Brett,

Interesting. From looking at the arctic ice graph for 1998 (the hottest year since the Big Bang) -Arctic sea ice was high.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

However, the AO was unusually low. It would seem that arctic ice correlates better with AO than with the mythical "global temperature."

We all know water melts ice much faster than the wind but both together can speed things up even faster.

Arctic sea ice shatters record low
BOULDER, Colo., Oct. 2 (UPI) -- A U.S. study shows Arctic sea ice during this year's melting season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979.

http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/07091801.htm

Brett,

First, your graph for the NAO only goes up to 2005. Reply: The best I could do, but there is one on a much smaller, more recent time scale as well.

Second, over the 2000 to 2005 time period there was nothing remarkable about either the AO and NAO. Reply: in terms of what? strength?

Third, it has been well established that the Transpolar drift is responsible for pushing ice out of the Arctic.

I believe that what has changed is the thickness of the ice. Beside the extent the ice diminishing over the years, the thickness has decreased remarkably.

The wind and currents have a much more difficult time pushing thick ice than thin. So, as greenhouse gases have caused a generally warming and melting of the ice, what has been accelerating is the mobility of the ice.

It has simply become much easier to push it around than it was before greenhouse gas warming.

Props to NASA for releasing info that will probably result in a cut-off of their funding!! Just kidding.
Prediction - AGW will be found to affect the AO and NAO and, therefore, (all together now) cause the arctic to melt into oblivion. Guess I am now a skeptic AND a cynic...and having a lot of fun with this.

Patrick Henry,

Sorry, Patrick, I'm going to have to mention that other source of warming again. You know, the big yellow orb. I'm sure the AGW crowd would love to see CO2 as the culprit, but I just ain't buying it. For instance, check out Figure 3 on page 4 of this paper.

Come on, now. It doesn't take a rocket...er, climate scientist to figure out that a correlation coefficient of 0.79 for solar irradiance vs temp is a better fit than the 0.22 for CO2 vs temp.

Figure 7 on page 8 of the same paper shows solar cycle length vs temperature along with CO2. Please tell me how CO2 is a better correlated with temperature than either of the solar activity factors.

Then there are those pesky cosmic rays. Check out the correlation on Figure 12, page 15 of this paper.

Make up your own mind: solar/cosmic or CO2?

Keep your eyes on this blog when Mark, Andrew, Thor, Steve Bloom and the rest have surfed the net to death, to try and find a tiny thread that may link the unusual winds to man-made warming.

If they can't come up with something concrete, then they will just say it must be due to it, because of this, that, or another thing.

Slap me in the head with a wet fish if I'm wrong on this sketch.

Patrick Henry,

If you are referring to the maximum sea ice extent occurring during the year 1998, then there's an obvious problem with your logic; the "warmest year on record" had not had much of a chance to make its impact evident. The max extent in 1998 occurred (as it does every year) in March.

If you are looking at the max sea ice extent in 1999 (as one would be more inclined to do if studying 1998's effect on the next sea ice maximum), please note that the 1999 sea ice maximum was about average for that point in time. Certainly lower than the mostly high maxima of the 1980s and 1979.

But if you want to get a more accurate picture of how the warm year of 1998 affected the Arctic sea ice, the logical place to look is at the minimum sea ice extent for that year. Sea ice maxima mainly give a measure of change in annual ice, which is thin and more prone to quick melt. At sea ice minima, you get a sense of how much of the perennial sea ice has been gained or lost. As has been discussed, having less perennial ice makes the Arctic more prone to melting, which allows for more and longer heating of the ocean's surface, which in turn contributes to further ice melt.

As you can see on the graph you provided from Cryosphere's website, 1998 set a record-low for Arctic sea ice to that point.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

Records were set again each of the following two years.

Andrew,

"I believe that what has changed is the thickness of the ice. Beside the extent the ice diminishing over the years, the thickness has decreased remarkably".

What is "decreased remarkably" in actual measurement of thickness terms?

What is "diminishing over the years" in actual time frame?

