Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Climate and Solar Regularities and Global Cooling

Climate and Solar Regularities and Global Cooling
I was thinking recently about the downside of the 60 year cycle that we seem to be into and wondering if there might be any other cycles in phase with the 60 year cycle that would make the cold period worse than it would otherwise be. That led me to some research on climate cycles that would seem to be driven by solar effects related to planetary orbits. It was not difficult to find several such climate cycles, including some that seem to have little or no connection with planetary motion. Perhaps more interesting was the number of papers that identify climate periodicities, without any attempt at explanation, that do have clear connection to planetary/solar cycles.
The “no connection” cycles led me to the question of whether some apparent cycles were simply sidebands or beat frequencies of the well-established cycles. I had just begun to struggle with that issue when I found Wilson's paper at www.alp.org.au/Congress 2006/625.PDF and discovered that he had already done most of the work for me. His other works then led to several other mysterious connections.
Following is a summary of the more or less well-known regularities that I could find.
Recognized regularities or cycles
• 9 year – Lunar cycle – evident in weather if not climate.
• Schwabe 11 year sunspot cycle – a bimodal cycle of approximately 10 years and 12 years synchronized to the Venus/Earth/Jupiter cycles. Can be from 9 to near 14 years.
• 18.6 year lunar nodal cycle – clearly apparent in Arctic proxies
• Jupiter/Saturn synodic period - 19.86 years average. Possibly confounded with the lunar nodal cycle in some proxies.
• Hale 22.3 year average solar magnetic polarity cycle. Every second Schwabe cycle, but no other specific link to planetary orbits. Could be influenced by the lower beat frequency of the Jose cycle and the Jupiter/ Saturn synodic cycle as a strange attractor. No significant climate signature.
• Saturn orbital 29.5 years – some weak evidence of thirty-year cycle in climate records.
• Unnamed 60 to 62 year cycle – three Jupiter/ Saturn synodic cycles – time for the sun to repeat one complete tour of its track around the SSB. Very clear climate cycle in the last several hundred years.
• Gleissberg cycle – variously expressed as 72 years to 120 years. Also seen as 72 to 83 year sunspot cycles. Climate sources used by Wilson give an average of 88.7 years. The lower sideband (beat frequency) of the 60 year cycle and the Jose cycle is 90 years. Use 90 years. Wilson describes why the Gleissberg cycle changes so widely. http://www.scribd.com/doc/16785737/Does-Spin-Orbit-Coupling-Between-the-Sun-and-Jovian-Planets-Govern-the-Solar-Cycle-

• José cycle – 178.7 years – the shortest time for each near alignment of the Jovian planets. Also the beat frequency of the 22.34 average length of the Hale cycle and the 19.86 year average length of the Jupiter/Saturn synodic cycle. The variable length of these two cycles can give a fairly wide range for this beat frequency, from about 172 to 189 years.
• DeVreiss cycle – 200 to 210 year cycle. Wilson's sources average 201 years, but 205 and 210 years are more commonly mentioned. No obvious driver. Wilson notes a beat frequency between the first harmonic of Hallstatt cycle and the Jose cycle, but that seems like a long reach.
• Deep Grand Minimum (DGM) period – 363.3 years - the length of a Deep Grand Minimum cycle that meets the “golden proportion”. See “Solar Grand Minima” below. (My contribution – Duffin cycle??)
·    .950 – 1100 year cycle -  A cycle of near 1000 years shows up strongly in some reconstructions. See http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_cause.pdf page 33. Since originally writing this I have come across the Climate theory presented here http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6482 . This cycle could be a terrestrial thermohaline cycle.
• 1500 year - Dansgaard/Oeschger (D-O) events recur in last Ice Age cores at 1470 years, + -12%. Bond events appear in Holocene records as about 1500, + -500 years. The last four Bond event are spaced about 1400, 1400 and 1700 years apart. (4, 4,and 5 DGM periods? )
• 1800 year tidal cycle based on shifting lunar declination ??
• 2300 year Hallstatt cycle - seen in C14 tree ring data. Wilson notes that it takes 121 Jupiter/Saturn synodic periods or 2403 years for the alignment to return to the same position with respect to the stars, which doesn't seem very meaningful in climate terms. Charvatova notes that every 2400 years the Jose cycle drops to 160 years for a period of about 370 years, which does seem meaningful. The next occurrence will be between 2240 and 2610. Strangely the 370 years is very close to one 363 year DGM period.
Solar Grand Minima

Name            Period                  Cycles from prior               Type

Oort         1010—1050                                                   Shallow
Wolf         1280--1340                          24                        Deep
Sporer      1420—1530                        12.6                   Shallow
Maunder   1642—1705                        20                         Deep
Dalton       1790—1820                       13.3                     Shallow
SSC24/25 2009--??                            19.7                       Deep

What about the date of the Oort minimum? It seems to have been determined by radiocarbon dating. How accurate is that? Three laboratories working independently provided a consensus date for the Shroud of Turin as 1260 to 1390. That is 1325 +- 65 years. The Oort minimum occurred about 300 years earlier, so might have an uncertainty range of +- at least 80 years. If the start of the Oort was 50 years later (1060) we could have a pattern of 20,13,20,13,20 cycles between grand minima. (In the curve shown here http://www.landscheidt.info/ the bottom of the Oort is just about exactly at 1060).

Given the 20,13 repetition, it appears that each grand minimum at the end of a 20 cycle period is deeper and longer than after a 13 cycle period, and has a greater impact on climate. Call them deep and shallow grand minima (DGM and SGM). Wolf and Maunder were DGM and have clear signatures in the proxy record. Oort, Sporer and Dalton were SGM. The proxy records display the Sporer but not the Oort. We are probably now entering a DGM. Curiously the DGM cycle is near 360 years or near 2 Jose cycles, and given my assumptions below, they seem to align pretty closely during the last 2000 years.

Could there be an orbital/SSB reason for such regularity? 221 years (20 Schwabe cycles) is very close to the DeVreis regularity. Also 13 cycles at average length of 10.68 years and 20 cycles at average length of 11.23 years is the golden proportion (38.2:62.8), with a DGM cycle length of 363.3 years. (The 20 11.23 year cycles take 224 sidereal years, which is strangely close to Wilson’s 224 year period noted here http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.html). The average solar cycle length for the 363.3 year period is 11.01 years. Wikipedia gives an average length of 11.04 years (ignoring Usoskin et al’s extra cycle at the beginning of the Dalton), which is close enough given the degree of uncertainty in estimating prior sunspot cycles. Four such DGM cycles = 1453.2 years, very nearly one D-O event period.

There is another strange factor appearing now. Usoskin et al invoke the Gnevyshev-Ohl (G-O) rule that says odd numbered sunspot cycles are always stronger than the preceding even numbered cycle. Unfortunately for G-O this rule has only been valid for the period since the Dalton minimum. The last 2 cycles at the beginning of the Maunder and Dalton grand minima had the odd number intensity lower than the preceding even number. We now have cycle 23 lower than cycle 22, entering another grand minimum. It seems that the G-O rule needs to be refined, and Usoskin et al’s extra cycle at the beginning of the Dalton may be invalid. Maybe SGM are always preceded by extra long cycles.

