Explaining the “pause”

There have been a number of recent posts discussing the supposed “pause” in the rise in global surface temperatures. For example, RealClimate, Tamino, and a guest post on Ed Hawkins’s blog.

I thought it only right that I should add to these discussions of the recent “pause” in surface warming. As you can see from the figure below, there is a clear correlation between the decrease in the number of pirates and the increase in global surface temperature. However, the figure stops in 2000, so it seems clear that the slowdown in surface warming is largely a consequence of the increase in the number of pirates, post 2000 (H/T Joshua). So, this seems unequivocal to me, but others are free to use the comments to disagree.

Credit : RedAndr

Credit : RedAndr

(Given the existence of Poe’s Law, I should probably make clear that I’m not being serious 🙂 )

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Climate change, ClimateBall, Comedy, Global warming, Satire, Science and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

101 Responses to Explaining the “pause”

  1. Actually, research I have undertaken convinces me that global surface temperatures are directly related to currency inflation. It follows therefore that switching to a steady-state economy, and ideally, nationalising the banking system, will end the current warming trend.

    It will have the added benefit of ending the ability of bankers to pay each other obscene bonuses.

  2. Harry Twinotter says:

    You forgot to show error and confidence bounds – and you call yourself scientific?

  3. Although the correlation is already strong evidence of piratical influence, a recent paper discussed a causal mechanism for the effect[1]. The main thesis is that pirate activity causes increased upwelling of cold deap-ocean water. Here follow the relevant passages of the paper:

    Various pirate activities contribute to upwelling. These include involuntary crew resignation, inter-vessel interactions and acoustically-transmitted oscillations (Bligh, 1789; Stevenson, 1883).

    Involuntary crew resignation (ICR, a.k.a. “walking the plank”) involves a pirate or captive being forcibly ejected from a vessel at sea. This results in upwelling from displacement of water by the ejectee (Archimedes, c.250 BCE).

    Inter-vessel interactions (IVI, a.k.a. “sea combat”) consists of transmission of projectiles between vessels, resulting in destruction or boarding. Upwelling is caused by scattered projectiles and by sinking of vessel elements.

    Acoustically-transmitted oscillations (ATO, a.k.a. “sea shanties”) were originally intended to boost morale of rowing pirates. They have assumed ritual functions with the ascent of external power supplies. ATO’s produce upwelling by disturbing the sea surface. This increases motion of large biological entities (“fish” or “whales”), producing displacement.

    [1]: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/piracy-as-a-preventor-of-tropical-cyclones/

  4. John says:

    The ice ages must have been filthy with pirates.

  5. I should have added that maybe the so-called ‘hiatus’ was caused by the pirates moving into banking.

  6. JCH says:

    Since 2000 there has also been an increase in the pirating of movies and songs. And there has been an increase in movies and TV shows about Pirates.

  7. whimcycle says:

    Didn’t the IPCC lay this issue to rest in ARrrrrr5?

  8. anoilman says:

    There’s a pause? When did that happen?
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    More importantly who said it wouldn’t happen? I want names! 🙂

    My concern with studies like this is that it doesn’t exactly specify the grade of pirate required to influence Global Warming.

  9. Lars Karlsson says:

    “Fifteen men on the dead man’s chest–
    …Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!
    Drink and the devil had done for the rest–
    …Yo-ho-ho, and a bottle of rum!”

  10. Eli Rabett says:

    The increase in piracy in the Indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca since 2000 explains much, however recent successes against this, explains why 2014 may be the hottest year ever.

  11. Joshua says:

    The more I researched this, the more convinced I have become of the large magnitude of far-reaching impact there is from the reduction in pirates.

    Consider that as pirate #’s have decreased steadily since the 1820’s, there has been a dramatic increase in:

    1) The number of batman movies.
    2) The number of times that Larry King has been married.
    3) The number of posthumous Elvis sightings.

    Coincidence? I think not, and It ain’t just global warming anymore.

    And notice how the “consensus police” won’t allow the controversy about pirates to be taught in science classes in our schools. Obviously, they’re afraid of something. What are they protecting?

  12. Joshua says:

    ===> “Didn’t the IPCC lay this issue to rest in ARrrrrr5?”

    Why do you think they call it Global WAAAARRRrming?

  13. David Sanger says:

    Nice try but everyone knows “pirate science” is a hoax. The number of pirates has been artificially manipulated by the US military. Didn’t you see Captain Phillips?

  14. Willard says:

    The cost of piracy attacks has increased over the analyzed time, therefore there’s no reason to presume there are less pirates.

    And here’s anecdata that proves it beyond anecdotal doubt:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/pirates-of-the-high-seas-951677.html

    The number of honest brokers, on the other hand, has decreased.

