And what if the planet is cooling?

There is so much evidence of global cooling at the moment so that given the preoccupation with AGW, the consequences could be more catastrophic than anything anyone is remotely contemplating precisely because no one is thinking about this at all. Here’s how the article starts:

We may be witnessing the sun’s last dying gasps before entering into a long slumber. The impact of that slumber on Earth’s climate remains the subject of growing scientific speculation.

In 2008 William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, in a controversial paper that contradicted conventional wisdom and upset global warming theorists, predicted that sunspots could more or less disappear after 2015, possibly indicating the onset of another Little Ice Age. They stated, “The occurrence of prolonged periods with no sunspots is important to climate studies, since the Maunder Minimum was shown to correspond with the reduced average global temperatures on the Earth.” The Maunder Minimum lasted for approximately 70 years from about 1645 to 1715, and was marked by bitter cold, widespread crop failures, and severe human privation.

And this is how the article ends:

The upshot for scientists and world leaders should be clear, particularly since other scientists in recent years have published analyses that also indicate that global cooling could be on its way. Climate can and does change toward colder periods as well as warmer ones. Over the last 20 years, some $80 billion has been spent on research dominated by the assumption that global temperatures will rise. Very little research has investigated the consequences of the very live possibility that temperatures will plummet. Research into global cooling and its implications for the globe is long overdue.

Make hay while the sun shines is a concept a bit out of fashion. But there may come a time not that far off that we will deeply regret our attempts to keep the planet from warming by killing off our carbon-based energy production. If the planet is about to cool we will find what “severe human privation” really means in practice.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

228 Responses to And what if the planet is cooling?

  1. Ant

    But it’s never been about the climate.

  2. Baldrick

    The planet is cooling because of global warming. I thought that would be fairly obvious by now.
    sarc off.

  3. Bruce of Newcastle

    Two more natural drivers which have been holding up temperatures are about to fall away soon. The AMO is just starting its 30 year cooling phase and the solar cycle has just peaked – the second of a double peak.

    So while the global temperature has only been declining slowly since the turn of the century its likely to speed up a bit over the next few years.

    CO2, on the other hand, is doing squat.

  4. sabrina

    It will still be CO2′s fault.
    Therefore spending on CO2 capture and storage will continue. You can hear the same people over and over again, Bruce.

  5. Now I wonder what conspiracy motivated him to make these statements.……………

  6. manalive

    … the IPCC seem to underestimate the impact of natural factors on climate change, while overstating that of human activities …

    Naturally, otherwise it wouldn’t exist:
    “The aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to: 1. Human-induced climate change, 2. The impacts of human-induced climate change, 3. Options for adaptation and mitigation” (Wiki).

  7. Old woman of the north

    True And, it has never been about the climate.

    The waste of resources fighting warming will now mean that costs which have already risen to no good purpose will continue to rise as scarcity kick in. The Dark Ages were miserable, sickly, and led to a great number of deaths. As well those starving attributed loss of crops etc to witches. Will people know any better this time? People still want magic solutions and have been poorly educated in science so perhaps the myths will still prevail. The trouble is weapons are more efficient and the population of the world so many times greater. War is always about space and resources no matter what religious or nationalistic ideas it is fought under.
    We have already got lots of evidence of war for space and resources.

  8. Now I wonder what conspiracy motivated him to make these statements.……………

    Gee, I dunno, Numbnuts. Market positioning? Government grants? Appeasement of the green lobby?

    Take your pick.

  9. Andrew

    Could have been sheer, blinding ignorance too TBW – we shouldn’t rule out that some apparently functioning adults have simply read the screeching from the deniers of science, and never got around to looking at the data for themselves or even reading the work of the most credible scientists.

  10. Grigory M

    Climate change – shmimate change. Some summers are hotter than others, some winters are colder than others. The weather can vary from year to year in Spring and Autumn, too. It has ever been thus. So the Climate Change Industry (nee Global Warming) will now shift their focus and the diversion of funds to new (and again misleading) modeling to predict the supposed effects of a new “scientific” phenomenon – Anthropomorphic Global Cooling. And, if the sun is becoming quiescent, and a new Maunder Minimum event is under way, their predictions will make no difference, and even more billion of dollars will be wasted.

  11. Dr. Sir Fred Lenin

    As one of the first Self appointed PHDs in Global Colding,I took a leaf out of flannerys book and appointed myself an expert. I am still trying to get on the government Gravy Train,but cant get near it for warmies,bludging Bastards,depriving me of a luxurious standard of living.Wait till I am Top Bludger!

  12. Dr. Sir Fred Lenin

    PS I wanna take Timmies place in the Bludger League!

  13. Tel

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/

    NOTE: Correlation of USHCN Adjustments vs Atmospheric CO2… 99% perfect fit, using the R-squared metric.

  14. Perfidious Albino

    Warming, Cooling, the UN et al won’t care, they just need to try and find a plausible rationale to switch crisis…

  15. incoherent rambler

    Tel, stunning.
    Someone will (hopefully) do the same analysis with BoM data.

  16. cohenite

    Cooling was predicted within the AGW industry; many papers have done this including the most infamous of them all Keenlyside et al.

    Easterling and Wehner followed with a classic called Is the climate warming or cooling?

    All the AGW papers which have predicted cooling have done so on the basis that masking of underlying AGW due to SST driven natural variation occurs. That is when a natural period of cooling occurs, such as a -ve PDO, the underlying AGW warming will be suppressed by the natural variation caused cooling.

    It’s an idiotic concept because if it were true the periods when NV is in a warm phase would produce an exceptionally warm period when combined with AGW warming; this hasn’t occurred.

    AGW is so dumb but it has persuaded many smart people to believe in it. I blame the media and political class for preventing a scientific appraisal of AGW. Basically AGW proceeds because of argument from authority which censors alternative views, presents false consensus and lies and buys support.

  17. ChrisPer

    The argumketn from authority is just a cover.

    The real business is a moral status auction.

  18. ChrisPer

    argument – can I typo or what?

  19. ChrisPer

    Moral status auction – the driving force of all political correctness, not just AGW, paedo hate and gun laws.

  20. MemoryVault

    Everybody knows global warming is inversely proportional to the number of pirates. The current cooling is due to the recent increase in piracy out of Somalia.

  21. MartinG

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #1410584, posted on August 10, 2014 at 7:12 am

    The AMO is just starting its 30 year cooling phase

    I think that’s a bold statement at this stage. Although the AMO is at its top, there is no sign of it trending down yet.

  22. egg_

    But it’s never been about the climate.

    How much noise do they make about alleged ozone layer depletion nowadays?
    Fashionable Science.

  23. egg_

    Lower Troposphere,

    UAH

    The noise margin of spacecraft instrumentation over 35 years of innovation would be notable, as would any of the last few decades of electronic instrumentation (metrology vs meteorology).

    Garbage in garbage out, particularly regarding alleged “signals” and noise.

  24. egg_

    NINO3.4 SST (Neutral)

    Rather naive discussion from those who should know better equating sinusoidal simple harmonic motion to noisy systems with chaotic attractors.

  25. john constantine

    our polluting the earth is so bad that it is even killing the sun, deny it at your peril.

  26. manalive

    The punters have been hoodwinked into believing that we are going through some exceptionally warm period.
    Anyone who’s awake to this fraud is well aware that the planet is emerging from an anomalously cold period (LIA) during this current interglacial the most recent in a series of relatively brief interglacials during the past million or so years, some reaching much warmer averages than the current one.
    And the past million years is itself anomalously cold in most of the history of the life-supporting Earth.
    Mann and cohort (and our very own Gergis et al.) in their proxy-based temperature reconstructions, by actually selecting for what they are meant to be proving (correlation with instrumental record), engage in a form of circular reasoning of which they are unaware, or have used deliberately to alarm the public.

  27. Tel

    How much noise do they make about alleged ozone layer depletion nowadays?
    Fashionable Science.

    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/

    The largest Ozone hole was 2006 which is roughly also the turning point for global temperature (depending on who you believe)… and strangely enough 2006 is also roughly the last of the big peaks in Global tropical cyclone power dissipation index (see Dr Ryan N Maue) a.k.a. Accumulated Cyclone Energy.

    Since then the Ozone hole has shrunk only slightly, basically all those CFC regulations had negligible effect. At any rate the Ozone situation now is worse than it was back 30 years ago when we had a crisis over it, and no one seems to care.

  28. John Comnenus

    What if the earth starts cooling? The answer is obvious in two parts:
    Part 1: make the cooling fit into the warming hypothesis. This will fail because some real scientists will try to reclaim the integrity and reputation of science as a discipline.
    Part 2: find some way to blame the West, capitalism, wealth and industrialisation for changing the sun. I can’t wait to hear the theories that will be developed to support getting the right answer.

    You can bet your bottom dollar that the solution is more government, more regulation and less freedom regardless of the response to part 1 and part 2.

  29. Up The Workers!

    Hold your horses, folks!

    Let’s look at this scientifically.

    Labor (sic) and their scientific and intellectual advisers, the ‘Brown Movement’ said that we were all being WARMED to death, and only the payment of tens of billions of dollars in carbon taxes, would cool the globe.

    We paid, and the world obviously cooled too much.

    It follows that if Labor, the ‘Brown Movement’, Flim Flannery, Ross Guano, Malcolm Turnbull, Fat Al Bore, Ravendra Pachauri and Goldman Sachs now pay us back tens of millions of dollars, the world will OBVIOUSLY warm up sufficiently and we will be back where we started.

    It’s settled science!

  30. Andrew

    Part 2: find some way to blame the West, capitalism, wealth and industrialisation for changing the sun.

    One word – aerosols. There are already sitting scene for that one.

  31. MemoryVault

    The largest Ozone hole was 2006

    There are no “holes in the Ozone Layer” for the simple reason that there is no “Ozone Layer” as such.
    It only exists as an imaginary mathematical construct to derive a value – in Dobson Units – for the amount of ozone in a column of air from sea level to the outer edge of the atmosphere.

    Nonetheless, the imaginary ozone hole in the imaginary ozone layer will be all over the news again in five week’s time.

  32. Dr. Sir Fred Lenin

    What a great idea worker,let the Wankers pay the Workers,we will all be rolling in money!

  33. John Comnenus

    If the world starts cooling there are a few things you can be sure of:
    1 none of the warmists will apologise,
    2 the con men who took our money and destroyed peoples employment won’t give the money back,
    3 the same people who pushed the warmist issue will lead the cooling response, and
    4 the response will be bigger government, more regulation, higher taxes and less liberty.

  34. john constantine

    One day the abc was building the narrative of global warming, the day after, the abc was building the narrative of climate change.

    The science was settled each time.

    Is there any way of disclosing how the taxpayer funded abc fundementally changed the national conversation overnight?.

    Was there a group email ?, was there a mass meeting? for the entire herd of the abc to be able to have their awareness of how to chant the narrative changed at the exact same time is fascinating.

    Taxpayers deserve disclosure of how money borrowed in our name is used.

    –i struggle to put the most effective words together to describe the way the abc operates now.

    i tell some people that the abc no longer are truthists that report facts and figures, but that the abc repetitively chants a narrative instead.

    ‘chants a narrative’ doesn’t work as a hook.

    ‘retweets a narratives’ is true, but bland.

    ‘abc is on strike for more money, no journalism until their funding is boosted, just work to rule by retweeting their mates social media’.

    I am grasping for one punchy way to put the behaviour of taxpayer funded activists that are using their granted tax money to buy a government that will give them more taxpayers money, instead of the purpose the tax money was granted for.

    the abc mocks calls for advertising on the abc, claiming that media that run advertising are compromised by big companies that supply big advertising dollars. If this argument is true, then surely the abc is totally compromised by only having one political party that will boost their funding, and one party that requires value for money.

    Abc selling out for the easy money.

    How isn’t this corruption?.

  35. Demosthenes

    There is so much evidence of global cooling at the moment

    Your link tells us about New York City, not global temperatures. This is a common problem with denialists – they don’t even understand the basics.

  36. Gab

    they don’t even understand the basics.

    Yes but it’s not your normal type of hot/cold. ;)

  37. Demosthenes

    Extremes are, by definition, not normal. Do you accept that, Gab?

  38. MemoryVault

    This is a common problem with denialists – they don’t even understand the basics.

    CAGW hypothesis – atmospheric CO2 UP+UP+UP = atmospheric temp UP+UP+UP . . . .
    Observation shows – atmospheric CO2 UP+UP+UP = atmospheric temp UP+Down+UP+Down . . .
    Therefore CAGW hypothesis falsified.
    QED

    It doesn’t get much more basic than that.

  39. egg_

    3 the same people who pushed the warmist issue will lead the cooling response

    That’s why it’s now rebranded “climate change/disruption” – same snake oil, different wrapper.

  40. egg_

    Your link tells us about New York City, not global temperatures. This is a common problem with denialists – they don’t even understand the basics.

    The USGS CRN?
    But even they have literally shifted some of the goalposts (AWS)*.

    * c/- WUWT, etc.

  41. Tel

    Your link tells us about New York City, not global temperatures. This is a common problem with denialists – they don’t even understand the basics.

    What is the definition of “global temperature” and why this definition, rather than something else?

    Why should a person who lives in (for example) Nwew Your City be concerned about “global temperature”?

  42. Tel

    Hmmm “New York City” …

  43. MemoryVault

    Extremes are, by definition, not normal.

    You people just love to play footsies with language, don’t you Demosthenes.

    What constitutes “normal”, and what is considered “extreme” is entirely dependent on context.
    Three “once in a decade” occurrences in one ten year period is “extreme”, as is “only” three such occurrences in a century.

    Conversely, ten such occurrences in a century is perfectly “normal”, even if they happen to have all occurred in the same decade. At the time, such an occurrence would be judged as “extreme”. Looking back over the century, not so much.