The biggest problem with the cycles and events in the proxy climate records is inconsistency. They are confounded by contributions from plate tectonics, volcanoes, meteorites, ocean currents and variable delay times in earth systems. When such factors were isolated, there were still major irregularities that are just now becoming understood. Trying to get a layman’s understanding of the mechanisms required more digging. Nearly a decade ago I had found Niroma, DesMoulins and Landscheidt, and while they provided insight on correlations, they didn’t help much with mechanisms. Now one finds several gifted amateurs (Tallbloke, Stephen Wilde, Geoff Sharp, Ian Wilson, Nicola Scafetta) with various particular skills collaborating informally on the internet to produce quite profound analyses of probable mechanisms, including some realistic quantification. The most helpful (for me) of these was I. R. G. (Ian) Wilson. The seminal work seems to have been done by P. D. Jose, published in a 1965 paper. As with other pioneering iconoclasts (think evolution and plate tectonics) his work was largely ignored until now. Based on several days of digging I have tried to write a simplified description that can be understood to a reasonable degree by the “great unwashed”, like myself.
Non- Technical Description of Solar Mechanisms
Viewing a diagram of the sun’s motion relative to the solar system barycenter (SSB) (http://www.orbitsimulator.com/gravity/articles/ssbarycenter.html) it is obvious that sometimes the Barycenter is near the center of the sun, and sometimes well outside its circumference. Sometimes the sun is moving toward, sometimes away from the barycenter. Conversely, viewing the barycenter moving relative to the sun it is intuitive that the barycenter accelerates and decelerates the sun, and imparts angular momentum varying from substantial to near zero. Simultaneously the planets exert gravity on the sun that varies with their orbital distances (elliptical orbits), and alignments. All of these forces perturb the rotation of the solar dynamo in patterns that repeat, but not exactly. For a pretty good animation go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iSR3Yw6FXo . As a thought experiment, imagine a snowglobe rotating around an axis that in turn is being swung around on the end of a string. Now imagine that the strings anchor is being moved back and forth, while the string is getting shorter and longer, and both the string’s and the globe’s rotation rates are being speeded and slowed. One can imagine the complexities imparted to the rotational movement of the liquid inside the globe. Think of it as swirl, stir, shake and slosh.
Missing from this thought experiment is any sense of scale. Imagine that the snow globe is ginormous and is a vast distance away, so that all of the forces are attenuated almost to the point of triviality in relative terms, but still able to have some effect. That is something like what is happening to at least the outer layers of the solar plasma. Agitation of the plasma, and variations of the strength and speed of the solar dynamo cause waxing and waning of sunspots, increases and decreases of solar uv output, strengthening and weakening of the solar magnetic field, and periods of stronger or weaker CMEs, all of which drive our climate change. However the sun is not uniform in density and the state of agitation will never be the same at the time of repeated planetary alignments or position relative to the SSB, so the solar reaction does not repeat exactly in timing or intensity.
If one follows the work of the a/m group of amateurs, one can see an holistic understanding of the complexities of the solar system, and their impacts on our climate developing, with growing elucidation and quantification of the mechanisms involved. This work is already so advanced that it is very difficult for a rational person to follow it with an open mind and not agree that the sun is the primary driver of climate change and that the 30 year warming from 1975 to 2005 was simply the upside of a natural climate cycle, with a cooling to follow.

What might we expect for this cooling?
Start with the probability that the 1976 to 2006 surface instrument warming peak is overstated, and was probably less than the prior 1938 to 1944 peak. The 60 to 62 year cycle peaked in about 1820, 1880, 1940 and 2000. At 62 years it would be 1820, 1882, 1944 and 2006 which might be a little better. It is now on a downslope to about 2030 – 2040. The José cycle seems to be near to in phase with the 60 year cycle. If the José and 60 year cycles bottomed about 1650 and 60 year cycle about 1600 and 1710, it would partly account for both the depth and length of the bottom trough of the L I A. If so, it (the Jose cycle) bottomed again 1850 – 1860 (cool period) and can bottom again 2030 – 2040. It could have peaked near the 1938 – 1944 peak warming contributing to that peak being higher than the recent peak. The cycle from 1910 to 1974 warmed 1910 to 1938 (28 years), flatlined to 1944 (34 years overall), then plunged 0.3 degrees C to 1953 (9 years) then flatlined to about 1976 (23 years). The current cycle warmed from 1976 to 1998 (22 years), flatlined to 2006 (8 years), warming at the same rate as the previous cycle, and has now cooled slightly for 4 years (36 years overall). Could it be ready for a 0.3 degree C plunge during the next 7 years?
The 1400-1500 year Bond Event is the wild card. Chiefio (http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/13/an-interesting-view-of-temperatures/) has already mused on the idea that the last Bond event (event number one) occurred during the Dark Ages or Migration Period cooling (about 400 – 900 A.D). It appears in several climate proxy records at about 550 A.D. as a brief downward spike, but shows up as a severe cooling event in Greenland ice cores. 1470 years later is 2020! Oops!
Solar activity – timing looks like a deep grand minimum for cycle 24/25. We can probably expect a cooling at least as severe as the Dalton minimum, and possibly similar to the L I A. However, Wilson (http://ozwx.plasmaresources.com/wilson/Syzygy.pdf) has raised the possibility, even while casting doubt on it, that we might be back to something like the Oort Minimum, which occurred during the MWP and left no real mark on the climate. Since the Oort was not a DGM, I would share Wilson’s doubts.
To use the cycles enumerated above to backcast, I have to make assumptions about past phasing. My assumptions following seem to work pretty well.
• The coolest part of a DGM occurs 25 to 40 years after onset
• The 950 – 1100 year cycle is close to 1050 years long and last peaked during the MWP at about 1150 and bottomed last during the LIA AD 1650-1700
• The Jose cycle last peaked about 1940-1945
• There was a 60 year cycle peak at 1940.
• Leaving out Gleissberg and DeVreis because too variable
For prior warm/cold periods we then find:
• Roman warm period: 1000 year peak about 200 AD, Jose peak 156 AD, 60 year cycle peaks at 140, 200, 260 AD. DGM at 182 AD. 3 warm, 1 cool.
• Dark Ages cold period: 1000 year bottom at 670 AD, Jose mins at 424 and 603 AD, 60 year mins at 530 and 590 AD, and a Bond event about 550 AD. 4 cools with an extended spread.
• MWP warm 1000 year peak at about 1150, Jose peak at 1050, 60 year peaks at 1040 and 1100 and 1160, SGM at 1060. 3 warm, 1 weak cool. Oort swamped by warm peaks.
• LIA cold: 1000 year bottom at 1650-1700, Jose bottom about 1680, 60 year bottoms at 1610m and 1670, Maunder DGM coolest about 1670-1680. 4 cool, very closely grouped.
• Dalton cool: 1000 year 30% up from bottom, Jose bottom 1840, 60 year peak 1820, SGM weak bottom 1810-1820. 2and 1/3 cool, 1 warm.
• 20th Century warm: 1000 year ½ way+ to peak, Jose peak 1940-1945, 60 year peak 1940, mid cycle between grand minima. 2 and ½ warm. Like Roman warm period, cooler than MWP?

• Cycle 24/25 cool: 1000 year ¾ way to peak, Jose bottom 2030-2040, 60 year bottom 2030, DGM coolest about 2030-2040. Bond event 2020?? 3 cool and ¾ of a warm with Bond event wild card. Cooler than Dalton, not as cold as LIA.
• Looking a lot farther forward we would have the next peak of the 1000 year cycle at about 2200, corresponding to a Jose bottom at near 2215, and about half way between 2 DGMs. Not as warm as the MWP, consistent with the long trend down since at least the Minoan Optimum. The next 1000 year cycle bottom would be about 2725 and would correspond closely with a Jose bottom near 2755 and a DGM near 2773, and 60 year bottoms near 2690, 2750 and 2810. This would give us 5 coolings fairly closely grouped, cooler than the LIA. Could that be the start of the next ice age? Happily it does not align with a Bond event.

Questions for the amateur experts
• Are my phasing assumptions supported by planetary alignments, or no?
• Why would grand mimima repeat in an alternating 20 and 13 sunpot cycle pattern?
• Why would 4 DGM periods equal one D-O period?
• What is the significance of Wilson’s 224 sidereal year “strange attractor”?
• Why would the phase change period every 2400 years last one DGM period?
• What mechanism could drive Landscheidt’s phase reversals?
• What are your thoughts looking forward?

Additional References: - far from exhaustive

http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/ I.R.G. Wilson- also Google to find several papers – Probably the easiest to understand and most informative
http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf - Charvatova
http://www.jupitersdance.com/ a lot of info, perhaps marred by Mayan speculation
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm the outstanding reference on the 60 year cycle
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/solartidalinfluencesofvej_w01.pdf Interesting,
but the prediction has been blown.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/ A lot of good material and discussions, but you have to hunt for it.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ Lots of interesting analyses, but lousy labeling so hard to understand.
http://www.landscheidt.info/ excellent source
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_change_cause.pdf A most informative argument for solar forcing and against AGW. See the appendices
http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/scafetta-JSTP2.pdf More from Scafetta
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=37 Stephen Wilde makes a lot of contributions to the discussion
http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbjarn/files/ljungquist_temperature_reconstructions_2009.pdf Many proxy reconstructions for last 2 milennia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC18099/ 1800 year tidal cycle, note connection to 360 year cycle that seems like DGM, plus Jose cycle and probable 18 year lunar nodal cycle.
http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/3/401.full Lunar influence in Arctic proxies
http://spaceweb.oulu.fi/~kalevi/publications/non-refereed2/ESA_SP477_lostcycle.pdf Usoskin et al.

