Relative Homogeneity of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and The Little Ice Age (LIA)

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “Hockey Stick” graph produced solutions for three facts challenging the claims of key IPCC climate scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). The problems appeared in Figure 7c in the 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR) (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Source: Figure 7c in the IPCC FAR
Figure 1: Source: Figure 7c in the IPCC FAR

The three problems it created were

  • The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) contradicted their claim that the 20th century was the warmest ever.
  • The Little Ice Age (LIA) showed that the present warming trend began prior to the major impact of the Industrial Revolution. Significant production of CO2 by humans began only after World War II.
  • The trend of the warming since circa 1650 A.D., the nadir of the LIA, was well within natural variability.

The hockey stick graph dealt with all those by eliminating the MWP and the LIA. It inappropriately tacked on, as the blade of the stick, an upturn in temperature in the 20th century. Phil Jones produced the upturn that claimed a 0.6°C ±0.2°C increase in 120 years. They claimed this rate of increase was beyond any natural increase, conveniently ignoring the ±33% error factor.

A second part of their problem involved a paper by Soon and Baliunas titled “Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1,000 years” (Climate Research, 23, 89–110) that detailed worldwide evidence of existence of the MWP. The personal attacks on Soon and Baliunas are now exposed, particularly the role of John Holdren when at Harvard.

A third part involved the claim that Figure 7c was the temperature for the Northern Hemisphere and neither the LIA nor the MWP was a global event. The argument that a climatic period was regional or for a given portion of a record, was used to counter the problem that the Holocene Optimum was warmer than the 20th century. Steve McIntyre examined the response of AGW supporters, including a quotation from NOAA that says,

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere.

Timing of Events

The issue involved here is classic and essential to proper understanding of climate. It involved a standard practice in climatology called Relative Homogeneity. If you are going to establish a pattern of climate change, you must determine if it is local, regional, hemispheric or global. It addresses the very definition of climatology, which is the study of climate in a region or the change over time.

I dealt with the issue while preparing for my doctoral thesis that involved reconstructing climate change at Churchill, Manitoba, on Hudson Bay for the period from 1714 – 1850. My supervisor, Dr. Bruce Atkinson, directed me to reconstruct climate changes at York Factory, also on Hudson Bay, but 200 km away. The comparison identified local changes at Churchill while examination of regional, hemispheric and global changes provided a wider context.

Two major assumptions complicate determination of the length and extent of the change. First is that an event, such as the MWP, begins and ends at the same time. Second is that changes created by an external forcing is evident in all records. I discussed both issues at length with Hubert Lamb because my thesis period covered the transition from the LIA to the modern warm period. Lamb did not use the term Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Jean Grove attributes the Little Ice Age (LIA) name to Mathes (1939), but Lamb gave much thought to the dates of onset and termination of both. In Volume 2 of his Climatic History and the Future: Climate Present, Past and Future he used the transitional terms of “the medieval warm epoch or Little Climatic Optimum.” This was the distinction between epochs and events, like that used with magnetic reversals. At that time the Holocene Optimum was called the Climatic Optimum, so the MWP was the Little Climatic Optimum.

Lamb pointed out that, even though an event was global, the dates of onset, peak, and termination varied considerably depending on different conditions at all levels from local to regional to hemispheric. He also indicated that the difference in dates could vary by decades. You can look at a single station or even a few in a region for a particular time and not find evidence of a trend like the MWP or the LIA. As Lamb wrote

“Evidence already cited at various places in this volume suggests that for a few centuries in the Middle Ages the climate in most parts of the world regained something approaching the warmth of the warmest postglacial times. The climax of the warm epoch was not quite contemporaneous everywhere …” “in the heartland of North America, as in European Russia and Greenland, the warmest times may be placed between A.D. 950 and 1200. In most of Europe, the warmest period seems to have been between 1150 and about 1300 though with notable warmth also in the later 900s.”

 

The original IPCC FAR Figure 7c (Figure 1) indicates in the legend that

“The dotted line nominally represents conditions near the beginning of the twentieth century.”

Presumably somebody added the line and in doing so provided a general range for the MWP and the LIA. By eyeball the MWP covers A.D. 950 to 1350, and the LIA from A.D. 1350 to 1900. This does not match with the numbers in the text, particularly for the LIA with numbers attributed to Grove of 150 to 450 years ago or A.D. 1540 to 1840. There are a few interesting comments that needed correction for the politically motivated 2001 IPCC Report. In referring to the MWP, they note,

This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.

Discussing the various explanations for the LIA cooling they wrote;

Some have argued that an increase in explosive volcanism was responsible for the coolness (for example Hammer, 1977, Porter, 1986), others claim a connection between glacier advances and reductions in solar activity (Wigley and Kelly, 1989) such as the Maunder and Sporer solar activity minima (Eddy, 1976), but see also Pittock (1983).

Note that these are the same arguments made for the current “hiatus” in temperatures. Also, notice the name of Tom Wigley, former Director of the CRU and a central figure in the 2001 IPCC, attributing the cooling to solar activity. The actual reference given is:

Wigley, T M L , and PM Kelly, 1989 Holocene climatic change, 14C wiggles and variations in solar irradiance Phil. Trans. Royal Society London, (in press).

Apparently, the article listed as “(in press)” never appeared because Wigley’s publication list at the CRU doesn’t list it.

On page 203 of the IPCC Report they observe,

Thus some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities So it is important to recognise that natural variations of climate are appreciable and will modulate any future changes induced by man.

All these points confronted and contradicted the political agenda of blaming human CO2 for global warming and latterly climate change. Refutation began in the 1995 Second Assessment Report (SAR) and hit full stride with the 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) and its central feature, the “Hockey Stick”. Accurate determination of the onset and termination dates for the MWP and LIA, the relative homogeneity, was essential to identifying the underlying mechanisms. The Hockey Stick ‘solved’ the problem by eliminating the events completely and tacking on a modern blade with an error factor that made the numbers meaningless.

Welcome to IPCC climate science.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
280 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jon
March 22, 2015 10:00 am

Off topic, sorry but I think it is important PMSML.org is now offline. I can still find global data up to 2012 on wayback http://web.archive.org/web/20140704001934/http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/ How long will that last?

Jon
Reply to  Jon
March 23, 2015 11:05 am

Now it’s back again. http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/ Thanks AND Please take all individual country DATA before it’s gone 4ever?

Scott
March 22, 2015 10:01 am

Dr. Ball’s article is spot on as usual. The real problem we face is the political agenda supported by the corruption of the scientific method (as elucidated by Dr. Ball).
These are powerful forces. How can they be defeated? I supposed over time, the scientific community will have to just keep presenting the truth over totalitarian elitist objectives.
Like Islamofascim, the Western World will have to wake up and face the facts if it’s to confront the evil and corruption. It’s our only hope. I hope it’s not too late…….
For all you true scientists, thank you for your great works; most especially Dr. Tim Ball.

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  Scott
March 22, 2015 11:03 am

Interesting article. The extent of the LIA and the extent of the MWP have been hotly contested for decades with Lamb and Groves being foremost in determining their length, depth and spread.
A few weeks ago I re-examined the material I had researched in connection with my own reconstruction of CET, said to be a reasonable proxy for at least the NH. I am currently back to 1540 and am compiling research material in order to try to determine the likely start of the LIA-said by Mann to be around 1256 and caused by Volcanoes-and thence further back to 1086 in order to take in the MWP.
There is no doubt the LIA is misnamed, as noted by Groves and Mathes. It was a very intermittent period of rapid climate changes with periods of intense cold punctuated by periods around as warm as the present era. That parts of the LIA could be around as warm as today surprised me and it will be interesting to see what temperatures will be recorded during the MWP. Here is my recent article;
http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/19/the-intermittent-little-ice-age/
As Tim Ball notes, the curious thing about all this is that, according to Lamb, temperatures have been rising since 1700 AD and the graphs in my article clearly show this. There was a very considerable burst of warmth from 1700 to 1740 which surprised Phil Jones who wrote a paper in 2006 on that era in which he confirmed that Natural variability was greater than he had hitherto realised.
The period from 1920 to 1950 stood out as being the ‘least cold’ with the last couple of decades also being noticeable for their warmth and appearing to be similar to the 1530 to 1550 period (this still to be confirmed)
It is good to look back as far as possible as it helps to put the modern era into context. It appears that GISS from 1880 is merely a staging post for growing warmth and not the starting post.
It would be interesting to see any research that explains the reasons for the warming since 1700 and also the causes of the intermittency that can be perceived.
It is good that Tim Ball ensures that past climates are continually examined and questions asked.
tonyb

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  climatereason
March 22, 2015 11:56 am

IMO the rapid and large warm cycle in the early 18th century was primarily the rebound from the Maunder Minimum. In this view, the LIA is the story of three (or four, depending on start date) solar minima, with recoveries in between them. The same is probably true for prior cold spells during the Holocene and prior interglacials.
Spörer Minimum 1460 1550
Maunder Minimum 1645 1715
Dalton Minimum 1790 1820

Latitude
March 22, 2015 10:04 am

…and then convince everyone the LIA ended in 1870 and that was the perfect temperature

gbaikie
Reply to  Latitude
March 23, 2015 6:26 am

If latest fashion of last 10 million years is a Ice Box climate with majority of the time being glacial period, the meaning of perfect, than LIA is step in the right direction of what one could call perfect temperature.
But the actual temperature of Earth is it’s oceans, warmer ocean higher sea levels, and oceans continue to warm and continue to rise, and LIA was just a dip in overall warming of the oceans and rising of sea level. And centuries into the future, the oceans will stop warming and sea level will stop rising and we fall back into the glacial period. So if perfect temperature is the peak, then we are slowly heading towards perfect temperatures.

Jon
March 22, 2015 10:04 am

Ref: Warmist claim “In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere.” Yeah shure my leg. Are they not saying that during ice age that it was generally cooler in summer and only in the nothern hemisphere?

trafamadore
Reply to  Jon
March 22, 2015 10:17 am

Is Marcott ’13 still the best data on the Holocene? If so, the height of the Holocene was similar to today or a little lower.

Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 10:36 am

Marcott never was any good. Do an archive search here, you will understand why their conclusions are NFG.

Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 10:38 am

The MWP and prior warming episodes were all warmer than now. The Holocene is gradually cooling, as we see here from Alley’s data:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

MikeB
Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 11:29 am

On this occasion I must agree with Mr. Stealey. I expected the Marcott paper to be withdrawn by now, perhaps it has.
Like the infamous hockey stick graph of Michael Mann, the paper has been extensively debunked to the extent that neutral observers may conclude that they were fraudulent.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/fixing-marcott-mess-in-climate-science.html
http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/02/april-fools-day-for-marcott-et-al/
Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own datescomment image
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
As result iof the above |Climate Audit Review, the leading authors were forced to issue the following statement….

Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

I think the problem is that ‘Climate Change’ has become a billion dollar industry such that the scientific method goes out of the window in the rush to grab government funding.

Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 12:08 pm

Mike Borgelt,
If you want a reply you will have to use my screen name. I search using that. Otherwise, it’s just by chance that I see subsequent comments.
Re: Marcott, as I suggested, do a WUWT search. There is extensive commentary deconstructing their paper, and we don’t limit our discussions here to only peer eviewed papers. Peer review [or in the case of climate, Pal review], is merely a gatekeeper, nothing more. It does not confer validity or scientific veracity. The way to get at the truth is by lots of discussion. That way the grain of truth of can be separated from the chaff of pseudoscience.
As for the ice core data, it is necessarily limited to locations where there is deep, old ice. Greenland is one such place; Antarctica is another. If there is a dispute in the matter, I suggest you take it up with R.B. Alley, whose data provided for the chart above.
I also have many similar charts from both hemispheres and from different sources, showing the same thing: the MWP and previous warming episodes were warmer than now. I’ll post them at anyone’s request.

Editor
Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 1:38 pm

As Mike Borgelt (Mar 22 10:41 am) points out,Greenland is not a very good proxy for the entire surface of the earth. It would clearly be better to find a tree in Siberia that reacts to, and is therefore a reliable guide to, the entire global climate.

Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 1:54 pm

“Unfortunately the postings on WUWT have little impact on what Marcott has published. ”
yes this is the difference between a skeptic like Nic Lewis who actually publishes versus comments on blogs.
The other odd notion people have is that one does science by merely criticizing.
[much like you do with your cryptic and sometimes irrationally formulated drive-by comments – Anthony]

Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 2:04 pm

Mike Jonas,
Yes, I nominate Briffa’s YAD061:
comment image

trafamadore
Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 4:57 pm

MikeB “I expected the Marcott paper to be withdrawn by now, perhaps it has.”
Nope. Still going strong, has more than 30 citations, not bad for a two year old paper.
No scientific concerns with the paper, actually.
Jimbo “Do they grow figs out in the open in Germany today?”
Yes.

Konrad.
Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 7:33 pm

Steven Mosher March 22, 2015 at 1:54 pm
”The other odd notion people have is that one does science by merely criticizing.”
No, science is a method. The mistake you make is believing publication in a pal revised journal is part of that method. It’s not. That’s just part of academic bureaucracy, not the scientific method.
Part of the scientific method is repeatable empirical experiments, just like this one –
http://oi61.tinypic.com/or5rv9.jpg
– which shows the foundation claim of the warmulonians to be junk science. (it’s not surface at 255K being warmed 33K by our radiatively cooled atmosphere, it’s surface at 312K being cooled 24K by our radiatively cooled atmosphere.
It doesn’t matter that they are published on the web, only that the results are repeatable and right. In fact I believe it is vital that the correct answer “global warming due to CO2 is a physical impossibility” exists in the instantly accessible and permanent public domain of the Internet for years before it is ever admitted in the discredited journals. When it comes to AGW there can never be too much shame for the fellow travellers.

Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 10:00 pm

Has the Earth’s temperature passed that of a blue giant star yet, or do we have to wait a couple of years more ?
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/images2/carbon_pollution_marcott_plus_projection_climateprogress_1080.jpg

icouldnthelpit
Reply to  trafamadore
March 23, 2015 3:02 am

(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)

Jimbo
Reply to  Jon
March 22, 2015 1:07 pm

Next time someone tells me the climate models are pretty accurate I will point them to this and let them decide. ;-p Ho, ho.

The Influence of Vegetation-Atmosphere-Ocean Interaction on Climate During the Mid-Holocene
Simulations with a synchronously coupled atmosphere–ocean–vegetation model show that changes in vegetation cover during the mid-Holocene, some 6000 years ago, modify and amplify the climate system response to an enhanced seasonal cycle of solar insolation in the Northern Hemisphere both directly (primarily through the changes in surface albedo) and indirectly (through changes in oceanic temperature, sea-ice cover, and oceanic circulation). The model results indicate strong synergistic effects of changes in vegetation cover, ocean temperature, and sea ice at boreal latitudes, but in the subtropics, the atmosphere–vegetation feedback is most important. Moreover, a reduction of the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic Ocean leads to a warming of the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5371/1916.short

Robert B
Reply to  Jimbo
March 22, 2015 5:53 pm

MW – here is an article on a find that showed that the settlers grew [barley] (would you stay if you couldn’t make beer?). http://sciencenordic.com/vikings-grew-barley-greenland
It should grow now but the growing season would be too short for the seeds to ripen for the next season.
[The mods suspect that, as the weather grew colder, they were barely able to even grow barley while barely escaping the bears ….mod]

k. kilty
Reply to  Jimbo
March 22, 2015 6:08 pm

Your point is obscure and I would appreciate your take on the cited paper, but I suspect albedo feedback is substantial and still largely unknown. Might it vary under changing climate conditions by plus or minus 10%? I think that is possible.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  k. kilty
March 22, 2015 6:56 pm

k.kilty

but I suspect albedo feedback is substantial and still largely unknown. Might it vary under changing climate conditions by plus or minus 10%? I think that is possible.

Why do you expect that big a change from albedo feedback?

Robert B
Reply to  Jimbo
March 22, 2015 7:52 pm

Cheers, mod. I’m a keyboard dyslexic. I should proof read before hitting the PC button (just typed “hte”) and check that I’m replying in the right spot.
[Proofreading, then taking a breath, and checking for any second-thoughts (intuition, guardian angles, nagging “I would never say that in front of my mother” thoughts, or pre-cognition-before-cautions) before posting, are all strongly recommended. But never mandated. Remember, those who did not listen to their second-thoughts about unseen dangers (or their ESP senses – if you are of that ilk) never survived to breed children in years past. .mod]

Jimbo
Reply to  Jon
March 22, 2015 1:30 pm

Do they grow figs out in the open in Germany today? Is timing everything?

