2011 Global Temperatures

[ORH_wxman]

You can't just take out the effects of a solar minimum that's going to last an unknown amount of years, probably 50-100, with cooling both from well-known TSI intra-cycle patterns and larger inter-cycle periods. I feel that solar isn't really a good variable for correction since we know so little about it.

Of course, this may also be an argument against taking out ENSO, since many believe the sun is the ultimate cause of El Niño/La Niña variations.

Well if you eliminate enough variables, eventually all you are going to be left with is the "CO2 in a vacuum" forcing so the graph should point toward that the more variables you try and eliminate. The problem with that eventually is assuming all the variables are completely independent of one another and will "even out". We just aren't sure that it works like that. We don't know what an extended solar min does...likewise an extended solar max like we saw in the 20th century. The forcing on the oceans those create is still little understood.

[skierinvermont]

Well if you eliminate enough variables, eventually all you are going to be left with is the "CO2 in a vacuum" forcing so the graph should point toward that the more variables you try and eliminate. The problem with that eventually is assuming all the variables are completely independent of one another and will "even out". We just aren't sure that it works like that. We don't know what an extended solar min does...likewise an extended solar max like we saw in the 20th century. The forcing on the oceans those create is still little understood.

Yes.. if we had an extended solar min there would be more of a step-down drop and then the underlying trend would resume. So this graph is more representative of the underlying trend assuming all other variables remained constant.

If there was a semi-permanent solar minimum, or we suddenly had a semi-permanent La Nina, then this method would only tell us the underlying CO2 effect.

Nevertheless, take it for what it's worth.

Solar activity is starting to go up again and will probably have a warming impact on temperatures 2010-2016. At which point my method will be adjusting temperatures downwards (as it did 1998-2003).

[skierinvermont]

What kind of lag did you use?

I didn't use a lag because the summary of the study I read didn't mention a lag and there didn't appear to be a lag from the graph. It might change the result very slightly if I used a lag, but there doesn't appear to be much of one.

[tacoman25]

It's really hard for me to buy a graph that to begin with is way off in the early/mid 1990s with Pinatubo...

[skierinvermont]

It's really hard for me to buy a graph that to begin with is way off in the early/mid 1990s with Pinatubo...

That won't affect the rest of the graph at all.. and I don't think anybody knows exactly what the Pinatubo effect was, so I just applied what appeared to be a reasonable correction. It only effects the years 92-94.

Bring me a study with strong evidence the effect was more and I'll up the effect.

[skierinvermont]

Camp and Tung specifically concluded that the solar cycle had a .18C cooling effect from 2001 to 2007. This is simply the visual representation of that effect.

[tacoman25]

I didn't use a lag because the summary of the study I read didn't mention a lag and there didn't appear to be a lag from the graph. It might change the result very slightly if I used a lag, but there doesn't appear to be much of one.

NASA says 1-2 year lag for solar irradiance. Another goof by Hansen's agency?

Also, I find the relationship on that chart to be a bit odd in places.

[skierinvermont]

Also, remember the fact that 1992 was an El Nino means temperatures are adjusted downwards for the Nino, but then upwards again for the volcano. So the volcano effect alone is larger than it appears on the graph.

[tacoman25]

That won't affect the rest of the graph at all.. and I don't think anybody knows exactly what the Pinatubo effect was, so I just applied what appeared to be a reasonable correction. It only effects the years 92-94.

Bring me a study with strong evidence the effect was more and I'll up the effect.

It still sets a bad precedent for the graph overall when something as glaring as that is off.

[tacoman25]

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/index.html

[skierinvermont]

http://pubs.usgs.gov...self/index.html

That study suggests a cooling of "perhaps as large as -.4C over large parts of the earth".. so I don't think my .28C is too far off. Let me read around some more and I might up it a bit.

[tacoman25]

That study suggests a cooling of "perhaps as large as -.4C over large parts of the earth".. so I don't think my .28C is too far off. Let me read around some more and I might up it a bit.

