This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.
The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?
By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.
Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.
Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.
Useful links:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.
Re various encyclopaedias:
I seem to recall that in an earlyish WUWT article, it was suggested that there was at least one named wiki-person, having similar attitudes to Connolley, and thought to be assisting him. Given the stats of Connolley’s amazing performance, perhaps that makes sense. So, could it be that such gate keeping will continue under a different name? I have not read it for a while but there was a classic wiki-con job on “The Hockey-stick Controversy” that might be worth checking out before long.
With the conventional encyclopaedias, their articles are (or were?) often compiled by a single author, having certain “attitudes“, and back in my early energetic days of AGW interest, I sometimes found it good fun to compare articles that had different titles or categories, but contained material on much the same topic. Er uhm, they did not always agree. One clanger that springs to mind was a noted professor that claimed that when Cirrus clouds formed, they rapidly HEATED the Earth’s surface, due to their back radiation. (paraphrasing) I’ve written to both the Britannica and McGraw-Hill Science encyclopaedias on wrong stuff like this, and some revisions or article deletions were made in later issues. (That was back in the days of floppy drive back-up so I can’t easily give details).
Anyway, what with improving internet searching, I think it has become relatively easy to cross-check all encyclopaedias, but absolutely essential to do so on any emotive issue found in Wiki‘, (quite apart from on climate change), although I agree it is often a good starting point.
A hint of why I stayed indoors yesterday. This is near Kinglake about 30 minutes north of me at a little under 500m altitude. Kinglake and environs was badly affected by the bushfires on 7 Feb 09. Many deaths amongst the tragedies.
It was widespread, and there was even a sketchy radio report of evacuations below a cracked dam in NSW, that was overflowing by about half a metre with fears of its failure. Grim reading all over, below:
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/snow-wind-and-rain-whip-eastern-australia/15216
Peter Geany & Max,
Who, in the western democracies, are saying this sort of thing: “Children are blindly ‘parroting’ what they are taught in school?” and are subject to “brainwashing”?
To answer my own question, I’d say:
1) Religious fundamentalists who have problems with what science, and therefore the education system, teaches on the origin of the Universe, Evolution and Creationism.
2) Political ( usually right-wing libertarian) fundamentalists who have problems with what science, and therefore the education system, teaches on the subject of AGW, and it could well be argued that it even goes further than that!
PeterM
Who (2278)? How about:
Concerned parents, who have given the whole hysteria surrounding “AGW doomsday” some serious thought and critical investigation, have concluded as a result that the premise is based on seriously flawed science and who have become aware that this hysteria is being taught to their children in school by misguided teachers and educators.
Another group no longer has children in school but is outraged that this fear mongering of impressionable schoolchildren by overzealous AGW-activists is going on at taxpayer expense in school classes or government-sponsored TV “fairy tale” commercials.
The morons promoting this stupidity (10:10) are even producing TV clips, where skeptical schoolchildren are blown up for not swallowing the doomsday myth.
That’s what “I’d say”, Peter – it has nothing to do with “right-wing”, “fundamentalists”, or any of that crap, which you conjure up in your rather warped outlook on life.
I would be just as outraged if school teachers frightened children with fundamentalist “hell-fire and brimstone” doomsday garbage instead of the AGW doomsday crap.
Children should not be filled with fear by adults, whatever the underlying message. There is no justification for doing this. Period.
It’s just that simple, Peter.
Max
Bob_FJ
Thanks for sharing with us the local “severe weather event” caused by AGW.
(We’ve also got new snow down to 1,000 meters and the snow-line is moving down the mountains at an alarming rate in a dramatic reminder of the disastrous climate change that awaits us if we do not immediately sign up to a carbon tax.)
While you’re snowed in you might want to enjoy these two songs by that famous Tennessee movie-maker and messiah.
http://www.globalwarminghype.com/inconvenient.html
Max
PeterM
I believe that you, TonyB, Bob_FJ and I have all already covered ad nauseam the topic of William Connolley and Wiki as a reliable source of information on AGW, so there is no point to dwell on this issue any longer.
“Science”, anyone?