  44. Tel

    There are no “holes in the Ozone Layer” for the simple reason that there is no “Ozone Layer” as such.
    It only exists as an imaginary mathematical construct to derive a value – in Dobson Units – for the amount of ozone in a column of air from sea level to the outer edge of the atmosphere.

    OK, well whatever they are measuring relating to ozone, was largest in 2006, which is a long time after the CFC’s were phased out.

  45. jupes

    Part 1: make the cooling fit into the warming hypothesis. This will fail because some real scientists will try to reclaim the integrity and reputation of science as a discipline.

    I’ll believe that when I see it. Not much integrity has been shown over the last two or three decades and there has been plenty of opportunity.

  46. john constantine

    Isn’t the ‘thirld world’ expentionally increasing the use of cheap effective cfc’s in their cash economies?.

    How many years of ‘antartic hole data’ are there, since it could be first estimated?.

  47. Demosthenes

    What is the definition of “global temperature” and why this definition, rather than something else?

    Whatever it is, I’m fairly sure we can agree that excluding all but NYC isn’t going to cut it.

    Why should a person who lives in (for example) Nwew Your City be concerned about “global temperature”?

    Because their food comes from outside the city. Because the economic impacts can’t be contained in national borders. Because their taxes will have to pay for the flood prevention measures. Because they might care about events outside their visual horizon?

  48. Demosthenes

    CAGW hypothesis – atmospheric CO2 UP+UP+UP = atmospheric temp UP+UP+UP . . . .

    See what I mean? Not even the basics!

  49. MemoryVault

    How many years of ‘antartic hole data’ are there, since it could be first estimated?.

    First measured in 1957 by Professor Gordon Dobson who was in Antarctica as part of the British team for the International Geophysical Year effort. He measure ozone depletion using a Dobson Spectrophotometer (which he invented). Ozone density is measured in Dobson Units (which he also invented).

    Dobson had no specific interest in ozone as such. He was trying to prove the existence of, and map the path of, high atmospheric winds – what we now call “jetstreams”. He used the perfectly understood (at the time) fact that the sun doesn’t shine down in Antarctica for a period of the year, and so there would be depletion of ozone, as atmospheric ozone is simply the product of oxygen and sunlight.

    By charting the shape of the area of ozone depletion Dobson was able to plot the jetstreams. For his efforts Dobson was named “International Geophysical man of the Year” (sorry ladies). He co-authored a book about it called “Exploring the Atmosphere” which was one of my high school textbooks.

    Like Tesla, and for much the same reasons, Dobson has basically been disappeared from history.

  50. Bruce of Newcastle

    I think that’s a bold statement at this stage. Although the AMO is at its top, there is no sign of it trending down yet.

    Martin – The AMO is cyclic on a period of about 62 years, which is persistent in the data for at least a millenium (note the authors of the paper). If you take it to be 62 years that means we should be about equivalent to 1952 in this graph.

    In the sine curve that is distinctly on the down trend. In the raw data of 1952 the AMO held up for a while longer then dived. So you may be right that it hasn’t turned down quite as clearly as I intimate.

    But the current AMO data certainly looks like its on the way down. See the blue curve…and keep in mind that is a 5 year trailing mean. If you use the same graphing tool and look at the last decade you’ll see quite a pronounced decline.

  51. MemoryVault

    See what I mean? Not even the basics!

    Fair enough, Demosthenes.
    For the benefit of all us stupid “denialists”, would you please enlighten us as to the original, basic hypothesis of the original, basic Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) claim.

  52. Bruce of Newcastle

    Demosthenes – You should know better than spout crap. The global temperature trend is flat nearly 18 years.

    On the other hand in the cooked data it is up a little bit. I am thinking of BEST, GISS and HadCRUT 4 which somehow forgot to include UHIE in full proportion.

    But whatever the variations of the various datasets, the IPCC models didn’t predict the pause. Which suggests they don’t have the right statistically significant variables included.

    Those two variables are the Sun and the ocean cycles. Put those in and derived CO2 sensitivity drops to below 1 C/doubling. And, more to the point, the climateers’ budgets would drop even further.

  53. Demosthenes

    would you please enlighten us as to the original, basic hypothesis of the original, basic Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) claim.

    There is no such thing. If you mean AGW, then the claim is that industrial emissions (and a few other anthropogenic factors) are imposing a warming trend on top of existing climactic variation. No-one ever said that temperatures must rise year on year, in fact the opposite. You are ignorant of this basic fact, which is part of the reason you’re a denialist.

  54. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Bbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. That’s what.

  55. Tom

    This is a common problem with denialists – they don’t even understand the basics.

    Anyone who doesn’t go along with the evidence-free junk science is a “denialist”. I hadn’t realised how mentally ill Comrade Dense and Red was. FMD. Full-blown anti-civilisationist disease.

    In the end, the trolls just can’t stay away?

  56. Tom

    Woops. In moderation. I made the mistake of calling the troll by his old name.

  57. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    No-one ever said that temperatures must rise year on year

    Well, they wouldn’t, would they, if your aim is to create a major scare? Although it’s very convenient to have it all ways, as in ‘in fact, the opposite’. Face it, Demosthenes, their data is so poor that they can’t even be sure about the extent and nature of ‘independent’ climatic variation. It’s all a house of cards, and the CO2 hypothesis is just that; not proven, an artefact of modelling, with empirical evidence hardly convincing.

    Good day to you now. Trolls are a bore.

  58. jupes

    If you mean AGW, then the claim is that industrial emissions (and a few other anthropogenic factors) are imposing a warming trend on top of existing climactic variation.

    Yeah the existing climatic variation caveat has really been emphasised by the AGW cult over the last 20 years or so hasn’t it Demo.

    The caveat must be the reason why warmist scientists and spruikers have been so measured in their predictions.

  59. Demosthenes

    Well, they wouldn’t, would they, if your aim is to create a major scare?

    Whose aim is this? What conspiracy theory are you going with now?

    Although it’s very convenient to have it all ways, as in ‘in fact, the opposite’.

    “In fact, the opposite” means scientists have always said that temps would not rise year on year. Ie the opposite of Memory Vault’s claim. How is that having it all ways?

  60. Bruce of Newcastle

    This crap:

    This is a common problem with denialists – they don’t even understand the basics.

    Mendacious. You should know better than say things like that. You do know better.

    Why not address the data which we so helpfully provide you links to, then interpret it yourself. I can assist you, if you want help. You get no points for making fallacious arguments from authority like Numbers likes to.

    The data is quite conclusive: CAGW is not compatible with the fact that the Sun and the ocean cycles contributed 5/6ths of the warming last century.

    That is why the temperature is now on the way down, because those two drivers have put themselves into reverse gear for the next few decades.

  61. Demosthenes

    Yeah the existing climatic variation caveat has really been emphasised by the AGW cult over the last 20 years or so hasn’t it Demo.

    When people make unscientific assertions, scientists do tend to point out the error, yes.

  62. Tel

    Because their food comes from outside the city. Because the economic impacts can’t be contained in national borders. Because their taxes will have to pay for the flood prevention measures. Because they might care about events outside their visual horizon?

    All of those events happen at some specific location or other, you fail to explain any relationship with a “global” temperature, just as you have failed to explain the meaning of a “global” temperature while telling other people they don’t know the basics.

    The problem is you are happy to blame floods on Global Warming, while other people are busy blaming droughts on Global Warming, also when the Great Lakes freeze over that’s Global Warming, more sea ice is Global Warming, less sea ice is Global Warming, everything ends up being all caused by the same thing. All of those events happen at specific places and specific times, the link to any global metric is tenuous at best and when we get down to it, non existent.

    Not long ago we were told that because of Global Warming we absolutely needed an expensive desalination system, and right after they built it, we got a heap of rain. The prediction was worse than useless. Obama blamed Hurricane Sandy on Global Warming even while there have been less hurricanes during his term in office than any recent President.

  63. Grant B

    Demosthenes – why not ask for assistance from the kidz at skeptical scienze. Their trend calculator for RSS give a 1997 to 2014 OLS trend (with default lag one autocorrelation) of -0.013 ±0.201 °C/decade (2σ). That’s 17 going on 18 years. Note the negative symbol in front of 0.013. Does this tell you anything? True it’s not statistically significant, but it’s anything but significant warming.
    Similarly the warming trend of 0.118 ±0.135 °C/decade (2σ) from 1991 to 2014 (going on 24 years) is also not statistically significant since a zero slope trend is contained within the confidence intervals. That is, no statistically significant warming shown in RSS data for 23-24 years.
    It’s a failed hypothesis. Get over it.

  64. Tel

    Whose aim is this? What conspiracy theory are you going with now?

    Can I just clarify, you are attempting to claim there has been no major scare over AGW ?

  65. Demosthenes

    Mendacious. You should know better than say things like that. You do know better.

    It’s not mendacious. I truly believe ignorance of basic facts is a key factor in many people’s denialism. What I have been learning over the years is that correcting them doesn’t have much effect. They simply move on to the next item in the Gish Gallop (frequently the moving of the goal posts contradict their earlier stance, but it doesn’t seem to matter to them). It is by turns exasperating and amusing.

    Why not address the data which we so helpfully provide you links to, then interpret it yourself.

    You’re basically the only one who uses any data at all, so I don’t know who this ‘we’ is.

    The data is quite conclusive:

    No, it’s not.

    CAGW

    You’re always careful to include the C. Is that because you acknowledge the AGW part?

  66. Grant B

    Demosthenes of fruit – no moving of the goal posts with the trends I quoted above. Any comment on them?

  67. jupes

    When people make unscientific assertions, scientists do tend to point out the error, yes.

    Yeah right. As shown by Jones, Briffa, Mann et al in the climategate emails.

    If there is one thing warmist scientists are known for it is pointing out the error LOL.

  68. Demosthenes

    All of those events happen at some specific location or other, you fail to explain any relationship with a “global” temperature,

    Those are some of the possible consequences of AGW. I thought that was obvious enough that I didn’t have to spell it out.

    just as you have failed to explain the meaning of a “global” temperature while telling other people they don’t know the basics.

    There’s no contradiction between not explaining and pointing out ignorance. But since you insist, “global temperature” is the abstraction to a single mean value of interpolated surface temperatures recorded unevenly all over the planet, expressed relative to a baseline of 30 years. Some say this means it isn’t a scientifically relevant concept. Regardless, it’s just one of multiple convergent lines of evidence, all of which point to AGW.

    The problem is you are happy to blame floods on Global Warming, while other people are busy blaming droughts on Global Warming, also when the Great Lakes freeze over that’s Global Warming, more sea ice is Global Warming, less sea ice is Global Warming, everything ends up being all caused by the same thing.

    Thing is, the scientists can point to the actual physical processes that make those things more likely in a chaotic system that is being pumped with extra energy. You might not like the fact that AGW has different effects on different regions, but that’s not a reason to reject the theory. That’s an argument from incredulity.

    Can I just clarify, you are attempting to claim there has been no major scare over AGW ?

    You’ll have to be more specific. What I’m disputing is the idea that thousands of scientists, from thousands of organisations, from hundreds of countries, are conspiring to exaggerate the potential risk of AGW for personal gain, and also to hide their collusion, and to keep dissidents from exposing them.

  69. Demosthenes

    Does this tell you anything?

    Nope.

    That is, no statistically significant warming shown in RSS data for 23-24 years.

    Why do rely on just one series? Is it because the others don’t fit your preconceptions? Why do you ignore all the other evidence of a warming world?

  70. Tel

    Those are some of the possible consequences of AGW. I thought that was obvious enough that I didn’t have to spell it out.

    They are some of the possible consequences of no AGW as well, which would be bleedingly obvious, but there it is.

    But since you insist, “global temperature” is the abstraction to a single mean value of interpolated surface temperatures recorded unevenly all over the planet, expressed relative to a baseline of 30 years.

    No adjustments in that lot?

    You must be talking about some different global temperature than what most of the climatologists are on about then. Anyhow, you you accept that “global” does not really mean global in the sense of the whole world, it means give or take a thermometer and some interpolation here and there (plus adjustments which you forgot to measure). So why should I believe this links to Hurricane Katrina? If it does link to Hurricane Katrina, why are there so few hurricanes in recent years?

    Thing is, the scientists can point to the actual physical processes that make those things more likely in a chaotic system that is being pumped with extra energy.

    Wait! Now we are talking about being pumped with extra energy? Where is the extra energy coming from?

    Have you started claiming that CO2 produces energy? That could be useful… we could use CO2 to generate electricity or something.

  71. Bruce of Newcastle

    You’re always careful to include the C. Is that because you acknowledge the AGW part?

    Yes I do. A 2XCO2 of about 0.7 C/doubling, which is what my data says it roughly is, CAGW is precluded. (BTW that is the general sceptical case: about 0.5 C/doubling…which I confirmed in my analysis.)

    Given the uncertainty the empirical effect of CO2 may be zero (ie saturated), but I’m open minded about that since anything less than the Arrhenius baseline is harmless because of the logarithmic response. TCR though is not zero because it has been directly measured.

    I’d add that AGW includes a whole host of things, black carbon, land clearing, other GHG’s and UHIE. UHIE has a global effect since urbanisation is pretty global. Like CO2 it can’t cause CAGW.

    Who cares if a small amount of warming happens? If its not dangerous we should spend nothing to stop it.

  72. Tel

    You’ll have to be more specific.

    Sure, how about this specifc guy saying these specific things?

    http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/03/224161.htm

    Read this report and you can’t deny the reality: Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy. Denial of the science is malpractice.

    There are those who say we can’t afford to act. But waiting is truly unaffordable. The costs of inaction are catastrophic.

    We can already see the damage it’s causing to our ecosystems, wildlife, glaciers, and countless other natural habitats. We can feel the impact of rising temperatures and sea level rise on vulnerable coastal areas. We know the security risks of water scarcity and flooding; widespread land and marine species extinction; and devastated crop yields in some of the poorest nations on earth.

    Does that sound like a scare story to you? He even lists Global Warming causing both floods and drought, because those things never happened before people staarted driving SUVs, but it’s catastrophic.

