2010 Global Temps

[nzucker]

Cosmic rays are cast aside as largely irrelevant for very good reason. You should do some reading. Start here: http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

If we are talking about temperature trends then it is important to talk about trends in the variables observed (unless there is a demonstrable lag effect or cumulative effect).

The ONI has averaged ZERO and has a trend of ZERO.. to argue that the ONI has caused warming the last 12 years is simply laughable. No we haven't seen 1950s style monster Ninas which would have produced cooling.. but if we had that would have meant COOLING. The neutral conditions and neutral trend argue for net neutral effect over the last 12 years. ENSO detrended temps have the same trend as raw temps.

The effect of solar is largely short term. Maybe there are some small feedbacks that cause a lag time but on a 12 year period these would be largely irrelevant. There is a clear correlation between temperatures and the 11 year solar cycle with little to no lag time with a magnitude of .1-.2C. Since solar peaked in 2001 that argues for a significant cooling effect since then.

The PDO probably does affect global T via indirect ENSO effect. But it also likely influences it directly, in the same way the AMO does except it is much bigger. You have said this before yourself of both the AMO and PDO. Thus the strong negative trend in the PDO and the negative conditions, argue for significant cooling.

So solar and the PDO argue for cooling. The ONI is a neutral factor. And the AMO is a neutral factor and is largely irrelevant anyways since there is not detectable correlation like there is for ONI, PDO, TSI.

It's funny - the skeptics have been predicting cooling for a decade now. It's funny watching the goalposts getting moved back and back.

I read the articles about cosmic rays...stop trying to pretend I am an idiot and you are all knowledgeable. You're the moron who said the 2/26 Snowicane was a bust for NYC and last winter would be like 91-92 for the I-95 corridor. All they say is that there has not been a noticeable correlation in recent years between cosmic ray activity and cloud cover, but this may be different in an extreme solar minimum as it's possible a threshold level exists. We know there must be some other mechanism by which solar minimums produce cooling than just changes in radiation receiving the earth, so this is one possible theory. I'm sure there are other ones out there. The problem with making long-term climate predictions is we just have such a rudimentary knowledge of how the Earth's climate system works that there are sure to be many factors missing in any model. One difficulty is that we've focused so much on the anthropogenic side that we haven't dedicated research dollars to investigating more complex causes than the simple CO2=this amount of warming.

There was clearly a long-term cooling effect during the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum aside from the 11-year cycle. You don't get a .5-.6C drop in global temps and near Ice Age conditions in Europe and North America in just a few years...this is a powerful cumulative event. So this argues that there must be another reason besides basic solar radiation amounts for having cooling during the solar minimums. You seem to be missing this point.

How can a -PDO cool the Earth directly if a -PDO is mostly about warm waters in the North Pacific as compared to a small cold pool near the North American coast? You said this yourself. It is clearly about ENSO.

It is the AGW crowd that has been moving the goalposts back. We've been constantly revising down the estimates for warming since Hansen 1988, and we still haven't apparently revised down enough. Discussion of severe hurricanes has been a joke as we're all time lows for tropical cyclone activity. Discussion of the Arctic losing its summer ice by 2013 has been a joke as we've recovered 750k from the 2007 minimum in the past three years. Skeptics are winning the battle so far and you can see this in the realm of public opinion. Extremists like McKibben told us winter was a thing of the past and yet winters in the US and Western Europe, where much of the world's population is concentrated, have been far more severe in recent years than the 80s or 90s.

[skierinvermont]

I read the articles about cosmic rays...stop trying to pretend I am an idiot and you are all knowledgeable. You're the moron who said the 2/26 Snowicane was a bust for NYC and last winter would be like 91-92 for the I-95 corridor. All they say is that there has not been a noticeable correlation in recent years between cosmic ray activity and cloud cover, but this may be different in an extreme solar minimum as it's possible a threshold level exists. We know there must be some other mechanism by which solar minimums produce cooling than just changes in radiation receiving the earth, so this is one possible theory. I'm sure there are other ones out there. The problem with making long-term climate predictions is we just have such a rudimentary knowledge of how the Earth's climate system works that there are sure to be many factors missing in any model. One difficulty is that we've focused so much on the anthropogenic side that we haven't dedicated research dollars to investigating more complex causes than the simple CO2=this amount of warming.

