Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate Apocalypse

More honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of good

Dr. Jeffrey Foss

“What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.

“Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them – but they keep ignoring their mistake.”

Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon really does get sick when he sees scientists veering off their mission: to discover the truth. I’ve seen his face flush with shock and shame for science when scientists cherry-pick data. It ruins his appetite – a real downer for someone who loves his food as much as Willie does.

You have got to love a guy like that, if you love science – and I do. I’m a philosopher of science, not a scientist, but my love for science runs deep – as does my faith. So I cannot help but admire Willie and his good old-fashioned passion for science.

Willie Soon may one day be a household name. More and more he appears at the pointy end of scientific criticism of Climate Apocalypse. In two recent lawsuits against Big Oil, one by New York City and the other by San Francisco and Oakland, Dr. Soon is named as the “paid agent” of “climate change denialism.” As the man who – Gasp! – singlehandedly convinced Big Oil to continue business as usual.

Can you even imagine that? I can’t: Big Oil couldn’t turn off its taps in big cities even if it wanted to.

Putting such silly lawsuits aside, it is a big honor, historically speaking, for Dr. Soon to be the face of scientific rebuttal of Climate Apocalypse, since feeding the developed world’s apocalypse addiction is the main tool of a powerful global political agenda.

The IPCC – along with the United Nations and many environmentalist organizations, politicians, bureaucrats and their followers – desperately want to halt and even roll back development in the industrialized world, and keep Africa and other poor countries permanently undeveloped, while China races ahead. They want Willie silenced. We the people need to make sure he is heard.

Dr. Soon never sought the job of defending us against the slick, computer model-driven, anti-fossil fuel  certainties of Climate Apocalypse. Willie just happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.

Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up – an abuse of science that makes Willie sick.

Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s – long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years – in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.

Only the sun – not the CO2 from our fires – could cause that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets’ ice caps grew once again. All that brings us back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.

The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness – variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?

It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect”) that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthusiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.

In just such ways they sell us their Climate Apocalypse – along with the roll-back of human energy use, comfort, living standards and progress: sacrifices that the great green gods of Gaia demand of us if we are to avoid existential cataclysms. Thankfully, virgins are still safe – for now.

Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Because the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data – actual evidence – shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.

Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiatus” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.

This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.

IPCC modelers still insist that the models are nevertheless correct, somehow – that the world would be even colder now if it weren’t for this pesky hiatus in CO2-driven warming. Of course, they have to say that – even though they previously insisted the Earth would not be as cool as it is right now.

Still, their politically correct commands stridently persist: stay colder in winter, stay hotter in summer, take cold showers, drive less, make fewer trips, fly less, don’t eat foods that aren’t “local,” bury your loved ones in cardboard boxes, turn off the lights. Their list of diktats is big and continuously growing.

Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famous gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caused the temperature increases – an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studiously ignores.

Unfortunately, through their powerful political and media cadres, the IPCC has created a highly effective propaganda and war-on-fossil-fuels vehicle, to herd public opinion – and marginalize or silence any scientist who dares to disagree with it. For better or worse, richer or poorer, my dear, passionate Dr. Soon is one scientist who is always ready to stand in the path of that tank and face it down: anytime, anywhere.

I’m frightened by the dangers to Willie, his family and his career, due to his daily battles with the Climate Apocalypse industry. I can’t get it out of my mind that the university office building of climatologist John Christy – who shares Willie’s skepticism of Climate Apocalypse – was shot full of bullet holes last year. But let’s not let a spattering of gunfire spoil a friendly scientific debate. Right?

Willie’s courage makes me proud to know him, and to be an aficionado of science like he is. When it comes to the long game, my money is on Dr. Willie Soon. We the people hunger for truth, as does science itself. And that hunger will inevitably eclipse our romantic dalliance with the Climate Apocalypse.

Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

 

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
180 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 2, 2018 6:25 pm

Regarding atmospheric CO2 lagging global temperature by a few centuries: For most of the past 400,000 years, the amount of carbon available for the carbon cycle in the sum of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere was relatively constant. Atmospheric CO2 was a positive feedback mechanism for temperature changes initiated by something else. In recent decades, carbon was transferred from the lithosphere to the atmosphere, and the hydrosphere and biosphere have been removing CO2 from the atmosphere despite the warming.

