Global warming slowdown probably due to natural cycles, study finds

Posted: February 27, 2015 by oldbrew in alarmism, climate, Natural Variation, pause, Uncertainty
Tags: , , , ,
Sorry folks [image credit: wikia]

Sorry folks [image credit: wikia]

The Guardian newspaper finally facing up to climate reality? Well, after a fashion. Their global warming can may have been kicked down the road for a while, that’s all.

The idea that natural variation could make temperatures go up as well as down is still not for discussion in their biased climate world.

H/T Lord Beaverbrook.

Guardian report: Manmade global warming over the past decade has probably been partly offset by the cooling effect of natural variability in the Earth’s climate system, a team of climate researchers have concluded.

The finding could help explain the slowdown in temperature rises this century that climate sceptics have seized on as evidence climate change has stopped, even though 14 of the 15 hottest years on record have happened since 2000.

The authors of the new paper describe the slowdown, sometimes called a global warming hiatus or pause, as a “false pause”. They warn that the natural cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic that they found are currently having an overall cooling effect on temperatures will reverse in the coming decades – at which point warming will accelerate again.


“It [the new paper] has important implications for understanding the slowdown,” said Byron A Steinman, the lead author of the study, which was published in the journal Science on Thursday.

“I think probably the biggest thing that people should understand is there is randomness in the climate system. The recent slowdown in no way invalidates the idea that continued burning of fossil fuels will increase Earth’s surface temperature and pose a substantial burdens on human society,” Steinman told the Guardian.

The research looked at two long-term climate phenomenon that play a key role in global temperatures, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. The authors worked to strip out ‘external forces’ on those oscillations, such as volcanoes and the burning of fossil fuels, to work out how much they varied naturally, or internally.

Such natural variability is likely to have had a substantial influence over the span of several decades on temperatures in the northern hemisphere, they concluded, of up to 0.15C in a warming or cooling effect – and in recent years it has been a cooling one.

“We find that internal multidecadal variability in northern hemisphere temperatures, rather than having contributed to recent warming, likely offset anthropogenic warming over the past decade,” the authors write.

Michael E Mann, one of the co-authors, blogged that: “Our conclusion that natural cooling in the Pacific is a principal contributor to the recent slowdown in large-scale warming is consistent with some other recent studies, including a study I commented on previously showing that stronger-than-normal winds in the tropical Pacific during the past decade have lead to increased upwelling of cold deep water in the eastern equatorial Pacific”.

***
Full Guardian report here.

With the Paris climate conference looming later this year, the big push is on to round up as many doubters as possible with vague predictions of trouble ahead, unsupported by current observational evidence of ‘man-made’ climate effects.

Comments
  1. oldbrew says:

    FYI: the headline is a direct copy of The Guardian report.

  2. jdmcl says:

    We’ve had Mann-made warming and now we have Mann-made cooling?

    Unfortunately it’s not quite a joke. In 2006 we were told by IPCC author Gabriel Vecchi that trade winds had slowed in the Pacific. About 12 months ago we were told, by Matthew England and others, that Pacific Ocean trade winds have increased. (See report at WUWT at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/seven-years-ago-we-were-told-the-opposite-of-what-the-new-matthew-england-paper-says-slower-not-faster-trade-winds-caused-the-pause/).

    The idea of increased Trade Winds seems a load of nonsense. If it was true we’d see a cooler eastern Pacific and very warm western Pacific and we’d have more and stronger La Nina events than we’d seen in the past (assuming of course that the common notion about wind driving the sea surface holds true, which might even be wrong). In reality the ENSO pattern since year 2000 is nothing very unusual at all, so I don’t know where those strong wonds have gone.

  3. tom0mason says:

    This is not the level of reporting we have come to expect from the Guardian newspaper, heads will roll I mean how enlightened of them.

  4. pmbbiggsy says:

    Logically then, the natural, up to 0.15C cooling or warming effect, will reverse and cause up to 0.15C warming – a warming effect that would have nothing to do with CO2.