Read the whole section down further where it talks about temperature effects, and other sources. I'm not making this up, .4-.5C is the generally accepted amount.

[tacoman25]

NASA says 1-2 year lag for solar irradiance. Another goof by Hansen's agency?

Hmmm?

[tacoman25]

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/Free&Angell.JGR2002.pdf

This paper cites studies that show anywhere from .4C to .7C lower tropospheric cooling from Pinatubo.

[skierinvermont]

Read the whole section down further where it talks about temperature effects, and other sources. I'm not making this up, .4-.5C is the generally accepted amount.

I read the whole thing and it never says more than .4C. In the conclusion it again repeats "perhaps as large as .4C over large parts of the globe"

I also read another study which said "closer to .4C" (than .2C prior to removing ENSO)

http://books.google....inatubo&f=false

You know one thing we may be mixing up is surface and TLT. TLT dropped a lot more than the surface.

[skierinvermont]

Here it is again using .05, .35, .22, .1 for 1991,92,93,94 respectively. I included the TSI, ENSO adjustment (no volcano) just to show you the full effect since you seemed like you had the ENSO effect reversed before. Obviously, the red and purple lines overlap except for the four years in question.

[nzucker]

Camp and Tung specifically concluded that the solar cycle had a .18C cooling effect from 2001 to 2007. This is simply the visual representation of that effect.

I also think we might see a cooling influence from the solar max being so much weaker than normal since that's when the amount of TSI is greatest, at least compared to 1990s temperatures. Also, if solar is indeed responsible for the -NAO/-AO pattern, that may create stronger cooling. There seem to be several climate variables that fluctuate along with solar activity: TSI, ENSO, AO, GCC, albedo....so it's really hard to isolate solar activity from a temperature trend since its effects are so poorly understand and reach many different aspects of the climate system.

[skierinvermont]

http://www.arl.noaa....ell.JGR2002.pdf

This paper cites studies that show anywhere from .4C to .7C lower tropospheric cooling from Pinatubo.

Aha, yes, TLT dropped a lot more than surface.

[skierinvermont]

I also think we might see a cooling influence from the solar max being so much weaker than normal since that's when the amount of TSI is greatest, at least compared to 1990s temperatures. Also, if solar is indeed responsible for the -NAO/-AO pattern, that may create stronger cooling. There seem to be several climate variables that fluctuate along with solar activity: TSI, ENSO, AO, GCC, albedo....so it's really hard to isolate solar activity from a temperature trend since its effects are so poorly understand and reach many different aspects of the climate system.

FYI ... Bethesda's idea that the maxes are the most important because that's when TSI is highest and the biggest change occurs is hogwash. The length of the minimum, and hence the length of extremely low solar activity is what is most important.

TSI varies from the low 1365s to the 1366s W/m2 over the course of the solar cycle. A max of 1366 is still greater than the min of 1365. The ramping up solar cycle is going to exert a positive influence over the next 4-7 years, even if the max is lower than normal.

[tacoman25]

Aha, yes, TLT dropped a lot more than surface.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would it?

And if you read summaries of Pinatubo's cooling, most cite a peak of .5C global cooling from Pinatubo. It's very widespread. And with LT temps showing a drop of at least that (up to .7C), it doesn't make any sense that surface temps would only see .3C peak drop.

The study at the top of the page uses vague wording, but they still cite .5-.6C drop in the NH and .4C drop globally...which is right in line with the .4-.5C peak drop I have seen most widely quoted.

[skierinvermont]

That doesn't make any sense. Why would it?

And if you read summaries of Pinatubo's cooling, most cite a peak of .5C global cooling from Pinatubo. It's very widespread. And with LT temps showing a drop of at least that (up to .7C), it doesn't make any sense that surface temps would only see .3C peak drop.

