AR5 Release Begins

[asterism]

Are you basing those predictions on the models that have been proven to be wrong?

That is a lie. The models have not been proven wrong.

If you don't like the way they've worked, find some that are better.

Tonight I'm particularly sick of AGW denier lies.

36 out of 38 of the models heavily used predicted much higher average temperatures than reality. That's called "wrong."

 

[percysunshine]

I see the bureaucrats over ruled the scientists again.

 

[Abraham3]

36 out of 38 of the models heavily used predicted much higher average temperatures than reality. That's called "wrong."

I thought you had some training in science.

How many parameters are available in the output of these models? One? Two? It's thousands and you know it. You could come up with some sort of scoring system to measure how well they do (and the modelers most certainly do just that), but "right" and "wrong" just don't cut it. For instance, a model's output might closely mimic the trend of observed temperature, but with a 5C bias. Is that right or wrong? A model might dance around the observed value, never matching the temperature for more than an instant but match the observed average temperature and standard deviation over some specific time span. Is that right or wrong? A model could match the average temperature and deviation but make large errors in regional predictions. And could you quantify the undefined terms we've both used such as "much higher", "closely mimic", "some specific", "match", "large errors", "right" and "wrong"? The expression that they are "wrong" is meaningless.

I am certain that the people who have developed these models are not happy with their performance at predicting the current hiatus. But, even now, 15 years into the thing, we do not have a solid understanding of its cause. It should not surprise us that the models do not include the processes that could have predicted it. The failure is not of the model-makers and it is not the in the idea that models have some value. The failure is in the lack of completeness of our climate knowledge and the improper value some people assign to model outputs.

The far more significant point is our immature understanding of the current hiatus' cause and what it means to our future. The radiative imbalance at TOA is unchanged: the Earth is still accumulating heat. Whatever the process that has caused the hiatus, it does not involve reduced incident solar radiation nor increased reradiation to space. These are demonstrable facts. Nothing has overturned the Greenhouse Effect: CO2, methane and water vapor still absorb infrared radiation. And no one has found any natural source for the increased levels of GHGs in our atmosphere. They are all still ours.

So what is it that we should make of all this? Should we claim that climate models have no value? Obviously not. Should we claim that AGW is proven wrong? No, as it has not. Should we accuse climatologists of incompetence? Not until someone can find the obvious clue(s) they overlooked. What we should make of this is that we are still in danger but there is a small chance that we may have a little more time than we anticipated to both mend our ways and to make preparations. What we should make of this is that the climate is a very complex system that requires more study. What we should make of this is that before we select our villain and pin him to the wall, we'd best understand exactly what he's made of and why he actually did what he did.

 

[Abraham3]

Why are carbon dioxide and methane (among other elements) constantly cited as the major cause for warming but natural occurrences such as El Nino and La Nina are cites as the cause for why warming has slowed down or stopped?

Because they are different classes of elements.

ENSO is a pseudo-cyclical process that significantly affects the transport of heat on Earth. The changes they make as to where the heat goes has direct effects (droughts, storms, weather pattern changes, ocean temperature profiles, etc) and may possibly affect the amount of heat that radiates to space. For example, suppose one phase of the cycle moved heat from the deep ocean to the upper atmosphere. More of that energy could find its way to space. On the other hand, suppose another phase of that cycle was doing the opposite: moving heat energy from the atmosphere to the deep ocean. Less of that energy would get the chance to reradiate away from the planet. If, as BTK 2013 suggests, thermal energy is being sequestered in the deep ocean and thus the temperature of atmosphere is not rising as quickly as it formerly had done, the net result may be WORSE for us in the long run. But I have wandered off the point.

GHGs are responsible for trapping solar energy in the Earth's atmosphere. That would happen whether the Earth's atmosphere was utterly motionless or was boiling like a forgotten pot on the stove. ENSO is one of the multiple processes that move the climate's energy about. It will effect some control over where that trapped heat goes. If it puts it in the ocean and makes it unavailable (for the nonce) to heat the atmosphere, we will not feel it getting warmer. Thus, when I say we will have to wait for the LaNina/negative PDO to cease, I do not say that those processes are the source or the sink of our warming. They are just one of the dealers shuffling the deck.