Correspondance with Geoff Sharp Oct/Nov 2010

OLdest at the bottom, most recent at top. The last one led me to do the posting on Uranus impact on Solar angular momentum.

Hey Geoff,
Try this for a wild thought. My level of ignorance makes any wild thought worth examining.
Uranus orbital period 84 years. Because it is slightly elliptical Uranus spends two periods/orbit accelerating to max velocity, and 2 periods decelerating to lower velocity. The accelerating periods will be slightly shorter in time and slightly higher in max. velocity, but all four are close to 20 years long. Then we have the J/S synodic cycle of 19.9 years. Lets assume they start in close alignment such that the first cycle corresponds to Uranus accelerating, the next to Uranus decelerating, etc. the upper beat frequency of 4 J/S cycles and one Uranus cycle is 40.8 years. Hmm. Given the difference in actual times after a few cycles the correspondance losses reenforcing effect for a few cycles and then resynchs - maybe the 40,40,100 year sequence?? I have no idea how to do the math to test this idea, but I find it intriguing.

Hello again Geoff
Ok. Be that as it may. Simply using your charts, Max AM peaks show up at intervals of 100,40,40 years, which then repeats. That's 180 years. Also the average interval between peaks is very close to 20 years, so we get every 2nd JS conjunction exerting greater AM for 2 such periods, and then the 5th one being strong. Consider the 3 trefoil loops when the SSB is at the point of max distance from the sun for each loop. Call these 3 max points A B C when they are at a high peak, and a b c when they are at a low peak. The pattern is AbCaB (all three loops have had a max) then cabcA (we have 4 lower peak distances and then back to A as a high peak). And that pattern repeats. From one max A to the next max A is 3 loops around the trefoil set. So there is no 180 year conjunction or opposition or whatever, there is just a pattern that repeats once every 3 complete circuits of the sun around the SSB back to its starting point, and the 180 years is just a product of that repetition. Ok, so looking at the trefoil peaks why do we see first, third, fifth and 10th loops strong? Why 3 circuits around the loop? I think that at least 2 other modulating effects are in play.
Also note that the loops alternate short time bottom to bottom with high peak and long time bottom to bottom with low peak. Also note that the AMP always occurs on a long low cycle, but not every long low cycle has an associated AMP. Long low cycles have a much longer transition from peak to trough (and vice versa), then do short high cycles, so something is happening that is related to velocity, or more likely acceleration. I suspect that we also have the lowest AM troughs (SSB nearest the solar center), when conjunctions are nearest common perihelion, and the highest AM peaks when they are nearest common aphelion, even if the orbits are only slightly eliptical, ie orbital eccentricity matters.
So we have at least 4 planetary orbits, in at least 2 planetary pairs, with conjunctions and oppositions, orbital eccentricity with aphelions and perihelions, and orbital acceleration/deceleration variables to deal with. That's way too much for my poor brain.
In fig 12, using a scale to get my verticals accurate, I place your red dots at 1654, 1833 and 2013. Thats 179 and 180 years, not 172 years. Mistake?, or correct for the AMP positioning, but AMP not consistent with U/N conjunction?
The "repeating pattern" is highest max solar velocity just before a red dot and min bottom just after a red dot. Both are succesively higher on a straight line, with top and bottom lines having very nearly the same slope. Strange. It would be interesting to see this pattern over the 3000 years you have covered.
Queries and/or housekeeping
Most figures have the AM scale marked as 5.0 at the bottom, rather than 0.5.
Fig 17 has AM spikes about 9 years bottom to bottom. The quasi sinusoidal curves of other figs are 20 years. Sunspot cycles look closer to 10 years than to 11 in Fig 17.
In the formula, what are x,y and z?
Cheers, Murray

The simple answer is Jose and everybody who uses his cycle is wrong.

There is no 178-9 year cycle. Every Uranus/Neptune conjunction has Jupiter and Saturn in a different position, and this is what governs grand minima and the shape of the Holocene isotope record.

Use this link to see for yourself http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/java1/Temp/TLVisPOrbit.html

Use 1992 and 1821 and look at the different positions of J & S. J & S are not moving back into the same position which makes a fixed predictable cycle impossible, but we do see periods of time like the LIA where the positions are favorable for strong grand minima but we now are seeing that strength diminish as the U/N precession moves on. There will be a point in time where the major 4 planets return to the exact positions and using the above link a 27 U/N cycle or 4628 yrs does come very close to a return, but not quite and the software may be inaccurate over longer periods., we only have 6000 years of fairly reliable data which may not be enough. Use 1821 as a starting point, draw the angles on a piece of paper, go back in 171.4 yr steps and see if the pattern repeats (also look 1306 & -3321). I have done the work some time ago, look at this graph http://www.landscheidt.info/images/c14nujs1.jpg. Years 1472 and -3155 which are apart by 4628 yrs show similar planet angles and also fairly similar solar activity, but they are still different. The planet orbits are perturbed by their own gravity and never return exactly to the same position, this is why the Holocene isotope record does not have a strict repeating pattern. I will update this graph to make this point.
Hi again Geoff,
I realized after I wrote the last message that I am not seeing solar activity, but rather some kind of phase incoherence and recovery in the angular momentum, to which the sun evidently responds given the associated warming. So, why does the angular momentum go through a phase change of some kind?
Cheers, Murray

Ok Geoff, I hear you, - but
There are some strange regularities, with some irregularity
Starting with Fig 1, and your high peak at 2162 and counting backwards to previous high peaks with the same grid relationship, we find peaks that meet the criteria at 100 year, 40 year and 40 year intervals and this pattern holds clearly in successive near 180 year intervals all the way back to 1624, actually very close to 179 year periods. Then we have to drop to Fig 8 where we have lost our grid, so things get a little more difficult. However going back from 1624 calls for a 100,40,40 sequence for top peaks, and that is what we have. This pattern then holds very clearly all the way back to 908 at the end of Fig 8. We are still at 179 year periods.
We then drop to your extra AM curves. About 1166 to 908 is not quite as clear, but still OK. The sequence then holds with pretty clear peaks all the way down to 50 AD, after which it seems to give out.
However, back up from the top peak at near 130 AD to the bottom peak at about 165 AD (we lose 40 years minus half a cycle) and the bottom peaks resume the 40,40,100 sequence. (A 100 year period has become a 60 year period plus 1/2 cycle). We have a transition overlap from 165 to 50 AD where both top and bottom peaks work, but out of phase. From 165 AD to 810 BC the sequence continues nicely and then we have another 40 years minus half a cycle lost, a shift back to the top peaks, and an overlap from 870 to 990 BC.
The 2 transitions are very nearly 1040 years apart, (the famous 1000 year cycle) and correspond with warm periods. A similar transition at 1200 AD doesn't show up, but the warm period does. The sun seems to have a 100 or so year spasm at about 1000 year intervals, that results in terrestrial warming. Periods of very high sunspots, rather than low sunspots? (Next time about cycle 42?)
The 179 year cycle is the Jose cycle, that you find to be nearer 172 years. From 2160 AD to 1140 BC is 3300 years. 19 cycles of 178.7 years is 3395 years. So we have lost about 95 years during 3 solar spasms. 19 cycles of 172 years is 3268 years, but we don't seem to have gained anything from irregularities. I would say that for the last 3000 years the Jose cycle is pretty accurate.
You know how to model planetary cycles and display conjunctions etc. I don't. So can you address a couple of questions?
- What splits a Jose cycle into the 100,40,40 year periods?
- What additional planet(s) get into the act at about a 1000 year interval (every 6th Uranus/Neptune conjunction?, or every 6th Jose cycle?) to cause a solar spasm?
I agree that nature does not follow exact patterns, but planetary orbital periods are very close to exact over periods of several thousand years, so things like AM will repeat cycle periods pretty closely. I assume that the reason that individual periods vary in length and magnitude is the influence of the planets other than Uranus and Neptune, but they average out over long periods of several cycles. I would guess that solar spasms can occur when forces get too far out of phase on the departing portion of near alignments and end when the forces get pulled back into phase on the approaching portion, most of one cycle of something later. The duration of the spasm can vary depending on the interior state of the sun, which will probably never be the same from one spasm to the next, and maybe now and then the sun is in such a strong internal regularity that it escapes the spasm altogether, successfully riding out the phase problem. (Phase catastrophe??)
Best regards,

Murray, its good to see your interest in this area but I suspect it will not pan out to a regular pattern. The only regular pattern is the Uranus Neptune conjunction every 171.4 years...period.

grand minima events can happen either side of this conjunction and the planet positions which change every time determine this. Also even if the disturbance is strong it can be thwarted as done in 1830, so nothing will follow a clear pattern. Dont get confused with AMP events and grand minima, they dont always mean grand minima as seen in 1970 because of weak strength. If you look at the last grand minimum it is 210 years away.

