2011-07-13 20:39:38Archibald hands us another gift
John Cook

Makes another prediction of precipitous cooling over the next few years:


2011-07-13 23:23:22


I couldn't understand what he did. Where does the sharp drop come from? And where does the 0.1 °C/100ppm come from? Though, I didn't waste much time over it.

2011-07-13 23:57:12


Just record and toss into the Department of Mysteries/Hall of Prophecies.

2011-07-14 00:03:18
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

"Professor Jan-Erik Solheim of Oslo University replicated this methodology for ten Norwegian temperature records, and thus this methodology is confirmed as valid:"

ROTFLMAO!  It works in New Hampshire and Norway - case closed! ;o)

2011-07-14 00:25:17
Alex C


He's using the cycle length data from the simulation and the linear temperature trend he derived in the first figure to eyeball the temperature of later cycles.  It appears that the previous cycle is supposed to predict temperatures of the time during the next - that's quite the convenient lag for solar forcing, but regardless, it's complete crap.

"With the two year decrease in the length of Solar Cycle 26 from 25, temperatures will rise by 1.4°C by mid-century to late 20th Century levels."

What two-year decrease?  If a cycle is defined as minimum to minimum then 26 is exactly the same length as 25, according to the simulation output.  That fits well with the graph that he displayed below with the step-wise averages, but then the "pattern" he promulgates fails to predict the temperature trend during cycle 23, the predicted cycle 27, and the predicted cycle 24.

The CO2-log graph is one I have also seen on several occasions, what's its actual source?  Has anyone done a rebuttal on it yet?


I love how the Wattoids lap this up.

2011-07-14 00:40:35
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

Ive not been to WUWT for a while, so I just posted the following (will be interesting to see the reaction ;o)




It is interesting that the solar cycle length hypothesis of Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) is still being used, given that Laut (2003) demonstrated that the analysis in Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) had serious data handling errors, and that Lassen himself co-authored a paper in 2000 that updated and re-analysed the data and concluded that “since around 1990 the type of Solar forcing that is described by the solar cycle length model no longer dominates the long-term variation of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature. “. The flaws in Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) have been identified and discussed in the litterature, it really isn’t science to base an argument (even partially) on such a paper without mentioning the known flaws.

There is a good discussion of this paper at Skeptical Science here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycle-length.htm

Essentially correllation is not causation.

Laut, P. “Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 65, pp. 801-812, 2003

P. Thejll and K. Lassen, “Solar forcing of the Northern hemisphere land air temperature: New data”, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Volume 62, Issue 13, September 2000, Pages 1207-1213

2011-07-14 01:05:26
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

Elsevier have gone down in my estimation, if they are publishing a book like the one advertised at WUWT their credentials as a scientific publisher have taken a bit of a knock!

2011-07-14 11:32:15
Dana Nuccitelli

Archibald is such an f-ing moron.

"Let’s start with the solar cycle length – temperature relationship, first proposed by Friis-Christensen and Lassen in 1991. This is the relationship for Hanover, New Hampshire...Why did I pick Hanover? Governor Lynch recently vetoed New Hampshire leaving the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative."

WTF?  Idiot.

Has Archibald done any prior temperature predictions we can tear apart for the 'lessons from past predictions' series?