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

[daveman]

Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant - See more at: Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant

We have somewhat reliable global scale land surface and sea surface temperature measurements since about 1880. We have lower troposphere satellite temperature measurements since 1979. We have ice core CO2 measurements and real atmospheric CO2 measurements that overlap and agree at the overlap for this time span. There is general agreement that CO2 was not responsible for warming before World War II. Here is a plot of that history.

--

CO2 has not been, and will not be, the driver of temperature. Clearly ocean and solar radiance cycles drive temperature, and then temperature (short term) and fossil carbon use (longer term) drives CO2.​

Stick a fork in the AGW fantasy. It's done.

 

[edthecynic]

Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant - See more at: Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant

We have somewhat reliable global scale land surface and sea surface temperature measurements since about 1880. We have lower troposphere satellite temperature measurements since 1979. We have ice core CO2 measurements and real atmospheric CO2 measurements that overlap and agree at the overlap for this time span. There is general agreement that CO2 was not responsible for warming before World War II. Here is a plot of that history.

--

CO2 has not been, and will not be, the driver of temperature. Clearly ocean and solar radiance cycles drive temperature, and then temperature (short term) and fossil carbon use (longer term) drives CO2.​

Stick a fork in the AGW fantasy. It's done.

Actually, a more honest "conclusion" would be "Natural Factors USED TO BE Dominant."

Natural factors used to produce cooling cycles in between the warm cycles, but for the last 100 years there have been no cooling cycles. Greenhouse gasses have fully offset the natural cooling cycles producing flat cycles between ever increasing warm cycles, when the natural warming combines with the warming from greenhouse gasses, with each new warm cycle beginning where the last warm cycle left off.

 

[Old Rocks]

A blog, eh? How about seeing what real scientists that work both in the field and the lab have to say? The American Geophysical Union has more scientists working on global warming and climate change than any other scientific organization in the world. Dr. Richard Alley has worked both in the Arctic in and in the lab on the matter of climate change and the cryosphere. As one would expect from one of the world's premier glacialogists.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_-8u86R3Yc]AGU Chapman Conference -- Climate Science: Richard Alley - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daveman]

Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant - See more at: Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant

We have somewhat reliable global scale land surface and sea surface temperature measurements since about 1880. We have lower troposphere satellite temperature measurements since 1979. We have ice core CO2 measurements and real atmospheric CO2 measurements that overlap and agree at the overlap for this time span. There is general agreement that CO2 was not responsible for warming before World War II. Here is a plot of that history.

--

CO2 has not been, and will not be, the driver of temperature. Clearly ocean and solar radiance cycles drive temperature, and then temperature (short term) and fossil carbon use (longer term) drives CO2.​

Stick a fork in the AGW fantasy. It's done.

Actually, a more honest "conclusion" would be "Natural Factors USED TO BE Dominant."

Natural factors used to produce cooling cycles in between the warm cycles, but for the last 100 years there have been no cooling cycles. Greenhouse gasses have fully offset the natural cooling cycles producing flat cycles between ever increasing warm cycles, when the natural warming combines with the warming from greenhouse gasses, with each new warm cycle beginning where the last warm cycle left off.

Yeah, not really.

 

[daveman]

A blog, eh? How about seeing what real scientists that work both in the field and the lab have to say? The American Geophysical Union has more scientists working on global warming and climate change than any other scientific organization in the world. Dr. Richard Alley has worked both in the Arctic in and in the lab on the matter of climate change and the cryosphere. As one would expect from one of the world's premier glacialogists.

AGU Chapman Conference -- Climate Science: Richard Alley - YouTube

Alley has been an AGW advocate for years. It's not like he's going to come to any conclusions that would counter his previous findings.

 

[daveman]

To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes

Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed. Maybe that is because the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically. That means there is a natural limit to how much increased CO2 can effectively warm the planet, which would be well before any of the supposed climate catastrophes the warming hysterics have tried to use to shut down capitalist prosperity.​

 

[Abraham3]

Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant - See more at: Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant

We have somewhat reliable global scale land surface and sea surface temperature measurements since about 1880. We have lower troposphere satellite temperature measurements since 1979. We have ice core CO2 measurements and real atmospheric CO2 measurements that overlap and agree at the overlap for this time span. There is general agreement that CO2 was not responsible for warming before World War II. Here is a plot of that history.

--

CO2 has not been, and will not be, the driver of temperature. Clearly ocean and solar radiance cycles drive temperature, and then temperature (short term) and fossil carbon use (longer term) drives CO2.​

Stick a fork in the AGW fantasy. It's done.

Actually, a more honest "conclusion" would be "Natural Factors USED TO BE Dominant."

Natural factors used to produce cooling cycles in between the warm cycles, but for the last 100 years there have been no cooling cycles. Greenhouse gasses have fully offset the natural cooling cycles producing flat cycles between ever increasing warm cycles, when the natural warming combines with the warming from greenhouse gasses, with each new warm cycle beginning where the last warm cycle left off.