Medieval Climatic Optimum
Michael E Mann – University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
It is evident that Europe experienced, on the whole, relatively mild climate conditions during the earliest centuries of the second millennium (i.e., the early Medieval period). Agriculture was possible at higher latitudes (and higher elevations in the mountains) than is currently possible in many regions, and there are numerous anecdotal reports of especially bountiful harvests (e.g., documented yields of grain) throughout Europe during this interval of time. Grapes were grown in England several hundred kilometers north of their current limits of growth, and subtropical flora such as fig trees and olive trees grew in regions of Europe (northern Italy and parts of Germany) well north of their current range. Geological evidence indicates that mountain glaciers throughout Europe retreated substantially at this time, relative to the glacial advances of later centuries (Grove and Switsur, 1994). A host of historical documentary proxy information such as records of frost dates, freezing of water bodies, duration of snowcover, and phenological evidence (e.g., the dates of flowering of plants) indicates that severe winters were less frequent and less extreme at times during the period from about 900 – 1300 AD in central Europe……………………
Some of the most dramatic evidence for Medieval warmth has been argued to come from Iceland and Greenland (see Ogilvie, 1991). In Greenland, the Norse settlers, arriving around AD 1000, maintained a settlement, raising dairy cattle and sheep. Greenland existed, in effect, as a thriving European colony for several centuries. While a deteriorating climate and the onset of the Little Ice Age are broadly blamed for the demise of these settlements around AD 1400,
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

Paper
Dmitri Mauquoy et. al. – 2004
Late Holocene climatic changes in Tierra del Fuego based on multiproxy analyses of peat deposits
Our reconstruction for warm/dry conditions between ca. A.D. 960–1020 closely agrees with Northern Hemisphere tree-ring evidence for the MWP and shows that the MWP was possibly synchronous in both hemispheres, as suggested by Villalba (1994).
http://his.library.nenu.edu.cn/upload/soft/haoli/112/199.pdf
=======================
Paper
Sanpisa Sritrairata et al – 2012
A history of vegetation, sediment and nutrient dynamics at Tivoli North Bay, Hudson Estuary, New York
…..while there is a debate if the MWP is a global phenomenon as the warming is not synchronized at all sites around the globe,…….many paleoclimatic records suggest widespread climatic anomalies, such as parts of Europe (Mangini et al., 2005), Tasmania (Cook et al., 1991), Asia (Yang et al., 2002), and Africa (Alin and Cohen, 2003) during the same time period…..
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science – Volumes 102–103, 1 May 2012, Pages 24–35
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.03.003
=======================
Abstract
LIU Yu et al –
Amplitudes, rates, periodicities and causes of temperature variations in the past 2485 years and future trends over the central-eastern Tibetan Plateau
…The results showed that extreme climatic events on the Plateau, such as the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th Century Warming appeared synchronously with those in other places worldwide. The largest amplitude and rate of temperature change occurred during the Eastern Jin Event (343-425 AD), and not in the late 20th century….
DOI: 10.1007/s11434-011-4713-7
Chinese Science Bulletin – Vol. 56 Issue (): 2986-2994
http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtbe/EN/abstract/abstract504775.shtml

mikewaite
Reply to  Jimbo
March 22, 2015 2:42 pm

UK TV often has a series in which people of he present generation try to live the agricultural lifestyle of previous generations , eg the Tudor farm , the Victorian farm etc. How about a series in which academics or farmers of Danish or Norwegian extraction return to the sites in Greenland occupied by the original settlers and see if they can survive as we know the original settlements did for several hundred years . We are constantly told that the Arctic is at least as warm as in 1000-1200 AD , so maintaining a mixed beef/dairy and oats /barley/hay farm should not be a problem .
I wonder how many AGW protagonists would accept the challenge? Of course they would have to fend off any dangerous wildlife with knives and spears , gunpowder not having been invented (in the West ) in 1000AD , but since there is so little of it according to peer-reviewed accounts the danger should be minimal.
I wonder if the BBC would fund it?

Jimbo
Reply to  Jon
March 23, 2015 2:34 am

trafamadore
March 22, 2015 at 4:57 pm
………….

Jimbo “Do they grow figs out in the open in Germany today?”

Yes.

Sorry, I meant whether olive trees grow out in the open in Germany today? Here is the abstract from Michael Mann again.

Medieval Climatic Optimum
Michael E Mann – University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
………Grapes were grown in England several hundred kilometers north of their current limits of growth, and subtropical flora such as fig trees and olive trees grew in regions of Europe (northern Italy and parts of Germany) well north of their current range…….
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

Brian Jones
Reply to  Jon
March 23, 2015 2:18 pm

Wasn’t Mikes tree ring data only from the Northern latitudes? This has been used all over the place to prove the entire world is warming up. At the same time Mike and company say that the MWP doesn’t
count because it was not global. The other thing I don’t get is why there is not a difference between the
northern and southern world temperatures as CO2 is not uniformly present all around the world.

March 22, 2015 10:13 am

“If you are going to establish a pattern of climate change, you must determine if it is local, regional, hemispheric or global. It addresses the very definition of climatology, which is the study of climate in a region or the change over time.”
I think this is the heart of the problem. Measuring regional affects and homogenizing globally doesn’t work. It just erases data.

Martin
Reply to  jinghis
March 22, 2015 12:08 pm

It is warmer now in Greenland than during the MWP. That Alley graph posted by dbstealey is misleading as it claims that the present is the year 2000 when in fact it is the1850’s! Well before the modern warming!
http://s11.postimg.org/uf5yojk4j/gisp2.jpg

Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 12:13 pm

Well, Martin, your chart shows the same thing: prior warming episodes were warmer than modern warming. As to the point I made: the Holocene has been steadily and gradually cooling. Naturally, I might add.
The current warming cycle is indistinguishable from previous natural warming cycles. The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Therefore, the default position for any honest scientific skeptic is that the current [very *mild*] warming cycle is natural, not man-made.
The onus is entirely on those who promote the man-made global warming [MMGW] narrative, not on skeptics, who have nothing to prove.

Jimbo
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 1:15 pm

Martin, here is Greenland before the 1950 IPCC start of discernible human influence. Ice, ice baby.

Abstract – 20 April 2012
An aerial view of 80 years of climate-related glacier fluctuations in southeast Greenland
…the recent retreat was matched in its vigour during a period of warming in the 1930s with comparable increases in air temperature. We show that many land-terminating glaciers underwent a more rapid retreat in the 1930s than in the 2000s, whereas marine-terminating glaciers retreated more rapidly during the recent warming….
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1481
——-
Abstract – 10 Nov 2011
High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core
….The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene…..
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL049444/abstract
——-
Abstract – 14 July 2009
Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840–2007
…The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming. The recent warming was, however, stronger along western Greenland in autumn and southern Greenland in winter….
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1
——-
Abstract – 20 June 2006
Greenland warming of 1920–1930 and 1995–2005
We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming. We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods are of a similar magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml
——-
Abstract – 6 June 2006
Extending Greenland temperature records into the late eighteenth century
“…The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades….”
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf
——-
Abstract – 1946
The State of the West Greenland Current up to 1944
“….It is found that warmer conditions existed during the decade of 1880, followed by a colder period up to about 1920, when the present warm period began. The peak of the present warm period appears to have been reached in the middle 1930’s,…..”
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f42-055
——-
Abstract – July 1937
A period of warm winters in Western Greenland and the temperature see-saw between Western Greenland and Central Europe
Particulars are given regarding the big rise of winter temperatures in Greenland and its more oceanic climate during the last fifteen years….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49706327108/abstract

Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 1:50 pm

Martin – extreme care is needed with the graph you posted. The temperatures of the last few years are not from the same source, are are not of the same ‘granularity’. They can therefore show short-term temperature changes that are not available in ice core data. That means that a temperature spike like that of the last few years would likely not show up in the ice core record – not until it had been of much longer duration – and it would also show a lower peak.

Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 2:18 pm

Martin,
It has been pointed out to you that the chart you posted is an amalgam of ice core records with a different, presumably instrumental record tacked on. That was not made clear in your comment or in the chart, nor was it disclosed how you arrived at the “2010 –> +” notation.
I recognize that chart as one by Prof Ole Humlum. He produced the original. But it has been diddled with, in order to show extreme warming. That much warming has not happened, so I don’t think that fabrication to Dr. Humlum’s original chart is accurate.
Further, the entire MMGW debate revolves around the 0.7ºC rise in global T over the past century or so. That chart shows more than 1.5ºC of warming.
Where did you find that misinformation? It looks to be alarmist propaganda, because it overstates warming by more than double.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 2:30 pm

Hey Martin (12:08 pm).
Recent Greenland temperatures have barely reached the levels of the late ‘30s before human CO2 emissions were a factor — why doesn’t your SkS derived graph show that?
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/RS_Greenland_files/image023.gif

Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 5:27 pm

“The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Therefore, the default position for any honest scientific skeptic is that the current [very *mild*] warming cycle is natural, not man-made.”
there is no falsifiable “climate null hypothesis” to reject.

Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 6:50 pm

Steven Mosher says:
there is no falsifiable “climate null hypothesis” to reject.
Of course there is. If current climate parameters begin to exceed past parameters, the null hypothesis is falsified. That has not happened.

Konrad.
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 7:40 pm

Steven Mosher March 22, 2015 at 5:27 pm
”there is no falsifiable “climate null hypothesis” to reject.”
The null hypothesis is simple “Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability, nor its ability to cool the solar heated surface.”
The null hypothesis stands.
No amount of flappy hands claiming natural warming to be due to CO2 can ever disprove the null hypothesis. For that you would need a repeatable lab experiment showing that incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool. And that you can never do.

David A
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 10:09 pm

Martin, is that another modern thermometer graphed onto a proxy ice core where anything less then 100 hundred year data is whipped smooth?

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Martin
March 23, 2015 6:13 am

The 8th century in Europe was likely warmer than recently, at the same time that it was much colder in Greenland. While during the Dark Ages cold period during in the 4-6th centuries, it was warmer in Greenland. The most obvious point in the GISP proxy that is completely opposed to mid latitude temperatures is around 1200 BC, the Minoan Warp Period, such a fiercely cold period that it finished off the Minoans as well as collapsing much of Mediterranean and Neolithic culture. So I would suggest that there would have had to been a sharp downturn in regional mid latitude temperatures around 1000 AD if Greenland was warmer then:comment image

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Martin
March 23, 2015 6:15 am
Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Martin
March 23, 2015 6:15 am

Typo.. 8th century in Europe.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Martin
March 23, 2015 6:37 am

Also note in my first graph link above, the deep cold events in the 1100’s. Michael of Syria writes of several times that the Euphrates froze in the 1120/30’s and 1170’s.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Martin
March 23, 2015 2:03 pm

Where did Martin get a graph that shows a lot of warming between 2000 and 2015? The chart immediately above says 2010 is 0.5 degrees warmer than 2000. Either the 2010 figure is in error, or the Greenland ice core doesn’t represent the global temperature. Not even close.

Jimbo
Reply to  jinghis
March 22, 2015 1:46 pm

Medieval Warm Period in Antarctica! It’s worse than I thought!
For those interested here is Co2 Science’s dedicated section to the Medieval Warm Period studies from all continents and oceans.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Jimbo
Reply to  Jimbo
March 22, 2015 1:49 pm

And here is an interactive map of the Medieval Warm Period.
http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html
As warmists ramp up the alarm, I become more and more relaxed about overheating. They lost me a long time ago. I used to be a warmist until I woke up to the trickery of climastrology. If they were accountants they would be in the State Penn – if you know what I mean. :-p

March 22, 2015 10:20 am

Another wonderful essay Dr. Ball. Best read of the week for me.
Considering all that you wrote (and many other items to boot), I wonder why this site will send a post to moderation for using the word “fraud*lent”. That word is so utterly descriptive of the “team’s” actions.

Reply to  markstoval
March 22, 2015 10:23 am

Oh heck, I put the star in the wrong place. Darn, got moderated anyway.

Reply to  markstoval
March 22, 2015 1:07 pm

Yeah, but unlike many of the alarm sites – you got through moderation.

Joe Crawford
March 22, 2015 10:24 am

Welcome to IPCC climate science.

You could say they were just doing their job. From the IPCC website (‘History’):

Today the IPCC’s role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, “…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 22, 2015 10:27 am

Sorry, I forgot to mention the bold in the above quote was of my doing.

Man Bearpig
Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 22, 2015 2:09 pm

Perhaps another point to highlight ..

IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may</b< need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”

David A
Reply to  Joe Crawford
March 23, 2015 3:02 am

so, ” to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change,” as opposed to… ” to understanding IF THEIR IS A scientific basis of HARM OR BENEFITS of human-induced climate change,”
Yes, it s clear how and why the IPCC ignore many of the benefits of anthropogenic CO2, and ignore many of the observed real world peer reviewed reports (documented in the NIPCC) showing the IPCC projected harms are unlikely to manifest, even in a plus 2C world.

Reply to  David A
March 26, 2015 11:49 pm

David, this is not entirely correct. As shown in the 4th Report of the Working Group I (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-1.html) the concentrations of CO2, NH4, and N2O were nearly constant for the past 2000 years, with exception of the time after 1850 or so. This means that during the MWP and the LIA the concentrations were nearly constant. Thus, in the sense of the AGW apostles it was indispensable to remove the MWP and the LIA. Otherwise, it would be necessary to explain why we had had two phases of notable climate variability, namely the MWP and the LIA, but the concentrations of the so-called greenhouse gases were constant.
The 2-degrees goal has its origin in a IIASA working paper written by William Nordhaus in 1975. He is an economist with Yale University. The project Energy Systems of the IIASA was the center of the anti-CO2 propaganda. This project was directed by Wolf Haefele, the father of the German fast breeder reactor. In Europe, the fear of the public regarding the use of nuclear energy was horrible. The nuclear power plant Zwentendorf in Austria, for instance, was built, but never operated because of a referendum.
According to the Haefele-Manne model from 1975 most of the conventional power plants should be substituted by nuclear power plants. Thus, Haefele and collaborators distributed the story about the anthropogenic effect on climate change due to the increase of greenhouse gases to relativize the public opinion regarding the use of nuclear energy. It has been reported by witnesses that Haefele claimed in 2004 that he has generated the CO2 fear in the brain of the Green Party of Germany (He said in German: “Ich habe den Gruenen das CO2 ins Gehirn gesch……”).
Even today, the German nuclear energy lobby claims that nuclear energy may help to protect climate (see http://www.kernenergie.de/kernenergie/themen/klimaschutz/index.php).

Jon
March 22, 2015 10:38 am

When seaching for the reason the Gamay grape made wine became a threath to the pinon noir grape made wine in Burgundy in the fourteenth centuryI found this below. About the Southern Atmosphere we have not much historical data from the same period. SO any claim is valid?
European famines of the (Late) Middle Ages
•Famines were a familiar occurrence in Medieval Europe. In France during the fourteenth century alone, famines occurred in 1304, 1305, 1310, 1315–1317 (the Great Famine), 1330–1334, 1349–1351, 1358–1360, 1371, 1374–1375 and 1390. In England, famine-years included 1315–1317, 1321, 1351, and 1369.
•For most people there was often not enough to eat and life expectancy was relatively short since many children died. According to records of the royal family of the Kingdom of England, among the best cared for in society, the average life expectancy in 1276 was 35.28 years. Between 1301 and 1325 during the Great Famine it was 29.84, while between 1348 and 1375, during the Black Death and subsequent plagues, it went down to only 17.33.
•1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow
•1275 to 1300 based on radiocarbon dating of plants killed by glaciation
•1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
•1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315–1317

trafamadore
Reply to  Jon
March 22, 2015 11:07 am

“lent” survives to this day, a time to conserve the last food of winter.
And in the spring, my grandmother still ate mainly stuff canned in glass and tin, she said “it just felt good”. The Finn’s had their pasties made of lard and potatoes and the Swedes had their fish stored in lye.
I think seasonal shortage of food and famine was common in the Western world before the 1900’s. I was a lot due to the fact that people got their food from the local area and locally the weather can vary, actually quite a bit.
But the Black Death and disease, that was mainly bad sanitation and partially no antibiotics.

Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 1:54 pm

“The Finn’s had their pasties made of lard and potatoes…”
————
The Finns wore pasties made of lard and potatoes?
A combination bold fashion statement and interesting snack!

Reply to  trafamadore
March 22, 2015 5:52 pm

Sounds titillating.

Reply to  Jon
March 22, 2015 3:08 pm

On the 2,000 year JG/U tree ring study the years from around 1235 to 1400 are on the whole below average. Right around 1230 there is a rapid medium drop in temps. Then there is a span of 165 years where it can be seen that this was the longest low period in the entire 2,000 years of the study. There are 4 medium drops in that time span at, 1236 1315/16 1336 1350 approximately. There are very few groups of years that rise above the average trend line on the graph during that 165 year period, nor do they rise far above that trend line. That was the heart of the cold period. Afterwards the Maunder shows up as being deeper, but it was short lived by comparison to the earlier period…http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120709092606.htm

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  goldminor
March 23, 2015 8:43 am

A similar picture here:comment image

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  goldminor
March 23, 2015 9:17 am
March 22, 2015 10:53 am

Warmunist, malthusian, totalitarian government enthusiast, and current “science tsar” John Holdren is a perfect match for the obama junta.