If we look at large, very thick ice sheets that break off of Antarctica, they move along easily with the currents and winds once they get going, pushing and pulverizing anything smaller in their path. Remember, 90% of ice is beneath the surface.

well the scamsters ought to have worked themselves into a froth that co2 wasnt mentioned to be the cause of unusual wind currents...we should expect plenty of twisted explanations on this one from the scam crowd...for example, quoting from the wikipedia, "i heard from my sister's best friend's boyfriend who read in the national enquirer that some scientists say, because co2 has reached a forcing point, the combined methane output of the now congregated herd of polar bears caused a methane induced thinning and melting of the arctic ice sheet downwind engulfing the entire siberian sea...this melt rate was faster than a speeding bullet and able to leap from iceberg to iceberg in a single catastrophic, chain reaction event...life as we know it, barely hangs on a thread, with the only solution known to mankind at this dire time is to purchase scam credits with every last nickel you have...AGW is going down in a flame, as the natural causes continue to pile up against the ruse and their hocus pocus models get critiqued...

Paul,

You are obsessed with that sun thing. Why would changes in the output our neighborhood 338 x 10^15 cubic mile thermonuclear reactor affect our climate? We have Al Gore's hot air and CO2 feedback to warm the planet. Nothing else is needed.

I think that the CO2 warming on earth over the last 100 years is impacting the sun's output however.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

Actually there is a much more up to date paper/data on solar influences reply to recent Frolich paper. The correlations are obvious

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf

Paul;
Solar Irradiance is caused by man made CO2!
The science is settled. Geeze!!
Keep bringing that stuff up and Mark will lecture you with is CO2 cycle story and Andrew will wack you with a copy of the IPCC report.
Here is proof:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf

The sun is hot.
But
Co2 is just an insulator.
Solar radiation fluctuates in much the same way that a thermostat alters the heating conditions that keeps your room at the desired temperature. Your roof insulation helps the room maintain its heat which significantly reduces the amount of time your appliances are kept on high.
The sun is kept on high all the time which make insulating gases and ground reflection so important in maintaining the earths temperature.
The thing that have changed in the years that gave us AGW is the Co2 content, what followed was the tipping effects that gave rise to ice melt and sea levels.
There are places on earth where the insulation of co2 keep things cooler but overall the gas maintains the warmth, storing the energy from the sun longer which gives power to existing weather fronts and associated winds.
Increased energy storage will increase threats of more severe weather just as wind direction and speed will be influenced by the location from where ocean currents relay the extra stored energy.
I laugh when ignorance is influenced by misunderstanding that co2 is a heat emitter.
If co2 was hot we could use it as fuel and discard what caused AGW.

PH do you have an off set plan for the UK trip?

Now a day global warming controversy is very hype. NASA sciencetists completely work on global warming research. According the sciencetists after 30 year earth is completely effected by global warming.

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased from .027 to .038. Whopping! Regardless, we have already burned 20 percent of the earths fossil fuel reserves. After burning this 20 percent, temps have gone up by a whopping .5 DEGREE! Using the AGW theory, by burning the remaining 80 percent of fossil fuels over the next 300 years, the earth's temperature should raise 2 degrees more (fossil fuels only) before stabilizing. 20 percent = .5 degree, 80 percent = 2 degrees. Let's just double it to 4 degrees to satisfy the "we are doomed crowd". 4 degrees! Whopping! Sound the alarm.

Our NH democrat governor recently imposed a "view tax". This "view tax" will dissuade people from cutting down trees in there own yards. People wanting a glimpse of the surrounding beauty will have to pay through the nose in order to get it. Apparently this "tax" will stop AGW. Yes, we pay annual property taxes (.5 acre is about $5,000) but we can't cut OUR own trees without paying even more, BECAUSE OF A THEORY, not a law. Obviously these few trees will stop AGW from happening. Give me a break. Lunacy, it's real and infesting this so called right-wing state.

Oh I get it!

Rather than rely upon studies that are actually published in reputable peer reviewed science journals, the skeptics make up junk science and then pass it around like a pipe.