I can think of a number of reasons.. for one the oceans would cool very slowly and most of GISS and HadCRUT are based on SSTs.

Also transport of aerosols to the surface can cause warming I think.

Also disruptions to global circulation.

#1 is primary though.. GISS and HadCRUT are both 70% based on SSTs.. and SSTs would take a long time to cool.

[skierinvermont]

Oh and all forcing from any source, warming or cooling, is generally magnified in the troposphere.

But #1 is still most likely the primary factor.. GISS and HadCRUT are 70% SSTs and SSTs take a long time to cool.

[nzucker]

FYI ... Bethesda's idea that the maxes are the most important because that's when TSI is highest and the biggest change occurs is hogwash. The length of the minimum, and hence the length of extremely low solar activity is what is most important.

TSI varies from the low 1365s to the 1366s W/m2 over the course of the solar cycle. A max of 1366 is still greater than the min of 1365. The ramping up solar cycle is going to exert a positive influence over the next 4-7 years, even if the max is lower than normal.

I've heard the length of the solar cycle has one of the best correlations to global temperature, since the longer cycles are clearly the ones that have the lowest activity. NASA has moved back the date of this solar maximum several times; it was originally supposed to be in 2012 but probably won't occur for a few more years, which they have acknowledged. In terms of short-term trends, I agree that ramping up towards the maximum might cause some warming, but in the long-term we could see impacts on the AO/NAO, ENSO, albedo, and global cloud cover which will have a more amplified but more gradual effect. This remains to be seen. TSI is only about .1% higher than it was during the early 1900s, so even the difference with the Dalton/Maunder isn't that huge in terms of TSI...there must be some other influences, and Landscheidt believed the main one was ENSO, as he used the solar spike in the late 90s to predict the 02-03 moderate Niño. So solar is going to be hard to adjust for especially as you get into longer time cycles.

Oh and all forcing from any source, warming or cooling, is generally magnified in the troposphere.

But #1 is still most likely the primary factor.. GISS and HadCRUT are 70% SSTs and SSTs take a long time to cool.

But the lower troposphere isn't showing as much forcing from carbon since the satellite sources have universally warmed less than the surface sources.

[skierinvermont]

I've heard the length of the solar cycle has one of the best correlations to global temperature, since the longer cycles are clearly the ones that have the lowest activity. NASA has moved back the date of this solar maximum several times; it was originally supposed to be in 2012 but probably won't occur for a few more years, which they have acknowledged. In terms of short-term trends, I agree that ramping up towards the maximum might cause some warming, but in the long-term we could see impacts on the AO/NAO, ENSO, albedo, and global cloud cover which will have a more amplified but more gradual effect. This remains to be seen. TSI is only about .1% higher than it was during the early 1900s, so even the difference with the Dalton/Maunder isn't that huge in terms of TSI...there must be some other influences, and Landscheidt believed the main one was ENSO, as he used the solar spike in the late 90s to predict the 02-03 moderate Niño. So solar is going to be hard to adjust for especially as you get into longer time cycles.

No there musn't be something else. TSI and volcanism explains the MWP and LIA just fine. Maybe there is something else small, but TSI and volcanism are adequate explanations on there own. We've been over this multiple times before, and when it's been pointed out that TSI and volcanism can explain it using IPCC models you either don't respond or say that the MWP and LIA are bigger than in the graphic I have posted. When I ask for evidence of this, you don't provide any. The peer-reviewed reconstruction that shows the most variation is Moberg et al. 2005 and it is included in the graphic I posted. But then a month later, you're right back at it claiming TSI and volcanism can't explain it.

But the lower troposphere isn't showing as much forcing from carbon since the satellite sources have universally warmed less than the surface sources.

Only if we rely on UAH. RSS is within the confidence limits, as are the radiosonde data sources. STAR shows even more TMT warming. Your statement is blatantly false given STAR shows far more warming than the surface. RSS may show more than HadCRUT, probably depending on start and end dates.