  5. Richard111 says:

    jdmcl,

    As the poles cool with respect to the equator trade winds will increase because of increase in temperature differential which will in due course also lead to more extreme weather which warmists will claim is due to a warming world. The oceans place considerable delay in global temperature changes but I bet we will see a few lively hurricanes in the next couple of years.

  6. “The authors of the new paper describe the slowdown, sometimes called a global warming hiatus or pause, as a “false pause”. They warn that the natural cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic that they found are currently having an overall cooling effect on temperatures will reverse in the coming decades – at which point warming will accelerate again.”

    That’s the big political turn off. Politicians are not concerned past the next political cycle, it doesn’t sell well with the voting public to presume that you will still be in office for that length of time!

  7. They show all the symptoms of group think. They just cannot consider anything unless it fits their already biased views. So they grasp at natural variation to explain the facts that do not fit their reality, but they will not consider the implication of having large natural variability is that it can more than likely explain all the variation we saw in the 20th century.

    There’s certainly nothing unusual in the CET record. The latter 20th century warming was a concern when it coincided with the first measurements of CO2 which showed rising levels, but that concern should have dramatically lessened by as early as 2005 when I first saw that the trend was not showing warming.

    And to be honest, it is the most repellent sight to see these people claiming to be scientists but having to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way by the data toward our cool-headed analysis of the temperature data.

    In 2009, if they had just admitted that sceptics were right. Yes a few academics would have got slapped wrists. Perhaps someone like Sligo might have lost their job. But overall, science and particularly those involved in climate would have pulled up their socks, raised standards and by now almost no one would remember what happened.

    But no … kicking dragging screeching that they are right like some demented person … I almost feel sorry for them.

  8. jdmcl says: “We’ve had Mann-made warming and now we have Mann-made cooling?”

    Barring another bit of natural warming (which unfortunately is far too possible), this global warming scam is dead. The level of projected warming is already tumbling and is probably half what is was in 2001. (0.7-3) So, at this rate, best estimates are that it will be 1/3 by 2030 (0.5C – 2C) 1/4 by 2045 (0.4C – 1.5C)

    Somewhere on that track line, they are going to realise that there are massive negative feedbacks and that significant further warming from the typical inter-glacial is extremely unlikely. At which point they will work out that the same is not true of cooling, and that we could see “catastrophic cooling”.

    In a sense, the global warming scare might be a godsend. Because you can more or less increase projected deaths and economic impact from cooling by an order of magnitude over possible harms from warming.

    So, at least when some entrepreneur works out they can make money from the global cooling scare, and they know that gullible Guardian journalists can be fed news if they make it look “green” – at least we will already have been through this global warming scare and society will be much less inclined to listen to the gullible, the scientifically elite and the politically motivated … so basically Guardian journalist job descriptions.

  9. oldbrew says:

    Scottish Sceptic says: ‘I almost feel sorry for them’

    Check your medication perhaps😉

  10. ren says:

    Low solar activity link to cold UK winters

    By Mark Kinver
    Science and environment reporter, BBC News

    Satellite image showing the British Isles covered in snow (Image: NASA)
    A period of low solar activity could lead to more cold winters in the UK

    The ‘Big Freeze’ explained
    The UK and continental Europe could be gripped by more frequent cold winters in the future as a result of low solar activity, say researchers.
    They identified a link between fewer sunspots and atmospheric conditions that “block” warm, westerly winds reaching Europe during winter months.
    But they added that the phenomenon only affected a limited region and would not alter the overall global warming trend.
    The findings appear in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
    “By recent standards, we have just had what could be called a very cold winter and I wanted to see if this was just another coincidence or statistically robust,” said lead author Mike Lockwood, professor of space environment physics at the University of Reading, UK.
    To examine whether there was a link, Professor Lockwood and his co-authors compared past levels of solar activity with the Central England Temperature (CET) record, which is the world’s longest continuous instrumental record of such data.
    The researchers used the 351-year CET record because it provided data that went back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum, a prolonged period of very low activity on the Sun that lasted about half a century.