Sorta like telling a lie.

PH do you have an off set plan for the UK trip?

I do, thanks. I'm going to remove as much CO2 as I can by drinking Guinness. Three pints a day should do it.

Patrick Henry,

I know. It's maddening. I have nightmares about it. I can't get it out of my head!!! ARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway, I think you may be on to something here, I think that the CO2 warming on earth over the last 100 years is impacting the sun's output however.

If you plot CO2 concentrations vs solar irradiance (the graph you referenced), it's obvious that increasing CO2 concentrations on earth caused the increase in solar output. Hence the increase in temperatures here on planet earth.

And all of this because of humans and their evil SUVs!!

Gary,

I keep forgetting the science is settled. I think Mr. Bloom has already provided proof from some George (no agenda here) Soros-funded recipient that the sun cannot possibly produce enough heat to increase temperatures here on planet earth.

And please remember to turn the sarcasm off.

/sarc off

Rich,

The view tax has nothing to do with AGW; it's based on property assessments. Please stick to the subject at hand and leave your extreme right-wing politics out of it.

Andrew,

The junkscience graphs I have been publishing are simply graphs of raw NOAA, NASA and Met data. They include links to the source. If you doubt their correctness, please feel free to download the source from trusted sources and make the plots yourself.

If you see a discrepancy, let us know. Otherwise your rants about junkscience and peer review are irrelevant and appear a bit desperate.

See BT??? This is what I mean!!!

Seven articles ago you and others are telling me, "The science is settled, the science is settled..."

Now we get something like this and there's no true scientific discussion as to why this stuff doesn't matter. Why? Because scientists realize it does matter but they can't bring themselves to argue against the obvious.

And Paul's posting is BRILLIANT! Everyone says the sun doesn't matter and then we have a graph like that where the correlation is obvious, not just mathematically but visually! Why don't we see some peer reviewed explanation of why the correlation doesn't mean anything but a loose fit does? Because arguing against the obvious takes some bronzies...So instead we'll hear more about other things to distract us and true discussion will be missed because too many people are obsessed with agendas as opposed to scientific truth and synthesizing the findigs.

Ok, I'll get off my rant mode.

Vincent,

Nice find! Thanks.

Contrary to the argument of Lockwood and Fraohlich, the Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/SvensmarkPaper.pdf

Paul, that second paper is better than the first.

If the CLOUD experiments don't show any possiblity of a correlation I think I'm going AGW, but if there's even a hint of a bigger connection to Cosmic Rays, (prelim testing shows more than a hint), I'm staying put.

The correlations and science in the last paper especially, was compelling. The fact that folks are experimentally proving this stuff out as opposed to recourse to computer models is even more heartening.

Thanks for pointing those out!

PH,

Please remember, the JunkScience web site is Junk Science. It is meant to be a joke.

The problem is that a lot of people can not tell the differance between real Science and Junk Science. It the reason why there are reputable science journals.

Anyhow, here is a link to an article examing solar irradiance.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Conclusion: No change since 1950.

Andrew,

The problem is that a lot of people can not tell the differance between real Science and Junk Science. It the reason why there are reputable science journals.

So, why do you keep referencing the IPCC report and RealClimate.org?

Our NH democrat governor recently imposed a "view tax". This "view tax" will dissuade people from cutting down trees in there own yards. People wanting a glimpse of the surrounding beauty will have to pay through the nose in order to get it. Apparently this "tax" will stop AGW. Yes, we pay annual property taxes (.5 acre is about $5,000) but we can't cut OUR own trees without paying even more, BECAUSE OF A THEORY, not a law. Obviously these few trees will stop AGW from happening. Give me a break. Lunacy, it's real and infesting this so called right-wing state.

Brett, how long are you going tolerate irrelevant right-wing spam like this?

Andrew,

:) You claim JunkScience to be a joke and then post a link to RealClimate!?

