7,000 Years Of Global Cooling – Erased By 20 Years Of Junk Science

2016-01-03-09-25-02

Lawrence Journal-World – Google News Archive Search

This was also shown in the 1990 IPCC Report

2016-01-03-10-03-53

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

163 Responses to 7,000 Years Of Global Cooling – Erased By 20 Years Of Junk Science

  1. RAH says:

    They can erase or alter the record but not the reality. Unlike the affairs of man what mother nature does with the climate cannot be erased. Mother nature is ultimately always the winner and the winner writes the history.

    • Gail Combs says:

      That is why those of us who have any understanding of geology shake our heads in wonder. Until the Warmists can explain Heinrich, Dansgaard-Oeschger, and Bond events they can not say CO2 is the ‘control Knob’ of climate because what ever cause those events trumps CO2 all to heck!

      Notice the ‘attempts’ of the earth to return to the warm phase during the Wisconsin Ice Age that failed until there was enough solar energy at 65N to sustain the warm phase. The 24 Dansgaard-Oeschger oscillations (Figure Above. Sole et al, 2007), or abrupt warmings occurred in just a few years to mere decades. They average between 8-10C rises (D-O 19 scored 16C). The nominal difference between earth’s cold (glacial) and warm (interglacial) states being on the order of 20C.

      Compare those 8-10C rises within a few decades to the fudged, adjusted and mangled rise of 0.13°F per decade that NOAA has managed to squeeze out of the current temperature record.

      Notice that the geologic record shows the cold phase is the more stable ‘default’ state of the climate with this continent configuration.

      NOAA

      ..Each of the 25 observed D-O events consist of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades, and was followed by a gradual cooling… Related to some of the coldest intervals between D-O events were six distinctive events, named after paleoclimatologist Hartmut Heinrich, that are recorded in North Atlantic marine sediments….

      Even though Heinrich and D-O events seem to have been initiated in the North Atlantic, they had a global footprint.

      The cause of these glacial events is still under debate.

      • Martin Smith says:

        “That is why those of us who have any understanding of geology shake our heads in wonder. Until the Warmists can explain Heinrich, Dansgaard-Oeschger, and Bond events they can not say CO2 is the ‘control Knob’ of climate because what ever cause those events trumps CO2 all to heck!”

        Gail, if you understand geology, what is/are your explanation(s) for those events? Those of us who have any understanding of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas know that these named events say nothing about the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. If you claim to understand geology, enlighten us with your explanation(s).

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Those of us who have any understanding of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas ”

          That is NOT you. You understand NOTHING and you know it.

        • Gail Combs says:

          My long explanation got booted. Maybe Steven Goddard can fish it out of the netherworld.

          Short explanation.
          D-O/Bond event could be caused by:
          1. Internal oscillations
          2. External forces.

          A possible external forcing is tidal force from the sun-moon gravitational field.

          The moon actually circles the sun not the earth. Therefore the earth-moon alignment is not perfect. This means the tidal force of the moon plus the sun shifts north to south over a very long period ~1500 years. Ocean water is pulled north and then released as the moon heads back towards the equator. To complicate things you also have to take into account the tilt of the earth’s axis.

          You can see this in the movement of eclipses.

          …Each saros series starts with a partial eclipse (Sun first enters the end of the node), and each successive saros the path of the Moon is shifted either northward (when near the descending node) or southward (when near the ascending node) …It takes between 1226 and 1550 years for the members of a saros series to traverse the Earth’s surface from north to south (or vice versa)
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

          To further complicate things the actual history of recorded eclipses in India from 400 A.D. to 1800 A.D. does not match what a NASA model says they should be.
          Ancient eclipses and long-term drifts in the Earth–Moon system

        • Martin Smith says:

          >Short explanation.
          >D-O/Bond event could be caused by:
          >1. Internal oscillations
          >2. External forces.

          Thanks, Gail. These events are NOT directly caused by CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. Possibly not even indirectly caused. Therefore, they say nothing about the greenhouse effect. So your claim is false that we have to explain these events before we can claim that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the current warming. The physics of the greenhouse effect are independent of these other, strange events.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gail, you are leaving out what, I think, most scientists who study the problem believe is the most likely cause: Major changes in the shape and size of the ice sheet during the glacials that severely alter the ocean currents in the North Atlantic. It seems almost obvious that if the top half of the northern hemisphere is completely covered by kilometers-thick ice, ocean currents in that area will be altered if not stopped altogether.

          This possibility seems much more likely than your hand waving, and it has the added advantage with fitting perfectly with what we know actually happens during the glacials/interglacials.

          But you would rather believe in unicorns?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “But you would rather believe in unicorns?”

          Do NOT judge us by your standards.

          The ONLY unicorns around here are the ones brain-washed into your lazy, gullible mind.

      • AndyG55 says:

        CO2 is a gas that absorbs a small select spectrum, and is used in Greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

        • powers2be says:

          Andy martin chooses to believe what he believes. It is a choice which trumps science or have you failed to learn your lessons in sociology and 21st century politics.

        • Steven Douglas says:

          Flagrant non sequitur. Given that all plants need CO2 to grow it is (sometimes) added to greenhouses to augment that growth, not to trap heat.

        • AndyG55 says:

          There is absolutely no physical or thermal mechanism that allows CO2 to trap heat in an open atmosphere.

        • Steven Douglas says:

          “There is absolutely no physical or thermal mechanism that allows CO2 to trap heat in an open atmosphere.”

          Correctomundo, and when CO2 emits there is no greenhouse effect at all. If anything it has a minor cooling effect on the atmosphere.

      • Gail Combs says:

        There are two possible explanations.
        1. Internal oscillations within the climate system.
        2. A periodic external forcing.

        The D-O events are discrete events paced by a regular cycle of 1470 years and the five most recent events, arguably the best dated, have a standard deviation of only 32 years (2 %) about a 1470 year spacing.

        For a periodic external forcing the moon is a good candidate. We know the present tides are about 1/2 the total overturning force bringing cold deep water to the surface, so we also know that changes in tide forces could and would have major impacts.

        Notice the word Present and note these tide sizes. Up to 3x as large as now.
        Ancient Tides Quite Different from Today — Some Dramatically Higher, Some Lower

        Aug. 2, 2011 — The ebb and flow of the ocean tides, generally thought to be one of the most predictable forces on Earth, are actually quite variable over long time periods, in ways that have not been adequately accounted for in most evaluations of prehistoric sea level changes.
        […]
        Some tides on the East Coast of the United States, for instance, may at times in the past have been enormously higher than they are today — a difference between low and high tide of 10-20 feet, instead of the current 3-6 foot range….

        One Full Moon Cycle is the time required for the point of Perigee in the Lunar orbit to re-align with the Sun so the sun and the moon are pulling the oceans in the same direction. The strongest lunar tides occur when the Full Moon Cycle occurs at or very near to Perihelion This happens once every 177 years. These times are marked in the following diagram with vertical arrows.

        What this is telling us is that it actually takes 1478.00 years (= 2 x 739.00 years) to complete the cycle with a New Moon at Perigee when a Full Moon Cycle is close to Perihelion once again.

        Therefore if we look for cycles in the strength of the lunar tides that are synchronized with the seasons, we find that there is a natural 1470 year tidal cycle. H/T Ninderthana

        You can see the alignment of the sun and moon and earth via the eclipse phenomenon called Saros Cycles.
        Saros Cycles come in a series.

        Each saros series starts with a partial eclipse (Sun first enters the end of the node), and each successive saros the path of the Moon is shifted either northward (when near the descending node) or southward (when near the ascending node). At some point, eclipses are no longer possible and the series terminates (Sun leaves the beginning of the node)… It takes between 1226 and 1550 years for the members of a saros series to traverse the Earth’s surface from north to south (or vice-versa).
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

        This is all based on this The 1,800-year oceanic tidal cycle: A possible cause of rapid climate change by Charles D. Keeling* and Timothy P. Whorf With the addition of the position of the sun. Oh yeah and drifts in the system… Ancient eclipses and long-term drifts in the Earth–Moon system The authors of that paper checked the actual history of recorded eclipses in India from 400 A.D. to 1800 A.D. and found the actual data does not match what a NASA model says they should be. They then look at that difference and discover that the lunar “orbit” of the Earth must change more than predicted and that the tides on the Earth must be strong enough to change the Length Of Day.

        So why is this important?
        It is important because the sun, moon and earth are not in perfect alignment.

        What matters is the gravity vector and how it diminishes with distance.

        Gravity pulls the side closest to the moon toward it, and as gravity falls off with distance, the net gravity is lower on the far side. There is also a ‘tractional’ force pulling sideways at the poles. This tractional force pulls water away from the poles, toward the two bulges.

        For the Earth / Luna system, we are a binary planet and Luna orbits the Sun, and not the earth. the moon has an orbit tilted about 5.5 degrees to our orbit around the Sun (ecliptic) and as our Earth axis is tilted, it has an added +/- 23.5 degrees of variation relative to our equator. So, in reality, lunar tidal force wanders about 37 degrees back and forth on a N/S line during low axis tilt and up to 57 at times of large variation.

        So there is one possible explanation. However since it has nothing to do with humans and therefore has no tax or other money advantage don’t expect it to go anywhere fast.

        • R. Shearer says:

          Not sure what you meant about moon not circling the earth. Doesn’t it do so in ~28 days?

        • Gail Combs says:

          It is not really circling it is more like weaving.

          Major H/T to E.M. Smith and Ian Wilson who has done a lot of study on the subject.

      • Steven Douglas says:

        “These events are NOT directly caused by CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. Possibly not even indirectly caused. Therefore, they say nothing about the greenhouse effect. So your claim is false that we have to explain these events before we can claim that anthropogenic CO2 is causing the current warming.”

        To date there has been no convincing explanation for what caused the events Gail listed, so to say these events had nothing to do with a greenhouse effect is empty hand waving, and not true in the absolute. The unequivocal fact remains that these were abrupt, unexplained climate change events, which in turn requires interaction with a greenhouse effect, regardless of mechanisms, especially when abrupt warming is involved. Gail never claimed that those events had anything whatsoever to do with CO2 or any other gas because she didn’t need to. Until we have a convincing explanation for these past events they cannot be ruled out as still-plausible for the present and future, except via argument from ignorance, as occurs when any competing cause to the “anthropogenic CO2-only” thesis is dismissed with extreme prejudice.