There was clearly a long-term cooling effect during the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum aside from the 11-year cycle. You don't get a .5-.6C drop in global temps and near Ice Age conditions in Europe and North America in just a few years...this is a powerful cumulative event. So this argues that there must be another reason besides basic solar radiation amounts for having cooling during the solar minimums. You seem to be missing this point.

How can a -PDO cool the Earth directly if a -PDO is mostly about warm waters in the North Pacific as compared to a small cold pool near the North American coast? You said this yourself. It is clearly about ENSO.

It is the AGW crowd that has been moving the goalposts back. We've been constantly revising down the estimates for warming since Hansen 1988, and we still haven't apparently revised down enough. Discussion of severe hurricanes has been a joke as we're all time lows for tropical cyclone activity. Discussion of the Arctic losing its summer ice by 2013 has been a joke as we've recovered 750k from the 2007 minimum in the past three years. Skeptics are winning the battle so far and you can see this in the realm of public opinion. Extremists like McKibben told us winter was a thing of the past and yet winters in the US and Western Europe, where much of the world's population is concentrated, have been far more severe in recent years than the 80s or 90s.

Skeptics may be "winning the battle in public opinion" but there aren't any credible scientists that do not endorse AGW and very few which do not endorse the IPCC 1.8-4.5C. The American public believes all sorts of stupidness. LOL @ your comments regarding the snowicane and 91-92.. sort of sad you cling to these two examples considering it was an off-hand comment about the snowicane (and still forecasted more than the NWS) and I never claimed to be an expert in making winter forecasts. You have brought this up literally at least once a week for the last 6 months which is just sad. I can give you dozens of examples where you have made idiotic predictions. I'm so sick and tired of you bringing up these two examples.. so here are yours (notice how I do not rub these in your face on a daily basis):

1. Ridiculous prediction for global T on UAH this month (not even close).

2. Lower average monthly score in monthly T contest.

3. Losing in sea ice contest w/ a bunch of poor guesses.

4. 10 90+ days in NYC in October? WTF? William and others told you this was a bad prediction for a lot of very good reasons. You even bet money on this

5. Making fun of my "terrible" November temperature forecast which ended up closer than yours.

6. The time a couple months ago you claimed my monthly temperature forecast was terrible and had busted halfway through the month. I won the month.

7. The half dozen times you have forecasted the commencement of major ENSO cooling since October (ENSO has warmed and/or remained stable).

8. Multiple documented cases, such as the northtrend storm where you said it wouldn't snow in DC or BWI and they both got around 6", where your snowfall forecasts have been poor. Also the time you forecasted like 10" for SLU and they got 2".

But hey who is keeping track? What is even more ridiculous is how you persistently mock predictions you disagree with and claim they have already busted, and then they turn out to be correct. Real classy.

There is plenty of data against which to test the powerfulness of GCR. And all of the data says it is trivial to meaningless.

-GCR has increased 1990-present which should have produced cooling.

-Variations in GCR over the course of the solar cycle do not entail a detectable change upon global cloud cover.. thereby invalidating the proposed causative mechanism.

GCR is clearly having a trivial, at most, effect upon climate. There have been large fluctuations in GCR over the course of the 11-yr cycle and over the course of the last 50 years... and none of these changes have a detectable influence on cloud cover or temperatures. There is no "missing link" as you suggest... climate models accurately simulate temperatures during the Dalton and Maunder based on existing understandings of solar and volcanic forcing. There's also no "threshold effect" as you suggest for GCR... this ignores the causative mechanism proposed by advocates. The proposed mechanism whereby GCR affects climate is via cloud seeding through ionization to produce cloud condensation nuclei. More GCR should seed more clouds. It does.. but the effect is orders of magnitude too small to have climactic significance. GCR has not been ignored.. it has been addressed by in dozens of papers by experts in the field and they all agree that GCR has had at most, a trivial effect on climate.