Hahahahahhahahaha :)

That RealClimate article (was it peer reviewed :) says Sun activity must be dismissed because Be10 and C14 measurements are off for the last 55 years. Ever consider that atmospheric nuclear testing could have thrown off these numbers?

Consider that NASA says it has been increasing .05% for the last 3 decades. Trust Gavin who defended Ruddiman's peer reviewed piece of crap on Bubonic Plague and the LIA or NASA?

Did you ever figure out that "GHG's" don't have much affect on the upper troposphere? Did we ever finish that debate?

Regards,

Steve

Andrew:
That document was published in 2005!.
There has been a lot of research done and new inforamtion uncovered since then.
If you AGW guys would look just a little beyond your narrow list of AGW approved reading material, you might see a different view.
No wonder you guys keep chanting the same old mantra.

Here is a link from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany. These guys get paid to study the sun.

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

Paul, Vincent,

Thank you. Terrific articles! The correlations are marvelous.

Only the sun could have caused the vast majority of climate variations that are commonplace throughout the history of our planet. What in the world do AGW folks think has caused the coming and going of ice ages over the past millions of years? The sun has been and still is the primary driver! To suddenly relegate the sun to a trivial role in climate change makes no sense.

We can argue (and we do) about whether the temperature has gone up 0.1C or 0.3C, or whether the arctic ice melted or blew away, but it really doesn't matter that much. The earth has warmed up some over the past 30 years.

We can argue about the effects of man's pollution of the planet (there are too many people), but bottom line is that when it comes to the big picture - like climate - by and large we are all just along for the ride.

So sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride.

Andrew;
Actually Junkscience.com is not meant to be a joke. It is meant to illuminate claimes made in the name of science that have faulty research, unsupported statements, unsupported conclusions and just bad data.
Without the work of such people, sites like realclimate.org would be able to get away spreading theories, conjecture and opinions as fact. Many of the gullable masses would believe them just because there was no opposing view.
Thank goodness for free speach.

the JunkScience web site is Junk Science. It is meant to be a joke.

Andrew,

I think you are interpreting the purpose of the site incorrectly. They are pointing out that a lot of AGW science is a joke.

I take it that you haven't identified any error in their graphs yet?

"The problem is that a lot of people can not tell the differance between real Science and Junk Science. It the reason why there are reputable science journals."

And disreputable science journals are the reason there is junk science and an AGW theory.

As for the link concerning solar irradiance, please compare it with the reference Vincent provided and let us both admit the science isn't settled.

Andrew:
PH,

Please remember, the JunkScience web site is Junk Science. It is meant to be a joke.

I don't think that site was or is meant as a joke. You can question his motives and his funding, but I am pretty sure he is serious in what he says. The question for me is how much of it is right?

Conclusion: No change since 1950

Andrew,

That is exactly what the junkscience graph shows.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

If you have read much of Hansen's recent writings, you would know that he (unlike Lockwood) recognizes the huge thermal mass of the oceans. It takes a long time for ocean temperatures to reach equilibrium after the large increase in solar output since 1650 and particularly since 1900.

Consider that temperatures in Lake Superior is still depressed from the last ice age!

Your implied argument that a steady (but unusually high) level of solar radiation should not cause warming - is flawed. And I think that the good Dr. Hansen understands that too.

Patrick Henry,

It takes a long time for ocean temperatures to reach equilibrium after the large increase in solar output since 1650 and particularly since 1900.

Therefore, the 800 to 1,000 year lag time of CO2 increases behind temperature increases. Hmmmm?

Do I have proof? At the moment, no. Just putting forth a hypothesis.

Andrew - your references contradict each other. Is it no change since 1950 or no change since 1980?

Also, please note the lagged ocean response Patrick mentions.

Also - "Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. "

It just goes to show the science isn't settled.

Irrelevant?

The view tax is multi-pronged, one of which is "Green". It is PARTIALLY geared to dissuade people from removing trees from their property to get a view. There is a lot of land that will be developed up here in NH over the next century. We have a lot of hills and mountains. The view tax will help save CO2 absorbing trees, no? Think about it.