Jeff
December 2, 2018 6:34 pm

When you read the wikipedia article on Ice Ages, the mentality seems to be dominated by CO2 atmosphere cause.
It’s almost like they are forced to finally concede (after the CO2 stuff)

“the match of glacial/interglacial frequencies to the Milanković orbital forcing periods is so close that orbital forcing is generally accepted.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

Pamela Gray
December 2, 2018 7:02 pm

What matters is indeed solar insolation, but not in terms of the global average or anomaly. Atmospheric conditions, a highly variable phenomenon little understood or consistently measured, and wth few proxies that might tell us what atmospheric conditions were in the distant path, likely are the elephants in the room but we don’t know which elephant is the most important one. Averaging all of them together makes no sense. The Earth is not a consistent ball of well mixed water and land components. And we haven’t yet determined where solar oceanic recharge is most important in terms of solar insolation anomaly that could be the lion’s share of measured Earthbound temperature swings.

Indeed, we have warmed. A helluva lot since the last stadial period! And I am not focused on these current insignificant wriggles. That most recent fast rise out of the stadial was to a greater degree than can be blamed on solar variation. So it MUST be solar insolation changes due to atmospheric cycles of some kind along with slowly changing orbital mechanics causing changes in where the most important solar angle is hitting the oceans.

Brett Keane
December 2, 2018 7:42 pm

As Willie knows, the reduction in high-end solar radiation TOA had a lag of maybe 10 years as Oceanic processes worked through. But about 2ya the steepening gradient to the Poles began to be obvious as the loopy jetstream. Stormier weather and greater extremes from it effectively quicken aerial energy loss to Space.
Piers Corbyn, a brilliant Astrophysicist, had predicted this some time ago. A mini-LIA, he predicted.
By such means we see how climatic change is leveraged in the Earth’s stunningly ‘”un-linear” systems. To open minds, it is such fun…..Brett

GUILLERMO SUAREZ
December 2, 2018 8:24 pm

From one Willie to another : How to reply to the IPCC— https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM6I-pmV0RA&list=PLSpsqh2bQXYxxkOF7ZLkLkcRBYuIi_1Mk —- Science cannot prove or disprove that the Sun’s energy output in the not too distant past is equivalent to it’s present energy output , nor that the present in any way predicts the future . We reconstruct the past and predict the future , by extrapolation ,based our incomplete understanding of how our Universe works , a fact rarely acknowledged . The Sun is the control knob , directly connected to and the primary driver of all planets .But what drives the Sun ?

Reply to  GUILLERMO SUAREZ
December 2, 2018 8:30 pm

But what drives the Sun ?
What drives the heat production of a compost heap?
Decay processes inside the heap.

For the sun the driver is fusion of hydrogen into helium inside the sun.
That process is about as efficient as the compost heap.

The magnetic field near the surface adds a tiny amount (up to 0.1%).

Alan Tomalty
December 2, 2018 8:27 pm

MOD please correct the article posting

“It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect”) that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. ”

The word “decreases” should be replaced by “increases”.

michael hart
December 2, 2018 9:17 pm

I admire Willie Soon’s determination to keep going, in the face of personal attacks and vilification worse than that suffered by most cAGW skeptics. It must take no small amount of courage.

Editor
December 2, 2018 10:19 pm

Dr. Foss, you say:

“And the data – actual evidence – shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years.”

I’m sorry, but that is simply not true. Start with this one …

And here’s a closeup of the last forty years:

w.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 3, 2018 12:42 am

Well, that’s pissed on his chips!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 3, 2018 3:59 am

Comparing things to HadCrut. What science value is there in using a bogus, bastardized surface temperature chartt? Why lend credibility to this fraud by treating it as legitimate?

Richard G.
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 3, 2018 10:49 am

You mean HadCrud don’t you? (See the HarryReadMe files of climategate)

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 3, 2018 3:12 pm

Are sunspot numbers a good proxy for solar irradiance?

Reply to  Paul Penrose
December 3, 2018 3:18 pm

Are sunspot numbers a good proxy for solar irradiance?
Yes, very good.
https://leif.org/research/EUV-F107-and-TSI-CDR-HAO.pdf
Slide 54

Scott W Bennett
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 3, 2018 10:56 pm

Always wondered about Coronal Holes as an Aurora Australis chaser. Why with a quiet sun do we get such wonderful Aurora from these invisible “spots”. The brightest and most spectacular storms I’ve seen, have been from these rather than sunspots.