[BethesdaWX]

I read the articles about cosmic rays...stop trying to pretend I am an idiot and you are all knowledgeable. You're the moron who said the 2/26 Snowicane was a bust for NYC and last winter would be like 91-92 for the I-95 corridor. All they say is that there has not been a noticeable correlation in recent years between cosmic ray activity and cloud cover, but this may be different in an extreme solar minimum as it's possible a threshold level exists. We know there must be some other mechanism by which solar minimums produce cooling than just changes in radiation receiving the earth, so this is one possible theory. I'm sure there are other ones out there. The problem with making long-term climate predictions is we just have such a rudimentary knowledge of how the Earth's climate system works that there are sure to be many factors missing in any model. One difficulty is that we've focused so much on the anthropogenic side that we haven't dedicated research dollars to investigating more complex causes than the simple CO2=this amount of warming.

There was clearly a long-term cooling effect during the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum aside from the 11-year cycle. You don't get a .5-.6C drop in global temps and near Ice Age conditions in Europe and North America in just a few years...this is a powerful cumulative event. So this argues that there must be another reason besides basic solar radiation amounts for having cooling during the solar minimums. You seem to be missing this point.

How can a -PDO cool the Earth directly if a -PDO is mostly about warm waters in the North Pacific as compared to a small cold pool near the North American coast? You said this yourself. It is clearly about ENSO.

It is the AGW crowd that has been moving the goalposts back. We've been constantly revising down the estimates for warming since Hansen 1988, and we still haven't apparently revised down enough. Discussion of severe hurricanes has been a joke as we're all time lows for tropical cyclone activity. Discussion of the Arctic losing its summer ice by 2013 has been a joke as we've recovered 750k from the 2007 minimum in the past three years. Skeptics are winning the battle so far and you can see this in the realm of public opinion. Extremists like McKibben told us winter was a thing of the past and yet winters in the US and Western Europe, where much of the world's population is concentrated, have been far more severe in recent years than the 80s or 90s.

I like this post. Solar influence, that caused the LIA, backs up the fact that there is more than just solar radiation. In the LIA Temperatures dropped to -0.6 to -0.9C compared to what we consder "normal" so the :solar radiation formula" being thrown around doesn't fit... same with the MWP & RWP. RWP, was 3X as warm as the MWP... and...did we die?

[BethesdaWX]

Skeptics may be "winning the battle in public opinion" but there aren't any credible scientists that do not endorse AGW and very few which do not endorse the IPCC 1.8-4.5C. The American public believes all sorts of stupidness. LOL @ your comments regarding the snowicane and 91-92.. sort of sad you cling to these two examples considering it was an off-hand comment about the snowicane (and still forecasted more than the NWS) and I never claimed to be an expert in making winter forecasts. You have brought this up literally at least once a week for the last 6 months which is just sad. I can give you dozens of examples where you have made idiotic predictions. I'm so sick and tired of you bringing up these two examples.. so here are yours:

1. Ridiculous prediction for global T on UAH this month (not even close).

2. Lower average monthly score in monthly T contest.

3. Losing in sea ice contest w/ a bunch of poor guesses.

4. 10 90+ days in NYC in October? WTF? William and others told you this was a bad prediction for a lot of very good reasons. You even bet money on this

5. Making fun of my "terrible" November temperature forecast which ended up closer than yours.

6. The time a couple months ago you claimed my monthly temperature forecast was terrible and had busted halfway through the month. I won the month.

7. The half dozen times you have forecasted the commencement of major ENSO cooling since October (ENSO has warmed and/or remained stable).

8. Multiple documented cases, such as the northtrend storm where you said it wouldn't snow in DC or BWI and they both got around 6", where your snowfall forecasts have been poor. Also the time you forecasted like 10" for SLU and they got 2".

But hey who is keeping track? What is even more ridiculous is how you persistently mock predictions you disagree with and claim they have already busted, and then they turn out to be correct. Real classy.

There is plenty of data against which to test the powerfulness of GCR. And all of the data says it is trivial to meaningless.

-GCR has increased 1990-present which should have produced cooling.