Max
PeterM
Let us talk about “SCIENCE” (I am assuming this aspect of the AGW debate interests you).
First, let’s clear up scientific/technical issues on which we both probably agree.
1. Has it warmed over the past 160 years?
That’s what the surface temperature record shows.
2. Are there any distortions in the global temperature record as a result of
a) UHI warming resulting from urbanization
b) Spurious warming signal from poor station siting
c) Poor station coverage in Africa and parts of South America plus Asia
d) Shutdown of a large number of sub-arctic and rural stations
e) Poor coverage and inaccurate measurement of sea surface temperatures
f) Manipulations of the raw data by the “record keepers” to show more warming
Several studies show that any or all of the above factors may have resulted in a spurious exaggeration of the observed warming signal; in addition, a comparison with the satellite record shows that the surface warming is occurring at a more rapid rate than that in the troposphere since the satellite record started in 1979, despite the fact that greenhouse warming should be more rapid in the troposphere.
We both acknowledge that these studies exist, but we do not agree on their validity or meaning.
3. Has the global temperature shown unexplained multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles with an overall cycle of around 60 years and an amplitude of ±0.2C, all on an axis showing warming of 0.04C per decade over the entire record?
Yes. That is what the record shows, although we may not agree on what this means.
4. Is the sea ice in the Arctic receding since satellite measurements started in 1979?
Yes.
5. Is the sea ice in the Antarctic growing since satellite measurements started in 1979?
Yes.
6. Has sea level risen over the 20th century?
Yes. That is what the long-term tide gauge record shows.
7. Has the atmospheric CO2 concentration increased at a compounded annual growth rate of around 0.04% per year since Mauna Loa measurements were installed in 1958?
Yes.
8. Do ice core studies indicate that atmospheric CO2 increased from a pre-industrial value of around 280 ppmv to a value of around 315 ppmv by 1958?
Yes. That is the IPCC estimate.
9. Does human activity, primarily in the industrially developed world, result in CO2 emissions, which could be a primary cause for the increased atmospheric CO2?
Yes.
10. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas (GHG)?
Yes.
11. Are there other minor human plus natural GHGs?
Yes. Methane is one, and there are others.
12. Is water vapor a much more important GHG, due to its much higher atmospheric concentration?
Yes.
13. Do clouds affect our planet’s temperature and, if so, how?
Yes.
The net overall effect of clouds is one of cooling; this results from the observed cooling from reflection of incoming SW solar radiation back into space from low altitude clouds. There is also a smaller warming effect from high altitude cirrus clouds believed to occur from the GH absorption and re-radiation of outgoing LW radiation.
14. Is there a natural GH effect of water (as vapor, liquid droplets or ice crystals), CO2 plus all other GHGs, and, if so, what is the temperature impact?
Yes. This is estimated to be around 33C.
Do we agree on all these points, Peter?
Please give me a yes/no to each point, so we can move on to points where we do not agree.
Thanks.
Max
CORRECTION
The observed CAGR of CO2 concentration is 0.4% per year (not 0.04% per year)
Max,
In your #2240 you said “Stop flogging the ‘tobacco’ analogy.”
I’m not sure that analogy is the correct word here. An analogy is type of, often hypothetical and figurative, language that states an example to allow a better insight and understanding of a particular issue. If you remember, I used an example of people not even wanting to take a small risk of getting on a plane that had a 1% chance of crashing but they were still arguing that it was OK to take a 90% risk with the long term future of the environment.
But you are correct that the situation in the 70’s and 80’s of the tobacco industry’s attack on scientific findings of the adverse consequences to health was directly comparable with the fossil fuel and mining industries’, and allies, attack, or even dirty war, on scientific findings of the adverse consequences of allowing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to become too high.
PeterM
Your “tobacco analogy” has no significance. It is a poor one to start off with and, more importantly, it has absolutely no bearing on the AGW discussion. I could spend time talking about an equally irrelevant “DDT analogy”, but that would also be pointless.
In short, Peter, it is a “red herring” intended to distract the conversation from the flawed science supporting the “dangerous AGW” premise.