Have a look at the last graph in the addition information in my paper, you will see a transition period before the 1000AD where the type b AMP events rule, notice how the weak AMP events spread out with much great occurrence because of the many partial line ups, during these times there will be no regular patterns as you have outlined, the carbon 14 record also shows this.

Nature will not follow straight lines or exact patterns, its about understanding the root causes.

I am currently looking at some new AM graphs derived from planetary AM as well as Jupiter distance from SSB and Sun difference that is highlighting some extra AMP type events not shown on the solar AM charts. They might give a clue to the sporer question.


Hi Geoff,
Just a few other observations for what it's worth. Using the extended set of AM cycles.
Approx -1000 to -100 we have disturbances on the bottom or the downslope.
Approx -100 to +100 we have a transition
Approx +100 to 1100 we have disturbances on the top or on the upslope.
Approx 1100 to 1200 we have a transition,
After 1200 to now ( to 2100+??) we have disturbances on the bottom or the downslope.
What are the drivers of an approximately 1000 year period?
Transitions linked to Roman and Medieval warmings? And next warm peak?

Now lets count from the top of a peak that leads to a disturbance, rounding to nearest 10 for simplicity.
Wolf to Sporer 1280 to 1420, - 140 years, 11 cycles
!280 to 1320 - 40 years from first to second disturbance.
1320 to 1420 - 100 years to next GM start

Maunder to Dalton 1640 to 1780, - 140 years, 11 cycles
1640 to 1680 - 40 years from first to second disturbance.
1680 to 1780 - 100 years to next GM start

Sporer to Maunder 1420 to 1640, - 220 years, 20 cycles
!420 to 1460 - 40 years from green arrowed GM start to second disturbance
1460 to 1600 - 140 years to next disturbance
1600 to 1640 - 40 years to next GM start
You have a green arrow and question mark for the start of the Sporer near 1420 that doesn't have a disturbance. I am going with your green arrow.

Dalton to cycle 24 1780 to 2010 - 230 years, 20 cycles
1780 - 1820 - 40 years from first to second disturbance
1820 to 1960 - 140 years to next disturbance
1960 to 2000 - 40 years to next GM start (11 years, 1 cycle lost in rounding from 1280 to 2010)

Note that the 140 year period from 1820 to 1960 starts and ends with a disturbance that doesn't lead to a GM, but is coincident with a warming.
How about 1460 to 1600 - were there 2 warmings then also?

Note the 140 year periods that keep showing up. Is there a driver?

The 13/20 cycle period in years splits 40,100,40,140,40 and then starts over again 40,100,40,140,40. (Or 140,40, 140,40,140,40,140,40 - with every second 140 bounded by 2 warmings??)

Seems like too many very close regularities to be non significant. There is something going on besides your 172 year cycle. Can some of the other "gifted amateurs" contribute?

Cheers, Murray

To: geoff s (gs_qad@hotmail.com)
One other thing - since you mention PDO. I'm reaching way back now, but if memory serves Landscheidt's phase reversals involved a negative peak of something coniciding with a PDO before the reversal, and a positive peak coinciding with a PDO after the reversal, or vice-versa. Murray

I've had a few minutes to look at some of your material and can make a couple of observations. First, I have based my GM timing using the start, not the center. As the length of GM is variable, at least in the current period the start can be determined more accurately. Picking the center for eg the Sporer can easily give both your 172 years and my 13/20 cycles. Multiple disturbances stretch a GM, keeping what is cool -cool, but not driving things cooler, especially evident for the Maunder, and probably for the Sporer.
From fig 1, all of the GM I have start on a downslope of the AM, going to a disturbance. Even on the Wolf you get a sharp downslope for the 10Be at 1280, corresponding with an AM for fig 4.
On Fig 7 I can't make the dates line up well with Fig 4, so I don't know what to think. From your curves 1830-1840 should have been a cooling, but was a warming instead, - another phase reversal like for 1980??.
Your GM projections for now and for 2150 line up exactly with my 13/20 cycle projection.
Seems to me like we do not have a major inconsistancy, but that there is at least one additional factor in play. Without going back and reviewing things from long ago, maybe that factor is the Landscheidt phase reversal, or maybe it is the inner planets providing some effect.
Your AM charts seem to align well with the 13/20 cycle alternation, with a sharp decrease in AM at the beginning of every GM, and the C14 dating isn't accurate enough to invalidate corresponding coolings.

Hi Murray, I also have never understood Landscheidt's phase reversals. I put it down to his peaks not matching and needing a method to re align two beats that arnt quite in sequence. His work is very different to my own and I take very little from Landscheidt, but he was on the right track. I think there are two concepts to follow when talking of climate effects, one is a slowing Sun which has a reduction in TSI (small) but more importantly a reduced EUV output which is a now seen as a major climate driver. Couple this with the PDO phases that look to keep in sync with Jupiter and Saturn and you have all that is needed to explain the temp graph. The key is to look for the AM disturbance or AMP events. There is one now and also at 1970 which also coincided with a neg PDO, i expect the same occurred during the Dalton previously.

Thanks Geoff. Now I have it. That will take considerable study and cogitation for me to comprehend. My first reaction comes from your curve of solar vs planetary AM. the deep plunge from ca 1940 to 1948 corresponds with a temperature plunge delayed a few years. The next deep plunge ca 1983 -1989 corresponds to a strong warming, even (or maybe especially) with brief delay. If memory serves Landscheidt had one of his famous phase reversals in the mid '70s, which could be an explanation. However I have never understood the phase reversals, either what causes them, or how they are manifested. What is the significance of a phase reversal? The phase of what is reversed? Why would a steep drop in AM generate terrestrial cooling one time and a virtually identical drop generate warming the next time? That truly mystifies me. Can you place other Landscheidt phase reversals on your curves, and if yes how are they manifested? There does seem to be a hint of mirror imaging in your curve going each way from ca 1970, but I think 1970 is before Landscheidt's phase reversal. Would near mirror imaging result from approaching, near conjunctions shifting to departing near conjunctions?

Sorry for all the questions. I am not expecting answers, but I would appreciate your response to the bolded bit.

Thanks again for the reply.
I do not have the technical ability to "provide the detail". My strength? is noticing odd relationships. The 13 and 20 cycle periods is an odd relationship that has held up since the Oort (20, 13, 20, 13, 20), with the current grand minimum right on time. If that repetition continued back in time we would have had a DGM about 910-920, an SGM about 700 and a DGM about 550, the latter corresponding with the dark ages cold period. Were there grand minima about 910, 700, 550, or don't we know, or was the last set of 5 grand minima just a fluke?

"Remember every 172 yrs there are around 3 chances to form this position, during
events like the sporer all 3 are used, the maunder 2, the dalton used 1.5 and the current minimum will use only one."
I don't understand this statement . Can you point me to an illustration or clearer description?

Any comments about the future?

From: gs_qad@hotmail.com
To: murrayv@msn.com
Subject: RE: Climate and Solar Regularities and Global Cooling.docx
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 09:38:03 +1100

Thanks Murray, an interesting read. Two parts stand out for me.

You asked the question do the 13 and 20 cycle periods stand out in the planetary records, that would be up to you to provide the detail, but I would say definitely not.
The planets change their postitons every 178 yrs according to Jose, he only looked back a few hundred yrs as you have done, but looking back further you will see the planets repeat their pattern
over varying timescales that centre around the Uranus/Neptune conjunction of about 172 yrs. The little ice age was a freak period, the 13/20 cycle will fall down when looking over
the Holocene record.

You answered your own question when you correctly described the suns motion around the SSB, it is tied to the planet positions of the big 4 and relies on U/N together along with a good
alignment of J/S to force a grand minimum. This changes every 172 yrs and will not follow a simple 13/20 rule. Remember every 172 yrs there are around 3 chances to form this position, during
events like the sporer all 3 are used, the maunder 2, the dalton used 1.5 and the current minimum will use only one. This randomness in the cycle makes it impossible to follow a close pattern and is the reason
why no one has found it. The Devries cycle of around 200 years is more like an average and falls down totally during the LIA but looks reasonable when looking at the long term isotope record.