Why doesn't anyone attack my first paragragh?

Fact: We have burned approximately 20 percent of the earths fossil fuel reserves.

Fact: After burning this 20 percent, the earth's temperature has gone up by approximately .5 degree.

Using your AGW theory, by burning the remaining 80 percent of fossil fuels over the next 300 years, the earth's temperature should rise 2 degrees more before stabilizing. I am willing to compromise and give you 2 more degrees of warmth because I'm a reasonable guy, for a total rise of 4 degrees. Is 4 degrees Apocolyptic? Have at it.

BT, this is off topic, so I hope it doesn't upset you a Mass resident, but...GO SOX!

Now here is a new one on me.
Pacific Climate Shift ??

Are all of you familiar with this bit of cliamte history?
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Walker_Circ_2.pdf

More evidence of the Sun's influence.
Geeze, it just keeps rolling in.
And OH! look, it not several years out of date.
Excerpt:
" Yury Leonov, director of the Institute of Geology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, thinks that the human impact on nature is so small that it can be dismissed as a statistical mistake. "

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070928/81541029.html

Gary,

Yeah, I've seen it before, bet never had a chance to look into it. Here's a paper, that does a bit of explaining as to why Alaska's temperatures have risen over the last 25 years or so. Apparently, temperatures in Alaska jumped by about 3.1 deg C after the Pacific Climate Shift (PCS). If you plot the temperature trend from 1951 to 2001 you get a warming trend. However, if you separate the period into two separate 25-year periods with 1976 (PCS) as the pivot point, they found that there has been cooling during both periods. Interesting, eh?

It is possible that we may be moving into a "cool phase" as seen in this graph. Only time will tell.

Why doesn't anyone attack my first paragragh?

Because I already demolished it the first time you posted it. You pasted nearly the same comment on a different thread -- most moderators view that as abusive behavior, especially when half the pasted content has nothing to do with the topic of the thread or site.

In this case, your arithmetic was wrong, your understanding of the theory was wrong, and your "conclusions" are utterly unsupported by anything except your own relentless repetition of them.

All Junk Science Believers,

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

After actually reading the above link, I note that they calculate between 0.6 to 1.5C of warming per doubling of CO2 while ignoring all long term feedbacks such as changes in albedo.

In other words, the Junk Science calculation is within the lower bound of the accepted value.

So, they are accepting CO2 as a source of warming, but at the lower end by ignoring the long term feedbacks.

Also, noticed that they are not entirely convinced that solar irradiance explains the most recent warming since there has been no change since 1950. I agree with them there.

Notice, they suggest that aerosal cooling could explain the lag. However, global temperatures have warmed since 1976, but again no change in solar irradiance since then. JunkScience looks to ignore that problem.

I will also point out that solar irradiance has declined since 2001, but again that has not stopped the warming.

In other words, the solar theory needs a lots of cherry picking which is why it has been rejected by everyone that has studied for any length of time and is not entirely endorsed by JunkScience

Bottom Line, JunkScience.com ignores long term feedbacks to come up with a value for CO2 warming that still fits within lower end of the accepted value.

"Everyone says the sun doesn't matter and then we have a graph like that where the correlation is obvious, not just mathematically but visually! Why don't we see some peer reviewed explanation of why the correlation doesn't mean anything but a loose fit does?"

Plish, here's a sunspot graph for you that shows an interesting correlation not just mathematically, but visually:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ssn5.jpg

Apparently, you can make sunspots correlate to just about anything. Maybe I should start trading stocks based on sunspots.

Paul,

Half of Alaska has cooled since 1977. Barrow and Talkeetna have warmed a lot. Kodiak and Nome have cooled a lot.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7706Change.html

Andrew,

I note that they calculate between 0.6 to 1.5C of warming per doubling of CO2

Did you also note that they say in the previous paragraph that the coarse estimates you quoted are not correct?

You can see how much this little script has overshot the mark since Lindzen states explicitly that a doubling from 300ppmv to 600ppmv of atmospheric carbon dioxide would result in only 0.5C warming.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Nice try.