In terms of variety this one was the best, it included a “Picket Fence” and STEVE too:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/auroraaustralis/permalink/2025294150838791/

Reply to  Scott W Bennett
December 3, 2018 11:08 pm

Why with a quiet sun do we get such wonderful Aurora from these invisible “spots”.
Coronal holes are sources of fast solar wind [=aurorae]. Holes are ‘open’ field lines, while sunspots are ‘closed’ fields, so coronal holes occur most often when there are fewer spots.
We have known this for half a century and it is not controversial.

December 3, 2018 2:43 am

WUWT is going down the drain. That some people get to post figures on comments while the rest don’t is the last straw. This is a dysfunctional site.

I’m outta here.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Javier
December 3, 2018 4:10 am

You’re leaving because you can’t post a picture?

Have you talked to the management about this? Maybe there is a reason why noone can post pictures except for the people who write the articles.

There was some kind of problem with the commenting software a few months ago which caused this inability to post pictures and obviously it hasn’t been fixed yet, but I assume the management is working on restoring these functions, although Anthony has been distracted by the California fire that affected some of his employees and their families.

Perhaps you should ask the management what is going on. Don’t take it personal that you can’t post a picture. None of us can. And a lot of us would dearly love to do so. We have to settle for links at the moment. That doesn’t change the intelectual discussion on WUWT one bit.

Reply to  Javier
December 3, 2018 5:32 am

Please don’t leave. I enjoy being educated by your posts, and I would bet I’m not the only one. Why don’t you try to sort it out with the mods.

john
Reply to  Javier
December 3, 2018 6:47 am

Javier, I consider your posts among the most intelligent, concise and on point things to be found here. This is also a very important site for deseminating and digesting ideas and truths about the single most important scientific issue of our time. I urge you to stay in the fight on this important public forum.

Earthling2
Reply to  john
December 3, 2018 7:17 am

Hear, Hear!

WBWilson
Reply to  Javier
December 3, 2018 6:36 pm

Ditto the above, Javier. Please don’t go.

WBWilson
Reply to  WBWilson
December 3, 2018 6:38 pm

Please Mods, we need to be able to post images again. Seems like it should be simple…

Tom Abbott
Reply to  WBWilson
December 4, 2018 3:41 am

What seems a little strange is before the new commenting software was installed, it was possible to post images on WUWT, but after the new software crashed (for whatever reason) and the software supposedly was reverted back to what it was before the new commenting software was installed, yet it is now not possible to post images. The old software would allow images to be posted, and we are suppoedly back on the old software, but now image posting doesn’t work. As I said: Strange.

ren
December 3, 2018 3:01 am

CO2 and O3 play a huge role in the lower stratosphere, where ozone and carbon dioxide are exchanged into water vapor.
comment image
The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
The rate of 14C production can be modelled, yielding values of 16,400[12] or 18,800[13] atoms of 14C per second per square meter of the Earth’s surface, which agrees with the global carbon budget that can be used to backtrack,[14] but attempts to directly measure the production rate in situ were not very successful. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2020?WT.feed_name=subjects_giant-planets&foxtrotcallback=true

A minimum atmospheric temperature, or tropopause, occurs at a pressure of around 0.1 bar in the atmospheres of Earth1, Titan2, Jupiter3, Saturn4, Uranus and Neptune4, despite great differences in atmospheric composition, gravity, internal heat and sunlight. In all of these bodies, the tropopause separates a stratosphere with a temperature profile that is controlled by the absorption of short-wave solar radiation, from a region below characterized by convection, weather and clouds5,6. However, it is not obvious why the tropopause occurs at the specific pressure near 0.1 bar. Here we use a simple, physically based model7 to demonstrate that, at atmospheric pressures lower than 0.1 bar, transparency to thermal radiation allows short-wave heating to dominate, creating a stratosphere. At higher pressures, atmospheres become opaque to thermal radiation, causing temperatures to increase with depth and convection to ensue. A common dependence of infrared opacity on pressure, arising from the shared physics of molecular absorption, sets the 0.1 bar tropopause. We reason that a tropopause at a pressure of approximately 0.1 bar is characteristic of many thick atmospheres, including exoplanets and exomoons in our galaxy and beyond. Judicious use of this rule could help constrain the atmospheric structure, and thus the surface environments and habitability, of exoplanets.

ren
Reply to  ren
December 3, 2018 3:30 am

Where the ozone level rises in the winter, the air is drier and colder.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_250_NA_f00.png

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ren
December 3, 2018 4:45 am

Love your atmosphere updates, ren. Keep them coming. 🙂

Here’s a link to nullschool showing a portion of the jet stream blowing across the middle of the United States. When the jet stream is blowing in this direction, it enhances tornado formation and strength. When the jet stream blows more southwest to northeast, it makes even stronger tornadoes.