  15. anoilman says:

    Clearly the IPCC hasn’t taken into account Cosmic Pirates;

    Seriously if there is a risk that they haven’t evaluated Cosmic Pirates they should go back to the drawing boards, and do a proper job!

  16. anoilman says:

    Global Warming is obviously natural, caused by sharks;
    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/07/28/deniers-2

    There’s also a well respected shark Biologist who claims that Sharks have been warming to such an extent that they may very well be the cause of Global Waaarming, and not pirates as the IPCC supposes;

  17. David Blake says:

    p.s. just in case this article is not just amusement only, and people do want to know what caused the pause: ask me! I have graphs… 😀

  18. BBD says:

    Which you don’t understand 🙂

  19. Michael 2 says:

    Your blog is starting to become entertaining. Do keep it up!

    “However, the figure stops in 2000, so it seems clear that the slowdown in surface warming is largely a consequence of the increase in the number of pirates”

    As you can see from the commentary, it would be amazingly difficult to disprove the assertion. But I wonder if the same scrutiny is applied to the preceding rise in surface warming where correlation does imply causation.

    For the record, I believe in both AGW and natural warmings/coolings and the measured temperature is simply the “net” change of all these things. What it will be doing 80 years from now I leave in your capable hands to decide.

  20. Vinny Burgoo says:

    There has been a marked increase in the use of the word ‘Argh!’ since the late 1990s and, more recently, a similar, though quantitatively smaller, increase in ‘Arrr!’-ing.

    https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Argh%2CAargh%2CAaargh%2CAaaargh%2CArrr&year_start=1940&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CArgh%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAargh%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAaargh%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CAaaargh%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CArrr%3B%2Cc0

    It seems likely that the hiatus is due, at least in part, to International Talk Like a Pirate Day. Further investigation should be undertaken as a matter of urgency.

  21. David Blake says:

    @BBD,

    Usually the Moderistan never allow us to find out!.

  22. BBD says:

    “Poirat”, surely?

  23. Willard says:

    AT shows a graph where temperature is inversely correlated with the number of pirates.

    David Blake shows a graph where there are less pirate attacks, after announcing global cooling.

    There’s only one conclusion: pirates have become pacifists. Which might explain why the domain name is already taken:

    http://pacifistpirate.com/

  24. BBD says:

    @DB

    We aren’t even allowed to complain about that. It’s a crushingly brutal regime here. I’m astounded there are any regulars at all 😉

  25. There are some real classics on this thread 🙂

    There was a serious point to this post, though, which was to highlight the recent posts by others about the pause. I think it’s good that this is being addressed by more and more people, who are pointing out that in fact there hasn’t really been a pause, given that the long-term trend has barely changed (although, it is true that it is still slower than we were expecting and appears not to have accelerated) and that one should be careful of using short-term trends in surface warming to assess global warming overall. The latter point, however, doesn’t suggest changing our target (since we live on the surface of the planet) simply that anthropogenic global warming is about more than simply increases in surface temperatures.

  26. anoilman says:

    Anders… I’m just getting warmed up….

    There is the correlation to increasing violence in sports matches.

    “Steve McIntyre going berserk! He’s hitting everything in sight! The linesman is trying to contain McIntyre! He’s going bananas!”

  27. verytallguy says:

    anthropogenic global warming is about more than simply increases in surface temperatures.

    Arrrrrrh.   There be underwater pirates lurking in the abyss too, Jim-lad!  

    The only serious point on this tub be the cold steel point of my cutlass! Haaaaarh! 

  28. BBD says:

    Time to splice the mainbrace…

  29. Rob Honeycutt says:

    I think we need a good theory for extremely high pirate population during Ordovician Snowball Earth events.

  30. Rob,
    Similarly we might need to explain why there were a negative number of pirates during the Eocene Optimum.

  31. BBD says:

    No hominin population ~50Ma?

  32. BBD says:

    But what about the PETM? This is nightmarish. The entire conceptual structure of physical climatology is tottering.

  33. BBD says:

    Must be the rum…

  34. anoilman says:

    Rob Honeycutt: “we need a good theory for extremely high pirate population during Ordovician Snowball Earth events”

    No. We’ll ignore that. Its too inconvenient. Oh look! A shark!

  35. anoilman says:

    BBD… It was an ad hominem shark attack. 🙂

  36. Andrew Dodds says:

    Trilobites had eyes, and pirates have eye patches. Hence the Ordovician glaciation is explained.

  37. BBD says:

    Andrew Dodds

    Yes but what about the Marinoan glaciation? Full Snowball Earth but no trilobites ~650Ma.