  2. Martin Smith says:

    Steven, the graph was hand drawn and was removed from the IPCC report because it was wrong. The fact that after all these years you still didn’t know that shows how uninformed you really are.

    • In other words, the correct graph from the 1990 report was replaced by Mann’s fully fraudulent hockey stick – featured in the New York Times best seller “A Disgrace To the Profession”

      • Martin Smith says:

        You know the graph was meaningless, Steven, but here you are saying it was correct. You know it was wrong, but you say it was correct. What would you call me if I did that?

      • Latitude says:

        It’s obvious you guys just don’t understand….
        The graph used in the most important IPCC report of all….their coming out party, where they did every thing they could to be sure they had it right…..was wrong…..even though at the time, they did every thing in their power to get it right

        ….we have to believe them now, because the new graph is right

        (or something like that……)

        Stay tuned….update at 11

    • R. Shearer says:

      Paper please.

    • Gail Combs says:

      1,000 Greenland Ice Core

      12,000 years VostoK Antarctica Ice Core

      33 proxy datasets showing 1200 years of temperature.

      And proxies showing 20th Century

      2000 yrs of non tree ring proxies

      http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a64c8c9b970b-pi

      Not a hokey stick to be seen. YOU LOSE!

      • Latitude says:

        Gail, you know what really stands out…is those stair steps
        We’re in another little uptic…..but the trend is down
        All the little warmig uptics are fairly evenly spaced…and we’re in one
        They all go herky jerky up….and then crash down

        • Gail Combs says:

          Yes, Latitude that is why I put them up.

          Take a good look at the graph of proxies showing 20th Century. The average of 11 proxies is the white line with red triangles. The 1930/40s is higher than present and we head up to another lower peak ~2000. From there we should head back down as the ClimAstrologists very well know. It was why the narative has switched from Global Warming to Climate Change/Extreme Weather.

          One of the observations made in the papers I posted on the lunar influence is the cold phase starts in the Atlantic. Also Hudson Bay was the growth center for the Laurentide ice sheet that covered northern North America during the last Ice Age. So with the AMO about to switch, things will be interesting going forward. Possibly very soon

    • Andy DC says:

      Martin,

      On what basis do you conclude that 1990 science is incorrect and that 2015 science is correct? The main change during the last 25 years is that global warming/climate change has devolved into a huge political lobby with billions of dollars behind it. Also the systematic bullying and exclusion of credentialed scientists with skeptical viewpoints. Not to mention massive warm biased data tampering. I would logically conclude under those circumstances that 2015 science is far more likely to be corrupt than 1990 science.

      • Martin Smith says:

        Your question seems silly, Andy. We hope the natural progression of climate science means that we know more in 2015 than we did 25 years ago, and that some of what we knew in 1990 was not entirely correct. But I didn’t make the conclusion you attribute to me. I didn’t say anything at all about the science of 1990 being incorrect, so I assume you are asking why the graph Steven deliberately used to deceive his readers was removed from the 1990 IPCC report. BTW, that 1990 report has been superseded a few times now. The 2013 report is much, much more up to date. It certainly seems disingenuous at best to require that everything in the 1990 report to be scientifically correct, when we all know that science doesn’t progress that way. If it did, we could still use the 1990 report, and there would be no need to produce a new report every few years.

        But here is an explanation of that graph by one of your own. I don’t agree with it entirely, but it does prove my point: http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/09/where-did-ipcc-1990-figure-7c-come-from-httpwwwclimateauditorgp3072previewtrue/

        • AndyG55 says:

          “We hope the natural progression of climate science means that we know more in 2015 than we did 25 years ago”

          Climate scientists, not so much..

          They are STILL stuck with the misconceptions from 100 or more years ago.

    • Dave G says:

      The IPCC didn’t release a correction?

  3. AndyG55 says:

    Heck, the geologists and biologists even have a name for this cooling.

    Its called the NEOGLACIATION.

    GISP/GRIP show that a cooler period starting about 4800BC was punctuated by the Minoan period then a relatively rapid cooling with bumps at the RWP and MWP to the coldest period of the LIA, then a small amount of warming to now.

  4. Steve Case says:

    AndyG55 said at 7:29 pm
    …Mann’s hockey stick … introduced the world to the MASSIVE FRAUD that is AGW.

    B I N G O !

    • Martin Smith says:

      After seeing that the same basic graph shape is produced by all the studies that have been done since Mann’s original one, and that no studies have disproved Mann’s original work, how can you all still believe Mann’s work is fraudulent?

      As I understand your objection to Mann, it is only one of the last proxies that you claim is wrong, because that one proxy is computed from a few trees in Siberia while ignoring several other trees in the same area (for good reason, which you ignore). But when we leave out that one proxy, the hockey stick shape remains, so your objection, even if correct, does not invalidate the graph.

      Furthermore, there is no need to use proxies for that end of the graph, because we KNOW what happened during that final period. We have actual thermometer data for it.

      • AndyG55 says:

        McKitrick has shown that Mann’s work is the absolute height of mathematical and statistical FARCE.

        You know that

        EVERYBODY knows that.

        The fact that you can even pretend otherwise speaks heaps for you brain-washed IDIOCY !!!

        • Martin Smith says:

          No, Andy. In the first place, if your understanding were true, it would invalidate all the studies that have replicated the hockey stick graph. McKitrick did not do that. Again, the objection to Mann’s work was one proxy. When you and McKitrick leave out that proxy, the hockey stick shape is still apparent. And, again, we don’t even need a proxy for that part of the graph because we have thermometer data for it. We KNOW what happened there, and it is the blade of the hockey stick.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Again, you are WRONG as always.

          Once you leave out Mann’s twisted and upside down proxies, there is NOTHING

          And once you leave out his childish interpretation of tree proxies, the MWP reappears.

          Only a mathematical inept like you or Mann would consider grafting fudged short term temperature data onto broad range proxies.

          Its anti-science.. and if you ever did any real maths, you would know that.

        • AndyG55 says:

          You can’t seriously be defending Mann’s hockey stick !!

          Are you really trying to make even more of a FOOL of yourself than you already have ????

          You are now coming across as purely a LOW-END PROPAGANDA MONKEY !!

          Sad.. because I though you might have had at least some basic intelligence.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “the hockey stick shape is still apparent”

          The hockey stick shape was STILL apparent when the Mann’s little program was fed random noise..

          He just helped it along with cherry-picked and upside down data.

          Truly one of the biggest scientific FRAUDS ever carried out.

          And YOUR name is now associated with strongly supporting that FRAUD.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The last bit of that where I did not double check my blockquotes
          Further down

          Toinen esimerkki on arvovaltaisessa Science-lehdessä hiljattain julkaistu tutkimus, jossa arktisten alueiden keskilämpötilojen todetaan olevan nyt korkeammalla kuin kertaakaan aikaisemmin kahteen tuhanteen vuoteen. Tulos saattaa hyvinkin olla totta, mutta tapa jolla tutkijat tähän päätyvät, herättää kysymyksiä. Proksi-aineistoja on on otettu mukaan valikoidusti, niitä on pilkottu, manipuloitu, silotettu ja yhdistelty – ja esimerkiksi omien kollegoideni aiemmin Suomesta keräämät aineistot on jopa käännetty ylösalaisin, jolloin lämpimät jaksot muuttuvat kylmiksi ja päinvastoin. Normaalisti tällaista pidettäisiin tieteellisenä väärennöksenä, jolla on vakavat seuraukset.

          to

          Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.

          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

          Do you wonder that Mikey has to resort to the courts to keep people from laughing?

      • AndyG55 says:

        …. and the actual thermometer data does NOT match GISS or HadCrut !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        There has been a small amount of NATURAL warming out of the COLDEST period of the last 10,000 years.

        Be very THANKFUL about that.

      • Gail Combs says:

        WRONG Again!

        Peer-reviewed paper in
        ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
        VOLUME 14 · NUMBER 6 · 2003
        ISSN 0958-305X

        CORRECTIONS TO THE MANN et. al. (1998) PROXY DATA BASE AND NORTHERN HEMISPHERIC AVERAGE TEMPERATURE SERIES

        ABSTRACT
        The data set of proxies of past climate used in Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998, “MBH98” hereafter) for the estimation of temperatures from 1400 to 1980 contains collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects. We detail these errors and defects. We then apply MBH98 methodology to the construction of a Northern Hemisphere average temperature index for the 1400-1980 period, using corrected and updated source data. The major finding is that the values in the early 15th century exceed any values in the 20th century. The particular “hockey stick” shape derived in the MBH98 proxy construction – a temperature index that decreases slightly between the early 15th century and early 20th century and then increases dramatically up to 1980 — is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.

        No funding from any source was sought or received for this research.

        Mikey Mann released his Hockey Stick shortly after the Byrd – Hagel Senate Resolution was passed.

        The Byrd–Hagel Resolution was a United States Senate Resolution passed unanimously with a vote of 95–0 on 25 July 1997, sponsored by Senators Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Robert Byrd (D-WV). The resolution stated that it was not the sense of the Senate that the United States should be a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.

        Interesting POLITICAL timing HMMMmmmm?

        On top of that Mikey’s Hokey Stick wiped out both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which are well documented THROUGH OUT THE WORLD.
        Mikey’s unwillingness to release his data and model so others could attempt to duplicate his results despite required discovery in lawsuits HE initiated took it from the realm of science to mere political action. If it can not be verified and validated by other independent scientists it AIN’T SCIENCE.

        Mann’s use of the Upside-Side Down Tiljander sediments took it from political to laughing stock especially when Mikey didn’t just use one Tiljander series upside down; he used all four of them upside down. And it gets even better. The Tiljander sediments wasn’t the only proxy used upside down in Mann et al 2008. Andy Baker said Mike had used one of Baker’s series upside down too.