If the sun isn't warming, why are all of the other planets in our system warming?

Are people driving SUV's on Mars as well?

'Please stick to the subject at hand and leave your extreme right-wing politics out of it.'

Someone needs to practice what he preaches.

I's sure funny to read all the back and forth between the two sides. There are a couple questions I haven't seen answered by the AGW side to any satisfaction yet:

1) Since the earth has constantly warmed and cooled over the 4 billion years it has existed, why should it all of a sudden maintain a single constant global temperature; and if it is now going to be a constant, what is that temperature?

2) Why are the other planets and moons in the solar system warming at the same time?

Anyone? Bueller?....Bueller?...

Folks,
If you look at the articles Paul referenced especially the second one and read from page 6 and on, you'll see that he acknowledges that solar irradiance changes are not enough to swing the climate (so there is agreement on Solar Irradiance as being a non-issue!) It leans more on cosmic ray variation or some other mechanism that is tied into sunspot cycle length.

But.....

Bottom line: There are VERY strong correlations betweeen what happens on Sol and what happens here. What are those mechanisms? There are only theories and current experimental attempts to prove what it is. But the correlation has been found and it parallels the temperature rise more clearly than CO2 alone.

Mark,

Apparently, you can make sunspots correlate to just about anything.

Unfortunately, for you and the AGW crowd, CO2 doesn't correlate with anything, much less temperature. It doesn't even correlate with Democrats... anywhere!! However, solar activity, solar activity cycle length, cosmic ray intensity, etc. all correlate very well with temperature fluctuations, not just over the last century, but over the last 1200 years at a minimum.

Patrick Henry,

The Arctic is influenced more by the Arctic/North Atlantic Oscillation than by anything from the Pacific. Hence the discrepancy in temperature trends.

Mark, Why do you cheapen the discussion? The way the correlation was arrived at was much more contrived than the methodologies used by those scientists in multiple journals that have found similar correlations.

Especially since people acknowledge the sun has played a part in climate, and have even said it used to but now CO2 plays a bigger part. Fine. I can't get over why folks who see a correlation with something that's reasonable would prefer to see the correlations that are not as good as plausible. This isn't a correlation between what color socks I wear and the muon concentration in Bolivia. It's the sun for gosh sakes!

Instead of polemical poking, how about an honest to goodness discussion of WHY the correlations and why cosmic rays or other sunbased phenomenon (which as a whole are NOT well understood) CAN'T influence climate? And if the correlation has been good for thousands of years, why has that correlation disappeared?

I'll close with another correlation for you:

When scientific discussions find aspects of AGW that don't hold water, the labelling of people and the use of the phrase "The science is settled" increases and the quality of discussion decreases.

This board is proof positive....

Paul;
Thanks for posting that graph. Very interesting.
The current trends have the NH warm and the SH cool. Looks like a good corrolation to me.
Will have to investigate deeper.

"However, solar activity, solar activity cycle length, cosmic ray intensity, etc. all correlate very well with temperature fluctuations, not just over the last century"

Right. It correlated fairly well prior to 1940, but since then it's been an abysmal correlation. Solar irradiance significantly increased during the 1950s, yet the world began cooling. Peak year was 1960 and yet 1962 and 1963 were pretty cold.

And don't give me this "lag" nonsense. The same correlations prior to 1940 which deniers trumpet had NO lag involved. Since the correlation has been so poor after 1940, deniers want to implement a mythical "lag."

The only lag I see is in deniers' common sense.

Hi Mark,

Solar irradiance significantly increased during the 1950s, yet the world began cooling.

CO2 also significantly increased during the 1950s, yet the world began cooling. By your own logic you can relax about GHG's.

As far as lag goes, I suggest you cook your spaghetti for six minutes right after turning the stove on. Let us know how that works out.

Ever noticed how the hottest time of day is several hours after the peak solar radiation at noon? Solar radiation is declining, yet the temperature keeps going up. See if you can figure that whacky paradox out with your monotonic thought process.