    There could be a problem with the pirate hypothesis.

  38. Andrew Dodds says:

    BBD – That question clearly proves that you are in the pay of the pirate-denial faction, which incidentally means I don’t have to answer it.

  39. anoilman says:

    BBD… That’s easily explained. Pirates always lagged trilobites. Never the other way around.

  40. DocMartyn says:

    This is HADCRU4 global, with 1976 to the end of 2013 in red. I also moved 1976 back and down to 1911.

    Here is the same format with atmospheric CO2 (a splice of Law Dome and Keeling).

    Now call me Dr. Silly but I believe I can make a prediction about the next few decades temperature.

  41. DocMartyn,

    Now call me Dr. Silly but I believe I can make a prediction about the next few decades temperature.

    Okay…..you’re Dr. Silly.

  42. Rob Honeycutt says:

    anoilman… Would that be a wooden-lagged pirate?

  43. BBD says:

    Can I play?

    https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/Hx/plotterv2.htm#HxB1?HxG=%5B%5B1900,2012,’GAT response to forcings’,[99,71],0,[]],[[[-2.445,7.239],1,0,[1979,2000]],[[-2.2668,0.9148],0,1,[1979,2000]]],[[[6,0],16,0,0,0],[[6,1],27,0,0,0],[[6,4],18,0,0,0],[[2,0],5,0,0,0],[[0,1],23,0,0,0],[[1,0],19,0,0,0]]]

    GAT (surface) annual means at the top (green). The three lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).

    It’s only a sketch, but it’s worth a few hundred words.

  44. BBD says:

    Oh well, that didn’t work, so back to the old ways: Graph link.

  45. BBD says:

    “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s pirates all the way down!”

  46. anoilman says:

    I don’t think the so called scientists looking into the decline in piracy know anything about it! I mean really… There’s no standstill! We’ve seen a massive increase in piracy over the last 20 years;

    It must be the totally natural sharknadoes!

  47. Someone wrote a most technically incompetent, yet statistical jargon-laden posts at WUWT just now.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/07/changepoint-analysis-as-applied-to-the-surface-temperature-record/

    One can not model the current trend plus noise as a red-noise time-series. The excursions and time-scales are incompatible. The sub-decadal noise one sees in the global temperature record is not really noise at all in that it can be well characterized as a decomposition into other processes.

  48. Harry Twinotter says:

    WebHubTelescope,

    They certainly like their fake experts over there at WUWT. And I am sure it will be reposted all over the place.

  49. David Blake says:

    Oh people are putting up graphs (thinks…”now’s my chance”). Here’s my theory for “the pause” (aka non-statistically significant rise). I don’t think we need to invoke pirates. (Incidentally, why are Pirates, Pirates? Because they Aaaaargh.)

    It’s caused by the AMO. What causes the AMO? Cloud variations. What causes the cloud variations? Magnetic shifts (mostly terrestrial but also solar) that alter the angle of the aurora open to glactic cosmic rays.

    [..imagines the look on our hosts’ face.. but continues anyway…]

    We can see that the AMO pattern results in a strong SST signal (and, yes, before people mention it the AMO is derived from detrended SST’s). That signal is cyclical and matches the SST trends (both northern and, surprisingly, southern hemispheres):

    * the rise to 1870
    * the fall 1870 to 1910
    * the rise 1910 to 1940
    * the fall 1940 to 1970
    * the rise 1970 to 2010

    These are SST’s, not land temps, but as we know land temperatures are very much influenced by sea temperatures.

    Notice how we are at a rough peak of the AMO? The peak may continue for a while, it may go down a bit, who knows we may be in for a bit of “global cooling”(TM) to the likely bottom of the cycle in 2030-2040. So, the pause is looking likely to last for a while yet.

    An interesting aside is that we currently have a very low Arctic ice extent. Did we also have a low Arctic ice extent in the last rise/peak of the AMO in the 20’s to 40’s? Obviously before the satelite era, but it seems likely that we did. See (e.g.) >a href=”http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/”>here for a discussion on it.

    What about those cloud variations I mentioned? Well here’s the graph that a certain commentator here loves to attack (hiya):

    And here is the AMO for that period:

    and here are the two compared in a very rough mashup – just for demonstration:

    The dates fit. It’s a highly plausible mechanism. Clouds –> SST’s –> AMO.

    What about the magnetic part I mentioned…? Well, we have the largest movement of the N-pole ever recorded, and the lowest ice extent. Gravitation shift from losing glacial ice? Possibly, but there’s something else. The last N-pole shift co-incided with the last low arctic extent (1920s-40’s). This strongly implies a cyclical pattern. Yes, this one is unusual, the pole has shifted hugely.