Yeah, not really.

Mr Caryl (the NoTrickZone house graphmaker) claims it is broadly accepted that CO2 provided no warming before WWII. That is patently false as CO2 has been warming the planet for millions of years. Without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, our average temperature would be a good 50F colder than it is.

Obviously, the sun's irradiance levels have an effect on our temperature and over the long run temperature and TSI align quite well. Over the last 150 years, however - a span Mr Caryl did not seem to wish to examine in detail - the correlation between TSI and temperature has been quite poor. That is simply because greenhouse warming overcame TSI variations. TSI was dropping for much of the period over which Earth's temperatures were rising. The amount of warming provided by the CO2 in the atmosphere and the changes in TSI are both calculable from first order measurements. The changes in TSI were not of sufficient magnitude to cause the observed warming. The infrared radiation trapped by the greenhouse effect working with increased GHGs was.

 

[RollingThunder]

Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant - See more at: /notrickszone.com/2013/12/10/
Stick a fork in the AGW fantasy. It's done.

Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of DaveDumb's Posts Clearly Points To One Inescapable Conclusion:

DaveDumb is a clueless brainwashed anti-science idiot who is so extremely confused and befuddled that he imagines that the braindead drivel he scrapes off of some denier cult blog is accurate scientific information, while simultaneously rejecting all of the actual scientific facts from real climate scientists because he believes they are all involved in a huge worldwide conspiracy to deceive him about the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes. He appears to be somewhat insane and he exemplifies the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

 

[daveman]

Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of Historical Data Clearly Points To One Conclusion: Natural Factors Are Dominant - See more at: /notrickszone.com/2013/12/10/
Stick a fork in the AGW fantasy. It's done.

Analysis Of Entire Inventory Of DaveDumb's Posts Clearly Points To One Inescapable Conclusion:

DaveDumb is clueless brainwashed anti-science idiot who is so extremely confused and befuddled that he imagines that the braindead drivel he scrapes off of some denier cult blog is accurate scientific information, while simultaneously rejecting all of the actual scientific facts from real climate scientists because he believes they are all involved in a huge worldwide conspiracy to deceive him about the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming and its associated climate changes. He appears to be somewhat insane and he exemplifies the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

Or maybe you're just full of shit.

Yes, that seems far more likely.

 

[Kosh]

You have to remember that the same people who are against real science are the same ones who support the hockey stick farce.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You can find dozens or nearly all of the proxy record going back 1,000 years close to the hockey stick.

Must be one hell of a fraud.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Hide the decline!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4]Censoring The Decrease in Global Temperatures - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

You can find dozens or nearly all of the proxy record going back 1,000 years close to the hockey stick.

Must be one hell of a fraud.

If that's true why did the IPCC drop the graph?

 

[RollingThunder]

You can find dozens or nearly all of the proxy record going back 1,000 years close to the hockey stick.

Must be one hell of a fraud.

If that's true why did the IPCC drop the graph?

Perhaps they considered it superfluous at this point. Or perhaps some weird political pressures from some member countries. In any case, the conclusions that the 'hockey stick' graph visually depicts are even stronger and now extend even farther into the past.

In the latest report there is a highlighted box in the “Summary for Policy Makers” which states the following:

"In the northern Hemisphere, the period 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years."

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hansen believes we're the warmest within the Holocene.

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually, a more honest "conclusion" would be "Natural Factors USED TO BE Dominant."

Natural factors used to produce cooling cycles in between the warm cycles, but for the last 100 years there have been no cooling cycles. Greenhouse gasses have fully offset the natural cooling cycles producing flat cycles between ever increasing warm cycles, when the natural warming combines with the warming from greenhouse gasses, with each new warm cycle beginning where the last warm cycle left off.

Yeah, not really.

Mr Caryl (the NoTrickZone house graphmaker) claims it is broadly accepted that CO2 provided no warming before WWII. That is patently false as CO2 has been warming the planet for millions of years. Without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, our average temperature would be a good 50F colder than it is.

Obviously, the sun's irradiance levels have an effect on our temperature and over the long run temperature and TSI align quite well. Over the last 150 years, however - a span Mr Caryl did not seem to wish to examine in detail - the correlation between TSI and temperature has been quite poor. That is simply because greenhouse warming overcame TSI variations. TSI was dropping for much of the period over which Earth's temperatures were rising. The amount of warming provided by the CO2 in the atmosphere and the changes in TSI are both calculable from first order measurements. The changes in TSI were not of sufficient magnitude to cause the observed warming. The infrared radiation trapped by the greenhouse effect working with increased GHGs was.

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............

 

[RollingThunder]

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.

 

[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...

 

[IanC]

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.

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.

 

[daveman]

You can find dozens or nearly all of the proxy record going back 1,000 years close to the hockey stick.

Must be one hell of a fraud.

If you cherry-pick your data, you can prove anything you want.