due to increased anthropogenic CO2 additions to the atmosphere would be buried in the natural noisy signal. It would even be buried in natural-sourced trends in water vapor. When a separate trend is buried in another trend which is buried in noise, I hardly consider that premise worth a farthing. The solar variation connection is based on an unobserved set of theories (I will call them various solar amplification theories) of which no plausible mechanism has been found and no correlations have been found.
So the anthropogenic CO2 theory has just as much, if not more, validity as the solar theory. If I were a solar enthusiast, I would have to admit the on-paper equality (or the slight advantage of the water vapor theory) and be sobered by it. Yet, solar enthusiasts continue to blather on about their driver, completely unwilling to face or admit serious weaknesses in their proposals. It boggles the mind.
Meanwhile, one of the greatest IR filters combined with one of the greatest heat storing entities in the known Universe keeps chugging along, churning up and belching warmer or colder waters onto our shores and either heating us up or freezing our asses off with decades-long impunity. This mechanism is known. It has the energy necessary to cause such trends. There is no need for magical or otherwise amplification. The nose on the face of the globe could not be any bigger. Ignore it at your own embarrassment.

bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Natural variability won’t happen if the energy isn’t available.
Well, it didn’t come from the Sun, because solar activity has not changed enough.

lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:55 pm
The ap index and the solar wind have shown no trend the past 170 years:
Correct, but is the Ap index as measured the true representation of the interplanetary magnetic field for the solar magnetic field alone, i.e. magnetic field carried by the solar wind among the planets of the Solar System, or those planets have something to do with it as well
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Tromso.htm
Its spectral composition suggests that science is not settled on that one either.

Txomin

It’s inevitable that complexity will gradually return to climate science. Propaganda can only work for so long.

RichardLH

“We’ve looked at the sun; it’s not the sun. We’ve looked at volcanoes; it’s not volcanoes. We’ve looked at the orbit; it’s not the orbit.”
Well something is causing a 60 year cycle I the data (and it is not CO2!)
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720/plot/esrl-co2/scale:0.01/offset:-3.3

Gail Combs

Gareth Phillips says: @ December 28, 2013 at 1:52 pm
albertalad says: @ December 28, 2013 at 1:17 pm
….But there is one thing we do know, from observation, not models and not hypothesis, and that is that the world is warming. Past trends and behaviour are not a 100% fail-safe guide to future unknowns, but they are a good indicator and the only one based on evidence which is objective. There may be a slowing of that rise, but the overall trend is still up….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That depends. If you look at the total Holocene interglacial the actual trend is cooling from the Holocene optimum with some up and down squiggles. We are at present in an up squiggle thank goodness.
The best graph I have come across yet is HERE.
There are plenty of studies that back up that graph too. Such as:

Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic 2010
Miller et al
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, USA et al
…. Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present. Early Holocene summer sea ice limits were substantially smaller than their 20th century average, and the flow of Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean was substantially greater. As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers re-established or advanced, sea ice expanded

A more recent paper looking at glaciers in Norway.

A new approach for reconstructing glacier variability based on lake sediments recording input from more than one glacier January 2012
Kristian Vasskoga Øyvind Paaschec, Atle Nesjea, John F. Boyled, H.J.B. Birks
…. A multi-proxy numerical analysis demonstrates that it is possible to distinguish a glacier component in the ~ 8000-yr-long record, based on distinct changes in grain size, geochemistry, and magnetic composition…. This signal is …independently tested through a mineral magnetic provenance analysis of catchment samples. Minimum glacier input is indicated between 6700–5700 cal yr BP, probably reflecting a situation when most glaciers in the catchment had melted away, whereas the highest glacier activity is observed around 600 and 200 cal yr BP. During the local Neoglacial interval (~ 4200 cal yr BP until present), five individual periods of significantly reduced glacier extent are identified at ~ 3400, 3000–2700, 2100–2000, 1700–1500, and ~ 900 cal yr BP….

The authors of BOTH papers simply state that most glaciers likely didn’t exist 6,000 years ago, but the highest period of the glacial activity has been in the past 600 years. This is hardly surprising with ~9% less solar energy.

bones

lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:31 pm
bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Natural variability won’t happen if the energy isn’t available.
Well, it didn’t come from the Sun, because solar activity has not changed enough.
———————————————————————————–
But it could well have come from relatively small changes in cloud cover. Perhaps those are chaotic variations, but there is some evidence of correlation with solar activity.

bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:44 pm
But it could well have come from relatively small changes in cloud cover
Clouds are part of the climate system too, don’t you think?
there is some evidence of correlation with solar activity.
Like these? :
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf

Reg Nelson

Gavin could not, and would not be caught in the same room as the reasoned, respected, and intelligent scientist, Dr Roy Spencer,
Instead, Gavin, scurried away like the cockroach that he is.

Bill H

Greg Cavanagh says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:19 pm
According to wiki, fluorescent bulbs were invented in 1856.
It is tempting to belittle the greens for discovering in 2012 that fluorescent bulbs contain mercury.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
One must remember that it was the eco freaks who forced us to place them in our homes using a lie. they may not have invented them but they dam sure forced us into poisoning ourselves by government fiat!

bones

lsvalgaard says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:51 pm
bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:44 pm
But it could well have come from relatively small changes in cloud cover
Clouds are part of the climate system too, don’t you think?
there is some evidence of correlation with solar activity.
Like these? :
http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc120049-GCR-Clouds.pdf
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cloud%20Cover%20and%20Cosmic%20Rays.pdf
————————————————————
I was thinking of something that more directly related surface insolation variations to the solar cycle. In a previous post, I provided a reference to direct solar insolation measurements from Antarctica. I will try to find it and post it again. The effect was large; several percent change.

hunter

It is fascinating that the climatocracy is able at once to sit in the seat of high social prestige while at the same time being unable to debate their point and win. Gavin learned after losing to Michael Crichton to never actually debate the issues he makes his living promoting.
Yet the billion$ roll in, and “progressive” leaders line up to find ways to sneak their ideas into law and avoid the voters. It used to be that if you could not win the debate you would lose the argument. But in the age of CO2,anything is possible.

R. de Haan

ELKE Presentation Pier Corbyn:

bones says:
December 28, 2013 at 3:02 pm
I provided a reference to direct solar insolation measurements from Antarctica
Antarctica has strongest solar magnetic correlation anywhere found on the Earth
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TMC.htm

@ R. de Haan
Piers Corbyn, Gavin Schmidt and I are products of the same university (GS university college, P.C and I imperial)

charles nelson

If Leif was a tv detective, he would be the kind of tv detective that solves cases on the basis of a ‘hunch’. He just kinda ‘knows’ deep down he’s on the right trail – even if the pesky clues don’t seem to line up!