    So can you really demonstrate that floods are become floodier, and droughts are droughtier like he says?

  73. Tel

    Unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/08/22/according_to_the_dictionary_literally_now_also_means_figuratively_newscred/

  74. Grant B

    So a negative trend tells you nothing. That quite frankly is a sad indictment of our education system.

    But on the upside thankyou for not denying that RSS data shows no statistically significant warming for 23 years. Other evidence of warming you say. This may come as a huge shock to you but a good way to quantify warming is to measure temperature (or heat content). Yes, yes I know you can measure wind shear and butterfly migration but temperature is a good place to start.

    So use the trend calculator to see how long they show no warming and post the results here.

    Or do you want me to do it for you?

  75. Grant B

    …how long the other data sets show no warming ….

  76. Tel

    Here’s a specific prediction:

    AUSTRALIA’S ski slopes could be completely bare of natural winter snow by 2050 unless concerted action is taken against global warming, according to a government-commissioned report that paints a grim picture of the effects of climate change on alpine areas.

    The report, Caring for our Australian Alps Catchments, has found the Alps, which stretch from Victoria through New South Wales to the Australian Capital Territory, face an average temperature rise of between 0.6 and 2.9 degrees by 2050, depending on how much action the international community takes to combat climate change.

    ”The effects of climate change are predicted to be the single greatest threat to the natural condition values of the Australian Alps catchments,” the report states.

    Rain, snow and other precipitation will decrease up to 24 per cent over the next four decades, accompanied by more bushfires, droughts, severe storms and rapid runoff, causing heavy erosion.

    Australia’s major mountain range, which peaks with Mount Kosciuszko at 2228 metres, is vulnerable to climate change and faces a dramatic transformation unless serious efforts are made, the study concluded.

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/alps-could-become-snowfree-by-2050-20111009-1lfwu.html

  77. Tel

    There’s a trend in measured snow depth over half a century… the linear trend (black line) is dead level. This was the period of huge growth in CO2, and no trend in snowfall.

    http://users.tpg.com.au/users/mpaine/snow_aug_sep_54-12.jpg

  78. JC

    When people make unscientific assertions, scientists do tend to point out the error, yes.

    1. Yea, like all the Himalayan ice would melt by 2035.

    2. 17 years of no warming despite record levels of C02.

    3. Not one single model used by the IPCC has shown predictive strength.

    Fuck off Dem. And stop calling people denialists, you little punk.

  79. JC

    David Friedman has it in a nutshell

    I should add that I do not think it is clear what climate scientists believe. As best I can tell by my involvement in the argument, most such scientists think global temperature has been trending up and humans are at least partly responsible, many, perhaps a majority, think humans are mainly responsible. I have seen no evidence of what percentage take the next two steps, the conclusion that if nothing is done the results will be terrible and the further conclusion that there is something that can be done that is worth doing. But those steps are essential for the policy argument that one side of the dispute is pushing and the other side opposing.

  80. Tel

    1. Yea, like all the Himalayan ice would melt by 2035.

    I forgot about that one… they went back and claimed it was a typo, not intended to freak people out or anything.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm

    He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″. The authors deny the claims.

    They should spend a few of their millions on someone to do a bit of proof checking.

  81. Grant B

    JC, climate science is awash with proxies. Some like Professor Mann have been awarded A Nobel Prize through their use.

    So I have no problem being called a denier. It is a robust proxy for the lack of intelligence of the person doing the calling. I then treat them as such.

  82. Some like Professor Mann have been awarded A Nobel Prize

    No, that’s yet another lie from the awarmists.

  83. Demosthenes

    No adjustments in that lot?

    Lots and lots. Roughly equal in adjustment up or down, overall.

    So why should I believe this links to Hurricane Katrina?

    Links to specific weather events are, as you know, impossible. Climate is about long-term trends only.

    Where is the extra energy coming from?

    Fossil fuels, mostly. Note I’m responding in good faith, but it’s increasingly looking like you’re trolling, eg:

    Have you started claiming that CO2 produces energy? That could be useful… we could use CO2 to generate electricity or something.

  84. Grant B

    I should have put a /sarc on that

  85. Tel

    Note I’m responding in good faith,

    You are responding in good faith but still pretend that AGW has not been used as a scare campaign?

    Yeah, John Kerry did use that word “catastrophic”, so I guess that is indeed CAGW we are talking about.

  86. Tel

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/13/averting-climate-change-catastrophe-is-affordable-says-ipcc-report-un

    Catastrophic climate change can be averted without sacrificing living standards according to a UN report, which concludes that the transformation required to a world of clean energy is eminently affordable.

    There’s that word again.

  87. manalive

    Where is the extra energy coming from? Fossil fuels, mostly …

    I think that is the very point in contention — your conclusion is your premise and vice versa.

  88. Tel

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2014/03/140331-ipcc-report-global-warming-climate-change-science/

    The 772 scientists who wrote and edited the report argue that world leaders have only a few years left to reduce carbon emissions enough to avoid catastrophic warming, which would produce significant sea level rise and large-scale shifts in temperatures that would dramatically disrupt human life and natural ecosystems.

    People calling themselves scientists still calling it “catastrophic”, how about that? No scare campaign here, move along nothing to see.

  89. JC

    JC, climate science is awash with proxies. Some like Professor Mann have been awarded A Nobel Prize through their use.

    So I have no problem being called a denier. It is a robust proxy for the lack of intelligence of the person doing the calling. I then treat them as such.

    If Dem calls you a denialist, just call him a shortened turd. He likes that. Loves it in fact.

    The top rungs of this science is awash with the most unsavory, disgusting, lying beta males to ever walk the earth. Just take a look at this prize catch and tell me they are going to save earth. Look at them FFS.

    17 years or flatline temps, record levels of co2, models which are totally fucked and as useless as Michael Mann and we’re still hearing about it. Unfuckingbelieveable.

    Even one of the most senior players in the climate game has walked off.

  90. cohenite

    Demosthenes has made an alarmist stand; his [?] comments are chock full of crap; for instance:

    No adjustments in that lot?

    Lots and lots. Roughly equal in adjustment up or down, overall.

    The ground based temperature indices are notorious fro creating trends from adjustments where none existed in the raw data or where there were opposite trends. For example the BOM HQ network adjusted city temperatures up by 70% and the rural temperatures up by 40%.

    The ACORN network which replaced the HQ data has still the same artificially created trends!

    My preliminary opinion of you Demosthenes is that you are an alarmist troll but try again to say something sensible.

  91. Grant B

    Still struggling with the trend calculator Demosthenes? Never mind, soldier on.
    I make HADCRUT4 18-19 years. See if you can confirm that. There’s a good little scientist.

  92. egg_

    Where is the extra energy coming from? Fossil fuels, mostly …

    We’re told that daily atmospheric lightning discharges more energy than all of the world’s power grids combined (largely fossil-fuel-fed); so, the kinetic energy in the atmosphere alone must be far higher than fossil fuel energy output.

  93. Grant B

    Similarly NOAA Land/Ocean; 18-19 years. Make haste Demosthenes. I’ll have all this done on an iphone at the pub before we hear a squark out of you.

  94. Tel

    Warmlist has “trade winds weakened”… but here we have trade winds turbocharged!

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/08/04/4060187.htm

  95. Tel

    There’s the weakend link for comparison.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12612965/

    Yes, that’s right, Global Warming causes the same Pacific trade wind to both speed up and slow down.

    The trade winds in the Pacific Ocean are weakening as a result of global warming, according to a new study that indicates changes to the region’s biology are possible.

    vs

    Rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean is “turbocharging” Pacific equatorial trade winds, according to new research.

    These are the strongest trade winds since recording began in the 1860s, according to scientists from the University of New South Wales and the University of Hawaii.

    Is there anything Global Warming can’t do?

  96. Grant B

    GISS 1997-2014. 17 to 18 years.

    Schnell Demosthenes, schnell!

  97. JC

    Is there anything Global Warming can’t do?

    For that you need to check the Warmlist. It even causes traffic jams and for females to cheat while on vacation. Don’t believe me? Check the warmlist

  98. manalive

    Where is the extra energy coming from? Fossil fuels, mostly …

    About one third of all the fossil carbon emissions since WW2 has had no effect on the global temperature yet in the latest report summary the IPCC is even more certain of its
    fundamental contention:
    It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.
    A breakdown of correlation that significant in any other branch of science would be sufficient to at least raise serious questions — at least.

  99. MemoryVault

    My question to Demosthenes:

    would you please enlighten us as to the original, basic hypothesis of the original, basic Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) claim.

    Demosthenes reply:

    There is no such thing. If you mean AGW, then the claim is that industrial emissions (and a few other anthropogenic factors) are imposing a warming trend on top of existing climactic variation. No-one ever said that temperatures must rise year on year, in fact the opposite. You are ignorant of this basic fact, which is part of the reason you’re a denialist.

    Let’s break that down:

    There is no such thing.

    So, for a start Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was never claimed to be “catastrophic” – right?
    Putting aside all the references Tel has already supplied (thanks Tel – had visitors), how then did ordinary, average, run of the mill AGW ever come to be, to quote a certain ex-PM “The great moral challenge of our time”? How come ordinary, average, run of the mill AGW ever needed tens of billions of dollars to combat – for the sake of humanity? Or an IPCC to report on it in the first place?

    the claim is that industrial emissions (and a few other anthropogenic factors) are imposing a warming trend on top of existing climactic variation.

    It’s one thing to spout bullshit, Demosthenes, and hope that no one notices. It’s quite another to attempt to rewrite history. Up until 2008 “natural variation” was written off by the “experts”. James Hansen, when asked, replied that man-made global warming “overwhelmed” – his word – any natural variation. Phil Jones stated that natural variation – if any – was “swamped” – his word -by man-made factors. Gavin Schmidt, Tim Flannery, Will Steffen and Karl Braganza are all on record as singing from the same hymn book. But you claim it never happened.

    No-one ever said that temperatures must rise year on year, in fact the opposite.

    Sorry Demosthenes, but when actually introduce a mathematical computation to support your claim, then you’re stuck with it. The claim, by climate scientists and the IPCC, is very specific; due to “radiative forcing” an increase of atmospheric CO2 WILL cause a 3.3 x relative increase in atmospheric temperature. Not my claim, Demosthenes, nor my figure. Straight out of the IPCC Report and a multitude of peer-reviewed papers. And prior to 2008 you won’t find any mention of mitigation by “natural variation”. No siree. The science was “settled” back then.

    No-one ever said that temperatures must rise year on year, in fact the opposite.

    Again, sorry Demosthenes, but if you’re going to claim a direct physical relationship between ‘A’ and ‘B’, that can be expressed as a mathematical equation, then you ARE claiming that “temperatures must rise, year on year”. Either that, or you have to explain where all the extra energy generated managed to disappear to. Which brings us to your next comment:

    Thing is, the scientists can point to the actual physical processes that make those things more likely in a chaotic system that is being pumped with extra energy.

    The thing is Demosthenes, this is not something you can have two bob each way on. Either any “extra energy” is being cancelled out by “natural variation”, or it’s being “pumped into a chaotic system”. Which is it, Demosthenes? Is your first post bullshit, or this one? or both? They are mutually exclusive, so you are going to have to choose just one, I’m afraid.

    Either way you’ve been nailed as a total bullshitter.

  100. Grant B

    UAH 1994 – 2014. 20 to 21 years.

    Knock, knock. Hello Demosthenes, hello.

    The lights are on but there’s no one home.

  101. Perpetual Motion

    Demosthenes is a wife-beater.

    I’ve written a software programme with thousands of variables. I entered all of Demosthenes’ comments and it says with 97% certainty, that Demosthenes is a closet homosexual who beats his wife, killed his dog, and probably murdered one of his siblings.

    The science is settled.

  102. Gab

    Heavens, Motion! With that type of analysis sounds like you work for CSIRO or the BoM or the Climate Change Authority or NASA or the university of East Anglia, Climate Research Unit.

  103. incoherent rambler

    Reposting for Tel, because some people can scroll up.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/

    NOTE: Correlation of USHCN Adjustments vs Atmospheric CO2… 99% perfect fit, using the R-squared metric.

    This is statistical correlation at its best.

  104. cohenite

    The stupidity of AGW and its supporters is, even if you think CO2 is affecting climate there is a good case that the increase in CO2 has nothing to do with humans but is natural.

  105. MemoryVault

    Heavens, Motion! With that type of analysis sounds like you work for CSIRO or the BoM or the Climate Change Authority or NASA or the university of East Anglia, Climate Research Unit.

    He’s a consultant. He’s worked for them all.
    To clarify, he’s supplied the same Report to each of them on a different letterhead, and claimed it as a “one-off” and “unique to their requirements”.
    And charged each of them accordingly.

    It’s how we consultants work.

  106. Perpetual Motion

    Watch out, Gab. Or I’ll publish your own profile.

    Nobody needs to know about that lipstick incident in 1993, right?

  107. wreckage

    So, CO2 is the dominant driver of climate, but rapidly and dramatically increasing CO2 might not cause warming for, say, 10-20 years in a row?

    Just so I understand the argument…

  108. BilB

    SteveK,

    You do yourself no credit in supporting this

    “Very little research has investigated the consequences of the very live possibility that temperatures will plummet. Research into global cooling and its implications for the globe is long overdue”

    … line of argument. Any intelligent person knows that Climate Science investigates Climate and Climate Change, warming or cooling. You are obviously attempting to mislead your readers towards the presumption that scientists are only interested in the climate if it is heating up. Completely false. The notion that climate follows solar cycles in lock step is also false. There is naturally a connection as more energy will supply more heat so average global temperatures do include some of the signature of the solar cycles but they are a minor influence, not the primary driver as David Evans is attempting to argue with his climate rut theory.

    Here is a compilation of evidence with enough graphs to make JoNovarians melt in an orgasmic frenzy.