 

[SSDD]

Human influence on climate clear, IPCC report says

STOCKHOLM, 27 September - Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident in most regions of the globe, a new assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes.
It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. The evidence for this has grown, thanks to more and better observations, an improved understanding of the climate system response and improved climate models.
Warming in the climate system is unequivocal and since 1950 many changes have been observed throughout the climate system that are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850, reports the Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Working Group I assessment report, Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis, approved on Friday by member governments of the IPCC in Stockholm, Sweden.


“Observations of changes in the climate system are based on multiple lines of independent evidence. Our assessment of the science finds that the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice has diminished, the global mean sea level has risen and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased,” said Qin Dahe, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
Thomas Stocker, the other Co-Chair of Working Group I said: "Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions."
“Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is projected to be likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 in all but the lowest scenario considered, and likely to exceed 2°C for the two high scenarios,” said Co-Chair Thomas Stocker. “Heat waves are very likely to occur more frequently and last longer. As the Earth warms, we expect to see currently wet regions receiving more rainfall, and dry regions receiving less, although there will be exceptions,” he added.


Projections of climate change are based on a new set of four scenarios of future greenhouse gas concentrations and aerosols, spanning a wide range of possible futures. The Working Group I report assessed global and regional-scale climate change for the early, mid-, and later 21st century.
“As the ocean warms, and glaciers and ice sheets reduce, global mean sea level will continue to rise, but at a faster rate than we have experienced over the past 40 years,” said Co-Chair Qin Dahe. The report finds with high confidence that ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010.

- 2 -
Co-Chair Thomas Stocker concluded: “As a result of our past, present and expected future emissions of CO2, we are committed to climate change, and effects will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 stop.”
Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, said: “This Working Group I Summary for Policymakers provides important insights into the scientific basis of climate change. It provides a firm foundation for considerations of the impacts of climate change on human and natural systems and ways to meet the challenge of climate change.” These are among the aspects assessed in the contributions of Working Group II and Working Group III to be released in March and April 2014. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report cycle concludes with the publication of its Synthesis Report in October 2014.
“I would like to thank the Co-Chairs of Working Group I and the hundreds of scientists and experts who served as authors and review editors for producing a comprehensive and scientifically robust summary. I also express my thanks to the more than one thousand expert reviewers worldwide for contributing their expertise in preparation of this assessment,” said IPCC Chair Pachauri.
The Summary for Policymakers of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5) is available at IPCC Working Group I or IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Key Findings
See separate Fact Sheet of Headline Statements from the WGI AR5 Summary for Policymakers, available at IPCC Working Group I.
Background
Working Group I is co-chaired by Qin Dahe of the China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China, and Thomas Stocker of the University of Bern, Switzerland. The Technical Support Unit of Working Group I is hosted by the University of Bern and funded by the Government of Switzerland.
At the 28th Session of the IPCC held in April 2008, the members of the IPCC decided to prepare a Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). A Scoping Meeting was convened in July 2009 to develop the scope and outline of the AR5. The resulting outlines for the three Working Group contributions to the AR5 were approved at the 31st Session of the IPCC in October 2009.
The Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC WGI AR5 was approved at the Twelfth Session of IPCC Working Group I meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, 23 to 26 September 2013 and was released on 27 September.
The Final Draft of the Working Group I report (version distributed to governments on 7 June 2013), including the Technical Summary, 14 chapters and an Atlas of Global and Regional Climate Projections, will be released online in unedited form on Monday 30 September. Following copy- editing, layout, final checks for errors, and adjustments for changes in the Summary for Policymakers, the full report of Working Group I will be published online in January 2014 and in book form by Cambridge University Press a few months later.
The Working Group I assessment comprises some 2,500 pages of text and draws on millions of observations and over 2 million gigabytes of numerical data from climate model simulations. Over 9,200 scientific publications are cited, more than three quarters of which have been published since the last IPCC assessment in 2007.
In this IPCC assessment report, specific terms are used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result. For those terms used above: virtually certain means 99–100% probability, extremely likely: 95–100%, very likely: 90–100%, likely: 66–100%. For more information see the

Your whole cut and paste, and in fact, the whole report rests on a single sentence...

