Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Monckton: The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple warming is the largest error made by climate models

Christopher Monckton has replied to the critique posted at Climate, etc. regarding the Monckton, Soon, Legates, and Briggs paper “Why models run hot, results from an irreducibly simple climate model,” and makes a number of good points highlighted below.


By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

I am most grateful to Rud Istvan for his thoughtful commentary on our paper Why
models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, which appeared
in Vol. 60 no. 1 (January 2015) of the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of
Sciences and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Dr Istvan kindly points out that the Science Bulletin is the Orient’s equivalent of
Science or Nature. Peer review, contrary to the sneering comments of the profiteers
of doom, was professional and thorough, requiring us to work quite hard to meet the
challenges – some of them from out of left field – that our three diligent and
commendably persistent reviewers presented.

He also dismisses – rightly – the hasty comments of Dr Trenberth, who did himself
no favors and us no harm by saying our model is very simple and the climate isn’t.
Well, every model is a simplification, and every simplification is an analogy, and
every analogy breaks down at some point.

Interestingly, though, because the climate behaves as a chaotic object a simple model
is not inherently less likely to be able to reach a respectable projection of climate
sensitivity than a far more complex model.

As Edward N. Lorenz pointed out in the elegant landmark paper Deterministic nonperiodic
flow that founded chaos theory in the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
in 1963, (though Lorenz did not use the term “chaos”), neither the precision nor the
resolution of climatic measurements will ever be sufficient to allow us to obtain
reliable very long-term predictions of future climate states.

The exasperating unpredictability of objects that behave chaotically is now a major
focus of mathematical enquiry, though it is too little considered in climatological
physics. Sir James Lighthill’s magisterial paper of 1998 on the chaotic behavior of
pendulums is well worth a read, for those who have not yet really thought about
chaos theory and its implications for objects that, though deterministic, are nonperiodic.

Or one could model some simple chaotic objects for oneself, such as the
Verhulst population model or the infinitely deep and fascinating Mandelbrot set –
the most complex object in mathematics, modeled by one of its simplest equations.
For a good general introduction to the impact of chaos on the climate, see Giorgi
(2005).

Why are the complexities of objects that behave chaotically important in considering
the utility of a simple model like ours, which an undergrad with a pocket calculator
can run in minutes, compared with the billion-dollar brains on the basis of whose
questionable and (so far) much-exaggerated output the global classe politique seems
to be galloping towards an unelected global tyranny-by-clerk? The answer is that where an
 object behaves chaotically all bets are off. It is not that anything can happen. Because a 
 chaotic object is deterministic, and is usually chaotic
only in some subset of its parameters and, for each parameter in that subset, across a
definite and sometimes quite narrow interval, it is not entirely unpredictable. I recall
trying to explain this to the head of research and the vice-chancellor at East Anglia
University some years ago. The head of research said, “But surely we can still predict
that summer will be warmer than winter?” Er, well, yup. The orbit of the Earth about
the Sun is sufficiently close to periodic to allow us to draw that conclusion.

But the chaoticity of the climate tends powerfully to level the playing-field as between
a very simple model such as ours and the vastly more complex general-circulation
models that are the cause of the current panic pandemic.

Dr Istvan correctly points out that the fifth-generation siumulations in the Climate
Model Intercomparison Project continue to diverge from observed temperatures -
and, one should add, not just because of what the late head of the UN’s climatescience
panel was the first to call a “pause” in global temperatures.

However, Dr Istvan has not quite understood Fig. 2 of our paper, which actually
demonstrates that IPCC itself – under pressure from expert reviewers such as me,
who told it that it would lose what little credibility remains to it unless it curbed its
wild over-predictions – has very sharply reduced its near-term global-warming
projections (though, of course, it has left its long-run predictions unaltered, for
otherwise the game would be up).

In the overheated days of 1990, it predicted warming over the coming decades on the
interval [0.19, 0.43] K decade–1. By 2013, it had just about halved what it now calls its
“projections” to [0.10, 0.23] K decade–1. And the real-world outturn since 1990, when
IPCC’s central estimate was 0.28 K decade–1? Just half that, or 0.14 K decade–1.

It was that persistent factor-of-two discrepancy between prediction and reality that
led us to write our paper. However complex the models were, however many partial
differential equations they deployed, the “substantial confidence” that IPCC
expressed in 1990 that the models on which it relied had captured the essential
features of the climate system has proven to be hubristic. But when we ran our own
model for the first time with parameters that we thought reasonable, it faithfully
reproduced the observed temperature trend since 1990.