This particular jet stream confirguration spawned a tornado in Oklahoma last week that traveled over 60 miles on the ground, which is farily unusual, especially for this time of year. This same weather system caused numerous tornadoes in other parts of the country as it moved to the east over the last few days.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-84.37,37.02,401

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 4, 2018 3:54 am

The tornado that struck in Oklahoma happened last Friday and I heard a report yesterday that said the tornado was on the ground for 25 miles instead of 60 miles. I’m not sure why there was such a discrepacy.

That makes more sense. Usually, if you get a tornado with a 60-mile path on the ground it will be spawned from a big outbreak of very powerful tornadoes. In this case, Oklahoma only had about two or three tornadoes, of which the subject was one, and it was only an EF2. As the jet stream angle pushed further east it caused numberous tornadoes to break out. Oklahoma was on the back side of where the jet stream was pushing into the air to the east.

Again, thanks ren for your posts. I don’t understand a lot of what I am looking at as you have introduced some new atmospheric subject matter to me, but I understand more than I did, thanks to you. 🙂

Reply to  ren
December 3, 2018 4:29 am

What’s the connection to solar cycles and Earth’s climate? Cosmic rays don’t change the pressure and temperature at tropopause.

ren
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
December 3, 2018 6:25 am

The relationship between climatic parameters and the Earth’s magnetic field has been reported by many authors. However, the absence of a feasible mechanism accounting for this relationship has impeded progress in this research field. Based on the instrumental observations, we reveal the spatio-temporal relation�ship between the key structures in the geomagnetic field, surface air temperature and pressure fields, ozone, and the specific humidity near the tropopause. As one of the probable explanations of these correlations, we suggest the following chain of the causal relations: (1) modulation of the intensity and penetration depth of energetic particles (galactic cosmic rays (GCRs)) in the Earth’s atmosphere by the geomagnetic field; (2) the distortion of the ozone density near the tropopause under the action of GCRs; (3) the change in temperature near the tropopause due to the high absorbing capacity of ozone; (4) the adjustment of the extra�tropical upper tropospheric static stability and, consequently, specific humidity, to the modified tropopause temper�ature; and (5) the change in the surface air temperature due to the increase/decrease of the water vapor green�house effect.

(PDF) Geomagnetic Field and Climate: Causal Relations with Some Atmospheric Variables. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281441974_Geomagnetic_Field_and_Climate_Causal_Relations_with_Some_Atmospheric_Variables [accessed Dec 03 2018].

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ren
December 3, 2018 4:33 am

Interesting post, ren.

I think we have a lot to learn by comparing our atmosphere with those of other planets.

ren
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 3, 2018 6:30 am

NCEP Global Forecast System model (GFS) analyses and forecasts of certain variables in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS) can identify current and future Stratospheric Intrusion events.
comment image

Reply to  ren
December 3, 2018 5:22 am

Nice work ren. UV intensity about 50 times IR. Hence a sunburnt Aussie in 20mins almost a way of life. No monnshine or back/upwelling/downwelling radiation can do that.
Gotta love the pressure generated by ozone to create mass flow gradient that Moves things around.

JMurphy
December 3, 2018 5:39 am

“Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen.”
“But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.”

Does he believe that or does it matter what the evidence shows?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/to:2018.75/plot/wti/from:2000/to:2018.75/trend
(Hint: the temperature trend seems to be continuing upwards)

“They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2.”

Again, any proof or just a belief once more?

Russ R.
Reply to  JMurphy
December 3, 2018 9:07 pm

That trend started over a hundred years ago. Are you claiming it didn’t, or are you claiming it was caused by increasing CO2 over a hundred years ago?
Our CO2 production was very meager during the first half of the century, compared to the second half. Trying to square that circle has been a “worse than we thought” problem. Thousands of adjustments, and it just won’t go away.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:2018.75/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/to:2018.75/trend

Reply to  Russ R.
December 3, 2018 9:13 pm

That trend started over a hundred years ago
And solar activity went up until the 1950s and then down to where it now is at the same level as it was back a century ago, so the temperature trend is obviously not due to solar activity, cosmic rays, or anything else depending on solar activity [sunspots].