    Sunspots

    http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm

    It is interesting that you mention the Maunder Minimum and sunspots but don’t mention the very significant drop in CO2 levels starting in the previous century then commencing the slow atmospheric concentration acceleration right through to the present day.

    http://www.planetforlife.com/gwarm/glob1000.html

    Before Bruce of Newcastle launches into “the oceans are not heating” I include an objection from Wunsch on his work being misrepresented in the Australian.

    For the record, Wunsch on Wunsch

    Understanding the ocean

    THE article by Graham Lloyd (the Australian newspaper) will likely leave a mis-impression with many of your readers concerning the substance of our paper that will appear in the Journal of Physical Oceanography (“Puzzle of deep ocean cooling”, 25/7).

    We never assert that global warming and warming of the oceans are not occurring — we do find an ocean warming, particularly in the upper regions.

    Contrary to the implications of Lloyd’s article, parts of the deep ocean are warming, parts are cooling, and although the global abyssal average is negative, the value is tiny in a global warming context.

    Those parts of the abyss that are warming are most directly linked to the surface (as pointed out by Andy Hogg from the ANU).

    Scientifically, we need to better understand what is going on everywhere, and that is an issue oceanographers must address over the next few years — a challenging observational problem that our paper is intended to raise.

    Carl Wunsch, Harvard University and Massachusetts, Institute of Technology

    So Steve Kates, if you are so shallow in your research and opinions I am pleased that you put them forward here, it saved me the cost of buying your book in which I would now expect to find the same degree of inconsequence.

    Burn more oil and coal to keep the planet warm?? W0w!

  109. Rabz

    the response will be more government, more laws, higher taxes and less liberty

    Yet another entry one for the “no one could have predicted that” files.

  110. cohenite

    bilby the new alarmist enters flinging the disavowal by Wunsch of what his paper showed; how many times have we seen papers contradicting AGW be then contradicted by their authors when the feedback from within AGW got too hot?

    The money graph from Wunsch is Figure 18.

    This contradicts AGW because the slight warming 700 meters and above is not nearly enough to explain the missing heat from the atmosphere over this period; and the cooling below 700 meters also contradicts AGW because it is there that the missing heat is supposed to have gone according to Hansen, Trenberth and England to name a few. The ocean is the default position for AGW’s missing heat and whether Wunsch likes it or not his paper shows that is bullshit.

  111. Any intelligent person knows that Climate Science investigates Climate and Climate Change, warming or cooling.

    And from that line forward, one knows that this comment is intended as humour.

  112. Bruce of Newcastle

    BilB – The oceans are not warming. They’ve plateaued too, after a lag of about a decade with respect to air temperatures. I’m not saying that myself, I am just reporting the data as provided by NOAA.

    The point is the shape of the curve is also the shape of the curve for HadCRUT, ENSO, PDO, AMO, sea level (as egg linked), rainfall data and sea ice. All show the signal of the ~60 year cycle. I can give you links for each, but I’m restricted to 3 per comment. Tell me which you want.

    Burn more oil and coal to keep the planet warm?? W0w!

    Unfortunately producing CO2 to keep the planet warm doesn’t work since the climate isn’t very sensitive to CO2. About the only thing that can work to avoid ice ages is albedo change, which is almost certainly feasible. Black is a nice colour, as I’m sure all good progressives like yourself would agree. However the run down to an ice age takes centuries , and if you look at the Vostok ice core data the rate of cooling is only about 0.05-0.1 C/decade. Which is pretty slow.

  113. JC

    Bilby

    All the science that is supposed to be beyond debate and settled was in the climate models the IPCC looked at to make forward projections. The data has not matched the projections and consequently the science that was supposed to be settled and no longer debatable is found to be a crock of shit. Until you come back with a model that works fuck off and stop wasting our time. The science of what I just said is well and truly settled and the debate over, so as I said fuck off.

  114. JC

    and take Dem with you, Bilby.

  115. JC

    So Steve Kates, if you are so shallow in your research and opinions I am pleased that you put them forward here, it saved me the cost of buying your book in which I would now expect to find the same degree of inconsequence.

    You know, given the chance I’d would stick your fucking head in a vice, tighten it and leave you there for a few months with minimum food and water to keep you barely alive, you abusive piece of shit. As I said, fuck off and don’t come back here.

  116. Tom

    The top rungs of this science is awash with the most unsavory, disgusting, lying beta males to ever walk the earth. Just take a look at this prize catch and tell me they are going to save earth. Look at them FFS.

    Hilarious!

    They really are quite dickless, aren’t they?

  117. MartinG

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #1410962, posted on August 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm

    Martin – The AMO is cyclic on a period of about 62 years, which is persistent in the data for at least a millenium (note the authors of the paper). If you take it to be 62 years that means we should be about equivalent to 1952 in this graph.

    “(note the authors of the paper)” Michael E. Mann – persistent in the data for at least a millenium.

    I think it’s safe to dismiss claims by this discredited author and my inference his colleagues.

    Beware of thinking that three peaks and two troughs represents a rolled gold cycle. It can easily be an illusion. Unless you truly understand the physical processes that produce the apparent cycle -and we don’t- then it can fall apart without any rational explanation. What for instance caused the little ice age? I would has at a guess that the AMO zone stayed negative for a greatly extended period. Our climate and it’s components are noisy, but for now I would be happy to accept that it is a cycle in our current warm faze.

    But the current AMO data certainly looks like its on the way down. See the blue curve…and keep in mind that is a 5 year trailing mean. If you use the same graphing tool and look at the last decade you’ll see quite a pronounced decline.

    Even your five year trailing mean takes sudden dips. I really don’t think you can call it in decline just yet. It could plod on at the top for another 10 years yet. Take a closer look at the graph you supplied.

    here

    Ask yourself what your prediction would be if at any given point if you could not see beyond the position you are at. Would you have called the sharp dip at 1947 the beginning of the downward trend? If yes then you would have been wrong by ten years.

  118. Tel

    http://gizmodo.com/when-a-climate-scientist-publicly-states-were-f-ked-1616825189

    Not like scientists would go around spreading alarmism or anything, only “deniers” mention CAGW.

  119. Bruce of Newcastle

    Martin – I think Knight et al 2005 was from his PhD work, before he caught the money disease. Since then he’s brought out a paper disavowing his own work and assigning it all to evil CO2 (as far as I know, I can’t make myself read it).

    The actual data shows that the cycle is real, as I discussed. It is present in many datasets. A recent wavelet analysis showed it (see RHS graph). I have three or four other similar papers for which I have links.

    Even the UK Met Office has decided it is real since they included it in their model (which is the same basic GCM as BoM uses, since BoM bought it off them). What they found is with the 60 year cycle included they could explain the pause, and their projection was no temperature rise out to 2017. This was so embarrassing they released their press release on Christmas Eve so it wouldn’t be noticed.

    Quite a few climateers, like Kevin Tremberth, are now citing the AMO or PDO as the reason for the pause, but in their screeds they never address the logical question – which is if it is causing the plateau, how much did it contribute to the warming up to 1998? They never mention that because the figure is 70% since 1970.

    The UK Met Office has not yet included the full solar forcing in their model, or they’d be predicting cooling out to the mis 2020′s at least, same as I do.

  120. Bruce of Newcastle

    Take a closer look at the graph you supplied.

    Yes, Martin, that is why I supplied the current data too via the WFT site. Unfortunately WFT can’t do a sine regression, you need a stats package for that (or a lot of hard work in Excel, which I can’t be bothered to do). Look at the current AMO to the current date and we’ve got a definite trend down in the last decade (short blue line). It might be a false fall or a double peak, but its definitely come off the top. For now. In the longer term the cycle is undeniable.

    The PDO on the other hand is a quarter cycle ahead of the AMO, and has been cooling solidly since the 1990′s. That’s why the pause has been so flat. The Sun peaked in about 2004 and has been contributing a cooling anomaly since, just as the AMO peaked in the late 2000′s.

    My model says more cooling to come. So far its been rather accurate, although its about 3-4 years in advance since it has a composite PDO+AMO cycle not a pure AMO component. The latter would be better to use for HadCET, but I figured that the model was doing OK so lets not monkey with it. The IPCC has a million more of them than me, which means they’ll probably get a model to reflect the temperature data eventually.

  121. BilB

    Your link BoN on sea temps does not at say “plateaued”, it says “not increasing as much as before for the time being”. That is not Plateaued.

    Consider the body of information here…..

    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm

    We are talking about a very large and complex system, but every index in this summary is pointing upwards, ………for the time being. I am not seeing anything like an impending ice age here at all, not at least while the body of atmospheric CO2 is so large, and while atmospheric methane is rocketing upwards as it is at present.

    To me, Bruce, you seem to be seeing what you want to see in the information that you choose to look at, and are disregarding the rest. Some of this information in the Climate4you challenges some of my understandings, or at least it did until I put the information into context of atmospheric density. I do look at this critically, and you should do the same. Your Enso and Amo connection for instance, of course there is a connection as the heat in the Atlantic conveyor largely comes from the Indian Ocean which is linked to the Enso in a number of ways, but it is not a lock step connection. The currents that transport the energy can vary quite considerably as they may very well be doing at present in providing heat to undermine the Antarctic ice sheets, and in the so doing sending less heat into the Atlantic. Only more information will resolve what is happening in the mid ocean levels. All indicators are saying that there are many things changing all at the same time, right now and science has a huge task for itself in figuring out what is going on. My money is not on an ice age.

  122. BilB

    BoN,

    In your 9.11 comment, where you conclude a “definite trend down”, this is a false conclusion from your graph. If you study it carefully you will see that the extreme peeks repeatedly give evidence of the trend line based on your selected period, and in the area where you conclude a downtrend the peaks are saying the exact opposite. This is what I mean by you are seeing what you want to see, and when it gives you your desired result you yourself said you “don’t mess with it”.

  123. .

    If you study it carefully you will see that the extreme peeks repeatedly give evidence of the trend line based on your selected period,

    That is not what a trend is. The extreme values of a time series are expected to increase in varianace as t increases anyway (hence CUSUM tests in regression analysis).

    You are out of your depth here BilB and engaging in tea leave reading. Give it pal. The climate models are fucked.

  124. JC

    Bilby

    Will you stop posting garbage here please. this is trolling of the worst kind. The climate models do not match the evidence data which means they’re fucked. The science is settled and the debate is over. Shut up and go away.

  125. Bruce of Newcastle

    Your link BoN on sea temps does not at say “plateaued”,

    Read the graph. Last four data points. As I said, the ocean heat content anomaly lags about a decade from the atmosphere temperature, which is logical given the specific heat of water.

    I don’t use predigested climateer pap, I prefer to interpret the primary datasets because I am a scientist and that is what I do. Suck on it.

    In your 9.11 comment, where you conclude a “definite trend down”, this is a false conclusion from your graph.

    Read the graph. I did exactly what I said, and gave caveats. I don’t invent this out of the air, its the data.

    CAGW is not happening, BilB. Get a different cause, this one will not work for you. And stop killing people and birds, arsehole. I have not forgotten your misanthropy.

  126. cohenite

    We are talking about a very large and complex system, but every index in this summary is pointing upwards,

    That’s a lie: SST post ARGO which began in 2003. And again Figure 18 from Wunsch.

    AGW is a belief system but its adherents want their irrational belief to have the status of facts. How pathetic you are bilby.

  127. MartinG

    Bruce of Newcastle
    #1411473, posted on August 10, 2014 at 9:11 pm

    The PDO on the other hand is a quarter cycle ahead of the AMO, and has been cooling solidly since the 1990′s. That’s why the pause has been so flat. The Sun peaked in about 2004 and has been contributing a cooling anomaly since, just as the AMO peaked in the late 2000′s.

    Yes indeed, I have no doubt we are in for a cooling faze and I fear it may be a long one. My only critique of your assessment was on the question of the AMO. I have the raw data for the AMO and it did reach the end of it’s ascent around 2000 but that can’t be called a peak, it can plateau for for 15-16 years or more.

    For instance the AMO peaked in 1939 yet didn’t start to decline until 1955, saying it is in decline now, is as I said a heroic statement.

    I have no problem with your assessment of the PDO, the supposed soon to be coming El Nino will be weak and has already defied most predictions. Despite the present spike of the PDO into positive territory I expect it to resume it’s warm faze over time.

    Where are we up to? I hope it’s not pistols at dawn.

    Ahh yes, Solar influence, but we can leave that for another time.

  128. Andrew

    Your link tells us about New York City, not global temperatures. This is a common problem with denialists – they don’t even understand the basics.

    Is the 14 years of cooling on the RSS satellite sufficiently global for you?

  129. BilB

    Cohenite, you need to read what Wunsch himself said about ocean heating in the Australian letters to the editor (quote above).

    JC, you really do have a problem coping with failure, don’t you. There is treatment for people such as yourself.

    “.”,”.”,”.”,……..”.”, ….. what can I say, Bruce’s little green line in no way represents a trend no matter how you look at his graph. It is just wishful thinking.

  130. JC

    JC, you really do have a problem coping with failure, don’t you. There is treatment for people such as yourself.

    Me? I have no problem Bilby. It’s you who refuses to face up to the fact that the known science is built into every single one of the major models used to predict gerbil warming and every single one crashed. You religious kook, Bilby.

  131. Bruce of Newcastle

    I hope it’s not pistols at dawn.

    Competing interpretations of incomplete data on a blasted field strewn with the bodies of exhausted scientists…

    BTW, the AMO is just detrended Nthrn Atlantic SST’s. The NH SST’s are also tracking the trend of 62 years before. I’ll confess to a slight bit of cherry picking the dates of the 1942 period to line the trends nicely parallel, but the message is the general direction SST’s are going is similar to last cycle.

    None of this would occur if CO2 sensitivity was large.