Dr Istvan has his doubts about just one section late in our paper, where we discuss
the Bode system-gain equation (see R.W. Bode’s weighty, 551-page tome published
by Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, in 1945). Now, as Professor Ray Bates pointed
out en passant in a characteristically precise, detailed and thoughtful paper in 2007,
one should be very careful when trying to apply to the climate an equation that was
originally derived for electronic circuits.

The problem with simply borrowing Bode, bolting it on to the climate models and
hyping for the best is that – tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon 
– not all dynamical systems behave the same way. They fall into several classes. And
the climate falls into one of the classes to which Bode does not apply.
In particular, Bode mandates that at a closed-loop gain >1 feedbacks will act to
reverse the system’s output. Thus, in a circuit, the output (the voltage) becomes
negative at loop gains >1. In the climate, though, the output (the temperature)
cannot reverse itself in response to – say – ever more water vapor in the air, driven
by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation.

Worse, in dynamical systems such as an electronic circuit, the output is not the
instrument of the object’s self-equilibration after a perturbation. But in systems such
as the climate, the output temperature is the instrument by which the object settles
down after a radiative forcing. Bode does not model this.

One only has to look at the plot of the Bode equation, our Fig. 6, to see this at once:

The striking singularity as the loop gain of unity approaches is simply not consistent
with how the climate has behaved over the past 810,000 years. From the ratio of two
isotopes of oxygen in air trapped in the annual layers of Antarctic ice, Jouzel et al.
(2007) reconstructed the temperature record of eight ice ages and eight interglacials.

The four previous interglacials were all warmer than the present by up to 2.5 K: but
the most remarkable feature of the record is that – once polar amplification is
corrected for – the variability of absolute mean global surface temperatures over the
entire record was little more than 1%, or 3 K, either side of the long-run mean.

The climate, therefore, is formidably thermostatic. Indeed, so narrow is the inferred
temperature interval of the Earth’s climate that it is not much wider than that of a
room-heating thermostat. Why is this? Because the atmosphere – a tenuous fluid medium – is sandwiched
between two near-infinite heat-sinks, the ocean below and outer space above. No
doubt there might be significant changes in the temperature of the atmosphere if
there were significant changes in the input temperature from the Sun above or from
the Earth’s molten core below; but, taking these inputs as broadly constant, such
little heat as we are able to generate in the atmosphere will either be radiated
harmlessly off to space or taken up into the ocean, which appears to have warmed
during the ARGO decade at a rate equivalent to just 0.05 K decade–1 – well within the
very large measurement and coverage uncertainties (each ARGO buoy has to try to
monitor 200,000 km3 of ocean). [Note to Christopher Monckton: the atmosphere and 
greenhouse gases cannot "generate heat"]

Since the atmosphere has not warmed during the ARGO decade, it is not illegitimate
to deduce that at least the upper or mixed stratum has not warmed during the past
decade, for if it had done so the atmosphere – three orders of magnitude less dense
than the ocean, and intimately mixed with it at its interface by tropical afternoon
convection in low latitudes and baroclinic eddies in the extratropics – ought to have
warmed too.

I have raised the Bode problem several times in my lectures on climate, with
interesting results. At a lecture to an audience including several IPCC lead authors in
Tasmania some years back, I showed the Bode plot and a lead author who had been
sneering all the way through the lecture suddenly sat bolt upright, peered at the
screen and said, “Have you published this?” No, I said, I was still working on it. “But
you must,” he cried out. “This changes everything.” Yes, I said, it does.

Reactions were rather more mixed at a meeting of the climate monitoring panel of
the World Federation of Scientists two years ago. A mathematician said, “Well,
perhaps the output is just undefined at a loop gain exceeding 1” (except that in an
electronic circuit the output is defined by the Bode equation: the voltage reverses
itself as the loop gain crosses the singularity). A climatologist growled, “Well, it
works perfectly well up to a loop gain of 0.8” (which, a little too conveniently, is the
IPCC’s implicit upper bound).

The most startling result was three years ago, before a learned society, when I
debated the climate with a professor who, until then, had been a Thermageddonite.
But he took one look at the plot of the Bode equation, went white, realized at once
that it could not possibly apply to the climate, and wrote to me resolving to do
further work on it. He has now concluded, like me and for similar reasons, that
climate sensitivity to a CO2 doubling will be around 1 K, and may well be less.
Whether he will be able to get a leading climate journal to publish so heretical a
result, of course, is quite another matter in these days of science as politics.

The significance of Bode is this. If it does not apply to climate, that is the end of high
sensitivity; and that, in turn, is the end of the climate scare. That is why, pace Dr
Istvan, we thought it right to include a mention of the Bode problem in our paper.Dr Istvan 
says we have made a mistake in assuming that all loop gains greater than
approximately 0.1 would imply an unstable climate when, as noted above, the climate
has been near-perfectly thermostatic for the best part of a million years. With
respect, he perpetrates the same error as the climatologist at the World Federation of
Scientists. He assumes that there is an inflection point in the graph at 0.75 (which,
rounded up, is 0.8). However, the Bode function has no inflection point there, as I
know because I drew the plot point by point using a very precise architectural
drawing program.

