CERES Team
CERES co-team leader, Dr. Willie Soon was the keynote-speaker at the Clintel 5th Anniversary Congress on 18 June 2024. This is the recording of his speech. Below you can find a summary of his presentation and details on the peer-reviewed papers he referred to in the talk.
Summary of presentation
In this talk, Dr. Soon discussed major fundamental problems with the “detection and attribution” of global warming by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that the media doesn’t tell you about. The IPCC’s “detection and attribution” process is the entire basis for why the IPCC concluded (using computer models) that global warming is mostly human-caused. We discovered that the IPCC’s analysis was scientifically flawed because of major problems in (a) the thermometer record and (b) the total solar irradiance databases.
Dr. Soon explained that the current global temperature records adopted by the IPCC reports have been contaminated by urbanization biases. When we removed this major flaw, we created a rural-based temperature record that was then adopted for the revisit of the attribution problem. We found that IPCC’s approach in attribution was highly selective and rather non-scientific as proven in their recommendation of a single choice of the solar irradiance factor. In contrast, we showed that there were at least two dozen valid estimates of solar irradiance that were conveniently de-selected by the IPCC team. However, when one applies some of these solar irradiance estimates, we found that the rural-only temperature records can be explained mostly by the solar forcing factor.
This result directly challenges IPCC’s iconic statement that the warming observed since the 1950s were mainly human-caused.
The slides can be downloaded here:
Our peer-reviewed scientific papers mentioned in the talk
- W. Soon, R. Connolly, M. Connolly, S.-I. Akasofu, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, A. Bianchini, W.M. Briggs, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, M. Crok, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, F. Gervais, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, A.R. Lupo, S. Maruyama, P. Moore, M. Ogurtsov, C. ÓhAiseadha, M.J. Oliveira, S.-S. Park, S. Qiu, G. Quinn, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, J. Steele, L. Szarka, H.L. Tanaka, M.K. Taylor, F. Vahrenholt, V.M. Velasco Herrera and W. Zhang (2023). “The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data”, Climate, 11(9), 179; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11090179.
- R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C.J. Butler, R.G. Cionco, A.G. Elias, V. Fedorov, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, V.M. Velasco Herrera, H. Yan and W.J. Zhang (2023). “Challenges in the detection and attribution of Northern Hemisphere surface temperature trends since 1850”. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e. Supplementary Materials.
- P. O’Neill, R. Connolly, M. Connolly, W. Soon, B. Chimani, M. Crok, R. de Vos, H. Harde, P. Kajaba, P. Nojarov, R. Przybylak, D. Rasol, Oleg Skrynyk, Olesya Skrynyk, P. Štěpánek, A. Wypych and P. Zahradníček (2022). Evaluation of the homogenization adjustments applied to European temperature records in the Global Historical Climatology Network dataset. Atmosphere 13(2), 285; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13020285.
- G. Katata, R. Connolly and P. O’Neill (2023). Evidence of urban blending in homogenized temperature records in Japan and in the United States: implications for the reliability of global land surface air temperature data. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-22-0122.1.
- R. Connolly, W. Soon, M. Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C. J. Butler, R. G. Cionco, A. G. Elias, V. M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G. W. Henry, D. V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D. R. Legates, S. Lüning, N. Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim, L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, R. C. Willson, H. Yan and W. Zhang (2021). How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 21, 131. https://doi.org/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131. Supplementary Materials available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7088728.
Thanks to the camera crew organized by Clintel for their beautiful camerawork and video editing:
- Robbert Clignett: Camera en Montage
- Sylvester van Nieuwenhuijzen: Camera
Conspicuous repetition of names there…..
How many “peer-reviewed” papers have quoted or listed Mann or his acolytes?
What’s wrong in the “peer-reviewed” papers listed?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/08/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2024-0-85-deg-c/#comment-3949584
Our.
Reading is fundamental. Stating the obvious is repetition.
A group of the best 3 scientists around….. Get over it. !
More knowledge and understanding that whole of the “Mannian” brigade put together.
By ”TheFinalNail”, do you mean the one you hammer into your head that finally hits something important?
“Conspicuous repetition of names there…..”
Attacking the messengers because you cannot attack the message? A very poor means of making a counterargument I would say.