    Europe is particularly susceptible because it lies underneath the jet stream
    Professor Mike Lockwood
    The Maunder Minimum occurred in the latter half of the 17th Century – a period when Europe experienced a series of harsh winters, which has been dubbed by some as the Little Ice Age. Following this, there was a gradual increase in solar activity that lasted 300 years.
    Professor Lockwood explained that studies of activity on the Sun, which provides data stretching back over 9,000 years, showed that it tended to “ramp up quite slowly over about a 300-year period, then drop quite quickly over about a 100-year period”.
    He said the present decline started in 1985 and was currently about “half way back to a Maunder Minimum condition”.
    This allowed the team to compare recent years with what happened in the late 1600s.
    “We found that you could accommodate both the Maunder Minimum and the last few years into the same framework,” he told BBC News.
    Big chill
    Professor Lockwood said that there were a number of possibilities that could explain the link, but the team favoured the idea of a meteorological phenomenon known as “blocking”.
    This affects the dynamics of jet streams, which are very strong winds about 7-12km above the Earth’s surface that can have a major influence on weather systems. There is one jet stream present in each hemisphere.

    The Sun (Image: AP)
    Solar activity has been in decline since 1985, says Professor Lockwood

    ‘No Sun link’ to climate change
    “Europe is particularly susceptible because, firstly, it lies underneath the (northern hemisphere’s) jet stream,” he explained.
    A “blocking” occurs when the jet stream forms an “s” shape over the north-eastern Atlantic, causing the wind to fold back over itself.
    “If you haven’t got blocking, then the jet stream brings the mild, wet westerly winds to give us the weather we are famous for.”
    But, he added, if the jet stream is “blocked”, and pushed further northwards, then cold, dry winds from the east flow over Europe, resulting in a sharp fall in temperatures.
    “This… ‘blocking’ does seem to be one of the things that can be modulated by solar activity,” he said.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8615789.stm

  11. M Simon says:

    The recent slowdown in no way invalidates the idea that continued burning of fossil fuels will increase Earth’s surface temperature and pose a substantial burdens on human society,” Steinman told the Guardian.

    So when do we start bombing China’s electrical power plants that burn fossil fuels?

  12. oldbrew says:

    That should read: ‘The recent slowdown in EVERY way invalidates the idea that continued burning of fossil fuels will increase Earth’s surface temperature’

    About 15% increase in CO2 levels leads to a nil or negligible change in global temperature trends – and that’s observation not assertion. Warmists are getting longer on assertion – posing as science – and shorter on evidence the longer the so-called pause lasts.

    http://www.thegwpf.com/the-pause-might-end-soon-or-possibly-not/

  13. oldbrew says:

    New York surrounded by ice floes.

    As the temperature hit a record low of two degrees* on Friday, transportation problems extended to some of the city’s ferry services. NY1’s Jose Martinez filed the following report. [*degrees Fahrenheit]

    The frigid temperatures have created a different kind of obstacle for some New York commuters: ice floes.

    Large chunks of ice between Manhattan and New Jersey caused delays Friday for people who rely on Hudson River ferries.

    http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2015/02/20/ice-floes-cause-adjustments-in-some-ferry-services.html

    The city Department of Transportation said the record-breaking temperatures are posing a challenge.

    What happened to the supposedly warming ocean waters the Hudson river runs into?

  14. They are clueless , the real story is below.

    This is the reality.

    CO2 or GHG effect is a product of climate(oceans) the environment (forestation) and biological activity.

    CO2 is governed by the above.

    Fact -Total human contributions to greenhouse gasses account for only about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

    THE WITCH HUNT – It is taking place in order to propagate their scam for as long as it possible. Time is running out, witch hunt or no witch hunt.

    Before this decade ends the AGW nonsense should be on it’s way to being obsolete, not that it has not already been proven to be just that , from the data alone.

    Still as is evidenced by this Witch Hunt the AGW enthusiast, (that is the nicest word I can come up for them) are going to try to do whatever it takes to keep this hoax alive.

    More data which shows since the Holocene Optimum from around 8000BC , through the present day Modern Warm Period( which ended in 1998) the temperature trend throughout this time in the Holocene, has been in a slow gradual down trend(despite an overall increase in CO2, my first chart ), punctuated with periods of warmth. Each successive warm period being a little less warm then the one proceeding it.