Furthermore, Dr Istvan is missing two further steps in our argument that are vital to
understand. First, the reason why process engineers building electronic circuits
intended not to oscillate set an upper bound of 0.01 (or, in well-regulated conditions,
0.1) as an absolute maximum in the design specification is that the operating
conditions may not remain stable and the componentry may have been fabricated to
variable tolerances.

Mutatis mutandis, the climate, too, may suffer shocks – meteorites, supervolcano
explosions, Milankovic changes in the orbital characteristics, etc., etc. In feedback
amplification regime that looked anything like the Bode plot, IPCC’s implicit central
estimate of 0.65 for the feedback sum is far too close to the singularity. There would
have been several points in the past 810,000 years where a feedback sum that large
would have driven the feedback-sum beyond unity, leading to violent results that are
simply absent from the record.

Secondly, if one must use Bode at all then one must do as the process engineers do,
and accept that at the singularity Bode is impossible in all circumstances, for the
equation predicts an infinite output response to a finite input. Even in circuitry,
where at least the current is reversible at the singularity and the voltage is a bare
output that plays no part in equilibrating the circuit after a perturbation, selfevidently
asymptotic upper and lower bounds constraining the output voltage exist.
Indeed, if one hooks up an oscilloscope to a circuit and serially drives the feedback
above unity and then lets it relax back below unity, a sine-wave will result. The
positive and negative splines of the singularity are not merely truncated: the curve at
all points either side of the singularity is tempered.

What are the values of the asymptotes in the climate object? Given the sandwiching
of the atmosphere between two vast heat-sinks, and given the consequent
thermostasis that is indeed inferred in the ice-core temperature reconstructions,
there is no particular reason to suppose that the asymptotes will be markedly further
apart today than the 6-7 K interval in the ice-core record. And we are already only 2.5
K below the upper-bound asymptote.

Dr Istvan also challenges the complexity of our derivation of the closed-loop gain:
however, he has not noticed the series of simple equations we provide throughout the
paper – some of them for the first time. Our derivations were sometimes step-by-step 
because our paper was in part pedagogical: we were, for the first time, letting the
daylight in on the magic, and that meant explaining some concepts for the novice in a
certain amount of necessary detail.

Dr Istvan also says that our discussion of the Bode equation is irrelevant to our
equation and its evaluation. Not so: it is vital, because in the IPCC’s
(mis)understanding two-thirds of all global warming is generated by the use of that
equation. That is where the big error lies in the models. That is the chief reason why
they over-predict global warming.

Curiously, a climate modeller at NASA GISS made a similar mistake to Dr Istvan,
even going so far as to say the Bode equation was not used in the climate models at
all. I referred him to not one but two papers by James Hansen, the creator of the
GISS model, each of which discussed the applicability of the Bode equation. One
paper even derived it from first principles not inelegantly – but without taking into
account the constraints on its applicability that I have set forth here.

Dr Istvan is kind enough to say that “the mathematical derivation of the irreducibly
simple equation is impeccable”. Several Thermageddonite commentators, in their
habitually sour fashion, have put it this way: “It’s not new.” But it is new to most of
those who will download our paper.

Dr Istvan says that the transience fraction (i.e., the fraction of equilibrium warming
that will occur a given number of years after an instantaneous forcing) might be more
simply derived than in our paper. However, we were not concerned only with
deriving today’s value from IPCC’s values for other parameters in the study of climate
sensitivity: we wanted to empower researchers to trace their own path from
instantaneous forcing via transient response to equilibrium response, even allowing
for such arcana as the possibility of a response lag owing to the “missing heat” hiding
in the deep ocean (though the ocean notion has zero empirical evidence to support
it).

Indeed, one of our reviewers told us he thought that the “missing heat” pretext for
the complex models’ failure was now well established in the literature. So we
searched the literature and found four papers pushing the ocean notion – let us call
them Smith et al., Wesson et al., Aguirre et al. and Aranzabal et al.

On closer inspection, the four were members of the same group of authors. Each had
taken it in turn to be lead author, exploiting the fact that papers are usually cited
simply as “Smith et al.”, rather than as “Smith, Wesson, Aguirre y Aranzabal”. And
their notion had been spankingly debunked by a group at the Chinese Academy of
Sciences. We also found some two dozen mutually incompatible excuses for the failure of
models to predict the Great Pause. The ocean notion was just one of these. Either
way, to the startlement of the reviewer, our model – with a tunable array variable to
allow the user to choose his own pathway from instantaneity to equilibrium – was,
though simple, sophisticated enough to represent (if desired) response lags such as
that conjured into being by the proponents of the ocean notion.

