Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Abraham3]

You may wish to torture yourself through the threads linked below. They are busily mangling scence, in a feable attempt to "prove" AWG and climate change is not a fact.

One doesn't think plants get their carbon from CO2, after all, it isn't the CO2 cycle, it is the CARBON cycle. Then there is an attempt at applying thermodynamics to individual atoms and molecules.

Of course, you may have caught a clue that one member's entire schtick is to ask non-sequiter questions while having little actual information to provide. He "thinks" he is magically beaming the answer into your head.

You'll love it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...dioxide-to-the-atmosphere-is-what-we-155.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/297165-the-global-warming-thread-is-it-for-real.html

Thanks for the welcome and the links.

 

[Abraham3]

most of the hotest years on record are during the 21st century.

Yes they are.

I know this is off topic, but can I ask you in what sense you are a "defeater of Zionists"?

 

[flacaltenn]

A bunch of signal processing expertise says you're wrong about devining stuff from a 300 yr resolution record. If temperatures rose and fell within 300 yrs, you STILL would have no knowledge of them.

My point was that such a blip could not take place within 300 years. A thousand would be a good MINIMUM. There is no mechanism to rid the atmosphere of GHGs nor for the oceans to cool in anywhere near enough time.

That's a pretty heady assumption given what we know about volcanic activity, and sudden changes in cooling like occured in the 1700s..

I am a former submarine sonar technician with a degree in Ocean Engineering. I've been working in naval sensor system performance analysis for many years. I have some familiarity with signal processing.
We share some background on that. Lots of work on pattern matching, spectral analysis, machine intel, ect.. Did work with DARPA to use optical computing for sonar ambiguity diagrams and spectral waterfalls and pattern patching.

That would be called aliasing. You might even see transients shorter than that period in the data that don't really exist. Which is the main prob with using ice cores to make your assertion.

Shakun and Marcott used a large number of disparate proxies and assembled their data with some very sophisticated functions. The 300 year resolution of their data is quite robust.

No it isn't.. It's based on snail holes, tree rings, and hope. The variance is HUGE.

22,000 years does not take us back to the dinosaurs. It doesn't even take us out of homo sapiens.



The ice cores tell us what they tell us. Their resolution is limited by diffusion which increases with age, even at the bottom of Vostok, there is meaningful data.

But you have NO basis to imply that physics THEN limited the rate of rise but does not do so today.[/COLOR]

That's not what I said. Physics limits the rebound. The world could not have experienced a climb like the one we've seen and then cool off, all in less than 300 years.

This goes back to the fuel-air bomb theory of yours.. First of all THAT feedback is not largely CO2, but mostly METHANE.. Which has (if I recall) about 1/10 the atmos residency time of CO2. ((And even that number is still in play)).. If methane was the accelerant for the warming, there is no 100 year rebound time. The oceans have a capacity to show SURFACE temp variations of a 1degC/decade in natural oscillation, and an incredible ability to change the deep water mixing. ESPECIALLY if ice is forming again after a rebound. You know that multiplicative CO2 superpower you evoke for climate sensitivity?? Works both ways.. Take CO2 OUT of play with a cooling ocean and ice formation and suddenly the down side doesn't look as skewed as the upside temp change.
I fold my arms and stomp my feet and INVOKE Climate Sensitivity reversibility.... That's how Climate Science is done evidentally.
.



No. I'm suggesting logarithmic warming from the multiple positive reinforcement mechanisms.

Missing a quote here. Ain't gonna fetch it..

I'm afraid we do. The reinforcement mechanisms are already in swing. Data indicate that the actual, real world climate sensitivity is approximately 3C/doubling. Calculating the sensitivity parameter solely of CO2 has no value outside the lab.



Really? I have no doubt that water vapor produces an increase in radiative forcing. It absorbs infrared radiation at a tremendous rate.

One of those "I aint never seen it" args eh? During the day, clouds and water vapor are reducing surface temps. It's a well known effect, even in the Arctic that losing ice promotes increased near surface water vapor which lowers daytime absorption.
Roughly 1/2 of it absorbs during the day goes back out to space because of geometry of radiative heating. That's a crapload BETTER than 100% of incoming long wave hitting the surface.. THAT debate ain't over by far



You have mentioned these terms before. How about explaining to what they refer?

Missing a quote here .. Lost to ages..

The last time the amount of carbon we now emit to the atmosphere was released from sequestration at the rate we now do so was the KT boundary incident. The evidence available indicates that was not a good time for the biota of ol' Planet Earth

Same here...

Are you a Roy Spencer fan?

Of course.. He holds in his hands the only weapon that keeps GISS from further falsifying the future temp record.. Won't stop them from cooking the books on the 1890s again tomorrow by noon tho..

Why? And if you reject them then you have NO data past the instrumented record. Do you find that preferable?

THe proxies are OK for guessing at GROSS climate records. When fans like you suddenly start reading into them a couple decade slope on temperature that never appeared before.. I just chuckle.. Also humorous how these proxies are dismissed from South America and Africa when they are found to confirm the Med Warm Period was a GLOBAL event. That's a hoot.

So do I, but likely for different reasons. I keep hearing arguments about climate conditions in the past from folks on your side of the argument. The point they try to make with it (without hardly EVER coming out and saying it) is that if temperatures were high in the prehuman past, the current situation couldn't be caused by humans. I certainly hope you're smart enough to see the gaping logical hole in that position.



No it wouldn't.

Space based observations of TSI began in 1978 - 34 years ago. And as soon as we had direct, unobstructed observations, the accuracy of proxy data went up dramatically.
But the pkgs flown for the first 15 or 20 years were INCAPABLE of making continous REALTIME charts of solar spectrum or TSI or upper atmos conduction. When you have to climb mountains to even get an idea of what the INCOMING PRIMARY source of heating looks like --- the data gets real sparse. And 15 yrs doesn't even cover enough time to rule out LONGER periodic changes in the emission spectra or Total Solar Irradiance.

And with the "REVELATION" that earth has abundant thermal inertia ---- the "pause" in TSI matching the pause in temp rise is just as good handwaving as the fuel-air bomb theory...

I'm afraid this is something else upon which you will have to elaborate. I am unfamiliar with the concept (at least as you seem to be using it) of thermal inertia.