    Why is it important where the N-pole is? Because it, (along with declination changes) changes the oval where galactic rays can enter the troposphere! Currently the oval is moving towards Russia from Canada. This has the effect of the oval closing wrt the galactic rays. Read all about it at my place.

  50. David Blake says:

    Oop. One graph didn’t work. The AMO ’83 to ’14

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1983/to:2014/mean:5

  51. David,
    Do you have any background in physics or in data analysis?

  52. David Blake says:

    @aTTP,

    1) Define “background”.
    2) Why d’ye ask?

  53. David,
    I’m asking because you appear to be making a number of fairly fundamental errors related to radiative physics, energy conservation and correlation implying causation. So, for example, I don’t think anyone would argue that there isn’t a relationship between the AMO and surface temperatures. What they would dispute is that something like the AMO could drive long-term warming. Where does the energy come from?

  54. David Blake says:

    Oh, forgot to mention *why* the AMO also seems to effect Southern Hemisphere SST’s:

    Three points in my proposed mechanism

    1) The declination of the planet means that the auroral oval in high northern lattitudes allow the Galactic rays to enter, seeding clouds, whose quantity varies with the “open-ness, or closed-ness” of the oval.
    2) The major ocean in the NH is the Atlantic, hence the direct effect there
    3) It’s known that many of these galactic cosmic rays are so energetic that they can pass right through the planet. This may seed clouds “down-under”. And/Or global changes in cloudiness are transmitted by weather patterns, and/or ocean currents move the atlantic changes to the southern hemisphere.

  55. David,

    The declination of the planet means that the auroral oval in high northern lattitudes allow the Galactic rays to enter, seeding clouds, whose quantity varies with the “open-ness, or closed-ness” of the oval.

    There is no evidence to support this claim.

    It’s known that many of these galactic cosmic rays are so energetic that they can pass right through the planet. This may seed clouds “down-under”. And/Or global changes in cloudiness are transmitted by weather patterns, and/or ocean currents move the atlantic changes to the southern hemisphere.

    I don’t believe this is technically correct for anything other than neutrinos.

    I’ll add one more thing. We are confident that greenhouse gases warm the planet. If all that had happened was the increase in CO2, then we’d have warmed by about 0.4oC. We are confident that feedbacks (which include clouds) are positive. That means that the influence of increased CO2 concentrations has to be greater than 0.4C. Hence, we can be confident that more than half of the observed warming is us. If you want to promote an alternative, you can’t simply promote the alternative. You also have to explain what’s wrong with the existing theory. So, what happened to the greenhouse gas warming basic physics would suggest we should have undergone, if you’re suggesting it’s all galactic cosmic rays?

    I should add, that I’m not going to let this go on very long. There are plenty of places where you could promote your theories. It doesn’t have to be here.

  56. David Blake says:

    @aTTP,
    “Where does the energy come from?”
    The same place it always has: the Sun. It’s the power of the Sun being moderated by clouds.
    Less clouds => more sunlight => wamer oceans
    More clouds => less sunlight => colder oceans
    The Svensmarsk hypothesis.

    There is no extra energy requirement.

    The difference that I see is the Magnetic element. This closes/opens the area where Galactic cosmic rays can impinge on the Trosphere (causing clouds/weather).

    The important paper is:
    http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf

    Others are catching on too..!:
    http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/pdf/2014/01/swsc130050.pdf
    http://phys.org/news/2014-05-earth-magnetic-field-important-climate.html

  57. David,
    You still haven’t explained what happened to the CO2 warming and your latter two papers refer to the ionosphere, rather than the atmosphere (well, it refers to the atmosphere, but it’s above what most would regard as the atmosphere).

    Scientists found that changes in the Earth’s magnetic field are more relevant for climatic changes in the upper atmosphere (about 100-500 km above the surface) than previously thought.

    The first paper appears to be from the 1990s and is a theory paper. There is no real experimental evidence to support the idea that cosmic rays can influence clouds sufficiently so as to explain our recent warming.

  58. David Blake says:

    @ everybody else:

    aTTP has said: “There are plenty of places where you could promote your theories. It doesn’t have to be here.”
    He doesn’t want this discussed here, which I resp[ect, it’s his blog. So this is my last comment on it here. If people want to discuss it, comments on my blog are open…

    @ aTTP,
    “There is no evidence to support this claim. ”
    Read the Feynmann paper http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/20689/1/98-1743.pdf

    “That means that the influence of increased CO2 concentrations has to be greater than 0.4C. Hence, we can be confident that more than half of the observed warming is us. If you want to promote an alternative, you can’t simply promote the alternative. You also have to explain what’s wrong with the existing theory.”