  132. BilB

    I was just looking again, BoN, at the Climate4you sunspot against global temperature rise correlation, and if you put away the pistols (preconceptions) it tells a very interesting story. A reasonable assumption from the data is that there is a very clear departure of global average temperature away from a more direct influence of the solar cycle due to CO2 buildup, but it is the reduced solar activity that has reduced the rate of rise of the global temperatures causing the so called hiatus. Atmospheric CO2 levels continue to build at an increasing rate and this years record oil extraction and record oil demand are certainly going to keep driving that buildup. The loss of solar irradiance is possibly as much as 1 watt per square meter so far (it is hard to tell from the information there due to end dates). If the 25th solar cycle follows the trend then the hiatus could extend another 10 years until the CO2 and methane buildup compensate for the loss of irradiance.

    The real concern then would have to be what happens when the solar activity builds back to previous levels. That is the stage set for full on catastrophe. The hiatus, rather than being a sign of a future ice age, is in fact our last opportunity to bring our CO2 emissions under control. I’ll let you you do the projection modelling on how that would play out.

    All I’m suggesting is turn off the preconceptions and consider what the data appears to be revealing.

  133. .

    Is the 14 years of cooling on the RSS satellite sufficiently global for you

    No response.

    I explain to BilB that he is utterly wrong, and his tea leave reading is inummerate crap, not based in any proper understanding of time series analysis:

    An exposition of glibness undeserving of such an ignorant mind.

    There is no wishful thinking you twit. There is no warming. You are regressing the progress of the discipline of statistical analysis with your medieval way of soothsaying. No respectable, honest or competent statistician reads trends off extreme values. Nor do they exclude ANY data.

    Why any sort of data conditioning is accepted in academic discipline is mind blowing. It either shows incompetence in data analysis or outright dishonesty.

    The climate models are fucked. There is no trend. To say so is dishonest or incompetent. The temps have been falling for 17 years and otherwise for 14 years on the satellite data.

  134. Bruce of Newcastle

    BilB – You are on the right track. But the next question for you is this: if the Sun is contributing to the pause, how much did it contribute to the rise?

    Use this paper to work it out.

    The IPCC assigns all the rise to CO2. As soon as you include the solar impact (which is about 5 times the TSI component, once you include the modulation of cloud cover) then the calculated CO2 sensitivity falls considerably.

    On top of that, as we have been discussing, is the effect of the ocean cycles. The IPCC value for warming in their century 1906-2005 is 0.74 C. But if you move the start date back 30 years to 1886 the temperature rise over 130 years is only about 0.5 C. That is because 1906 was the bottom of a cycle and 2005 the top of the following one. About 0.24 C of the rise is a pure artefact. Remember that the IPCC ensemble models validate to the 20thC, not to the period 1886-1905, which is what they should be using.

    Add both these significant variables and the derived ECS in the models would be well below 1 C/doubling.

    As for the Sun, here’s a new paper for you.

    New paper finds recent Grand Maximum of solar activity was ‘rare or even unique event’ in 3,000 years

    I have two other papers bookmarked which say the same thing: it was a multimillenial peak. So I doubt we’ll see another grand maximum for a while.

  135. cohenite

    Cohenite, you need to read what Wunsch himself said about ocean heating in the Australian letters to the editor (quote above).

    I did; I responded above; have you looked at Wunsch’s Figure 18; because all the contradiction between his disavowal and his paper are summed up there.

    The oceans are not warming or accumulating energy in any way consistent with AGW. In fact the graphed increase in OHC above 700 meters, but not including the SST which has been falling since ARGO was introduced in 2003 is not statistically significant; the ARGO Buoys show this clearly. This is beyond doubt; you can go to the ARGO site yourself and graph the data which shows NO increase.

    This happens so often; the very own data which alarmists rely on contradicts their own belief and they persist with their belief.

  136. Bruce of Newcastle

    Oops, I can’t do arithmetic. I should ‘ve said 1876.

    Here’s what you see if you do this. You have to look carefully to see the blue line which starts averaging at 1906, overlying the gree line which starts at 1906. There’s about 0.3 C less warming 1876-2005 than 1906-2005 – all of which comes right off the top of the derived climate sensitivity.

  137. BilB

    “.”,
    YOU NEVER ‘EXPLAIN’ ANYTHING, YOU JUST DEMAND THAT OTHERS ACCEPT YOUR TWISTED PERCEPTION OF THE WAY THINGS ARE FROM YOUR “.” TINY, TINY LITTLE PERSPECTIVE.

    Is that loud enough for you?

  138. .

    You don’t understand the material. You’re out of your depth.

    I have explained it all. Re read my notes above.

    Learn how to do statistics before telling us how to read tea leaves.

    I won’t listen to filthy hippies with sociology degrees on how to build a bridge, I’ll be damned if I’m told by you how to interpret data and that your loopy theories mean we ought to tax ourselves into prosperity.

    PS

    The climate models are fucked.

  139. .

    BilB (Ted “Theodore” Logan) introduces perception into data analysis….maaan!

    It’s all about perception, dude.

    If the climate model is fucked, blame someone for having less”perception” than you for not wanting to tax themselves into prosperity by mitigating an imaginary problem with real world costs of mitigation.

    At least we know how to make hippies implode. Taunt them about their innumeracy.

  140. Bruce of Newcastle

    Urk, I’ve done more typos in that last comment than most. You all get the drift anyway: the IPCC cherry picked the period to validate the ensemble models and ignored the two largest components of natural temperature rise – thereby incorrectly blaming CO2.

    As the models are validated to the wrong period, with the wrong variables, yes Dot is perfectly correct in the last sentence.

  141. BilB

    Wunsch concludes otherwise and says so publicly, Cohenite.

    BoN, there is no contradiction there. The long term evidence as I recall was pointing to a steady global cooling trend, a trend that has been sharply arrested by the influence of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2.

    You’re loosing credibility here, BoN, in your determination to build your case on your data extractions alone. I’ve looked at your interpretations, I’ve looked at the body scientific’s interpretations. Theirs are long term, detailed and correlated which build a solidly supported understanding, yours are short term, highly over interpreted, cherry picked (your words) and unconvincing.

  142. .

    The long term evidence as I recall was pointing to a steady global cooling trend, a trend that has been sharply arrested by the influence of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2.

    As I recall, Balmain won the 1989 Grand Final and I’m married to Kate Upton.

  143. Bruce of Newcastle

    BilB – Why can’t I get through to you?

    The way the IPCC works out equilibrium climate sensitivity is by validating a global climate model to a temperature record. The amount that is not described by the natural factors that they include in the model they assume to be due to CO2. But they leave out the two biggest factors AND pick a ‘century’ which maximises the temperature rise that the ECS gets worked out from.

    Once you work out the ECS it is the same everywhere and for all time since physics and chemistry don’t change with time.

    As soon as you include all the omitted variables you derive an ECS which is below 1 C/doubling. And that kills the CAGW scare stone cold dead.

    And that is why the GCM’s didn’t see the pause – because the omitted variables have now turned down, leaving the GCM’s ‘way up there like Wile E Coyote before gravity exerts itself.

    Anyone who thinks CAGW exists will be right next to Mr Coyote waving their legs in the air.

  144. cohenite

    Wunsch concludes otherwise and says so publicly, Cohenite.

    You’re a fucking idiot, a clown bop bag; Wunsch is contradicting his own paper; Figure 18 clearly shows that; amazing.

    BilB – Why can’t I get through to you?

    Because the person in question has a belief; any and all contradictory evidence is rationalised away. He is an acolyte; he is good for nothing except honing your facts and insulting. In short he is a intellectual cul de sac.

    I’m really pissed with Wunsch; this happens so often; a paper is written contradicting AGW and the author later recants.

  145. BilB

    Cohenite

    “BilB – Why can’t I get through to you?”

    Because you are not making sense!

    If you have a problem with Wunsch, take it up with him. Send him an email and ask for an explanation.
    Most likely your issue is in how you choose to interpret publications, not what they actually say.

    BoN,

    I am not talking about the IPCC, I’m talking about the actual research and conclusions. You need to develop the skill of looking at people’s work, critically evaluating it and merging the supportable information into a broad picture. Playing the maverick will get you nowhere ultimately as there is no single factor that drives Climate Change, not even CO2. I think it was Roosevelt who said that “the future will be moulded by great complexifiers, not great simplifiers”, a truth that I accept whole heartedly.

    “.” you really are one of Murdoch’s greatest achievements. It only occurred to me a while ago that this “.” is the button mushroom symbol. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit, the Murdoch way.

  146. .

    “.” you really are one of Murdoch’s greatest achievements. It only occurred to me a while ago that this “.” is the button mushroom symbol. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit, the Murdoch way.

    You are deluded, you are also paranoid to boot.

    You don’t understand statistics. You are making shit up.

    The trend is cooling, the satellite data says so.

    We will not be burdened with a tax because you are incompetent and believe trends exist where they can shown statistically not to exist.

    The idea that you can invoke the unholy name of da ebil murdoch to win shows how baseless your ideas are.

    To be frank, I couldn’t care if Murdoch died and his family went bust and were all destitute.

  147. BilB

    BoN,

    Sorry for the “develop the skill for” expression. I’m sure you have all of the skills and knowledge and more. What I wanted to say was “adopt the approach of”.

  148. .

    No BilB, you have no skill for this. You believe knowledge of time series analysis is a sign from god that da ebil murdoch is involved.

    You are embarrassing yourself you twit.

    Your deduction there is a warming trend is on par with divination through entrails (haruspicy).

    You are incorrect, and statistical theory says why.

    The satellite data confirms the trend, that satellite data shows a 14 year cooling trend, where other sources show a slightly longer trend of 17 years.

  149. cohenite

    Cohenite

    “BilB – Why can’t I get through to you?”

    I’m not trying to get through to you; that’s poor old Bruce’s job; he sees good in everyone; I think you’re a dickhead.

    But let’s have some fun; look at Figure 18 from Wunsch again.

    This graph clearly shows a flattening or slight cooling in the upper 100 meters since 2004 which is in agreement with the cooling reported by Lyman (2014). It also shows the upper 700 meters has cooled since 2009. The clincher is Wunsch finds the deep layers [at 2000 meters] exhibit a clear cooling trend for the past 2 decades. 2 things about that: firstly the deep layers contain twice as much heat as the upper 100 meters; secondly, Wunsch states deep ocean trends must be viewed as part of the ocean’s long term memory which is still responding to meteorological forcing of decades to thousands of years ago. That is a direct contradiction to AGW which says the deep ocean is warming [wrong] due to recent AGW.

    I mean how stupid are you bilby? Someone has got to Wunsch and he’s back-pedalling.

  150. BilB

    Is this some of that satellite data you are referring to

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20140121/

    “.”? (a button mushroom with one ear)

  151. Bruce of Newcastle

    You need to develop the skill of looking at people’s work, critically evaluating it and merging the supportable information into a broad picture.

    I do that all the time. I haven’t yet come across a climateer paper which I can’t take apart. That’s because I understand data and science. I ought to since that’s been my job for several decades.

    Fallacious argument from authority does not cut the mustard. Put up a paper and I’ll point out what is wrong with it. I have stayed out of your discussion with Cohenite as he has been addressing that particular paper and the associated press reports. I’ve not read the paper myself, but as I said the actual ocean heat content data shows the oceans are no longer warming. This corroborates the low sensitivity hypothesis and does not support the high sensitivity hypothesis.

  152. Bruce of Newcastle

    BilB – The title says “NASA Finds 2013 Sustained Long-Term Climate Warming Trend”.

    We all agree. Yep, sure has been. As I linked for you earlier, the Sun peaked in activity in about 2004, the highest in 3,000 years. Other papers I have to hand say ‘highest for 1,200 years’ and “highest for 9,400 years’.

    Its not due to CO2, which is the reason why the last decade has been cooling.

    I was amused when GISS handed the directorship to Gavin Schmidt after Jim Hansen retired. Classic hospital pass. Real Climate, which is Gavin’s baby, is a pure Soviet style propaganda outlet complete with censorship.

  153. egg_

    If the climate model is fucked, blame someone for having less”perception” than you

    When the signal-to-noise ratio is below 1, as is the case in climate modelling, all scenarios are possible.

  154. Indigo

    Obama goes on his 2 week summer holiday in Maine today. Let us hope for lots of rain and cold, so he can get a foretaste of the future.

  155. BilB

    BoN,

    I directed you to the warming over solar activity overlay correlation and you have not responded to that. This correlation clearly demonstrates the departure of global average temperatures from direct solar influence. Your direct solar link argument is false based on the evidence. The connection to the CO2/H2O energy trapping cycle is true and undeniably evident when the heat build up is seen against the marginally declining solar energy input and the pattern and timing of that decline.

    Here is a NASA comment on the subject, but the important comment is that NASA uses the science of the interaction of CO2 with infrared radiation in many of their processes. This property is scientifically quantified in both the laboratory and the environment.

    “Certain facts about Earth’s climate are not in dispute:

    The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

    Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.”

    I can understand your reluctance to study this as it demolishes the bulk of your cooling platform, even though in just a handful of years any argument will be futile against the evidence.

  156. .

    Why are you discussing statistics when you didn’t even understand variance increases in a time series as t increases?

    Please. You argued from authority because you reasoned you had better “perception”, maaan.

  157. cohenite

    the warming over solar activity overlay correlation and you have not responded to that. This correlation clearly demonstrates the departure of global average temperatures from direct solar influence.

    More bullshit. An elegant and simple statistical analysis proves that wrong; it’s here. The relevant Figures are numbers 4-7 which show the strong correlation with all major temperature indices, including GISS, with the described solar effect.

    The solar effect is based on the mean or equilibrium value of 1366W=m2 which forcing is the basis of all IPCC forcing scenarios. Simply put when the solar forcing is below that temperatures will decrease at a rate depending on whether the TSI is moving further away from the equilibrium or moving towards it; and vice-versa for TSI above the equilibrium. The statistical correlation is astounding and it is a pity Stockwell’s thesis is not more widely known.

  158. Bruce of Newcastle

    I directed you to the warming over solar activity overlay correlation and you have not responded to that. This correlation clearly demonstrates the departure of global average temperatures from direct solar influence.