        Atte Korhola is a prominent Finnish paleolimnologist. He is familiar with the Tiljander and other sediments. (Two other Finnish series were also used upside down by Kaufman.) Korhola commented on the upside down use of Finnish proxy data.

        part Translation of http://www.co2-raportti.fi/index.php?page=blogi&news_id=1370

        Esitän kärkeen heti teesin, jonka mieluusti alistan julkiseen kritiikkiin: kun myöhemmät polvet tutustuvat ilmastotieteeseen, he luokittelevat 2000-luvun alun tieteen historian noloihin lukuihin. He tulevat kummastelemaan ja käyttämään aikaamme varoittavana esimerkkinä siitä, kuinka tieteen keskeisten arvojen ja kriteereiden annettiin pikku hiljaa unohtua itse tutkimusteeman – ilmastonmuutoksen – muuttuessa poliittiseksi ja sosiaaliseksi temmellyskentäksi.

        to

        I put immediately forward a thesis that I’m glad to expose to public criticism: when later generations learn about climate science, they will classify the beginning of 21st century as an embarrassing chapter in history of science. They will wonder our time, and use it as a warning of how the core values and criteria of science were allowed little by little to be forgotten as the actual research topic — climate change — turned into a political and social playground.

        Further down

        Toinen esimerkki on arvovaltaisessa Science-lehdessä hiljattain julkaistu tutkimus, jossa arktisten alueiden keskilämpötilojen todetaan olevan nyt korkeammalla kuin kertaakaan aikaisemmin kahteen tuhanteen vuoteen. Tulos saattaa hyvinkin olla totta, mutta tapa jolla tutkijat tähän päätyvät, herättää kysymyksiä. Proksi-aineistoja on on otettu mukaan valikoidusti, niitä on pilkottu, manipuloitu, silotettu ja yhdistelty – ja esimerkiksi omien kollegoideni aiemmin Suomesta keräämät aineistot on jopa käännetty ylösalaisin, jolloin lämpimät jaksot muuttuvat kylmiksi ja päinvastoin. Normaalisti tällaista pidettäisiin tieteellisenä väärennöksenä, jolla on vakavat seuraukset.

        to

        Another example is a study recently published in the prestigious journal Science. It is concluded in the article that the average temperatures in the Arctic region are much higher now than at any time in the past two thousand years. The result may well be true, but the way the researchers ended up with this conclusion raises questions. Proxies have been included selectively, they have been digested, manipulated, filtered, and combined, for example, data collected from Finland in the past by my own colleagues has even been turned upside down such that the warm periods become cold and vice versa. Normally, this would be considered as a scientific forgery, which has serious consequences.

        Do you wonder that Mikey has to resort to the courts to keep people from laughing?

    • AndyG55 says:

      And NO it is NOT just the last proxies.. Its the whole MESS that he constructs from his IGNORANCE of tree biology

      He uses it to flatten the MWP , just like Hansen et al do everything they can to delete the 1940’s peak.

      Its FRAUD… PURE AND SIMPLE

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Its FRAUD… PURE AND SIMPLE”

        The really bizarre thing is that you say you have some maths training….

        YET YOU STILL CONDONE this FRAUD.

        There is something seriously wrong with your mental wiring, Martin. !!!

  5. Gail Combs says:

    The ‘Team’ was well aware that Mann’s hokey stick stunk. (And so was Mann)

    Climate gate e-mail 3555

    We actually eliminate records with negative correlations (this is mentioned breifly in the GRL article,), and we investigated a variety of weighting schemes to assure the basic robustness of the composite–but I certainly endorse your broader point here. Many of these records have some significant uncertainties or possible sources of bias, and this isn’t the place to get into that.  [Michael Mann]

    It was a majority decision to leave the Mann and Jones 2000-year series in the Figure 1 (as it was to remove the Briffa and Osborn tree-ring based one) , and the details of the logic used to derive the Mann and Jones series is to be found in the (cited) text of their paper. Signing on to this letter , in my mind. implies agreement with the text and not individual endorsement of all curves by each author. I too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic that you leave all series you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes low) correlation (in this case based on decadal values). I also believe some of the series that make up the Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand that has a -0.25 correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and Tim’s Science comment on the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the Western US tree-ring PC amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems (and limitations ) with ALL series used. At this stage , singling out individual records for added (and unavoidably cursory added description) is not practical. [Keith Briffa]

    More damning ClimateGate emails from Tim Osborne: They didn’t commit fraud, they just “applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data”
    Tim Barnett on the hockey stick- “statistics were suspect”–the rest of the team knew of problems with Mann’s reconstruction

    #4758 Tim Osborne – Criticizing other people for doing the same thing
    Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we’re throwing out all post-1960 data ‘cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data ‘cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it! If we write the Holocene forum article then we’ll have to be critical or our paper as well as Crowley’s!

    Tiim Osborne
    Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were.
    Tim Osborne #2347
    Also, we set all post-1960 values to missing in the MXD data set (due to decline), and the method will infill these, estimating them from the real temperatures – another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!

    This is from Dr Alley of the Greenland ice core temperature reconstruction. He seems more of a scientist and lest an activist than the rest.
    Climate gate e-mail 3234

    Despite assurances from Ed and Keith, I must admit that I still don’t get it. The NRC committee is looking at a number of issues, but the one that is most publicly noted is to determine whether, and with what confidence, we can say that recent temperatures have emerged from the band of natural variability over the last millennium or two. Millennial reconstructions with high time resolution are mostly tree-ring based, mostly northern hemisphere, and as I understand it, some are correlated to mean-annual temperatures and others to seasonal temperatures. The performance of the tree-ring paleothermometry is central. Taking the recent instrumental record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous. When a big difference is evident between recent and a millennium ago, small errors don’t matter; the more similar they are, the more important become possible small issues regarding CO2 fertilization, nitrogen fertilization (or ozone inhibition on the other side…).

    Unless the “divergence problem” can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified, and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered. This is further complicated by the possible small influence of CO2 fertilization…. I was just looking at some of the recent Mann et al. papers, and at the Osborn and Briffa paper from this year. In that one, as nearly as I can tell, there are 14 long records, of which 2 extend to 2000, 8 end in the early to mid 1990s, 1 in the early to mid 1980s, 2 in the early to mid 1970s, and one in the late 1940s. That looks to be a pretty small data set by the time you get into the strongest part of the instrumental warming. If some of the records, or some other records such as Rosanne’s new ones, show “divergence”, then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumental records, and I don’t believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong.

    I’m open to hearing what I have screwed up. Please note, I have no direct stake in this! I went to the meeting, I spoke, I’m done. But, I think you have a problem coming, that it involves the IPCC and particularly chapter 6 and paleo generally, that I really should let Susan know what is going on (if you’ve seen all the increasingly publicly disseminated emails, you know the story). I’d rather go back to teaching and research and raising money and advising students and all of that, but I’m trying to be helpful. Casting aspersions on Rosanne, on the NRC panel, or on me for that matter is not going to solve the underlying problem.
    [Richard Alley]

    • Gail Combs says:

      One Tree in Yamal
      to rule them all

      Three Trees for the Bankster-kings under the crimson sky,
      Seven for the Corporate-lords in their halls of stone,
      Nine for Congressmen doomed to die,
      One for the UN Lord on his New York throne
      In Global Governance where Serfdom lies.
      One Tree to rule them all, One Tree to find them,
      One Tree to bring them all and into slavery bind them
      In Global Governance where Serfdom lies.
      —The Lord of Tree Rings, ClimAstrology graph

  6. RAH says:

    Sunshine hours has their 2015 global sea ice summary out now:
    https://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/

    Bottom line: Avg. Anomaly for 2015 (In version which eliminates the two weird spikes in the Antarctic data that the NOAA never corrected” = + 0.74

  7. Martin Smith says:

    And here is the explanation of that graph. Steven really is trying to deceive you by using it the way he has:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm

    • AndyG55 says:

      SkS does NOT give explanations.. they give PROPGANDA.

      As long as you cling to their meaningless, ignorant junk science, that is all you will ever know.

      Its called WILFUL IGNORANCE.. and its all you have.

      • Gail Combs says:

        “The trouble ain’t that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain’t distributed right.” — Mark Twain

      • Ted says:

        “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
        -Ronald Reagan

      • “Occasionally he stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.”
        – Winston Churchill

        • AndyG55 says:

          Stumbles right over it… wondering if he tripped over his own feet.

          He would not recognise the truth if it slapped him in the face.. again and again and again.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Andy, if you have not seen this before. A bit of Natural variability:

    CET, NH and Global temperature vs North Atlantic- Arctic Warm/Cold currents balance

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CGNh.htm

    So what puts energy into the oceans?

    CO2 doesn’t even rate as much as a flea on an elephants tail.

    And not only does the EUV and UV vary, it also causes ozone to vary which heats or cools the stratosphere.
    Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling (2013)

  9. Gail Combs says:

    More on the Hokey Stick:

    Way back in 1997, researchers published a paper that was based on data from 6,000 plus borehole sites from all the continents. The reconstructed temperatures clearly showed a Medieval Period warming that was, and is, unprecedented. The data also makes clear that subsequent warming out of the Little Ice Age began well before the growth of human CO2 emissions and this natural rebound would obviously lead to temperatures similar to the Medieval Period. I have mention this rebound from the Little Ice Age before with peer-reviewed papers backing up the shift to modern warm period around the 1850s.

    A year later, the infamous Hokey Stick temperature chart was published to wild acclaim by the IPCC and AGW-centric activists. So popular did the Hokey Stick become, the 6,000+ borehole chart was completely ignored since its data refuted the Mann study. The borehole scientists then decided to re-publish their study with primarily only the blue-side (the typical AGW-favored data cherry-picking) of the chart below. This repackaged borehole study became accepted by the AGW-centric scientists as it seemed to support their cause and the Mann’s hockey-stick…

    “The authors searched the large database of terrestrial heat flow measurements compiled by the International Heat Flow Commission of the International Association of Seismology and Physics of the Earth’s Interior for measurements suitable for reconstructing an average ground surface temperature history…Based on a total of 6,144 qualifying sets of heat flow measurements obtained from every continent of the globe, they produced a global climate reconstruction, which, they state, is “independent of other proxy interpretations [and] of any preconceptions or biases as to the nature of the actual climate history.”…From their reconstruction of “a global climate history from worldwide observations,” the authors found strong evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than it is now.”