Dr Istvan was good enough to put our model through its paces. He went through the
principal temperature feedbacks that we had mentioned in the paper, adjusted their
values as he thought right and found that the feedback sum was about 0.25, implying
a loop gain of 0.1 (i.e. the process engineers’ limit) and a system gain factor of 1.1,
giving a final climate sensitivity of 1.3 K (not quite sure how he got 1.75 K, starting
with a feedback sum of just 0.25 K W–1 m2).

Very kindly, Dr Istvan concludes that “The simple non-GCM models Trenberth
dismisses have great utility”. We agree. Indeed, our model turned up some very
interesting errors in the IPCC’s analysis, all of them calculated artificially to increase
climate sensitivity:

The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse
warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce
warming, not amplify it.

 The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits,
but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of
strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the
wrong equation.

 Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower
feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 C° of warming per CO2 doubling, when
on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 C° – about half from direct warming and
half from amplifying feedbacks.

 Though the complex models say there is 0.6 C° manmade warming “in the pipeline” even if we
stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model – confirmed by almost two decades without any
significant global warming – shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still
to come.

 There is no scientific justification for the IPCC’s extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that
predicts up to 12 Cº global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.

Have a look at the model for yourselves. Go to scibull.com (the unfortunately-chosen
website moniker for the newly-relaunched journal) and click on “Most Read
Articles”. We are no. 1 on the list, with 23,000 downloads of the abstract or the full
paper – an order of magnitude above our nearest rival in the journal’s 60-year
archive.We have some reason to suspect that the shrieking fury to which my co-author Willie
Soon was subjected once the usual suspects found they could not fault the paper
scientifically stems chiefly from our revelation that the Bode equation cannot be
applied to the climate without heavy modification. Those behind the climate scare

know this quite well. Now others know it too.

Monday, March 2, 2015

Paper explains Earth's climate by principle of maximum entropy production (& without incorporating greenhouse gases)

A paper published in the AGU journal Reviews of Geophysics utilizes the second law of thermodynamics principle of maximum entropy production to accurately determine the meridional and vertical temperature profiles of the atmosphere and Earth surface without incorporating concentrations of any greenhouse gases or greenhouse gas radiative forcing that form the basis of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) radiative greenhouse theory. 

The paper (and several others cited by the paper) corroborates the underlying physical assumptions of the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C greenhouse effect and the 'greenhouse equation.' 

The conventional CAGW radiative greenhouse theory assumes greenhouse gas backradiation from the lower temperature/frequency/energy atmosphere is capable of warming by 33C the higher temperature/frequency/energy Earth surface. The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires heat to flow one-way only from hot to cold, and total system entropy to increase to the maximum potential extent. However, net heat flow from a cold atmosphere necessary warm the hot Earth surface by 33C would require an impossible decrease of total system entropy, forbidden by the 2nd law and principle of maximum entropy production. Although radiation between hot and cold bodies is bidirectional, the 2nd law only permits heat to flow one-way from a higher temperature/frequency/energy body to a lower temperature/frequency/energy body.