-Variations in GCR over the course of the solar cycle do not entail a detectable change upon global cloud cover.. thereby invalidating the proposed causative mechanism.

GCR is clearly having a trivial, at most, effect upon climate. There have been large fluctuations in GCR over the course of the 11-yr cycle and over the course of the last 50 years... and none of these changes have a detectable influence on cloud cover or temperatures. There is no "missing link" as you suggest... climate models accurately simulate temperatures during the Dalton and Maunder based on existing understandings of solar and volcanic forcing. There's also no "threshold effect" as you suggest for GCR... this ignores the causative mechanism proposed by advocates. The proposed mechanism whereby GCR affects climate is via cloud seeding through ionization to produce cloud condensation nuclei. More GCR should seed more clouds. It does.. but the effect is orders of magnitude too small to have climactic significance. GCR has not been ignored.. it has been addressed by in dozens of papers by experts in the field and they all agree that GCR has had at most, a trivial effect on climate.

Global Cloud Cover has decreased since the 90's... not due to AGW, because a warmer earth would hold MORE moisture. The Lag in solar and GCR are a possibility, notice the higher level clouds and mi level clouds responding, but not the low level clouds, whic are the most important factor.

Atmospheric water vapor has been very low as well...

If anything, we should be alot warmer.

Low Level clouds... the most important in affecting temperatures, have decreased substantially. Asa result, atmospheric water Vapor has done so as well.

Atmospheric WV is by far the most powerful GHG

Kinda explains things.

[skierinvermont]

Global Cloud Cover has decreased since the 90's... not due to AGW, because a warmer earth would hold MORE moisture. The Lag in solar and GCR are a possibility, notice the higher level clouds and mi level clouds responding, but not the low level clouds, whic are the most important factor.

GCR is supposed to INCREASE clouds but clouds have decreased since 1990 while GCR has increased. You said it yourself... clouds have decreased. Obviously not due to GCR since GCR has increased which should have increased clouds. You have the effect of GCR reversed.

GCR causes more low level clouds not less. More low level clouds causes cooling.

[BethesdaWX]

GCR is supposed to INCREASE clouds but clouds have decreased since 1990 while GCR has increased. You said it yourself... clouds have decreased. Obviously not due to GCR since GCR has increased which should have increased clouds. You have the effect of GCR reversed.

GCR causes more low level clouds not less. More low level clouds causes cooling.

Yes, upper and mid level clouds have been increasing, lower levels have yet to do so. They've been decreasing, and would take some time to increse anyway. Atmospheric water vapor too. A warmer world would hold more water vapor/clouds, so, there is another reason....Lag.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, upper and mid level clouds have been increasing, lower levels have yet to do so. They've been decreasing, and would take some time to increse anyway. Atmospheric water vapor too. A warmer world would hold more water vapor/clouds, so, there is another reason....Lag.

There is no lag.. short term changes in GCR produce small changes in mid-latitude low-level cloud cover within 10 days. The increase in GCR since 1990 should have produced more low level clouds but low level clouds have decreased. No surprise since GCR clearly has a negligible effect on cloud cover (and therefore a trivial effect on temperatures as well). The more important solar factors are clearly TSI and UV.

[BethesdaWX]

There is no lag.. short term changes in GCR produce small changes in mid-latitude low-level cloud cover within 10 days.

Source?

This is something I have less knowledge on admittedly, however, I do know that a warmer world would allow for higher Moisture content globally... so, there is another mechanism at play.

[BethesdaWX]

Either way, the decreasing GCC would argue for warming...and we have been steady.

[skierinvermont]

Source?

This is something I have less knowledge on admittedly, however, I do know that a warmer world would allow for higher Moisture content globally... so, there is another mechanism at play.

http://www.atmos-che...-10941-2010.pdf

The article you posted the other day. The strongest correlation was observed 5 days after a spike in GCR. A spike in GCR produced a statistically signficant decrease in cloud cover which was strongest 5 days after the GCR spike. The lag effect between changes in GCR and clouds is 5 days.. not years.