    You did? I must have misunderstood your argument. If so, sorry.

    I never said that solar influence was the only driver. I said that solar influence is the most important, and ocean cycles are the next most important and CO2 (and everything else) describes the residual.

    Whenever you do multiple regression, especially multiple non-linear regression, you will not always see a direct relationship with each variable. But do the stats and you will see the significance come out.

    I drew your attention to a paper which shows the overall effect of the Sun. If you examine that, and confirm the relationship which I have done here, you will see it explains about 45% of the total warming last century. Since it is based on data with no possible terrestrial cause the onus is on you to explain it.

    Also while you are at it you might wish to explain the pause, which the low sensitivity mechanism does explain.

    Its the Sun, BilB. And the oceans. CO2 does only a small amount.

  159. BilB

    Did you actually read Stockwell’s piece Cohenite? I haven’t finished but there are a number of observations that leads me to think that Stockwell is having a lend of us. The glaring one is that Stockwell introduced a volcanic forcing and given it some amazing properties which in his mind completely explains the fact that Global biosphere energy content is moving in the opposite direction to the solar variability.

    Another interesting observation is that Stockwell has modelled a staircase global temperature rise consisting of 6 steps which cause a short hiatus of temperature rise before ending in a new rise of global temperatures. In this manner he has effectively predicted that the current hiatus will result in a new rise in global temperatures.

    The third observation is that having attributed all of the increase in global temperature to the sum of solar forcing and his very dynamic volcanic forcing with no significant forcing to CO2 (the one environmental factor that has changed out of all proportion), he fails to consider why global temperatures did not blow out in the 100 years prior and in the 100 years prior to that, despite there being a regular number of volcanic eruptions and supposedly an earlier more energetic sun.

    With huge gashes in his basic logic Stockwell has not supplied a plausible explanation for the observed changes in Global Average temperatures, in my opinion. David Evan’s attempt to use the filter analogy to make a link between climate change and TSI is even more fanciful.

  160. MemoryVault

    BilB
    #1412646, posted on August 11, 2014 at 5:03 pm

    not supplied a plausible explanation for the observed changes in Global Average temperatures, in my opinion.

    Bilby, here is a short history lesson.
    Up until global cooling hysteria took over in the late seventies, which was then replaced by global warming hysteria in the eighties, it was observed, and therefore taught as fact, that global temperatures rose and fell in roughly 30 year cycles, and these cycles, in turn, fell into longer cycles of warming and cooling. That is how I learned it in junior high school in 1966.

    In fact, at that time the official definition of “climate” was “the observed trend, or change in weather patterns over a fixed period, traditionally 30 years”. Thus we had warming from (roughly) 1850 to 1880, cooling from 1880 to 1910, warming from 1910 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1966 when I was in class, and a reasonable expectation that the cooling would end sometime around 1970, followed by predicted warming from 1970 to around 2000, when it would start cooling again.

    It was also obvious that each warming 30 year period was a little warmer than the previous one, which was perfectly natural and expected, as we were on a longer warming cycle, coming out of the LIA. About the only thing in doubt at the time, was whether the cooling due to start in 2000, was just another one in the continuing longer warming cycle, or whether it marked the transition into a long cycle period of cooling.

    This all shows up perfectly clearly on a graph of the raw data.

    That is how it was understood and taught 46 years ago, Bilby, and NOTHING that has happened in the intervening half-century suggests anything BUT those natural cycles we were taught about all that time ago, is happening now.

    The way science works, Bilby, is that the status quo remains the perceived wisdom, until somebody DEMONSTRATES it is wrong, and offers a better explanation for what is observed to be happening.

    It is not up to skeptics to “supply a plausible explanation” for something we have already had a “plausible explanation” for, for over 150 years. It is up to YOU to demonstrate that the natural, cyclical explanation is wrong.

    To date, neither you, nor Demosthenes, nor any warming cultist, including your High Priest “Climate Scientists, has managed to do so. Ergo, the cyclical nature of climate remains the default position.

  161. BilB

    So that is your problem then, Memory Vault, you don’t know how to introduce new understandings into your perception of nature. “It wasn’t there when I was learning so it can’t exist now”. That explains why you don’t get the whole CO2 mechanism and how a small influence can have a compounding effect on the natural cycles.

  162. Bruce of Newcastle

    and how a small influence can have a compounding effect on the natural cycles.

    Yes.

    Its the Sun and the oceans BilB. An ECS of ~0.7 C/doubling is completely harmless, except to climate scammers.

  163. Bruce of Newcastle

    And looky here another one just today.

    New paper finds multiple solar amplification mechanisms which modulate winter surface temperatures

    My file of solar amplification papers is getting rather unwieldy, I’m going to have to add some sub-subfolders to my subfolders.

    You should bail out BilB, your plane is going dooowwwnnnn….

  164. MemoryVault

    “It wasn’t there when I was learning so it can’t exist now”. That explains why you don’t get the whole CO2 mechanism and how a small influence can have a compounding effect on the natural cycles.

    Bilby, if you want me to believe something new and different exists, then you have to be able to present me with evidence of it; some discernible and/or measurable effect of the new thing.

    I demonstrated, using hard, measured data, that NOTHING untoward has happened or changed since 1850, when we came out of the LIA. The 30 year pattern of warming and cooling has not changed; the rate of warming and cooling in those 30 year cycles has not changed; the gradual warming over a longer cycle has not changed, the rate of gradual increased warming over that longer warming cycle has not changed.

    In short, you have presented absolutely no evidence that there is ANY influence, large or small, that has had a “compounding effect on the natural cycles”. The natural cycles have not changed. ERGO, there is nothing influencing them.

  165. cohenite

    Did you actually read Stockwell’s piece Cohenite?

    Not only that but I had a yarn to him; we’re both flummoxed by your cut and paste; it’s delirious. The volcanoes coincidentally occur at the peaks of the solar cycles which is interesting. As for this:

    Another interesting observation is that Stockwell has modelled a staircase global temperature rise consisting of 6 steps which cause a short hiatus of temperature rise before ending in a new rise of global temperatures. In this manner he has effectively predicted that the current hiatus will result in a new rise in global temperatures.

    David and I were both scratching our heads until it occurred to us that you were maybe referring to an earlier paper by him about steps or breaks in the temperature trend. Anyway David has no idea what you are talking about with the 6 steps; wasn’t it an Alfred Hitchcock movie?

    Finally this:

    he fails to consider why global temperatures did not blow out in the 100 years prior and in the 100 years prior to that, despite there being a regular number of volcanic eruptions and supposedly an earlier more energetic sun.

    clearly indicates you haven’t understood the variation from equilibrium irradiance which David discusses.

    I think you can be safely dismissed now as an energetic but otherwise run of the mill alarmist troll.

  166. BilB

    MV,

    No one is disputing the cycles. Your graph from what ever data set clearly shows 30 year cycles. What you are failing to register is that the graph also shows a 1 degree increase in temperature over the period. You need now, to have any credibility in your argument, to demonstrate what happened in the previous 150 year period, and what will happen in the next 150 year period.

  167. BilB

    Cohenite, I think that it is “delirious” that “David” doesn’t seem to be familiar with his own paper. Go look at it again.

    Here is the scenario from another source it shows global average temperature breaking away from close tracking of TSI. Your David attempted to argue this away with a volcanic climatic influence. The problem with that is that volcanoes have the opposite effect which he showed but the claimed a mystical cumulative effect.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif

    All of this is an attempt to pretend that CO2 has no climatic effect at all. The problem you have with that is shown here

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/16/Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg/600px-Sunspot-temperature-10000yr.svg.png

    where periodically average global temperatures and the TSI diverge. This creates a major problem for the “pending ice age” proponents.

  168. cohenite

    You’re a fucking hypocrite bilby; when I argued that Wunsch was contracting his own paper you, well you did fuck all, except repeat your bullshit. Now you’re saying Stockwell doesn’t know what is in his own paper!

    You’re a loon mate. The volcanic forcing is included in Stockwell due to the small increase in fit that it gives, and the majority of the increase in temperature last century (and the recent pause) is explained by the solar model. The large eruptions last century coincided with the peaks of solar cycles and so (by chance) may have obscured the magnitude of solar warming – hence the increase in fit.

    Have you got that dimwit?

    The rest of your comment about a staircase rise seems to be copied and pasted from somewhere that is also not a correct representation of the break models. The staircase models is one of a number of possible break models that is less plausible than the solar accumulation model. Stockwell has written papers on both and is in a good position to judge.

    When you correlate the response of global temperature through multiple time scales going back 100s, 1000s, 10,000s to millions of years you see a remarkable correlation to accumulated solar, not direct solar influence. Stockwell argues for a system that is highly sensitive or easily modified by or via some factor related to changes in solar radiation, and not so sensitive to GHGs. What a surprise.

    FFS.

  169. MemoryVault

    You need now, to have any credibility in your argument, to demonstrate what happened in the previous 150 year period, and what will happen in the next 150 year period.

    No Bilby, I don’t have to demonstrate anything. It is YOU who is claiming “something different” is now happening/will happen, so it is up to YOU to demonstrate what, where, when and why. To date you have not produced one shred of observed or measured data that measurably deviates from the natural 30 year cycle, to back up your claim.

    You ask: “what happened in the previous 150 year period, and what will happen in the next 150 year period”. I’m beginning to think one of us has a problem, Bilby. Either I’m too dumb to express myself in plain English, or you’re too stupid to comprehend it.

    I wrote: “global temperatures rose and fell in roughly 30 year cycles, and these cycles, in turn, fell into longer cycles of warming and cooling”. I also wrote: “a reasonable expectation that the cooling would end sometime around 1970, followed by predicted warming from 1970 to around 2000, when it would start cooling again”. Finally, I also wrote: “About the only thing in doubt at the time, was whether the cooling due to start in 2000, was just another one in the continuing longer warming cycle, or whether it marked the transition into a long cycle period of cooling”.

    What happened prior to the last 150 years is a matter of historical fact. We had a cool period known as the Little Ice Age, which nonetheless appears to have been made up of roughly 30 year cyclical periods of warming and cooling. Prior to that we had the Medieval Warm Period, ditto on the apparent cycles within. Prior to that was the Roman Warm Optimum, and prior to that was yet another cooling period. Seeing a pattern, Bilby?

    As to what will happen over the next 150 years, I don’t have a clue, and I have already said so. I never claimed the longer cycles of warming and cooling followed a 150 year trend. The cooling from now to 2030 may just be another lull in the overall warming period that started 150 years ago. Or it may mark the downward turning point into another longer cooling cycle. I don’t know, and as far as I can see, neither does anybody else.

    However, since miniscule but varying amounts of atmospheric CO2 have failed to make a discernible impact over the last 150 years, I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet that it won’t have a measurable effect in the next 150. Or the 150 after that.

  170. BilB

    This is what you have to explain, MV,

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1976%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif

    97% of scientists accept that CO2 IR capture and the hydrological cycle are responsible for this separation of the global average temperature from the close tracking of the solar cycle pattern and the basis of that confidence comes from many empirical studies such as

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

    As you and a handful of other scientists prefer to ignore these studies, then you have to come with with believable alternative proof.

    Stockwell’s paper is not a proof of anything, and worse it is a MODEL, sacrilegious to Catallaxians and JoNovians. It is time for denialists to come up with something based on physical principles verifiable with measurements (not the lazy approach of reanalysis of other scientists work). What would be convincing would be an experiment that proved that CO2 has no effect on Infrared Radiation at all, as you repeatedly claim.

    Go for it. Show the world that denialists are in fact real scientists.

  171. JC

    Bilby

    Still going on with the religious awakening? What of :-

    the models don’t from the actual data, which means they’re fucked,

    don’t you understand, you clown.

  172. Tom

    Bilby, sorry, if you have to keep using the denialist insult, you’re telling everyone you have no case.

    The hypothesis is garbage. It relies on junk (junk-in models, etc) and doctoring of the observed data record.

    Your heroes are crooks.

  173. cohenite

    What would be convincing would be an experiment that proved that CO2 has no effect on Infrared Radiation at all, as you repeatedly claim.

    I don’t claim that you dickhead; go away and try to understand Beer-Lambert’s Law.

  174. MemoryVault

    This is what you have to explain, MV,

    No Bilby, I don’t have to explain anything. I have already demonstrated, using empirical evidence, that there is nothing unusual happening regarding global temperatures. YOU are claiming otherwise, despite a total lack of empirical evidence. It is YOU who has to explain.

    Next you post a link to a graph purporting to show a divergence between global temperatures and sunspot activity. So what? Where did I mention sunspot activity, or invoke it to claim anything?

    97% of scientists accept that CO2 IR capture and the hydrological cycle are responsible for this . . . .

    No they don’t, Bilby. I work with REAL scientists. Industrial chemists, metallurgists, biologists and the like. I don’t know any REAL scientists who believe ANY of the “global warming” crap. What you are actually trying to say is “97% of CLIMATE scientists accept . . . “. Most “climate scientists” are not REAL scientists (don’t have a PhD), and the few that do, don’t have a PhD in “Climate Science”. It is a meaningless statistic.

    Next you link to a “study” (and I use the term in its loosest possible sense) and claim it to be an example – just one of many – of an “empirical study”, which somehow proves your point. Okay, let’s open it:

    Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

    Do you know what the word “inferred” means, Bilby? Obviously not. Well, I can assure you the meaning is a long way from “empirical”. I’ll put it as simply as I can for you, since I’m now convinced you’re a simpleton. “Empirical” means MEASURED. “Inferred” means “we think . . . “. Can you see the difference, Bilby? No, I thought not.

    But wait! It’s even worse than we first thought! The inference STARTS with the assumption that CO2 is having a major effect on global temperatures. But isn’t that exactly what we have been debating? That there IS no evidence of CO2 having ANY effect?

    Next you write:

    As you and a handful of other scientists prefer to ignore these studies, then you have to come with with believable alternative proof.