….and if your comment TFN is meant to imply that the IPCC is to be considered infallible and unquestionable, that is not science. It is religion.
IPCC = The College of Cardinals
Intergovernmental Propaganda on Climate Control
Do you have a Resumé or Curriculum vitae that contains your peer-reviewed scientific publications? I do, and my name is conspicuously repeated on it, as that was the whole point of preparing it.
Wow, you really stuck your weewee in a hornet nest.
The anthropogenic attribution problem has two components.
First, is the rise in CO2 since ~1950 mostly anthropogenic? Easy to answer YES, because of the photosynthetic preference for 12C that enhanced 13C during hundreds of millions of years of fossil fuel sequestration, and the (since about 1950) subsequent rise in the atmospheric 12C/13C ratio from formerly sequestered 12C release via burning fossil fuels.
Second, is the rise in temperature since ~1975 unambiguously attributable to anthropogenic rise in CO2? Here, the answer is NO. Even IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 4 (copied and posted here long ago) said the rise in temperature from ~1920-1945 (indistinguishable from the rise ~1975-2000) was NOT anthropogenic, but natural—there was simply not a sufficient increase in CO2 forcing in the earlier period for there to be any significant anthropogenic component. The present IPCC problem is that they thereby formally recognized natural variation exists, but then ignored it starting in 1975 in favor of CO2 forcing. The ironic part is that the AR4 SPM fig 4 addressed the more recent period anthropogenic attribution problem in the affirmative, oblivious to their previous period! Those SPM authors plainly did not understand their own figure’s ‘illogic’.
With respect to the first point, in one of his publications (Hansen et al., 2013), James Hansen noticed that the CO2 airborn fraction was not consistent with the human’s increasing CO2 emissions.
The article reference can be found here:
https://notrickszone.com/2022/04/11/defying-modeled-expectations-again-the-co2-airborne-fraction-has-been-declining-since-1959/
He noted that in 1991, this fraction (noted F here) decreased during the Pinatubo eruption. Indeed, the airborn fraction decreased by almost a third (from 60% to 40%) in a few months and maintained its values during about 1 year (this timeline is consistent with the Pinatubo 1991 eruption).
Some calculus can show that for the CO2 airborn fraction to decrease from 60% to 40%, the Pinatubo (or whatever natural CO2 emission phenomenon which occurred in 1991) must have emitted in a few months some 30% of the total CO2 already present in the atmosphere at the time.
For the calculus, I assume that :
A look at the Mauna Loa CO2 measures shows that those massive CO2 emissions during 1 year did not cause an observable modification on the measured CO2 trend :
Again, if I am correct, this may invalidate, not only the assumption that most of the CO2 concentration increase since 1950 is anthropogenic, but also the assumption that the CO2 concentration increase since the 1950 is not mostly natural.
I applied a wrong definition of F : nothing to read here !
On point 1, Prof. Koutsoyiannis provides evidence that it’s not so https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17
Correct. I have been pointing this out to Rud for several years now. We know that incremental atmospheric CO2 has had a net 13C/12C ratio (δ13C) of -13‰ throughout the period of direct atmospheric measurements available since the late 1970s (and allowing for short term fluctuations due to ENSO and Pinatubo), and it was the same value all the way back to circa 1750 as shown by the Law Dome data. The equivalent δ13C value for anthropogenic CO2 is -28‰ according to NOAA.
Easy to answer YES? This study says otherwise. Apparently this is the first time the widely held belief about FF carbon isotopes vs other source carbon isotopes that you just expressed has been actually put to a test. It was an adopted belief based on C14 analysis from atomic bomb testing. The C12/C13 widely help belief has been found decidedly wanting.
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17#B31-sci-06-00017
Do you have a valid argument against either the data, the methodology, or the analysis? While I can follow the paper to an extent, I don’t have the background on isotope analysis or the statistics used to know if they are well done but I am very interested to know why this study is seemingly being ignored when it indicates something very important about the politically and religiously derived “climate change” beliefs
Thanks for posting that study.
“The present IPCC problem is that they thereby formally recognized natural variation exists, but then ignored it starting in 1975 in favor of CO2 forcing.”
That’s correct.
The IPCC can’t have it both ways. Both periods, 1920-1945 and 1975 to present were equal in the magnitude of warming, but the IPCC attributes one period to Mother Nature and the other period to CO2 increases.