"For those terms used above: virtually certain means 99–100% probability, extremely likely: 95–100%, very likely: 90–100%, likely: 66–100%. "

In science, percentages have explicit meanings. If an actual scientist says to you that a thing is 70% probable or 95% probable, he implies that his statement is based on multiple strictly controlled trials whose outcome was determined by numerically quantitive data that has been assessed objectively using rigorously stringent methodology.

Personally, I would like to see the strictly controlled trials upon which they so easily make percentage based statements. Without those strictly controlled trials producing numerically quantitive data that has been objectively assessed using rigorously stringent methodology, you have nothing more than an opinion piece which is what the whole of climate science amounts to at this point in time...opinion.

 

[SSDD]

"Extremely likely".

The hallmarks of good science......

It is the hallmark of pseudoscience.

 

[SSDD]

What I want to know is When do we start warming again like in the 90s(surface temperature).

Most of the 90's warming was an artifact resulting from a methodical adjustments resulting in a decrease of past temperatures and increase of present temperatures or a complete disregard of actual temperature and the use of model output as if it were actual temperature data.

 

[SSDD]

Co2 forcing, is part of many forcings, be it negative or positive. The forcing with the negative pdo is a negative forcing. Main reason why the 50's, 60's and 70's people were screaming that our planet was cooling.

Absolutely hilarious. For decades we have been told that CO2 is the control knob for the climate....now that it has become abundantly clear that it is not, your story has morphed into CO2 being one of many forcings.....the fact is that CO2 isn't even a bit player. Atmospheric CO2 has increased 40% since the pause began....if a 40% increase in even a bit player can't induce some increase, it is time to disregard it completely.

believe the AMO caused the Little ice age as the mid term climate pattern shifted cold air over northeastern America and Europe.

A natural cycle caused the LIA just as a natural cycle brought it to an end. It is a pie in the sky liberal pipe dream that mankind is controlling the global climate.

 

[SSDD]

You're mostly right...The global warmers focused on co2 being the driver of everything, fucked them. Would of been more accurate to say it is a POSTIVE forcing within the climatic system. A growing one.

You can't even produce any empirical data to support that statement. Refer to what is required of a scientist to express probabilities in terms of numerical percentages. There have been no strictly controlled trials, experiments, or anything else that might lead to having any actual data to support such statements.

 

[SSDD]

I'd have more respect for you if you lied a little less often. You've been told on numerous occasions that natural forcings could easily overcome AGW. And you will CERTAINLY NOT find anywhere in any of the IPCC's reports ANY STATEMENT EVEN RESEMBLING your comment above.

For decades now we skeptics have been told that CO2 is THE control knob for the climate. Effectively rewriting history is no longer possible in the internet age.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth?s Temperature

Climate: Why CO2 Is the ?Control Knob? for Global Climate Change | TIME.com

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g&feature=player_detailpage]Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube[/ame]

Atmospheric CO2: Climate's 'Control Knob' : Discovery News

Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years

Care to even take a guess as to how much the "control knob" meme has been thrown around here? It was just about all that crazies like rocks posted for a while. The fact is that for a very long time you guys claimed that CO2 was the main control knob and everything else was secondary...now that it is abundantly clear that it isn't, it is damned funny to watch you twist and turn trying to modify your position and your story.

 

[Abraham3]

You're mostly right...The global warmers focused on co2 being the driver of everything, fucked them. Would of been more accurate to say it is a POSTIVE forcing within the climatic system. A growing one.

You can't even produce any empirical data to support that statement. Refer to what is required of a scientist to express probabilities in terms of numerical percentages. There have been no strictly controlled trials, experiments, or anything else that might lead to having any actual data to support such statements.

Are you actually proud of yourself for spouting such bullshit?

The empirical data would consist of the Earth's temperature trend since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the level of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere over the same time span. The empirical data would be the identification, characterization and quantification of all the climate's various radiative forcing factors over that time span.

All of that has been done. The data is widely available. The conclusion is that the primary agent of the Greenhouse warming we've been experiencing has been increased, anthropogenic CO2.

Now you'll complain it was't in a lab. Then, when we show you laboratory experiments verifying these points, you'll tell us that they couldn't possible recreate the Earth's atmosphere, land and oceans in a lab, so the results are all worthless. Right?