It's that meme just discovered by Climate Science that Global Warming hasn't paused at all, it's just hiding in the oceans. And SOMEHOW the models which were trained to focus on IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION of CO2 forcing never considered that. Well --- I'm invoking this new fangled (for climate science) thermal inertia.. Saying that we SHOULDN't expect to see CO2 forcing immediately correlated with temp rise. There ought to be lag. Or PERHAPS --- the CO2 actually lags the temp.. (I'm ok with that idea because YOU TELL ME that CO2 will multiply logarithmically SOLELY because of a temp trigger)..

Anyway, I'm invoking it here. A wild ass shot in the dark.. Like the bulk of the REAL Climatologists seem to do...

[/IMG]

THere is about 1.2w/M2 of forcing. Feel free to apply your "multipliers" to that as well since the earth's surface won't know the diff btwn 1.2W/m2 from CO2 or from the sun.. I figure that ACTUALLY accounts for about 33% of the radiative forcing we're looking for since the 1700s.. What YOUR high priests do to that --- is to say there is NO CORRELATION over the past couple decades (because TSI halted about 20 yrs ago) THEREFORE it's NOT the cause of global warming and we ain't gonna look at it..

Problem is now --- If there is a bunch of thermal inertia and the oceans playing peek-a-boo with the missing warmth --- this is ONE VARIANT that has had a pause with a delayed resultant pause in the warming.. Circumstantial? Sure.. But you can't have the High Priest mock it for NOT FOLLOWING temp year to year and YET listen to them invoke delays due to thermal inertia when THEIR little pet ideas go off the rails..

See the pause? Of course you do.. See anything in the temp record that COULD be a delayed signature of that pause? Of course you do.. Why aren't we getting coherent arguments from the Church of Global Warming..

Given you SEVERAL examples ---- just in this ONE POST --- where their arguments flail for traction and contradict themselves whenever it seems convienient..

 

[Abraham3]

I've been at this all day and this is a long one. So you're going to get a brief response.

That's a pretty heady assumption given what we know about volcanic activity, and sudden changes in cooling like occured in the 1700s..

What do you think we know about volcanic activity and sudden changes in cooling?

Shakun and Marcott used a large number of disparate proxies and assembled their data with some very sophisticated functions. The 300 year resolution of their data is quite robust.

No it isn't.. It's based on snail holes, tree rings, and hope. The variance is HUGE.

Marcott used 73 different proxies from all over the planet. Shakun had less available given the time span he was looking into. The variance on such data is going to go up with age. That is unavoidable. Their analysis was robust. They are not statistical idiots.

This goes back to the fuel-air bomb theory of yours.. First of all THAT feedback is not largely CO2, but mostly METHANE.. Which has (if I recall) about 1/10 the atmos residency time of CO2. ((And even that number is still in play)).. If methane was the accelerant for the warming, there is no 100 year rebound time.

The largest positive feedback item is water vapor. It is maintained solely by temperature and there is a VERY large sink of the material available. It's half-life is, essentially, infinite. The second feedback IS additional CO2 released from organic sequestration and from decreased CO2 solubility in the warming oceans.

The oceans have a capacity to show SURFACE temp variations of a 1degC/decade in natural oscillation, and an incredible ability to change the deep water mixing. ESPECIALLY if ice is forming again after a rebound. You know that multiplicative CO2 superpower you evoke for climate sensitivity?? Works both ways.. Take CO2 OUT of play with a cooling ocean and ice formation and suddenly the down side doesn't look as skewed as the upside temp change.
I fold my arms and stomp my feet and INVOKE Climate Sensitivity reversibility.... That's how Climate Science is done evidentally.

It only works both ways if you have a trigger for each direction. Care to posit such a trigger for cooling?

One of those "I aint never seen it" args eh? During the day, clouds and water vapor are reducing surface temps. It's a well known effect, even in the Arctic that losing ice promotes increased near surface water vapor which lowers daytime absorption.
Roughly 1/2 of it absorbs during the day goes back out to space because of geometry of radiative heating. That's a crapload BETTER than 100% of incoming long wave hitting the surface.. THAT debate ain't over by far

Better than the longwave radiation hitting a glaring white surface shrouded by the clearest and coldest of bone-dry air? I think not. And, when you say "roughly 1/2... goes back out to space", what you would more accurately say is "less than half of it goes back out to space".

Of course. [a Roy Spencer fan]. He holds in his hands the only weapon that keeps GISS from further falsifying the future temp record.. Won't stop them from cooking the books on the 1890s again tomorrow by noon tho.

I don't mean to offend, but I think Roy Spencer is a demented fool too stuck on himself to produce a valid thesis. He's a classic case of the man with only a hammer seeing all problems as nails.

THe proxies are OK for guessing at GROSS climate records. When fans like you suddenly start reading into them a couple decade slope on temperature that never appeared before..

You'll have to show me where I did such a thing because I have no such recollection.

I just chuckle.. Also humorous how these proxies are dismissed from South America and Africa when they are found to confirm the Med Warm Period was a GLOBAL event. That's a hoot.

I have no problem with a global MWP. I don't believe it happened, but it wouldn't bother me if it did. It has no bearing on the current situation.

But the pkgs flown for the first 15 or 20 years were INCAPABLE of making continous REALTIME charts of solar spectrum or TSI or upper atmos conduction.

And just how quickly do you believe TSI changes? Has the continuous recent data show high frequency fluctuations? No. So what do you believe was missed earlier? And what is wrong with the intermittent data collected? Do you have some reason to believe it's not valid?

When you have to climb mountains to even get an idea of what the INCOMING PRIMARY source of heating looks like --- the data gets real sparse. And 15 yrs doesn't even cover enough time to rule out LONGER periodic changes in the emission spectra or Total Solar Irradiance.

You're grasping at straws. Did you even look at the numbers on the Y-axis of your TSI graph? What's your percent change there? The total range of the data you displayed was 0.001285 the maximum value. If it hadn't been plotted as a whoopee graph the variance would have been invisible. Why do you think the graph I posted showed such a minimal effect? Solar variance is TRIVIAL.

It's that meme just discovered by Climate Science that Global Warming hasn't paused at all, it's just hiding in the oceans. And SOMEHOW the models which were trained to focus on IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION of CO2 forcing never considered that.