    My reasoning for the data showing this gradual cooling trend during the Holocene ,is Milankovitch Cycles were highly favorable for warming 10000 years ago or 8000 BC, and have since been in a cooling cycle. Superimposed on this gradual cooling cycle has been solar variability which has worked sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to the overall gradual cooling trend , Milankovitch Cycles have been promoting.

    Then again this is only data which AGW enthusiast ignore if it does not fit into their scheme of things. I am going to send just one more item of data and rest my case.

  15. ren says:

    Phil, “he said” 6 weeks?

  16. oldbrew says:

    Monday was Ground Hog Day and Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow and he forecasts 6 more weeks of winter [http://icecap.us/]

  17. ren says:

    It is worth observed on the date of the galactic radiation increase at cruise altitudes. Now mikroSv 15.83 per flight hour.

  18. M Simon says:

    ren,

    How about some history to give the dose rate some meaning?

  19. vukcevic says:

    1962
    Guardian:The ice age cometh – As glaciers start to advance again, evidence suggests that the Earth may be entering a new ice age
    2015
    Frozen sea wave off Nantucket, USA

  20. Paul Vaughan says:

    The new MMMO (Model-Mannipulated Multidecadal Oscillation) paper is based on fundamentally false spatiotemporal assumptions about insolation forcing that demand violation of basic geometric axioms plus one or both of the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum. The residuals catastrophically fail even the most elementary diagnostics. That this is tolerated (for example by politically-opportunistic lukes) is informative.

    They’re not being serious. It’s partisan science to stall the clock. If anyone appears to be taking them seriously, this is (deeply) informative.

  21. ren says:

    M Simon
    Current Dose Rate: The NAIRAS model predicts atmospheric radiation exposure from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particle (SEP) events. GCR particles propagation from local interstellar space to Earth is modeled using an extensionhe Badhwar and O’Neill model, where the solar modulation has been parameterized using high-latitude real-time neutron monitor measurements at Oulu, Tomnicky, and Moscow. During radiation storms, the SEP spectrum is derived using ion flux measurements taken from the NOAA/GOES and NASA/ACE satellites. Transport of the cosmic ray particles – GCR and SEP – through the magnetosphere is estimated using the CISM-Dartmouth particle trajectory geomagnetic cutoff rigidity code,driven by real-time solar wind parameters and interplanetary magnetic field data measured by the NASA/ACE satellite. Cosmic ray transport through the neutral atmosphere is based on analytical solutions of coupled Boltzmann transport equations obtained from NASA Langley Research Center’s HZETRN transport code. Global distributions of atmospheric density are derived from the NCEP Global Forecasting System (GFS) meteorological data.

    0. ICRP: International Commission on Radiological Protection
    1. Real-time radiation exposure is computed as an effective dose rate, which is a body-average over the radiative-sensitive organs and tissues, in units of microsievert per hour (uSv/hr). Annual or flight accumulated effective dose is reported in units of millisievert (mSv; Note: 1 mSv = 1000 uSv).
    2. ICRP recommended annual limit for occupationally exposed radiation workers (including aircrew) is less than 20 mSv. If the predicted exposure is less than 1/3 of this limit, the safety signal color will be green – indicating minimal radiation exposure. If the predicted exposure is between 1/3-2/3 of the ICRP recommended limit, the safety signal color will be yellow – indicating that close tracking of individual radiation exposure is advised. If the predicted exposure is greater than 2/3 the recommended limit, the safety signal color will be red – indicating exposure to maximum recommended limit is possible.
    3. ICRP recommended annual limit for public sector radiation exposure is less than 1 mSv. If the predicted exposure is less than 1/3 of this limit, the safety signal color will be green – indicating minimal radiation exposure. If the predicted exposure is between 1/3-2/3 of the ICRP recommended limit, the safety signal color will be yellow – indicating that close tracking of individual radiation exposure is advised. If the predicted exposure is greater than 2/3 the recommended limit, the safety signal color will be red – indicating exposure to maximum recommended limit is possible.
    4. ICRP recommended limit for prenatal radiation exposure is less than 1 mSv annually and less than 0.5 mSv in any one month during pregnancy. The signal indicator color is based on the 0.5 mSv limit. If the predicted exposure is less than 1/3 of this limit, the safety signal color will be green – indicating minimal radiation exposure. If the predicted exposure is between 1/3-2/3 of the ICRP recommended limit, the safety signal color will be yellow indicating that close tracking of individual radiation exposure is advised. If the predicted exposure is greater than 2/3 the recommended limit, the safety signal color will be red – indicating exposure to maximum recommended limit is possible.
    5. The predicted aircrew exposure is based on the current NAIRAS modeled exposure rate multiplied by the maximum annual flight hours for pilots, which is 1000 hrs. If an aircrew member, for example, expects to fly only 600 hrs per year, then multiply the NAIRAS predicted radiation exposure by 6/10. If an aircrew member expects to fly 800 hrs per year, then multiply the predicted radiation exposure by 8/10, and so on.
    6. The predicted public and prenatal exposure for the representative high-latitude flights is based on the current NAIRAS modeled exposure rate multiplied by the average flight time.
    http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/globeView.html