Surprise us. Do something else.

 

[SSDD]

Are you actually proud of yourself for spouting such bullshit?

Are you proud of yourself for being so stupid?

empirical data would consist of the Earth's temperature trend since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the level of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere over the same time span. The empirical data would be the identification, characterization and quantification of all the climate's various radiative forcing factors over that time span.

And which tightly controlled, repeatable, and objectively analyzed trial delvers specific temperature increases for specific increases in atmospheric CO2 such that a body could apply numerical percentages to their predictions?

of that has been done. The data is widely available. The conclusion is that the primary agent of the Greenhouse warming we've been experiencing has been increased, anthropogenic CO2.

None of it has been done. You can't point to a single experiment that shows that X increase in atmospheric CO2 equals Y increase in temperature....hell, the IPCC couldn't even come to grips with a number for climate sensitivity to CO2, much less say how sure they are that X will equal Y.

you'll complain it was't in a lab. Then, when we show you laboratory experiments verifying these points, you'll tell us that they couldn't possible recreate the Earth's atmosphere, land and oceans in a lab, so the results are all worthless. Right?

There is no lab experiment showing that x increase in CO2 equals Y increase in temperature. All of the experiments you guys provide show something other than warming due to specific increases in CO2 concentrations....but feel free to try and show such a controlled experiment that would allow the IPCC to state probabilities in such explicit terms.

 

[Abraham3]

Are you actually proud of yourself for spouting such bullshit?

Are you proud of yourself for being so stupid?

empirical data would consist of the Earth's temperature trend since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the level of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere over the same time span. The empirical data would be the identification, characterization and quantification of all the climate's various radiative forcing factors over that time span.

And which tightly controlled, repeatable, and objectively analyzed trial delvers specific temperature increases for specific increases in atmospheric CO2 such that a body could apply numerical percentages to their predictions?

of that has been done. The data is widely available. The conclusion is that the primary agent of the Greenhouse warming we've been experiencing has been increased, anthropogenic CO2.

None of it has been done. You can't point to a single experiment that shows that X increase in atmospheric CO2 equals Y increase in temperature....hell, the IPCC couldn't even come to grips with a number for climate sensitivity to CO2, much less say how sure they are that X will equal Y.

you'll complain it was't in a lab. Then, when we show you laboratory experiments verifying these points, you'll tell us that they couldn't possible recreate the Earth's atmosphere, land and oceans in a lab, so the results are all worthless. Right?

There is no lab experiment showing that x increase in CO2 equals Y increase in temperature. All of the experiments you guys provide show something other than warming due to specific increases in CO2 concentrations....but feel free to try and show such a controlled experiment that would allow the IPCC to state probabilities in such explicit terms.

A laboratory experiment would have no difficulty whatsoever establishing such a correlation. Expecting one to be done with the Earth itself or to somehow create a perfect model in the lab is ridiculous.

And, tell us, why do you believe it is necessary to know climate sensitivity with such precision? Would you expect a different social response to a sensitivity of 2.8 then you would get were it 3.0?

This objection of yours is complete bullshit. Even YOU aren't stupid enough to believe anything else.

 

[Abraham3]

Tell us SiD, what is it that you think the tens of thousands of people researching the climate DO every day? Do they just sit down with pad and paper and make it up? Don't be a fool (despite your proclivities).

 

[SSDD]

A laboratory experiment would have no difficulty whatsoever establishing such a correlation. Expecting one to be done with the Earth itself or to somehow create a perfect model in the lab is ridiculous.

Sure...so why do you suppose there are none?

, tell us, why do you believe it is necessary to know climate sensitivity with such precision? Would you expect a different social response to a sensitivity of 2.8 then you would get were it 3.0?

The fact that there exists no agreement at the IPCC with regard to the most important number of all (climate sensitivity) puts the lie to the whole consensus argument. The bottom line for the whole climate alarm industry is climate sensitivity. If there is no bottom line, there is only guesswork.

objection of yours is complete bullshit. Even YOU aren't stupid enough to believe anything else.

Your attempt to answer is the only bullshit around here. The wheels are falling off the climate pseudoscience crazy train....odds are good that the latest report from the IPCC is their last. Climate pseudoscience has failed.....completely.