The idea of deep ocean warming is not a new concept. Deep ocean warming was most certainly considered by many people in the field. It was a common point of discussion. The data were simply not available before now. Some might argue that they're still not available.

Well --- I'm invoking this new fangled (for climate science) thermal inertia.. Saying that we SHOULDN't expect to see CO2 forcing immediately correlated with temp rise. There ought to be lag. Or PERHAPS --- the CO2 actually lags the temp.. (I'm ok with that idea because YOU TELL ME that CO2 will multiply logarithmically SOLELY because of a temp trigger)..

Have you read Shakun's 2012 work? It's primary thrust was the discovery that in several historical cases, temperature DID lag CO2 levels. It showed that on several occasions in the paleo record temperatures, elevated by some external forcing, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere which then produced greater warming than the original effect.

Anyway, I'm invoking it here. A wild ass shot in the dark.. Like the bulk of the REAL Climatologists seem to do...

Are you admitting that you do not have the support of evidence?

[/IMG]

THere is about 1.2w/M2 of forcing. Feel free to apply your "multipliers" to that as well since the earth's surface won't know the diff btwn 1.2W/m2 from CO2 or from the sun.. I figure that ACTUALLY accounts for about 33% of the radiative forcing we're looking for since the 1700s.. What YOUR high priests do to that --- is to say there is NO CORRELATION over the past couple decades (because TSI halted about 20 yrs ago) THEREFORE it's NOT the cause of global warming and we ain't gonna look at it..

TSI didn't halt 20 years ago. It dropped less than a tenth of one percent.

Problem is now --- If there is a bunch of thermal inertia and the oceans playing peek-a-boo with the missing warmth --- this is ONE VARIANT that has had a pause with a delayed resultant pause in the warming.. Circumstantial? Sure.. But you can't have the High Priest mock it for NOT FOLLOWING temp year to year and YET listen to them invoke delays due to thermal inertia when THEIR little pet ideas go off the rails..

Foster and Rahmstorf 2012. The current hiatus is the result of aerosol cooling from vulcanism and sequestration of thermal energy in the deep ocean caused by changes to the ENSO cycle. If you were of a mind, you could say that ENSO change was evidence supporting the Gaia Hypothesis.

See the pause?

Actually, I do not. Are you talking about the low end of the latest of the many 11-year cycles visible? If you think that matches the global temperature record for the same period you need a new pair of glasses.

Of course you do.. See anything in the temp record that COULD be a delayed signature of that pause? Of course you do.. Why aren't we getting coherent arguments from the Church of Global Warming..

I'm afraid I once again do not know what you are trying to say.

Given you SEVERAL examples ---- just in this ONE POST --- where their arguments flail for traction and contradict themselves whenever it seems convienient..

Please make a list and keep them clear and simple... I'm not as adept as once I was.. ;-)

 

[flacaltenn]

I've been at this all day and this is a long one. So you're going to get a brief response.

That's a pretty heady assumption given what we know about volcanic activity, and sudden changes in cooling like occured in the 1700s..

What do you think we know about volcanic activity and sudden changes in cooling?

Shakun and Marcott used a large number of disparate proxies and assembled their data with some very sophisticated functions. The 300 year resolution of their data is quite robust.

No it isn't.. It's based on snail holes, tree rings, and hope. The variance is HUGE.

Marcott used 73 different proxies from all over the planet. Shakun had less available given the time span he was looking into. The variance on such data is going to go up with age. That is unavoidable. Their analysis was robust. They are not statistical idiots.



The largest positive feedback item is water vapor. It is maintained solely by temperature and there is a VERY large sink of the material available. It's half-life is, essentially, infinite. The second feedback IS additional CO2 released from organic sequestration and from decreased CO2 solubility in the warming oceans.



It only works both ways if you have a trigger for each direction. Care to posit such a trigger for cooling?

NOTE 1

Better than the longwave radiation hitting a glaring white surface shrouded by the clearest and coldest of bone-dry air? I think not. And, when you say "roughly 1/2... goes back out to space", what you would more accurately say is "less than half of it goes back out to space".

NOTE 2



I don't mean to offend, but I think Roy Spencer is a demented fool too stuck on himself to produce a valid thesis. He's a classic case of the man with only a hammer seeing all problems as nails.

NOTE 3


You'll have to show me where I did such a thing because I have no such recollection.



I have no problem with a global MWP. I don't believe it happened, but it wouldn't bother me if it did. It has no bearing on the current situation.

NOTE 4



And just how quickly do you believe TSI changes? Has the continuous recent data show high frequency fluctuations? No. So what do you believe was missed earlier? And what is wrong with the intermittent data collected? Do you have some reason to believe it's not valid?



You're grasping at straws. Did you even look at the numbers on the Y-axis of your TSI graph? What's your percent change there? The total range of the data you displayed was 0.001285 the maximum value. If it hadn't been plotted as a whoopee graph the variance would have been invisible. Why do you think the graph I posted showed such a minimal effect? Solar variance is TRIVIAL.

NOTE 5



The idea of deep ocean warming is not a new concept. Deep ocean warming was most certainly considered by many people in the field. It was a common point of discussion. The data were simply not available before now. Some might argue that they're still not available.



Have you read Shakun's 2012 work? It's primary thrust was the discovery that in several historical cases, temperature DID lag CO2 levels. It showed that on several occasions in the paleo record temperatures, elevated by some external forcing, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere which then produced greater warming than the original effect.



Are you admitting that you do not have the support of evidence?

[/IMG]



TSI didn't halt 20 years ago. It dropped less than a tenth of one percent.

NOTE 6



Foster and Rahmstorf 2012. The current hiatus is the result of aerosol cooling from vulcanism and sequestration of thermal energy in the deep ocean caused by changes to the ENSO cycle. If you were of a mind, you could say that ENSO change was evidence supporting the Gaia Hypothesis.



Actually, I do not. Are you talking about the low end of the latest of the many 11-year cycles visible? If you think that matches the global temperature record for the same period you need a new pair of glasses.

Of course you do.. See anything in the temp record that COULD be a delayed signature of that pause? Of course you do.. Why aren't we getting coherent arguments from the Church of Global Warming..

I'm afraid I once again do not know what you are trying to say.