  22. oldbrew says:

    New Global Warming motto

  23. Paul Vaughan says:


    P'(s,t) = ( { |A(t)-B(s,t)| * [ A(t)*B'(s,t) + B(s,t)*A'(t) ] } – { [ A(t)*B(s,t) ] * [ ( A(t)-B(s,t) ) * ( A'(t)-B'(s,t) ) / |A(t)-B(s,t)| ] } ) / ( A(t)-B(s,t) )^2

    A(t) ≠ B(s,t)
    A = solar cycle length nearest-harmonic
    B = a given internal cycle period
    P = beat period
    s = space
    t = time
    ‘ indicates rate of change
    ^ indicates exponentiation

    It’s important to recognize that the effect of changing solar cycle frequency is generalizable even with incomplete knowledge of Earth’s internal cycles.

    Illustrations scattered throughout this thread:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/06/gerry-pease-sc23-24-longest-peak-to-peak-solar-cycle-length-since-dalton-minimum/

  24. Paul Vaughan says:

    They’re using ENSO (& IPO) as a scrambling smoke-screen as I explained over here:
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/agu-presentation-argues-that-ne-pacific-centennial-trend-is-mostly-natural/

    They’ve been busted by EOP (Earth Orientation Parameter) records, which prove (via trivial geometry plus the laws of large numbers & conservation of angular momentum) that ENSO, NAM, & SAM interannual yo-yo bouncing (the shiny thing that attracts naive eyes) is bounded in multidecadal-to-centennial aggregate by:

    A. Sunspot Integral (RI)
    B. Solar Cycle Deceleration (SCD)

    Since the mainstream doesn’t have one (…in public at least (maybe some of this stuff is classified since it’s crucial to northern security)), here’s a clue:

    Bidecadal & 100ka are analogous with a trivial extension of Milankovitch theory to spatiotemporal insolation fields, which govern the spatiotemporal evolution & pacing of wind, evaporation, & circulatory mixing more generally.

    Spatiotemporal insolation fields govern the shape-shifting of Earth’s fluid shells.

  25. oldbrew says:

    PV: does the theory lead to any short-term predictions e.g. next 10-50 years?

    SdP: I was puzzled by ‘1700 Eskimos off Scotland’ but it’s all about how you read it🙂

  26. B. Solar Cycle Deceleration (SCD) Paul says.

    Can you quantify this using solar parameters such as AP index ,solar wind, solar flux changes over an x amount of time?

    Thanks

  27. tchannon says:

    There you go, vulture capitalists

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    OB, I explore and report observations (no “theory”). Decades will pass before I can explore and report on multidecadal-timescale 2015-2065 observations.

    Let’s keep in mind what they’ve (egregiously) done to southern ocean spatiotemporal patterns in ERRSTv4. It’s physically impossible. We’re guaranteed to learn something about their integrity. (I’ll be keeping quiet about what I privately predict they’ll do to try to sweep this big goof-up under the rug…)

    I’m looking into this with increasing scrutiny. A deep Amundsen Sea bonus-insight has turned up….