Village Idiot
March 22, 2015 10:58 am

So heartwarming to see this ancient, discredited and almost forgotten graph (Figure 1) once again resurrected and dusted off for exhibition 🙂

Reply to  Village Idiot
March 22, 2015 11:30 am

That graph was published by the IPCC. Explain why you believe it is ‘discredited’.
I suspect the reason is because it does not fit your confirmation bias.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 5:24 pm

the chart was included by mistake. see the climategate mails

Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 6:55 pm

Which particular emails? I’d be interested.

Konrad.
Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 7:55 pm

http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=Lamb
This link will allow you to view much of the grubby behaviour on of the “Hockey Team” trying to discredit Lamb and discourage anyone from referencing his work.
Including of course this little gem –

“I’m sure you saw the recent (to be infamous) Wall Stree Journal
editorial – they showed what I think was a IPCC FAR curve – with the
good old MWP and LIA etc (Lamb view? – I don’t have the FAR w/ me).
The way to handle the hocky stick might best be to put it in an
historical perspective along with the older IPCC views. First, show
your great figs, discuss them and what went into them, and then –
after showing the state-of-the-art, discuss how much our
understanding and view have changed. In this, simply compare each of
the historical views (FAR, SAR, TAR) to the current view, and while
doing so, play down the controversy (s) – especially the hockey
stick. The smart folks will realize that that the fluff in the news
is just that, but those with a real stake in that debate will
hopefully get the point that it doesn’t matter…” – Jonathan T. Overpeck

Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 8:13 pm

That graph was indeed presented in the 1990 IPCC report (Fig 7.1c not 7C), but was clearly referred to as a schematic and no numerical values indicated on the temperature axis, it also ended in ~1950.
No direct source was given for the graph although subsequent investigation shows it to to be a plot of the CET due to Lamb. There have been multiple ‘versions’ of this graph which have been discredited due to the additions and annotations which have been added without any justification.
The version used by Ball above is not the version used in the IPCC report as indicated by the incorrect figure number and legend.

David A
Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 10:23 pm

Here is NH NASA 1981 compared to 1999. It does not go back as far, but is indicative. Much of the work at CO2 science supports a MWP. The changes have continued since.comment image

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  David A
March 22, 2015 10:35 pm

David A

Here is NH NASA 1981 compared to 1999. It does not go back as far, but is indicative. Much of the work at CO2 science supports a MWP. The changes have continued since.

See more files supporting a worldwide MWP at http://www.co2science.org
And, for the Medival Warm Period in particular, see http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php

MikeB
Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 2:44 am

Phil,
Although you are correct about the typo for the figure number, if you follow the link that Dr. Ball has given to the IPCC report, you will see that the graph he shows is a true representation of the original, apart from a change to type font.
The IPCC graph also appears to go up to year 2000 (see page 202)
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
So I think it is a little unfair to suggest or imply that he has misrepresented the graph.

David A
Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 2:47 am

Thanks RA. My point was to Moser’s assertion, that the IPCC chart was “accidental”, when the fact is that many graphics from the time show a similar “accidental” trend.
It was indeed “accidental” from the IPCC perspective, as it did not fit their agenda. The “Hockey Stick” overturned the standard version of the past without so much as a “how do you do” to the past. A deeply flawed study by Mann, without even the curtsey of acknowledging the accepted “consensus” at the time contrary studies. set an entire new paradigm, simply through political post normal agenda! (It could be called a lot of things, but science is not one of them.)
A less political look backwards, such as the CO2 science report, supports the MWP. When they eliminated the MWP, they also eliminated the 1940s warmth as well as much of the decline to 1979.
However they got into a bit of a bind. The Mannian flat T trend, before the 1978 to 1998 increase, did not allow adequate ability for other factors to explain the pause, or the past. Slowly, using more discredited proxies studies, they brought a little bump to the MWP back, giving room for natural causes to explain the pause. Should the AMO turn negative, and a strong La Nina manifest, that too will be wholly inadequate, and the particulate excuse, will likewise completely collapse.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 1:49 pm

MikeB March 23, 2015 at 2:44 am
Phil,
Although you are correct about the typo for the figure number, if you follow the link that Dr. Ball has given to the IPCC report, you will see that the graph he shows is a true representation of the original, apart from a change to type font.
The IPCC graph also appears to go up to year 2000 (see page 202)
http://ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf
So I think it is a little unfair to suggest or imply that he has misrepresented the graph.

I did not say that this version was discredited, only that it was not the original, many versions are misrepresentations though. The graph does not go up to 2000 and it is a local graph (CET) not global.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 1:53 pm

Konrad cant even find it.
‘That darned diagram’ would be a good clue.
Clue number 1. Who wrote the Paleo chapter? you could search on ‘Dork’ cause that is what they called him.
did any of you clowns read the mails?
Clue number 2. The history of this was something they wanted to keep buried.
“A lot of this history is likely best left buried, but I hope to summarise
enough to avoid all the skeptics wanting copies of these
non-mainstream papers. Finding them in CRU may be difficult!”
basically they wanted to protect Lamb.

Konrad
Reply to  dbstealey
March 24, 2015 12:30 am

“Basically they wanted to protect Lamb”
Just give up Steven, it’s never going to work. There is only one email using tat as an excuse for hiding their sleazy team effort in an “obscure journal”.
Lamb didn’t believe their CO2 tripe and he was right. The actions of the “Team” will be seen in this light. History is not written by the losers and AGW believers are the losers in the climate debate.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 24, 2015 8:52 am

Konrad March 24, 2015 at 12:30 am
Lamb didn’t believe their CO2 tripe and he was right. The actions of the “Team” will be seen in this light. History is not written by the losers and AGW believers are the losers in the climate debate.
Rather strange then that he would write in the preface to his book on ‘Climatic History and the Future’
“Recent research……has rendered more specific the expectation that the
beginnings of the next glaciation will be upon our descendants within 3000
to 7000 years. It is to be noted here that there is no necessary contradiction
between forecast expectations of (a) some renewed (or continuation of) slight
cooling of world climate for a few decades to come, e.g., from volcanic or
solar activity variations; (b) an abrupt warming due to the effect of increasing
carbon dioxide, lasting some centuries until fossil fuels are exhausted
and a
while thereafter; and this followed in turn by (c) a glaciation lasting (like
the previous ones) for many thousands of years.”

Reply to  Village Idiot
March 23, 2015 2:57 am

Village Idiot & Phil, How disappointing that Tim B used this FAR graph. And he even quote Lamb by authority in contradiction. It does worry me the vitriol thrown from the skeptic camp when ever I say, as I do now…
Smash this idol!
https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/millennium-idols-smash-the-hockey-stick-but-smash-the-others-too/

Barnum
March 22, 2015 11:05 am

Where’s Flashbag on this? Maybe he’ll whip out some of his Dark Money Demagoguery and accuse the Evil Koch Brothers of funding Dr. Ball’s education.
By the way, Flashbag, that’s called an Ad Hominem. FYI it’s not scientific to critique the finding by questioning the funding.
Let’s see if you or any of your fellow travelers/lurkers can make a real argument.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Barnum
March 23, 2015 3:25 pm

The evil Koch Brothers fund a lot of people’s education.
http://kochfamilyfoundations.org/FoundationsDHK.asp

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mary Brown
March 24, 2015 12:11 am

That explains all the misbelief!

RH
March 22, 2015 11:07 am

It’s possible we could enter a new LIA, and not notice it because our technology allows us to easily cope. Can you imagine the last two winters in the central/eastern U.S. without modern technology? We’d have seen failed crops, starvation, pestilence, and thousands of people freezing to death. Instead, we bitch and moan, but mostly shrug it off. Maybe we’ve already entered a new LIA.

Reply to  RH
March 22, 2015 3:19 pm

Your comment regarding our improved capability to cope with change is a good point. I think that we are in the very beginning of the cold trend. Will it reach LIA levels? That is hard to say. We will not have to wait too many more years though, before nature will bring more clarity to the thought.

ferdberple
March 22, 2015 11:09 am

Good thing they didn’t have thermometers 1000 years ago, else we peasants would have been burned at the stake for sorcery and witchcraft as temperatures went up.
The wealthy always blame the problems of the world on the poor. If the poor would just accept their lot in life and quit struggling to change things, the world would be such a nicer place for the rich.
Climate change is no different. It is us poor folks driving around in cars, using air-conditioning, messing things up for the rich folks running the planet that are the problem.
Africa – stay in yo’ place:
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-planet-will-boil-over-if-africans-have-air-conditioning-cars

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ferdberple
March 24, 2015 12:13 am

Cooling by air con in a car takes about the same amount of extra energy as driving with the windows open. The citation for that calculation is the USA and the time was early ’70’s.

Just an engineer
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
March 25, 2015 10:34 am

There was a comma after “air-conditioning”, but yep, smacks of elitism.

The Expulsive
March 22, 2015 11:17 am

Any “political corruption” cited is solely about taking advantage of a “crisis” in order to make some form of change. In the case of “tax and spend” politicioans it has been the rollback of taxation that followed Thatcher and Reagan that needs to be overcome in order to pursue the direction they want. What better crisis than climate change that will reduce us all if not stopped, and how better to counter it than by a “carbon tax” enterered into for the “good” of the planet? Long live political expediency.

March 22, 2015 11:17 am

Let me start by saying all data sources do NOT support the made up absurd Hockey Stick. That is fabricated junk to try to give AGW theory some validity which it does not have when faced with the reality of the real data.
What fits the global temperature trend data the best since the Holocene Optimum- Present is what I suggest below. To get a more refined fit of the temperature trend during this time period the phase of ENSO,AMO,PDO along with VOLCANIC ACTIVITY have to be further superimposed upon what I suggest drives the climate in the larger picture , those being Milankovitch Cycles with Solar Variability superimposed upon it.
My thoughts on what drives the climate conform to what the data shows(present/past), unlike AGW theory which totally ignores the data both present and past.
AGW theory wants the data to conform to what it suggest, not the other way around.comment image
More data which shows since the Holocene Optimum from around 8000BC , through the present day Modern Warm Period( which ended in 1998) the temperature trend throughout this time in the Holocene, has been in a slow gradual down trend(despite an overall increase in CO2, my first chart ), punctuated with periods of warmth. Each successive warm period being a little less warm then the one proceeding it.
My reasoning for the data showing this gradual cooling trend during the Holocene ,is Milankovitch Cycles were highly favorable for warming 10000 years ago or 8000 BC, and have since been in a cooling cycle. Superimposed on this gradual cooling cycle has been solar variability which has worked sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to the overall gradual cooling trend , Milankovitch Cycles have been promoting.
Then again this is only data which AGW enthusiast ignore if it does not fit into their scheme of things.
http://www.murdoconline.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/gisp2-ice-core-temperatures.jpg

Martin
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 22, 2015 12:13 pm

The above graph stops at the 1850’s. It is not the year 2000. This graph shows how much warmer it is in 2010 at the site in Greenland where the ice core was from.
http://s11.postimg.org/uf5yojk4j/gisp2.jpg

Jon
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 12:29 pm

I really really hope this is the truth? Because this is really really good News to me!!!

Jon
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 12:31 pm

I Am living in the Late Holocene antroproghenic experienced optimum?

Jon
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 12:32 pm

Why do we still have glaciers in norway?

Latitude
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 12:36 pm

You scale is different too….both show the same decrease…and both show the same spike around the 8000 mark
….which shows it’s normal

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 1:33 pm

Martin,
Guess what!
The Greenland Ice Sheet is not melting!

Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 3:23 pm

Another obvious feature on that graph is that the current warming is not exceptional. If the adjusted temp portion was removed, then it would be as ordinary as the average movements on the graph

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 4:56 pm

You can’t use ice core data to claim a certain time period was the hottest or coldest ever.

Robert B
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 6:12 pm

The x-axis says “Years before present (2000AD)” . The little bit in red at the end is the temperature record from the last century and a half! It doesn’t stop in 1850.

sunsettommy
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 6:50 pm

Martin, is the tacked on with circle from ice cores or from selected temperature data for the area?

Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 8:48 pm

Looks like Martin has skedaddled.

gymnosperm
Reply to  Martin
March 22, 2015 10:17 pm

If I understand correctly you are extrapolating thermometer in a box five feet off the ground measurements onto cored ide data. You may be aware that 18O does not customarily skydive from five feet in the air to the surface to be included in ice bubbles and the specific reason temperatures are measured at five feet is to avoid the much colder (or in different circumstances hotter) temperatures down at the surface than human noses experience .
Your little 2010 marker is about -28.7 C to my eyechrometer. Brrr. Not meltin’ soon. Calibrating global anomaly to this is very suspect.

beng1
Reply to  Martin
March 23, 2015 9:03 am

Jon sez:
I really really hope this is the truth? Because this is really really good News to me!!!
Agree w/you, Jon. I don’t necessarily accept that graph, but like you, that would be WONDERFUL news — currently avoiding the next glacial period.
Warmists must live, mentally, in opposite-world…

Mary Brown
Reply to  Martin
March 23, 2015 3:29 pm

The graph you post has a 1.25 deg rise in temps since the 1850s in a linear fashion. This raises a few questions….
Where did the 1.25 deg rise come from? What data source?
The trend is linear since 1850. I’m assuming that was natural from 1850 to 1950. Why has the rise not accelerated in the post 1950 CO2 era?

Michael Wassil
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 23, 2015 2:59 pm

This nonsense graph (that ‘Martin’ posted above as well) has been floating around the CAGW camp. It is their ‘piece de resistance’ to try to co-opt the GISP core. It just displays their total ignorance and dishonesty. No one knows where the instrument temp tacked onto the end of the graph comes from. Might be imaginary. Might be Kingston, Jamaica. Might be the hottest August daytime temperature ever recorded on Greenland. No one knows*. It in NO WAY represents a continuation of the trend of average temps displayed in the graph. The GISP data ends in 1850 because the firn and snow above the depth that date represents are not yet consolidated sufficiently to yield valid data.
* I saw a comment in a CAGW blog somewhere last year, where the commenter appears to have tacked on the end to the original Alley graph, which appeared unmodified in the post. So it’s possible that commenter was the originator. Sorry, I don’t remember where I saw that, but I found it from a link in a post here at WUWT. So probably an article about GISP or Greenland temps.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Michael Wassil
March 24, 2015 12:33 am

Thanks Michael. That is a valuable perspective. Exposing amateur graph-tacking has become a whack-a-mole sport.

March 22, 2015 11:26 am

After the end of the Little Ice Age (in the middle of 19th century, around 1850), global temperature started to rise, the main reason of this phenomenon being the decrease of the volcanic activities. But naval war interrupted a steady warming trend two times yet.
World War I ended with a severe “bang” in the late 1918.
There is nothing clearer than the beginning of a “big warming” that occurred concomitantly with the end of WWI, in November 1918.
World War II (1939 – 1941): In the autumn of 1939, the naval warfare ended within four war months which reversed the two decade warming trend and determined the cooling phenomenon which started with three extreme war winters in Northern Europe and which lasted four decades, until 1980.
What lead us to the 1980 moment and what happened after that is explained largely in the Booklet on Naval War changes Climate, which you can read here: http://1ocean-1climate.com/book.pdf.

ren
Reply to  smamarver
March 22, 2015 1:50 pm

“On the 4th of March the cold was gradually increasing and an incessant snow-storm filling the track up rapidly made the dragging of the Toboggans exceedingly laborious ……. When we got to the end of our day’s march the cold was so intense that the men could scarcely use their fingers to hew down the fire-wood, or to build huts, and it was dark before we could commence cooking; if sticking a bit of salt pork on the end of a twig and holding it in a fire could be so termed.
On the morning of the 5th the cold had greatly augmented and the thermometer once more fell to 27 degrees below zero, together with a gale, a north-wester in our teeth, which scarcely left us power to breathe ……”
http://www.warof1812.ca/march.htm

ren
Reply to  ren
March 22, 2015 11:14 pm

For comparison, the actual temperature in Canada. 03/23/2015.
http://oi60.tinypic.com/j97e9u.jpg

Reply to  smamarver
March 22, 2015 3:29 pm

The reason for the warming in the 1910s was that the climate shift to warming occurred around 1916/17. That 30 year warming trend ended around 1946/47. The next 30 year cool leg goes to 1976/77, which is when the current warming trend began. That warming trend ended in 2006/07. Time will tell the rest of the story.

Reply to  goldminor
March 24, 2015 2:44 am

The shift to warming started in winter 1918/19 around the Fram Strait, shown by an extraordinary temperature jump at Svalbard http://www.seaclimate.com/i/image/images/buch/big/i_3.jpg
and had a profound impact on the entire Artic temperature statistic, http://www.seaclimate.com/i/image/images/buch/big/i_2.jpg
Even James Hansen calculated the start of the global cooling since 1940, which is primarily due to three extreme cold winters in Europe beginning 1939/40 only four months after WWII started. Here is a global winter temperature map for the first three war years. http://www.seaclimate.com/b/images/buch/big/B_3.png

Reply to  smamarver
March 22, 2015 7:03 pm

smamarver,
I read that entire .pdf file. For me it was not convincing.
In the late 1940’s, numerous atomic bomb tests were conducted. These were followed by hydrogen bomb tests in the atmosphere and in the oceans. But there seems to be no indication in the record that either global warming or cooling was triggered.
Your link says that in WWI and WWII, ships, mines, and depth charges caused climate change. But nukes, including nuclear depth charges, were thousands of times more energetic. If human activity during WWI and WWII caused climate change, it seems we would have seen the same thing, and to a greater degree, following hundreds of hydrogen bomb tests.
As I said, it was not convincing. But my mind is open to new evidence.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 24, 2015 2:43 am

The released energy by atomic devises since August 1945 had been primarily affecting the atmosphere, but the war at sea 1939-1945 used conventional explosives, which churned huge water masses around. Global temperature dropped since 1940 and as hydrogen bomb tests where later, a convincing answer is still missing: Why?