NOTE 7

Given you SEVERAL examples ---- just in this ONE POST --- where their arguments flail for traction and contradict themselves whenever it seems convienient..

Please make a list and keep them clear and simple... I'm not as adept as once I was.. ;-)

NOTE 8

Note1: Let's say it's the same trigger that got us into 3 consecutive ice ages. Milankovich cycles or whatever you warmers choose to handwave about.. Right now -- there's speculation that we are about to see something approximating the Maunder Min at the next sun cycle.. Maybe aerosols or other excuses that you warmers use to explain the sudden cooling now..

Note2: Nawww I'll stick with approx 1/2 since whatever is radiated from the atmos goes up equally to down. So some energy goes sideways and hangs around. But evidentually, 1/2 goes up and 1/2 goes down..

Note3: That would be the toolbox of the IPCC. Contains one hammer.. No nails.
Dr Roy has an open mind to using other tools. Hansen abhores satellites at NASA and prefers his temp data heavily spiced up.
Dr Roy does a cool job of matching the sat data to GISS raw just by simple population density compensation.. No book cooking required.

Note4: Of course the MWP matters.. Because otherwise your unprecedented warming claim becomes pretty much BS.. The numbers from proxy have underestimated the magnitude only because they exclude evidence of GLOBAL warming for the period.

Note5: In my best Reagan impersonation.. "there you go again".. What happened to the Hiroshima calculations you were touting for the GW energy change.. You only NEED a miniscule % change in Total Solar output to find the 1degF in your lifetime.. A couple posts ago -- you were lecturing me about how immensly HUGEMONGOUS a 1degF was.. Point is that change over the period of incident radiative forcing is about 3.6W/m2.. The chart show 1.2W/M2 due to average increase in TSI.. Where's the prob? 1W/m2 is a single LED per M2 over the surface.. Is that BIG like you told me this afternoon? Or small?


Note6: My bad.. Poor choice of words.. TSI didn't HALT,, it stalled out about 20 years before the current temperature trend stalled now.. Please disregard the sunspot cycles on that graph -- You know -- the part the IPCC talks about.. And pay attention to the underlying trend line.. About 30 or 40 years ago -- the TSI trend line stalled and has remained fairly flat.

Note7: Want an alternate excuse as to why the temp rise has stalled for at least 12 years? Here it is.. TSI stalled about 30 years ago.. I contend the oceans are still equalizing over 30 years (or a hundred).. But the burner reached it's set point and stuck. After delay -- warming trend flattens out --- I invoke the same energy hiding in the oceans and thermal inertia argument. EXCEPT --- my driving excitation actually DID stall out 30 years ago.. CO2 continues to build...

Note8:

1) The whole hearted use of proxies EXCEPT when it's not in their favor.. IE trying to discredit GLOBAL proxies to lower the impact of the MWPeriod.

2) Explaining that solar TSI can't have anything to do with the observed warming trend over the past 20 years BECAUSE it stalled out 20 or 30 years and refused to continue climbing with the temp record. AND THEN suddenly discovering when THEIR relationship with CO2 wasn't IMMEDIATELY gratifying and suddenly not simultaneously orgasming together anymore since 2000 or so --- they re-discover thermal inertia.. And NOW we're supposed to ignore the wisdom that warming follows CO2 year to year basis and it may lag by many decades. That's a head-spinning rejection of consistency right there.

Hypocrisy man. Excuses of convienience.. Tea leaves and bug huts.. That's what most of the CATASTROPHIC part of AGW is built on...

 

[westwall]

I've been at this all day and this is a long one. So you're going to get a brief response.

That's a pretty heady assumption given what we know about volcanic activity, and sudden changes in cooling like occured in the 1700s..

What do you think we know about volcanic activity and sudden changes in cooling?

Shakun and Marcott used a large number of disparate proxies and assembled their data with some very sophisticated functions. The 300 year resolution of their data is quite robust.

No it isn't.. It's based on snail holes, tree rings, and hope. The variance is HUGE.

Marcott used 73 different proxies from all over the planet. Shakun had less available given the time span he was looking into. The variance on such data is going to go up with age. That is unavoidable. Their analysis was robust. They are not statistical idiots.



The largest positive feedback item is water vapor. It is maintained solely by temperature and there is a VERY large sink of the material available. It's half-life is, essentially, infinite. The second feedback IS additional CO2 released from organic sequestration and from decreased CO2 solubility in the warming oceans.



It only works both ways if you have a trigger for each direction. Care to posit such a trigger for cooling?



Better than the longwave radiation hitting a glaring white surface shrouded by the clearest and coldest of bone-dry air? I think not. And, when you say "roughly 1/2... goes back out to space", what you would more accurately say is "less than half of it goes back out to space".



I don't mean to offend, but I think Roy Spencer is a demented fool too stuck on himself to produce a valid thesis. He's a classic case of the man with only a hammer seeing all problems as nails.



You'll have to show me where I did such a thing because I have no such recollection.



I have no problem with a global MWP. I don't believe it happened, but it wouldn't bother me if it did. It has no bearing on the current situation.



And just how quickly do you believe TSI changes? Has the continuous recent data show high frequency fluctuations? No. So what do you believe was missed earlier? And what is wrong with the intermittent data collected? Do you have some reason to believe it's not valid?



You're grasping at straws. Did you even look at the numbers on the Y-axis of your TSI graph? What's your percent change there? The total range of the data you displayed was 0.001285 the maximum value. If it hadn't been plotted as a whoopee graph the variance would have been invisible. Why do you think the graph I posted showed such a minimal effect? Solar variance is TRIVIAL.



The idea of deep ocean warming is not a new concept. Deep ocean warming was most certainly considered by many people in the field. It was a common point of discussion. The data were simply not available before now. Some might argue that they're still not available.



Have you read Shakun's 2012 work? It's primary thrust was the discovery that in several historical cases, temperature DID lag CO2 levels. It showed that on several occasions in the paleo record temperatures, elevated by some external forcing, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere which then produced greater warming than the original effect.



Are you admitting that you do not have the support of evidence?

[/IMG]



TSI didn't halt 20 years ago. It dropped less than a tenth of one percent.