    I don’t agree that it needs to be either/or. It doesn’t have to be an “alternative”, it can be complementary. CO2 is a radiative gas – yes. But the AMO is most definitely a cyclical pattern. The recent warming through the 90’s is partly due to a rising AMO, and possibly only partly due to CO2. CO2 does not explain the cyclical pattern of the AMO, my theory does, but doesn’t exclude a background warming from CO2.

    Imagine this: if warming (e.g. by CO2) melts enough Greenland glacier, the change in gravitation may cause a shift in the liquid core of the Earth (as is proposed by some scientists). This may change the oval, resulting in more clouds and be a negative feedback. Viola!

    Follow-up comments to here please: http://magneticclimate.blogspot.fr/

  59. David,

    I don’t agree that it needs to be either/or. It doesn’t have to be an “alternative”, it can be complementary. CO2 is a radiative gas – yes. But the AMO is most definitely a cyclical pattern. The recent warming through the 90’s is partly due to a rising AMO, and possibly only partly due to CO2. CO2 does not explain the cyclical pattern of the AMO, my theory does, but doesn’t exclude a background warming from CO2.

    Yes, indeed, and many argue that internal cycles do exactly this. The point, though, is that their influence is cyclical and hence averages to zero over a sufficiently long timescales (decades). Hence, something like the AMO cannot explain long-term trends, but can explain short-term variations. So, if you’re simply trying to suggest that internal cycles may be partly responsible for the slowdown ins surface warming, many would agree. If you’re trying to argue that something other than CO2 is a dominant cause of the warming we’ve experience over the last century or so, most would disagree.

  60. BBD says:

    David

    The trends in the ISCCP data are spurious. People keep telling you this. Perhaps you should start to listen.

  61. verytallguy says:

    David Blake

    Imagine this: if warming (e.g. by pirates gunpowder) melts enough Greenland glacier, the change in gravitation may cause a shift in the liquid core of the Earth (as is proposed by some scientists). This may change the oval, resulting in more clouds and be a negative feedback. Viola!

    Fixed for you. Imagination is a wonderful thing, no?

  62. anoilman says:

    I need more that 3 papers referenced by a blogger. Otherwise there is significantly more evidence that Sharknados cause Global Warming. I even cited a real newspaper.

    By the way the cosmic radiation theory is an old one, long debunked.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

    David, the last person to promote your ideas to me was the head of Public Relations of the F(r)iends of Science. Here’s her blog;
    http://darkgreendevils.wordpress.com/author/darkgreendevils/

  63. BBD says:

    It’s not GCRs…

    You need to read more and post less crankery.

  64. Can I remind everyone that it was around the time of the Eocene—when temperatures rose considerably higher than today, and where they might well be by 2100—that primates first appeared.

    Of course it was millions of years later before they started wearing eye patches and wooden legs.

  65. verytallguy says:

    BBD,

    Obviously it’s not GCRs, it’s PIRATES.

    FF’S, did you not READ the post?

  66. David Blake says:

    Evening Chaps,

    Despite what I said earlier about posting over at my litle homely blog to please our host – you all seem to want to post here! Maybe you all feel at home here? Those strange (pirate infested) waters of the internet are maybe a little too unsettling..?

    The GCR theory os not dead! The relationship did seem to break down over recent years, but I’ve attempted to show *why* (with the aid of Mr Feynman’s little sister). Look at this, is your curiosity awakiened?:

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5xQI0uRsD9U/VCbnXR4gaiI/AAAAAAAAAKk/W4W2DV8H2fE/s1600/HadC_Tim.png>/img>

    Ot has breathing all that CO2 drained the curiosity from you?

  67. David Blake says:

    Oops! Should have been:

  68. David,
    Please learn something about the problem of assuming that some kind of correlation implies causation. That was, essentially, a point of this post. One can correlate a decrease in the number of pirates with an increase in surface temperature but one wouldn’t immediately conclude that the decrease in the number of pirates cause global warming. Not only is it very difficult to see how changes in GCRs could drive global warming, you also (as you have not yet done) explain why you largely reject a theory that is well-test and understood.

  69. verytallguy says:

    Dave,

    look carefully at the green line on your graph.

    Compare it to the coastline of Treasure Island.

    You’re RICH I tell you, RICH!!

  70. BBD says:

    David

    Those strange (pirate infested) waters of the internet are maybe a little too unsettling..?

    Dunno about that but there’s a hell of a lot of cranks out there, which can be tiresome.

