Impossible To Ignore – In 2015 Alone Massive 250 Peer Reviewed Scientific Papers Cast Doubt On Climate Science
By Paul Homewood
Reposted from NoTricksZone:
Reader Kenneth Richard has compiled and submitted a comprehensive list of some 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers from 2015 on climate, all supporting the premise that the Earth’s climate is driven in large part by natural factors. It now has been posted.
Science institutes can no longer ignore massive body of scientific evidence that contradicts the man-made global warming theory. Image: logo of the National Academy of Sciences
How could the IPCC, scientific academies, institutions, lawmakers possibly ignore them? They are out there for all to see – and now in a single list.
What follows is just a tiny random sampling of the findings this massive body of evidence delivers:
A small sampling of findings
“Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes.” http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/43/3/203
“Solar minimum conditions reinforce the high pressure above Greenland together with a weakening of the other two North Atlantic pressure centres.” http://www.ann-geophys.net/33/207/2015/angeo-33-207-2015.pdf
“There have been many studies noting correlations between solar cycles and changes in the Earth temperature.”
http://www.rxiv.org/pdf/1504.0124v1.pdf
“Ocean heat content anomaly (OHCa) time series in some areas of the Pacific are significantly correlated with the total solar irradiance (TSI). ” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682615300778
“Here, we demonstrate that the CR [cosmic ray] effect on ΔGT [global temperature] is robust to reasonable measures of global temperature,…” http://www.pnas.org/content/112/34/E4640.extract
“Solar forcing as an important trigger for West Greenland sea-ice variability over the last millennium.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379115301682
“We show how clouds provide the necessary degrees of freedom to modulate the Earth’s albedo setting the hemispheric symmetry. We also show that current climate models lack this same degree of hemispheric symmetry and regulation by clouds.”
http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf
“While there is scientific consensus that global and local mean sea level (GMSL and LMSL) has risen since the late nineteenth century, the relative contribution of natural and anthropogenic forcing remains unclear.”
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150729/ncomms8849/full/ncomms8849.html
“Most present-generation climate models simulate an increase in global-mean surface temperature (GMST) since 1998, whereas observations suggest a warming hiatus.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/nature14117.html
“Positive (negative) phases of the AMO coincide with warmer (colder) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The AMO is linked with decadal climate fluctuations, such as Indian and Sahel rainfall, European summer precipitation, Atlantic hurricanes and variations in global temperatures. It is widely believed that ocean circulation drives the phase changes of the AMO by controlling ocean heat content. “
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/full/nature14491.html
“Predicted slow-down in the rate of Atlantic sea ice loss. Recent forecasts indicate that a spin-down of the thermohaline circulation that began near the turn of the century will continue, and this will result in near neutral decadal trends in Atlantic winter sea ice extent in coming years, with decadal growth in select regions.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL065364/abstract
The list of the 2015 papers with such findings is some 250 long! To claim that they do not matter and do not count is willful ignorance. And keeping them from the public is flat out deception and a disservice to the field of science. Little wonder government and institutions have seen the public trust fade.
This list is the perfect thing to educate them. only needs to be sent this list. Send it to your Senators, Congressmen, newspaper editors, journalists, teachers, professors or blind following alarmists who are currently on the verge of a nervous breakdowns over the fictitious global warming catastrophe.
–
The full list of papers is here:
resource://jid1-g80ec8llebk5fq-at-jetpack/newtab/data/newtab.html
We already know that John Cook’s scam could only find 65 papers which provided evidence that more than half of global warming since 1951 is man-made, a remarkably low proportion.
I have repeatedly challenged warmists to explain what caused the MWP and LIA, and indeed previous warming/cooling cycles, and so far none have been up to the challenge.
Unfortunately, for anybody with an ounce of objectiveness, until you can explain these historical events, you cannot start to explain the recent warming, never mind blame it on CO2.
Pierre Gosselin reminds us that our climate is still dominated by natural forces.