Instead of flogging this dead horse, why don’t you address the very specific scientific and technical questions I asked you in 2282?
That would be more productive.
Or are you afraid that the science really is “flawed” and that this would be exposed by getting into a debate specifically covering scientific points?
Max
a·nal·o·gy
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies
1.
a. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
2. Biology: Correspondence in function or position between organs of dissimilar evolutionary origin or structure.
3. A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects
Max
I think you may have overloaded Peters brain with #2282
Should we concentrate on one part at a time? Where better to start- as it is much in the news- but with item 4 concerning arctic ice?
A 2010 Russian study by four academics conclude that modern arctic ice melt is nothing unusual.
It can be accessed from here free for 30 days. Well worth a read.
http://uploading.com/files/b5614866/Climate_Change_in_Eurasian_Arctic_Shelf_Seas.rar/
Of course we have been saying for some time that the current arctic warming period is absolutely nothing new.
This long article by myself -with many links to scientific and observational studies- examines the period 1815-60 when the Arctic ice melted and the Royal Society mounted an expedition to investigate the causes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
This free online book by Dr Arnd Bernaerts examines the last great warming -prior to the modern one- in great detail. It covers the period 1920 onwards.
http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_1.html
We have extensive evidence of these other warm periods (without even needing to refer to the Vikings.) Why does Peter insist in believing the current episiode is unprecedented?
He won’t read any of these links of course as he is afraid to look at evidence that contradicts his very set view based much more on his personal ideology than science.
tonyb
TonyB,
It seems that your brain may be running slightly slower than usual also.
Its still not managed to come up with an answer to this question I asked previously in #2275
“So, why is saying that you agree, at least fundamentally, with Wiki, or indeed Encyclopaedia Brittanica too, on everything else apart from climate change “twisting” your words? Minor mistakes aside, what else is there that you disagree with? The Earth being spherical? The Earth being several billion years old? The origin of species is by Evolution rather than creation? HIV and AIDs are directly connected?
Don’t be coy about this. Please give some examples and explain yourself properly!”
Peter 2288
I’m afraid its your brain thats even slower than normal. If you would like to look back you will see that you did not actually address it to anyone, so not being a mind reader I didn’t know-much less care-who it was aimed at.
I am interested in the science as is Max, not your absurd and increasingly bizarre word games which are designed to avoid answering the questions of science you are continually asked yet refuse to address.
Max enumerated them yet again in #2282.
Many months ago I asked whether you believe the current arctic melting was unprecedented.(his point no4)
Why not read the articles and then reply directly instead of hiding behind your smokescreen of meaningless responses on such topics as evolution and tobacco?
tonyb
TonyB,
Ok Sorry I thought that you’d be able to figure out that it was addressed to you!
Its not a trick question. You’ve accused me of twisting your words, but when I ask why you think that, you refuse to answer. That’s quite odd, don’t you think?
TonyB
Thanks for tip about “overloading Peter’s brain”, but I have a slightly different take on this.
Peter has a brain (we all do), and his is not weak, but simply not able to grasp concepts that do not agree with his preconceived notions, especially those notions that are deeply ingrained.
He has shown here that his beliefs work digitally in a “black or white” approach – “you are either with us or against us”.
He is an avowed Marxist, so anyone who disagrees with him on any topic is de facto a right-winger (or fascist).
His views on AGW are not based on “science” (even though he professes to be a “physicist” he curiously cannot even defend the “science” behind the “dangerous AGW” premise), they are based on a pseudo-religious belief, much like the beliefs of the “creationists”, whom he professes to despise. Yet he acts just like they do, strangely enough.
And this is why he steadfastly refuses to discuss the scientific issues, but prefers to dwell, instead, on silly polemic sidetracks.
Tony, I fear that we will not be able to get him to seriously discuss the “science” behind the “dangerous AGW” premise, because, as a scientist, he knows that it is fatally flawed but, at the same time, cannot bring himself to admit it, as this would shatter his pseudo-religious belief. A real dilemma.
But we can always hope that maybe we can still get him to act like a real scientist, rather than simply an AGW fundamentalist.
Who knows?