    I’ve determined that with proper support (should it ever be offered locally where I live, as opposed to always demanding that I move elsewhere) I’ll be able to derive long-term SCL, SCD, & RI records from terrestrial proxy networks.

  29. oldbrew says:

    PV: we look forward to progress in due course.

  30. Paul Vaughan says:

    notably absent:
    spatial summaries

    In the real world, this is not precisely known, but in the model world, it is (response from “Mike” at RC)

    Beware misrepresentations being played out in comments over there:

    They keep referring to “flawed” “linear detrending”,
    but no such thing is being used by sensible climate explorers
    (….but perhaps they’re referring to Wyatt & Curry??)

    RI & SCD (neither of which is a straight line) account for 82%.
    interannual ENSO / NAM / SAM yo-yo bounces: 18%
    If there’s a CO2 signal it’s statistically indistinguishable from 0.

    The models are based on proven (by laws & geometry) false assumptions.

    Not for a second do I believe MM believes the stuff he’s writing. I imagine he has a great sense of humor and that privately he has some hearty laughs at the mathematical stupidity of his political masters.

    The other possibility is that he’s privy to classified sun-climate info and thus has to put on a public persona. I have no info with which to either rule in or rule out this possibility. But certainly EOP make it crystal clear that northern security sensitively depends on insolation field evolution, so I can see why a military strategist might advise noble deceit. It’s a gambler’s bluff and this underscores the (long run) weak position of the high northern latitudes, particularly in the North American sector.

  31. Paul Vaughan says:

    Video: Simulated ice sheet change for the last 400 kyr
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7461/fig_tab/nature12374_SV1.html
    From: Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume

    insolation field annual MAX (not annual mean)

    both 100ka (not 21ka):

    max (not June, not average) equator
    and
    max (not June, not average) equator-pole gradient

    Lukes have to mullerize this to uphold analogous MMMO (why you see “June” or “average” in anything they illustrate….)

    (It’s the same thing at bidecadal. Note the locations of the spatial nodes in multidecadal & bidecadal map animations. The multidecadal polar motion envelope gives the bounding constraints away. JPL still hasn’t commented publicly about this (…and they probably won’t)….)

  32. Paul Vaughan says:

    Spatial contrasts OB — whether Weddell vs. Ross Seas across the Antarctic Peninsula (with correlation ~=0 on the dividing mountain spine) — or between fun east coast kayaking through New York ice floes and non-existent west coast skiing (way too warm this winter). Look at this spin and note the spectacular lack of mention of spatial contrast:
    http://bc.ctvnews.ca/north-shore-experiencing-worst-ski-weather-in-100-years-1.2252113
    This character is supposed to be a weather & climate expert, so it’s not like the character wouldn’t be aware.

  33. Paul Vaughan says: February 28, 2015 at 12:03 am

    “Spatial contrasts OB — whether Weddell vs. Ross Seas across the Antarctic Peninsula (with correlation ~=0 on the dividing mountain spine) — or between fun east coast kayaking through New York ice floes and non-existent west coast skiing (way too warm this winter). Look at this spin and note the spectacular lack of mention of spatial contrast:”
    http://bc.ctvnews.ca/north-shore-experiencing-worst-ski-weather-in-100-years-1.2252113
    “This character is supposed to be a weather & climate expert, so it’s not like the character wouldn’t be aware.”

    Paul, you are correct it is always the spatial and temporal variance, not the average, that gives some indication of what is now. Any average may indicate what was back then. What is “now has never happened before, and will never happen again. Earthlings so much desire consistency, so as to never discover WOW!

  34. hunter says:

    Typical slimeball cowardly shit profits of doom always reset the doom until after they have either fled the victim country or died.

  35. p.g.sharrow says:

    Global warming, Global cooling,Global Climate Change! Earthquakes, Volcano and Tsunami. GOD just gets bored and thinks we need a change from time to time!