Thank you Pierre and Kenneth.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
‘I have repeatedly challenged warmists to explain what caused the MWP and LIA’
Must be some kind of measurement errors if their models can’t recreate these well-researched significant climate periods 😉
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Settled science / 97% consensus” update …
It is obvious that solar variability had a prominent role to play in causing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little ice Age. At least in part they are responses to the 208-year Suess Cycle and the 88-year Gleissberg Cycle in the sun’s behaviour, and we can measure those responses through the concentrations of the Be-10 and C-14 isotope in tree rings, stalactites and so on. However, they are temporary effects superimposed on a cooling trend that is driven not by the sun’s behaviour but by regular changes in the Earth’s orbit. That cooling trend drove our planet into a ‘neoglacial’ period over the past 3000 years, in which temperatures cooled significantly and progressively. Indeed, based on astronomical calculations of Earth’s orbital parameters, we should still be in the Little ice Age for the next 3000 years. The climate record is further complicated by internal oscillations like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, El Ninos and so on. But, these all have much smaller effects on our planetary climate than do the Suess and Gleissberg Cycles. So, yes, indeed there is natural variability, but the larger driver is orbital change, which ought to be keeping us cool. That begs the question – why is it not? Our climate is now warming, but the sun is in decline, so we can’t blame it. Once you consider all the possible sources of variation, you are left with greenhouse gases, which have (non controversially) increased dramatically since 1850, and especially since 1950. Right now plants are emerging from beneath the Baffin Island Ice Cap that last saw daylight at least 1000 years ago. That tells us that our climate is moving back towards what it was like in the Holocene Climatic Optimum of 5000 years ago. Students of the geological story of climate change cannot find any alternative source to explain current warmth. It’s not natural. Read “Earth’s Climate Evolution” and judge the data for yourselves.
Are you saying none of the warming since the LIA is natural?
Some of the warming between 1900 and 1940 was the result of natural warming associated with the rise of solar activity following the Gleissberg Minimum that peaked around 1900. However, after about 1940 the coherence between the temperature and solar curves disappeared. Initially there was a fall in warming probably reflecting the massive output of aerosols as post-war industry took off. Later clean air acts shut the aerosols down and warming emerged again after about 1970. By then sunspot activity had peaked, and since 1990 sunspot activity has been in decline while between 1990 and 2015 the planet continued warming.
Prior to 1940, SSTs rose sharply, presumably due partly to solar activity.
The heat built up there on its own would certainly have led to further rises in atmospheric temperatures, once the PDO and AMO cycles favourably combined, as they did in the mid 1970’s.
That late 20thC warming has of course since disappeared, with satellites confirming that there has been no atmospheric warming since 1998.
Which leaves the question, how much of the late 20thC warming was GHG driven and how much from the solar activity stored up in the oceans prior to 1940?
Ehh…I think you ought to have done your research a bit better there, Colin. Take, for example, this paper (http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~chopping/es/ScepticView.pdf), which is by a geologist and states that, “The historical and geological
record of changing climate and atmospheric CO2
pressure does not support the current popular vision
that this greenhouse gas is the dominant climate controlling agent. When empirically ante post tested against past global climate changes, the ‘forecasts’ of the climate models mainly based on forcing by atmospheric CO2 are not borne out. On the other hand, recent studies show that solar variability rather than changing CO2
pressure is an important, probably the dominant climate forcing factor.”
Or how about this one, by Craig Loehle (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380003003600), which states that “These results suggest that 20th Century warming trends are plausibly a continuation of past climate patterns.”
And according to some data sets and/or peer-reviewed papers on solar activity, you might be right.
But according to others (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/178119/meta;jsessionid=15C3C51077791B8DD46C06F794A1BDFE.ip-10-40-2-115, http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf, http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417, http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/2004JA010866.pdf, http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/articles/20thCentury.pdf), the sun could have played a more important role than you may think. Saying that we can’t find any alternative explanations seems like quite a stretch to me.