What we know is there is a possibility that the current warming is just as natural as the warming in the Early Twentieth Century. There is no evidence that CO2 is causing the current warming. It’s just one large unsubstantiated assumption on the part of Climate Alarmists.
CO2 and temperature increases may just be a coincidence. There’s no evidence to the contrary, and there is firm evidence that the current magnitude of warming can occur without increases in CO2. CO2 is just along for the ride, as far as anyone can tell.
Speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions are what make up IPCC Climate Science. None of that is evidence of anything.
Agree on the second part, but the first is speculative because natural CO2 is not being measured, it’s assumptions and estimates.
Incredibly gifted man, a true investigative scientist. The IPCC has dug itself into a deep grave when it comes to transparency and obstinate denial of the complex multifactorial drivers of climate variation.
Much ado about nothing! It is not important how accurately Earth’s temperatures are measured.
What IS important is WHY are they changing, and he doesn’t have a clue.
And as a result, his claim that there is no climate emergency is totally false.
I’ve been trying to document a “climate emergency” but having no luck. Perhaps you can give a definition and what data indicates there is an emergency. For example, someone choking on food seems to be an emergency. A person falls on the floor and stops breathing seems to be an emergency. A car hops over a sidewalk and hits a day-care center Call 911.
Climate emergency? Help me out?
John Hulquist:
Our climate is warming because we have been removing industrial SO2 aerosol pollution from our atmosphere due to “Clean Air” legislation and Net Zero activities banning the burning of fossil fuels. And since Jan 1, 2020, also the low-sulfur fuel mandate for all maritime shipping.
Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions peaked at 139.4 Million tons in 1980, according to the Community Emissions Data System of the University of Maryland, and by 2022, due to the above reasons, they had fallen to 73.5 million tons, a decrease of 70 million tons. This leaves about 70 million tons of SO2 aerosol pollution remaining in the atmosphere, and we are unwittingly striving to reduce that amount. The net effect will be that the cleaner the air, the hotter it will get, since there is less pollution to dim the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
Unless ALL activities that decrease SO2 aerosol levels are immediately halted, a climate emergency cannot be avoided–although we may already be at the point of no return, where geoengineering will be required.
I believe that I have answered your question.
Also read “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Let’s look at SO2 over the USA (estimates from chart
From 1980.. 180ppb to 1998… 90ppb (essentially halving the SO2 concentration)
UAH USA48 shows no change in temperature.
SO2 dropped from 80ppb in 2005 to 20ppb in 2015..
so about 1/4.
According to USCRN and UAH48, there was no warming in US temperature over that period.
Data does not support your mindless scaremongering.
Also, Looking at the GISP sulfate data, (using spelling on graph)
… we see the large spike in sulfates since about 1850, coincides with WARMING.
So the decrease in sulfates would cause COOLING.
bnice2000:
I have looked VERY carefully at SO2 levels in our atmosphere,since 1850, and I find that every temperature increase or decrease correlates with a decrease or an increase in the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere.
For decreases, they are primarily caused by volcanic eruptions, which since 1980, can be viewed in archived NASA/GMAO satellite SO2 Chem Map images.
Industrial gridded SO2 aerosol levels are also available for every year since 1750.
Data over USA says exactly the opposite.
GISP 2 data says exactly the opposite.
Choosing random volcanoes, is not proof of anything.
I have seen your conjecture that SO2 causes El Ninos, which are the main atmospheric warming since 1979
Laughable.
bnice2000;
I have NEVER claimed that SO2 causes El Ninos! It is the warming that occurs whenever SO2 aerosol levels are reduced that leads to an El Nino.
And as such, El Ninos cause ZERO warming–they are the RESULT of a
of a prior increases in global temperatures
Really are not very bright,are you, you can’t understand what you read!
“It is the warming that occurs whenever SO2 aerosol levels are reduced that leads to an El Nino.”
Rubbish.
There was no atmospheric warming in the lead-up to either the 1998 or 2016 El Ninos, and it actually COOLED before the 2023 El Nino
bnice2000:
According to hadCRUT5, Jan-Dec anomalous global temperatures were 0.28 Deg. C for 1996, 0.42 Deg. C.for 1997, and 0.58 Deg. C. for 1998 (The El Nino actually began in Apr 1997)..