    “Quite suddenly, the same borehole authors – Pollack, Huang, Shen published a new, two-page-long paper in Nature: it appeared in October 1998. The paper contained a rather different graph than the graph from 1997…The new paper was using temperatures and 358 sites only instead of the 6000 sites used in 1997 (94 percent of sites eliminated) and it has erased 19,500 years out of 20,000 years (97.5 percent of the time interval eliminated) from the paper written in 1997 in order not to contradict Mann et al….That’s what they call “independence”. Moreover, if someone wanted to extend the record as far as possible while avoiding any hints of a warmer period in the past such as the medieval warm period, he would have made the same cut: 500 years ago. What a coincidence.”

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/05/peerreviewed-research-unprecedented-global-warming-during-medieval-period-boreholes-reveal.html

  10. Ted says:

    Totally off topic-

    In case anyone has been following the discussion Martin and I have had here:
    https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/12/28/simple-physics-settled-science/#comment-562096

    I’ve thrown in the towel. I can’t take any more of that sniveling imbecile. I can’t debate someone who needs his own position spoon fed to him. If he doesn’t even understand the subject well enough to follow his own arguments, I guess I can’t expect him to follow mine. I always thought this was a parody:

    But I just lived it. Without even trying, I had him screaming about how wrong his favorite cartoonist site was. He completely lost track of which side he was on, while admonishing me for not accepting his wildly alternating positions. It’s a pity. In 15 years of begging, he’s the first true believer to (finally) agree to debate me. It would have been nice to get someone who could at least keep the basics straight.

    Good night, all. I’ll get back to reading threads tomorrow.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Certainly he has absolutely ZERO idea what he is talking about.

      He is, as you say, a complete imbecile.

      As you have found out, incoherent garbage is all he is capable of.

    • AndyG55 says:

      You did try, I admire your patience against totally wilful ignorance.

      When an idiot is absolutely determined to remain an idiot.. there is nothing you can do.

      I have seen low-IQ 14 years olds present a more coherent argument than the little goreboy ever has.

    • Gail Combs says:

      You are a better man that I Ted to even hang in there this long.

      Most honest objective Warmists when they look at the evidence turn into skeptics.

      This is from Dr Alley of the Greenland ice core temperature reconstruction. He seems more of a scientist and less an activist than the rest. It concerns Mikey’s Hokey stick where he says he Just doesn’t ‘get it’ and then reitterates the concerns skeptics have with tree rings. They do NOT measure temperature, just decent growing parameters like a bear defecating on the roots, good rainfall….
      Climate gate e-mail 3234

      Despite assurances from Ed and Keith, I must admit that I still don’t get it. The NRC committee is looking at a number of issues, but the one that is most publicly noted is to determine whether, and with what confidence, we can say that recent temperatures have emerged from the band of natural variability over the last millennium or two. Millennial reconstructions with high time resolution are mostly tree-ring based, mostly northern hemisphere, and as I understand it, some are correlated to mean-annual temperatures and others to seasonal temperatures. The performance of the tree-ring paleothermometry is central. Taking the recent instrumental record and the tree-ring record and joining them yields a dramatic picture, with rather high confidence that recent times are anomalously warm. Taking strictly the tree-ring record and omitting the instrumental record yields a less-dramatic picture and a lower confidence that the recent temperatures are anomalous. When a big difference is evident between recent and a millennium ago, small errors don’t matter; the more similar they are, the more important become possible small issues regarding CO2 fertilization, nitrogen fertilization (or ozone inhibition on the other side…).
      Unless the “divergence problem” can be confidently ascribed to some cause that was not active a millennium ago, then the comparison between tree rings from a millennium ago and instrumental records from the last decades does not seem to be justified,
      and the confidence level in the anomalous nature of the recent warmth is lowered. This is further complicated by the possible small influence of CO2 fertilization…. I was just looking at some of the recent Mann et al. papers, and at the Osborn and Briffa paper from this year. In that one, as nearly as I can tell, there are 14 long records, of which 2 extend to 2000, 8 end in the early to mid 1990s, 1 in the early to mid 1980s, 2 in the early to mid 1970s, and one in the late 1940s. That looks to be a pretty small data set by the time you get into the strongest part of the instrumental warming. If some of the records, or some other records such as Rosanne’s new ones, show “divergence”, then I believe it casts doubt on the use of joined tree-ring/instrumental records, and I don’t believe that I have yet heard why this interpretation is wrong.
      I’m open to hearing what I have screwed up. Please note, I have no direct stake in this! I went to the meeting, I spoke, I’m done. But, I think you have a problem coming, that it involves the IPCC and particularly chapter 6 and paleo generally, that I really should let Susan know what is going on (if you’ve seen all the increasingly publicly disseminated emails, you know the story). I’d rather go back to teaching and research and raising money and advising students and all of that, but I’m trying to be helpful. Casting aspersions on Rosanne, on the NRC panel, or on me for that matter is not going to solve the underlying problem.
      [Richard Alley]

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Ted! I have been following your discussion with Martin with a feeling similar to that of a bystander watching a train wreck take place. I would also say that you made a wonderful argument against the positive feedback position of CAGW. I was especially impressed by the clarity of your comments that:
      “To use your own analogy, X=present temperature, Y=CO2+H20, Z=increased energy from the sun
      You accept that X+Y raises temperatures.
      You accept that X+Z raises temperatures.
      You accept that X+Y+Z raises temperatures.
      What I’m saying is that, because Y>Z, X+Y-Z must be greater than X, in all cases. As long as Y remains, the net forcing is always positive, in comparison to X, therefore temperature can never return to the value of X, once Y is introduced.”

      Good job, Ted! You deserve some sort of “above and beyond” commendation.

      • Martin Smith says:

        Jason, the point both you and Ted don’t get is that when Z decreases because the Milankovitch cycles change, Y and X also decrease. Once Z begins to decrease because earth’s orbit and orientation toward the sun change that way, first X begins to decrease, and then Y begins to decrease. The rates of decrease of both X and Y increase, with Y’s rate increasing most. Neither of you understand that. I think you just don’t want to see it.

        Thanks for spelling that out for me though, using X, Y, and Z. I thought that’s what Ted was saying, but his attempt wasn’t as clear as yours. I hope you see where you are both wrong now.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “The rates of decrease of both X and Y increase, with Y’s rate increasing most.”

          That’s more of your arrant nonsense, but let’s see what it means.

          Why would the decreasing rate of Y be increasing the most? (Y=CO2+H2O)

          CO2 is still going up, are you saying that H2O effect is coming down and outpacing the effect of CO2?

          Are you saying that H2O is the main driver of the atmospheric greenhouse effect?

          We know that.

        • Ted says:

          Dumbass-

          Do you see the quotes in Jason’s response. HE WAS DIRECTLY QUOTING ME. If you’re too stupid to understand it the first time, why should anyone care what you think of it the second time?

        • AndyG55 says:

          He certainly is UNBELIEVABLY DUMB, isn’t he. ! 🙂

          Poor little goreboy. !

        • AndyG55 says:

          “If you’re too stupid to understand it the first time,”

          Marty will not understand it the first time.
          .
          .
          .
          .
          or the second time..

          or the third time..

          or the fourth time..

          ad infinitum !!!

        • Martin Smith says:

          Ted, what happened to civility? If you are attacking my character because I refuted your XYZ statement, fine, but I did refute it. Your thinking is wrong. If I have misunderstood your XYZ statement, please explain it, because as it is written, your conclusion is wrong.

          Z stops increasing when the Milankvitch cycles reverse. Z begins to decrease then, and it decreases for the remainder of the cycle. As it decreases, X and Y also decrease. Recall that when Z is at its maximum, X and Y are also at their maxima. You can think of X decreasing both because Z decreases and because Y decreases. The rate at which Y decreases will increase because as the winters get longer and colder, more CO2 leaves the atmosphere and is stored. The decrease in the feedback Y becomes the major contributor to the decrease in the current temperature X. It overwhelms the decrease in Z, just as it overwhelms the increase in Z during the warming.

          The above explanation has been my explanation all along, and it is also the SKS explanation. If you still claim to see a contradiction, what is it?

        • ” … attacking my character …”

          Heh. Ted called you a dumbass.

          “… what happened to civility … “

          Cry me a river. I have documented some of your actual character attacks on Steven Goddard shortly after you appeared on this blog. Personal attacks have been your modus operandi from the very beginning. The Internet may not be forever, Martin, but for now your record is easily accessible. You are not fooling anybody.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “I refuted your XYZ statement, fine, but I did refute it.”

          BULLSHIT.

          Your mind is so confused you have no idea what you said and didn’t say.

          You have presented NOTHING , as usual.

    • Martin Smith says:

      For Ted: The bottom line with CO2

      There are two ways CO2 can force a temperature increase:

      (a) Hold the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere constant, and increase the amount of solar energy reaching earth.

      (b) Hold the amount of solar energy reaching earth constant, and increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

      We know (b) is happening now, Ted. I’m not saying the amount of solar energy reaching earth is actually constant; I’m saying that, whichever way it is changing now, up or down, it is happening so slowly that it can not be causing anything but a small fraction of the warming we have seen over the last 100+ years, and which is continuing right now.

      Thanks for your patience, Ted. I can’t see how even Andy or gator could possibly misinterpret or misunderstand this post, but I know they will try. I hope you won’t.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Nothing to misinterpret……. Its just WRONG.

        There is NO mechanism that will allow CO2 to increase temperature of an open atmosphere.

        This has been explained to you so many times, but you still cling to your misguided ill-educated beliefs.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “There is NO mechanism that will allow CO2 to increase temperature of an open atmosphere.”

          This is the mechanism you claim doesn’t exist: “The greenhouse effect works like this: Energy arrives from the sun in the form of visible light and ultraviolet radiation. The Earth then emits some of this energy as infrared radiation. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ‘capture’ some of this heat, then re-emit it in all directions – including back to the Earth’s surface.”