As Dr. Judith Curry noted in regard to another related paper on the second law principle of maximum entropy production and climate, 
JC comments:  The 2nd law of thermodynamics is an underutilized piece of physics in climate science.  It is not a simple beast to wrestle with, but I think there are some important insights to gain. Optimality, self-organizing criticality, and nonlinearity are factors that are not adequately accounted for in traditional climate feedback analyses, and an entropy-based framework would be more consistent with the climate shifts that are actually observed.
Inspired by the famous engineer/physicist Carnot's description of the atmosphere as a heat engine (which also forms the basis of the Maxwell/Carnot/Clausius atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure theory of the 33C greenhouse effect), the authors develop an Earth energy and entropy budget and simple climate model on the basis of the second law of thermodynamics and principle of maximum entropy production (MEP). 
"The opening words of Carnot s original treatise on thermodynamics provide a good starting point for this review paper. We consider that Carnot 's view contains invaluable insight into the subject, which seems to have been lost from our contemporary view of the world. Carnot regarded the Earth as a sort of heat engine, in which a fluid like the atmosphere acts as working substance transporting heat from hot to cold places, thereby producing the kinetic energy of the fluid itself. His general conclusion about heat engines is that there is a certain limit for the conversion rate of the heat energy into the kinetic energy and that this limit is inevitable for any natural systems including, among others, the Earth s atmosphere. His suggestion on the atmospheric heat engine has been rather ignored. It is the purpose of this paper to reexamine Carnot s view, as far as possible, by reviewing works so far published in the fields of fluid dynamics, Earth sciences, and nonequilibrium thermodynamics."
As illustrated in Fig 5 below, the author's entropy & energy budget shows heat flows one-way only from hot to cold, and there are no terms for greenhouse gases, backradiation, or radiative forcing from greenhouse gases incorporated anywhere in the author's energy and entropy budget calculations. The author's energy budget is in stark contrast to Trenberth's energy budget showing 333 W/m2 of greenhouse gas backradiation from the cold atmosphere heating the Earth surface (alleged to be more than double the radiative input from the Sun absorbed at the Earth surface [161 W/m2]).
Figures in [brackets] are in W/m2, figures without brackets are temperatures Ts= surface temperature, Tsun =  sun surface temperature, Ta= equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere = 255K, S= various entropy components of the system. The sequence of heat flow is one-way only from Sun to Earth to atmosphere to space. Meridional transport of heat from the hot equator to the cold poles by winds and oceans is illustrated by the circular arrows. Note the author's analysis of the entropy budget incorporates the entire universe, as the only truly "closed thermodynamic system" is the universe itself, and for which total system entropy must always increase according to the 2nd law. 
On the basis of this simple energy/entropy model assuming maximum entropy production (and no warming or radiative forcing from greenhouse gases), the authors find a remarkable agreement between modeled and observed temperatures, fractional cloud cover, and meridional heat flux from the equator to the poles:

Introduction citing the work of Carnot

Modeled results agree closely with observed temperatures, cloud cover, and heat flux. 

The authors also find their model explains the atmospheric temperature profiles of other planets (with vastly different greenhouse gas compositions) including Titan and Mars.

Electrical circuit analogy where Th = temperatures near hot equator, Tl = low temperature at the poles, Fm = meridional heat transport from the hot equator to cold poles, D= diffusivity parameter determined by the 2nd law principle of maximum entropy production, Fshort,h = current analogy of solar flux of shortwave radiation at the hot equator, Fshort,l = current analogy of solar flux of shortwave radiation at the cold poles, R =  IR radiative losses to space (represented by ground at bottom), Flong,h = current analogy of radiative losses to space from the hot equator, Flong,l = current analogy of radiative losses to space from the cold poles

The second law of thermodynamics and the global climate system: A review of the maximum entropy production principle

Hisashi Ozawa, Atsumu Ohmura,  Ralph D. Lorenz and Toni Pujol

[1] The long-term mean properties of the global climate system and those of turbulent fluid systems are reviewed from a thermodynamic viewpoint. Two general expressions are derived for a rate of entropy production due to thermal and viscous dissipation (turbulent dissipation) in a fluid system. It is shown with these expressions that maximum entropy production in the Earth's climate system suggested by Paltridge, as well as maximum transport properties of heat or momentum in a turbulent system suggested by Malkus and Busse, correspond to a state in which the rate of entropy production due to the turbulent dissipation is at a maximum. Entropy production due to absorption of solar radiation in the climate system is found to be irrelevant to the maximized properties associated with turbulence. The hypothesis of maximum entropy production also seems to be applicable to the planetary atmospheres of Mars and Titan and perhaps to mantle convection. Lorenz's conjecture on maximum generation of available potential energy is shown to be akin to this hypothesis with a few minor approximations. A possible mechanism by which turbulent fluid systems adjust themselves to the states of maximum entropy production is presented as a self-feedback mechanism for the generation of available potential energy. These results tend to support the hypothesis of maximum entropy production that underlies a wide variety of nonlinear fluid systems, including our planet as well as other planets and stars.


Related:

A new & related paper finds global wind energetics are well explained by the principle of maximum entropy production. 

Analysis finds global warming of 20th century entirely explained by changes in solar activity and clouds

A new analysis from the German EIKE site finds the global warming of the 20th century is entirely explainable on the basis of a sustained increase of solar activity, modulated by changes in cloud cover induced by cosmic rays and an enormous amount of cloud condensation nuclei blasted into the atmosphere from the nuclear tests conducted 1945-1963.

Google translation:


Heat balance of the earth and global temperature change

Jürgen Lange Heine
Summary: The IPPC's published trend of global temperature anomalies can be explained only superficially by the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 100 years. Despite steadily rising carbon dioxide levels observed in the years 1945 to 1975, as well as since 1998, a decrease or stagnation in global temperatures occurred that does not fit with the carbon dioxide hypothesis....