  71. David Blake says:

    @VTG,

    “Compare it to the coastline of Treasure Island.”
    X is most definitely marking the spot on my map, a little more digging to do before I find the treasure though. But as aTTP points out just because the correlation between an “X” on a map and finding treasure there is 100% doesn’t mean the “X” caused the treasure.

  72. [Mod : Sorry, try to avoid mentioning people here who can’t respond.]

  73. pbjamm says:

    I am sure I will regret asking but…

    So if the magnetic pole moves in a tight circle all year and ends up back near it original position does that count as moving 20 miles? What is the causal link between the moving pole magnetic pole and changes in climate? How does this cause manage to disperse the increase in energy due to GHGs?

  74. David Blake says:

    @ aTTP,

    “One can correlate a decrease in the number of pirates with an increase in surface temperature but…”

    There’s no physical mechamism for pirates and climate, but there is between magnetic fields and climate. One of the main reasons our planet is habitable is that we have a magnetic field. Without it our atmosphere would be stripped like that of Mars. Our magnetic field has undoubted influence over our atmosphere. To argue against that is silly.

    “Not only is it very difficult to see how changes in GCRs could drive global warming, you also (as you have not yet done) explain why you largely reject a theory that is well-test and understood.”

    There’s two points there;
    1) I have demonstrated a correlation (only) between magnetic field and climate. I have demonstrated a change in cloudiness, and possible link to AMO, and thus climate. But true, I have not demonstrated that this correlation is due to GCR’s. However to argue that there has never been a correlation between GCR’s and climate is wrong. It’s that this relationship seems to have broken down recently (as I said above – a bit like CO2 and climate – heh). What my mechanism proposes is a reason *why* this may be the case: the change in the auroral oval.

    2) Who said I rejected a theory? Only you. CO2 is still a radiative gas. It just may not be as an important a radiative compared to changes in cloudiness. A one percent fall in clouds is the same 2.4W/m^2 forcing as all the co2 rise since 1750.

  75. David,

    A one percent fall in clouds is the same 2.4W/m^2 forcing as all the co2 rise since 1750.

    No it’s not and we’ve discussed this before. The net radiative effect of clouds (relative to there being no clouds) is 13 Wm-2, so a 1% change is not 2.4 Wm-2

    Noone is saying that other factors do not influence our climate but if you want something like GCRs to have an effect similar to that of the change due to the recent increase in CO2 then you’re suggesting that our climate is incredibly sensitive. There is no real evidence that it is that sensitive and, if it were, it would also be very sensitive to changes in CO2 concentrations. You can’t really make it very sensitive to one change while suggesting that somehow it isn’t very sensitive to other changes.

  76. David Blake says:

    @pbjamm.
    “I am sure I will regret asking but…”
    Surely not!

    “So if the magnetic pole moves in a tight circle all year”
    It doesn’t. It’s moving in a pretty straight line from Canada to Russia.

    “What is the causal link between the moving pole magnetic pole and changes in climate?”
    See above. Changes in the oval where GCMs can reach tropsophere –> changes in clouds –> changes in SSTs (AMO cycle) –> changes in atmospheric temps.

    “How does this cause manage to disperse the increase in energy due to GHGs?”
    It doesn’t. All warming (of CO2 and everything else) is from the Sun. Clouds change the albedo,

  77. David Blake says:

    @aTTP,
    “No it’s not and we’ve discussed this before. The net radiative effect of clouds (relative to there being no clouds) is 13 Wm-2, so a 1% change is not 2.4 Wm-2”
    -13Wm^2 is the lower end of the ERBE results, and I did make my statement clumsily. I was assuming that albedo = clouds (which yep, it isn’t).

    340Wm^2 x 0.7 albedo = 238 W/m^2
    One percent change in albedo…
    340 W/m^2 x 0.693 = 253.62
    difference = 2.38 W/m^2 (let’s call it 2.4 between friends)

    But obviously albedo includes more that just clouds – although clouds is the most important factor.

    “then you’re suggesting that our climate is incredibly sensitive.”

  78. David Blake says:

    … darn.. pressed send too soon..

    “then you’re suggesting that our climate is incredibly sensitive.”
    It is. To changes in albedo. CO2 is not albedo. Remember the Donohou paper: It’s sw albedo that (ultimately) changes climate, not LW.

  79. anoilman says:

    Nothing you’re saying makes sense David. Nothing. You haven’t tied it to anything like cause an effect. We have measured that cosmic radiation and solar cycles are not the cause of current warming.

    Take it step by step with citations to papers (and only papers).

  80. David,
    I’m afraid AoM is right. Ultimately a change in albedo is a change in radiative forcing. A change in atmospheric CO2 is a change in radiative forcing. Broadly speaking, we expect our climate to respond similarly to changes in radiative forcing, irrespective of what’s causing the change. If albedo goes down so that we receive more solar radiation, or atmospheric CO2 goes up so that we lose less IR, the net effect is the same: we warm, the temperature goes up, …..