March 22, 2015 11:55 am

I never knew thermometers were so accurate back then.

Reply to  Max Photon
March 22, 2015 11:56 am

I should have said, “accurate and precise.”

Gunga Din
March 22, 2015 12:23 pm

If the past was natural and no caused by Man then there is no reason to try and control Man now.
Man’s CO2 emissions is a puppet string.

March 22, 2015 12:30 pm

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01761761470e970c-pi
This is accurate . Martin your chart is not accurate since global temperatures have not risen since 1998 -present times.

March 22, 2015 12:42 pm

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017eea5c93d4970d-pi
What has to be remembered is the temperature trend for the globe since 1998 has not risen.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 22, 2015 1:18 pm

And it was higher (and lower) in the past…before anyone ever lit a lump of coal.

Joel O'Bryan
March 22, 2015 1:13 pm

In addition to the hockey stick, the other pièce de résistance of the IPCC turd-machine is of course the national laboratory-produced GCM outputs, that is the CMIP3 of AR4 and CMIP5 of AR5 archived ensembles.
With the steady exposure of the hockey stick fabrications as Dr Ball describes so well here, the central pillar still standing for the IPCC (and the political effort behind it) are the failing model projections, the infamous “ensemble predictions” based on future carbon emission scenarios.
Bob Tisdale, and others across the internet continue to disassemble the GCMs and expose their many pseudoscience tunings and output failures.
Central to “saving” the models is the on-going fudging of the GISS, CRU, and NCDC temp datasets. The one thing we can be sure of now is that in the next 20 months the dataset fudging is going to get worse, not better, as the vainglorious climate priests make a final desperate attempt to save the models.

Sturgis Hooper
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 22, 2015 1:31 pm

I admire your courage as a young up and comer in an academia dominated by government-funded GIGO. I hope there are more of your caliber, willing to risk career opportunities in defense of the honor truth, science and the once American Way.
My hat is off to you, although it’s already off, so I salute you!

M Seward
March 22, 2015 1:57 pm

Thanks to Dr Ball for his summation how this CAGW madness got a hold and how significant the ‘scientology’ of Mann, Jones et al was in getting its acceptance by mainstream media and left leaning politicians and commentators. I suspect Dr Ball article may enjoy some demand as a summing up of the ‘denier’ case when the green-left-west wakes up to itself.

March 22, 2015 2:11 pm

Thanks, Dr. Ball.
Here is some more IPCC:
IPCC 2012, Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX). Summary for Policymakers. (drafted 18 November 2011, published 29 March 2012)
Part D. Future Climate Extremes, Impacts, and Disaster Losses
“Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain.”
From IPCC SREX Summary for Policymakers (29 March 2012, pg. 9), at http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/report/
BTW, maybe your “Two major assumptions complicate determination of the length and extent of the change. First is that an event, such as the MWP, begins and ends at the same time.” should be “Two major assumptions complicate determination of the length and extent of the change. First is that an event, such as the MWP, begins and ends [everywhere] at the same time.”

Neville
March 22, 2015 2:15 pm

Here’s my answer to a blogger at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog about Jones’s response about the Med WP in his 2010 BBC interview—————-
Here’s Jones’s answer to question G about the MedWP and the lack of SH proxies for that period. Yet we have since had the PAGES 2K study that showed a warmer Antarctica ( than today) from 141 AD to 1250 AD or 1109 years. And 1250 fits exactly for the Med WP.
There is also a 30 year warming spike for 1671 to 1700 in the study. All NATURAL warming of course.
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~sjphipps/publications/pages_2k_consortium2013.pdf
And just to add to the above, Co2 Science has many PR studies that show a SH Med WP. Here’s a number for South America.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/southamericamwp.php So we can say that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented at all about the NATURAL warming from 1950.
Here’s question G and his answer.
G – There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?
There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few paleoclimatic records for these latter two regions.
Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

Reply to  Neville
March 22, 2015 2:36 pm

“Neville
March 22, 2015 at 2:15 pm
On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.”

Not necessary “unprecedented”, just possibly warmer than the MWP, wouldn’t you say?

Neville
Reply to  JohnWho
March 22, 2015 2:51 pm

You’re quoting Phil Jones not me.

Reply to  JohnWho
March 22, 2015 3:30 pm

Ah, OK, sorry.
Point still stands, regardless of who said that unprecedented word.

Reply to  Neville
March 22, 2015 2:43 pm

Neville says:
…if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.
That is wrong. You are limiting your global warming argument to only the MWP. But as we know, the MWP wasn’t all that warm compared with prior warming events such as the Holocene Optimum and others.
Look at the chart below, and you will see at least twenty other “hockey stick” shapes indicating natural warming events:
http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg
Some of those warming events caused global tempertatures to rise more than 3ºC, and those warming episodes happened before human CO2 emissions could have had any effect. IMHO that completely debunks the current MMGW scare. YMMV.

Neville
Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 2:53 pm

You’re quoting Phil Jones’s interview, not me.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 2:57 pm

Neville,
If that’s the case, my sincere apologies. It’s hard to tell when you don’t make some sort of distinction. I’d recommend either using italics, or quotation marks when quoting someone else.

spaatch
Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 5:18 pm

This graph is more to the truth than the misleading one posted above with the supposed Mann hockey stick tacked on the end.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GISP210klarge.png

Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 7:10 pm

spaatch,
Thank you for confirming that there were repeated instances of natural global warming events during the Holocene, prior to human CO2 emissions being a factor, and that those warming events were much greater than during the MWP.
That pretty much deconstructs the man-made global warming narrative, no?
However, I must point out that the chart you posted is fabricated, and dishonest. It tacks on an instrumental record that purports to show a recent ≈3.5º+ rise in global temperature over the past century and a half. But as we know, global temperatures have only risen about 0.7ºC in the current warming. So someone is diddling with the original chart again.
And once again: where are you folks getting your misinformation?

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 8:54 am

“Some of those warming events caused global tempertatures to rise more than 3ºC..”
You’ll make more sense of it if you invert it. ~1350-1150 BC was a largely global cold period, apart from Greenland of course.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Neville
March 22, 2015 8:35 pm

“On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented ….” (Neville 2:15 pm).
===============================
For pity’s sake, do you understand what the word “unprecedented” means?
It means never done or known before — never, ever.
Do you seriously believe that the Earth has never ever before been as warm as either during the MWP or now.

Toneb
March 22, 2015 2:25 pm

I’d just like to point out that the (crude ) graph at the head of this article originated from HH lamb (1965) based on a study of CET and some botanical evidence.
It is not a graph of ave global temp, just one of a very small part of the world that is now 50 years old.
Time and science has moved on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports#/media/File:Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg-manley.png

Reply to  Toneb
March 22, 2015 2:59 pm

Toneb says:
Time and science has moved on.
The data is either true, or it’s not. Whether it’s 50 years old does not matter. Facts are facts.

Reply to  Toneb
March 22, 2015 5:02 pm

The chart was debunked by Lambs own associates and then they hid the debunking in an obscure journal to save his pride.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 22, 2015 7:19 pm

Since this is news to me, can you post a verifiable link? Thanx.

Konrad.
Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 22, 2015 7:19 pm

“Debunked” was it Steven? No, every attempt to erase the history of the RWP, MWP and LIA has failed.
And any attempt to erase the disrespectful treatment of Hubert Lamb’s solid work by the “Hockey Team” will fail too. The Climategate emails are forever. Anyone can now search them for “Lamb” as see just what those scumbags did.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 23, 2015 1:39 pm

db:
climategate mails. do your own damn homework

Konrad.
Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 24, 2015 10:18 am

Steven Mosher March 23, 2015 at 1:39 pm
”climategate mails. do your own damn homework”
Your problem Steven is sceptics actually do their home work. Some like me even design and run the empirical experiments. How much “homework” did Anthony and his hundreds of surface station volunteers do on documenting the micro-site conditions of all of Americas surface stations? More than the climastrologists ever attempted! Why is the climate reference network in existence? Sceptics doing their homework, that’s why. And that’s why you and yours can never win. You didn’t.
I too have done my homework. I did the empirical experiments you and yours avoided. I checked if incident LWIR could heat or slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool. It can’t. I checked if the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR. They won’t. I checked if the atmosphere would run colder without radiative gases. It wouldn’t.
Yes, your BEST effort failed, more time in the blender cannot unscramble the egg. But all is not lost Steven, you still get to be famous as “first sleeper at WUWT to snap” 😉
(Although my records show your snap occurred at AirVent in 2010, but close enough).

Reply to  Steven Mosher
March 28, 2015 4:29 pm

I love Mosher’s nonsense when he cannot provide the requested information. You do not need the climategate emails to locate the paper – Jones et al. (2009) as it can be found in the alarmist blog-o-sphere (e.g. Skeptical Science, Desmogblog). Nothing was attempted to be hidden to save anyone’s pride as The Holocene is a well known journal.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2009/2009_Jones_etal_2.pdf
I find it telling that Mosher recommends a paper authored by Mann and Jones. I believe Mosher must attempt some form of bad speed reading because he constantly misconstrues information he allegedly read. Yet it always turns into some BS narrative.

Reply to  Poptech
April 3, 2015 7:13 pm

look again

Reply to  Steven Mosher
April 3, 2015 9:22 pm

Maybe you should read the emails before mentioning them because Wigley does not even remember which paper it was and both papers appear to be worthless in supporting their argument as they were cited only two times each since they were published. If they were such devastating refutations of Lamb they would have brought them up many times already instead of attempting to write an entirely new paper.
http://di2.nu/foia/1168356704.txt
Sounds more like they attempted to “hide” the paper because they did not want Lamb refuting it or it was too weak to stand on its own. Typical alarmist playbook as they knew there was no way the journal would reject a comment on their paper from someone like Lamb.
Unlike a real scientist Mosher is always quick to accept hearsay as a valid argument.

Robert B
Reply to  Toneb
March 22, 2015 6:26 pm

0.7°C rise in temperatures since 1965? The BS is flowing thick and fast.

commieBob
March 22, 2015 2:32 pm

Phil Jones produced the upturn that claimed a 0.6°C ±0.2°C increase in 120 years. They claimed this rate of increase was beyond any natural increase, conveniently ignoring the ±33% error factor.

I never cease to be gobsmacked at the accuracy that the climate community claims for its work. Anthony’s work on station siting makes me extremely skeptical of the supposed temperature record. It’s data selection and calculation all the way down. 0.6°C ±0.2°C is hopelessly optimistic.

Reply to  commieBob
March 22, 2015 2:39 pm

Yeah, maybe 0.6°C -0.2, +2.0 would be a better, more accurate estimate.

Reply to  JohnWho
March 22, 2015 2:44 pm

Oops, make that “0.6°C -2.0, -0.2”, since the poor siting gives warmer readings and not so much cooler ones.

AlexH
March 22, 2015 3:30 pm

All climate change is natural and the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age exemplify the natural cycles,
The 21st Century breakthroughs in climate science are now proven beyond doubt.
This is proven using the Kinetic Theory of Gases and the Second Law, about which considerable extensions in understanding have occurred since 1988.
The new science is based on the fact that the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a force field exhibits a density gradient and temperature gradient, both of which can be shown to be non-zero with appropriate computations from the Kinetic Theory of Gases, as used successfully by Einstein and others to explain such things as the Ideal Gas Laws and much more.
There is experimental evidence of such gradients now available in a recently developed centrifuge machine and there is also a wealth of other evidence. Attempts to refute such temperature gradients have all been themselves refuted.
If the temperature gradient were not the state of thermodynamic equilibrium then all planets with significant atmospheres would be considerably colder and there would be no valid explanation for the necessary energy transfers into their surfaces or to the base of their nominal tropospheres.
The new science involves relatively recent breakthroughs in physics in our understanding of heat transfers by radiation, conduction, natural convection and advection. It also requires a correct understanding of the Law of Entropy (an extension of the Second Law of Thermodynamics) and, in particular, the propensity in all nature for unbalanced energy potentials to dissipate in isolated systems.
These breakthroughs in physics have all occurred since the early 1980’s when James Hansen made his huge blunder (re-iterated by the likes of Pierrehumbert) in assuming that it would be possible that isothermal conditions could exist as the state of thermodynamic equilibrium in a vertical plane in a gravitational field. Such a state would still have unbalanced energy potentials with more mean gravitational potential energy due to the mass of the molecules at the top than at the bottom. More molecules would fall than would rise, and we know this happens when a sealed cylinder is rotated from horizontal to vertical. When that happens, we know from Kinetic Theory exactly how and why a density gradient forms, and the Law of Entropy allows us to determine why that density gradient stabilizes and, at the same time, exhibits a stable temperature gradient (aka “lapse rate”) which can also be quantified using Kinetic Theory.
Meteorologists also know that the environmental temperature gradient (the state of overall thermodynamic equilibrium involving both radiation and sensible heat transfers) remains intact in calm conditions in the pre-dawn hours, even when upward advection ceases altogether. The evidence, folks, has been staring you in the face, and is now proven with centrifugal force and correct physics.
The old has gone; the new has come.

harrytwinotter
March 22, 2015 3:37 pm

Putting aside the fact the Lamb et al schematic does not provide evidence for a global (or even a hemispherical) temperature trend, has anyone considered what the rate of temperature change was for the MWP and the LIA? And how does that rate of temperature change compare with the current rate of temperature change?

Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 22, 2015 7:23 pm

harrytwinotter says:
…has anyone considered what the rate of temperature change was for the MWP and the LIA? And how does that rate of temperature change compare with the current rate of temperature change?
Click in this chart to embiggen. You can compare the general rate of temperature changes to the current one. They appear to be very similar.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 7:33 pm

dbstealey are you aware you posted a chart of Greenland? It appears different to the Richard Alley ones I have seen before. The rates of temperature change at Greenland may be interesting if the chart was brought up to date, but it still isn’t global temperatures.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 7:44 pm

I found the original Alley Central Greenland data, it stops at around 1855. So it is not suitable for the question I was asking.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/isotopes/gisp2_temp_accum_alley2000.txt

Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 7:56 pm

@Mike Borgelt,
I understand why Willis demands that people quote his words. It avoids strawman comments like that.
WHERE did I ever state that I was posting a chart of global temperatures?? I was replying specifically to the comment above, asking if there was a comparison of temperature changes. I provided a chart for comparison.
So far I have answered every question, and every attack, honsetly and forthrightly. I have nothing to hide — unlike the climate alarmist crowd.
After this, please quote my words. If you will notice, that’s what I’ve always done.
========
harrytwinotter says:
…it is not suitable for the question I was asking.
OK, thanks for that. I’ll disregard it, then.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 8:06 pm

dbstealey. Yes please disregard trying to answer my question if you are not really attempting to answer it, but posting stuff for something else.
So my question still stands (I was hoping someone had given some thought to it).
[???? .mod]
(Yes, makes no sense. -‘nother mod)

Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 8:24 pm

harrytwinotter says:
So my question still stands
Let’s start over. You’ve asked more than one question, so could you repeat whichever one you’re asking me to reply to? I’ll be happy to do my best to answer. Thanks.

David A
Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 3:29 am

Harry, look up thread. Find the links to CO2 science with fairly extensive documentation. The MWP was not based solely on one chart, but many peer reviewed reports prior to Mannian statistics creating a new history, without even acknowledging past scientific work.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 4:11 am

David A,
can you then give me a reference to the peer-reviewed reports you refer to? So far I have not found any. Mann et al’s original hockey stick chart covers the Northern Hemisphere only. Later hockey stick charts are probably global – they show the rates of change of the MWP and the LIA to be slower then the rate of 20th century increase.

Michael Wassil
Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 3:12 pm

harrytwinotter March 23, 2015 at 4:11 am

Start here: https://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/mwp

Reply to  dbstealey
March 24, 2015 3:18 am

Stealey, you have done here what elsewhere you criticize others for doing, namely taking someone else’s data and adding your own spurious comments on it. As you have been told multiple times Alleys data ends in 1855 not as shown in your ‘chart’ and then you circle the uptick prior to 1855 and call it ‘Mann’s hockey stick’.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 24, 2015 3:48 am

Phil.,
I don’t blame you for being frustrated. Planet Earth has been busy debunking your MMGW nonsense, so I suppose you feel the need to take your frustration out on someone.
What is interesting here is that you completely ignore one of your cohorts, who pulled a Greg Laden identity theft, dishonestly pretending to be someone else.
Rather than desperately trying to maintain the fiction of MMGW, what is your opinion of the fake ‘Mike Borgelt’? Or is propping up the failed MMGW Narrative more important to you?