Russ R.
Reply to  Leif Svalgaard
December 3, 2018 10:26 pm

I agree. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of solar influence on global temperature. Unless we are missing something. Right now most of the conjecture on climate variations seems to be missing something.
I don’t like any of the theories and can argue against them, much easier than for, any of them.
Most of the warming over the past 100+ years has come in two periods of roughly two decades each. Remove those two periods, and you remove any significant warming signal. One is in sync with a rise in CO2 but the other is not. The temperature record does not support the AGW case. If this was being treated as “normal science” CO2 as the main driver of climate changes, would have been rejected long ago. The IPCC is way off on climate sensitivity to increases in CO2.
Sooner or later we will get another warm or cold cycle, and if we haven’t decided we know what causes it, before we know what causes it, we should be able to figure it out. I think we will find the answer in the oceans. They are vast, and trying to measure tiny variations in the storage and release of heat, is probably a blind spot for us still.
I see the latest warming as a continuation of recovery from the Little Ice Age cooling, which was a change from a warmer period preceding it. Going from warm to cold and back again, seems to be quite natural.
I am sure we are having an effect on the climate, but it is likely small to insignificant. And the uproar over whether it is warming 0.1*C/decade or 0.2*C/decade, is just a distraction from the fact that the current warming in not unusual or “unprecedented”.

JMurphy
Reply to  Russ R.
December 4, 2018 5:30 am

“That trend started over a hundred years ago. Are you claiming it didn’t, or are you claiming it was caused by increasing CO2 over a hundred years ago?”

No, I am not claiming anything.
I am wondering how the writer of this post can claim, firstly, that global temperatures ‘stopped going up in the first two decades of this century’; and, secondly, that ‘temperature has remained steady over the last two decades’. When you look at the temperature trend since 2000, it has gone up and is at a higher level now than then.
How can anyone write what this man has written and be taken seriously enough to get to post on this website? Does it matter what any of the lead posts say, as long as they write “No, it’s not warming, it’s getting colder and, anyway, it’s not CO2”?

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  JMurphy
December 4, 2018 6:13 am

JMurphy

am wondering how the writer of this post can claim, firstly, that global temperatures ‘stopped going up in the first two decades of this century’;

Because that is what actual global average temperatures did do? Are not actual measured temperatures perhaps exactly the evidence you are ignoring?

Russ R.
Reply to  JMurphy
December 4, 2018 9:55 am

There is a distinction between the current temperature and the “stability of that temperature”, and the trend. The trend is very dependent on the starting and ending points. Starting on a low temp can easily change the trend, and the same can be said for starting on a high point. If you start in 2001 you get a downward trend on the “unadjusted data”:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2019/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2019/trend

If you start at the year 2000 which is colder than the average for the period it makes the trend go up:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2019/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2019/trend
Either way it is just noise in the system and does indicate a period of stability, where there is no “significant trend”, unless you adjust one in.

December 3, 2018 2:12 pm

Dr. Willie Soon, an honest man who loves science and hates seeing corrupted and misused.

Reply to  Gungu Din
December 3, 2018 2:27 pm

Dr. Willie Soon, an honest man
But still dead wrong.

Wiliam Haas
December 3, 2018 3:54 pm

Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and cannot be defended. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. No such radiant greenhouse effect has ever been observed, in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere, or any where else in the solar system for that mater. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
December 3, 2018 3:56 pm

Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun
No one cannot just ‘conclude’ that as sun and climate has moved in opposite directions.

DCSahlstrom
December 4, 2018 2:31 pm

A comment from a few months ago referenced this talk by Dr. Willie Soon discussing a the causes of early Medieval cooling period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxiQoanjvLE
In it he gives his definition of climate.

An understanding of climate requires a amalgamation of mathematics, astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history.

I count 17 disciplines required to understand climate. He then goes through a discussion of the period discussed in literature as the Blue Moon. If you can follow his arguments through his humorous and off-handed approach to extremely complex subjects, you may (as I did) be completely awed by his understanding of how complex climate is. Have a watch and let me know your response.

DCSahlstrom
Reply to  DCSahlstrom
December 4, 2018 2:45 pm

Oops. Made a coding error so my comment appears as nested quote. The event is not a Blue Moon but Blue Sun.

PhilF
December 5, 2018 9:18 am

I was waiting for someone with better credentials to say this, but I haven’t seen it.

Most of the CO2 that we see is due to the temperature recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA) with a lag of 300 years . Coincidentally, a much smaller amount is being added by humans. It’s an accident that warmists, the IPCC and their much-amplified propaganda machine have taken advantage of.

PhilF