Geoff Sharp.
Geoff, thanks for responding.
I'm still learning my way around this web sharing. Also I updated and reposted it after my first message to you. I think the link will work now.
It sure looks to me like there is a clear periodicity of 13 and 20 sunspot cycles between grand minima. Maybe people have looked for a consistent cycle rather than alternating cycle lengths.

From: gs_qad@hotmail.com
To: murrayv@msn.com
Subject: RE: [Website Feedback] Grand minima
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 09:23:21 +1100

Hi Murray, the link you provided didn't work.

Grand minima follow a rough pattern but it can not be nailed down by specific solar cycles. This is what has confused all
those that have tried to use a repeating pattern or look for a trend in isotope records. What causes solar slowdown
comes along usually in 3 hits each 172 yrs (centre), because of the timing of the planets each occurrence is different. We
are seeing that right now, SC20 was weak, now is quiet strong and the third hit is missing this time around. This makes it
impossible to use a simple cyclic method.

Murray Duffin sent a message using the contact form at
> http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=contact.
> Geoff, please see my little opus at
> https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B2il0OKRz_AwYTc1NTI1M2MtODk2NC00M2IyLTljMGItZWVjZjhhY2E5NTRi&hl=en
> . the timing of grand minima in the chart you present on the first page
> correspond exactly to my observation. With the Oort at 1060, the grand minima
> repeat at intervals of 13 and 20 sunspot cycles, with the 20 cycle ones
> giving stronger climate response - my DGM and SGM. With the 13 and 20 cycle
> intervals giving exactly a golden proportion, I feel the observation is
> worthy of Landscheidt. I have never before seen this observation from anyone,
> and it seems very significant. Can I put my name to the present DGM? Murray
> PS I have sent the link to my opus to Ian Wilson also as it ties into some
> of his work. I sure would like to see it put up on someones blog, preferably
> WUWT which has the largest audience, but I don't know how to get that done.

Influence of Uranus on Solar Angular Momentum

Influence of Uranus on Solar Angular Momentum

Geoff Sharp has a published paper here http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1005/1005.5303.pdf that gives a graph of solar angular momentum back to about 1200 BC. (I couldn’t open the url, but Geoff e-mailed me the paper). There is a strange regularity in the AM graphs that shows a pattern of taller and shorter peaks as - tall, short, tall short, tall, short, short, short, short, tall. (The 4 shorts in a row could be thought of as short, weak tall, short, weak tall, and then tall). The cycles average very close to 20 years, so by eyeball the pattern of tall peak intervals is 40,40,100 years, and this pattern repeats. At near 1000 year intervals there is some loss of clarity lasting near 100 years, and then the pattern resumes. Between about 230 AD and 810 BC the 40,40,100 pattern is much more apparent at the troughs, and there seems to be about 1.5 cycles lost in switching from peak to trough and back to peak at the two ends of this period. Perhaps some modulating driver is slowly drifting out of phase, and then jumps back into phase, losing the 1.5 cycles. There is a loss of the peak pattern clarity also at about 1260 to 1160 AD, but without the peak to trough switch. What could cause the 40,40,100 year pattern?

First, the approximately 20 year period mentioned above is actually about 19.85 years averaged over the 3000 year period analyzed, so must be the Jupiter/Saturn (J/S) synodic cycle. Not knowing any better I am assuming that the orbital travel of Uranus can affect the angular momentum (A/M) of J/S. Uranus has a slightly elliptical orbit and will accelerate when travelling from major axis intercept to minor axis intercept and decelerate from minor to major. The alternating acceleration and deceleration could drive the alternating high and low AM peaks. If the distance covered by Uranus around its orbit in each 20 year period is 80 degrees, then starting with a tall peak at the major axis intercept the first 20 year period will be 100% acceleration, the second will be 12.5% acceleration and 87.5% deceleration, then the acceleration periods will be 75% , 50%, 62.5%, 87.5% and back to 100%. The 87.5/100/75% sequence with decelerations between gives us the 40,40 and the following low,low,low,low (accelerations less than 75% are assumed to be low) gives us the 100. This pattern repeats perfectly.

The loss of a short due to the 80 degree travel segments spread around 90 degree orbital quarters noted in the paragraph above supports this conjecture. When the 40,40,100 pattern is most visible, looking at the peaks, there are 5 troughs between high peaks for the 100 year segment. The center trough is least affected, (least deceleration) and therefore should have the shortest excursion. When the 40,40,100 is most visible looking at the troughs, the center peak of the 100 year stretch should have the least excursion. This pattern largely holds, which would also supports the Uranus ellipse hypothesis.

Unfortunately, Uranus travels 85 degrees during each 19.85 years J/S period, which generates a pattern that doesn’t match at all.

If the Uranus major axis also rotates 5 degrees during the J/S period, then Uranus would travel 80 degrees relative to its major axis for each cycle, and the pattern would hold. That would be a rotation of 0.252 degrees per year, which is almost imperceptible. A slightly different rotation rate (0.28 degrees per year?) might also generate the near 1000 year resynch pattern.

I think this analysis confirms beyond question that Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus are the primary drivers of the sun’s peculiar orbit relative to the SSB.

Does the Uranus orbital ellipse slowly rotate, and if so why, and at what rate?.

When the peaks show the 40,40,100 pattern most clearly, peaks reach 4.5E+47, and when troughs are most useful max. peaks only reach 4.0E47. Similarly troughs are farther from or nearer zero. Something is pulling the SSB farther from and nearer to the sun at a long period cycle. Could it be the maximum eccentricities and minimum eccentricities of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus (or maybe only Jupiter and Saturn as they have by far the highest gravitational pull) going into and out of alignment? How would that cycle be determined? What is the time for maximum eccentricities for each of Jupiter and Saturn, and for those maxima to be aligned?
Note: Neptune’s orbit is almost perfectly circular, so it wouldn’t have a similar effect

Wednesday, November 3, 2010

AGW as religion – counter arguments
  • "To capture the public imagination,
    we have to offer up some scary scenarios,
    make simplified dramatic statements
    and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    Each of us has to decide the right balance
    between being effective,
    and being honest."
    • Dr Stephen Schneider
      (interview for "Discover" magagzine, Oct 1989)
Start here:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all quote “The problem, of course, is that such dramatic findings are also the most likely to get published in prestigious journals, since the data are both statistically significant and entirely unexpected. Grants get written, follow-up studies are conducted. The end result is a scientific accident that can take years to unravel.

Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard practice. Why? Because these ideas seem true. Because they make sense. Because we can’t bear to let them go. Because of  the human fallibility of science, in which data are tweaked and beliefs shape perceptions.  End quote

quote “Though scientists and science journalists are constantly talking up the value of the peer-review process, researchers admit among themselves that biased, erroneous, and even blatantly fraudulent studies easily slip through it. Nature, the grande dame of science journals, stated in a 2006 editorial, “Scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.” end quote

Then follow the trail of invalidation of AGW.
A lot of references for non-AGW – Organized in sequence of discovery, not usefully eg by subject. Links accumulated from May 2009 thru Jan 2011

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/limitations-on-anthropogenic-global-warming/#more-3896 pretty good recent paper or blog entry 
http://www.nzcpr.com/Research%20papers%20(4).pdf Jaworowski 2008
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=149 solar influence
http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E74F1E59E2D3FE852574F100669688/$file/scafetta-epa-2009.pdf analysis of model failings and solar contribution. Solar contributes 65% of warming since 1900, and surface temp. errors due to land use change and contributing stations contribute near 30% (50% per McKittrick and Michaels). Doesn’t leave much room for CO2

http://www.nipccreport.org/ Or how about a comprehensive response to the IPCC 4th assessment report of 2007, with a vast selection of references.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/  Long Holocene cooling, plus weakness of tree ring proxies. There are numerous other studies that support the long cooling from the Holocene Optimum.

http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/3/411 Hypsithermal also in southern hemisphere
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5910/94 Now there is reason to believe that the Northern Hemisphere megafauna were not killed off by man. Another anthropogenic failure?? Note: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/the-younger-dryas-comet-impact-hypothesis-gem-of-an-idea-or-fools-gold/ Typical RC argumentation. If comets caused this change they must have been the cause of other glacial period abrupt change, even though the galcial abrupt changes were in the inverse direction. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/18/6520.full and some possible support??
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/ More on cloud negative feedback. Erl Happ is a vintner and amateur  climatologist. He is the only one doing serious data analysis/correlations of SST, ENSO, cloud cover, global warming etc. The “warmer” climatologists don’t want to do this because it would wreck the positive feedback hypothesis that they need for their models to generate catastrophic warming.   Erl Happ basically extends Svensmarks hypothesis by providing a detailed mechanism of how it might really work.
!!! http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ Most of the realistic arguments, with vast data support, and many references. It needs a day or two of study.