    We just get to react and have no CONTROL on these things at all. Too humbling for words. pg

  36. Paul Vaughan says:

    Yes hunter, all they have to do is assert that model errors will be cut in half 2 decades from now. They can say the same thing again then. Mann got the components wrong. The current rise is due to the multidecadal component: SCD. CO2 & RI have diverged. Widespread misinterpretations of 10Be (by lukes, deniers, & alarmists alike) aren’t helping. Abrupt solar cycle acceleration is the northern hemisphere gamechanger to watch for (…but let’s keep in mind that it will take decades to measure this central limit). So again: All they have to do is assert that model errors will be cut in half 2 decades from now. Then they can say the same thing again later. The reason we’re stuck on this course: lukes. Politically opportunistic lukes interpolate between wrong (model fantasy) & wrong (misrepresentations of nature). Their deceitful strategy isn’t right; at best it’s left.

  37. tallbloke says:

    Apologies to all for being absent from the blog a lot recently. Things are getting very busy on the political front. Yesterday I was at a hustings event in my local constituency where I’m standing for election the local MP. You can see me as a rookie politician giving my intro speech from 16.15 in this video from the event, which was live streamed.
    http://new.livestream.com/accounts/3236183/count-me-in

    This morning I’m heading down to Rotherham to support Jane Collins MEP’s bid to become MP for Rotherham Central. We have a strong chance of winning this seat so I’m giving some of my time to campaign there.

  38. oldbrew says:

    They ‘know’ the models are right so it’s just a waiting game until reality catches up with them – LOL.

    Don’t hold your breath folks😉

  39. M Simon says:

    ren says:
    February 27, 2015 at 5:07 pm

    The history I had in mind is this: is the dose rate increasing or decreasing over time? (decades)

  40. hunter says:

    Best of luck to you and UKIP, Tallbloke.
    I hope that the British people wake up and realize that the commonsense reforms of UKIP are what is needed.

  41. Bob Weber says:

    M Simon, from ren’s info:

    “Current Dose Rate: The NAIRAS model predicts atmospheric radiation exposure from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particle (SEP) events. GCR particles propagation from local interstellar space to Earth is modeled using an extensionhe Badhwar and O’Neill model, where the solar modulation has been parameterized using high-latitude real-time neutron monitor measurements at Oulu, Tomnicky, and Moscow. ….”

    One good proxy then is GCRs from Oulu:

    http://sol.spacenvironment.net/~nairas/Overview.html

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20070005803.pdf

    http://sol.spacenvironment.net/~nairas/Gallery.html

    As this EDR product is a “nowcast” parameterization, I doubt there is such a thing as a “data” archive. I looked but didn’t see one on the NAIRAS site. There might be an image archive of the plots. Atmospheric ionization from GCRs and SEPs & flares cause “electric weather effects”.

  42. Bob Weber says:

    Global warming was caused by the increase in solar activity, as measured by sunspot number, from 1936-2003, the solar “modern maximum” era, where the SIDC sunspot number monthly averaged 76 for 68 years, as compared to 40.2 for 1868-1935, the previous 68-year period, a very substantial long-term difference of 89%, when the Sun emitted more energy from higher quantities of photons, and from more energetic photons in the solar spectrum, especially the x-ray flux.

    http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-indices/sunspot-numbers/international/tables/table_international-sunspot-numbers_monthly.txt

    When the Sun is hot, we’re hot, when it’s not, we’re not.

    The cause of the pause was the cause before the pause.

    Photons, protons, and electrons cause the weather and climate to change, not CO2!

    The Sun causes warming and cooling, and extreme events, not CO2!

  43. Bob Weber says:

    The Pause:

    As the modern maximum ended, the pause began. For 2004 – January, 2015 SSN monthly average was 34.1, a 55% reduction from the modern maximum 68-year average.

    The 2014 monthly SSN average was 79.2, and January was 67, Feb to date is 70.7, going down since Feb 12 @ 53.8. 2015 so far @ 87. There was a 140 nine-day average from Jan 26 – Feb 3, peaking @193.

    While we’ve had a recent 24 slowdown since Feb 12, however, from http://www.spaceweather.com/

    http://www.spaceweather.com/images2015/28feb15/sunspots_anim.gif?PHPSESSID=uldcv5ugkdk9polrmsh8dq53l6

    Another solar spike could be developing as solar cycle 24 minimum gets another day closer …

  44. oldbrew says:

    Warmists are out of luck. Just as they try to crank up their propaganda machine to the max, the Sun goes on a go-slow for a few decades and makes all their doomy predictions look even sillier than they already were.