Mark,

I have this mental image of you with your hands over your ears, saying, "Lalaalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you."

Do you even look at, much less read, the articles that I have linked? Or do you go by "Don't bother me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."?

It correlated fairly well prior to 1940, but since then it's been an abysmal correlation.

I notice that you have cherry-picked the solar activity that you want to respond to. How about a link or two to back up you claim?

But then, you have made up your mind, so I won't bother you with the facts.

Mark,

There are dynamics within the sun's flux that can't be simplified to irradiance (though they may be present because of irradiance)-but then irradiance needs to be defined and I think this coul dcause problems as well.

Lag's are used by both camps to account for differences between what we see and what we think (or hope) happened/happens. Personally I don't like nor subscribe to theories that require time lags.

I say let's see what happens later in this year when hopefully some new data is in in the CLOUD study.

PH

Taking insisting on 2 to 1 odds for warming greater than 0.4C over 20 years, Lindzen doesn't even trust in his own work very much. So, it is disengenous for Junk Science to use him as a reference point.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html

Setting aside the bet that global temperatures will be lower in 20 years, Lindzen offered Annan an alternative bet. If the temperature change were less than 0.2C, he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2C and 0.4C the bet would be off. And if the temperature change were 0.4 or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds. After all, Lindzen is on record as saying that global average temperatures could rise by 1 degree Celsius over the next century. In contrast, climate model projections predict a warming of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, though a new study in January suggested global warming could be Twice as Bad as Previously Thought, with an upper projection of average global temperatures reaching 11 degrees Celsius.

"Ever noticed how the hottest time of day is several hours after the peak solar radiation at noon? Solar radiation is declining, yet the temperature keeps going up. See if you can figure that whacky paradox out with your monotonic thought process."

So, Patrick, why wasn't there a lag prior to 1940? Deniers such as yourself don't want to include a lag prior to 1940 since it correlates relatively well; yet, since there is such a horrible correlation after 1940, they want to implement a "lag" to fix it and make it fit.

You can't have it both ways.

These solar cycles are a bunch of sine waves. If you're imaginative, as many of the AGW deniers are, you can use all kinds of statistical manipulations to make a sine wave correlate to anything. There are a lot of holes in the solar theory and how the correlation has blown apart after 1940 has been a mystery to most deniers.

But hey, why do you trust those sunspot numbers, Patrick? I mean, after all, Europe experienced war, famine, disease, etc -- keeping accurate sunspot records must NOT have been a priority, right?

Gotta love that flawed logic.

Personally I don't like nor subscribe to theories that require time lags.

How very scientific.

A leaking upstairs toilet drips water every time it's flushed. The water seeps through the floor, across a beam and into a downstairs bedroom ceiling. Meanwhile, a washing machine is next to the leaking upstairs toilet. Each time a load of laundry is run, the spin cycle shakes the floor (and ceiling) a bit. Eventually, the plaster of the ceiling is completely soaked, the lathing rotted, and the entire mess collapses onto the downstairs bed during a spin-cycle.

If the contractor hired to repair the damage applies plish's "theory", the leaking toilet would NEVER get fixed. After all, the "theory" that the collapse is caused by the leak -- and not the spin-cycle -- requires a "time lag".

I'm calling a different contractor.

Mark, hulloh, anybody there?

It correlated fairly well prior to 1940, but since then it's been an abysmal correlation.

I notice that you have cherry-picked the solar activity that you want to respond to. How about a link or two to back up you claim?

BTW, still stuck on solar irradiance, eh? Figures.

Mark, a propos one of the most vexing lags in all of AGW theory, the ~800-1500 year lag between rising temperatures and CO2 levels as observed during the past several hundred thousand years. Since the AGW camp persists in claiming that CO2 drives the current warming event it's got to mean that the AGWers really do believe that they've discovered the first ever example of backward causation or retrocausality.