Sure looks like a warming trend to me.
For the 2016 El Nino, the 2014 temp. was 0.67 Deg. C, the 2015 temp. was 0.82 Deg. C, and the 2016 temp was 0.93 Deg, C.(This El Nino began in Sep 2014)
Again, a warming trend!
More BS from Bnice.
“According to hadCRUT5, Jan-Dec anomalous global temperatures were 0.28 Deg. C for 1996, 0.42 Deg. C.for 1997, and 0.58 Deg. C. for 1998 (The El Nino actually began in Apr 1997)..”
So, after 1998, the temperatures cooled until 2016, according to UAH. How was SO2 related to this particular cooling?
Tom Abbott:
The cooling was caused by the volcanic SO2 from 1 VEI5 and 21 VEI4 eruptions between 2000 and 2015.
Post says:”I have looked VERY carefully at SO2 levels in our atmosphere,since 1850,…”
If you’ve been looking at them since 1850 you are old.
mkelly:
Some days I feel that way!
But you know what I meant–the data on SO2 levels since 1850
“I have looked VERY carefully at SO2 levels in our atmosphere,since 1850, and I find that every temperature increase or decrease correlates with a decrease or an increase in the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere.”
Could you post a graph showing the increases and decreases in SO2 over that period.
Overlaying a temperature chart on that graph would be very helpful to understanding, too.
Tom Abbott:
I have a chart that will answer your questions, but cannot up load it because it is larger than 3 Megabytes.
Will try splitting it into 2 sections.
Tom Abbott:
The graphical portion attached successfully. The text will follow
This is the associated text.
Your chart illustrates my main problem with your hypothesis.
The bogus Hockey Stick chart you use does not represent reality, so if your SO2 correlates with the bogus Hockey Stick, then it too does not represent reality.
CO2 amounts correlate with the bogus Hockey Stick chart profile, too, yet you dismiss this correlation, and rightfully so, imo, but your use of the bogus Hockey Stick in your calculations, causes me to dismiss your hypothesis as not representing reality.
Below is the temperature profile your SO2 should match if it represented the real world:
Hansen 1999:
Good. I would be interested in seeing it.
I see you have posted it below.
And why was there not even a grater emergency before industrialization put any SO2 into the atmosphere?
AndyHce:
There were. They were called the MWP, the RWP, the Minonan Warm Period, etc. where the atmospheres were essentially free of any any SO2 aerosols because of the near absence of volcanic eruptions.
So you are saying there were no eruptions during the whole of the Holocene Optimum. [lol]
FAIL !!
Bnice2000.
No, I said the “near absence” of volcanic eruptions.during the Holocene “Optimum”.
For the 2,400 year Minoan Warm period, their were only 114 VEI4 and larger eruptions recorded, about 5 per century
For the 550 year Roman Warm Period, there were 77 such eruptions recorded, about 8 per century
For the 300 year Medieval Warm Period, there were 31 eruptions recorded, about 10 per century.
For the 600 year LIA,1250-1850, there were 144 eruptions recorded, , ~24 per century.
For the 20th century, there were 78 such eruptions.
(But this is not the whole story. For example there were 38 VEI5 and larger eruptions during the LIA, and only 12 during the 20th century, making the LIA much colder).
Again, you did not understand what you read.
So, the time great cultures thrived.
Humans doing well is the emergency?
Andy Hce
As I pointed out, not ALL cultures thrived.
Higher temperatures are the emergency, which Net-Zero is trying to combat.
So how high will the temperatures get if there is no SO2 in the atmosphere?
Tom Abbott:
I would venture a bit higher than during the MWP, due to our much higher population, and industrial energy inputs.
Each of which was called a climate OPTIMUM and for good reason.
I guess you must feel human prosperity and times of plenty are ” emergencies.”
🤡
You did NOT answer his question. Read it again.
Randle Dewees:
I am sorry. Whose question?
Earth is in an INTERGLACIAL PERIOD during an ICE AGE.
If the climate is getting WARMER, that’s called GOOD NEWS.
You can start soiling your diapers when the climate starts COOLING.
AGW is Not Science:
As with the LIA, Ice ages are caused by periods of increased volcanic activity.