http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/ several critiques of climate model failings
Blog excerpt at : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/new-paper-global-dimming-and-brightening-a-review/#more-8950  Allan M R MacRae
Is Doug Hoyt out there? Please comment. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am

Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and in other in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Re #328
“Are you the same D.V. Hoyt who wrote the three referenced papers?” Yes.
“Can you please briefly describe the pyrheliometric technique, and how the historic data samples are obtained?”
The technique uses pyrheliometers to look at the sun on clear days. Measurements are made at air mass 5, 4, 3, and 2. The ratios 4/5, 3/4, and 2/3 are found and averaged. The number gives a relative measure of atmospheric transmission and is insensitive to water vapor amount, ozone, solar extraterrestrial irradiance changes, etc. It is also insensitive to any changes in the calibration of the instruments. The ratioing minimizes the spurious responses leaving only the responses to aerosols.
I have data for about 30 locations worldwide going back to the turn of the century.
Preliminary analysis shows no trend anywhere, except maybe Japan.
There is no funding to do complete checks.
End of excerpt. So much for aerosols for model tuning.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/03/sst-anomalies-of-us-coastal-waters.html No SST in coastal USA waters since ca 1935
http://www.wzforum.de/forum2/file.php?0,file=11877 or http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2009/07/20/decreases-in-cosmic-rays-affect-athmosph?tempskin=basic  Latest Svensmark paper confirming link between GCR intensity and low cloud cover. Note major decrease in liquid water in low clouds which would leave more water vapor in the air, thus causing warming through both solar irradiation at the surface, and positive feedback from WV. If FDs can have such a large (if brief) impact, imagine what prolonged changes in solar wind and magnetic field strength do.
Lubos Motl notes that roughly 3 billion tons of water droplets disappear from the atmosphere, about 1 week after an FD, but this water remains a s WV.
http://www.biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Climate_Change.html Some non-Climatologist correlations of sound scientific data, done by an open minded scientist.
http://www.biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html More IGC correlations by the same scientist, introducing the concept of the “bow wave”. Note ion both urls the supporting references of published peer reviewed scientific papers.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/129228.pdf and here is a mechanism. Note the GCRs have another role. See also: A Fresh Approach to Magnetism (Watson, 2006), and
“Why we are experiencing Global Warming” (Watson, 2007),

http://thunderbolts.info/home.htm Very interesting!! Especially for an electronics engineer, like me. Now, how does planetary motion influence the solar plasma electrically since the opponents of the planetary connection “know” that gravity and/or angular momentum are too weak.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/09/arctic-temperatures-what-hockey-stick/#more-10703 Arctic AGW. See the comments, especially  Aber and Leone.. the only AGW observed in the Arctic is UHI. The late 1930’s were warmer.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7019#comments Clear admission of cherry-picking data.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Johnston_MagneticGW.pdf Another contributor to the complex issue of global warming/cooling?  Note the author’s last comment.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/a_skeptical_perspective_on_glo.html a good summary of some of the problems with AGW.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/ So much for CO2 acidification of seawater.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/28/tornados-and-global-warming-link-just-not-there/#more-12217  AGW and tornadoes, plus some other extreme weather event conclusions.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/27/lindzen-deconstructing-global-warming/#more-12203  Lindtzen on AGW, refutation by data
***http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/ More on the thermometer drop out. Any warming since 2006 is clearly man made by mix change.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-climate-engine/ Erl Happ has perhaps the most holistic theory of climate change, and it specifically excludes CO2 as a significant factor.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/Phoenix%20Climate%20Presentation.ppt#288,1 ,Don’t Panic!                                                    Excellent well balanced presentation.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm rEFERENCES ON SOLAR/earth’s magnetic field AS THE CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVER

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense Excellent peace on AGW as religion
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf Outing Pachauri
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/lord-monckton-reports-on-pachauris-eye-opening-copenhagen-presentation/#more-14254 More outing Pachauri
http://sppiblog.org/news/scientific-american%e2%80%99s-climate-lies Monckton rebuts Dec. ’09 Scientific American
Over the last 1.8-million years, cyclical Pleistocene ice ages have averaged some 102,000 years interspersed with median 12,250-year interglacial epochs. Since the Pleistocene Era is barely one-seventh through its statistically-alotted span, this well-defined pattern should recur for another 12 – 14 million years.
Though Earth’s latest ice age lasted from about 116,400 – 14,400 years-before-present (YBP), continental ice sheets did not fully recede prior to c. BC 8800 (10,800 YBP). Our current Holocene Interglacial Epoch, however, was set back 1,500 years to BC 7300 by a so-called Younger Dryas “cold shock” induced by cometary/meteorite debris impacting Earth from Sol’s enveloping Oort Cloud (qv). Though Earth’s Long Summer should have ended about AD 500, coincident with the Fall of Rome, odds now are that the Holocene was due to end about AD 2000 + (12,250 – 12,300) = AD 1950. As warmth rebounds from the 500-year Little Ice Age that ended c. 1850 – ‘90, Earth enters on a 70-year “dead sun” Maunder Minimum  snipped from WUWT from John Blake
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025294.php IPCC fraud starts in SAR courtesy of Ben Santer
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/ Jan 3 2010. Evidence that China warming is overstated by near 100% due to UHI, and coming from an AGW warmer.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/#more-14809 Species extinction – NOT
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/miklos-zagoni-short-summary-of.html Another scientific hypothesis that the AGW crowd has to falsify to make their position credible
http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/amplif/index.php#f1 Arctic trends, good idea to check all of Polyakov’s papers
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/Europe.html,   http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/  Long term temperature records  Northern hemisphere, warming is almost entirely in the  years after 1978, and much of it is clearly related to city growth, - ie UHI
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/print.php?news.123 Another dent in the consensus 
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/12/21/a-christmas-story-some-facts-about-greenland/#more-396 Greenland was warmer in 1930 !!
***http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf Joe D’Aleo with a good summary of warming bias
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/crumbling-pillars-climate-change More on AGW non-science
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html 500 AGW skeptic papers
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html the best summary yet on the manipulation of surface instrument data.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html and so much for scary sea level rise
http://noconsensus.org/ another excellent source of non AGW, mon-consensus material
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25338819/What-Does-Averge-Temperature-Actually-Mean If this analysis is typical of Northern Hemisphere warming, (and it is consistent with high Arctic behavior), then the apparent increase in NH average temperature occurs because the summers do not get warmer, but the winters get less cold.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/08/evidence-that-global-temperature-trends.html Further evidence of warming bias in surface measurements, and confirmation of the above paper that warming is “less cold”.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf sea level rise, not a problem.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf more on sea level rise
Douglas Hoyt Says:March 8th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Below is a little essay I just wrote up discussing temperature trends. I think it shows that the surface thermometer network has problems.
For 1979-1995/97, we have the following observations:
RCS tree rings: cooling for 1979-1995
STD tree rings: cooling for 1979-1995
NCEP analysis (pressure transducers) for the 1000-925 mb layer: cooling of 0.04 C/decade for 1979-1997
Balloon thermistors: cooling of 0.04 C/decade for 1979-1997
MSU 2r analysis: cooling of 0.04 C/decade for 1979-1997
Surface thermometers: warming of 0.16 C/decade for 1979-1997
The tree rings are validated by the balloons and satellites.
The MSU 2r analysis and MSU 5.2 analysis are virtually identical for the period 1979-1995. Only for 1996 and later will they differ as 5.2 is warmer than 2r starting then.
So what we have is 5 independent techniques showing a cooling for 1979 and 1995 and one technique (surface thermometers) showing a warming. In normal science, the single outlier is rejected because it differs from the other techniques by more than two standard deviations.
The surface thermometers are wildly different from all the other results. This indicates that something happened to the surface network between 1979-1995 and it is not a reliable measure of temperature. The surface network is overestimating the temperature and has a spurious increase of 0.38 C by 1997. It is because of this large spurious increase that claims can be made that it is warmer now than any time in the last century, or perhaps last 1000 years.
The reason for the spurious temperature readings in the surface network could be many. For example, many rural stations were shut down in 1980 and in 1990, as well as the other years. The average population near the remaining sites will increase and introduce a spurious trend in the readings. It is time to audit the surface network and it would require a team of physicists and statisticians.
For 1979-2005, the surface is claimed to have warmed by 0.18 C/decade. If 0.38 C is spurious as pointed out above, then the real increase in surface temperatures should be 0.10 C/decade less, or equal to 0.08 C/decade. 0.08 C/decade is less than the tropospheric trend which equals 0.10, 0.12, or 0.14 C/decade depending upon the analysis group. Since climate models predict less warming at the surface than in the mid-troposphere, they should be happy with the 0.08 C/decade number.
Chase, T. N., Pielke Sr., R. A., Knaff, J. A., Kittel, T. G. F. and Eastman J. L., 2000. A comparison of regional trends in 1979–1997 depth-averaged tropospheric temperatures. Int. J. Climatology, 20, 503-518. The Chase paper can be found at http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-224.pdf (pdf format).
D’Arrigo on tree rings. See http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-images/darrig25.jpg
Satellite and surface trends for 1979-2005. See
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_hi-def3.gif The best single depiction of the significance of recent warming that I have seen.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/g.php excellent new skeptic website
http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/ Clicking on individual sites it is hard to find recent warming that is either unusual or is not closely related to urban growth. See Geneva. Warming steadily since about 1850, which is when the latest Swiss glacial retreat started. CO2? Not likely.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/ Need to read all of Tisdale. He accounts for all of 20th century by natural forcing. Need to link to Erl Happ also.
http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf Miskolczi presents a new greenhouse theory that eliminates discontinuities in the math of the existing theory, and results in a self balancing atmospheric optical depth (increased CO2 balanced by reduced water vapor) which makes CO2 induced temperature increase impossible. Very interesting – now needs some intense scientific scrutiny. See also http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/12/miklos-zagoni-short-summary-of.html for a summary of conclusions.