Fig. 1 NASA Information on the anomaly of the global annual mean temperatures
.... The observed deviation from a steady rise in temperature from increased solar radiation in the years 1945 to 1975 was due to increased cloud formation by the radioactive condensation nuclei artificially introduced in the years 1945 to 1963 from the nuclear tests in the atmosphere. The stagnation of temperature since 1998 was caused by decreasing solar activity since 1998 ..
From 1900 to 1998, solar radiation increased by 1.3 W / m², but since 1998 it has diminished, and could reach values ​​similar to those of the early 20th century. A drop in global temperature over the next few years is predicted

 Main text

The surface of 511 million square kilometers is covered about 75% of water. The rest are 3% and 22% polar ice land masses, with 8% forest, 8% of arable land and 5% industrial and colonization surface.
Thanks to the enormous amount of water in the oceans of the earth and the high heat capacity of seawater make changes there accumulated thermal energy is the main component of the thermal energy balance of the Earth.
When we talk about climate change, reference is made to the presentation of the so-called. Temperature anomalies, which is published by the ICCP, among others. It is to yearly average values, which are in turn based on a mean value over a defined time interval. (Z. B. 1961-1990). The following Fig.1 the course of the temperature anomalies is shown: 
Fig.1:. NASA Information on the anomaly of the global annual mean temperatures  (after data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/)  See Bil d right 
These are measured temperatures of approximately 35,000 meteorological stations distributed over the earth, with the greater frequency of monitoring stations located in the northern hemisphere.
The oceans play due to their large surface area and their large heat capacity, the key role in climate design earth. They contain 97% of the total water on the planet and are the source of 86% of the evaporating water on the Earth's surface. 78% of global precipitation occurs over the oceans, and only 22% via the land masses.
The response of the Earth's atmosphere on disorders of the heat balance is, in essence, the temperature behavior of the ocean km², with its area of ​​about 400 million, determined its water content of ca.1,3 trillion cubic meters and the interaction with the atmosphere.
The, the atmosphere forming air is a compressible gas at sea level, and has a density of 1.29 kg / m3. Approximately 50% of the air mass of the atmosphere between 5500m altitude and sea level.
The total mass of the atmosphere is ML = 5.14 * 1018kg and the resulting air pressure at sea level is 1013 hPa.
The main components of the Earth's atmosphere are nitrogen N2 78%, 21% oxygen O2, argon Ar to 0.9%, carbon dioxide, CO2 and water vapor to 0.038%, H2 O. While the composition of the air with respect to N2, O2, Ar, and CO2 changes only at high altitude, the water vapor concentration Fig. is strongly dependent on the temperature and the height, s.. 2
Fig. 2: water vapor content as a function of the level
(J. Lange Heine, energy policy in Germany, the business of fear, Athena Media Verlag, ISBN 978-3-86992-054-2) 
If air saturated with water at 20 ° C containing ca.17g water / m³ as water vapor, z. B. transported to an altitude of 5000m, it loses water 16g / m³. This water vapor condenses and falls under certain conditions as precipitation back to earth.
90% of the water content of the atmosphere spread over the first 5500 meters of altitude .Damit weather processes occur mainly in a height range up to about 5500 m from. The integration over the height up to 11000m results in a total amount of water in the atmosphere of about MW = 1.3 ∙ 1016kg and corresponds to a condensed volume of 1.3 ∙ 1013m³. In the oceans, however, is about 1.3 ∙ 1018 m³ about 100,000 times more water than in the atmosphere.
In pure air (without foreign particles) can reach up to 800% relative humidity without condensation occurs. In reality, however, the water vapor condenses at values ​​of a few percent below or above 100%, depending on the nature and concentration of the condensation nuclei in the air. As condensation nuclei for cloud formation serve aerosol particles from the surface components and high-energy ion-forming radiation. Are particularly active radioactive dust and radon decay products, their accumulation in cloud droplets compared to the surrounding air (BI Styra et all. Tellus XVIII (1966, 2) suggesting their involvement in the formation of condensation nuclei.
The distinction between the clouds will clear and more for the height of cloud base into high, medium and low clouds.
High clouds that form in general above 6000m and account for about 13-14% of cloud cover, composed of ice crystals.
Middle clouds that arise at altitudes 2000-5000 m and account for about 20% of cloud cover, made of water drops.
Low clouds are also made of water drops are located at altitudes up to 2000m. They account for about 28-30% of cloud cover.  
High and medium or low clouds can occur simultaneously, but the middle and low clouds are responsible for the precipitation substantially.
Fig.3. Cloud cover and water content of the atmosphere 1983-2010
www.climate-4you.com / images / Cloud Cover Low Level Observations Since1983 gif)
In Fig.3 the time course of the water content of the atmosphere and of course the clouds from 1983 to 2010 is shown. Fig. 4 shows the variation of annual rainfall from the long-term average. An increase in the mean cloud cover and a drop in the deep clouds in the years from 1998 can be seen from the comparison of the two representations 3 and 4, associated with an increase in the rate of precipitation. The total cloudiness with middle and low clouds, however, remains largely constant at 48%. Despite rainfall, the water content of the atmosphere changes only slightly, but as of 1998 is a sudden drop to 24 mm (see Fig. Discussion below) to see. At the same time, the average cloudiness of 20 increases to 23% and the low clouds decreases from 28 to 25%.
Since this show is stagnating and global warming.
Fig. 4: Deviation in global precipitation over land from the average for the years 1900-2010
(Image credit: NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.)
A comparison of figure 4 with figure 1 shows that stagnation in global temperature anomaly occurs in periods of high rainfall. Both in the periods from 1945 to 1980 as well as from 1998 to 2010 observed a significant positive deviation of rainfall.
Clouds and precipitation are the link of the atmosphere to the ocean.
The amount of water of the oceans, Distributed on its surface gives an average depth of 3800m. But the deeper layers of the ocean hardly contribute to the temperature changes of the surface. At a certain depth, the so-called. Thermoclines the surface temperature of the low temperature equalizes.
Figure 5 shows the increase of the heat content of the ocean from 1970 to 2005 by about 1.6 ∙ 1023 J.
During the same period, the surface temperature increased by 0.4 ° C. Hence the position of the average thermoclines calculated at a depth of about 300m. In this water depth approximately 1/13 of the water masses of the ocean are affected and require for ignition by 1K about 4 ∙ 1023 J.
 