Foster and Rahmstorf 2012. The current hiatus is the result of aerosol cooling from vulcanism and sequestration of thermal energy in the deep ocean caused by changes to the ENSO cycle. If you were of a mind, you could say that ENSO change was evidence supporting the Gaia Hypothesis.



Actually, I do not. Are you talking about the low end of the latest of the many 11-year cycles visible? If you think that matches the global temperature record for the same period you need a new pair of glasses.

Of course you do.. See anything in the temp record that COULD be a delayed signature of that pause? Of course you do.. Why aren't we getting coherent arguments from the Church of Global Warming..

I'm afraid I once again do not know what you are trying to say.

Given you SEVERAL examples ---- just in this ONE POST --- where their arguments flail for traction and contradict themselves whenever it seems convienient..

Please make a list and keep them clear and simple... I'm not as adept as once I was.. ;-)

Shakun and Marcott huh? Funny how they massaged their "study" to generate the report they wanted. The real numbers looked like this.....

Another Climate Science Scandal Brewing? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

 

[Abraham3]

Note1: Let's say it's the same trigger that got us into 3 consecutive ice ages. Milankovich cycles or whatever you warmers choose to handwave about.. Right now -- there's speculation that we are about to see something approximating the Maunder Min at the next sun cycle.. Maybe aerosols or other excuses that you warmers use to explain the sudden cooling now..

Don't assume I accept your suggestion that the world can cool off as fast you suggest it has. Even with the best of efforts, the current WARMING will hardly be over in 300 years. CO2 has a long life and the oceans an enormous amount of heat capacity. The world could not heat as it is currently doing and cool back off within 300 years. And, as has been my consistent position, it wouldn't matter if it did. You're trying to say their could be other causes to our warming. Showing instances of warming from non-anthropogenic sources indicates its possible but does nothing to show it likely. You have not refuted AGW and you have provided NO other mechanism in its place. Pardon me if I fail to abandon ship under such circumstances.

Note2: Nawww I'll stick with approx 1/2 since whatever is radiated from the atmos goes up equally to down. So some energy goes sideways and hangs around. But evidentually, 1/2 goes up and 1/2 goes down..

If we had cold vacuum on both sides, it might be half and half, but leaving the atmosphere for the land and water doesn't really count, does it.

Note3: That would be the toolbox of the IPCC. Contains one hammer.. No nails.

That's utter nonsense. The IPCC, for one, makes use of the work of hundreds of different scientists. And the number of climate change deniers with IPCC credits in the bona fides is hardly evidence that the IPCC has been exclusive in their selection process.

Dr Roy has an open mind to using other tools.

Bull. From Wikipedia's article on the man we find: "The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[20] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents."

An open mind does not ignore the scientific arguments of its opponents.

Hansen abhores satellites at NASA and prefers his temp data heavily spiced up.

More bull. Hansen started his career studying the atmosphere of Venus. He works for Goddard SPACE FLIGHT Centre for god's sake. Here, from HIS Wikipedia article:
"Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change.

Dr Roy does a cool job of matching the sat data to GISS raw just by simple population density compensation.. No book cooking required.

Spencer's work is crap. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Note4: Of course the MWP matters.. Because otherwise your unprecedented warming claim becomes pretty much BS..

I hope I don't have to repeat this too many more times. The RATE (RATE) of warming in the current era is unprecedented.

The numbers from proxy have underestimated the magnitude only because they exclude evidence of GLOBAL warming for the period.

You mentioned this before. Now, as I just pointed out, the only thing that concerns me is the warming rate, but what evidence do you believe was excluded? Are you saying that the Earth's temperature was higher than the paleoclimatologists show? That would be interesting, but I don't really care. It does not refute AGW and it does not ameliorate the risk faced by humans under a 4C rise temperature increase.

Note5: In my best Reagan impersonation.. "there you go again".. What happened to the Hiroshima calculations you were touting for the GW energy change.. You only NEED a miniscule % change in Total Solar output to find the 1degF in your lifetime.. A couple posts ago -- you were lecturing me about how immensly HUGEMONGOUS a 1degF was.. Point is that change over the period of incident radiative forcing is about 3.6W/m2.. The chart show 1.2W/M2 due to average increase in TSI.. Where's the prob? 1W/m2 is a single LED per M2 over the surface.. Is that BIG like you told me this afternoon? Or small?

As we noted above, less than half that 1 W/m*2 (which I read as a lot closer to 0.7 W/m*2 ) ends up raising the Earth's temperature. The IPCC's work does not ignore TSI. Surely you've seen this graph before:

Do you doubt the world's scientists' ability to make a basic calculation?

Note6: My bad.. Poor choice of words.. TSI didn't HALT,, it stalled out about 20 years before the current temperature trend stalled now.. Please disregard the sunspot cycles on that graph -- You know -- the part the IPCC talks about.. And pay attention to the underlying trend line.. About 30 or 40 years ago -- the TSI trend line stalled and has remained fairly flat.

That's interesting, but it does not refute or supplant AGW as the primary mover. The radiative forcing is simply inadequate.

Note7: Want an alternate excuse as to why the temp rise has stalled for at least 12 years? Here it is.. TSI stalled about 30 years ago.. I contend the oceans are still equalizing over 30 years (or a hundred).. But the burner reached it's set point and stuck. After delay -- warming trend flattens out --- I invoke the same energy hiding in the oceans and thermal inertia argument. EXCEPT --- my driving excitation actually DID stall out 30 years ago.. CO2 continues to build...

Except to support that the oceans would have to be cooling...

and they are not.

Note8:

1) The whole hearted use of proxies EXCEPT when it's not in their favor.. IE trying to discredit GLOBAL proxies to lower the impact of the MWPeriod.

If I agree to allow you that the MWP was global and reached a higher average temperature, what will you do with it?

2) Explaining that solar TSI can't have anything to do with the observed warming trend over the past 20 years BECAUSE it stalled out 20 or 30 years and refused to continue climbing with the temp record. AND THEN suddenly discovering when THEIR relationship with CO2 wasn't IMMEDIATELY gratifying and suddenly not simultaneously orgasming together anymore since 2000 or so --- they re-discover thermal inertia.. And NOW we're supposed to ignore the wisdom that warming follows CO2 year to year basis and it may lag by many decades. That's a head-spinning rejection of consistency right there.