Reply to  dbstealey
March 24, 2015 9:19 am

Stealey you keep showing versions of the same incorrect ‘chart’ despite having had the error pointed out to you on multiple occasions. There has even been a thread devoted to the provenance of that graph:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/
The Lappi graph which you recently posted was determined to be ‘Incorrect’
Yet you knowingly continue to show it and other incorrect versions, that is dishonesty, when it’s brought to your attention rather than address it you try to change the subject as you have done here.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 25, 2015 8:41 am

dbstealey March 24, 2015 at 3:48 am
What is interesting here is that you completely ignore one of your cohorts, who pulled a Greg Laden IDENTITY THEFT, dishonestly pretending to be someone else.
Rather than desperately trying to maintain the fiction of MMGW, what is your opinion of the fake ‘Mike Borgelt’? Or is propping up the failed MMGW Narrative more important to you?

I assume you are referring to ‘David Socrates’ who we are told attempted to post as ‘Mike Borgelt’ on another thread. First of all why bring it up here except as an attempt to misdirect from your use of a incorrect graph which you have previously been told is incorrect. So I’ll ask the question again, why do you continue using graphs which you know to be false?
Secondly ‘David Socrates’ is no cohort of mine, I know nothing about him except he’s apparently banned from posting here

March 22, 2015 3:39 pm

At the risk of repeating myself, the tactic of supporters of the CAGW theory find natural variation irrelevant.
The energy effects of CO2, they argue, are fixed, so all they need to calculate is the warming effects of the increase in the gas and tag it on. Thus add an extra 280ppm to the LIA and it’s no longer cold, add it to the MWP and the seas will boil. THIS is the fundamental argument that we must counter.
It isn’t that hard to do, once you have removed all the noise of natural variability and focus on the mathematical claims. Simply draw a graph which only calculates the relationship between CO2 and temperature and extend the projections way past the warmist predictions.
We have fixed observations and claims by the warmists that CO2 is responsible for between 0.7C and 0.9C from 280ppm to 400ppm. This is our constant. Draw this line first. Then draw the predicted temp at 560ppm, the infamous doubling of CO2 since industrial times. Now we have a mathematical trajectory that must be applied at all concentrations of the gas.
Final stage: EXTEND THE LINE ON THE GRAPH! Extend it to 10,000ppm, extend it backwards to zero. You will find that the mathematics predicts absurdity. Cross reference forward predictions with the observations of planet Venus and zero CO2with the claimed role of CO2 in the Greenhouse effect before the industrial revolution.

March 22, 2015 4:17 pm

wickedwenchfan says:
…This is our constant. Draw this line first. Then draw the predicted temp at 560ppm, the infamous doubling of CO2 since industrial times. Now we have a mathematical trajectory that must be applied at all concentrations of the gas.
I’m afraid the effect doesn’t apply at all concentrations of CO2. The effect varies depending on the concentration. Most of the warming took place in the first 20 ppm. But at current concentrations, there is no measurable change in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 could rise by another 20% or 30%, and it would still cause too little warming to measure.
The chart below shows the log/log relationship. Extrapolate from the current 400 ppm, to 500 ppm, and look at the minuscule change in tempearture that would result:comment image
This demonstrates the basic flaw in the CO2=AGW conjecture. The alarmist crowd presumes that the effect of rising CO2 is linear. It isn’t. It’s the old analogy of painting a window: the first coat of paint has had most of the effect [the first 20 ppm]. Additional coats of paint have only a minuscule effect that is too small to measure. That’s why the recent rise in CO2 has not caused the predicted global warming.

Konrad.
Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 12:17 am

”This demonstrates the basic flaw in the CO2=AGW conjecture.”
It’s one flaw but not the most critical and basic flaw. The basic flaw would be that adding radiative gases to our radiatively cooled atmosphere will not reduce its ability to cool the solar heated surface of our planet. Without radiative cooling ability, the atmosphere cannot cool the surface, as it would have no effective way to cool itself.
If you fell for the line that “radiative gases in our atmosphere slowing the exit of surface radiation from the system” then think again. LWIR surface radiation accounts for less than 33% of energy flux into the atmosphere, however LWIR emission from the atmosphere accounts for almost 100% of energy flux out of the atmosphere. The true role of radiative gases in our atmosphere should be clear from that.
I’ll phrase that again another way. The ability of radiative gases to warm the atmosphere is in inverse proportion to their concentration. Their ability to cool the atmosphere is closer to linear.
And again. Without radiative gases the bulk of the atmosphere would superheat with its temperature driven by surface Tmax not surface Tav.
And again. Without the cooling provided by our radiatively cooled atmosphere the oceans, an extreme SW selective surface, would be driven to surface Tav of 335K or beyond.
And again. There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases to cool it.
And again. The oceans would freeze without DWLWIR? No, the “snowline” in the solar system is 3 AU.
And again. The oceans would freeze without DWLWIR? No, incident LWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool.
And again?
dbstealey, I’m not trying to be unnecessarily harsh, you make an excellent contribution and you have a very good memory for much that has been said and done in this sorry episode of human history. But this information war cannot be won with the Lukewarmer approach. If you don’t know why CO2 cannot cause warming, you are doomed to endless debate on dodgy proxy reconstructions and fudged surface station figures. There truly is no need. The climastrologists got the “basic physics” of their “settled science” totally and utterly wrong. Sceptics just need to overcome their fear. When they do, this thing is over.
No net radiative GHE = AGW is not “less than we thought” but a physical impossibility. Right now the warmulonians are praying for “less than we thought”. Don’t give it to them. Too risky. They’ll just run off and try again with a new “cause”.
Sun Tzu says “Build your enemy a golden bridge to retreat over”. I say “Only when you’ve got the ranging in. 50 rounds white phos, fire for effect”, followed by “No sir! Not a war crime! We just got a little enthusiastic marking the target…”

Reply to  Konrad.
March 23, 2015 2:47 am

Konrad, I also don’t adhere to “radiative warming” or “back radiation”. I use the extension of the warmists graphs simply to falsify their predictions as quickly and simply as possible. In the end it is only the “Catastrophic” part of the warmist theory that has caused all the wasted billions of dollars and calls got higher taxes. Remove that for the average member of the public who doesn’t understand physics and then physicists and serious scientists will be able to go back to doing complex and correct science in peace!

Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 2:39 am

Indeed. The graph you show debunks the CAGW from an assertion that the relationship is Logarithmic. If it is Logarithmic it is impossible to be “Catastrophic”.
The point of doing my graph is simply to show how absurd a linear or compounding relationship is.
If I had a computer that I knew how to create graphs on, rather than just an I-phone, I would present these graphs to show just how impossible the catastrophic predictions are. Perhaps someone on here will indulge me and present them so that everyone can see what I’m on about.

Reply to  wickedwenchfan
March 25, 2015 8:01 am

You should look up curve of growth, the actual curve starts as linear response, passes through logarithmic at intermediate concentrations and ends at square root at higher concentrations.comment image

zemlik
March 22, 2015 4:21 pm

they are saying Cameron’s in-law gets huge money from rent for windmills and then there is Tim Yeo has massive vested interest apparently in these green structures.
Surely not money latches on to a scam to make even more money and politicals are only interested in immediate cash rather than future of society?

zemlik
Reply to  zemlik
March 22, 2015 4:23 pm

than

4caster
March 22, 2015 4:23 pm

Climatereason stated “There was a very considerable burst of warmth from 1700 to 1740…”
I did some ad hoc climate / winter storm research from around 2000 until I retired from a federal government agency. I concentrated on the northeastern U.S. and mainly the western North Atlantic. I came to conclude that there were several historic stormy periods which coincided with transition times between periods of warming and cessation of that warmth, or even cooling. Additionally, these stormy periods of 3 to 8 years seemed to often occur on the ascension phase of the sunspot cycle. Climatereason’s “burst of warmth,” while situated in the LIA, seemed to fit this scenario, and was crowned by the historic storms of 1740 and 1741. These enhanced extratropical cyclones in the 1730s and early 1740s occurred in colder and generally more stormy times, but were perhaps made stronger by the enhanced hemispheric baroclinicity of the LIA. A similar period can be seen in the 1830s and early 1840s, and again in the 19 “teens.” An argument could be made that we’ve witnessed similar enhanced storminess in the early 2000s and again from 2009 to 2012 (or even 2015). Using the sunspots to blame, I further theorized that warmer and then colder 30 to 35 year periods alternated, based on alternating polarity of the individual sunspot cycles (why, who knows?), and that a group of 3 cycles defined a 30-35 year thermal phase, with the warmer half of that 60 to 70 year cycle less stormy, and the colder 30 or 35 year period more active with respect to winter storms, especially during the ascending phase of the sunspot cycle. Also, there often seemed to be one significant storm, or a couple of notable storms, at the end of the (faster) descending phase of the sunspot cycle. Since we’ve just ended the 1975 to 2010 (approx.) 3-cycle warm phase, I’d look for slight cooling through 2045 or so, with the stormier periods in the 3 to 5 year portion of the ascending part of the sunspot cycle, and especially during el Nino winters. Of course, we’re at the height of the modern warming period, so this secondary temperature modulation might not be very noticeable. Perhaps it will be more noticeable from 2075 or 2080 to 2110 or 2115, as we slide down from the Modern Warm Period to another cooler 400 year period. My agency didn’t care for my thoughts (what a shock), and continues to love the GG “theory.” I guess time will tell, but of course trillions of dollars and trillions of euros will be thrown away after the trillions already wasted if natural variations explain what we’ve seen, as is pretty apparent.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  4caster
March 23, 2015 7:21 am

1836-1845 was certainly a very cold run of years, averaging the same temperature as the coldest run of years in Dalton on CET (1807-1817). It is also an excellent astronomical analogue for 2015-2024.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  4caster
March 23, 2015 8:31 am

I don’t think Hale phase has much do with it. The Dalton Minimum coldest years cluster roughly from max to max of solar cycles 5&6 (1807-1817), while in the Gleissberg Minimum it’s the peaks of solar cycles 12&13 (1885-1895).

March 22, 2015 4:29 pm

If Ted Cruz runs, it will be the first time I will contribute to a political campaign of any kind. I almost did when Art Robinson ran the first time… Remember to contribute to the actual candidate and not to the Party…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 22, 2015 4:58 pm

Well, if Jerry Brown and his ilk ever have to actually answer the question relating to actual scientific data, without the usual appeal to authority, they can come on here and see how Brandon Gates, warrenlb and Sir Harry F*ckw!t have answered the question recently …..
….. oooooh errr !!!!
Here we go again:
Please produce the data for any climate parameter that has been unequivocally shown to have been changed by CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.
Since it’s purportedly “overwhelming” let’s have 10 bullet points please:
Starting with 1) ……..

Reply to  philincalifornia
March 22, 2015 4:59 pm

PS I posted that 280 ppm and 400 ppm thing on another site’s comments section, and some guy accused me of cherrypicking. I didn’t quite p!ss myself but came close.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 23, 2015 3:57 pm

philincalifornia,

Well, if Jerry Brown and his ilk ever have to actually answer the question relating to actual scientific data, without the usual appeal to authority, they can come on here and see how Brandon Gates, warrenlb and Sir Harry F*ckw!t have answered the question recently …..
….. oooooh errr !!!!

Less “oooooh errr” and more “take your disingenuous questions and stuff them where the (it’s the) Sun (stupid) don’t shine”. My personal beliefs on the matter are not based on the notion that there is one single parameter correlated with CO2 which unequivocally demonstrates its effect on climate. My number 1 bullet point is nowhere close to direct evidence at all:
1) AGW theory is based on sound physical principles of radiative energy transfer.
None of the other inferences derived from correlations would be as compelling were it not for this all but absolutely certain causal explanation. Even so, there is much that remains NOT settled. A sampling:
1) Magnitude (including sign) and timing of feedbacks from ANY external forcing.
2) Whether feedbacks are roughly similar for ALL types of forcings.
3) When, where and how much ANY feedback/forcing combination will manifest as weather.
4) Internal variability.
#4 there included as a category of uncertainty which borders on inexplicable. I could devote the rest of my natural life to writing solely about ocean/atmospheric couplings and not run out of things asked about in literature and left unanswered. What I believe to the point of certainty is that the 1st law of thermodynamics is inviolate, which reduces “it’s ENSO whut diddit” arguments a la Bob Tisdale to so much nonsensical garbage.

Please produce the data for any climate parameter that has been unequivocally shown to have been changed by CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm.

Define unequivocal. Then, by that standard, please demonstrate the overwhelming evidence which “proves” plate tectonics are a real phenomenon, that they’ve been able to do something as unbelievable as create continents then MOVE them around. For the coup de grace, show me a model which can retroactively predict every earthquake over the past 150 years of MMS 7 or higher within +/- 0.1 of magnitude within — I’ll make it easy — 30 days of actual occurrence.
While you’re grinding away on that Herculean (or is it Sisyphean?) task, other, more intellectually honest, folks may wish to read this paper and actually learn something: https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf
TinyURL in case that gets garbled: http://tinyurl.com/bs8rloa
A seminal paper in that it was the first to demonstrate the time evolution of GHG forcing by direct observation from space. Even so, anyone in possession of a passing familiarity with radiative physics — or native curiosity and a desire to truly understand — can make some reasonable inferences just by looking at point-in-time snapshots:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg
Based on controlled laboratory observation, the contributions of the relevant gas species can be separated into component contributions:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/transmitted_radiation.gif
By the Beer-Lambert law, it stands to reason that increasing the concentration of a species with known absorptivity (and by Kirchoff’s Law, known emissivity) in the 15 micron region will reduce transmission of radiation within that band, thereby reducing the net rate of outgoing radiation from surface layers. The only possible radiative response warming in surface layers until the 4th power of temperature increases outgoing radiation to the point that net outgoing equals net incoming.
That much could not be more clearly obvious to any thinking person not encumbered with unrealistic notions of how empirical science actually works in the real world. Beyond that, climate gets complex and uncertain in a hurry. Your simplistic demands for “unequivocal” data are patently ridiculous, and — in my opinion — rightfully dismissed as content-free rhetoric.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 24, 2015 1:06 am

Brandon
You are making the same mistake as another contributor this past week: (my bold)
“By the Beer-Lambert law, it stands to reason that increasing the concentration of a species with known absorptivity (and by Kirchoff’s Law, known emissivity) in the 15 micron region will reduce transmission of radiation within that band, thereby reducing the net rate of outgoing radiation from surface layers. The only possible radiative response warming in surface layers until the 4th power of temperature increases outgoing radiation to the point that net outgoing equals net incoming.
That is a poor description of the heat flow.
You have concluded additional loss needed can only be achieved by increasing the temperature of the surface which is misleading. The heat is not shed to space from the surface. The surface might be cooled by convection – you don’t know. Also you forgot to include the change in albedo of the effective radiating layer. Your analysis has an increase in CO2 below but not above.
This leads to describing the increase in CO2 concentration creating ‘additional warmth’ but you have not mentioned the increase in the ability of the atmosphere at any altitude to radiate more effectively into space. This means the temperature of the ‘effective radiating layer’ can remain the same while more effectively losing heat to space (directly proportional to the total GHG concentration). Worse, you have stated that the radiation goes into space from the surface which is not true at all. It is from a mathematically convenient ‘effective emission layer’ at altitude which as a known temperature (albeit a theoretical construct used for convenience and discussion).
You also did not point out: the radiation is from water vapour and CO2 (mostly) so doubling the concentration of CO2 everywhere improves the effectiveness with which the atmosphere dumps heat upwards – you only mentioned its effect downwards. A change in the altitude of the effective radiating layer I leave for a separate discussion. First the physics have to be correctly described. Heat transfer from the surface to the effective emission layer is mostly by convection, not radiation, bypassing most of the heating effect your propose. That is why the models run hot. They make the same mistake (apparently).

Brandon Gates
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 24, 2015 3:09 pm

Crispin in Waterloo,

You have concluded additional loss needed can only be achieved by increasing the temperature of the surface which is misleading.

Review my words carefully, for they were carefully chosen: … net rate of outgoing radiation from surface layers. Layers, plural.

The heat is not shed to space from the surface.

Here’s this plot again:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/infrared_spectrum.jpg
From 8-9 and 10-13 microns, it’s a straight shot from the surface because there are no species in the atmosphere which signifcantly absorb at those wavelengths. Now I suppose I do need to caveat: these are clear-sky conditions only. Clouds, dust, aerosols, angles of incidence, refraction, Rayleigh scattering … all these things affect the total the picture, but I see little sense wading into that until the basic point of dispute has been explained.

The surface might be cooled by convection – you don’t know.

Personally know? Well … no. Going by what I read in literature, yes: convection and evaporation are the primary cooling mechanisms at the immediate surface:
17 Thermals
80 Evaporation
63 Net radiation

From Trenberth and Kiehl (2009), units are W/m^2.