·         http://reallyrealclimate.blogspot.com/2010/01/another-inconvient-truth-for-agw.html Invalidity of the first peer reviewed attempt to wave off the last 12 years of no warming/
·         http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf arctic warming 1970 to 2008 less than 1910 to 1945. total Arctic warming in 20th century is nearly negligible.
·         http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/why-the-epa-is-wrong-about-recent-warming Reduction in possible share of warming due to CO2. Note – the author applies corrections sequentially, rather than applying each to the baseline, so his estimate is very conservative. Also note – no correction for migration and die-off of thermometers.
·         http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf Water vapor is negative feedback
·         http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf Greenland was just as warm in the 1930s.
·        http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html empirical data confirmation test of IPCC CO2 temperature sensitivity. The IPCC hypothesis fails the test,
·        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1078291/pdf/pnas01626-0001.pdf evidence of arctic warming exceeding present warming probably >2000 years ago – Roman optimum? Note excavated in 1939/40 – accessible now??
·        http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png NSIDC admits Antarctic ice increasing since about 1980. Not consistent with “global warming”
·        http://www.pensee-unique.fr/001_mwr-083-10-0225.pdf , http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html , http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/#more-8370 , three very good expositions on atmospheric CO2 concentration, that allow room for anyone to draw his/her own conclusions depending on what you believe a priori. For me Callendar was strongly motivated to choose low examples in the 19th century, so probably underestimates historic levels. Engelbeen refutes Beck based on too few examples, and misses the reason for the high readings in the early ‘40s, and the corresponding flat in the Law Dome ice core. However, Beck is too accepting of too many samples that probably suffer from the problems presented by Engelbeen. My conclusion:- preindustrial variation was more than suggested by ice cores, and the late 18th century concentration was probably closer to 310 ppm than to 280 ppm. Pre Younger Dryas stomata readings of near 350 ppm are probably locally representative at that time. Doubling of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentration would mean getting to >600 ppm and there isn’t enough fossil fuel to do that. IPCC conclusions/projections are gross exaggerations. Also see this - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r?prevSearch=%5Bauthor%3A+Essenhigh%5D&searchHistoryKey= especially the conclusion.
***From Gene Zeien http://justdata.wordpress.com/ Where has all the warming gone?  Start ca 1880 and end ca 2000 and we have warming. Start ca 1975 and end 2006 and we have warming. Start and end fairly mid range (LT average), - no warming. Start ca 1936 and end 2009 – clear cooling. Note 1990s peak lower than 1930s peak.
·        http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_Are,_Its_Wrong The problem we have is that few to no climate scientists are competent in statistics, but all of their conclusions are based on models and/or statistical treatment of limited data. When highly capable statisticians analyze climate science findings, as observed in the blogs, they almost invariably invalidate the Climatologist’s conclusions.
·        http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/pacific-basin-the-australian-hockey-league/ the Chiefio does a whole lot of raw temperature analysis vs instrument change. See also NA, SA, Caribean and some other countries. Looks like all the warming is related to instrument change. No global warming since 1825??
·        http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm#conclusion A contrarian and probably beter informed look at ocean acidification.
·        http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf Arctic sea ice extent change not due to AGW?
***http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/ Australian weather stations may be worse than the USA, rendering the Australian warming trend meaningless.
·        http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/SQkAxK2k6CI/AAAAAAAAADs/F4NlhqTzFgM/s1600-h/U+11+Year+Temp+Data.bmp good temp curves 1997 to now, with only giss showing warming. See Chiefio for analysis of why GISS results are meaningless. Also see 4000 years of Holocene cooling at http://traverse.npolar.no/Resource/articles-of-interest/holocene-climate-changes-recorded-in-an-east-antarctica-ice-core-6-mb
·         The IPCC and peer review. – Oops!! TAR see http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/03/gray-literature-in-ipcc-tar-guest-post.html Fourth assessment report - see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/14/ipcc-ar4-also-gets-a-failing-grade-on-21-chapters/#more-18479 (Especially See “Kate 11:55:38”) Like all of the IPCC work, we again have exaggeration and misleading or downright false claims. See http://www.noconsensus.org/ipcc-audit/findings-detailed.php for details. IPCC rules allow non-peer-reviewed sources, but they choose only those that support their position, and their contributors regularly reject contrary data/analysis/conclusions that is not peer reviewed. And then of course there is Pachauri’s claim - “IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.”…..Rajendra Pachauri
·         From Climateaudit 4/15/10 “GISS station values are even more spectacular, the warmest March on record is set in every Finnish station GISS is following. For instance, according to GISS, the mean March temperature in Sodankylä (61402836000) was a remarkable +1.5 °C beating the old record (-2.2 °C) from 1920 by 3.7 °C!
·         Well, according to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, March 2010 was colder than usual all over Finland, especially in the northern part. For instance, the mean temperature in Sodankylä was -10.3 °C, which is almost three degrees below the base period 1971-2000 average (-7.5 °C). So the GISS March value for Sodankylä is off by amazing 11.8 °C!
·         Some quality control, please!     That’s how GISS gets the warmest decade, just invent the data.
***http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/giss-metar-dial-m-for-missing-minus-signs-its-worse-than-we-thought/#more-18590 Now missing minus designation on high latitude sub-zero temperatures inflate reported global warming.
·        http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1612851 A legal expert cross-examines the case for catastrophic AGW and finds it wanting.
·         http://www.probeinternational.org/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG%5B1%5D.pdf another dent in the “consensus”
·         flag fo future article http://rutledge.caltech.edu/Caltech%20talk%202010/Caltech2010.ppt#504,1,Fossil Fuels, Climate, and Climategate   David Rutledge Caltech  Confirmation of my “back of the envelope work of 2001 and 2004.
·         http://rutledge.caltech.edu/Caltech%20talk%202010/videos.html watch the Rutledge presentation – 45 minutes
·         http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid.htm wOW All you ever need to know about ocean acidification, and it is not a problem.
·         http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ocean-conveyor-belt-dismissed Another pillar of IPCC modelling bites the dust.
·         http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/agw-mathematics-30-5-0/#more-21288 a credible look at the latest melting Antarctica scare.
·         http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html a nuanced look at long term climate history
·         http://globalweatheroscillations.com/GWGCNCF/index.htm Dilley on lunar influences on climate cycles
·         http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133f3c7b1f8970b-pi Zero world high temperature records in the last 3 decades
·         http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract Antarctic peninsula warmer than now 3 times in the Holocene, including MWP.
·         http://ipac.kacst.edu.sa/eDoc/2010/189802_1.pdf Eemian lakes in Jordan/Saudi Arabia
·         Eemian warmth in Antarctica and the Arctic
·         http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/08/computers-are-causing-global-warming.html One small but telling example of temperature data manipulation, ie global warming by computer
·         http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/22/arctic-isolated-versus-urban-stations-show-differing-trends/#comment-489423 So much for Arctic warming. Confirms work I did 3 or 4 years ago.
·         http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html Many charts and sources showing past warmer periods. And a peer reviewed paper showing Arctic sea ice extent near historic highs http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/paper-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more.html
·         http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/saving-good-ideas/ Must read on various ideas re heat vs temp, heat gain/loss mechanisms, and the folly of the surface instrument record
·         http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/03/watts-up-with-nuuk/#more-25742 Another classic example of the thoroughly broken surface instrument temperature data collection and analysis system.
·         http://www.jupitersdance.com/thelasttango/ More analysis of planetary orbital motion and solar activity, and a much earlier paper on the same subject
·         http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf older paper on why CO2 is not an effective greenhouse gas, and a rebuttal of a paper questioning it http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/gerlich-reply-to-halpern.pdf
·       http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf and http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf Absolutely the best analysis of climate change that I have ever come across.
·        http://www.middlebury.net/nicol-08.doc another paper showing that doubling CO2 will have little further warming effect
!!! http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm Believer to skeptic - the ultimate refutation of AGW
Jimbo says: I love Greenland stories.—“The temperature and renewal of these waters indicate that they currently cause enhanced submarine melting at the glacier terminus.”
Straneo et. al.  http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo764.html