TSI sits where it sits on the graph above because of the math; not because someone whined that it had stopped climbing.

Hypocrisy man. Excuses of convienience.. Tea leaves and bug huts.. That's what most of the CATASTROPHIC part of AGW is built on...

I find your observations of the science and the scientists flawed and suffering from preexisting subjectivity on a number of issues. The only radiative forcing of sufficient magnitude to have caused what we've experienced the last century and a half is the Greenhouse Effect from greenhouse gases that humans have put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. No climate model that fails to assume AGW has ever recreated the climate behavior of the last 150 years. You have failed to refute and failed to replace.

 

[Abraham3]

Shakun and Marcott huh? Funny how they massaged their "study" to generate the report they wanted. The real numbers looked like this.....

You ACTUALLY believe that's what happened? You reject the instrumented record? All the world's thermometers were off in the same direction at the same time?

Impressive cojones their dude.

 

[Abraham3]

A better illustration of what happens to incoming solar radiation

342 in
107 out

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A better illustration of what happens to incoming solar radiation

342 in
107 out

LOL

Really?

 

[Abraham3]

Yes, really.

 

[flacaltenn]

Note1: Let's say it's the same trigger that got us into 3 consecutive ice ages. Milankovich cycles or whatever you warmers choose to handwave about.. Right now -- there's speculation that we are about to see something approximating the Maunder Min at the next sun cycle.. Maybe aerosols or other excuses that you warmers use to explain the sudden cooling now..

Don't assume I accept your suggestion that the world can cool off as fast you suggest it has. Even with the best of efforts, the current WARMING will hardly be over in 300 years. CO2 has a long life and the oceans an enormous amount of heat capacity. The world could not heat as it is currently doing and cool back off within 300 years. And, as has been my consistent position, it wouldn't matter if it did. You're trying to say their could be other causes to our warming. Showing instances of warming from non-anthropogenic sources indicates its possible but does nothing to show it likely. You have not refuted AGW and you have provided NO other mechanism in its place. Pardon me if I fail to abandon ship under such circumstances.

Note2: Nawww I'll stick with approx 1/2 since whatever is radiated from the atmos goes up equally to down. So some energy goes sideways and hangs around. But evidentually, 1/2 goes up and 1/2 goes down..

If we had cold vacuum on both sides, it might be half and half, but leaving the atmosphere for the land and water doesn't really count, does it.



That's utter nonsense. The IPCC, for one, makes use of the work of hundreds of different scientists. And the number of climate change deniers with IPCC credits in the bona fides is hardly evidence that the IPCC has been exclusive in their selection process.



Bull. From Wikipedia's article on the man we find: "The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[20] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents."

An open mind does not ignore the scientific arguments of its opponents.



More bull. Hansen started his career studying the atmosphere of Venus. He works for Goddard SPACE FLIGHT Centre for god's sake. Here, from HIS Wikipedia article:
"Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change.



Spencer's work is crap. Sorry, but that's the truth.



I hope I don't have to repeat this too many more times. The RATE (RATE) of warming in the current era is unprecedented.



You mentioned this before. Now, as I just pointed out, the only thing that concerns me is the warming rate, but what evidence do you believe was excluded? Are you saying that the Earth's temperature was higher than the paleoclimatologists show? That would be interesting, but I don't really care. It does not refute AGW and it does not ameliorate the risk faced by humans under a 4C rise temperature increase.



As we noted above, less than half that 1 W/m*2 (which I read as a lot closer to 0.7 W/m*2 ) ends up raising the Earth's temperature. The IPCC's work does not ignore TSI. Surely you've seen this graph before:

Do you doubt the world's scientists' ability to make a basic calculation?



That's interesting, but it does not refute or supplant AGW as the primary mover. The radiative forcing is simply inadequate.



Except to support that the oceans would have to be cooling...

and they are not.



If I agree to allow you that the MWP was global and reached a higher average temperature, what will you do with it?

2) Explaining that solar TSI can't have anything to do with the observed warming trend over the past 20 years BECAUSE it stalled out 20 or 30 years and refused to continue climbing with the temp record. AND THEN suddenly discovering when THEIR relationship with CO2 wasn't IMMEDIATELY gratifying and suddenly not simultaneously orgasming together anymore since 2000 or so --- they re-discover thermal inertia.. And NOW we're supposed to ignore the wisdom that warming follows CO2 year to year basis and it may lag by many decades. That's a head-spinning rejection of consistency right there.

TSI sits where it sits on the graph above because of the math; not because someone whined that it had stopped climbing.

Hypocrisy man. Excuses of convienience.. Tea leaves and bug huts.. That's what most of the CATASTROPHIC part of AGW is built on...

I find your observations of the science and the scientists flawed and suffering from preexisting subjectivity on a number of issues. The only radiative forcing of sufficient magnitude to have caused what we've experienced the last century and a half is the Greenhouse Effect from greenhouse gases that humans have put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. No climate model that fails to assume AGW has ever recreated the climate behavior of the last 150 years. You have failed to refute and failed to replace.

You're butchering the quotes. Most of mine are missing because you're not getting that forum software cannot take quotes nested more than one level.. Makes it hard for me to even respond.. Makes it IMPOSSIBLE for others to follow.. I doubt you're doing this intentionally.. Better way is to simply to add stopquotes and new startquotes after you drop in comments. Or do as I did and place reference markers.

So many issues --- so little time.. Lemme pick a couple...

The radiation argument about the utility of water vapor stored heat.. I just spent 12 pages defending the radiative theory of the GreenHouse against slackers who reject the concept that the atmos "backradiates" IR EM energy to the ground at all. They claim RADIATIVE heat energy only flows from hot to cold.. Hope you don't have the same perception..

The Atmos radiates radiates what it's BBody emission total is.. It does that in ALL directions regardless of the destination temp.. The NET FLOWS will obey thermo laws, but when the atmos sheds heat primarily from radiation (which it does) simplistically 1/2 will go up --- and 1/2 will go down. The 1/2 that goes UP never comes back because of the temp diff. (nothing significant radiating from that direction except the original sun source) Now to be rigorous, it's line of sight transmission, so looking down you have less field of view due to curvature of the earth and such.. So iF ANYTHING, LESS of that water vapor heat goes dwn..