A statistically robust relationship is identified between short-term GCR flux changes and the most rapid mid-latitude cloud decreases operating over daily timescales...

[skierinvermont]

Either way, the decreasing GCC would argue for warming...and we have been steady.

GCR has been INCREASING over the last 20 years.. which argues for MORE CLOUDS.. and COOLING. (The cooling effect is trivial at most). You keep mixing this up. We have seen LESS CLOUDS and WARMING.

[BethesdaWX]

http://www.atmos-che...-10941-2010.pdf

The article you posted the other day.

A statistically robust relationship is identified between short-term GCR flux changes and the most rapid mid-latitude cloud decreases operating over daily timescales...

"Mid Lattitude".......and "Most Rapid".....

Globally, low level clouds are either operating on a different forcing, or its nautral variability. A warmer world would hold alot more moisture, so, what else could it be?

[BethesdaWX]

GCR has been INCREASING over the last 20 years.. which argues for MORE CLOUDS.. and COOLING. (The cooling effect is trivial at most). You keep mixing this up.

GCC, not GCR

[skierinvermont]

"Mid Lattitude".......and "Most Rapid".....

Globally, low level clouds are either operating on a different forcing, or its nautral variability. A warmer world would hold alot more moisture, so, what else could it be?

I'm not sure... I have read some stuff on this before but I forget. It could be related to the PDO/AMO/ENSO or TSI but that is a complete guess. I know that ENSO effects high level clouds on short time scales... but I don't think that could explain the observed trends.

[skierinvermont]

GCC, not GCR

What is GCC?

[BethesdaWX]

I'm not sure... I have read some stuff on this before but I forget. It could be related to the PDO/AMO/ENSO or TSI but that is a complete guess. I know that ENSO effects high level clouds on short time scales... but I don't think that could explain the observed trends.

There has to be something we're missing. We're beginning a study on Solar/Cloud relationship sometime soon.

[BethesdaWX]

What is GCC?

Global Cloud Cover. With it decreasing, that would argue for more warming.

[skierinvermont]

"Mid Lattitude".......and "Most Rapid".....

Globally, low level clouds are either operating on a different forcing, or its nautral variability. A warmer world would hold alot more moisture, so, what else could it be?

A lag effect isn't even compatible with the proposed causative mechanism. GCR theoretically ionizes aerosols to produce cloud condensation nuclei which seed clouds... this is a very short term process. This is empirically verified by the study you posted the other day. Large short term changes in GCR produce small short term changes in cloud cover. Fluctuations of GCR over the long term are too small to make a significant difference in cloud seeding. This is also verified by the empirical evidence showing no long-term relationship between GCR and clouds.

[BethesdaWX]

A lag effect isn't even compatible with the proposed causative mechanism. GCR theoretically ionizes aerosols to produce cloud condensation nuclei which seed clouds... this is a very short term process. This is empirically verified by the study you posted the other day. Large short term changes in GCR produce small short term changes in cloud cover. Fluctuations of GCR over the long term are too small to make a significant difference.

I didn't even mention lag in that post. I'm going to need to do some research on this one, because there is a missing link in all of this somewhere.

[skierinvermont]

Global Cloud Cover. With it decreasing, that would argue for more warming.

Yeah it would.. although the changes in mid and low level clouds probably cancel each other. Also high level clouds increasing should have caused warming.

[BethesdaWX]

Yeah it would.. although the changes in mid and low level clouds probably cancel each other.

Yes, But Global water-vapor is down as well. Low level clouds hold more water vepor, being at warmer altitudes, and have a MUCH larger effect on Global Temps than Ice crystal clouds in the upper atmosphere and Strato in the mid levels combined.

Cumuli & Nimo are all low level.

[skierinvermont]

Yes, But Global water-vapor is down as well. Low level clouds hold more water vepor, being at warmer altitudes, and have a MUCH larger effect on Global Temps than Ice crystal clouds in the upper atmosphere and Strato in the mid levels combined.

Cumuli & Nimo are all low level.

Well the decline in water vapor is far more important than the changes in low, mid and high level clouds by far. The decline in water vapor has a major cooling effect. The decline in water vapor is probably also the cause of the decline in low level clouds.. but the net effect would be cooling.