Max
TonyB & Max,
Talking about let’s keep it to one subject (Arctic ice) to reduce brain overload for you-know-who; have you seen Anthony Watts’ response to Tamino’s question on Arctic ice?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/my-answer-to-taminos-question/#more-26478
It seems that Anthony really enjoyed it, and that Tamino suffers the same “disease” as your friend, and in huge great spadefuls at that.
I wonder if he could make a good anagram of ‘Tamino’ and/or ‘Grant Foster’ that would have us rolling around crying with laughter; whilst astounded at its brilliance?
Complaints to the Oz ABC
Here is a slightly edited version of a post I made to Peter Geany on the OFCOM thread, because he went weak-kneed about finalizing his complaint.
Maybe anyone interested in fairer reporting in the science might be interested:
I think it would be good if as many people as possible, were to make a formal complaint, to the Chairman of the ABC board in the first instance, since he does appear to note and pass it on to their “complaints unit”. (according to his secretary). I would think that the chairman at least, might be sensitive to the issue if there are complaints from overseas, quite apart from the complaint count itself.
Contact details and some context are available in the WUWT article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/05/abc-interview-wrongly-torches-skeptic-position/#more-25929
I’m also making three separate complaints including on two parts in an earlier science show of 21/Aug/10. Transcripts are available if anyone interested;
The science of climate change:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2985182.htm
Eureka science prizes (A rant about climate change “deniers etc” by the science minister)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2989087.htm
Max,
I’d be happy to get into detailed debate about scientific issues with anyone whose true motivation was genuinely scientific. However, your motivation, which you share with a number of others like Brute, is that you’ve decided that the politicians have artificially created what you refer to as an AGW scare to justify higher taxes and bigger government. That’s not a scientific argument. If that’s the case there is no point in going into scientific detail.
TonyB is slightly different. I suspect that he has a whole range of kooky scientific beliefs, which prompted him to tell me that I was twisting his words when I suggested he might agree with Wiki and EB on everything apart from AGW. He doesn’t want to tell us what they are though!
You say I am an “avowed Marxist”. If a Marxist is anyone who has actually read some of his works and doesn’t start screaming about North Korea at the mere mention of his name that I might have to plead guilty :-) However, if it is someone who agrees unconditionally, then that’s not really me. I’d say that there is a class struggle going on, but the idea that its just the organised working class: dockers, car workers, miners etc in opposition to all capitalists who, almost by definition, are all the bad guys just doesn’t seem right. It may have made sense in the 19th century, but it looks very much out-of -date at present.
The fault line between the two sides of the struggle probably runs through the middle of the Republican Party in the US and the same with the Liberal Party in Australia and the Conservative Party in the UK. John McCain, David Cameron, and Malcolm Turnbull are, for example, sensible politicians of the right. Whereas Sarah Palin, Tony Abbott and Daniel Hannan are definitely on the other side of the line. It is interesting to note that climate change sceptism or denial, although not perfect, seems to be as good a ‘litmus test’ as any in deciding which side anyone should be placed!
PeterM
You wrote:
Great!
You can start by responding to my questions in 2282.
As you can see, these are all purely scientific/technical with no mention of arguments
which you mention.
So let us discuss just the science, Peter – no politics.
Your political views (on Marxism, etc.) are interesting, but we should keep them (as well as mine) out of this conversation, which we should restrict to the scientific and technical issues only.
Looking forward to your reply to my 2282, as a starter.
These are the points relating to the science behind AGW on which, I believe, we generally agree, but I would like your confirmation that my understanding on your agreement is correct.
Once we clear up the points on which we agree, we can start discussing those on which we do not.
Max
Bob_FJ and TonyB
Watts’ exchange with Tamino on Arctic sea ice was amusing.
Yes. I have seen the studies cited by TonyB plus Russian studies by Smolyanitsky et al., all covering earlier periods of Arctic sea ice retreat and expansion, which occurred prior to the latest 30-year “blip” in the record since satellite measurements started in 1979. The Chylek study on 1920s/1930s warming in Greenland shows a good correlation with a period of sea ice retreat, which ended in the 1940s.