The first link you refer to points to a paper by Priem in 1997. We have gained far more information since then about the geology of climate change, as summarized for example in 2015 in “Earth’s Climate Evolution” (available from Amazon). One of Priem’s diagrams (his Fig 4) relies upon the graph by Humbert Lamb of the changes in temperature across the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Unfortunately, what Priem didn’t realise was that Lamb’s graph related only to the UK. Probably that’s because it was reported in the Chapter 7 of the first IPCC report with the caption ‘global’, obviously in retrospect a major error. Priem also thought that CO2 lagged temperature in ice cores, but we know from the 2013 work of Frederic Parrenin and his team that it did not. Priem also does not mention a potential modern analog for today – the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 million years ago, when a massive ejection of carbon caused temperatures to rise and made the seas more acidic – exactly what is happening now. He just didn’t have the data. So please do go to up-to-date information before criticising further. The sun is the main driver of our climate. Its effects are modulated by plate tectonic processes including the ,movement of continents and the expulsion of CO2 through volcanoes. Plate tectonics also builds mountains that remove CO2 by chemical weathering, but as T C Chamberlin knew back in 1899, all you need is an imbalance in time between CO2 source and CO2 sink to give you global warming like that of he cretaceous. A good source of data for past CO2 is the carbonate compensation depth in the ocean. When CO2 in t he atmosphere is low, the CCD is deep. When CO2 in the air is abundant, the ocean is more acid and the CO2 is shallow. We can thus use the motion of the c CD to track atmospheric CO2 back through time. There is abundant new evidence relating to this, summarized in “Earth’s Climate Evolution” (2015). It shows that we know that the Earth’s orbital decline is still driving us into what should be cool times, and that this decline is modulated by small ups and downs caused by periodically changing solar output. These are much better understood now that in Priem’s day almost 20 years ago. There has also (2014) been a recent reclassificaiton of all sunspot data since 1740, by Clette et al, which shows that the sunspot activity of the 1980s was about the same as in the 1760s and 1880s. That suggests that it is not the sun that is causing the recent warming. You have to keep up with the data.
(That first attempted reply doesn’t need to be accepted, it is just an eyesore and this one should work.)
The first link you refer to points to a paper by Priem in 1997. We have gained far more information since then about the geology of climate change, as summarized for example in 2015 in “Earth’s Climate Evolution” (available from Amazon).
First of all, I the amount of knowledge we have gained is somewhat irrelevant to my statement. Your statement was that nobody who is a student of geology had any other explanation for the current warmth. I showed you that simply wasn’t true. That book is new, that is correct, and it most likely does contain newer information but I would prefer if we stuck to talking about the peer-reviewed literature, regardless of how correct your arguments in the book may be.
Yes, in the specific sense you are correct in that IPCC’s 1990 report was at least partially based off of Lamb’s reconstruction. However, James Hansen and a few co-authors did indeed come up with a similar (though not identical, and the graph unfortunately doesn’t extend very far into the 20th century) graph in a report here (and that graph was based off of England, California, and Greenland data): https://web.archive.org/web/20070404001809/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/Challenge_chapter2.pdf. Indeed, a 1975 Nature report found that Greenland and California’s temperature reconstructions matched England’s closely: https://www.newspapers.com/image/54474379/?terms=%22climate%2Bchange%22, http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-15-20-57-47-1.png (don’t mind the source, just look at what the article said). And though that isn’t global either, it is more than just England.
Perhaps one 2013 work concluded that, but another one (http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf) didn’t, and there are more papers supporting the notion that there is a lag between temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations. Take, for example, these papers: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/291/5501/112, http://altbib.com/bak/pdf/4634.pdf, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5408/1712.abstract.
The first claims this (not in the abstract):
The second claims this:
The third claims this:
And that’s just a sample. Indeed, even over the period 1960-1990 CO2 lagged temp by five months (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v343/n6260/abs/343709a0.html)!
You may be correct and that Palaeocene-Eocene reference is interesting (however, a 2009 study in Nature Geoscience concluded that CO2 alone couldn’t be responsible for the rise, http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html), but the intent was to show that there is not quite as much agreement among geologists as you say. Anyway, here is a much more up-to-date article (http://multi-science.atypon.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.24.3-4.361) which claims that,
And anyway, I did give you a link to a 2004 article as well.
That may be so, in regards to the orbit of the earth. But there are studies predicting that we will soon be experiencing a decline in temperature. Also, Clette et al.’s reconstruction may be better than Hoyt and Schatten’s, or ACRIM’s, but it is two against one, at least in what has been put forth so far. Anyway, here are a few at least relatively new papers which take a stance that solar activity in recent times has been more important than you may believe in regards to the warming: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-013-1775-9, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825215300349, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281267447_Cosmic_Theories_and_Greenhouse_Gases_as_Explanations_of_Global_Warming, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JA020732/epdf). And, anyway, even if solar activity isn’t the contributor some think it to be, there are other explanations. Cosmic rays (yes, I know it has to do with solar activity, but it is separate from much of what Scafetta, Soon, etc. are arguing), internal variability, clouds, a 1500 year cycle, I mean, it’s not just limited to solar and volcanoes or something like that.