Backward causation would be a really, really big breakthrough type thing in relativity physics and in the philosophy of science but maybe not so big in AGW type climate science, given its bizarre track record. However, should backward causation be accepted by climatologists of the AGW school they'd have to leave the rational science tent and move out into the desert.

Suppose we accept that there is such a thing as a renewed global temperature rise starting ca 1979 then the GISS record seems to indicate that "global" means predominantly Northern Hemisphere since the Southern Hemisphere appears to "lag" behind. This "lag" seems to involve Antarctica lagging behind and cooling (except, of course, those ~3% of Antarctica that I happen to call the AGW peninsula (reaching northward towards South America). Maybe this is the kind of "lag" you're worried about?

All the hard sciences have evolved through more or less sophisticated ad hoc measures at one time or another. But in the end the ad hoc portion of the theory gets quenched and the theory becomes a full-fledged falsifiable empirical theory of the world. Until new data challenge conventional wisdom and new ad hoc measures begin to reduce the empirical content again and again.

This is what seems to be going on with the relatively new potentially scientific and ad hoc type hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming, a warming that AGWers claim has given rise to a new geological epoch they call Anthropocene. BTW, a typical ad hoc project of the AGWers was the attempt to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period.

However, until someone comes up with a better idea I won't stick to the Hockey Stick but I'll stick to the Milankovitch cycles and the ice core data from Dome C, Antarctica (Nature, 2004 vol 429, p 623). That there was a GW event going on at all during the 20th century has been recently questioned as you know by Gerd Bürger in Science, vol 316.

A call for more ad hoc measures or maybe ad hominem attacks on Bürger? Or is there a "lag" here, too?

I'll stick to my own interpretation of AGW. AGW equals Al Gore Warming.

BT, there ya go again, calling me in third person. Being a stickler, using your example, the leak doesn't have a lag, detection of the leak does as does the impact of the leak.

Anyway, it was poorly phrased in my post. The context was using lags where lags fit. Using lags at some times, and then not using them at others or using a different lag, is what I don't like (unless of course there is a scientific reason for lag to be changing)

BT, there ya go again, calling me in third person. ...

I attempt to make my comments as general as possible, rather than specifically directed at you, so as to stay as far within Brett's guidelines as possible.

The context was using lags where lags fit. Using lags at some times, and then not using them at others or using a different lag, is what I don't like (unless of course there is a scientific reason for lag to be changing)

I see. So lags are ok where lags are ok, but they aren't ok when they're not ok. Sounds circular to me. When the literature cites a lag, it also cites a "scientific reason" for the lag. It's all well and good to challenge that reason. You, instead, challenged the concept of "lag" altogether.

As far as I'm concerned, I think scientific theories should describe their relevant phenomena as accurately as possible. If there is a lag, then that lag should be described. The current understanding indicates that these lags exist.

I think you are on very thin ice indeed when you start pre-judging which theories you accept and which you reject based on criteria like whether or not they include lags.

BT, Ahh, I undertand about Brett's guidelines. Ok, I thought it was just your technique of addressing and it made me feel like you're lecturing about me as opposed to talking to me.

You said,

"As far as I'm concerned, I think scientific theories should describe their relevant phenomena as accurately as possible. If there is a lag, then that lag should be described. The current understanding indicates that these lags exist.

I think you are on very thin ice indeed when you start pre-judging which theories you accept and which you reject based on criteria like whether or not they include lags."

I would be on thin ice if i beleived that but you mis-read me twice in a row. I am not challenging the concept of lags.

I totally concur with your two paragraphs above. What I don't agree with is that some lags are there and then they are not (just like the sun influenced climate once upon a time and now it doesn't)

Andrew, thank you very much for halpful links,
the article and your web sites helped me a lot with my work!
best regards!

Mark,

Apparently, you can make sunspots correlate to just about anything.

Are these wind patterns not caused by the whole global warming thing? I would find it unusual that they are, simply because I don't see how the winds would be effected unless global warming effected something else that effected the winds. What, exactly, would it have done? It would be very interesting to know, that's for sure. Things are definitely changing in our world, and only time will tell what it all really means.