Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion:

[daveman]

This is one of biggest blunders of your climate science warriors. You cannot reach a new thermal equilibrium of an object the size of the Earth instantaneously.. Just like you cannot turn the stove to HIGH and boil a gallon of water instantaneouly..
AND YET -- That was climate science in the 80s and 90s -- totally ignoring thermal inertia of the Earth and even CLAIMING that new thermal equilibria to a step change in forcing functions were "in the span of a year".. They were attacked viciously on this point in the early 2000s and several studies developed "thermal mass models" that had time constants to equilibrium of about 10 --> 50 years.. And essentiallly conceded that this was indeed part of the macroscope of the climate model..
So the VAST MAJORITY of Climate Science still considers that a forcing function has a very IMMEDIATE affect on surface temperatures and thus have served you and the other warmers very poorly..
NOW ----- with the MIRACULOUS DISCOVERY (about 40 yrs too late) that indeed the OCEANS are a VAST heat sink and storage element --- these cats are deep hurt.. Because the physics of a thin warming layer at the surface and TRANSPORT into 700meters deep to "hide there" doesn't HAPPEN in a short time span.. Because ---- as FlaCalTenn likes to point out --- STORAGE ELEMENTS mean that the system can CONTINUE TO RISE in temperature even if the forcing stays PUT at a constant step up in energy input..
Thus -- your observation about temperature "not tracking TSI" is about as childish an expectation as science has ever witnessed in my lifetime..
RIGHT NOW --- we are at a historically high solar Maximum for our era.. It PAUSED about 30 years ago.. BUT REMAINS at that high level..
And even with the 20 yr old 10 ---> 50 yr thermal time constants -- the temperature COULD STILL be rising. Just like the temperature of that pot of water on the stove.
You got Sesame Street from the Climate Scientists for 40 yrs --- but they are growing up slowly --- and this GIANT FIB that the Earths temperature chart has to look EXACTLY LIKE the input(s) --- is childish and laughable..
Look at the TSI vs Temperature relationship again.. Rising since the 1700s, matching nicely but not completely until the TSI PAUSED in the late 1980s.. And the temperature "OVERSHOOTING" for about 30 years before PAUSING itself..
That's how a big Thermal Mass like the Earth should roll.. Outside of Saturday Morning childrens' TV............

Just more of fecalhead's delusional pseudo-science, and more evidence of just how extremely afflicted he is by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Really? You disagree?

Then you believe an object the size of the Earth CAN reach a new thermal equilibrium instantaneously.

That is astoundingly stupid.

 

[Abraham3]

This is one of biggest blunders of your climate science warriors. You cannot reach a new thermal equilibrium of an object the size of the Earth instantaneously.. Just like you cannot turn the stove to HIGH and boil a gallon of water instantaneouly..
AND YET -- That was climate science in the 80s and 90s -- totally ignoring thermal inertia of the Earth and even CLAIMING that new thermal equilibria to a step change in forcing functions were "in the span of a year".. They were attacked viciously on this point in the early 2000s and several studies developed "thermal mass models" that had time constants to equilibrium of about 10 --> 50 years.. And essentiallly conceded that this was indeed part of the macroscope of the climate model..
So the VAST MAJORITY of Climate Science still considers that a forcing function has a very IMMEDIATE affect on surface temperatures and thus have served you and the other warmers very poorly..
NOW ----- with the MIRACULOUS DISCOVERY (about 40 yrs too late) that indeed the OCEANS are a VAST heat sink and storage element --- these cats are deep hurt.. Because the physics of a thin warming layer at the surface and TRANSPORT into 700meters deep to "hide there" doesn't HAPPEN in a short time span.. Because ---- as FlaCalTenn likes to point out --- STORAGE ELEMENTS mean that the system can CONTINUE TO RISE in temperature even if the forcing stays PUT at a constant step up in energy input..
Thus -- your observation about temperature "not tracking TSI" is about as childish an expectation as science has ever witnessed in my lifetime..
RIGHT NOW --- we are at a historically high solar Maximum for our era.. It PAUSED about 30 years ago.. BUT REMAINS at that high level..
And even with the 20 yr old 10 ---> 50 yr thermal time constants -- the temperature COULD STILL be rising. Just like the temperature of that pot of water on the stove.
You got Sesame Street from the Climate Scientists for 40 yrs --- but they are growing up slowly --- and this GIANT FIB that the Earths temperature chart has to look EXACTLY LIKE the input(s) --- is childish and laughable..
Look at the TSI vs Temperature relationship again.. Rising since the 1700s, matching nicely but not completely until the TSI PAUSED in the late 1980s.. And the temperature "OVERSHOOTING" for about 30 years before PAUSING itself..
That's how a big Thermal Mass like the Earth should roll.. Outside of Saturday Morning childrens' TV............

Just more of fecalhead's delusional pseudo-science, and more evidence of just how extremely afflicted he is by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Really? You disagree?

Then you believe an object the size of the Earth CAN reach a new thermal equilibrium instantaneously.

That is astoundingly stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what's the lag in effect from the seasonal changes in the sun's angle of incidence?

A week?

 

[daveman]

Just more of fecalhead's delusional pseudo-science, and more evidence of just how extremely afflicted he is by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Really? You disagree?

Then you believe an object the size of the Earth CAN reach a new thermal equilibrium instantaneously.

That is astoundingly stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what's the lag in effect from the seasonal changes in the sun's angle of incidence?

A week?

Three to four weeks. But remember, that's based only only ONE variable.

The planet's entire atmosphere and oceans have literally MILLIONS of variables. The insistence that CO2 is the only one of importance is silly.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Hansen believes we're the warmest within the Holocene.