          If this mechanism did not exist, earth would be about 30C colder than it is now, and you would not exist.

          https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

        • AndyG55 says:

          CO2 does NOT re-emit below about 15km. That is a proven fact.

          Any absorption below that is immediately passed to the rest of the atmosphere and dealt with by convection and conduction like any other energy.

          There is absolutely NO mechanism that allows CO2 to trap heat or energy in the open atmosphere.

          The so-called greenhouse effect is actually an atmospheric mass effect, as shown on all other planets that have an atmosphere.

          FFS Marty.. go and LEARN something before you keep yabbering false SkS nonsense.

        • Gail Combs says:

          The black dotted line is the tropopause. The graph shows IR emitted by CO2, water and ozone as labeled.

          The end of that URL is global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling

          OOPs…

      • Martin Smith says:

        Ted, I forgot to say here that (a) is what happens at the equilibrium point in the Milankovitch cycles when the system switches from cooling to warming. You still seem confused about that. Then, after (a), (b) begins. (b) soon overwhelms (a), although (a) continues. That is what the SKS quote you keep throwing at me is saying. It doesn’t contradict anything.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The only person confused here is YOU.

          You are so dumb that you don’t even see how confused and just downright WRONG you are.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Ted, the SKS site is not wrong on this subject; my position does not differ from theirs, and my position has not changed. I’m sorry you through in the towel, but throwing in the towel does mean you lost. I didn’t think we were in a competition. I thought I was just answering your questions. I am truly sorry I made you so unhappy.

      • Martin Smith says:

        How embarrassing. That should be “threw in the towel.” I’m sorry you threw in the towel, Ted.

      • AndyG55 says:

        I’m truly sorry that you are so ignorant.

        You again mis-interpret Ted’s position.

        He has given up because he has come to the natural conclusion that you are a BRAIN-WASHED IDIOT who is impervious to anything resembling REAL DATA.

        Now go back to your SkS sandpit and scoop up some more of their poop.. Its the only thing you seem to be able to do.

        • Ted says:

          Andy-

          You put it better than I could.

          Martin-

          I wish you no ill will. But as your people are so fond of saying, the debate is over. It’s not a matter of winning or losing. I had hoped you could explain your side coherently, in a way that might make some sense of the enormous logical holes I see in it. You failed, miserably. You demonstrated that I already understand your position more thoroughly than you do, so there’s simply no point in us continuing. Thank you for trying. I’m sorry nothing came of it.

        • Martin Smith says:

          ” I had hoped you could explain your side coherently, in a way that might make some sense of the enormous logical holes I see in it. You failed, miserably. You demonstrated that I already understand your position more thoroughly than you do, so there’s simply no point in us continuing. Thank you for trying. I’m sorry nothing came of it.”

          Ted, stop running away. If I have misunderstood your XYZ statement, please explain it, because as it is written, your conclusion is wrong.

          Z stops increasing when the Milankvitch cycles reverse. Z begins to decrease then, and it decreases for the remainder of the cycle. As it decreases, X and Y also decrease. Recall that when Z is at its maximum, X and Y are also at their maxima. You can think of X decreasing both because Z decreases and because Y decreases. The rate at which Y decreases will increase because as the winters get longer and colder, more CO2 leaves the atmosphere and is stored. The decrease in the feedback Y becomes the major contributor to the decrease in the current temperature X. It overwhelms the decrease in Z, just as it overwhelms the increase in Z during the warming.

          The above explanation has been my explanation all along, and it is also the SKS explanation. If you still claim to see a contradiction, what is it?

        • AndyG55 says:

          ROFLMAO..

          So, the CO2 comes from the oceans and goes back to the oceans.

          Means we don’t need to do anything about cutting CO2 emissions.

          Thanks for playing.. child-mind. 🙂

  11. Richard Todd says:

    I like to imagine Martin sounds like Hal from space odyssey.

  12. Martin Smith says:

    Andy, when it says “For Ted,” that means not for you. Resist the temptation to make a fool of yourself by posting yet another of your non sequiturs.

    • AndyG55 says:

      You are constantly making a fool of yourself. Its all you have.

      You leave battered and bruised at each visit, and are so mentally SICK that you enjoy it.

      Its a public forum, I will reply to your MORONIC NONSENSE if I like.

    • AndyG55 says:

      -7C in Oslo. Good thing you have lots of hydro power up there, hey.

      And that Norway can continue to survive by selling it FOSSIL-FUEL.

      Might be interesting this time next year though, once the La Nina starts to bite.

      • AndyG55 says:

        LOL..

        Just imagine if Norway was trying to exist energywise, on frozen wind turbines and snow covered solar panels.

        Yet that is what these FOOLS would wish on other northern countries.

        It is sick, and it is disgusting.. It is Martin.

    • Ted says:

      But Andy gave the same response I would have, so it all works out the same.

      • Martin Smith says:

        I don’t read Andy, Ted. His replies are inane. Speak for yourself, or admit your thinking is wrong: If I have misunderstood your XYZ statement, please explain it, because as it is written, your conclusion is wrong.

        Z stops increasing when the Milankvitch cycles reverse. Z begins to decrease then, and it decreases for the remainder of the cycle. As it decreases, X and Y also decrease. Recall that when Z is at its maximum, X and Y are also at their maxima. You can think of X decreasing both because Z decreases and because Y decreases. The rate at which Y decreases will increase because as the winters get longer and colder, more CO2 leaves the atmosphere and is stored. The decrease in the feedback Y becomes the major contributor to the decrease in the current temperature X. It overwhelms the decrease in Z, just as it overwhelms the increase in Z during the warming.

        The above explanation has been my explanation all along, and it is also the SKS explanation. If you still claim to see a contradiction, what is it?

        • AndyG55 says:

          “more CO2 leaves the atmosphere and is stored”

          ROFLMAO.. so funny.

          If it is stored, then we don’t need to worry about it.

          Your explanations are those of a 5 year old.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “If it is stored, then we don’t need to worry about it.”

          We are discussing the natural glacial/interglacial cycle, Andy. So, even though this stored CO2 will come back out again on the next cycle, we don’t need to worry about it, because it works naturally.

          What we need to worry about is the unnatural CO2 increase that we are causing by burning fossil fuels. That CO2 is increasing the greenhouse effect. The mechanism is that molecules of CO2 absorb infrared radiation that is emitted from the surface, and then those molecules radiate that energy in all directions. Some of the energy is radiated back down to the surface again. That energy is called AGW.

        • BruceC says:

          Where is this CO2 ‘stored’ Martin? Normally when I store something, it’s in the shed or a draw ….. where I can find it again.

          You people have have been trying to find this ‘stored’ heat for around 20 years …. do you want a torch, it might be hiding in the dark.

        • Martin Smith says:

          “Where is this CO2 ‘stored’ Martin?”

          “You people have have been trying to find this ‘stored’ heat for around 20 years”

          CO2, Bruce. Not heat. CO2. If you actually don’t know how and where CO2 gets stored when earth goes into a glacial period, how on earth can you claim to understand this subject?

          I’m going to assume you really do know where the CO2 is stored.

        • BruceC says:

          I know where 40,000ppm of it is stored ….. in my lungs. And do you what? All of it comes out when I exhale.

        • BruceC says:

          Marty, you do realise that temperatures drive CO2, Even the latest EPICA and VOSTOK ice-cores show that.

  13. Gail Combs says:

    Here is the crux of Martin’s blind spot:

    There are two ways CO2 can force a temperature increase:

    (a) Hold the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere constant, and increase the amount of solar energy reaching earth.

    (b) Hold the amount of solar energy reaching earth constant, and increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    We know (b) is happening now, Ted. I’m not saying the amount of solar energy reaching earth is actually constant; I’m saying that, whichever way it is changing now, up or down, it is happening so slowly that it can not be causing anything but a small fraction of the warming we have seen over the last 100+ years, and which is continuing right now.

    A couple problems with that logic.
    #1. It leaves out any and all other possible forcings.

    #2. Even NASA has backed off “the Sun is Constant” position.

    I have toss out a zillion papers on the solar-ozone-climate connection as just one example.

    Here is another paper from NASA.
    Pop Article: NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

    Actual Paper: Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?

    If you look there are a ton of papers on the Sun-Monsoon connection. So that gives you Sun + Water and not CO2 + water.

    Evidence for solar forcing on the Indian monsoon during the last millennium 2001

    Solar forcing of the Indian summer monsoon variability during the Ållerød period September 2013

    A try at modeling:
    Simulation of the Indian monsoon and its variability during the last millennium

    Abstract.
    The general circulation model ECHAM5 has been used to simulate the Indian monsoon and its variability during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP; 900–1100 AD), the Little Ice Age (LIA; 1515–1715 AD) and for recent climate (REC; 1800–2000 AD). The focus is on the analysis of external drivers and internal feedbacks leading to extreme rainfall events over India from interannual to multidecadal time scale. An evaluation of spatiotemporal monsoon patterns with present-day observation data is in agreement with other state-of-the-art monsoon modeling studies. The simulated monsoon intensity on multidecadal time scale is weakened (enhanced) in summer (winter) due to colder (warmer) SSTs in the Indian Ocean. Variations in solar insolation are the main drivers for these SST anomalies, verified by very strong temporal anticorrelations between Total Solar Irradiance and All-India-Monsoon-Rainfall in summer monsoon months. The external solar forcing is coupled and overlain by internal climate modes of the ocean (ENSO and IOD) with asynchronous intensities and lengths of periods.…..

    http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/165pal~1.pdf
    Note the point he makes about the Monsoons and the climate of the Eocene.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Martin’s problem is that he so full of SkS kool-aide that he is incapable of understanding or accepting anything else, no matter how much data and real proof is available.

      TSI may seem to be relatively constant, but Solar radiation is NOT constant..
      The solar spectrum varies markedly throughout each solar cycle.
      Nor is the Solar magnetic field constant, nor anything else about the sun.