Again, We've been over this before. There is no good evidence that the "scaling ratio" (SR) is inconsistent with models. Even John Christy of UAH said the most probable reason for any discrepancy in scaling ratio is most likely measurement error.

[nzucker]

1.No there musn't be something else. TSI and volcanism explains the MWP and LIA just fine. Maybe there is something else small, but TSI and volcanism are adequate explanations on there own. We've been over this multiple times before, and when it's been pointed out that TSI and volcanism can explain it using IPCC models you either don't respond or say that the MWP and LIA are bigger than in the graphic I have posted. When I ask for evidence of this, you don't provide any. The peer-reviewed reconstruction that shows the most variation is Moberg et al. 2005 and it is included in the graphic I posted. But then a month later, you're right back at it claiming TSI and volcanism can't explain it.

2.Only if we rely on UAH. RSS is within the confidence limits, as are the radiosonde data sources. STAR shows even more TMT warming. Your statement is blatantly false given STAR shows far more warming than the surface. RSS may show more than HadCRUT, probably depending on start and end dates.

Again, We've been over this before. There is no good evidence that the "scaling ratio" (SR) is inconsistent with models. Even John Christy of UAH said the most probable reason for any discrepancy in scaling ratio is most likely measurement error.

1) One thing I wanted a better explanation for is the cooling observed during the Maunder Minimum. It does appear that most temperature reconstructions have the Maunder about 0.6C-0.7C colder than the peak of warming during the Medieval Warm Period, which seems like a lot for a minor variation in TSI. Here is the graph of various reconstructions:

However, something I didn't know is that the eruption of Billy Mitchell, a volcano located in Papua New Guinea classified as a VEI 5-6, occurred in 1580. This directly preceded the Maunder Minimum and would explain the large temperature drop, although the fact that it was sustained at least until 1670-1680 makes little sense to me given how evanescent the effects of Pinatubo were on world climate. Nevertheless, I do think it's less known that the Maunder could also have been caused by high volcanic activity; the influence of Tambora on the Dalton Minimum and the Year without a Summer (1816) has been discussed widely, but I didn't know anything about Billy Mitchell. So this might explain some of the immediate decline in temperature, but not its longevity. I do assume some long-term effect of the solar minimum, perhaps put in motion by the volcano, may have been in effect...this could be an albedo change as various glaciers in the Swiss Alps did advance and actually crushed some villages that had been safely inhabited during the Medieval Warm Period. It's also possible there was a change in global cloud cover, don't know how we'd study this in the 1600s.

Which IPCC models have been tested as far back as 1000 years? I thought most of them were analyzed using a 100-year time scale. Also, the IPCC admits a great deal of uncertainty, and even possible errors, in the assignment of radiative forcing values to solar changes. Here is what they say in Section 2.7.1:

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).

They are clearly admitting that UV waves affecting the stratosphere (and probably the polar vortex and downwelling warming events) has had an impact, so it's evident that another variable besides TSI has been analyzed by the IPCC, and probably included in their models. How could they mention the effect of UV rays being relevant and yet not include it in the global circulation models? If they didn't include it, wouldn't this be an obvious inaccuracy?

So you're incorrect: the IPCC is not just assuming TSI is the whole picture and thus using that with 100% confidence in their models. They admit great uncertainly in climate shifts caused by solar variation, and they directly acknowledge that TSI is part of the picture. I don't need to hear your condescending tone of "We've been over this before"...it's unnecessary, and in this case untrue, because you've constantly stuck to your position that the IPCC can figure out past climate perfectly using TSI, when they admit they can't.