You see this in climate models as well... water vapor increases which causes warming, but it also may cause low-level cloud increases which would cause cooling. But the warming effect of the increased water vapor is far more than the cooling effect of the low level cloud increases.

Also even though there is more water vapor in a warmer world.. this doesn't mean there is more clouds. Climate models suggest a net decrease in cloud cover with a net forcing of .69 +/-.38 W/m2. I think the reason for there being less clouds is that at higher temperatures water vapor is less likely to condense.

[BethesdaWX]

Well the decline in water vapor is far more important than the changes in low, mid and high level clouds by far. The decline in water vapor has a major cooling effect. The decline in water vapor is probably also the cause of the decline in low level clouds.. but the net effect would be cooling.

You see this in climate models as well... water vapor increases which causes warming, but it also may cause low-level cloud increases which would cause cooling. But the warming effect of the increased water vapor is far more than the cooling effect of the low level cloud increases.

Remember though, its all relative. Higher water vapor reside in higher temperatures, and a warmer world would support more water vapor, since CO2 is supposed to be dominant. CO2 warming would argue for higher water vapor levels, which we have not seen. The only thing that could lower the water-vapor levels would be a change in forcing somewhere. Also, Stratospheric water vapor plays a whole different role than that in the tropopause (I'll get to that below).

No matter how much water vapor there is, if its a cloudy day, you'll be cooler than on a sunny day, with or without high water vapor. Water vapor itself doesn't shield the earth from Sun, but clouds do. Low level clouds, being in the troposphere, would have a larger effect on SURFACE TEMPS. When those clouds decrease, the warming effect would be evident,more so that water vapor would be.

Also.....Water vapor decline in the stratosphere would definitely put on a cooling effect of the upper atmosphere, causing stratospheric cooling that we've been seeing (the upper atmosphere is very sensitive to even the slighrest changes in water vapor), which ends up altering our global patterning below. Stratospheric cooling also goes hand in hand with a warming tropopause. Its all in a balance.

[skierinvermont]

Remember though, its all relative. Higher water vapor reside in higher temperatures, and a warmer world would support more water vapor, since CO2 is supposed to be dominant. CO2 warming would argue for higher water vapor levels, which we have not seen. The only thing that could lower the water-vapor levels would be a change in forcing somewhere. Also, Stratospheric water vapor plays a whole different role than that in the tropopause (I'll get to that below).

No matter how much water vapor there is, if its a cloudy day, you'll be cooler than on a sunny day, with or without high water vapor. Water vapor itself doesn't shield the earth from Sun, but clouds do. Low level clouds, being in the troposphere, would have a larger effect on SURFACE TEMPS. When those clouds decrease, the warming effect would be evident,more so that water vapor would be.

Also.....Water vapor decline in the stratosphere would definitely put on a cooling effect of the upper atmosphere, causing stratospheric cooling that we've been seeing (the upper atmosphere is very sensitive to even the slighrest changes in water vapor), which ends up altering our global patterning below. Stratospheric cooling also goes hand in hand with a warming tropopause. Its all in a balance.

Globally, changes in water vapor are far more important than changes in cloud cover, because the changes in water vapor are much larger.

Since 1998, the big drop in water vapor has probably had a significant cooling effect which outweighs the warming effect of decreasing low level clouds.

[nzucker]

Skeptics may be "winning the battle in public opinion" but there aren't any credible scientists that do not endorse AGW and very few which do not endorse the IPCC 1.8-4.5C. The American public believes all sorts of stupidness. LOL @ your comments regarding the snowicane and 91-92.. sort of sad you cling to these two examples considering it was an off-hand comment about the snowicane (and still forecasted more than the NWS) and I never claimed to be an expert in making winter forecasts. You have brought this up literally at least once a week for the last 6 months which is just sad. I can give you dozens of examples where you have made idiotic predictions. I'm so sick and tired of you bringing up these two examples.. so here are yours (notice how I do not rub these in your face on a daily basis):

1. Ridiculous prediction for global T on UAH this month (not even close).

2. Lower average monthly score in monthly T contest.

3. Losing in sea ice contest w/ a bunch of poor guesses.

4. 10 90+ days in NYC in October? WTF? William and others told you this was a bad prediction for a lot of very good reasons. You even bet money on this

5. Making fun of my "terrible" November temperature forecast which ended up closer than yours.

6. The time a couple months ago you claimed my monthly temperature forecast was terrible and had busted halfway through the month. I won the month.