 

[SSDD]

Tell us SiD, what is it that you think the tens of thousands of people researching the climate DO every day? Do they just sit down with pad and paper and make it up? Don't be a fool (despite your proclivities).

Too bad you don't understand the term error cascade. At this point, it is the best out for climate pseudoscience. Admitting an error cascade would give them the opportunity to save some face and begin climate research in earnest....sticking to the alarmist line will ultimately result in the fraud being exposed.

 

[mamooth]

I previously asked the cranks about how this error cascade supposedly worked. I got a couple evasions, but no actual answers. None 'em has a clue. They were given a buzzphrase to parrot, so they parrot.

At least they gave up babbling crap about the MWP being warmer, ever since that idiot mantra got so thoroughly debunked. So they're back to the mystery "error cascades" now. But they won't tell us where these "error cascades" are or how they work. It's just a matter of faith in their cult, that they must exist.

 

[SSDD]

I previously asked the cranks about how this error cascade supposedly worked. I got a couple evasions, but no actual answers. None 'em has a clue. They were given a buzzphrase to parrot, so they parrot.

You liar. You got an answer. The fact that you didn't like it doesn't change the fact that you got one. The error cascade within climate science began with a flawed energy budget based on a flat earth, that doesn't rotate and has a sun 4 times further away than the sun is in reality. It continued when researchers started substituting their own findings or judgements with those of more senior and famous scientists concluding that their own work must be error or that they must represent a consensus view.

Those errors then lead to further errors in the research that they effect. The result is that an entire field of study can spend years in the dark because they have biased nearly everyone else into a consensus view. It is what happens when public policy becomes entangled with science.


And no one debunked the fact that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature. You guys produced a couple of papers while us skeptics produced 50 or so and could have easily produced more. You are a congenital liar mamooth.....what happened to you to cause you to become such a person?

 

[RollingThunder]

I'd have more respect for you if you lied a little less often. You've been told on numerous occasions that natural forcings could easily overcome AGW. And you will CERTAINLY NOT find anywhere in any of the IPCC's reports ANY STATEMENT EVEN RESEMBLING your comment above.

For decades now we skeptics have been told that CO2 is THE control knob for the climate. Effectively rewriting history is no longer possible in the internet age.

You were correctly informed about that. CO2 is the "control knob for the climate". The climate scientists have also talked a lot about the various natural factors that influence the climate, like the ENSO variations and PDO. These other climate factors can either enhance or somewhat mask the rising trend in surface temperatures by moving the heat around but they do not change the underlying long term trend. In 1998, the strongest El Niño on record, coupled with some other natural factors, enhanced the CO2 driven rising surface temperature trend to produce the hottest year on record by a wide margin. Since then there have been no strong El Niños. The last 13 years have mostly been dominated by La Niña events. In spite of that, every year from 2001 to 2012 wound up being among the top 14 warmest years on record. A moderate El Niño following a long stretch of La Niñas pushed 2010 into being the warmest year on record. 2006 and 2009 are tied for the warmest "La Niña year" in at least the last 42 years.

The very elevated (and still rising) levels of CO2 are still trapping more of the sun's energy within the Earth's atmosphere every day of the year. Heat energy is still accumulating at a rapid rate. Scientists have said all along that around 90% of that energy goes into the oceans and only about 3% goes into surface air temperatures. For some years, scientists knew that the Earth was receiving more energy at the TOE than it was radiating away at the TOE but they didn't have a complete worldwide network of instrumentation that could measure just where all that heat energy was going. They knew that sea surface temperatures were rising but it wasn't until the more recent development of a network of deep ocean sensors that they were able to determine how much the deep ocean waters have warmed. They can now balance the Earth's radiation budget and say with some certainty that more thermal energy has been transferred to the ocean depths in the last decade or so than was the case in the 1980s and 90s due to the the multiple and prolonged La Niña events that have dominated over the last decade or so. None of that has changed the very basic fact that CO2 is the control knob for the climate.