The subsequent re-growth of sea ice to a high level by 1979 also corresponds well with temperature records at Illulisaat (Greenland), which show cooling over this period.
The satellite record started at this recent high point for sea ice extent and has shown a fairly steady decline since then.
Taking a look at the even shorter “blip” from the low point in 2007 to today, we see what appears to be the start of a “recovery”; is it really that or simply a bump in the curve? Who knows? And even more important, who cares?
NSIDC have to publish “sexy” blurbs containing the worlds “alarming”, “unprecedented”, “accelerating”, etc. or no one will read them (and funding for Serreze et al. may begin to dry up).
But a longer-term look at Arctic sea ice shows us that its inter-annual variations seem to coincide roughly with the observed multi-decadal cycles in temperature.
I do not believe that anyone has come up with a conclusive explanation of what has caused these multi-decadal cycles (although there are some hypotheses out there).
Human CO2 is being blamed for the latest 30-year “blip”. I cannot argue that it has not been partially responsible, but it certainly could not have been the primary root cause for the earlier cycles.
So we are still left with unanswered questions.
And the “enigma within the dilemma” gets even greater when we include the steady growth seen in Antarctic sea ice since the satellite record started, despite steadily increasing CO2 levels.
Max
Peter 2290 said
“Its not a trick question. You’ve accused me of twisting your words, but when I ask why you think that, you refuse to answer. That’s quite odd, don’t you think?”
What is odd is that we’ve been asking you many questions over the months yet you refuse to answer them. These are REAL questions related to the purpose of this blog, rather than mind games, semantics and side steps, which seems to have been your stock in trade for the last month or two.
If you look you will see I did answer. How many times do you want an answer to your tedious question?
We gave you lots of links demonstrating that Connolley had been suspended for manipulating data on wikipedia. That is surely interesting as it is a key source of information for many climate change amateurs -you reference it frequently I note.
I then said that not all wiki stuff was suspect, but I wouldn’t trust it on biographies either as they also seem to be a moveable feast. Surely that is all clear enough? I would be quite happy to use it for capital cites and all sorts of other information no doubt, but would be suspicious of contentious history stories (unrelated to climate history) as people seem to want to edit these.
As that academic article that I referenced you says -which no doubt you did not read- Wiki has a higher rate of suspect information than any other similar source. I have no opinion on other online sources-we were talking specifically about Wiki.
As for ‘kooky’ beliefs, I accept the scientific position on HIV, tobacco, evolution. Why shouldn’t I? I also do not believe that climate scientists are out to deliberately defraud the public.
The problem with a lot of climate science (but not all) is there a tendancy to use linear projections using short term data to make a case for the official position. We had a classic example with historic sea ice (no mention in AR4) and historic sea levels (completely omitted from AR4 Chapter 5 and the politicians summary, other than a very brief two line mention of the Holocene data.)
Speaking of sea ice, what is your opinion on the latest sea ice material I posted, including the 2010 Russian study? What is your position on the CFC paper I referenced?
We can then work our way through the long back log of other subjects you continually try to evade.
As Bob remarks in #2292-referencing an article I saw literally minutes before hopping over here to enjoy your latest piece of evasivenes-it seems that Mr Tamino ‘Open mind Foster also refuses to engage in a sensible dialogue and is surrounded by people who tell him things he wants to hear.
So Peter, look forward to hearing of your scientific anaslysis of sea ice and CFC’s
tonyb
Peter Taylor has a comment on the arctic ice thread at WUWT.
It is worth repeating as it may give the other Peter food for thought as he composes his reply to us all regarding that subject and the latest studies.
“I have a chapter in ‘Chill’ called ‘Poles Apart’ which contrasts the Arctic and Antarctic environments and notes that they tend to trend in opposite directions. Both are regions of permament heat deficit and rely on transport of heat from ocean basins to melt the ice in summer. When researching the book, I was immediately struck by the wealth of papers on the Arctic cycles – especially the 60 year Surface Air Temperatures (SATs) which lag a pressure oscillation across the Arctic basin.