7. The half dozen times you have forecasted the commencement of major ENSO cooling since October (ENSO has warmed and/or remained stable).

8. Multiple documented cases, such as the northtrend storm where you said it wouldn't snow in DC or BWI and they both got around 6", where your snowfall forecasts have been poor. Also the time you forecasted like 10" for SLU and they got 2".

But hey who is keeping track? What is even more ridiculous is how you persistently mock predictions you disagree with and claim they have already busted, and then they turn out to be correct. Real classy.

There is plenty of data against which to test the powerfulness of GCR. And all of the data says it is trivial to meaningless.

-GCR has increased 1990-present which should have produced cooling.

-Variations in GCR over the course of the solar cycle do not entail a detectable change upon global cloud cover.. thereby invalidating the proposed causative mechanism.

GCR is clearly having a trivial, at most, effect upon climate. There have been large fluctuations in GCR over the course of the 11-yr cycle and over the course of the last 50 years... and none of these changes have a detectable influence on cloud cover or temperatures. There is no "missing link" as you suggest... climate models accurately simulate temperatures during the Dalton and Maunder based on existing understandings of solar and volcanic forcing. There's also no "threshold effect" as you suggest for GCR... this ignores the causative mechanism proposed by advocates. The proposed mechanism whereby GCR affects climate is via cloud seeding through ionization to produce cloud condensation nuclei. More GCR should seed more clouds. It does.. but the effect is orders of magnitude too small to have climactic significance. GCR has not been ignored.. it has been addressed by in dozens of papers by experts in the field and they all agree that GCR has had at most, a trivial effect on climate.

I don't rub these in your face on a daily basis, but you just always imply that I'm an idiot who hasn't done his reading. It's really annoying and tiresome how you assume yourself to be superior in knowledge constantly. This is why I bring this up. You can't accept the fact that people are allowed to have different opinions and interpretations of the data from you.

By the way, I'm actually doing pretty well in the arctic sea ice forecast....I am like 4th out of 10 now and should be even better by the end of this week. My guesses have not been poor; they've been better than most people doing the forecast. I won a month too in the temperature contest and nailed NYC to the head in another month, also guessed the gradient correctly this month. I never said 10 days of 90F weather in October....I said that from the end of August to October they might record 10; no one would think Central Park gets ten 90F days in October when the record is two, dummy. I also was getting huge odds on the prediction, silly. My ENSO forecast of -1.8C to -2.0C is looking good now. Stop Amazing how you twist my words, idiot. I am so sick of it, it is disgusting. I can't even write something on this forum without you rushing in to correct it. That's why I am getting annoyed. You don't have to respond critically to everything I write, and your tone is just miserable.

I am saying we need to learn more about the solar processes, not just GCR. Clearly long-term changes like the Maunder were not only due to a .2% decrease in solar radiation unless you are using the most minimal estimates of the cooling.

[nzucker]

There are plenty of skeptical scientists out there...how about Ray Spencer? How about Bjorn Lomberg (who has reversed his position somewhat but still falls more to the skeptic side)? How about Joe D'Aleo?

So far the public doesn't believe in global warming. Nothing will be done about the issue until the public fully embraces the problem. How can they fully embrace the problem when we only warmed 50% of predictions in the 2000s and have basically flatlined since 1998, and when winters have routinely been colder and snowier than expected?

[skierinvermont]

I don't rub these in your face on a daily basis, but you just always imply that I'm an idiot who hasn't done his reading. It's really annoying and tiresome how you assume yourself to be superior in knowledge constantly. This is why I bring this up. You can't accept the fact that people are allowed to have different opinions and interpretations of the data from you.