“Waters from warmer latitudes — or subtropical waters — are reaching Greenland’s glaciers, driving melting…”

“…the rate of warming in 1920–1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995–2005.”
Petr Chylek et. al.

“The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”  Jason E. Box et. al.
“We found that northern hemisphere temperature and Greenland temperature changed synchronously at periods of ~20 years and 40–100 years. This quasi-periodic multi-decadal temperature fluctuation persisted throughout the last millennium, and is likely to continue into the future.”

Takuro Kobashi et. al. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n567324n1n3321h3/

**“The warmest year in the extended Greenland temperature record is 1941, while the 1930s and 1940s are the warmest decades.” B. M. Vinther et. al.

“…glaciologists reported at the American Geophysical Union meeting that Greenland ice’s Armageddon has come to an end.” [January 2009]
American Geophysical Union
“The influence of the lunar nodal cycle on Arctic climate”
“Particulars are given regarding the big rise of winter temperatures in Greenland and its more oceanic climate during the last fifteen years.”
100 years of Japanese tidal guage measurements that beautifully tracks 20th century temperature, with the mid century warming greater than end century manipulated instrument results.
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/289/logwarmingpaleoclimate.png So much for tipping points. Or even for 2 degrees C 
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4126/hadcrut3warmingsept10.png Note admission of siting/UHI issues. If brought up to 2010 even the red curve would be way high.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/7394/ CO2 vs Temp in Maine 1895-2010 No trend. CO2 might be stabilizing temp.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/giss-hiding-the-decline/ Adjusting history to fake the case for warming
     CO2 and temp proxies over the last 1.5 million years. Near 1.5M years resolution will be no better than few thousand years, but we see CO2 with error bar above 340 ppm smoothed over the resolution period. The actual short period peak would have been sensible higher – at least 380 ppm being not unlikely.
http://www.conscious.com.au/ Another detailed IPCC refutation
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/ and the warmers claim the skeptics are being paid!
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=3553 Excellent graphs on prior warmings, and the long downslope we are on.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/ The natural thermostat hypothesis – much more logical than AGW.
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/ftp/Climaterecordsindicate.pdf a better model of temp. change that correlates well with measurements, even with zero CO2 contribution.
http://sc25.com/ a host of good links for natural warming.
1.      …..and the provision global temperature trend for this decade (2001-2010) is:  GISS/NASA + 0.15°C
NCDC NOAA + 0.01°C
RSS MSU + 0.03°C
HadCRUT – 0.06°C
**http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/14/image-the-urban-heat-islands-in-the-northeast/#more-29402 Jones estimated the UHI impact as .05 degrees C, assuming an urban reading would average out over 10 to 20 sites per grid box, ie urban warming of .25 to .5 degrees C. Now we are finding that UHIs are more than 10 degrees C warmer than the surrounding rural areas. World urban population increased by a factor of 15 from 1900 to 2010, with most of that after 1960, say factor 5. Lets say that 60% of the UHI developed after 1960, or at least 6 degrees C, greater than 10x Jones’ estimate. Than the impact on average temp would be 0.5 degrees C out of a total observed warming of 0.7degrees C.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/10941/2010/acp-10-10941-2010.pdf Cosmic rays linked to cloud cover change, and therefore climate change. Looks pretty definitive.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/19/model-charged-with-excessive-use-of-forcing/#more-29728 So AGW scare is based on models, and the models are really meaningless. Who would have imagined that?
http://www.leif.org/research/2009JA015069.pdf See conclusion, - heliospheric B back to level of 1902 at Sc 13/14 minimum. Should out us back to =< 2010 temps in =< 8 years, ie a drop of near 0.8 degrees C
http://mc-computing.com/  Some very telling material on problems with climate science, especially ice cores. The Greenhouse Effect Excellent reinterpretation of the CO2 effect in the atmosphere
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/klimet/docs/climdyn_2007_grosjean_et_al.pdf Swiss glacier retreat greatest in 5000 years. Warming, or reduced cloudiness and increased insolation due to meltwater reuse?  http://archiv.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/gruenealpen.html#oben http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html More retreat during the Roman warm period? 10 retreats in 7,000 years? Implies some very rapid changes.
http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/12/25/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata-wuwt/#comment-527 another interesting analysis that ice core CO2 baseline is simply wrong.
!!!  http://www.roperld.com/science/currentmajorinterglacial.pdf strong implication that we are on the edge of the plateau, about to plunge into the next ice age. Comparing the last 3,000 years to the Eemian seems to confirm this idea. Our present optimum (1930 to 2130) may be the last of 4 (Minoan, Roman, Medieval, current) like the last 4 for the Eemian. Oops!
http://westinstenv.org/palbot/2008/10/30/global-cooling-is-here-evidence-for-predicting-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/ Interesting, a projection based on a 60 year cycle around a long term trend, just like mine but done 2 years earlier. Warming to ca 2000 is probably overestimated by at least 0.5 degrees C and cooling to 2035 probably underestimated due to no consideration of DGM.
***http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm Rutan update. Pretty complete refutation of CAGW. I could improve a couple of points.
http://www.rimfrost.no/ Amazing temp series repository
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/2011/01/how-sun-could-control-earths.html Some more speculation on multiplying effects of small solar changes
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm Just rediscovered - Heinz Hug’s refutation of IPCC CO2 forcing. See also http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/hug-barrett.htm
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/5/0/53/_pdf another piece of AGW theory falsified? Looks like it.
https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf An example of RealClimate pseudo-science. I too have been censored on RC when they could not provide a valid defense or rebuttal.
http://i54.tinypic.com/fylq2w.jpg GISS reconstructs history
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/What%20Surface%20Temperature%20V2_R%20Clark_9%2020%2010.pdf excellent analysis of real surface temp variation and the meaninglessness of “forcings”.
***http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf A compelling paper that says USA warming since 1900 is overstated by nearly a factor of 6x, (4x if weighted for land area) almost entirely due to adjustments of historical rural temp. data to make it track urban data. A very damning analysis.
***http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/ne_tem  p_history_trends.pdf  Further Analysis by Dr. Long showing that for New England the recent peak temp. is lower than the 1934-44 peak, and that all of the apparent warming is either UHI or adjustments, with rural data adjusted to look like urban.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c47t1650k0j2n047/?p=7857ae035f62422491fa3013c9897669&pi=4The ±0.46 C lower limit of uncertainty shows that between 1880 and 2000, the trend in averaged global surface air temperature anomalies is statistically indistinguishable from 0 C at the 1σ level. One cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion that it is presently impossible to quantify the warming trend in global climate since 1880.” Also see http://pugshoes.blogspot.com/2010/10/metrology.html and http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/22/the-ho-83-hygrothermometer/  AGW climatologists will always use the high end of the range for recent warming, so subtract 0.5degrees C from any AGW warming alarmism.