Re the Med Warm Period and your shouting about the RATE.. If the MAGNITUDE of the MWP event was to be CORRECTED as a Global event by the High Church of the Warming, then the RATES would also INCREASE ---- wouldn't they? dtemp/dtime remember? And it was a very SHORT event. As we speak your rate over 40 years is DECREASING year by year as time ticks off here.

Your chart from the IPCC does EXACTLY what I said was hypocritical.. All those contributions are from the IMMEDIATE time frame.. Thats what they are TODAY.. The only solar forcing they've included is from the PRESENT solar spot cycle. They are dissallowing the very "excuses" that they are making now for the CO2 forcing is "hiding". The increase in TSI doesn't even SHOW on that chart for a period of time commitant with a CLIMATE analysis.. If there is storage in the oceans for CO2 forcing, there WAS storage in oceans for solar forcing.. And YES --- those scientists are misrepresenting the thermal budget of heat energy over time.. I do assert they **** up --- and perhaps on purpose..

Where is 300 year limit on temp rates written? I've told you that the multipliers for CO2 warming are bogus. They are bogus because those frozen calthrates melting are METHANE primarily and have 1/12 the atmos residency time of CO2. Something like 7 years..

You have failed to PROVE the additional superpowers of CO2 to CAUSE catastrophic warming. We both accept a much smaller number for that effect. All you have is models that were BUILT to prove the singular driving force of CO2 --- and those are currently going thru a full scale TRAINWRECK because of the arrogance of the Climate pimps who wanted to honk their horns before they had a comprehensive climate model available..

 

[flacaltenn]

Note1: Let's say it's the same trigger that got us into 3 consecutive ice ages. Milankovich cycles or whatever you warmers choose to handwave about.. Right now -- there's speculation that we are about to see something approximating the Maunder Min at the next sun cycle.. Maybe aerosols or other excuses that you warmers use to explain the sudden cooling now..

Don't assume I accept your suggestion that the world can cool off as fast you suggest it has. Even with the best of efforts, the current WARMING will hardly be over in 300 years. CO2 has a long life and the oceans an enormous amount of heat capacity. The world could not heat as it is currently doing and cool back off within 300 years. And, as has been my consistent position, it wouldn't matter if it did. You're trying to say their could be other causes to our warming. Showing instances of warming from non-anthropogenic sources indicates its possible but does nothing to show it likely. You have not refuted AGW and you have provided NO other mechanism in its place. Pardon me if I fail to abandon ship under such circumstances.

Note2: Nawww I'll stick with approx 1/2 since whatever is radiated from the atmos goes up equally to down. So some energy goes sideways and hangs around. But evidentually, 1/2 goes up and 1/2 goes down..

If we had cold vacuum on both sides, it might be half and half, but leaving the atmosphere for the land and water doesn't really count, does it.



That's utter nonsense. The IPCC, for one, makes use of the work of hundreds of different scientists. And the number of climate change deniers with IPCC credits in the bona fides is hardly evidence that the IPCC has been exclusive in their selection process.



Bull. From Wikipedia's article on the man we find: "The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[20] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents."

An open mind does not ignore the scientific arguments of its opponents.



More bull. Hansen started his career studying the atmosphere of Venus. He works for Goddard SPACE FLIGHT Centre for god's sake. Here, from HIS Wikipedia article:
"Hansen has stated that one of his research interests is radiative transfer in planetary atmospheres, especially the interpretation of remote sensing of the Earth's atmosphere and surface from satellites. Because of the ability of satellites to monitor the entire globe, they may be one of the most effective ways to monitor and study global change.



Spencer's work is crap. Sorry, but that's the truth.



I hope I don't have to repeat this too many more times. The RATE (RATE) of warming in the current era is unprecedented.



You mentioned this before. Now, as I just pointed out, the only thing that concerns me is the warming rate, but what evidence do you believe was excluded? Are you saying that the Earth's temperature was higher than the paleoclimatologists show? That would be interesting, but I don't really care. It does not refute AGW and it does not ameliorate the risk faced by humans under a 4C rise temperature increase.



As we noted above, less than half that 1 W/m*2 (which I read as a lot closer to 0.7 W/m*2 ) ends up raising the Earth's temperature. The IPCC's work does not ignore TSI. Surely you've seen this graph before:

Do you doubt the world's scientists' ability to make a basic calculation?



That's interesting, but it does not refute or supplant AGW as the primary mover. The radiative forcing is simply inadequate.



Except to support that the oceans would have to be cooling...

and they are not.



If I agree to allow you that the MWP was global and reached a higher average temperature, what will you do with it?

2) Explaining that solar TSI can't have anything to do with the observed warming trend over the past 20 years BECAUSE it stalled out 20 or 30 years and refused to continue climbing with the temp record. AND THEN suddenly discovering when THEIR relationship with CO2 wasn't IMMEDIATELY gratifying and suddenly not simultaneously orgasming together anymore since 2000 or so --- they re-discover thermal inertia.. And NOW we're supposed to ignore the wisdom that warming follows CO2 year to year basis and it may lag by many decades. That's a head-spinning rejection of consistency right there.

TSI sits where it sits on the graph above because of the math; not because someone whined that it had stopped climbing.

Hypocrisy man. Excuses of convienience.. Tea leaves and bug huts.. That's what most of the CATASTROPHIC part of AGW is built on...

I find your observations of the science and the scientists flawed and suffering from preexisting subjectivity on a number of issues. The only radiative forcing of sufficient magnitude to have caused what we've experienced the last century and a half is the Greenhouse Effect from greenhouse gases that humans have put into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. No climate model that fails to assume AGW has ever recreated the climate behavior of the last 150 years. You have failed to refute and failed to replace.

Shakun and Marcott huh? Funny how they massaged their "study" to generate the report they wanted. The real numbers looked like this.....

You ACTUALLY believe that's what happened? You reject the instrumented record? All the world's thermometers were off in the same direction at the same time?

Impressive cojones their dude.

You're the one using sea shells and snail holes as thermometers and you have NO cajones.
Why are you citing proxies as proof --- when we have satellites? Maybe because you can fudge history?

I think we're rejecting your tales of past temperatures based on crap.. Especially when we see GISS changing temps in the 1890s and 1940s today, tonight and tomorrow..