2) RSS and UAH both show less warming since 1998, the period in question in this discussion, than the surface sources. This means that the idea that forcing always has a greater impact on the lower troposphere than the surface is patently false, at least in the short-term, unless there's a massive measurement error going on. Given that Spencer has concluded the AMSU analysis to be fairly accurate, I think it's unfair to single out the satellites as wrong when the surface data, especially GISS, has contained its own share of mistakes and biases, some of which have been corrected by Steve Mcintyre and individual skeptics. STAR doesn't make monthly or yearly data available easily to the general public, so I don't consider it a mainstream global temperature source as HadCRUT, GISS, UAH, and RSS are...and as Berkeley will soon to be,

[BethesdaWX]

FYI ... Bethesda's idea that the maxes are the most important because that's when TSI is highest and the biggest change occurs is hogwash. The length of the minimum, and hence the length of extremely low solar activity is what is most important.

TSI varies from the low 1365s to the 1366s W/m2 over the course of the solar cycle. A max of 1366 is still greater than the min of 1365. The ramping up solar cycle is going to exert a positive influence over the next 4-7 years, even if the max is lower than normal.

Remove tree Rings FYI.

Do you know why the Maunder Minimum dropped temps temps 1.2C or more in 100yrs? You need to focus on the true aspects of Solar that may effect Global Cloud Cover. Look at 10/BE concentrations, UVA & UVB rays, Geo-AA, etc, and HOW THEY AFFECT/FEEDBACK ON THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. Not energy Imbalance from a <1% change in TSI.

Remove Tree Rings Fromproxy data. This Peer reviewed Study explains how to do it.

http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3025

[BethesdaWX]

No there musn't be something else. TSI and volcanism explains the MWP and LIA just fine. Maybe there is something else small, but TSI and volcanism are adequate explanations on there own. We've been over this multiple times before, and when it's been pointed out that TSI and volcanism can explain it using IPCC models you either don't respond or say that the MWP and LIA are bigger than in the graphic I have posted. When I ask for evidence of this, you don't provide any. The peer-reviewed reconstruction that shows the most variation is Moberg et al. 2005 and it is included in the graphic I posted. But then a month later, you're right back at it claiming TSI and volcanism can't explain it.

Only if we rely on UAH. RSS is within the confidence limits, as are the radiosonde data sources. STAR shows even more TMT warming. Your statement is blatantly false given STAR shows far more warming than the surface. RSS may show more than HadCRUT, probably depending on start and end dates.

Again, We've been over this before. There is no good evidence that the "scaling ratio" (SR) is inconsistent with models. Even John Christy of UAH said the most probable reason for any discrepancy in scaling ratio is most likely measurement error.

I went over with this with you....but it looks like I'll have to again

Dude, STAR uses unproven homogenizations techniques.

RAOBCORE error, this also plagues STAR, and is a reason for error. I also emailed Dr. Roy Spencer on the issue, and if he responds, will post it here.

A problematic issue impacts RAOBCORE and RICH and is related to a warming shift in 1991 of the upper troposphere in the ERA-40 Reanalyses on which the two datasets rely. This was shown in [19] to be likely spurious due to a mishandling of a change in an infrared channel, a diagnosis acknowledged by the ECMWF (see also ECMWF Newsletter No. 119, Spring 2009). The shift also led to a sudden and spurious increase in estimates of (a) tropical rainfall, ( 200 hPa divergence and © low-level humidity. Since this has direct influence on RAOBCORE and to a lesser extent RICH, we would expect these products to display warmer-than-actual trends especially for TMT (which is shown in [9].)

The Methods used on STAR are homogenization methods to the raw data (the raw data matches UAH). Not sure why STAR does it since they are literally making themselves an outlier when they originally patched perfectly, STAR is a relatively small scale project.....the problem is they factor the underlying trend is factored into the forced adjustements, since the assumed trend is dictated valid beforehand.

The difficulty that arises is that the recommended adjustments are typically of the same order of magnitude as the underlying trend and, in one case, larger than the underlying trend, such that the sign of the adjusted trend is different from the raw trend. First here is a figure showing the net adjustments for the tropics in deg C for the 4 levels (going high to low). In each case, the adjustments are implemented primarily in the 1985-2000 period, so one is not dealing with the far past. All records end in 2006 are not fully up-to-date.