Nothing mysterious about them, except why do periods of volcanism occur?.
Whatever you do John, don’t call 911 to get advice on how to deal with the “climate emergency”.
I did, and got threatened with a police attendance to my door to sort me out.
After further enquiries to “the authorities”, I’m none the wiser about what said “climate emergency” actually is, or what I’m supposed to do to survive it.
it really is dumb for the climatistas to use the word “emergency”- whatever it is- it ain’t no emergency
You certainly have zero clue why they are changing.
Your conjecture is easily proven wrong by actual data.
bvnice2000:
You are mistaken about what your data is showing. Too broad-brush.
Sorry, but there is absolute no mistake in what the data over the USA is showing.
Sorry you don’t like that fact.
bnice2000:
For your information, CEDS data for for the United States shows a DECREASE of 14.7 million tons of SO2 aerosol pollution between 1980 and 1998, and a decrease of 8.1 million tons between 2005 and 2015.
Warming ALWAYS occurs whenever there is less SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, since it increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
I don’t know where you get your “facts”, but they are demonstrably WRONG!
“shows a DECREASE of 14.7 million tons of SO2 aerosol pollution between 1980 and 1998
And there was NO WARMING in the UAH 48 data.
“and a decrease of 8.1 million tons between 2005 and 2015.”
And there was NO WARMING in either USCRN or UAH48 data.
Your conjecture FAILS utterly and completely.
Back to the drawing board. !.
‘Cutting pollution from the shipping industry accidentally increased global warming, study suggests’
‘A reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions may have caused “80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020.”‘
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/climate-change/cutting-pollution-from-the-shipping-industry-accidentally-increased-global-warming-study-suggests
Sulfur emissions seed clouds.
The Earth is still in a long-term 2.6 million-year long-term ice age named the Quaternary Glaciation that won’t end until all natural ice melts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
Even the Earth’s temperature on the right-hand side of WUWT pages says the Earth’s temperature is 58 F, that’s too cold for humans to live in without protection. Humans are a tropical species, that’s why we don’t have fur.
Outside of the Tropics it is so cold that everyone that can lives and works in heated buildings, uses heated transportation and wears warm clothes most of the year.
“Cutting pollution from the shipping industry accidentally increased global warming, study suggests’”
When they come up with something definitive, let me know.
“and a decrease of 8.1 million tons between 2005 and 2015.Warming ALWAYS occurs whenever there is less SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, since it increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.”
If you look at the UAH chart just above, you will see it was cooling between 2005 and 2015, so it is doing just the opposite of what you claim SO2 would do.
The only temperature increase during that period was the spike in 2011. How do SO2 levels explain the 2011 heat spike and the cooling from 2005 to 2015?
If it is not important on how “accurately Earth’s temperatures are measured”, How can you determine an increase? And to less than 0.5C?
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/data/HadCRUT.5.0.2.0/download.html
teefor:
I use the dataset which you cite
Willie soon has several magnitude scientific aptitude than you will ever have.
His claim that there is no climate emergency is totally true.
It is all in your mind, bought about by your erroneous conjecture.
You are as bad as the CO2 warming junkies.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
bnice2000:
I wish that he were correct, but all of the evidence is that we are approaching a climate emergency.
We know you are NOT correct.
All evidence says you are talking a load of crap.
There was no “emergency” when SO was lower during the Holocene optimum and it was much warmer.
Why should there be any emergency now.
You are off your meds or something.
—-
“shows a DECREASE of 14.7 million tons of SO2 aerosol pollution between 1980 and 1998
And there was NO WARMING in the UAH 48 data.
“and a decrease of 8.1 million tons between 2005 and 2015.”
And there was NO WARMING in either USCRN or UAH48 data.
Your conjecture FAILS.
bnice 2000:
You say that there was no emergency during the Holocene climate optimum. That is not true. Temperatures were so high that cultures perished because of droughts and starvation, such as in our southwest, and in Central America.
And, again, I am speaking of GLOBAL temperatures, where USA temperatures are averaged in, and, as I showed above, they increased during those periods.
Your focus on just US temperatures is unscientific when we are discussing Climate Change.
My experience with Burl Henry is that he believes only changes in sulfate aerosols can explain climate change. Thus he denigrates everyone and every idea that provides alternative analyses that detract from the pet theory he is wedded to! So annoying and anti-science!