  45. Kon Dealer says:

    It is true that there is no cure for “stupid”.
    Just how stupid do you have to be to not see that natural cycles can warm as well as cool?

    Can’t their tiny minds grasp the concept that the warming seen from 1976 to 1998 could have been partly, or wholly driven by these natural cycles?

    The only alternative to congenital Warmist stupidity is wilful blindness.

  46. While I made some corrections at the nilometer record measurements, estimating it sinks at about 1m/650years, the Nile low levels record is in full accordance to my climate varibility model due to solar wind variations. https://ntua.academia.edu/DimitrisPoulos

  47. Jaime says:

    Smoke and mirrors reporting of a smoke and mirrors study, designed to deliberately confuse and thereby convince the populace by default that these ‘scientists’ know what the hell they are talking about.

    “The authors worked to strip out ‘external forces’ on those oscillations, such as volcanoes and the burning of fossil fuels, to work out how much they varied naturally, or internally.”

    They obviously ‘forgot’ to strip out the effect of increasing solar activity since 1880 (and decreasing solar activity after 2000) which has been consistently forcing the AMO since at least that time, probably before, dating all the way back to the beginning of the 18th century, coming out of the LIA. Yes, AMO has peaked and troughed, but overall it has trended upwards to give us the current very substantial peak. It is likely that solar forcing of North Pacific SSTs has had a similar effect and it would seem that the so called Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation, in addition to contributing cooler Pacific temps on the downward phase of its natural oscillation over the past decade, is now trending downwards overall due to decreased solar activity. So even if Pacific SSTs recover in the upward phase of their oscillation in the coming years (with the knock-on effect of El Nino bias in the ENSO/PDO cycle), they will not recover to the dizzying heights that we have seen in the latter half of the 20th Century.

    With AMO, the situation is slightly different. It is currently peaking (on a plateau) and will soon turn downwards on its natural (internal) cycle. This downturn will be reinforced by solar forcing of the overall trend, most likely resulting in a very significant down-swing in North Atlantic SSTs over the coming decades.

    So statements from Mann and co. like this:

    “When that trend reverses, that will then add to warming, so warming will accelerate,”

    [such an acceleration] “is perhaps the most worrying implication of our study, for it implies that the ‘false pause’ may simply have been a cause for false complacency, when it comes to averting dangerous climate change”.

    are revealed to be nothing other than pure global warming propaganda riding upon the back – as usual – of some very dodgy ‘scientific’ study.

    Meanwhile, green politicians in power continue to cream off vast profits from renewables firms whose mega-expensive and totally useless projects they have helped drive through parliament. And ‘studies’ like this form part of their lame excuse for continuing to do so.

    We should all be feeling decidedly revolutionary.

  48. Roger Clague says:

    Paul Vaughan says:
    February 28, 2015 at 6:41 am

    The reason we’re stuck on this course: lukes. Politically opportunistic lukes interpolate between wrong (model fantasy) & wrong (misrepresentations of nature).

    I agree the lukes are the problem now. A debate about how much CO2 warms can go on forever, because it doesn’t.
    The alternative is to find and publicize better explanations for climate change, as we try doing here.

  49. oldbrew says:

    Post: ‘The idea that natural variation could make temperatures go up as well as down is still not for discussion in their biased climate world.’

    Maybe that should say ‘solar variation’. The mainstream has admitted some natural variation but – it appears – only on the basis of oceans shuffling the ‘pack’ e.g. AMO and PDO. See Jaime’s comment: March 1, 2015 at 9:39 am.

  50. oldbrew says:

    ‘Low Max records track the lowest maximum temperature for the day. 2634 Low Max Records Broken or tied From 2015-02-19 to 2015-02-25 according to the NOAA. (That is 15% of all the measurements for that period)’

    http://www.thegwpf.com/more-than-2600-cold-records-broken-in-one-week-noaa/