    For a start I’m not a scientist, I’m an engineer. And yet I have never employed anything more complex than basic high school maths, chemistry and physics in my debates. I haven’t had to.

    Yes, I prefer to ignore a study that starts off with the assumption (without proof) that CO2 is affecting the atmosphere, finds an interesting apparent anomaly with regards to the atmosphere, credits the anomaly to CO2, and then claims the anomaly is caused by the original assumption that CO2 affects the atmosphere, and thereby “proves” the original assumption that CO2 is affecting the atmosphere. If we engineers employed such ridiculous circular reasoning, you would still be living in a cave.

    I could go on, Bilby, but I’m afraid I’ve become bored with the whole thing. NOTHING is happening outside of the bounds of the natural, cyclical variations in climate. Basically that’s the beginning and end of the story. You certainly have not been able to demonstrate otherwise. The whole “man-made CO2 is killing the planet” is a thoroughly discredited load of bunk.

  175. BilB

    Cohenite,

    CO2′s role in Global Warming is less about incoming radiation Beer-Lambert’s Law, and mostly about backscatter radiation which is at different frequencies. It is about the cascade of photon interactions of absorption and re-emission with CO2, H2O and CH4 as energy works its way from the surface materials and eventually back out into space. The lower atmosphere energy residency time increases temperature and the H2O acts to energise atmospheric circulation.

    MV,

    If you do actually work with all of these clever people then it should be quite easy for your network to define an experiment to prove your beliefs. I have a starting suggestion of a pressurized chamber (500 psi), with a central IR emitting sphere, and into starting gasses of nitrogen and oxygen, CO2 initially is slowly injected followed later by H2O and CH4 as energy transmission and energy balance measurements are made. Rinse and repeat for various emission frequencies, gas combinations and specific conditions. Or some other experiment to quantify the effective energy transmission rate through a CO2 doped gas mixture, This should not be hard for a bunch of smart (I presume minerals and fossil energy) guys.

    I for one would be thrilled if you could actually prove conclusively that CO2 is benign in the atmosphere, putting Svante Arrhenius’s theory to bed finally. We can then get on with the task of decarbonising our energy system for all of the other reasons, especially extending the useful life of our fossil fuels, and do this with urgency and care for animals.

  176. cohenite

    CO2′s role in Global Warming is less about incoming radiation Beer-Lambert’s Law, and mostly about backscatter radiation which is at different frequencies.

    You don’t know what you are talking about; Beers Law acts on radiation coming from both up and down in the atmosphere because absorption and reemission operates continuously and in layers in the atmosphere; it is responsible for the log decline in the heat effect of additional CO2 which means as you add more CO2 there is an exponentially declining heating effect; 90% of the heating effect of CO2 occurs before levels of 100PPM.

    This effect is not included in AGW modelling which assumes a runaway effect and unlimited heating; it is a nonsense to say that more CO2 will cause unlimited heating but that is what AGW says and Beer Lambert’s law contradicts it as new research shows.

  177. BilB

    Wrong, Cohenite, Beer-Lamberts measurement technique specifically excludes scattered radiation.

    AGW does not at all say that “more CO2 will cause unlimited heating”. What it does argue is that as the temperature goes up secondary effects may well cause more heating in different ways such as the release of Arctic Clathrates causing greater heating in that area which in turn accelerates the release of more methane from the permafrost.

    Secondly your “new reasearch” link is to a highly controversial and now discredited 1971 paper

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/09/23/to-rasool/

    And your 90% of heating claim (graph) I suspect is also false and may well have come from the Rasool Schnieder paper. I will look into that.

  178. BilB

    I had to smile earlier. The Spanish news was showing outdoors late Summer in Andolucia while outside my factory it is effectively early summer, Western Sydney. That is weather. But the massive high pressure system sitting over the country and stretching all of the way from the Equator to half way to Antarctica, that is climate.

    Ice age…..? I’m not seeing it,yet!

  179. MemoryVault

    cohenite

    What it does argue is that as the temperature goes up secondary effects may well cause more heating in different ways such as the release of Arctic Clathrates causing greater heating in that area which in turn accelerates the release of more methane from the permafrost.

    Be honest, Cohenite.
    You just HAVE to admire the scientific preciseness of his argument.

  180. .

    BilB
    #1415344, posted on August 13, 2014 at 12:05 pm
    I had to smile earlier. The Spanish news was showing outdoors late Summer in Andolucia while outside my factory it is effectively early summer, Western Sydney. That is weather. But the massive high pressure system sitting over the country and stretching all of the way from the Equator to half way to Antarctica, that is climate.

    Ice age…..? I’m not seeing it,yet!

    You twit, Sydney has a sub tropical climate.

  181. MemoryVault

    Oh noes.
    Methane clathrates gonna destroy the world cos of all the warming that hasn’t been for the last 18 years.
    Forget us “denialists” Bilby. You better let the IPCC know.

    From the AR5 Report, with reference to methane clathrate release (fourth item from top):

    Very unlikely that methane from clathrates will undergo catastrophic release (high confidence)

    Emphasis in original IPCC Table.

  182. MemoryVault

    Sorry – forgot link. Wouldn’t want you having to take the word of a “denialist”.

  183. BilB

    The take away issues there, MV, are that the IPCC is very watered down to make it palatable for denialist governments, and the effect is irreversible for millennia. The prospect not considered by the IPCC is that a major earthquake on the fault line across the Arctic ocean can trigger an explosive clathrate release. The primary slow release is already well underway so it seems that we will be finding out in our life time what this kind of event actually feels like. We will be living through a once in several hundred thousand year global change event with whatever consequences that will bring. There will at least be plenty of witnesses to the events as they unfold.

    http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/earthquake-hits-laptev-sea.html

  184. JC

    Shut up bilby. Go rent a scare movie and frighten yourself to death that way, you fucking dickhead. Let me repeat again… the models don’t agree with the actual data which means the gerbil warming theory is fucked. You can now try to frighten the shit out of young kiddies with:

    the fault line across the Arctic ocean can trigger an explosive clathrate release.

    You fucking beta idiot.

  185. cohenite

    MV, this guy is implacable.

    Wrong, Cohenite, Beer-Lamberts measurement technique specifically excludes scattered radiation.

    Really? You have a link I presume? I always like to read ground-breaking work.

    AGW does not at all say that “more CO2 will cause unlimited heating”.

    Tell that to Jim Hansen and his Venus Syndrome.

    Some quotes from Hansen:

    it gets warmer and warmer then the oceans begin to evaporate and water vapor is a very strong green house gas, even more powerful than carbon dioxide. So you can get to a situation where, it just, the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, and that happened to Venus

    Runaway Greenhouse has always been part of AGW theory but keep showing your ignorance bilby.

    I look forward to your link about Beer-Lambert and scattered radiation; or anything really.

  186. Tel

    Ice melting in the arctic despite global cooling

    That’s called summer, it ends in a few more weeks and the ice starts freezing again.

    Anyone for bets on who sails the Northwest Passage this year?

  187. Gab

    Ice melting in the arctic despite global cooling

    What?! Ice is not allowed to melt these days without the science deniers claiming it is globule warmening? Idiots.

  188. Bruce of Newcastle

    Sure doesn’t look like the Arctic is melting to me. Looks like the ice extent is increasing. Its 4th highest of the last 13 years.

    Trouble with climateers is all they can do is linear trends. Arctic sea ice extent is a cycle, like the all the rest.

  189. BilB

    Yup BoN,

    Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2013 : http://youtu.be/9OBCXWAHo5I

    That really looks like a bounce back. Good technique, limit the view to a scale that tells the story you want to see, if only the real world would do the same.

  190. Tom

    Maurice Newman has a thoughtful piece on this subject in today’s Oz looking at the political and economic troubles we’d face in adapting to the opposite of glowbull warmening hysteria:

    WHAT if David Archibald’s book The Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short turns out to be right? What if the past 50 years of peace, cheap energy, abundant food, global economic growth and population explosion have been due to a temporary climate phenomenon?
    What if the warmth the world has enjoyed for the past 50 years is the result of solar activity, not man-made CO2?
    In a letter to the editor of Astronomy & Astrophysics, IG Usoskin et al produced the “first fully ¬adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity”. They found that during the past 3000 years the modern grand maxima, which occurred between 1959 and 2009, was a rare event both in magnitude and duration. This research adds to growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans.
    Yet during the past 20 years the US alone has poured about $US80 billion into climate change research on the presumption that humans are the primary cause. The effect has been to largely preordain scientific conclusions. It set in train a virtuous cycle where the more scientists pointed to human causes, the more governments funded their research.
    At the same time, like primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods, many governments, including Australia’s former Labor government, used the biased research to pursue “green” gesture politics. This has inflicted serious damage on economies and diminished the West’s standing and effectiveness in world ¬affairs.
    University of Pennsylvania professor of psychology Philip Tetlock explains: “When journal reviewers, editors and funding agencies feel the same way about a course, they are less likely to detect and correct potential logical or methodological bias.” How true. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its acolytes pay scant attention to any science, however strong the empirical evidence, that may relegate human causes to a lesser status.
    This mindset sought to bury the results of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark’s experiments using the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator. For the first time in controlled conditions, Svensmark’s hypothesis that the sun alters the climate by influencing cosmic ray influx and cloud formation was validated. The head of CERN, which runs the laboratory, obviously afraid of how this heretical conclusion would be received within the global warming establishment, urged caution be used in interpreting the results “in this highly political area of climate change debate”. And the media obliged.
    But Svensmark is not alone. For example, Russian scientists at the Pulkovo Observatory are convinced the world is in for a cooling period that will last for 200-250 years. Respected Norwegian solar physicist Pal Brekke warns temperatures may actually fall for the next 50 years. Leading British climate scientist Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830), which included “the year without summer”, is “more likely than not”. In their book The Neglected Sun , Sebastian Luning and Fritz Varen¬holt think that temperatures could be two-tenths of a degree Celsius cooler by 2030 because of a predicted anaemic sun. They say it would mean “warming getting postponed far into the future”.
    If the world does indeed move into a cooling period, its citizens are ill-prepared. After the 2008 fin¬ancial crisis, most economies are still struggling to recover. Cheap electricity in a colder climate will be critical, yet distorted price signals caused by renewable energy policies are driving out reliable baseload generators. Attracting fresh investment will be difficult, expensive and slow.
    Only time will tell, but it is fanciful to believe that it will be business as usual in a colder global climate. A war-weary world’s response to recent events in the Middle East, Russia’s excursion into the Crimea and Ukraine and China’s annexation of air space over Japan’s Senkaku/Daioyu Islands has so far been muted. It is interesting to contemplate how the West would handle the geopolitical and humanitarian challenges brought on by a colder climate’s shorter growing seasons and likely food shortages. Abundance is conducive to peace. However, a scenario where nations are desperately competing for available energy and food will bring unpredictable threats, far more testing than anything we have seen in recent history.
    During the past seven years, Australia has largely fallen into line with Western priorities and redistributive policies. It is reminiscent of a family that has inherited a vast fortune constantly fighting over the legacy but showing little interest in securing the future.
    However, a country that is so rich in nature’s gifts should not be complacent or assume that in other circumstances there will not be adversaries prepared to take what we have.
    But, in times of peace and when government debts and deficits are growing daily, it is hard to persuade voters to trade off immediate benefits for increased defence spending, let alone prepare them, after all the warming propaganda, that global cooling is a possibility.
    Yet the global warming pause is now nearly 18 years old and, as climate scientist Judith Curry says, “attention is moving away from the pause to the cooling since 2002”. Anastasios Tsonis, who leads the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, talks of “massive rearrangements in the dominant pattern of the weather”.
    But the political establishment is deaf to this. Having put all our eggs in one basket and having made science a religion, it bravely persists with its global warming narrative, ignoring at its peril and ours, the clear warnings being given by Mother Nature.
    Voltaire was right when he said: “Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy, the mad daughter of a wise mother. These daughters have too long dominated the Earth.” Indeed.
    Maurice Newman is chairman of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Council. The views expressed here are his own.

  191. .

    BilB
    #1416303, posted on August 14, 2014 at 6:48 am
    Yup BoN,

    Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Volumes 1979-2013 : http://youtu.be/9OBCXWAHo5I

    That really looks like a bounce back. Good technique, limit the view to a scale that tells the story you want to see, if only the real world would do the same.

    ???

    As opposed to arbitrarily picking the starting point?!

  192. Bruce of Newcastle

    That really looks like a bounce back. Good technique, limit the view to a scale that tells the story you want to see, if only the real world would do the same.

    BilB – I linked to you the official Arctic sea ice extent data from the Japanese equivalent of NASA. They have a practical interest in such things because Hokkaido can be surrounded in sea ice some years.

    Are you saying the Japanese are lying?

    You are nuts.

  193. Tel

    Are you saying the Japanese are lying?

    You are nuts.

    Given the predominant data adjustment that is the hallmark of climate science, I’d be reluctant to trust any of them.

    That said, WUWT links to a large number of public sources, including the Danes who are clearly showing the recent uptick.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

  194. BilB

    I’m not saying that at all, BoN. The overlay graph is that same data from used in all of the presentations, including the ice block visualisation (source information is stated in the expanded information pane of the youtube video), only the overlay covers 12 years and the animation covers 34 years. Also the overlay graph is ice extent and the animation is ice volume.

    Furthermore the tundra permafrost is thawing in patches. That means that the polar influence is receding significantly. These are all changes that are beyond the influence spectrum of 60 year cycles.

    http://www.livescience.com/37359-nasa-carve-thawing-permafrost-gas.html

    This is the most informative graph. It shows the solar cycles and the atmospheric reaction to them, but it also shows the influence of CO2 on global air temperatures whilst also showing how a very weak solar cycle has reduced the rate of increase largely balancing the effect of the CO2, at least as far as the atmosphere is concerned.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadCRUT4%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1976%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif

    However there is no leveling off of CO2 emissions, we just keep adding more emissions each year as more of the worlds population gain access to energy assistance for their lives, and those who already have high levels of energy consumption just want ever more no matter how wasteful that is.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type.png

    So where a late and very weak solar cycle 24 has reduced the growth of the global average temperatures the effect of evermore CO2 will steadily overwhelm the suppressed TSI and the positive growth of average global surface temperatures will return. When the solar cycle returns to the strength of the last few cycles then the global surface temperatures can be expected to spike up wards sharply. That is how I see it, and the next 10 years will layout our future climate with absolute certainty.