      The latter part of last century, where there was a short term (20 years or so) warming trend was marked by a series of very strong solar cycles, called a Grand Solar Maximum by one of the world’s top solar scientists.

      The AGW have to ignore this fact to make their lies and misinformation stick.

      And Martin continues that IGNORANCE.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “and which is continuing right now.”

      He implies that warming is continuing, when its not.

      AGAIN he LIES in his underhanded fashion.

      The only warming at the moment is coming totally from the current El Nino, which has absolutely nothing to do with CO2, but is all about ocean currents.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Actually AndyG,
        There is some evidence that El Nino is also sun driven.

        Variable Solar UV ===> variable Ozone ===> variable wind in the Antarctic.
        The Antarctic Circumpolar current is a wind driven current. If the winds are stronger more cold water is diverted from the Antarctic Circumpolar current up the side of South America as the Humboldt current. This is the cold current that gives El Nino it’s name.

        On top of that is the sun connection to monsoon rains I already documented yesterday.
        From Wiki

        …The monsoon is a tropical phenomenon. The Indian subcontinent stretches from just north of the equator to the Himalayas and Hindukush, primarily in the tropical zone of the Northern Hemisphere.

        The weather pattern involves winds blowing from the southwest (known as the southwest monsoon), from the Indian Ocean onto the Indian land mass, from May through September. These winds, blowing from sea to land, bring rain to most parts of the subcontinent. They split into two branches, the Arabian Sea branch and the Bay of Bengal branch, near the southernmost end of the Indian Peninsula. They are eagerly awaited in most parts of India for their agricultural and economic benefits.

        Around October, the winds reverse direction and start blowing from the northeast. Given their land-to-sea flow, from the subcontinent to the Indian Ocean, these carry less moisture and bring rain only to limited parts of India, such as Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu. They are known as the northeast monsoon….

        Dynamic theory
        The prevailing winds of the atmospheric circulation arise because of the difference in pressure at various latitudes and act as means for distribution of thermal energy on the planet. This pressure difference is because of the differences in solar insolation received at different latitudes and the resulting uneven heating of the planet. Alternating belts of high pressure and low pressure develop along the equator, the two tropics, the Arctic and Antarctic circles, and the two polar regions, giving rise to the trade winds, the westerlies, and the polar easterlies. However, geophysical factors like Earth’s orbit, its rotation, and its axial tilt cause these belts to shift gradually north and south, following the Sun’s seasonal shifts.
        Process of monsoon creation[edit]

        The dynamic theory explains the monsoon on the basis of the annual shifts in the position of global belts of pressure and winds. According to this theory, the monsoon is a result of the shift of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) under the influence of the vertical sun. Though the mean position of the ITCZ is taken as the equator, it shifts north and south with the migration of the vertical sun toward the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn during the summer of the respective hemispheres (Northern and Southern Hemisphere). As such, during the northern summer (May and June), the ITCZ moves north, along with the vertical sun, toward the Tropic of Cancer. The ITCZ, as the zone of lowest pressure in the tropical region, is the target destination for the trade winds of both hemispheres. Consequently, with the ITCZ at the Tropic of Cancer, the southeast trade winds of the Southern Hemisphere have to cross the equator to reach it.[Note 5] However, because of the Coriolis effect (which causes winds in the Northern Hemisphere to turn right, whereas winds in the Southern Hemisphere turn left), these southeast trade winds are deflected east in the Northern Hemisphere, transforming into southwest trades.[Note 6] These pick up moisture while traveling from sea to land and cause orographic rain once they hit the highlands of the Indian Peninsula. This results in the southwest monsoon.

        Bob Tisdale documents the trade winds and ENSO connection.
        …………………

        Many of the bits and pieces showing the sun controls the climate are out there as peer reviewed papers but there is no way in Hades any scientist is going to gather them all together and present them as a coherent picture. Unfortunately that means I have to string together all the various papers showing those bits and pieces and hope others can also see how they make a coherent whole.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “There is some evidence that El Nino is also sun driven.”

        Yep. I knew that.

        I type the headlines, but I’m really not a good writer and an even worse typist.

        It would take me ages to type the detail you do.

        … so I hope you will continue to fill in those details. 🙂

        • Gail Combs says:

          Andy, I am a rotten typist. I never took typing. However all my posting trying to counter this CAGW crap has made me a LOT faster.

          (And now you know why I prefer to copy and paste so much.)

    • Martin Smith says:

      Gail, we are discussing CO2, not the other forcings. That’s why the other forcings are left out. Nor did I claim the sun is constant. NASA and I have never claimed the sun is constant. Here is the crux of your blindspot: The sun’s output has decreased over the period of most of the global average temperature increase of the last 50 years.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Yes Marty.. leave out all the other forcings.. all those that you have absolutely NO IDEA about.

        That way you can blame everything on CO2.. roflmao.

        You are a very funny little non-entity …. with zero idea what you are talking about.

        The sun’s output did not decrease over the short period of warming last century .

        THAT IS A LIE. and you know it.

        Perpetually LYING seems to be the only thing you are capable of.

        The latter half of last century was classed as a GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM by one of the world’s leading solar scientists.

      • BruceC says:

        Can you explain this latest Vostok ice-core data that shows the highest CO2 levels, yet the lowest temperatures in the past +400,000 years?

        • Martin Smith says:

          I assume this is what you are looking for:

          Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Corehttp://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html

          And here:

          Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mysteryhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

      • AndyG55 says:

        ” Nor did I claim the sun is constant”

        You LYING PIECE OF SLIME……… here it is in your own words.

        “(b) Hold the amount of solar energy reaching earth constant, and increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
        We know (b) is happening now,….”

        You have just said solar energy is constant.

        That’s the trouble when you tell LIE after LIE after LIE..

        You forget just which LIES you have told.

      • BruceC says:

        Tell me Martin, how can this current ‘interglacial’ have the highest CO2 levels, but have the lowest temps in the past +400,000 years?

        Better run off to SkS to try and find an answer …… unfortunately there isn’t a climate scientist to be found over there …… NONE, NADA, ZIP!

      • BruceC says:

        Do you realise Marty, that only 20% of the past +400,000 years has been above the 1961-1990 ‘global average temperature’? And this current ‘global warming period’ has been the lowest!!!

        • AndyG55 says:

          Bruce, You will find out pretty quickly that Marty doesn’t realise ANYTHING.

          He is seriously brain-washed DUMB.

        • Martin Smith says:

          Not sure what you are getting at, Bruce. What makes the current warming unique is that we are causing it. AGW is the only cause that explains all the data we have observed since the beginning of the industrial revolution. None of the known natural causes, individually or in total, can account for more than a small fraction of the temperature increase we have observed.

          But if you can propose a natural cause or causes that works, I want to hear about it.

        • gator69 says:

          What makes the current warming unique is that we are causing it.

          LIAR!!! You have had your nose rubbed in this almost daily for weeks, and yet you still lie. What a pile of crap you are.

          Let’s try again, shall we?

          1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

          2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

          There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

          It is impossible to claim man is responsible, and each time you do, you lie.

        • BruceC says:

          OK Marty, show us all the peer-reviewed AND proven study that proves;

          “What makes the current warming unique is that we are causing it.”

        • BruceC says:

          BTW Marty, our current ‘we caused it’ warming is the lowest in 400,000 years.

        • BruceC says:

          But if you can propose a natural cause or causes that works, I want to hear about it.

          The big, bright thing in the sky – those white fluffy things also in the sky – which have been covering the big bright thing for the past three days and releasing some wet stuff (quite a lot wet stuff actually) at my location, and what covers 70% of this planet – the other wet stuff.

          5% of 0.04% is going to do SFA.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Martin says

        Gail, we are discussing CO2, not the other forcings. That’s why the other forcings are left out. Nor did I claim the sun is constant. NASA and I have never claimed the sun is constant. Here is the crux of your blindspot: The sun’s output has decreased over the period of most of the global average temperature increase of the last 50 years.

        First I wil respond to ” We are discussing CO2, not the other forcings.”

        Unfortunately you can not do that because of confounding and because CO2 is a dependent variable and not an independent variable.
        Confounding variables (aka third variables) are variables that the researcher failed to control, or eliminate, damaging the internal validity of an experiment.

        A confounding variable, also known as a third variable or a mediator variable, can adversely affect the relation between the independent variable and dependent variable. This may cause the researcher to analyze the results incorrectly. The results may show a false correlation between the dependent and independent variables, leading to an incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis.

        Believe me confounding variables are a royal PITA when you are doing research or trouble shooting failed industrial processes. Those unknown unknowns will bite you every time.

        A good explanation of ‘dependent’ at a kiddie site.

        …(Independent variable) causes a change in (Dependent Variable) and it isn’t possible that (Dependent Variable) could cause a change in (Independent Variable)…
        https://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/help/user_guide/graph/variables.asp

        If you stick CO2 and temperature in that sentence as the website suggests with
        CO2 = (Independent variable)
        temperature = (Dependent Variable)
        you get.

        CO2 causes a change in temperature and it isn’t possible that temperature could cause a change in CO2.

        We know this is not a true statement because of Henry’s law. If you heat up water it out gases CO2.
        ………………

        What about the reverse?
        If you stick CO2 and temperature in that sentence as the website suggests with
        CO2 = (Dependent variable)
        temperature = (Independent Variable)
        you get.

        Temperature causes a change in CO2 and it isn’t possible that CO2 could cause a change in temperature.

        Thanks to Henry’s law we know the first part of the statement is true but the second half is not proven since the temperature has gone up and down while the CO2 has continued to increase. So at best you can say there is confounding, a second (or possibly more) factors more powerful than CO2 that interfere with the direct relationship.

        The chart below is the plot of satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA showing a slice of time where CO2 did not cause the temperature to go up for what ever reason.

        http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d3fdd3e93970c-800wi

        • Martin Smith says:

          Gail, it is next to impossible to read what you have posted because of the improper formatting. Try to post without formatting and let the WordPress system format it for you.

          “Unfortunately you can not do that because of confounding and because CO2 is a dependent variable and not an independent variable.”