  81. verytallguy says:

    David Blake,

    Have you properly considered the change in albedo from square riggers to motorised craft and the corresponding change in albedo?

    Everyone else,

    Why are you taking DB’s theory more seriously than pirates?

  82. BBD says:

    It’s not GCRs…

    The crankery is getting a bit out of hand, IMO.

  83. anoilman says:

    Maybe the Pants Gnomes are helping him;

  84. David Blake says:

    [Mod: Okay, we’re going to draw this to a close. As many have pointed out – some with actual references – it really isn’t GCRs.]

  85. verytallguy says:

    AOM,

    That seems more on a par with GCRs, yes.

  86. [Mod : Yes, agreed, but if he can’t respond, then I’d rather not have him mentioned at all.]

  87. russellseitz says:

    Privateering and the suppression of piracy may both be viewed as primitive forms of solar radiation management, since both sides operate by discharging large numbers of potentially albedo enhancng cloud condensation nuclei into the marine boundary layer using the traditional “broadside” method of black powder aerosol geoengineering.

    CF Ye Arts & Pyrates Daily, September 21 2014

  88. anoilman says:

    I was wondering when we’d get back on topic.

  89. KR says:

    You’ve inspired me to go back and search ARrrrrr5 for any mention of piracy.

    Not to mention ARrrrr4, TARrrrr, SARrrr, and even back to the FARrrrr… surely this critical influence is documented.

  90. OK, now I get it. [Mod : Yes, you’ve got it] Can’t argue that …. unless one applies the Chewbacca defense

  91. anoilman says:

    You Alarmists are all alike! CPW (Catastrophic Pirate Warming) is not real!

    As I’ve said above, the so called scientists have no idea about what is going on in piracy, and the increase in temperatures is easily explained with a detailed understanding of the natural cycle of sharknados.

    You guys are all under the sway of Mal Bore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Raid”. Yeah we all know about you!

  92. Infopath says:

    So sorry to ask this (I’m not a climate scientist): Scurvy… is it a forcing or a feedback?

  93. There has been some claim in this comment thread that it was not the greenhouse gas effect that caused the warming over the last several decades, but decreased albedo. But as I understand it, this claim has been pretty much falsified. I addressed this three years ago in comment #3 at Skeptical Science here:

    Is there a case against human caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 2
    Posted on 9 November 2011 by Jim Powell
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Powell-projectPart2.html

    Part of my comment:

    “There is a book that is partially available online as a Google e-book
    “Solar activity and earth’s climate”
    by Rasmus E. Benestad, who obtained a Ph.D in physics from Atmospheric, Oceanic & Planetary Physics at Oxford University. (He is one of the many real climate scientists who contribute at RealClimate.) Go to page 176. We read, “Any mechanism involving the albedo implies strongest response in the daytime temperature. Observations, on the other hand, suggest a reduction in the diurnal temperature range where the night-time temperature has increased more than the daytime temperature (Houghton et al., 2001). According to Svensmark’s hypothesis, the warming is due to the reduction in Earth’s albedo (reflected light), and therefore a long-term reduction in the low-level planetary cloud cover appears to be inconsistent with the observations.””

    I went on to point out that this above was just a polite way of saying that the denier claim that lower albedo has caused essentially all the warming over the last half century is falsified by the combination of physics and this data. That is, if the warming is caused by lower albedo, then the warming should be greater for the daytime side, which has not happened, and thus if all our auxiliary hypotheses hold, by the physics combined with the observation of this false prediction, we have proved false the denier claim in question. This in one fell swoop falsifies everything that falls under this general category of lower albedo being the cause of the warming, and this includes GCRs and everything else that involves clouds. (Side note: I do not know whether the physics says that the converse of the above implication also holds, that is, I don’t know whether it is the case that the physics says that if the warming is greater on the daytime side, then the warming is caused by lower albedo. Benestad did not say. But below John Cook seems to convey that the answer is yes, the physics says that the converse also holds true.)