Also you forgot to include the change in albedo of the effective radiating layer. Your analysis has an increase in CO2 below but not above.

The concept of “well-mixed” CO2 was implicit. You’ve been around this discussion long enough to get that.

This leads to describing the increase in CO2 concentration creating ‘additional warmth’ but you have not mentioned the increase in the ability of the atmosphere at any altitude to radiate more effectively into space.

Not in this thread, but in prior ones. Cooling upper atmospheric layers were predicted beforehand, and has been observed since. Kind of why I made a point of bringing up Kirchoff.

This means the temperature of the ‘effective radiating layer’ can remain the same while more effectively losing heat to space (directly proportional to the total GHG concentration).

Mmm, I would think only if both pressure and mixing-ratio were constant at all altitudes. Pressure certainly isn’t, and since this is a “yabbut, you didn’t say” argument, not all GHGs in the atmosphere are “well mixed”. In any discussion of Beer-Lambert law you’ll see a bunch of references to absorption cross section, which is a function of the density of absorbers/emitters per unit volume. Whether or not an upwelling photon makes it past TOA and back into deep space is a probability problem. Thinking about the atmosphere as a single absorber/emitter at some altitude is a surface area analogy, and absolutely yes, that falls apart. It’s the wrong physics.

Worse, you have stated that the radiation goes into space from the surface which is not true at all.

No, that’s completely true according to satellite instrumentation. Those observations are consistent with the known radiative properties of the major gas species found in our atmosphere. You actually want that to be far more true than it is, because that’s the only way that CO2 and other radiative gasses would NOT cause the very effect you’re attempting to diminish. If atmospheric transmission of longwave radiation were at or near 100%, there would be no “greenhouse effect”.

It is from a mathematically convenient ‘effective emission layer’ at altitude which as a known temperature (albeit a theoretical construct used for convenience and discussion).

Which is a construct I don’t particularly like.

You also did not point out: the radiation is from water vapour and CO2 (mostly) …

Crispin, the challenge I was responding to was specific to CO2, so my answer was mainly focused on CO2. The principles I am discussing here are relevant to ALL radiative gasses at any absorption band — which is exactly why I included the last graphic in my post, which breaks out the component contributions of the dominant species. I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve gone out of my way to note that water vapor is the dominant radiative species in Earth’s atmosphere on an instantaneous basis. I’d be happy to gin up some boilerplate all-encompassing inclusions and caveats if you insist, but that would make each of my posts 10x more verbose than they already are.
Think about it. If it doesn’t occur that such a thing would be absolutely ridiculous for me to do, I’ll be more than happy to oblige.

… so doubling the concentration of CO2 everywhere improves the effectiveness with which the atmosphere dumps heat upwards – you only mentioned its effect downwards.

This is exactly why I don’t like the “effective emission layer” construct. The amosphere is composed of an effectively infinite number of layers, which is one big reason why you will see a lot of integration being done in atmospheric chemistry literature. “Will see” — future tense — because I’m beginning to wonder if you’ve ever read a single one of them.
All layers of the atmosphere are effectively radiating in all directions, all the time. Keeping the discussion 2D is a purposeful simplification. Going to 3D opens up other forms of scattering which are relevant, but pointless to discuss until the import of Beer-Lambert is understood, and doing that in linear 2D fashion along the z-axis is the best way I know how to do it.
I suppose we could short-cut this all with you answering a simple question: Given a surface albedo of 30% and TSI at 1360 W/m^2, what do you think the effective temperature of the planet would be if there were no atmosphere whatsoever?

A change in the altitude of the effective radiating layer I leave for a separate discussion. First the physics have to be correctly described. Heat transfer from the surface to the effective emission layer is mostly by convection, not radiation, bypassing most of the heating effect your propose. That is why the models run hot. They make the same mistake (apparently).

Oh for pity’s sake. No. Read: http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/atm-cam/docs/description/description.pdf
Start with 4.1 Deep Convection on p. 87. 4.3 is kind of a fun section:
Evaporation of convective precipitation
The CAM 3.0 employs a Sundqvist [1988] style evaporation of the convective precipitation as it makes its way to the surface.

Got it? They’re attempting to account for how much raindrops evaporate as they fall from clouds back to the surface. Next time you want to lecture me about how much stuff I’ve “forgotten” or “left out”, feel free to use this document as a reference. If anything, it should almost certainly disabuse you of any and all ignorant notions that you’ve thought of something these guys haven’t.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 24, 2015 3:21 pm

… doing that in linear 2D fashion along the z-axis …
See, I’m so exasperated I’ve forgotten how to properly count the number of axes.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 26, 2015 1:20 am

Brandon you keep repeating the same charts. We all know the charts. Stop pasting charts. We all know about the clear-shot from the surface at short wavelengths. That is not an issue. We know about holes in the spectrum that are not being retained or ‘backscattered’. Let’s talks about what is being ‘backscattered’, OK?
Now listen carefully. Your lengthy posts are clouded by the obscuring dust of acquired knowledge.
The most important point from the above is the fact that you have considered backscattering but not forward scattering from increased GHG concentrations. You have shown that energy is sent back more effectively from the absorbing molecules. Those SAME molecules also broadcast upwards just as ‘more effectively’. That is what I meant by CO2’s effect down and the effect up (not that there is more CO2 below than above).
You have considered the effect down but not the equally enhanced effect upwards. Stick to basics.
If you want to calculate the radiating effect of a layer in the atmosphere (and for mathematical purposes it can all be reduced to an effective emitting layer) that layer radiations in all directions. It is the effective source of backscattering, and it is the effective source of emissions into space.
Increasing the concentration of all GHG’s increases the backscatter and the forward scatter into space. You are not alone in saying that the temperature of the effective emitting layer must increase in temperature because of the increase in surface temperature in the relevant bandwidths (I have to add that now because you keep being distracted by other wavelengths). This is incorrect with respect to IR radiating GHG’s. If it correct for non-IR wavelengths because the effective radiating layer is the surface. IR wavelengths of interest don’t go into space from the surface. Yes some IR is leaving from the surface. Let’s move on.
If the emitting layer is more efficient at sending CO2-mediated IR back to the surface it is also more efficient at emitting it into space. CO2 doesn’t know up from down – it just radiates as an isotropic source.
Doubling the concentration of the emitting molecules (water vapour and CO2 mostly) doubles the number of radiators, both up and down. This is basic physics. really basic. No one has yet invented a CO2 molecule that only sends IR downwards. If there are more of them, they also send more IR upwards at any given temperature.
Your analyses (all of them) ignore this effect. You account correctly for an increase in the downward radiation but not for an increase at the same temperature upwards resulting from the increased concentration of GHG’s. Once this is included in the calculation, several mooted effects are seen to be mirages.
Because the gases radiate above a sphere, not a flat surface, the radiation from the increased CO2 is not 50% down and 50% away from the earth, there is a slight advantage to leaving the planet (because of curvature). That means for any increase in the total GHG content, there is a very slight drop in the elevation of the effective emitting layer – and the temperature of that layer stays the same. This drop in elevation is directly attributable to the change in albedo of the effective emission layer, and remember we are talking about CO-absorbed and water vapour-absorbed wavelengths only.
I appreciate your enthusiasm. Let’s get the fundamentals correct and then start talking about anticipated effects.
The ‘missing hot spot’ is I think anticipated for the same reason – they expect the emitting layer to be hotter because they have shown the surface temperature will increase. Well, they forgot the reason for the increase was a more effective emitting layer that doesn’t have to increase in temperature to dump the additional heat. The hotspot has not been, and never will be found. They have confused temperature with heat. They have made a fundamental error conceptually, treating the consequence (hot spot) as if the GHG concentration was the same.
If you paint a silver pot grey it can dump a certain amount of fire-heat at a given surface temperature. If you paint if black, it can dump more heat at the same temperature. That is the effect of a change in albedo. The albedo of the effective radiating layer changes with CO2 concentration.
Please don’t quote Trenberth. Quote Prof Adrian Bejan. http://www.mems.duke.edu/faculty/adrian-bejan

Steamboat Jack
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 22, 2015 7:44 pm

I would also ask you to consider Scott Walker if he gets that far.

Reply to  Steamboat Jack
March 22, 2015 8:01 pm

I like Walker. He’s a breath of fresh air after the Clinton/Bush dynasties.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
March 22, 2015 8:43 pm

J. Philip Peterson,
No wonder they call Gov. Brown “MOONBEAM”.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 5:33 pm

It was hard to find the Ted Cruz site for presidential candidate donations. I found it (on Bing – not Google), and I did donate for the first time in my life (and I am 71 – years old).

Toneb
March 22, 2015 4:37 pm

dbStealey said:
“Well, Martin, your chart shows the same thing: prior warming episodes were warmer than modern warming. As to the point I made: the Holocene has been steadily and gradually cooling. Naturally, I might add.
The current warming cycle is indistinguishable from previous natural warming cycles. The climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Therefore, the default position for any honest scientific skeptic is that the current [very *mild*] warming cycle is natural, not man-made…….”
Also dbstealey says:
“I recognize that chart as one by Prof Ole Humlum. He produced the original. But it has been diddled with, in order to show extreme warming. That much warming has not happened, so I don’t think that fabrication to Dr. Humlum’s original chart is accurate.
Further, the entire MMGW debate revolves around the 0.7ºC rise in global T over the past century or so. That chart shows more than 1.5ºC of warming.
Where did you find that misinformation? It looks to be alarmist propaganda, because it overstates warming by close to double.”
See; http://i1.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GRIPtempBoxlarge.png
From the above (real temp from the GRIP site, 28km away) you can see that the reason Martin’s graph shows +1.44 (actually) of warming is that is the deltaT of the mean of the temperature for the period 1850-59 and 2000-09.
So the ave global temp has risen ~0.8c in that time, BUT for that part of Greenland it has risen ~1.4C.
You cannot conflate one ice-core in Greenland to be a proxy for the whole Earth.
http://i1.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/GRIPtempBoxlarge.png
And did you say “Where did you find that misinformation? It looks to be alarmist propaganda, because it overstates warming by close to double.”
Really?
No, what it does is compare apples with apples ie Greenland DeltaT with Greenland DeltaT and not with Ave global DeltaT
You cannot compare temps inferred form O2 isotopes in ice cores with real 2m surface temps, and yes, to put the two together is incorrect.

Reply to  Toneb
March 22, 2015 6:57 pm

Toneb, Dr. Ball ever so briefly mentioned the limitations of O2 isotopes in ice cores during his recent debate with Canadian far-left Green Party MP May, a topic that is IMO widely misunderstood. You nail it.
You cannot compare temps inferred form O2 isotopes in ice cores with real 2m surface temps, and yes, to put the two together is incorrect.

Reply to  Toneb
March 22, 2015 7:41 pm

Toneb,
My point stands: that chart was fabricated, with some unknown person putting “2010 –> +” into someone else’s chart. That’s not OK, and it misrepresents the situation by placing an instrumental global record on top of a regional ice core record. Anyone casually viewing it would assume it’s an apples-to-apples comparison. It’s not.
Global T has fluctuated by only about 0.7ºC over a century and a half — a *very* minuscule change. That is nothing! Just prior to the present Holocene, global T varied by many degrees, without human emissions being a factor…
…and the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.
All the wild-eyed arm waving over a minuscule 0.7º fluctuation is amusing to scientific skeptics, who know better. The alarmist crowd is trying to scare the public, but the public is no longer buying. The bloom is off the rose. The shark has been jumped. It was only an acorn, Chicken Little. The sky isn’t falling.
A few years ago, global warming/climate change articles in the national media would generate many concerned comments. But no more. Now, the overwhelming majority of commenters openly ridicules the climate scare.
Alarmists have cried “WOLF!!” for too long. They have lost their credibility. And it will only get worse for them.

Owen suppes
Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 7:16 am

I think we need to have an article boiling down the mechanisms earth has in releasing and blocking radiation.

Robert B
Reply to  Toneb
March 22, 2015 7:50 pm

If the null hypothesis is that global temperatures would have barely changed in the 20th century if it were not for fossil fuel use, then if you see regions where the climate has changed dramatically, going up by over 3 degrees in a couple of centuries, its not completely refuted but its highly unlikely to be true.

Reply to  Robert B
March 22, 2015 8:15 pm

Robert B,
As Dr. Spencer has stated in the past, the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Regional changes happen constantly. But current global parameters have never exceeded past parameters. That is what would be necessary to falsify the Null Hypothesis.
For example, if global temperatures had started an accelerated rise as the alarmist crowd had confidently and repeatedly predicted, that would have falsified the Null Hypothesis. But the exact opposite happened: global warming stopped, to the total consternation of the IPCC and their followers.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Toneb
March 22, 2015 9:49 pm

@Toneb at 4:37 pm:
On that basis, if the author of Martin’s graph were honest and not trying to bamboozle impressionable minds, they would have noted, say, 1945 instead of 2010, but in either case it’s a matter of stitching instrumental temperature graph onto proxy-derived graph with a much coarser resolution.
What your graph does demonstrate is that over the course of ~150 years, maybe the resolution of the ice core graph, the temperature can fluctuate + 2C either side of the average over that time at that resolution.
At that same resolution, the Greenland temperature as shown on Martin’s faked graph during the Holocene Optimum or Minoan Warm Period would be off the top of the chart.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 23, 2015 7:33 am

The real Holocene optimum is when Greenland was cold, ~2750-2400 BC. That’s when city building took off worldwide, and when the Minoans flourished from. The demise of the Minoans was around 1200 BC, along with most Mediterranean cultures and also the late Neolithic collapse, a peak warm period for Greenland.
Climate scientists should have to study history, so that they do not rewrite it in their ignorance of it.
Climate change and the demise of Minoan civilization:
http://www.clim-past.net/6/525/2010/cp-6-525-2010.pdf
http://snag.gy/TseC7.jpg

michael hart
March 22, 2015 4:47 pm

It’s a nice article, Dr Tim. About the right length, IMO.
These things are now familiar to many people, but not yet to enough people. So I think it good that WUWT continues to republish such things that should not be forgotten.

March 22, 2015 5:57 pm

Thanks Dr. Ball.

masInt branch 4 C3I in is
March 22, 2015 5:59 pm

Ah. March Madness.
I suggest we get a “Screen” play in the half court on Holdren and let the Ref call a Title IX violation on him.
Another, and a Holdren DUI hit-and-run in Georgetown (wink wink), and Obama will have to remove him from the “game”.
Ha ha

tabnumlock
March 22, 2015 6:04 pm

It’s interesting that the Vikings were repulsed when they tried to colonize America during the MWP but the pilgrims succeeded in doing it during the depth of the LIA. The Indian population was probably much lower.

Bill Murphy
Reply to  tabnumlock
March 22, 2015 10:02 pm

…the pilgrims succeeded in doing it during the depth of the LIA…
They had gunpowder and muskets.
[And still almost failed their first winters. Thanksgiving was a real event celebrating survival. .mod]

Reply to  Bill Murphy
March 25, 2015 9:10 am

Despite also having gunpowder and muskets the colony at Roanoke didn’t make it a few years earlier.
Later colonization was substantially aided by inadvertent germ warfare which wiped out ~90% of the native population.

Russ R.
Reply to  Bill Murphy
March 25, 2015 12:36 pm

Phil:

Later colonization was substantially aided by inadvertent germ warfare which wiped out ~90% of the native population.

To qualify as “warfare”, it must be intentional. If you can’t show a deliberate action, to spread, disease, then it is just an unfortunate accident, caused by, interaction of races, separated by geography, for millennia. It was a two way transmission, and both sides, had diseases, that they spread, inadvertently, to the other.

March 22, 2015 6:06 pm

We need some awesome tunes to go with our Hockey Stick …
Pardon Me While I Burst Into Flames

So pardon me while I burst
into flames.
I’ve had enough of the world
and its people’s mindless games.
So pardon me while I burn
and rise above the flame.
Pardon me, pardon me…
I’ll never be the same!

Gary Pearse
March 22, 2015 7:32 pm

“..In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. (NOAA)”
So CO2 wasn’t very evenly distributed in those days or it definitely can’t be a control knob. Take your pick. How, as a first approximation can you come up with an idea of a 300yr spot where it was warm and followed a couple of centuries later by a 300yr spot when it was cold, without affecting the rest of the globe? The only way you could arrive at such silliness is if you are determined to stick with the narrative as handed down by Maurice Strong and the UN come hell or high water. Remember the Shakespearean discussion in climategate emails when they were discussing getting rid of the MWP!!! How could a climatic event be an embarrassment to science?