Nobody knows what causes the cycle, but virtually all ‘real’ Arctic specialists know about it, as well as the long term cycles that are recorded in the ice-caps thoughout the ice-age and in the Holocene as well. The long cycles are not evenly spaced but follow a repeat pattern reminiscent of a Fibonacci series with the cycle length shortening before a new cycle begins.
What is astonishing is that government labs in the US and Britain can ignore all this work and pretend cycles do not exist (precisely because they cannot be modelled – too uneven intervals). And then more astonishing (for me) is that groups like WWW and FOE and Greenpeace ignore my friendly warnings that the ‘basic science’ is crocked – or in the light of ‘climategate’ more than slightly ‘cooked’.
I go on to consider the ocenaography of the Arctic – and document the known dynamics of heat transfer – and it was easy to predict that the ice would come back in 2008 and 2009, stall a bit in 2010 due to the ENSO event, and will resume in 2011. Indeed with all ocean basic oscillations now in negative (cool) territory, I expect 2011 to show distinct ‘global cooling’ and for this to persist for some years.
The Arctic cool phase is marked by high pressure systems where ‘normally’ there would be lows. As the cycle shifts, we need to remember that 60 years ago there were 3 billion people on the planet, not 6.5 and that the northern hemisphere grain belt is perilously vulnerable to the polar jetstream – which shifts with the Arctic oscillation. I warned that ‘energy’ will not be the immediate issue, it will be food – 67 countries currently depend upon world food aid, which is itself dependent on the northern grain surplus.
Green politics will see the whole of the UK exported wheat quota of 1 million tonnes go into one giant ethanol plant very soon in order to meet 1/10th of our legally binding EU target for transport biofuels.
Absolutely nobody has done any joined-up thinking. And despite 30 years of environmental advocacy (not quite your thing at WUWT, I know!) the ‘greens’ will not listen – not a single invite to speak to them, and they attack not my arguments, which are all backed by peer-reviewed science, but my personality (which I have to admit, does not readily pass peer-review!)
And a note to Leif from over at another thread:
The current data for the solar minimum 2006-2009 shows certain patterns in the North Atlantic (which will become more obvious after the ENSO event and its teleconnections have worked their way out) which if they were to persist over several decades rather than a few years of solar minimum, would progressively diminish the oceanic heat stores built up over the past 50 years. This is the real significance of the Dalton and Maunder type minimums. There is the long-term cycle of 1000 years (also quasi-Fibonacci in that the Greenland data shows progressive shortening of the cycle peaks: 8000, 5000, 3000, 2000, 1000 years ago in the Holocene by aboout 3 C per cycle) and this is acted upon by 60-70 Arctic Oscillations, 70-100 year Atlantic Multidecadal and 30-40 year Pacific Decadal, with ENSO 4-8 year cycle on top of that. All these cycles peaked in the 1980-2007 period.”
Intersting stuff but I’m sure Peter won’t want to take any notice of his namesake
tonyb
TonyB,
CFC’s and sea ice? I have seen some suggestion that it may be playing a part in Antarctica and the effect is possibly quite small. But I really don’t know! Why ask me? – I’m not a climate scientist. Why not look up the scientific research for yourself?
You say you’ve told me the other entries on Wiki, other than climate science which you disagree with- but I’m afraid I can’t find them. So to answer your question of “how many more times?” I’d say just one but do it properly this time!
TonyB
The “poison” word for devout believers in the premise of “dangerous AGW” is “cycle”.
This is so, even though the observed multi-decadal warming and cooling cycles are apparent in the long-term record (with a total cycle period of about 60 years and an amplitude of ±0.2C, all on a tilted axis showing long-term warming of around 0.04C per decade).
The same “cycles” are apparent in the Arctic sea ice expansion and retraction.
According to Roy Spencer they are also apparent in the PDO record.
What causes them?
Lots of theories out there (including the ones of Peter Taylor, which you cited), but I think there are few real answers.
But one thing is for sure.
There is no way one can make a valid case that they are caused by human CO2 emissions, which have had no cyclical trend whatsoever..
And that is why the truly devout “dangerous AGW” believers have to stick their heads in the sand and simply “deny” their existence.
Max