    A few months before I wrote that comment (I did not see this article before I posted my comment), John Cook addressed the diurnal temperature range in the section “Global warming has a distinct greenhouse signature” in the following article:
    “How we know we’re causing global warming in a single graphic”
    Posted on 27 July 2011 by John Cook
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-we-know-were-causing-global-warming-in-single-graphic.html

    I think that the best thing the general public can hear is a most simple and general and easy-to-understand presentation of what the whole truth is, and I think the following is such: Except for potential releases of heat from inside the planet, there are three and only three general categories of ways to increase the planet’s heat budget: (1) More energy falling onto Earth from the sun (this covers both variables of solar output and average distance from the sun); (2) more of the heat in the first category absorbed rather than reflected (this covers all variables related to clouds and aerosols); (3) more of the heat in the second category trapped rather than radiated out to space (this covers all variables related to greenhouse gases). The physics and other mathematical sciences combined with the data show that categories (1) and (2) even combined account for no more than a small percentage of the measured planetary heat budget increase over the many years. Therefore, by the process of elimination, it must be the third category.

    Only once over the past many years have I ever see this most simple and general yet easy-to-understand three-category-based explanation of the whole truth to the general public. I think it should be the never ending and ever repeated mantra of the climate science community and its supports when talking to the general public. (I once saw an interviewer ask Michael Mann for an easy-to-understand explanation of how we know it’s the greenhouse gas effect and not something else, and I saw the frustration in the interviewer’s face – and I felt that frustration – when Mann did not give this complete and easy-to-understand three-category-based explanation, but instead meandered all over the place with information that was all technically true but ultimately unhelpful in terms of what the interviewer wanted. It seems to me that this episode can function as a microcosm of how and why so much of the public is so confused and so deceived by the deniers.)

    Perhaps for the sake of the general public’s ability to see all this as simply and generally as possible using these three easy-to-understand categories, I would like to see some people with enough knowledge of the relevant mathematical science (perhaps physicist ATTP?) provide some definitive information on all this (including whether the above implication’s converse also holds true, which by Cook’s article does seem to be the case). And this would include an overview of the relevant (and legitimate) science to date that homes in on showing how it can’t be lower albedo causing the warming over the last several decades or more, to show false once and for all at least for some people all those claims that “it’s not the greenhouse gas effect – it’s increased heat from the sun and/or it’s lower albedo”.

  94. verytallguy says:

    Keefe,

    I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you suggest in that different types of cloud at different altitudes and times would have different effects.

    I think it may be the case that should there have been a rise in high altitude night-time clouds, that would have a very similar overall signature to CO2 warming as far as surface temperatures go at least. One might ask how likely that is, of course…

    I am far from being certain of my facts here, and look forward to being corrected by others more knowledgeable.

  95. verytallguy says:

    Keefe,

    I do agree that a nice simple message on “why we know it’s CO2” would be useful.

    How about

    1) Stratospheric cooling
    2) Arctic amplification
    3) Diurnal temperature range

    My understanding is that all of these are at least more accentuated under CO2 warming than other radiative forcing changes, and stratospheric coolingis unique to GHGs.

    Is this correct? Are there better “signatures”?

  96. “OK, now I get it. [Mod : Yes, you’ve got it] “

    Thanks, I had to read between the lines that you banned him. It’s getting like the Fight Club here.

  97. Steven Mosher says:

    “he would be ridiculed for making an appearance here.”

    no the moderator would not allow ridicule.

    I suggested James Earle Jones’ do the voice over but he was unavailable.

    Richard Alley has met his match in the bad voice department.

  98. verytallguy says:

    “Keefe,
    I don’t think it’s quite as simple as you suggest in that different types of cloud at different altitudes and times would have different effects.”

    [Don’t forget dearest Amanda! (smile)] Thank-you for bringing this to my attention. I know that clouds can have effects that fall under both the second and third general categories, and I had in mind only the effects that clouds have with respect to the second general category. Therefore, please include the phrase “with respect to albedo” where I commit this oversight.

    “I do agree that a nice simple message on “why we know it’s CO2″ would be useful.

    How about
    1) Stratospheric cooling
    2) Arctic amplification
    3) Diurnal temperature range

    My understanding is that all of these are at least more accentuated under CO2 warming than other radiative forcing changes, and stratospheric cooling is unique to GHGs.”

    With respect to the three general categories I gave in my last comment (these are not the points 1), 2), and 3) directly above even though my prior comment did include point 3)), these three general categories being such that any given condition related to global climate falls under at least one of these three: In addition to pointing out that the third general category is the only explanation for the warming thus far over the past many decades due to the first and second general categories even taken together not able to explain more than a small percentage of this warming, I agree that the inclusion of what has happened on such points as the above 1), 2), and 3) would be direct support for the third general category. That is, in addition to indirectly establishing the third general category as the explanation for the long-term warming by eliminating the first two general categories, I agree that it is useful to provide such direct evidence for this third category as the explanation for the long-term warming.

    And if what you say above is correct, that stratospheric cooling is a condition that is unique to the third general category, then, in addition to being direct support for the third, it is indirect support for the third in that it supports the elimination of the first two.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s