You denier cultists, and the FFI propagandists who pull your strings, now want to try to focus attention on just the surface temperature record exclusively and ignore all of the other data indicative of a warming planet, like rising ocean temperatures, melting ice all around the world (mountain glaciers, Arctic ice cap, Greenland, West Antarctica), snow cover retreat, permafrost thawing, rising sea levels, and rising atmospheric humidity levels. In a few years, when surface temperatures start setting new record highs again, you will undoubtedly find some new bit of twisted pseudo-science on which to base your insane anti-science, politically/economically driven denial of reality.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/la09300d.html

This paper talks about CO2 being the most important of the greenhouse gases, not the effects of other climate factors, like ENSO, relative to CO2.

Abstract

Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can, and does. Non-condensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth?s Temperature

Climate: Why CO2 Is the ?Control Knob? for Global Climate Change | TIME.com

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/

Richard Alley: "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" - YouTube

Atmospheric CO2: Climate's 'Control Knob' : Discovery News

Carbon Dioxide the Dominant Control on Global Temperature and Sea Level Over the Last 40 Million Years

All of these papers are about the same scientific comparison between CO2 and water vapor. They have nothing to do with the other natural climate factors that affect surface air temperatures. The existence of these other factors that can enhance or temporarily mask the greenhouse gas effects doesn't change the scientific fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the main control knob affecting the Earth's climate.

Care to even take a guess as to how much the "control knob" meme has been thrown around here? It was just about all that crazies like rocks posted for a while. The fact is that for a very long time you guys claimed that CO2 was the main control knob and everything else was secondary...now that it is abundantly clear that it isn't, it is damned funny to watch you twist and turn trying to modify your position and your story.

Wrong again, SSooooDDuuumb. CO2 is still the control knob on the climate and "everything else" is still "secondary". The only thing "abundantly clear" is that you still have your head jammed firmly up your ass. Scientists are still saying what they've been saying all along. CO2 dominates and other factors merely modify temporarily.

 

[mamooth]

The error cascade within climate science began with a flawed energy budget based on a flat earth, that doesn't rotate and has a sun 4 times further away than the sun is in reality.

Congratulations on growing a pair and finally answering.

Of course, you then spoil it with stupidity. According to your whackaloon theory, all AGW science across the planet is based on your single fantasy model. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ...

And it's not even an error cascade, which would require the erroneous output of one process being fed into another. That's not happening, so it's not an error cascade. "Bias" and "error cascade" are two different things. Even if your bizarre conspiracy was true, it still only describes "bias".

And no one debunked the fact that the MWP was warmer than the present and global in nature. You guys produced a couple of papers while us skeptics produced 50 or so and could have easily produced more.

No, people copied a linked list of forged outcomes from a crank denialist site, most of which didn't even say what was claimed. Not only was it often false, it was brazen cherrypicking, and a major logic failure. It takes a serious 'tard to claim that a higher temp for one year at a single location means the MWP was warmer. It still takes a serious 'tard to claim that 50 such examples -- many false, and all from wildly varying years -- means the MWP was warmer, given the thousands of proxy measurements out there.

Being I'm not into pseudoscience, I look at summary reports instead of cherrypicking. Let's do that again, since no denialist would talk about it the first time. (It's good to be on the rational side, since I just have to point to the actual data to "win".)

Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia : Nature Geoscience : Nature Publishing Group

That's the 2013 Pages2K study, a collaboration of 60 scientific institutes around the globe to recreate the past 2000 years of global temperature, using every proxy they could get their hands on. It covers the whole globe except Africa, where the proxies were too sparse. The tiny chart there is a bit hard to read, but the error-bar graph there below the colored line graphs is what the study found, showing the current global average temps are significantly higher than the MWP temps. What's more, it has nothing do do with Dr. Mann, so you can't invoke that demon to cover your retreat.

So, is every scientific institution across the planet in on a vast deception here? If so, point directly to where this deception occurred. No, don't just claim all the data must be forged because your conspiracy says so. Show exactly where the data was forged. At least explain why your cherrypicking is superior to the studies that don't cherrypick.

And when you get done with that, explain why your supposed centuries of massive global heating produced no significant sea level rise. A slight rise consistent with the ongoing slight rise following the ice age, but no acceleration at all, nothing like the acceleration of sea level rise now occurring with the current heating. How was it that all this heat failed to melt any ice or make seawater expand?