Last page, figure 3b). There you have your “not change” of cosmic ray flux as shown by ion chambers and by Climax (Colorado Neutron Monitor). You can also find interesting the correlation with temperatures, between 1935 and 1995.

From your link I read: “Boosted by the influence of a larger climate event in the Pacific, one of the strongest La Niñas in many years is slowly weakening but continues to blanket the Pacific Ocean near the equator, as shown by new sea-level height data collected by the U.S.-French Jason oceanographic satellite”.

Here you have a link with the southern pacific temperature anomalies. You can clearly see we are in a “La Niña” episode with an anomaly topping -1,5ºC for the trimester Dec-Jan-Feb. You can also see that we hadn’t had La Niña episodes since 1999 and 2000, and in both cases the top anomalies were EQUAL OR BIGGER. So I beg you to explain how they can say that this is “one of the strongest La Niñas in many years”, if not to lie in the face of the ignorants with scientific-like statements to try to make excuses about the obviously colder weather we are experiencing compared with the forecasts of the alarmists. This La Niña is not strong. It’s a normal La Niña episode.

The link:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ products/ analysis_monitoring/ ensostuff/ ensoyears.shtml

By the way, the La Niña before 1999, in 1995, was weaker, yes. And the one before in 1988 was way stronger. And the one before (1985), weaker, and the one before (1976), stronger. And so on. You can just check yourself. This is a pretty normal La Niña episode, not a strong one. The anomaly is not this La Niña but the lacking of them for 7 years, with 3 El Niños in the middle. Find that in the historical records. And yet we didn’t warm.

As to the temperature comparison between 1950 and 2000, I recommend you to compare the graphs to the Global Annual Precipitation Anomalies that you will find in the IPCC AR4. You can see the graph in this link:
http://www.junkscience.com/ draft_AR4/ Ch03_SOD_Figs_TSU_FINAL_P1.pdf

It is in Figure 3.3.1.

What does this comparison show? It shows that we had warming at the same time that we had decreasing rain. Decreasing rain is mostly associated with decreasing low cloud formation, as low clouds are the ones bringing the rain. But as soon as cloud formation and annual precipitation anomalies have started to rise again, the warming has stopped.

Now, in which way does CO2 concentration affect cloud formation? There’s no available theory relating the 2 things. But there are theories that do relate cloud formation with solar activity and cosmic rays, and there are studies demonstrating the vastly better correlation between cosmic rays and temperature.

http://jisao/washington.edu/pdo

The homepage has two really cool sat images of the cool and warm phases of the PDO.

http://www.esr.org/pdo_index.html

Lots of data on PDO indices.

BTW: I have data from Quatsino (BC) WS that show the shift in the PDO about 60 years, and have recent data (i.e., last 5 years) that show a shift back to a cool phase. I am writing a short report for Roger Sr and will request that he post it on his blog.

The results are quite amazing. For example, a constant mean max temp for the September Equinox Interval (SEI, Sept 16-26) of 290.4 +/- 1.5 K for 66 years (1940 to 2005). The “+/- 1.5 K” is the classical AD per decade, and it has remained constant for mean max and min temp since 1895 to present. I’m not quite sure of the significance of this vlaue, but I have seen mention of it on a blog that I forgot to bookmark.

The reasons I chose the SEI are that (1) effects of ENSO are minimal at this time of the year and (2) a short sample of 11 days ensures little change in sunlight energy (ca, 30 min or +/- 15 min before and after the Equinox) during the interval.

If the usual one month interval is used, the change in sunlight energy is about 80 min, i.e., Sept 1 has 80 more min of sunlight than Sept 31. I have also found that the ENSO just messes up temp data from late fall to late spring at this WS, and it is harder to discern long-time trends from the MEI, JSI and DSI data.

More about the PDO and the current strong La Nina:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/ 2008/ 04/ 080421195005.htm

entitled “Larger Pacific Climate Event Helps Current La Nina Linger”

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg

Using the GISP2 data for just the Holocene, the transition from the 1880s to the 1940s is a 38% event; the transition from the 1940s to the 2000s is only an 8% event.

1. As individuals, we are geographically biased. Global warming is global. So cold weather in, say, North America, may seem like evidence against a warming trend. The only way to judge whether there actaully is global warming is by looking at global data, ie data based on widely distributed measurements, including the oceans and uninhabited land.

2. As a culture we view the world through a very narrow window in time. We note the here and now, and relate it to the recent past. Global warming is the gradual long term trend towards a warmer global climate. There may appear outliers: months or years which, even if they are based on global data, are actually colder than preceding years. But the only way to judge whether there is a trend is to look at long time series. By a trend we do not mean that each year will be warmer than than the previous year; only that it is likely that the next decade will be warmer than the previous.

Yes, some spots on the globe will experience cold spells, and yes, some months will be cold globally. But so far there is nothing in the data to suggest that global warming is not a fact.