A one track pony, going down a rabid hole !
bnice2000:
Occam’s razor.
Jim Steele:
What is anti-science is your inability to understand that when industrial atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution is decreased, warming naturally occurs, because the cleaner air increases the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
There are millions of tons of this pollutant in our atmosphere, making SO2 aerosols, both industrial and volcanic, the actual control knob of our climate.
Any other theory, especially warming due to rising CO2 levels, is arrant nonsense.
And you cannot prove otherwise!
Had a strange conversation with the American Conservation Coalition ( https://acc.eco/ ), a purpotedley conservative group focused on climate solutions. The young people running the group, including the founder, are 100% convinced that the Earth is warming towards catastrophe and that it is primairly the fault of humans. Given their conservative leaning, one would think they would at least be open to questioning that “human caused” conclusion.
Nope. They shut down completely when I had the audacity to suggest that the IPCC narrative was not supported by the evidence (primairly using “appeal to authority” to dismiss my arguments: “I’ve spoken to dozens of scientists!”). I couldn’t make a dent. Even pointing out that ice core data shows temperature increases preceeding CO2 increases by 800+ years fell on deaf ears.
I offer this annecdote simply to point out that young people across the ideological spectrum – even “conservatives” – have been completely brainwashed into believing the IPCC narrative en banc. As the brilliant Gad Saad points out, the only way to change their minds is with a constant stream of fact-based evidence (not model based!). It will take a generation or more to make a dent in the CAGW psychosis. Perhaps by then the temperature trends will have flipped to a cooling paradigm and they will be forced to accept that the Earth’s climate is, perhaps, not driven primairly by CO2.
Facts do not matter to religious fanatics.
ceebee3oh, I’m afraid you’re right about CAGW psychosis. I’ve had pretty good luck with most people I know that were afflicted by simply showing that I can reproduce global temperature with what is essentially a moving average of sunspot data. Of course, the filter is doing a bit more than a moving average, but it’s the simplicity of the model and the accuracy of the prediction that allows people to accept the sun-temperature relationship.
A spreadsheet with more info is here. Feel free to share this with the ACC, and see how they react.
From simplest version of the model it looks like we’re in for at least 10 years of slight cooling, but I’m afraid that’s only because of one of the faster variations in solar activity.
Unfortunately, as I’ve been working to develop another model that works on proxies other than sunspots, I’ve starting to reach the conclusion that the next cold period won’t start until after 2200. While we could be at the peak, I suspect we’re not. Either way we probably have at least 200 years left of this current warm period. Not that warmth is a bad thing.
One of the other plots I recently shared also suggests that all of the current warming is natural, and that we’re just at the beginning of a warm period. Here I’ve extracted 11 principal components from Greenland ice core data and projected from 1849 (end of the data) through the next cold period.
Matching HadCrut URBAN temperature fabrication, which is not representative of global temperatures, shows your methodology may need a re-think.
Not really. They stretch, I stretch. I’m just amplitude scaling the prediction for best fit. It’s an empirical model, so there’s no physical constant to scale sunspot number to temperature. Besides, I’ve seen no evidence that arguing that the temperature data is biased by UHI has changed anyone’s mind about global warming, especially for non-technical people.
“Perhaps by then the temperature trends will have flipped to a cooling paradigm and they will be forced to accept that the Earth’s climate is, perhaps, not driven primairly by CO2.”
I think that is probably what it is going to take to convince some people they were wrong.
I’m working on the assumption that temperatures operate on a cyclical basis, warming for a few decades and then cooling for a few decades, and then repeating, based on the historical temperature records since the end of the Little Ice Age.
It is no warmer today than it was in the Early Twentieth Century, yet there is much more CO2 in the air now than there was then, so CO2 appears to have had little effect on the temperatures as we get the same amount of warming with various concentrations of CO2. There’s no correlation between CO2 and temperatures, unless you ignore history.
Tom Abbott:
The cyclic basis that you observe is driven by the waxing and waning of periods of Volcanic activity!
So you say, but you can’t prove it using a legitimate temperature record.
The Bogus Hockey Stick charts that you use as evidence of correlation don’t represent reality, so your conclusions don’t represent reality.