These two papers I would recommend for you (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059274/epdf, http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2058.full.pdf?with-ds=yes), as they are published in respected journals, to some degree support my position, and both find greater contribution from other sources than anthropogenic than you would contest.
The rainforest/desert question is ignored as well.
Unfortunately, governments are not finding it “Impossible to ignore”
Ignoring incoming information that clashes with ideology…HAHAHA. That is easy for them to do.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation was negative (cold) 1945-1974; positive (hot) 1975-2000; and mostly negative (cold) 2000-present. In contrast the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was positive (warm)1930-65; negative (cool) 1965-95; and positive (warm) 1995-present. Hence these two did not reinforce one another and we cannot call on any postulated joint action between them to explain global warming post 1970. That is not to say that oceanic heat cannot warm or cool the planet. A warm El Nino caused a major warming departure from the planetary norm in 1997-1998; it was followed by an equally large cold La Nina that temporarily cooled the planet. But these departures were just small blips on the continuously upward trending planetary temperature. Despite a certain flattening of the global temperature curve after 2000, it has risen markedly in both 2014 and 2015. The rises in temperature are the product of two independent databases: (i) surface temperature data on land, and (ii) surface ocean temperatures. These two show the same trends (as reported independently by NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office), and are in disagreement with the satellite data. That disagreement is the subject of ongoing investigation. In 2005 it was evident that it reflected problems with the satellite data, due partly to orbital drift.
How can we assess the probability that the surface data or the satellite data are correct? Well, it is abundantly clear that the growing season continues to advance in the northern hemisphere, that Arctic sea ice continues to diminish in summer, that the Greenland glaciers are slowly disappearing, as are mountain glaciers around the world, and that the sea level goes on rising. When you put these diverse things together, they tell you that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the satellite data that show no warming may well be wrong for some technical reason.
Colin
You totally misunderstand the AMO. It is not the phase (warm/cold) which matters, but the direction of travel.
The AMO hit bottom in the mid 1970s, since when it has gradually warmed till around 2005. NOAA are clear about how this amplified global temps from that time, which of course also coincided with the PDO switch.
Even the Met Office accepted two years ago that the pause was real, prior to the current El Nino blip.
The Met Office were also happy to claim two years ago that “satellites corroborated HADCRUT”
You should also know that the problems you have identified with satellite orbital drift in 2005 were, according to NOAA, identified and corrected in 2006. It is clearly nonsense to try to rubbish the satellite records now.
Finally, with regard to Greenland glaciers, I assume you are aware that temperatures in Greenland were just as high back in the 1930s and 40s, as recently. (Or, for that matter, that the rate of sea level rise was as high, or higher, then as now.
BTW – I note that you have not addressed my original point, that the rapid warming of the oceans prior to the 1940s stored up a lot of heat which is still being released into the atmosphere.
The ocean’s heat content is steadily increasing, not decreasing as it would have to be if your assumption was correct that the source of warming of the atmosphere post 1940 was due to the release of heat stored in the ocean before that.
Regarding the satellite data, a colleague pointed this out to me: ” The IPCC AR5 (Ch 2, P194) states that “The ‘Mid-Tropospheric’ (MT) MSU channel that most directly corresponds to the troposphere has 10 to 15% of its signal from both the skin temperature of the Earth’s surface and the stratosphere.” Fig. 2.23 from the AR5 shows the weighting function of the MT estimate, peaking in the mid-troposphere but extending well into the stratosphere. For a fair comparison, model output would have to be weighted vertically in the same way. Was this done?” In analysing the value of the MSU (satellite) data, the relevant section of the AR5 (2.4.4.2) concludes:
“In summary, assessment of the large body of studies comparing various long-term radiosonde and MSU products since AR4 is hampered by data set version changes, and inherent data uncertainties. These factors substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences from such studies about the true long-term trends or the value of different data products.” We are left with the problem that “If the observations and the model outputs were averaged in the same way, and if the data were sampled evenly over the globe, model and observational records should line up better. It’s hard to say what’s causing the discrepancy, but I suspect it’s differences in processing or coverage between models and satellite/radiosonde data.” So there is still some work to do to determine how useful the MSU data are.