Figure 1. RAOBCORE (tropics) adjustments for 4 levels 1957-2006. Black – midnight; blue- noon.

Next here is a figure showing the original and RAOBCORE 1.4 trends for the tropics for the 4 levels (version 1.2 is not shown). The sign in the MSU3 level is reversed by the adjustment process.

For completeness, here are plots showing the original and adjusted versions for the 4 levels.

It is evident from the above plots that the RAOBCORE adjustments are the same order of magnitude as the trend that people are seeking to determine.

[BethesdaWX]

We have now dropped back below 2008 with the Latest LT drop. At this rate, we'll have Yet Another new "lowest" Anom within 3 days, could it really happen? Unlikely in my view.

Global Temps should be well above 2008 right now though. We're now at the time where SSTs in 2008 are Far below 2010/11.

AMSU 2008 had a Huge spike in Mid April. We're really running out of time to even compare to 2008 if we cannot spike by then, and run the risk of Plunging in the means Of course we never know what will happen, this is just a bunch of talk at this point.

[skierinvermont]

1) One thing I wanted a better explanation for is the cooling observed during the Maunder Minimum. It does appear that most temperature reconstructions have the Maunder about 0.6C-0.7C colder than the peak of warming during the Medieval Warm Period, which seems like a lot for a minor variation in TSI. Here is the graph of various reconstructions:

However, something I didn't know is that the eruption of Billy Mitchell, a volcano located in Papua New Guinea classified as a VEI 5-6, occurred in 1580. This directly preceded the Maunder Minimum and would explain the large temperature drop, although the fact that it was sustained at least until 1670-1680 makes little sense to me given how evanescent the effects of Pinatubo were on world climate. Nevertheless, I do think it's less known that the Maunder could also have been caused by high volcanic activity; the influence of Tambora on the Dalton Minimum and the Year without a Summer (1816) has been discussed widely, but I didn't know anything about Billy Mitchell. So this might explain some of the immediate decline in temperature, but not its longevity. I do assume some long-term effect of the solar minimum, perhaps put in motion by the volcano, may have been in effect...this could be an albedo change as various glaciers in the Swiss Alps did advance and actually crushed some villages that had been safely inhabited during the Medieval Warm Period. It's also possible there was a change in global cloud cover, don't know how we'd study this in the 1600s.

Which IPCC models have been tested as far back as 1000 years? I thought most of them were analyzed using a 100-year time scale. Also, the IPCC admits a great deal of uncertainty, and even possible errors, in the assignment of radiative forcing values to solar changes. Here is what they say in Section 2.7.1:

The estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes used in the TAR (e.g., Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al., 1995) have been revised downwards, based on new studies indicating that bright solar faculae likely contributed a smaller irradiance increase since the Maunder Minimum than was originally suggested by the range of brightness in Sun-like stars (Hall and Lockwood, 2004; M. Wang et al., 2005). However, empirical results since the TAR have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change by identifying detectable tropospheric changes associated with solar variability, including during the solar cycle (Section 9.2; van Loon and Shea, 2000; Douglass and Clader, 2002; Gleisner and Thejll, 2003; Haigh, 2003; Stott et al., 2003; White et al., 2003; Coughlin and Tung, 2004; Labitzke, 2004; Crooks and Gray, 2005). The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain, and under ongoing debate as discussed in the TAR, are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays (e.g., Marsh and Svensmark, 2000a,b; Kristjánsson et al., 2002; Sun and Bradley, 2002).

They are clearly admitting that UV waves affecting the stratosphere (and probably the polar vortex and downwelling warming events) has had an impact, so it's evident that another variable besides TSI has been analyzed by the IPCC, and probably included in their models. How could they mention the effect of UV rays being relevant and yet not include it in the global circulation models? If they didn't include it, wouldn't this be an obvious inaccuracy?