Hansen believes anything that will keep the attention and the money rolling in.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just more of fecalhead's delusional pseudo-science, and more evidence of just how extremely afflicted he is by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Really? You disagree?

Then you believe an object the size of the Earth CAN reach a new thermal equilibrium instantaneously.

That is astoundingly stupid.

Just out of curiosity, what's the lag in effect from the seasonal changes in the sun's angle of incidence?

A week?

Oh probably more 45 to 60 days.. But that's not the same. THERE you have MASSIVE changes in solar flux -- measured in double digit percentages.. The kinda of percentage we're looking at in Global Warming is about 0.1%... Major diff..

And anyway -- seasons dont' really bugger a "global yearly average" do they? Not in any large LONG TERM way -- so maybe their effective LENGTHS are changed by GW, but it's not "climate change"...

 

[flacaltenn]

Grow up... Get a clue.. I work too hard to tolerate this abuse..

Don't know why I persist.. But perhaps you're just a test market to see how elementary I have to get
to point out these science facts to warmers. Evidentally --- I've not reached the level of simplicity for that
audience. I'll keep trying...

keep up the good work flac. the message IS getting out to the general public, and they are starting to grasp that most of this CAGW nonsense is just unsubstantiated crap. there is a huge gap between the equivical evidence available and the unequivical conclusions that so many climate science 'scientists' come up with.

as far as solar output goes....what is the breakeven point? most of the 20th century was at a solar maximum, at least compared to our historical observations. is TSI the important measurement, or is it some subset of solar output? unlike the longwave restricted by CO2, solar energy is capable of doing work and changing parts of the equilibriums that control climate. it seems patently clear to me that many natural factors affecting temperature have changed in the past and are continuing to change today. unfortunately climate scientists and their models have effectively removed the vast majority of this natural variation from their calculations because they dont understand them and havent a clue as to how to incorporate them into models. ***when you falsely ignore all factors other than the ones you are interested in, the variance is exaggeratedly attributed to the factors you retained***. this was itfitzme's major mistake when he swore up and down that temperature increases were caused by CO2 because the correlation was ~0.8.

There's a whole topic of systems analysis that deals with taking apart complex systems and attempting to estimate causality of each one. UNFORTUNATELY -- for itfitzme, that's not done with simple correlation coefficients. I find it odd that there's not HUGE PUBLIC DEBATES about "global models" of economic theory. SOMEWHERE, theres a macro-econ team using Annual Global GDP as a measurement of economic health and I'm SURE that metric correlates well with "SIZE OF GOVT".. But yet -- we're not being constantly preached to about how the size of govt is the ONLY important variable in the system. Hope I didn't just create another propaganda meme...

EVEN IF -- the solar forcing remains "stalled" at some value. In terms of the stove analogy, if you had a high speed fan taking heat from the pot as quickly as the burner put it in --- the pot would never boil even at a max setting. But ANY reduction in that fulcrum point will EVENTUALLY get the water hot.

as a lukewarmer I feel that CO2 must make at least a small difference. how could it not? I also feel that there should be more cooling with solar, PDO and AMO all going 'down'. is it manipulated records? yes, to a certain extent but satellites are staying in place. is it just a lag? that is probably a large part of it. in much the same way that warmers have been found less than accurate by actual observations, skeptics should worry that without cooling for the next couple of decades then their premise might be wrong as well. mind you we dont make predictions or program million dollar models to run on billion dollar computers but the inference is there. unfortunately cooling is worse for the world than warming.

Yeah -- that's true. If temperatures were to LAG solar forcings by a couple decades, when the solar forcing STALLS (like in the 80s) --- the rise rate that continued would be expected to exponentially decrease. And EVENTUALLY -- you'd get a new de facto equilibrium temperature. What's fascinating is that some systems will overshoot (underdamped) and some systems will exponentially slow (overdamped) and some systems will oscillate for a long time before dying down to a new value (marginally stable). THAT'S what systems theory says about the response to step change in input.. Climate science hasn't gotten that far..

I think Judith Curry et al are the CLOSEST in the climate community to open-minded solutions of the real climate system. In their recent (poorly named) Stadium Wave papers, they describe mechanisms whereby an event like a BIG THAW of the Arctic ice cap opens up the "cold communication" with the major oceans. The outlets of the Arctic Ocean are more able to equalize with the Atlantic/Pacific basins. THEIR thinking is that this is part of a conveyor system for system heating and cooling that takes DECADES to change the "ocean storage" to an appreciable degree. This is GROWN-UP climate science..

So the beauty of this is --- PERHAPS the melting of the Arctic acts as a pressure valve on Ocean Heat Storage whereby when you reach that NON-LINEAR ice melting point at the Arctic --- A LOT of cold water results in cancelling that "hidden warmth".. But doesn't happen overnight..

I've stumbled across the RARE climate science papers that describe some of these delays, and storage concepts.. And it's fascinating to watch how SLOWLY this "science" has taken up these important issues.

If the solar forcing DID have a delayed effect on surface temps.. I WOULD be expecting to see a STALL in the rate of rise about now.. Funny how that MIGHT just be happening --- eh?

But a DROP? Unless the sun goes into a HANSEN/MANN MINIMUM ((( that's my vote))) on us shortly -- it could be decades more til we see what the new equilibrium will be. Because to be honest -- a 1.X degC rise in Climate Temperature over 300 yrs is kinda insignificant in the big scheme of things..

PS --- Remember that DIRECT solar forcing -- as opposed to LongWave BackRad is a HELL OF A LOT more effective in adding heat to ocean storage. If there's a lot of heat down there -- MOST of it came from broadband solar heating -- not BACK RAD ....