Re satellite data, you are right about the mid-troposphere, but it is the lower troposphere which clearly shows the pause ( as well as the mid)
The TLT is also backed up by radiosonde data.
Re ocean heat content – I don’t actually believe we can make any sensible comparisons of this over the years. We still have very little real idea of this even now with a few years of ARGO data. We certainly don’t have a clue what it was in 1940.
The other…
Regards Ant
>
Response to Paul Homewood re oceanic heat content. With regard to your comment “Re ocean heat content – I don’t actually believe we can make any sensible comparisons of this over the years.” You should read Levitus et al (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155, 2009), which gives the oceanic heat content back to about 1955, well before the Argo program started in 2006.
Colin,
you are absolutely correct on this one. We must look to the peer-reviewed literature, rather than just at one data set.
The full list of papers at “here” does not load – Cannot be found!
Try this
http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/#sthash.ukq4tPzX.nvrcdZkJ.dpbs
It is good to see Colin Summerhayes contributions as it is important to consider other views.
Unfortunately the arguments are well outside of my knowledge of astrophysics and will take a lot of time for me to evaluate, nevertheless very welcome.
I retain my basic objection to CAGW that the radiant forcing function is purely a committee generated value with little scientific basis other than opinions of a cohort of scientists. If the driving force is wrong and oversimplified, how can the complex model of the earth be more than a first approximation: it certainly cannot be credible in predicting miniscule temperature changes, that can barely be measured at all.
In response to justanotherpersonii: The recent paper by Parrenin et al (2013) trumps all previous investigations. The French group have used a new technique and set a new bar for all others to follow. We will now have to reanalyze previously sampled ice cores using their technique to see if there is really the lag that earlier investigators thought there was. My view is that they were wrong because the model they used to guess the age of the bubbles was wrong. Models can lead one astray (especially when they disagree with the basic physics of the Gas Laws).
You cited a paper by Kuo et al, dating back to 1990, which showed that in the modern world there is a lag of 5 months between CO2 and temperature. Well, of course there is – the sun warms the planet in spring; plankton and trees and other plants wake up and start devouring CO2; but, in the fall, when temperatures drop, the plants die, decompose, and release their CO2. Hence within any one year there is a biologically mediated natural disconnect between temperature and CO2. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the behaviour of temperature and CO2 on the millennial timescale of the Ice Ages. At those times, orbitally driven heating of the planet warmed the ocean,which immediately released CO2 (following the standard gas law), and which also emitted H2O vapour through evaporation. These two gases provided positive feedback to the rising temperature. Parrenin has shown that this did work in practice, overturning previous theory. You really
must be careful to deal with CO2 and temperature relationships at the same time scales, not at different time scales when the controls are likely to have been different.
Regarding the PETM, the latest paper by Bowen et al, published on line in December 2014 in Nature Geoscience, now shows that the carbon release 55 million years ago occurred in two sharp pulses, which suggests that the rates of carbon release and associated warming were more similar to modern emissions than was previously thought. As in the case of Parrenin – science marches on and old ideas are left behind. The same applies to the Clette et al paper of 2014, which completely changes previous perceptions of sunspot activity. When these new things come along we can no longer hold to what was published before.
You might like to dismiss my book “Earth’s Climate Evolution” because it is not a peer reviewed paper. But it is entirely based on what is available in the up-to-date peer-reviewed literature, and it covers vastly more geological analyses of past climate change and in far more detail than does Priem. There are complementary modern works too, on palaeoclimatology, for example by Bill Hay and by Bill Riuddiman. They say more or less what I do in my book. I suggest that those two world experts know far more about the matter than Priem.
Just because there is a new study out and it uses a different method that may or may not be better than the previous ones doesn’t mean it trumps all the previous investigations. It is more important to take a look at what more than just one paper says, don’t you think? I agree that further investigations would be helpful, but I don’t see how models would disagree with basic physics if they were able to get published in Science magazine.