So you're incorrect: the IPCC is not just assuming TSI is the whole picture and thus using that with 100% confidence in their models. They admit great uncertainly in climate shifts caused by solar variation, and they directly acknowledge that TSI is part of the picture. I don't need to hear your condescending tone of "We've been over this before"...it's unnecessary, and in this case untrue, because you've constantly stuck to your position that the IPCC can figure out past climate perfectly using TSI, when they admit they can't.

2) RSS and UAH both show less warming since 1998, the period in question in this discussion, than the surface sources. This means that the idea that forcing always has a greater impact on the lower troposphere than the surface is patently false, at least in the short-term, unless there's a massive measurement error going on. Given that Spencer has concluded the AMSU analysis to be fairly accurate, I think it's unfair to single out the satellites as wrong when the surface data, especially GISS, has contained its own share of mistakes and biases, some of which have been corrected by Steve Mcintyre and individual skeptics. STAR doesn't make monthly or yearly data available easily to the general public, so I don't consider it a mainstream global temperature source as HadCRUT, GISS, UAH, and RSS are...and as Berkeley will soon to be,

As we discussed, I didn't say that TSI + volcanoes is ALL of the picture (in fact I said specifically that it isn't), what I said and what I believe is that they alone adequately explain the general features of the MWP and LIA when fed through IPCC models. There's no large remaining unexplained temperature change, as you implied. TSI and volcanism, by and large, explain the MWP and LIA, when fed through IPCC models.

Also as we discussed.. in addition to the 1580 volcano, there was general high volcanic activity throughout 1580-1700. From what I am looking at there appears to have been 10+ climatic sized volcanoes with 7 of equal or greater forcing than Pinatubo. That's pretty extreme.

To your last point, over periods as short as 10-12 years, all of these sources do have acknowledged large error bars, so the lack of a proper scaling ratio over a period as short as 10 years is not surprising. Over the 30 year period we find that RSS falls within the error bars of the expected scaling ratio. As do the radiosonde sources. STAR falls at or above the expected scaling ratio.

Just because STAR doesn't have monthly data available doesn't mean it isn't a valuable or accurate resource. It has been used by NOAA and in multiple peer-reviewed studies recently.

[BethesdaWX]

As we discussed, I didn't say that TSI + volcanoes is ALL of the picture (in fact I said specifically that it isn't), what I said and what I believe is that they alone adequately explain the general features of the MWP and LIA when fed through IPCC models. There's no large remaining unexplained temperature change, as you implied. TSI and volcanism, by and large, explain the MWP and LIA, when fed through IPCC models.

Also as we discussed.. in addition to the 1580 volcano, there was general high volcanic activity throughout 1580-1700. From what I am looking at there appears to have been 10+ climatic sized volcanoes with 7 of equal or greater forcing than Pinatubo. That's pretty extreme.

To your last point, over periods as short as 10-12 years, all of these sources do have acknowledged large error bars, so the lack of a proper scaling ratio over a period as short as 10 years is not surprising. Over the 30 year period we find that RSS falls within the error bars of the expected scaling ratio. As do the radiosonde sources. STAR falls at or above the expected scaling ratio.

Just because STAR doesn't have monthly data available doesn't mean it isn't a valuable or accurate resource. It has been used by NOAA and in multiple peer-reviewed studies recently.

3 strike rule

1) TSI does not correlate long term, only intermittently thru 11yr cycles. Strike 1

2) The GRAPH the IPCC model is trying to Match is incorrect through the use of Faulty Tree ring Data, as I posted above. Strike 2

3) Since TSI does not correlate long term, and the Graph is Incorrect, you're saying all the trends in the pastwere volcanism caused... lol Strike 3, yer out!

Remove Tree Rings. This Peer reviewed Study explains why they are wrong, and how to remove them without harming the dataset.

http://www.ncasi.org...il.aspx?id=3025