  195. Bruce of Newcastle

    BilB, I will summarise.

    2004 was the highest peak in solar activity for 9,400 years.

    2007 was the peak of the AMO. It was the low point in Arctic sea ice extent. The AMO controls sea ice extent when the Sun isn’t controlling it.

    Both have now switched direction to cooling phases, so Arctic sea ice is rebounding. CO2 has a small effect. Soot probably has a larger effect on sea ice extent than CO2 does – remember all the green diesel vehicles the enviros wanted us to drive? Well they’ve been melting the Arctic.

    If I were you I wouldn’t be planning a boat trip throught the NW Passage for about another 60 years.

  196. cohenite

    Where’s the fucking info about Beer Lambert bilby; and what about Hansen and runaway? You’re full of bullshit; as for the Arctic ice, it was at its peak in 1979 according to FAR, figure 7.19 on page 224, and has decreased during the +ve Phase of the PDO until recently.

  197. BilB

    The problem you have with your cycle approach, BoN, is extent issues. You cannot demonstrate a rhythmic system that explains the present Arctic activity. The AMO cycle is all about the speed of the Atlantic Conveyor on which water frm the Indian Ocean takes 30 years to reach the Arctic. The pattern of ice loss does not match the available energy from your “model”.

  198. Bruce of Newcastle

    You cannot demonstrate a rhythmic system that explains the present Arctic activity.

    Yes I can. Amazing correlation don’t you think?

    Its the official data, links in the description below the graphs.

    The cyclic nature of the AMO is visible in the data for over a thousand years and is related to the thermohaline cycle…which is what the great conveyer belt is.

    Anyway, as I said there are four things at least which drive Arctic sea ice extent: Sun, AMO, soot and CO2 in order of importance. Only two of these are cyclical, with quite different cycles.

    Also, btw, global sea ice extent is above average. How do you explain that? CO2 is supposed to cause global warming not global cooling…right?

  199. BilB

    That does not explain anything, BoN. As I have pointed out many times for your oscillation to be a workable theory and not just the coincidence that it is you need to show in the history of the Arctic evidence of over two thirds of the Arctic ice mass disappearing in a regular fashion. That evidence is not there at all. You have no explanation of where that energy came from and why it got to the Arctic on this supposed cycle, but not on past cycles. Your argument is further weakened by your insistence that CO2 has a minimal effect on retaining energy that would otherwise be lost to space in the short term. Your theory does not hold up to scrutiny.

    It occurred to me that there is another significant influence affecting temperatures that fits and complements the temp growth slow down, and that is the immense amount of aerosol material being generated from China. The ramp up rate of that excessive release fits the decline curve of the softened solar influence as it is continuous and increasing different to that of volcanic aerosols. I will attempt to find a quantitative study on that to see if that has sufficient impact to affect the global average temperature figure.

  200. BilB

    On the last thing. Ice mass and thickness are the key indicators of energy flow for that region. The extent is a function of other things. 2012 was a milestone minimum extent and mass due to storm activity. I think that 2 years later is too short a period to start to talk about a rebound particularly when you see that in context of the gradient and range of the trend graph, as shown here

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_range_ice-ext.png

  201. Bruce of Newcastle

    You have no explanation of where that energy came from and why it got to the Arctic on this supposed cycle, but not on past cycles

    Oh good grief. BilB, the Arctic sea ice extent data is from the satellite age. There weren’t any before the seventies. How am I supposed to show you cycles that there were no satellites to measure? The cycle is 62 years long! I showed you two cycles of the AMO and the half cycle of data available on sea ice extent, which correlates perfectly AND I linked you to a paper which shows the correlation in a peer reviewed study in a top climate journal. AND I linked you to another paper in the same top climate journal which shows the cycle is persistent. Do I have to count square centimetres of ice cover manually with a ruler? Sheesh.

    I will point you to some data which does exist, though. That is the Arctic sea ice extent satellite data from 1972. The online data set is only from 1979 but in the IPCC AR2 report they had data from 1972.

    You will see that Arctic sea ice extent rose from 1972 to 1979. Now if you look at the AMO-sea ice extent correlation again you can see that inflexion happened at exactly the point the AMO turned.

    You may keep your head in the sand a few years longer, but the Sun and oceans do the driving, not homo sapiens. I hope you put enough sun block on your bum so you don’t get burned while you are waiting for CO2 to do its thing.

  202. BilB

    I thought you knew all about this stuff, Cohenite.

    Beer Lamberts Law Measurement Prerequisites

    There are at least six conditions that need to be fulfilled in order for Beer’s law to be valid. These are:

    The attenuators must act independently of each other;

    The attenuating medium must be homogeneous in the interaction volume

    The attenuating medium must not scatter the radiation – no turbidity – unless this is accounted for as e.g. in DOAS;

    The incident radiation must consist of parallel rays, each traversing the same length in the absorbing medium;

    The incident radiation should preferably be monochromatic, or have at least a width that is narrower than that of the attenuating transition. Otherwise a spectrometer as detector for the intensity is needed instead of a photodiode which has not a selective wavelength dependence; and

    The incident flux must not influence the atoms or molecules; it should only act as a non-invasive probe of the species under study. In particular, this implies that the light should not cause optical saturation or optical pumping, since such effects will deplete the lower level and possibly give rise to stimulated emission.

    If any of these conditions are not fulfilled, there will be deviations from Beer’s law.

  203. Bruce of Newcastle

    Ah, so they had satellites in 1864?

    Amazing what you learn on the internet. If I want fiction I go to Amazon. Before the satellites went up they had to use ships or, for a short period, planes. Vast over estimation errors.

    Don’t be stupid BilB. The data says the Sun and the oceans are the drivers. Not Karl Marx. Oops, I slipped there.

    You have the wrong horse in the race BilB. Yours is a plastic horse suit with Mike Mann and Al Gore in it. If you want to obtain your ideological aims you have to start with the truth or people will walk away from what you are selling, like disappointed patent medicine customers. That is why guys like Patrick Moore (founder Greenpeace) and James Lovelock (Gaia) have jumped ship from the CAGW bandwagon. They are smart enough to know not to stay on when the wagon is going over a cliff.

  204. BilB

    That reaction and comment is confirmation, BoN, that your “modelling” exercise is all propaganda and not science.

    You’ve just written off as a fiction several hundred years of expertise of the commercial fishermen, whalers, commercial shippers who plied those waters, and you’ve had to discredit this history to protect your fictional cycle theory. The early records had far lower resolution but they do show the trends better than absolute definition, and this is the problem you have, the trends invalidate your whole argument. End of story.

  205. Tel

    http://newsbusters.org/node/6091

    Bill Weir: “That scorching heat across the country, those wildfires in the West, those floods in the Midwest, all that extreme weather brings us to our special series – Global Warming: Global Warning. A new National Academy of Science study says the Earth is hotter now than ever and humans are to blame. Former Vice President Al Gore will join us live in just a moment, but first here’s Bill Blakemore, ABC’s resident expert on global warming.”

    Weather is not climate Bill Weir, you willfully ignorant %$%&##.

  206. Bruce of Newcastle

    What modelling? I graphed the AMO official data and the Arctic sea ice extent official data on the same graph. They lined up like train tracks and that was even without any effort from me. Excel did that itself.

    That’s not modelling, that is just discerning a relationship in the data. Modelling is when you evolve variables to cause an equation to fit a dataset. I do modelling for a crust too, for quite large projects. What I did wasn’t modelling it was what is quaintly known as science (the type without ideology or agenda).

    I can’t fix your brain BilB, only you can do that. But I hope to vaccinate people of the left from following you down. Lies do not work. Eventually the outraged scammees come to get their pound of flesh back.

  207. Bruce of Newcastle

    You’ve just written off as a fiction several hundred years of expertise of the commercial fishermen, whalers, commercial shippers who plied those waters, and you’ve had to discredit this history to protect your fictional cycle theory.

    WTF? Do you understand systemic errors and bias? I had that pounded into my skin no less than five times in three different subjects during university. I suspect they wanted me to internalise it. I did.

    Any time you graft datasets from diverse sources you have to understand the errors. Before 1972 people had rudimentary ideas of what was at the poles. There was no systematic program to measure them since no one had heard of global warming back then. Of course they are biassed high, boats only can get so far then they stop. Captains are biassed against getting stuck in the ice and dying.

    And anyway I have never said temperature has not risen. What I have said with abundant data to support the observation, is that the peak in temperature and the trough in Arctic sea ice are mainly due to the coincident peak in solar activity and the peak in the AMO. Those have now switched to cooling, and as I linked for you Arctic sea ice is recovering.

    You are seriously screwed if you keep on with this purposeful avoidance of the data. It is what it is. I am not making this stuff up. I get paid very good money for just this sort of inference from data and I have many patents because of the use of that skill. CAGW is not supported by the real world data.

    On the other hand I can tell you this for free – modelling pays very very well. I’ve made more doing process modelling than doing science. I can also see why they can get away with it. Well the real world is currently showing the IPCC ensemble models are a pile of stinky crap with no useful skill whatsoever. I hope the modellers can find jobs after they get unceremoniously defunded. Not for their sake mind, for their families. If it were me I’d be happy for those charlatans to be homeless living under bridges.

  208. cohenite

    bilby:

    The attenuating medium must not scatter the radiation – no turbidity – unless this is accounted for as e.g. in DOAS;

    And:

    Wrong, Cohenite, Beer-Lamberts measurement technique specifically excludes scattered radiation

    One of those statements is bullshit and a lie. The applicability of BL to scattering after correction is well known.

    Thus BL can be and is used to calculate emissivity of gases in the atmosphere and the result of this is that CO2 emissivity, the measure of how much radiation the concentration of CO2 absorbs, DECLINES as the concentration increases.

    Even the IPCC concedes that the effect of increasing CO2 has a logarithmic effect on RF. You on the other hand both deny the utility of BL in measuring that effect and the effect itself.

    To the believers in AGW nothing is valid except their belief. Indeed the true measure of a fanatic is their capacity to believe their own lies.

  209. BilB

    Cohenite, As I understand it by product scattered radiation has to be tested individually for its frequency penetration through an attenuating medium. I am not going to argue endlessly against your chest thumping tribalistic attempts to dominate the audience here with your poorly researched ineffective crosshooks. The CO2 saturation argument is false in many ways, but the primary issues are to do with the variation of atmospheric density, convective air circulation, and a complete misunderstanding or what saturation actually means.

    BoN,

    This exchange has been very useful as I have now researched the issues in greater depth, and most significantly from Cohenites jabs I have found a very detailed history of all of the issues covered here. I implore you both to read the essays as you will see much of your own thinking in them along with a wealth of research material, much of which you will recognise.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

  210. Bruce of Newcastle

    BilB – That is a load of rubbish. I can demonstrate the link with the solar cycle with one graph.

    AMO vs solar cycle

    Recall that (a) the AMO is detrended Nth Atlantic sea surface temperature and (b) there are lag/lead relationships between the atmosphere and the oceans. Indeed the probabe cause is more due to UV, which may not be as correlated to sunspots. If you did a wavelet analysis you’d see it stick out like dogs balls (see 7 on the Y axis).

    It is not the barefaced bloody obvious warming that is the issue, it is the cause of the warming, which is mostly the Sun, escpecially if you use a 130 year period corresponding to 2 full ocean cycles as I said above.

    Dr Weart is a lefty Democrat donor warmist contributer to RealClimate who calls climate sceptics “deniers”. He uses papers like LF2007, which I read quite carefully and I can show to you that their conclusions are not supported by their own data (Motl has a post on it too).

    I could go all day fisking my way through Dr Weart’s tomes, but the data I showed you above demonstrates that even ordinary solar cycles cause a 0.1 C swing in SST’s. The secondary effect via GCR’s is much more, which you can see in the pSCL correlation that I used. It explains, with the ocean cycles, about 85% of the temperature rise last century.

  211. Bruce of Newcastle

    Because I can do only 3 links per comment I’ll add these:

    Spencer Weert’s donation history.

    Motl on LF2007.

    Dr Weart’s posts at RC, which with SkS is the worst and most luridly wrong climate blog on the planet. They are intolerant of any comments which are critical of their posts, deleting them immediately no matter how reasonable. Pure propaganda.

    You are really in an echo chamber BilB. I think you need to get out and look at the actual data, not the distorted stuff the Hockey Team excretes.

  212. BilB

    Its just all more of the same from you, BoN.

  213. Bruce of Newcastle

    Its just all more of the same from you, BoN.

    What is that supposed to mean? I look at the data. If you want to go through Dr Weart’s stuff I can do that. There’s lots. But my first look is he dismissed the solar forcing, which having read the papers I can say is most certainly not consistent with the data. Its quite real (my own verification check graph is here), as pointed out by people like Prof Rao who was the Indian space program head and who is an eminent GCR scientist. Any wonder why the Indians aren’t into the CAGW silliness?

    The fact that Dr Weart is in close relationship with RC and has been donating quite a lot to the Democrats means he is politically active and is not the disinterested scientist you made him seem to be. I’ve watched the RC group for a long time, they would not be out of place in the Soviet Union with the way they behave – censorship, propaganda and politics. That immediately puts a question on any material one of their group produces: my propaganda detection antenna get very excited.

  214. Gab

    Its just all more of the same from you, BoN.

    What is that supposed to mean?

    It means he’s a denier, Bruce. A science denialist.

Comments are closed.