My point with Kuo et al. was to show simply that there is a lag between CO2 and temp. It may not have anything to do with the behavior of CO2 and the temperature on millennial timescales, but that doesn’t alter my point. Parrenin showed what theory to be wrong? Show me the error in my papers, the theory that was wrong.
Clette et al. is again, only one paper. You haven’t shown why it is better than all the other reconstructions. I am sorry that I don’t have access to your book because it is $75 and I am not paying that much for it, but my original was simply that there is not as much agreement as you would like to believe. They may know more, but again, it doesn’t alter my point. Regarding the PETM, assuming an ECS of 2 degrees Celsius (there is a large body of literature centering around that value) and a temperature change of 5 degrees celsius, even if both releases were a doubling of CO2, it alone would be insufficient to explain all the warming. However, that is not including feedbacks, which are a different matter.
I forgot to comment on the suggestion that I read two papers on modern controls on temperature. With regard to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), I am quite happy to accept that it has a role to play in modulating our climate, just as El Ninos do. But that modulation is superimposed on the effects of orbital change and solar change and CO2 change and volcanic change, each of which may dominate at different times. One has to disentangle these controls from one another. In 2012, Tung and Zhou attempted that, suggesting in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science that multidecadal variability might control about 40% of the observed modern trend in temperature. Given the new picture of sunspot activity found by Clette et al in 2014, those two authors might wish to revisit their calculations. In any case a later paper, published in 2014 by Chylek et al (Geophysical Research Letters), and researching the same driving forces, concluded that anthropogenic effects accounted for about two-thirds of post-1975 global warming, much of the rest being due to fluctuations in the AMO. These various efforts confirm that anthropogenic effects (mainly CO2 emissions) are significant.
Why do you insist on focusing on only one paper? There are probably other papers which support that paper’s position, and yet you haven’t even shown me them. That would be more convincing to me. Anyway, what does multidecadal variability (AMO) necessarily have to do with solar activity? And I have never denied that CO2 and anthropogenic effects on temperature are significant. My position is well defined by this statement from Pielke et al. 2009 (https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-354.pdf):
The latter half of last century was classed as a “Grand Solar Maximum” by people without a hand in the climate trough.
I know huge efforts have gone into denying this fact, even to the wholesale corruption for the solar cycle data to try to flatten it.
Aha, AndyG55, thank you for declaring which side of the fence you stand on, with your accusations of ‘climate trough’, ‘denying this fact’, and ‘wholesale corruption’. Perhaps you live in a world where conspiracies rule, but it’s not the planet I live on.
I thought we were having a rational debate about the sources of information about climate science and how and why they vary from one another. Personally I have not taken any money from anyone for my climate research over the past few years, so I don’t think I can be accused of feeding from any particular ‘trough’. As to ‘denying this fact’ I assume you refer to demonstrating that there has not really been a Grand Solar Maximum in recent years. Well, it’s multiple solar experts who say so, and I don’t think they’re particularly interested in climate, – rather they are more interested in what the sun is doing; its affect on climate is incidental to their story. And as for ‘wholesale corruption’, well you can of course read Oreskes and Conway’s book “Merchants of Doubt” which produces document after document, all of which you can check yourself, to show how various organizations tried to sow doubt about the science of global warming. Now that’s what I would call corruption.
Do you seriously believe Oreskes?
Oreskes is a well-respected historian of science at Harvard. Her book is extremely well-researched, and you can check every document in it, yourself. Damning her because you don’t like what she says is not a reasonable way forward in this debate or in any other.
roflmao..
Quoting Oreskes.. can you choose a lower point in the climate argument.
next.. Lewendowsky ?
maybe even something from SkS or Cook to really push your case 😉
Grand Solar Maximum… I would trust this over anything from the paid AGW troughers.
Click to access lrsp-2008-3Color.pdf
Usoskin’s paper is dated 2010. The Clette et al paper (as far as I know entirely from within the solar community not from the climate community) is a complete revamp with a more recent date. Now, why would you trust something from the solar community with a 2010 date over something from the solar community with a 2014 date? Surely we should be following what is happening at the leading edge of the science. This has nothing to do with so-called ‘troughs’.