Fig.5 change in the heat content of the oceans
The amount of water contained in the atmosphere corresponds to a condensed volume of 1.3 ∙ 1013 m³. If you distribute the water volume of the atmosphere to the soil surface of 511 ∙ 106 km 2, we obtain a water column of about 25 mm, s. Fig. 3. The heat of vaporization of 2257 kJ / kg of water by the liquid to convert the water is required in the vapor state, there is a whole contained in the water vapor in the Earth latent heat of about 3 ∙ 1022 joules, equivalent to 3 ∙ 104 EJ.
The average evaporation, and precipitation rate is about 1000 mm of water per year. (Baumgartner and Reichel 1975). This means that the cycle Verdampfung- condensation per year, about 40 times runs out.
After this assessment evaporate so every year 520.000Km³ water from the surface. The exact figures are 505,000 cubic kilometers, of which 434,000 cubic kilometers over the oceans and 71,000 km³ across the country. The lack of balance in the amount of about 36,000 km³ is the oceans fed by the rivers again.
With the heat of vaporization of 2257 kJ / kg, this results in a heat quantity of 9.8 ∙ 1023 J / a, which is removed from the oceans annually and a heat quantity of 1.6 ∙ 1023 J / a, which comes from the land, for a total a heat quantity of 11.4 ∙ 1023 J / a or 1.14 ∙ 106 EJ per year. These are offset by the sunlight in a state of equilibrium.
A deviation of annual precipitation rate to 1% (10mm per year) changed this amount of energy for the oceans by about 1 ∙ 1022 J / a. it is possible to change the heat radiation performance of 0,86W / m² oceans calculated.
The berechnetet taking into account the precipitation and temperature development energy balance for the period 1900-1998 now yields the following result:
-Between 1900 and 1945, the ocean energy amount of 1.6 ∙ 1023 J was supplied, resulting from the lower precipitation rate (average 1.2%) of 570 mm, corresponding to approximately 5.7 ∙ 1023 J, a increased due to the increase in temperature of the ocean heat radiation of about 5.6 ∙ 1023 J and until 1945 to ca.0,6 W / m², increased Wärmeinstrahlung (1.6 ∙ 1023 J) composed by increased solar radiation. The increase in heat radiation per year was about 0,013W / m².
-In The period 1945-1980, this additional sunlight rose to 0,93W / m². During this period fell 350mm more rainfall than the statistical means, that on average every year 1% more than normal. This led to a further increase in 1970 as the Wärmeinstrahlung reached the value of the heat loss due to increased rainfall, a drop in temperature. From this point outweighed the effect of rising sun and the temperature rose again.
-In The period 1980 to 1998, again a below-average rainfall of about 1% in each year recorded, during the same period the solar radiation rose to 1.3 W / m², which led to an increase in temperature in 1998 to 0.55 K.
-From 1998 to 2010 uses a stronger 1.5% chance of precipitation. A stagnation temperature continues to increase from 1998 was the result.
The energy balances of each of the periods lead to the conclusion that the effective solar radiation must be increased by about 1.3 W / m² 1900-1998. This result is also confirmed by the following considerations Albedoveränderungen and cloud formation processes.
Scattering and reflection of the striking of the sun to the earth's surface radiation leads to an average albedo of 30%. Albedo is the amount of backscattering and reflection of solar radiation by atmospheric clouds and the earth's surface, it is the heat balance of the earth does not benefit.
Stronger cloudiness leads to higher albedo values, low to lower values, the latter connected to the then higher radiation on the earth's surface.