          I’m not running an experiment, Gail. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. I assume you aren’t disputing that. It means that CO2 can force the global average temperature to increase in two ways:

          (1) If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is constant and the energy reaching earth from the sun increases;

          (2) If the amount of energy reach earth from the sun is constant and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased.

          In both cases, the global average temperature will rise. In nature, however, we never have either of these processes working in its pure form. In nature, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is always changing, and the amount of energy reaching earth from the sun is always changing. But in nature, the changes in both are tiny, so that the resulting changes in temperature will be negligible, or nearly so, over the timescale we are interested in: The time from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present and from the present to the year 2100. Over both these time periods, for all practical purposes, both the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of energy reaching earth from the sun should be so close to constant that their changes should be very small over the two periods we are interested in.

          But the only forcing variable that has changed substantially over the first time period (the industrial revolution) is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has changed from below 300 to 400 now, and the cause is anthropogenic.We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That’s the only variable of interest now. It is true that the sun will likely reach a grand solar minimum, but that will barely make a dent in AGW.

        • Gail Combs says:

          First I reposted that comment with correct formating below.
          ………..

          Second “I’m not running an experiment, Gail. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. I assume you aren’t disputing that.”

          Yes you are, or rather the ClimAstrologists are. You can not say CO2 rose and temperature rose therefore CO2 is what caused the temperature rise WITHOUT identifying every single factor that can cause temperature change and account for their effect numerically.

          THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE!

          That is why I post and repost this specific paper written in 2013. Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling

          That paper POINT BLANK say the IPCC HAS NOT LOOKED AT VARIABILITY OF THE SUN!
          For the first time, a comprehensive comparison and discussion of all relevant SSI measurements and models available for climate studies is presented, as well as a first investigation of their impacts on Earth’s climate within a number of different CCMs.

          Since I have shown that the Earth has been in a Grand Solar Maximum AND that NASA has only recently found out the IR wavelength sthat form and destroy ozone vary A LOT, ClimAstrologists have no business assigning temperature change to CO2 based on a correlation that often fails.

          And that is not even getting into the effects of the moon and what ever else.

          See I could say women’s fashion causes climate change.

  14. smamarver says:

    There was no doubt that global cooling was a serious phenomenon. Although the threat was eminent, neither the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) nor other groups concerned with the global warming issue have ever showed any interest in analyzing the pronounced global cooling. The half century climate change occurred without any implication of the CO2. Then what was the determinant factor? Nothing out of the ordinary happened. Throughout the early 20th century, nature resumed its course. No serious earthquake, tsunami, meteorite fall, sunspots occurred. Industrial plants and combustion machines abundantly released smoke, soot, sulfate, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but, instead of a global warming, the world clime cooled down. The only serious event which took place for three years in European waters and for four years at a global level (since 1942) was the warfare.The conduction of a naval war at a global level and the turning and churning of huge sea areas in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans lead to the inevitable. Climate changed dramatically into a colder one, for four decades. Oceans and seas which had undergone a strong warming during World War I became now significantly colder. This change lasted approximately half a century.

  15. BruceC says:

    To be quite honest, the globe has been cooling for the past +400,000 years. Infact, the warm ‘Interglacials’ only account for 20% of temps above the 1961-1990 ‘global average temperature’ over that +400,000 year period.

    Graph can be found in this Nov 2015 study/discussion which uses the latest EPICA (Antarctica) ice-core data;

    https://2020globalsciencereviewuk.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/global-temperature-variability-reviewed.pdf

    • BruceC says:

      You will also notice that our ‘Holocene’ period has been the lowest in that +400,000 year period.

    • Martin Smith says:

      Thanks for being honest, Bruce, but I don’t see that you have a point. The planet has warmed 1C now because of AGW. Without the natural cooling you claim, the increase would be even higher. If you are arguing that we shouldn’t completely end the burning of fossil fuels, I agree with you there, and I think most climate scientists would too. What we have to do is stop burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and to power private cars for moving people around. That’ll do it!

      • BruceC says:

        Well Marty, YOU set the example …. stop using fossil fuels! Do not buy or use a single product made by fossil fuels (clothing, food, EV’s (and their charging), mobile phone, the very computer you are probably using, the A/C used to keep you cool during this period of human induced global warming, etc, etc, etc.

        Practice what you preach Marty ….. otherwise …. STFU!

      • BruceC says:

        And to just add Marty, we have no idea just how much the earth has warmed because of ‘AGW’. The so-called land+ocean surface temps have been adjusted that many times you can’t even tell what the global temp was yesterday …… let alone 150 years ago.

  16. BruceC says:

    (youtube)

  17. Gail Combs says:

    DARN IT messed up the blockquotes again! (Told you I can type.)
    Martin says ‘Gail, we are discussing CO2, not the other forcings. That’s why the other forcings are left out. Nor did I claim the sun is constant. NASA and I have never claimed the sun is constant. Here is the crux of your blindspot: The sun’s output has decreased over the period of most of the global average temperature increase of the last 50 years.’
    ……………….

    First I will respond to ”We are discussing CO2, not the other forcings.”

    Unfortunately you can not do that because of confounding and because CO2 is a dependent variable and not an independent variable.
    Confounding variables (aka third variables) are variables that the researcher failed to control, or eliminate, damaging the internal validity of an experiment.

    A confounding variable, also known as a third variable or a mediator variable, can adversely affect the relation between the independent variable and dependent variable. This may cause the researcher to analyze the results incorrectly. The results may show a false correlation between the dependent and independent variables, leading to an incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis.

    Believe me confounding variables are a royal PITA when you are doing research or trouble shooting failed industrial processes. Those unknown unknowns will bite you every time.

    A good explanation of ‘dependent’ at a kiddie site.

    …(Independent variable) causes a change in (Dependent Variable) and it isn’t possible that (Dependent Variable) could cause a change in (Independent Variable)…
    https://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/help/user_guide/graph/variables.asp

    If you stick CO2 and temperature in that sentence as the website suggests with
    CO2 = (Independent variable)
    temperature = (Dependent Variable)
    you get.

    CO2 causes a change in temperature and it isn’t possible that temperature could cause a change in CO2.

    We know this is not a true statement because of Henry’s law. If you heat up water it out gases CO2.
    ………………

    What about the reverse?
    If you stick CO2 and temperature in that sentence as the website suggests with
    CO2 = (Dependent variable)
    temperature = (Independent Variable)
    you get.

    Temperature causes a change in CO2 and it isn’t possible that CO2 could cause a change in temperature.

    Thanks to Henry’s law we know the first part of the statement is true but the second half is not proven since the temperature has gone up and down while the CO2 has continued to increase. So at best you can say there is confounding, a second (or possibly more) factors more powerful than CO2 that interfere with the direct relationship.

    The chart below is the plot of satellite atmospheric temperature measurements provided by RSS, plus CO2 measurements from NOAA showing a slice of time where CO2 did not cause the temperature to go up for what ever reason.

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d3fdd3e93970c-800wi

    • Martin Smith says:

      “Unfortunately you can not do that because of confounding and because CO2 is a dependent variable and not an independent variable.”

      I’m not running an experiment, Gail. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. I assume you aren’t disputing that. It means that CO2 can force the global average temperature to increase in two ways:

      (1) If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is constant and the energy reaching earth from the sun increases;

      (2) If the amount of energy reach earth from the sun is constant and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increased.

      In both cases, the global average temperature will rise. In nature, however, we never have either of these processes working in its pure form. In nature, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is always changing, and the amount of energy reaching earth from the sun is always changing. But in nature, the changes in both are tiny, so that the resulting changes in temperature will be negligible, or nearly so, over the timescale we are interested in: The time from the beginning of the industrial revolution to the present and from the present to the year 2100. Over both these time periods, for all practical purposes, both the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of energy reaching earth from the sun should be so close to constant that their changes should be very small over the two periods we are interested in.

      But the only forcing variable that has changed substantially over the first time period (the industrial revolution) is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It has changed from below 300 to 400 now, and the cause is anthropogenic.We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That’s the only variable of interest now. It is true that the sun will likely reach a grand solar minimum, but that will barely make a dent in AGW.

  18. Gail Combs says:

    Martin says ‘Gail, we are discussing CO2, not the other forcings. That’s why the other forcings are left out. Nor did I claim the sun is constant. NASA and I have never claimed the sun is constant. Here is the crux of your blindspot: The sun’s output has decreased over the period of most of the global average temperature increase of the last 50 years.’
    ………….

    Now I will take this statement. Here is the crux of your blindspot: The sun’s output has decreased over the period of most of the global average temperature increase of the last 50 years.’

    No Marty that is not a ‘blind spot’ and it is just an incorrect statement on your part. It is well researched and not by me.

    According to Usoskin et al. (2014), the Sun “shows strong variability in its magnetic activity, from Grand minima to Grand maxima and the present Grand Maximum of solar activity now tapering off is the most active in the past 3,000 years. Only four grand minima (including the modern one) have been longer than 70 years. Reference to the Modern Grand Solar Maximum is also found in (Usoskin et al., 2003c; Solanki et al., 2004)

    A review of “A History of Solar Activity over Millennia” by Ilya G. Usoskinet al by Solar Physics can be found at the bottom of this comment.
    A History of Solar Activity over Millennia

    The end of the Modern grand maximum of activity and the current low level of activity, characterized by the highest ever observed cosmic ray flux as recorded by ground-based neutron monitors, the very low level of the HMF and geomagnetic activity, should help to verify the connections between solar activity, cosmic ray fluxes, geomagnetic activity, the heliospheric magnetic field, and open field. Since some of these connections are somewhat controversial, these extreme conditions should help to quantify them better.
    (Page 44)

    The DATA

    …Thanks to the recent development of precise technologies, including accelerator mass spectrometry, solar activity can be reconstructed over multiple millennia from concentrations of cosmogenic isotopes 14 C and 10 Be in terrestrial archives. This allows one to study the temporal evolution of solar magnetic activity, and thus of the solar dynamo, on much longer timescales than are available from direct measurements.

    This paper gives an overview of the present status of our knowledge of long-term solar activity, covering the period of Holocene (the last 11 millennia)….