By the way, I'm actually doing pretty well in the arctic sea ice forecast....I am like 4th out of 10 now and should be even better by the end of this week. My guesses have not been poor; they've been better than most people doing the forecast. I won a month too in the temperature contest and nailed NYC to the head in another month, also guessed the gradient correctly this month. I never said 10 days of 90F weather in October....I said that from the end of August to October they might record 10; no one would think Central Park gets ten 90F days in October when the record is two, dummy. I also was getting huge odds on the prediction, silly. My ENSO forecast of -1.8C to -2.0C is looking good now. Stop Amazing how you twist my words, idiot. I am so sick of it, it is disgusting. I can't even write something on this forum without you rushing in to correct it. That's why I am getting annoyed. You don't have to respond critically to everything I write, and your tone is just miserable.

I am saying we need to learn more about the solar processes, not just GCR. Clearly long-term changes like the Maunder were not only due to a .2% decrease in solar radiation unless you are using the most minimal estimates of the cooling.

I don't assume myself to be more knowledgeable. But if you suggest GCR is important, as you did, you are demonstrably not knowledgeable on that particular subject since all of the available evidence says GCR is a trivial factor.

As I have explained before, solar and volcanic forcing accurately simulate temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton. There's not some huge missing variable here.

[BethesdaWX]

There are plenty of skeptical scientists out there...how about Ray Spencer? How about Bjorn Lomberg (who has reversed his position somewhat but still falls more to the skeptic side)? How about Joe D'Aleo?

So far the public doesn't believe in global warming. Nothing will be done about the issue until the public fully embraces the problem. How can they fully embrace the problem when we only warmed 50% of predictions in the 2000s and have basically flatlined since 1998, and when winters have routinely been colder and snowier than expected?

Yeah, there are alot of top-dog skeptical scientists. Its the scientists that are "public icons" (work for Gov't, IPCC,etc) that get the most attention and funding, as more positions are available. John Cristy, William Gray, also have Climatological backgrounds, even though Gray was Technically a Met.

[skierinvermont]

There are plenty of skeptical scientists out there...how about Ray Spencer? How about Bjorn Lomberg (who has reversed his position somewhat but still falls more to the skeptic side)? How about Joe D'Aleo?

So far the public doesn't believe in global warming. Nothing will be done about the issue until the public fully embraces the problem. How can they fully embrace the problem when we only warmed 50% of predictions in the 2000s and have basically flatlined since 1998, and when winters have routinely been colder and snowier than expected?

Joe D'Aleo is not a climate scientist and could never get published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject because his articles are full of mistakes and logical fallacies.

Lomborg is an economist.

Roy Spencer is only a moderate skeptic if I remember correctly and he also has never published solid literature disputing AGW.

[nzucker]

I don't assume myself to be more knowledgeable. But if you suggest GCR is important, as you did, you are demonstrably not knowledgeable on that particular subject since all of the available evidence says GCR is a trivial factor.

As I have explained before, solar and volcanic forcing accurately simulate temperatures during the Maunder and Dalton. There's not some huge missing variable here.

You just have this horrid superior tone, you consistently do it to both Bethesda and me. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. Joe D'Aleo is an idiot too even though he knows a million times more than us and is a fellow of the American Meteorological Society. Even when people have met him and tell you he's not an idiot, you don't believe it. He doesn't believe in your AGW crap, so he must be an idiot. Bethesda brings lots of good arguments to the table, many of which I don't believe the mainstream has answered, but he's an idiot too. You show no respect for those who differ and you hunt through the boards looking for posts of mine to criticize. It's tiresome dude.

It depends on how much cooling you attribute to these periods. Many mainstream AGW sources like the IPCC don't assume there was much temperature variation until recently which would make it easier to quantify the causes of the Dalton and Maunder simply based on solar and volcanic factors that are already known. But something tells me there are a lot of missing variables dude. When we just launched satellites in 1979 and didn't arrive at an understanding of the PDO until 1996, how can you assume our knowledge of climate is conclusive? Seems likely that we have a lot to find out...