The following figures 6 and 7 show the measurements of the Erdalbedos the years 1985 to 2010, compared to the global cloud cover 1983-2010
Fig.6 change the Erdalbedo by (Palle, E, et all 2004) http://www.iac.es/galeria/epalle/reprints/Palle_etal_Science_2004.pdf
 Fig.7 Global Cloud cover from 1983
www.climate-4you.com / images / Cloud Cover Low Level Observations Since1983 gif)
Approximately 5% change in total cloud cover have according to these results, a change in the Erdalbedo about 6% of 30 to 28.2% result. This means that each percent of change of cloud cover causes an albedo of 1.2%. The solar radiation so that changes by about +/- 1.4 W / m² from 239.4 to 240.8 W / m² and 238 W / m² with a change in cloud cover by +/- 1%.
According to the theory of Svensmark enhanced cosmic ray ion formation is responsible for the creation of additional low clouds.
Fig. 8: Cosmic radiation and cloud cover by Svensmark
Marsh & Svensmark 2003 ( DOI: 10.1029 / 2001JD001264.)
20% variation with respect. Cosmic rays mean then 2% variation in cloud cover.
Cosmic radiation is a high energy particle radiation that comes from the sun, the Milky Way and distant galaxies.
The intensity of cosmic radiation reaching the Earth's atmosphere is a function of the solar activity caused by the fault or shielding the Earth's magnetic field.
The geomagnetic index, the so-called. Aa index, is a measure of this error, and therefore a measure of the shielding effect of the earth's field to cosmic radiation. The aa index is specified in nT. Its history since 1860 is shown in the following figure 9, from which it can be seen that the geomagnetic index from a low point, which was about 1900 until about 2000 has steadily increased.
 Fig.9: The geomagnetic index
Between cosmic rays and CR aa index by Palle the derivable from the following Fig.10 context: 
CR = 5000 45 .

Figure 10. The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial low clouds and global warming </ address>

in the years 1984-1993 </ address>
E. Palle Bago and CJ Butler: Astronomy & Geophysics, August 2000. Vol 41, Issue 4, pp.18-22.

1900, the aa-index was 14nT and climbed up to the year 1990 to ca.30nT.
Thus the cosmic radiation has decreased from a value of 4370 in 1900 to 3650 in 1990, and the cloud cover with low clouds decreased when using the results of Svensmark by 2%.
As low clouds Cloud cover accounts for about 50% of the total cloud cover, it can be assumed by a drop in total cloud cover and 1990 by about 1%, which means an additional solar irradiation of ca.1,4 W / m² to 1990.
The increase from 1900 to 1998 solar activity is the sole cause of the increase in global temperature, which was only interrupted by periods of high rainfall in the years 1945-1970.
Since the year 1998, the sunspot activity drops significantly and reached by Cycle 24 values ​​similar to those in 1900. The cosmic radiation increases and leads to increased rainfall.
In the coming years is expected to aa index of about 15nT, with a corresponding increase in cosmic radiation, increased cloud formation and sinking global temperature.
The increased rainfall in the period 1945 to 1970 is due to an additional source of ionizing radiation, whose origins are to be found in the nuclear tests of the time period 1945-1963. Air pollution eliminated as the cause for this period.
Huge quantities of radioactive dust and finely divided matter were thrown by the explosions into the stratosphere, distributed with the air currents around the world and were a constant source of ionizing micro dust for the formation of condensation nuclei in the troposphere.
Between 1951 and 1963, z. B. the strontium content increased in the stratosphere constantly with corresponding effects on weather patterns and took off in 1963 after the nuclear test stop slowly to 1974 again.
It was not until 1974 that source is nuclear radiation dries up and comes out of the question for cloud formation.
Between 1945 and 1974, the cloud formation is thus influenced by additional radioactive radiation that comes from the nuclear tests, an indirect proof for the theory of Svensmark. Only from that time, the influence of cosmic rays falling down again by the climate factor and the temperature increase is in accordance with the increase in solar radiation on.
From 1998, the aa index decreases and reaches 2010 levels by 15 that existed in the early 19th century. The cosmic rays, and thus the cloud cover increase since that time. The solar radiation additional drops to values ​​that prevailed at the beginning of the 20th century. This leads to a decline in global temperature. When this development comes to a standstill depends solely on the history of solar activity.
(A more detailed description can be used as pdf - load file)