Reply to  Gary Pearse
March 22, 2015 8:11 pm

Thats it, Trenberths missing heat was roaming the planet back then.
Hence the “localized” non global warming period.
Sarc of course.

harrytwinotter
March 22, 2015 9:42 pm

I see a lot of posts about a “null hypothesis” and AGW. I don’t know what a null hypothesis means in this context, perhaps someone can provide an explanation. I think the question really is: are the hypotheses of AGW falsifiable – they are and I can think of some examples. Perhaps people can add more.
– Does burning fossil fuels create CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere? Yes it does. To be falsified, no accumulation would be observed.
– is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes it is, it has been measured in the laboratory using spectro analysis. To be falsified it would not have been observed.
– does CO2 accumulation cause an increasing greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. Yes it does, recent studies have come up with a figure of around 0.2 W/m2 per decade. To be falsified it would not have been observed.
– does the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere cause the global average temperature to increase? Yes it does, the surface and satellite temperature series show an increase over time. To be falsified the temperature increase would not have been observed.
– does the temperature of the stratosphere decrease as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere? Yes it does. To be falsified the temperature decrease would not have been observed.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 22, 2015 10:47 pm

harrytwinotter,
Let’s cut to the chase: there are no empirical, testable measurements quantifying AGW. None.
What is the fraction of AGW, out of total global warming? We don’t know.
See? AGW is just speculation. I personally think AGW exists. But without measurements quantifying it, AGW remains merely a conjecture. An opinion.
Any forcing that is too small to measure simply does not matter. It is a non-problem. And since the entire alarmist argument is predicated on their belief in catastrophic AGW, their argument goes down in flames.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 10:52 pm

dbstealey.
Handwaving plus a subject change into CAGW, plus some pointless rhetoric. My point is the scientific theory of AGW contains many hypotheses that are indeed falsifiable, contrary to the claims by some.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 22, 2015 11:07 pm

Harry, you’re squirming.
Unless you can produce a verifiable, testable measurement quantifying AGW, you’re just talking through your hat. Put up, as they say, or shut up.
And AGW is not a “theory”, so you’re wrong from the get-go. A theory must be able to make repeated, accurate predictions. The AGW conjecture couldn’t even predict the most significant temperature event of the past century: the fact that global warming has stopped. And it didn’t just stop for a little while. Global warming has been stopped for many years now, with no sign that it will resume. No alarmist saw that coming. It blindsided them all.
You can emit pseudo-scientific, illogical pablum saying that AGW is ‘falsifiable’. But you can’t even MEASURE it! How can you falsify something you can’t even quantify?? Answer: you can’t.
You’re out of your league here, Harry. I suggest you go read the WUWT archives for a few months. Try to get up to speed on the subject, and let the big dogs debate.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 22, 2015 11:59 pm

dbstealey.
Ad Hominems are boring, people can trade them all day.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 12:10 am

So, Harry, still no measurements of MMGW?

Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 7:15 am

Yeah, you nailed it Mike Borgelt.
In climate “science”, measurements are strawmen. Quality post.

Joseph Murphy
Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 8:54 am

philincalifornia says: March 23, 2015 at 7:15 am Yeah, you nailed it Mike Borgelt.
In climate “science”, measurements are strawmen. Quality post.
————————————
Lots of good comments on this thread and thank you Dr. Ball for the post. But, I always enjoy a comment that gets me laughing!

Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 9:07 am

When will you stop with your strawman “measurement” argument?
^That^ comment shows the alarmist contingent has got nothin’.
If asking for a measurement is a strawman argument, then we’ve officially passed through Alice’s looking glass.
Fortunately, most WUWT readers know better. The fact that the alarmist cult cannot produce a single measurement of AGW after decades of searching means only one of two possibilities:
1. AGW is simply too small to measure, or
2. AGW doesn’t exist.
I go with #1. Background noise swamps any measurements. Therefore, AGW is simply too minuscule to matter, and the whole man-made global warming narrative falls on its face. It’s not science, it is only politics and religion, with a thin veneer of pseudo-science.
Prove me wrong. Produce even one verifiable, testable mesurement quantifying AGW, out of total global warming. So far, it’s been all hand-waving; zero measurements.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 10:20 am

Mike Borgelt,
dbstealey would use scientific instrumentation as most scientists do to measure things. Sometimes in science, things are just not measurable. All climate parameters caused by CO2 going from 280 ppm to 400 ppm are in this category. It’s not unusual that conjectures and hypotheses are falsified by finding that the hypothesized effect is too small to measure. It happens all the time. Real scientists can move on.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 12:03 pm

philincalifornia,
I’ve given up trying to teach Mike Borgelt anything. It’s a waste of time. But other readers understand that measurement is the basis for science. Without measurements, we’re back in witch doctor territory. These days that means climate alarmist territory.
‘Measurements’ in the current context means quantifying temperatures, and temperature changes. The claim is that we are experiencing anthropogenic global warming [AGW], AKA: man-made global warming [MMGW]. Global warming can be measured; it’s done every day.
The alarmist claim is that part of that warming is due to human activity. But where is the evidence??
The climate alarmist crowd needs to produce measurements quantifying the fraction of MMGW, out of total global warming. Simples, no?
It should be very simple. The only reason that it still cannot be done is because current instrumentation is not sufficient to measure the human fraction, out of total global warming. Therefore, AGW must be *very* minuscule if it cannot be measured. It must be lower than the background noise.
As we see, the request for measurements of MMGW sends the alarmist contingent completely ballistic. Despite decades of research, no one has been able to quantify AGW: Is MMGW 50% of total global warming?
Answer: We don’t know.
Is AGW 5% of global warming?
Answer: We don’t know.
Is AGW 0.02% of total warming?
Answer: WE DON’T KNOW!
Is MMGW 0.001% of total global warming??
Answer: We don’t know.
Yet the alarmist crowd hangs their collectiven hats on the belief that AGW is a big problem that must be immediately addressed, or climate catastrophe will result. Could they appear any more ridiculous?
Reasonable estimates have been proposed as to how much global warming has been caused by human emissions. I personally agree with Prof. Richard Lindzen of M.I.T., who estimates climate sensitivity to be about 0.66ºC per doubling of CO2 [it should be noted that there are probably insufficient fossil fuels available to double CO2 from here].
If the Lindzen/Choi sensitivity number is anywhere near reality, then there is absolutely nothing to be concerned about. In fact, such a tiny bit of global warming would be a net benefit to the biosphere, with no identifiable downside. A fraction of a degree of warming would open up vast tracts of land to agriculture in places like Siberia, Mongolia, Alaska and Canada. It would tend to reduce polar ice, opening the Northweat Passage and saving immense fuel costs. And the related CO2 emissions would cause increased agricultural productivity; a Win-Win-Win situation.
But the alarmist lemmings always see the glass as half empty, never half full. Based on zero evidence, they run around in circles like Chicken Little, clucking that the sky is falling. It isn’t. It’s not even a tiny acorn. Because after many decades of investigation by thousands of scientists, it turns out there is no downside to human CO2 emissions, and plenty of real benefits.
But since the alarmisrt crowd is motivated either by self-serving, rent seeking behavior, or by the religious True Belief of their acolytes, they cannot be convinced by facts and evidence. Nothing can convince them.
If I’m wrong about that, then I would like to know what evidence would convince them they’re wrong? Or would glaciers once again have to descend onto the U.S. and Canada, a mile deep? Even then, many climate alarmists would still refuse to admit that they were ever wrong. Because they really are that deluded.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 12:41 am

“… does the temperature of the stratosphere decrease as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere? Yes it does. To be falsified the temperature decrease would not have been observed …” harrytwinotter (9:42 pm).
======================================
And the corollary must follow: no decrease in stratospheric temperature means no CO2 accumulation.
The stratospheric temperature has been flat since 1996:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20DifferentAltitudesGlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
So there has been no CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere since 1996 — hang on that can’t be right.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 23, 2015 12:54 am

RSS TLS is showing a trend of -0.271 K / decade. Not flat.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 23, 2015 8:16 am

There’s a big change from 1995, so maybe when the AMO next shifts colder, both the uppers and lowers will do an about turn.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 25, 2015 7:04 am

Perhaps you should actually give data for the mid-stratosphere where CO2 is expected to have the cooling effect, (@~1mb see Clough and Iacono J. Geophys. Res., vol 100). All the data you have shown have significant tropospheric contributions, TLS shows some lower stratospheric contribution but changes in O3 are more important there. The RSS C13 product is representative of the mid-stratosphere:
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/C13/plots/RSS_TS_channel_C13_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png
Caption: “Globally averaged temperature anomaly time series for the AMSU Channel 13, in the middle stratosphere. The plot shows the that middle stratosphere cooled during the most recent 15 years, even as the lower stratosphere ceased cooling.”

Konrad.
Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 1:22 am

Harry,
the null hypothesis regarding the pseudo science of AGW is simple –
“Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce its radiative cooling ability, nor its ability to cool the solar heated surface of our planet. Not too hard is it darl’?
That null hypothesis still stands.
Your problem with your belief in AGW stems from a common problem. You believe there is a net atmospheric radiative GHE where in fact this too is an un-proven hypothesis. Worse, the simplest of empirical experiments disprove it.
Your high priests of the church of radiative climastrology claimed that the “surface” could only heated to 255K (-18C), by the sun without a radiative atmosphere above. Whoops! That should have been 312K. Oh dear, the radiative forcing claimed was only 33K, nothing compared to the inane 57K error in the “basic physics” of your so called “settled science”. Oh dear, oh dear, that claimed radiative “forcing” could have only been 9.6K, after all 71% of the surface of our planet cannot be heated nor have its cooling rate slowed by incident LWIR. Oh, the sobulent bitchosity of it all!
Harry, it’s not what you pray for, it’s far, far worse. It’s not the “warming but less than we thought” soft landing you hope and pray for. It’s “AGW is a physical impossibility”. There is no hope of escape. Through your total incompetence at radiative physics and fluid dynamics, you and yours have just engineered the destruction of every activist, journalist and politician of the left. Plus you took out the UN kleptocrats as well. (golf clap?)
dbstealey is no pushover, don’t count your chickens. There are real sceptics out there. There will be no soft landing for any of the AGW fellow travellers. Every activist, every journalist and every politician who ever sought to promote or profit by this inane hoax is going down. Every. Last. One. No exceptions. No excuses.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  Konrad.
March 23, 2015 1:59 am

Konrad.
“Pseudo science of AGW” ha ha it appears you are familiar with the rhetorical device of “poisoning the well”.
Next! 🙂

Konrad.
Reply to  Konrad.
March 23, 2015 3:15 pm

Hypocrisy thy name is Harry.
”– is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes it is, it has been measured in the laboratory using spectro analysis. To be falsified it would not have been observed.”
Calling CO2 a “greenhouse gas” presupposes a net radiative GHE which empirical experiment proves to be impossible. Rhetoric anyone?
The idea of a net radiative GHE has not be proved in a laboratory and to claim otherwise would be a bald faced lie.
Tyndall showed in 1869 that CO2 could absorb LWIR radiation. Tyndall showed in 1860 that if heated by other means such as conduction, CO2 will emit LWIR. This and later experiments in no way support the idea of a net radiative GHE. They just show as Tyndall did that CO2 is a radiative gas. “Greenhouse gas” remains a propaganda term.
Is it possible to show the AGW hoax to be wrong via simple empirical experiment? The answer is yes.
Climastrologists claimed that without a radiative atmosphere, surface solar insolation would only heat the surface to an average of 255K and that the addition of radiative gases slowed the surface cooling rate and allowed a 33K increase in average surface temperature. These inane claims were based on a stupid assumption – that the surface of the planet could be considered a “near blackbody” that could only rise to 255K for an average of 240w/m2.
The problem here is that 71% of the surface of our planet is ocean, not a near blackbody but instead an extreme SW selective surface. Empirical experiment shows two things. First you can’t do what the climastrologists did and apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to a SW translucent / IR opaque convecting material that is being intermittently illuminated by solar SW. Second that the sun alone could drive the oceans to 335K or beyond were it not for cooling by out radiatively cooled atmosphere.
Harry, for the AGW fellow travellers there is no way out. That stupid 255K mistake is the very foundation of your religion. Your lot have spread it from one side of the Internet to the other. It’s in textbook and papers everywhere. No amount of handwaving will ever erase the burning shame. Climastrologists got the “basic physics” of the “settled science” utterly wrong.

Russ R.
Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 3:22 pm

HarryTwinOtter:
The Null Hypothesis is “Climate variations have occurred, in the past, are occurring in the present, and will occur in the future. Therefore, it is assumed, that current climate variations, are a continuation, of past natural variations, in the climate”.
All of you “hypotheses of AGW can be used in the same way to make a claim for evidence of Bigfoot. While it is impossible to “prove the negative”, that they don’t exist, the evidence that they do, is insufficient to reject the null hypothesis, that they don’t.

Russ R.
Reply to  Russ R.
March 23, 2015 3:44 pm

Mike Borgelt:
Here is one of my charts, that shows the radiative forcing, of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1950/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1950/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:2000/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1950/to:2015/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2015/trend
You can see that the rate of warming is greater from 1900-1950, than it is from 1950-2000. Two “apples to apples” 50 year periods. The first with low anthropogenic emissions and the second with much larger emissions, and accumulations, during the period. Two other interesting periods are the 1950-1980 period, and the 2000-2015 period. Both should show increases, if CO2 is a dominant forcing. They do not, which relegates it to a forcing, which can be easily overpowered by natural forcings. Indeed the 50 year periods, call into question, whether it is large enough, to determine, what magnitude it contributes to climate temperatures.

Russ R.
Reply to  Russ R.
March 23, 2015 3:52 pm

Messed up my assessment of the 2000-2015 period. It does show some warming, but at a rate, lower, than the rate of “natural warming” during the 1900-1950 period.
Also note the similarity between “the stoppage” from 1950-1965, and the current stoppage. Similar slopes, and if you graph the second 15, of that 1950-1980 period, that is what a “cyclical trend” forecaster, would look for in the next 15 years, 2015-2030.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Russ R.
March 23, 2015 6:55 pm

Russ R.

Also note the similarity between “the stoppage” from 1950-1965, and the current stoppage. Similar slopes, and if you graph the second 15, of that 1950-1980 period, that is what a “cyclical trend” forecaster, would look for in the next 15 years, 2015-2030.

And thus my oft-asked question: “Are we at the “top” of the Modern Warming Period during 2000-2010 – then to slide downhill into the Modern Ice Age in 450 years?
Or will we cycle one more time on the 66-year short cycle until 2060-2070 – then go downhill into trouble and famine?
Or yet one more cycle in 2120-2130 – then to go downhill?

March 22, 2015 11:05 pm

Harry, please take note of bullet point 2 in this:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/blog/2010/02/a-strong-hypothesis.php
“A hypothesis is a statement not a question”.
If I have time tomorrow I’ll explain more for you, unless responders in other time zones do it for me. Respectfully, there are so many things wrong with your post that it would take me 2 hours to respond properly and, at 11:00 pm CA time, can’t do it. I suspect you will have your answers before I get to it though.
In the meantime though, why don’t you have a go at phrasing your hypotheses as statements. I think that will help you see why they don’t address what you think they address.

Reply to  philincalifornia
March 22, 2015 11:17 pm

philincalifornia,
You have more patience than I do, as you can see. I’ve been trying to get a straight answer out of ‘harrytwinotter’ for a while now, with no luck.
Scientific skeptics won the man-made global warming [MMGW] debate years ago. Now it’s just devolved into politics and religion, as we see from the tortured comments from the alarmist crowd.
The entire debate revolves around the question of MMGW, which is still no more than rank speculation. No one has ever measured MMGW, and if something can’t be measured, it is hardly science. Or rather, it begins and ends at the first step: as a conjecture. An opinion.
AGW is not a Hypothesis, nor a Theory. It certainly isn’t a Law. But the alarmist cult writes as if it’s all three. That’s because MMGW is their religion.
And who can argue with someone’s religion? That’s what we’re dealing with here. It is no more productive than trying to convert a Jehovah’s Witness into a Baptist. They have their beliefs, and neither science nor logic has anything to do with what they believe.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 22, 2015 11:52 pm

Looking forward to seeing your response – that is what a discussion is all about. Particularly if you think the hypotheses have been falsified or not.
To answer your point about statements vs questions, that is semantics. Rewrite my questions as statements if you wish.

Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 10:16 am

Sorry, I made the mistake of thinking you were a normal person with real scientific questions and, given some teaching background in the UC system, I might be able to help you learn something about the scientific method. ……. but I don’t feed thread-diverting trolls.

harrytwinotter
Reply to  harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 8:26 pm

philincalifornia,
Childish insults only? You said above you were going to respond to the hypotheses I presented. Never mind some else might have a crack at them.

March 22, 2015 11:28 pm

Aah db, it’s not patience, it’s that I haven’t been on here as much as i used to be (because I have the pleasure of doing that jealous mistress real science as an obsession), so I took Harry’s post at face value (and will continue to unless it’s addressed by the time I get back to it).
While I have you on the line though, what’s the best reference for only 0.7 degrees C of warming since 1850? …. and do warmists have any CREDIBLE upward creep on that?

March 22, 2015 11:52 pm

Hi Phil,
The 0.7C rise has been discussed on WUWT and other places so often that I can’t recall who started it. I think it was originally the IPCC. This site shows an 0.8+ rise, which I’m also happy to accept.
The point is that a small fluctuation like that, over more than a century, is NOTHING! It is way down in the noise. I have a chart somewhere showing TENS of degrees change in temperature — within only a decade or two, just prior to our current Holocene. Now that is scary!
But a 0.7º – 0.8º wiggle? I just can’t get excited over something that minuscule. It’s Chicken Little’s acorn — it’s not the sky falling, as the alarmist crowd wants us to believe.
(Tomorrow I’ll look up that chart showing tens of degrees change in T, and post it. Too late tonight, I’m baggin’ it.)

Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 7:22 am

Thanks, I wanted to file it for the few times I may respond to people who post climate sensitivities greater than 1.6C. How can it be when we’ve had a half-doubling of CO2 (logarithmically-speaking)? Is 150+ years not enough data. Also, that doesn’t include any natural temperature increase as we exited the LIA. So, subtract that out and we have between zero and immeasurable.

Reply to  dbstealey
March 23, 2015 12:22 pm

As promised, here is the chart showing an abrupt change in temperature just prior to the Holocene.
Yes, for nitpickers it’s Greenland — there arent’t many ice cores on the equator. And yes, global warming changes the most at night, and in winter, and at the higher latitudes. But that chart shows some astonishingly large temperature variations, on the order of tens of degrees. Changes of that magnitude have not been observed anywhere in the Holocene.

PatE
March 23, 2015 12:22 am

Where can I find the data for Lamb’s graph?

Toneb
Reply to  PatE
March 23, 2015 10:39 am

Nowhere, it’s anecdotal. All that is known is that he used a small portion of central England (with temp data back to 1659 at earliest and much of the earlier stuff inferred from indoor conditions (vis “milk froze in pail”), and from natural indicators like good summers/crops.
Again it can be no other than a very local approximation of temp and cannot have been global. For a start there were not the studies to have been able to have a stab at that in 1965, even for the NH, let alone the whole globe.
As I said above the science has moved on and to cling to this graph above those that have followed makes no sense. Unless you prefer the look of it. Remember also the missing 50 years of warming off the end.

Ryddegutt
March 23, 2015 1:31 am

Wikipedia is still working to get rid of the Figure 7c in the 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR). When looking into the change log for “Medieval Warm Period” in Wikipedia we find things like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&diff=next&oldid=616437433
The sentence that is deleted there claims that the figure originates from the 1995 report, which is not correct of course since it was in the 1990 report. But when the sentence is removed, they use the reason that the figure is an “Old and mistaken legend”.
For the record, the “Old and mistaken legend” can still be found in page 202 here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

MikeB
Reply to  Ryddegutt
March 23, 2015 3:08 am

You must excuse them. But it is necessary to get rid of the putative medieval warm period.
From Michael Mann, June 4, 2003: email 1054757526

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2000 years, rather than the usual 1000 years, addresses a good earlier point that Jonathan Overpeck made … that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “Medieval Warm Period”, even if we don’t yet have data available that far back.

ren
March 23, 2015 1:34 am

“The idea that cosmic rays may affect climate through modulation of the cosmic ray ionization in the atmosphere goes back to Edward Ney in 1959. It was known that solar wind modulates the flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth—a high solar activity deflects more of the cosmic rays reaching the inner solar system, and with it reduces the atmospheric ionization. Ney raised the idea that this ionization could have some climatic effect. This would immediately link solar activity with climate variations, and explain things like the little ice age during the Maunder minimum, when sunspots were a rare occurrence on the solar surface. ”
http://www.sciencebits.com/sights-field-trip-milky-way

Chris Wright
March 23, 2015 3:17 am

“The Hockey Stick ‘solved’ the problem by eliminating the events completely….”
If you think about it, the straight shaft of the hockey stick is the very essence of climate change denial.
How’s that for irony?
Chris

harrytwinotter
March 23, 2015 3:20 am

The chart given in Figure 1 of the OP does differ from the 7.1.c chart from the IPCC report.
It is academic anyway, it only a schematic and only covers mostly the region of Central England. Mann et al hockey stick chart covered the Northern Hemisphere so it is a much-improved version.

Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 6:16 am

Greater or lesser oceanic warming to depth in the all important 45th S to 45th N parallel band where Solar Angle of Incidence (SAI) is greater can have significant, even spectacular weather pattern variation affects on a global basis but not all at once. Echoes of this variance due to these periods of warming or cooling can last much longer than the initiating event and its initial causes (which can be related to Milankovitch cycles, super El Nino’s, a period of extreme trade winds, and/or extensive sulfuric acid volcanic veils in the stratosphere). It can last as long as it takes to build back up or release ocean warmth, which on a good day has a habit of whimsingly clinging to its warm bed, staying under the covers leaving the rest of us cold, or layering on top, sending warm humid air our way, as it slowly meanders through ocean currents and the overturning circulation. This is why global averaging of warm or cold periods with decadal filters to smooth out the random walk buries the all important signal. The signal of warm or cold periods is in the regional details, not the filtered decadal global average.
For more information on SAI see the following:
http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6i.html

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 8:06 am

“The signal of warm or cold periods is in the regional details, not the filtered decadal global average.”
Absolutely. But even then no sensible progress can be made while they have no notion whatsoever of major oceanic modes being negative feedbacks to solar forcings. That leads to concocting specious reasons for both regional and global surface temperature variations. Especially with the AMO as it effects regional precipitation so much.
From blaming aerosols for the 1970’s cooling, to claiming that the rise in global mean surface T since then is fully proportional to forcings.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
March 23, 2015 1:25 pm

“That leads to concocting specious reasons for both regional and global surface temperature variations.” Ulric. I would add yours to those specious reasons.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
March 23, 2015 6:57 pm

At least I have reason to believe that the AMO is externally forced. Even if that is too far a leap for you to entertain, it is not that hard to see how large an impact it has on global inter decadal cooling and warming rates. And when its cooling they blame aerosols, and when its warming they blame CO2.

Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 6:43 am

Here is just one study that looks at how changes in chlorophyll concentration changes visible and ultraviolet penetration depth, with echoes throughout the oceans using a model to simulate possible changes. Now imagine anything that might allow in or reflect away more solar irradiance, even though that event itself may be short-term. Add Solar Angle of Incidence and it becomes evident that the processes of keeping our Earth at steady state warmth are rather fickle.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/cos0501.pdf

March 23, 2015 7:10 am

In our country there is a saying, when something is wrong and says: “Where is the much-midwife midwife, children are suffering from hernia” .This can be applied to “toil” theory of the causes of climate change. It is really so far all hernial, if we consider so claims, evidence and predictions, of which there are no real nor the results or certificates.
Milankovic was on his way to find out the true causes and gave the receipts of the theory related to the long-term laws of motion of our planet and its behavior under the influence of the greatest causes of all the phenomena in our solar system, and that is the sun. Science has no sense to realize that all changes to the planets and the sun, the consequences of mutual influence on each other. This what some scientists, who are on the right track evidence of true causes of climate change, related to the appearance of the sun, these are only indicators of something much more subtle and more powerful what causes these changes, and we do not want to analyze. The simplest is to blame CO2, because it can not prove or disprove any of its properties that can cause these changes. Place the probe into the ground to the depth of several tens of meters and measuring the magnetic field of the earth and temperature and find their mutual relationship and will be more clearly which direction and who act on these changes. I claim that four influential planets, their positions around the sun, forming cycles of about 11.2 years, which determines the behavior of sunspot. These spots do not cause climate change but are pointers of some bigger and stronger changes in the planets. It is pictured as when someone gets redness and increased body temperature. This is an indication that something big going on in the organism, and the organism to which there are sunspots are planet and only sun, only we still do not have “competent doctor” who knows when it causes. I’m trying to publish this, but everyone wants and they are used to pay for them to learn something new. While this relationship does not change, can not be defined not true causes of climate change.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Nikola Milovic
March 23, 2015 7:45 am

You can’t publish because your hypothesis cannot be supported. Not with observations, not with physics, and not with plausible mechanisms. That you persist speaks of a dullness, not a brilliance, of thought.

March 23, 2015 7:29 am

The IPCC forecast future climate trends using GCMs . This method is simply not fit for purpose. We cannot forecast the future unless we know where the earth is with regard to the obvious 60 and, most importantly ,the millennial periodicity in the temperature record.( as seen in the Lambert Figure.)
For the latter see Figs 5-9 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The shape of the curve of Fig 9 ( Fig 5 Christiansen et al 2012) from 1000 – the present should replace the Mann-IPCC – Al Gore hockey stick in the public consciousness as the icon for climate change and a guide to the future.
Fig 14 shows that the solar activity driver of the 960 year cycle peaked in about 1991.
There is a variable lag both in time and by region between this solar driver peak and its appearance in the various climate metrics. (Satellite data ,SST, OHC etc)
The correlative RSS temperature peak was in about 2003 (12 year lag) and the earth has been in a cooling trend by this metric since then.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
The sharp decline in the Ap index in Fig 13 in 2005/6 should show up as a steeper cooling trend in 2017–2018
The linked post concludes:
“As to the future, the object of forecasting is to provide practical guidance for policy makers. The rate, amplitude and timing of climate change varies substantially from region to region so that, after accounting for the long term quasi-millennial periodicity, I would then estimate the modulation of this trend by providing multi-decadal climate forecasts for specific regions. This would be accomplished with particular reference to the phase relationships of the major oceanic and atmospheric systems PDO AMO, NAO, ENSO etc, a la Aleo and Easterbrook linked to in section 2.4 above. The earth has been subdivided into tectonic plates. It would be useful to have, as a guide to adaptation to climate change, multi-decadal regional forecasts for the following suggested climate plates, which are in reality closely linked to global geography.
1 North America and Western Europe.
2 Russia
3 China
4 India and SE Asia
5 Australasia and Indonesia
6 South America
7 N Africa
8 Sub Saharan Africa
9 The Arctic
10 The Antarctic
11 The intra tropical Pacific Ocean.- Detailed analysis of the energy exchanges and processes at the ocean /atmosphere interface in this area is especially vital because its energy budget provides the key to the earth’s thermostat.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Dr Norman Page
March 23, 2015 7:53 am

Your 1000 year thing is wriggle matching. Earth’s systems have so many intrinsic variables that anyone (much like the bible code whackos) can find whatever secret “code” you want and say, “A Match! I found A Match!
Statisticians warn of this major research error: A false positive. It is the essence of wriggling an Elephant’s trunk.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 8:58 am

Your comment shows a lack of understanding of how to deal with systems of variable oscillators which produce emergent periodicities as they resonate in and out of phase. You need to start with the Milankovic cycles and know where we are in regard to them. Obviously; we are past the warmest part of the current interglacial. See Fig 5 at the link
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The same Figure shows clearly that there are quasi millennial peaks that come and go.
Fig 9 clearly indicates the general trends of the last 1000 years and that we have been climbing towards a millennial peak since the LIA. This is surely not controversial? How do we decide whether we are at the peak or past it? Simply look at the solar activity data as indicated in the neutron count. and Ap index data Figs 14 and 13. The temperatures will change accordingly with a variable lag according to the climate metric used and the areas under consideration.
The decline in solar magnetic field strength since 1991 is very clear. As I suggest- a near term test of this working hypothesis might be seen by a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017 /18 which would correlate with the Ap index drop in 2005/6. (Fig 13)
I’m not producing any magic match or mathematical formula ( such as e.g.the climate sensitivity magical formula ) Simply looking at the Holocene pattern and making the very reasonable proposition that it looks like we are just past a quasi-millennial peak and will probably generally cool until about 2650 with the general trend modulated along the way with shorter term cycles – notably the 60 year cycle.
As they say – its not rocket science- mainly common sense which is sadly lacking in the establishment academic modeling community.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 1:34 pm

“…systems of variable oscillators which produce emergent periodicities as they resonate in and out of phase.” Give that phrase to a statistician and he would laugh him/herself to death at your belief that you can find a significant solar cause. Have you a pet “cause of everything” entity for the recent 20th century warming? Many skeptics do. I am a skeptic and I am not into any theory outside natural intrinsic short and long term weather pattern variations being the result of short and long term intrinsic oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected interactions.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 2:08 pm

Pamela your statement ” natural intrinsic short and long term weather pattern variations being the result of short and long term intrinsic oceanic/atmospheric teleconnected interactions.” is simply a tautologous redescription of the problem and contains no clarification of what drives climate.
To see the connection between solar activity as measured by the 10Be data and cosmic ray flux and climate (temperature ) see Figs
10,11,and 12 and accompanying text at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
It is really very obvious – look e.g. at the 10Be flux in the Ice Core data and compare the LIA (1650- 1700)with the 20th century.(Fig 11).What’s not to like?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 3:48 pm

What’s not to like is that you are in error. The solar parameter you hold on to does not hold water. We have gone over this multiple times yet you persist. Amazing. You don’t get that you have again proved my point. Each time you respond you prove my point.
You said, “It is really very obvious – look e.g. at the 10Be flux in the Ice Core data and compare the LIA (1650- 1700)with the 20th century.(Fig 11).What’s not to like?”
Your discovery is this: You have discovered that if you look carefully within complicated systems, you will find a match between this, that, and the other thing. In fact, if you did not find spurious matches, you would have something worth putting in a journal.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 4:37 pm

Pamela you provide no evidence whatever but simply assert that the correlation between Cosmic ray flux and temperature is spurious , For another example look at Fig 10 panels C and D ( From Fig 3 CD in Steinhilber
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf)
Why do you not credit Steinhilbers correlation between cosmic ray intensity and the various temperature minima of the Little Ice Age? Please be specific.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 6:17 pm

Because Steinhilber relies on reconstructions that are much weaker in validity and reliability than temperature reconstructions. A good armchair scientist would equate the two together. You therefore must admit that cosmic ray reconstructions are in a state of active investigation with nothing nailed down. No?
http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf
If you continue your strident support of still under construction cosmic ray reconstructions yet chastise warmists for their temperature reconstructions, you uncover your bias. There is no place for bias in research.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 23, 2015 8:22 pm

The Christiansen 2012 (Fig 9) NH temperature construction looks very acceptable to me as a basis for discussion of NH temperatures in the last Millennium – do you have a problem with it?
If you compare the temperature minima shown there with the Steinhilber cosmic ray intensity maxima ( Temp Minima) in Fig 10 at my bloglink they fit remarkably well. We all know Leif’s strange reluctance to accept the sun – climate connection yet Fig 10 in the Leif link you quote shows the Sporer Maunder and Dalton Minima cosmic ray connection quite nicely. It is not showing bias when one makes judgments – simply stating ones evaluation of the interpretation of the data as presented as one sees it. There is no logical problem with accepting the Steinhilber sun – climate connection as useful and at the same time criticizing some alarmist temperature reconstructions.
The only way to evaluatue any forecast is to check it against future empirical data. The IPCC forecasts have already failed miserably in this regard. I have made some predictions for 2017-18. We will see what happens.

charplum
Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 24, 2015 10:33 am

For some time I have been reading and absorbing articles and comments on this website. Around last May I decided to get off the couch and apply some of my own efforts.
I knew that only 160 years’ worth of data would be limiting with an FFT. I tried a brute force method with some awareness of the solar cycles. Almost from inspection you could see a 60 year cycle in the data.
Since I wasn’t confined by the FFT with as few as four sinusoids I was able to match the data reasonably well. I had one cycle of around 1000 years and another at 350 years plus two additional cycles I was able to do this. Those long year periods also allowed me to approximately place the MWP and the LIA.
With additional effort I was able to add more cycles and make further improvements. What I am simply trying to communicate the kind of efforts I was going through.
I remember a while ago reading one of Dr. Page’s comments about a lag. It came to mind again after being acquainted with Dr. Evans notch delay theory.
Only recently Dr. Page posted this.
“The correlative RSS temperature peak was in about 2003 (12 year lag) and the earth has been in a cooling trend by this metric since then.
The sharp decline in the Ap index in Fig 13 in 2005/6 should show up as a steeper cooling trend in 2017–2018”
Dr. Evans came up with a new method of analysis called OFT.
I applied it to the data and came up with this.
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=A14244340288E543!9672&authkey=!
ACTC5j9V6gqqq40&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg
The correlation coefficient came out to be 0.91.
It is limited to 28 cycles since my crude technique I had built to include up to 28 cycles. I used the output from the OFT as inputs into my crude technique. The numbers changed by very small amounts.
I think the OFT did a remarkable job of capturing ENSO. I noticed that when I looked at 1997.
Now here is where it might get amusing. I extended the cycles out to 2020 just to see if there was predictive power.
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=A14244340288E543!9673&authkey=!ANpNyS55KUqX-j0&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg
Coincidence?

Reply to  Pamela Gray
March 24, 2015 3:05 pm

Charplum. Coincidence? Unlikely. Does Evans know about your last graph and how it ties with my forecast?
Any comments from him?

March 23, 2015 8:13 am

The data which is what one has to go by is showing the solar/climate connections when all other variables are superimposed upon this trend. It is quite apparent.

March 23, 2015 8:15 am

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01a3fcdd7298970b-pi
More data supporting the solar/climate connection. It is endless.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Salvatore Del Prete
March 23, 2015 3:54 pm

I’ll have another beer and see if by double vision I can see a robust cause correlation.

Kevin Kilty