    3.7 Verification of reconstructions
    Because of the diversity of the methods and results of solar-activity reconstruction, it is vitally important to verify them. Even though a full verification is not possible, there are different means of indirect or partial verification, as discussed below….

    3.7.1 Comparison with direct data

    The most direct verification of solar-activity reconstruction is a comparison with the actual GSN sunspot data for the last few centuries….

    The agreement between the actual and reconstructed sunspot numbers is quite good, the correlation coefficient for the 14 C-based series is r = 0.93 with the RMS deviation between the two series being six for the period of 1610 – 1900 (Solanki et al., 2004). We want to stress that this reconstruction is fully physics based and does not include any fitting to the whole GSN data series; thus this comparison verifies the approach in both absolute level and relative variations The agreement between GSN and 10 Be-based reconstructions (Usoskin et al., 2003c) is also good (r = 0.78, RMS = 10 for 1700 – 1985). In this case, however, the comparison can only test the relative variation because of the unknown proportionality coefficient between the measured concentration of 10 Be and the production rate (Section 3.3.3), which is fitted to match the overall level of the reconstructed solar activity. One can see that the reconstructed sunspot series generally follows the real GSN series, depicting the same main features, namely, the Maunder minimum, the tiny Dalton minimum, a slight decrease of activity around 1900 (sometimes called the modern minimum) as well as a steep rise in the first half of the 20th century. This validates the reliability of the physics-based reconstruction of sunspot numbers….

    A review of “A History of Solar Activity over Millennia” by Ilya G. Usoskin
    @ Solar Physics
    http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2008-3&page=articlesu16.html

    Keeping possible uncertainties in mind, let us consider a list of the largest grand maxima (the 50 year smoothed sunspot number stably exceeding 50), identified for the last 11,400 years using 14C data, as shown in Table 2 (after Usoskin et al., 2007). A total of 19 grand maxima have been identified with a total duration of around 1030 years, suggesting that the sun spends around 10% of its time in an active state. A statistical analysis of grand-maxima–occurrence time suggests that they do not follow long-term cyclic variations, but like grand minima, are defined by stochastic/chaotic processes. The distribution of the waiting time between consecutive grand maxima is not as clear as that for grand minima, but also hints at a deviation from exponential law. The duration of grand maxima has a smooth distribution, which nearly exponentially decreases towards longer intervals. Most of the reconstructed grand maxima (about 75%) were not longer than 50 years, and only four grand minima (including the modern one) have been longer than 70 years. This suggest that the probability of the modern active-sun episode continuing is low.5 (cf. Solanki et al., 2004; Abreu et al., 2008)

    • BruceC says:

      Please do not confuse Marty with facts Gail ….. (rolls-eyes). Marty gets all his info from the world famous (97% consensus) cartoon site ….. SkepticalScience ….. OOOOH!

    • Martin Smith says:

      Gail, over the last few decades, total solar irradiance has decreased slightly. this corresponds to the period of most of the global average temperature increase.

      • BruceC says:

        Marty, Marty, Marty …. TSI is not the only ‘energy’ released by the sun. Its only been in the past decade or so that continuous and good quality Solar UV, EUV & Soft X-ray flux data has been measured by satellites, all of which have huge bearings on our climate and temperatures.

        Never mind Marty, you just continue believing in the pseudo-science that SkS keeps feeding you ….. one day you might just wake-up, give your head a good shake, and say …. WTF?

        • Gail Combs says:

          Don’t forget the magnetic field that causes cosmic ray flux to change… or the Earth’s wandering North Pole that is galloping towards Siberia at a fast rate of the decrease in the earth’s own magnetic field. All of which can and does change the climate.

          Land temp vs Solar Ap index

          Arctic Temperature Anomaly
          Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
          Geomagnetic Field Fz

          The Earth’s magnetic field is in a permanent flux, the overall strength of the field has been gradually declining during last 150 years.
          South Hemisphere’s magnetic field’s maximum strength is concentrated in a single area and its decline has been relatively even, while the NH magnetic distribution is more complex, its maximum strength is split between two areas, thousands of miles apart, one is located in the general area of Hudson Bay and the other in the central Siberia, north of Baikal Lake.

          A heck of a lot more HERE.

      • Gail Combs says:

        Marty, I am NOT talking about total solar irradiance. That is a major simplification. There is much more to the sun. A room full of 100 midgets and 50 Giants may have the same height as a room full of average sized women but which room would you pick from for a basketball team to go against The Los Angeles Lakers?

        Cycles 1 through 24. Only cycle 24 starting in 2009 is significantly lower. Also note the Ice Age Scare of the 1960/70s had low solar activity.

        And yes there has been a FALL off of temperature to correspond to the fall in solar activity (cycle 23/24) (Do not forget that the oceans are a major heat reserve that is no longer being replenished.)

        NASA

        …In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun’s brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways…

        “We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE…

        SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 — by ten times as much as the total irradiance did — while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

        Between 2004 and 2007, the Solar Irradiance Monitor (blue line) measured a decrease in ultraviolet radiation (less than 400 nanometers) that was a factor of four to six larger than expected (black line). In the visible part of the spectrum (400 to 700 nanometers), SIM showed a slight increase in comparison to what was expected. Measurements (red) from another ultraviolet radiation-sensing instrument called SOLSTICE compare well with those from SIM.

        Now look where that energy ends up in the ocean.

        Those changes in wavelength are going to make a difference in the heat distribution of the ocean and who the heck knows what that is going to do.

        • BruceC says:

          Also note the Ice Age Scare of the 1960/70s had low solar activity.

          Gail, you are talking to Marty who gets his wisdom from SkS, there was no such thing as a 1970’s ‘ice-age scare’.

          Just wait, Marty will supply a SkS link.

        • Gail Combs says:

          BruceC,
          Actually I am talking to the fence sitters who might read this blog.

  19. BruceC says:

    Oh Marty, you have yet to explain why the current interglacial has the highest CO2 level yet the lowest temperature in +400,000 years.

  20. Gail Combs says:

    OK, Marty.

    Let’s start from the point that CO2 can cause warming.
    (Steven Goddard our host and many others would agree with this. SEE: Greenhouse Effect For Dummies Again )

    We then have to determine if this is a problem.

    You are aware of the Milancovitch cycles. Well the Precession cycle has a periodicity of 23,000 years. Half Precession would therefore be 11,500 years. Turner (2002) (European pollen data) estimates the duration of the Eemian, the last interglacial, as 11,000 years. Muller (Eemian diatomite deposits) estimates 10,000 years +/- 1,000 years for the whole Eemian interglacial period. The Holocene is now over 11,700 years old. (Thank you Grand Solar Maximum)

    The entire CO2 forcing is 32 to 44 W m–2 [cf., Reid, 1997]. and all but 5 to 6 W m–2 of that forcing occurs in the first 200 ppm CO2 (modtran – see graph below) A CO2 concentration where plants barely survive.

    So it all comes down to Climate Sensitivity to CO2.

    We can also look at this paper.
    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ~11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3°C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present.”

    So even if you are talking 9% of Trenbreth’s “incoming solar radiation… absolute forcing,… around 340 W m–2 at the top of the atmosphere” the reduction in solar radiation since the Holocene Climate Optimum is 30.6 W m–2. Or 10W m–2 = 1°C or less.
    This decrease in solar energy is equivalent to the entire CO2 forcing [32-44 W m–2] with mankind’s contribution being 1.5 W/m 2 for the forcing of anthropogenic CO2 [cf., Reid, 1997].
    …………………

    Back to WHEN we are in the Holocene which is at the end.
    To give you a feel for just how close to glaciation we are you can look at the calculations from a fall 2012 paper Can we predict the duration of an interglacial? The paper gives the calculated solar insolation values in June @ 65°N of several glacial inceptions:
    Current value – insolation = 479W m−2 (from that paper) MIS 7e – insolation = 463 W m−2,
    MIS 11c – insolation = 466 W m−2,
    MIS 13a – insolation = 500 W m−2,
    MIS 15a – insolation = 480 W m−2,
    MIS 17 – insolation = 477 W m−2

    So an increase in energy by 5 W m−2 gives a value of 484 W m−2, IF mankind can jack the CO2 levels back up to over 1000 ppm.
    ……..

    Any hope that the Holocene would go long was shot down by Lisiecki and Raymo in 2005 in their rebuttal of Loutre and Berger, 2003. (The paper NOAA cites) No more recent papers has rebutted Lisiecki and Raymo in the decade since then. Not that the MSM would bother telling us that.

    ABSTRACT
    We present a 5.3-Myr stack (the ‘‘LR04’’ stack) of benthic d18O records from 57 globally distributed sites aligned by an automated graphic correlation algorithm. This is the first benthic d18O stack composed of more than three records to extend beyond 850 ka,…

    RESULTS
    Recent research has focused on MIS 11 as a possible analog for the present interglacial [e.g., Loutre and Berger, 2003; EPICA Community Members, 2004] because both occur during times of low eccentricity. The LR04 age model establishes that MIS 11 spans two precession cycles, with d18O values below 3.6% for 20 kyr, from 398 – 418 ka. In comparison, stages 9 and 5 remained below 3.6% for 13 and 12 kyr, respectively, and the Holocene interglacial has lasted 11 kyr so far. In the LR04 age model, the average LSR of 29 sites is the same from 398– 418 ka as from 250–650 ka; consequently, stage 11 is unlikely to be artificially stretched. However, the 21 June insolation minimum at 65°N during MIS 11 is only 489 W/m2, much less pronounced than the present minimum of 474 W/m2. In addition, current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr. We propose that this effectively precludes a ‘‘double precession cycle’’ interglacial [e.g., Raymo, 1997] in the Holocene without human influence.
    large(DOT)stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf

    HEY, Marty did you read that? “current insolation values are not predicted to return to the high values of late MIS 11 for another 65 kyr.” That kills any possibility of a CAGW tipping point for the next 65 kyr. The solar energy just isn’t there and CO2 has already shot its wad in the first 200 ppm.

    So tell me again WHY ever we would want to strip a critical gas for plant life from the atmosphere when it may be all that is standing between us and the next glaciation?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s