 

[flacaltenn]

A better illustration of what happens to incoming solar radiation

342 in
107 out

At least read that cartoon accurately.. 342 is NET in.. 107 is only what is reflected. NOT absorbed and re-radiated skyward. Those parts are on the RIGHT side of the chart.

 

[flacaltenn]

So Abraham.. If I assert there's sufficient evidence for the MWP to have EXCEEDED the Common Era Warming --- what caused it? You're asking me what caused the Common Era warming. It's only fair eh?

While you're pondering, don't pretend that OTHER alternate explanations don't appear in the common climate lit. CO2 is NOT the only game in town..

I know I know --- it's a tree ring study... Do I believe it? Of course not.. But it's interesting the conclusions that are so easily lept to here --- isn't it??

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html

Solar insolation changes, resulting from long-term oscillations of orbital configurations1, are an important driver of Holocene climate2, 3. The forcing is substantial over the past 2,000 years, up to four times as large as the 1.6?W?m-2 net anthropogenic forcing since 1750 (ref. 4), but the trend varies considerably over time, space and with season5. Using numerous high-latitude proxy records, slow orbital changes have recently been shown6 to gradually force boreal summer temperature cooling over the common era. Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (-0.31?°C per 1,000?years, ±0.03?°C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records.

Funny that they say 1.6W/M2 since the 1750 for CO2 forcing.. I was quoting 3.6W/M2.. I need to check that reference. The TSI chart shows 1.1W/M2 since about 1750.. Doesn't leave much room for MASSIVE Co2 warming does it??

 

[Abraham3]

The radiation argument about the utility of water vapor stored heat.. I just spent 12 pages defending the radiative theory of the GreenHouse against slackers who reject the concept that the atmos "backradiates" IR EM energy to the ground at all. They claim RADIATIVE heat energy only flows from hot to cold.. Hope you don't have the same perception..

The Atmos radiates radiates what it's BBody emission total is.. It does that in ALL directions regardless of the destination temp.. The NET FLOWS will obey thermo laws, but when the atmos sheds heat primarily from radiation (which it does) simplistically 1/2 will go up --- and 1/2 will go down. The 1/2 that goes UP never comes back because of the temp diff. (nothing significant radiating from that direction except the original sun source) Now to be rigorous, it's line of sight transmission, so looking down you have less field of view due to curvature of the earth and such.. So iF ANYTHING, LESS of that water vapor heat goes dwn..

Re the Med Warm Period and your shouting about the RATE.. If the MAGNITUDE of the MWP event was to be CORRECTED as a Global event by the High Church of the Warming, then the RATES would also INCREASE ---- wouldn't they? dtemp/dtime remember? And it was a very SHORT event. As we speak your rate over 40 years is DECREASING year by year as time ticks off here.

Your chart from the IPCC does EXACTLY what I said was hypocritical.. All those contributions are from the IMMEDIATE time frame.. Thats what they are TODAY.. The only solar forcing they've included is from the PRESENT solar spot cycle. They are dissallowing the very "excuses" that they are making now for the CO2 forcing is "hiding". The increase in TSI doesn't even SHOW on that chart for a period of time commitant with a CLIMATE analysis.. If there is storage in the oceans for CO2 forcing, there WAS storage in oceans for solar forcing.. And YES --- those scientists are misrepresenting the thermal budget of heat energy over time.. I do assert they **** up --- and perhaps on purpose..

Where is 300 year limit on temp rates written? I've told you that the multipliers for CO2 warming are bogus. They are bogus because those frozen calthrates melting are METHANE primarily and have 1/12 the atmos residency time of CO2. Something like 7 years..

You have failed to PROVE the additional superpowers of CO2 to CAUSE catastrophic warming. We both accept a much smaller number for that effect. All you have is models that were BUILT to prove the singular driving force of CO2 --- and those are currently going thru a full scale TRAINWRECK because of the arrogance of the Climate pimps who wanted to honk their horns before they had a comprehensive climate model available..

I aced two semesters of thermodynamics and advanced heat transfer. I think I can hang with your transfer discussions.

Your first point here is semantic. The discussion was TSI and the atmosphere. Once the thermal energy has left the atmosphere for the earth or the seas, it is as lost as the energy that leaves for space. It has increased the temperature of the planet. It's source identity is gone. We cannot differentiate it on reradiation from energy conducted from the core, from energy conducted (vice radiated) from the atmosphere or energy from that campfire the kids built in the backyard last night. And, in the calculation of net radiative energy transfer, you would now have to subtract the increased radiation from the warmer Earth and Ocean from the incoming solar radiation.

Even assuming the maximum value from every MWP-era proxy around the globe, the maximum global temperature will be close to current values. The rate is dominated by the difference in time the Earth has taken to reach values then and now. We've made our climb in 150 years (and we're still climbing). The MWP took at least 500 years to reach a state a good deal spottier than the current situation. The rate will be nowhere near what we've been experiencing.

The IPCC chart is not being deceptive. It is correctly labeled. If you want to examine past values for those same parameters, you will find TSI to be even LESS. How does that help you? Your argument does not make sense. TSI has never provided sufficient radiative forcing to be responsible for the temperature increases we've experienced.

Who do you believe is arguing that there is "CO2 forcing" being stored in the oceans? If your talking about Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen, the argument is that changes in ENSO have led to an increase in the amount of surface heat being transferred to the depths. How does that help you show TSI has more power than the power meters actually show it to possess? You would need that effect to have been taking place constantly since 1880 yet it seems to have not begun till well into the 21st century.

You have told me that "the multipliers for CO2 are bogus". The problem is that your arguments have not convinced me in the slightest. I believe they are quite real. Warming from CO2 has put additional water vapor, CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Warming has melted snow and ice cover and decreased our albedo. The mechanisms you propose to counter those fundamental effects are ad hoc in the extreme. BTW, ignoring the water vapor and added CO2, the world has not run out of methane clathrates (or any of the other methane sinks made active by warming) and is unlikely to do so at any time in the next few centuries. So where does your short CH4 half life come into play? Discussions of CO2 half life are calculations of how long it will last after we have stopped pumping it into the atmosphere. If the supply is constantly renewed, the half life only provides a maximum level that can be obtained for a given resupply rate. And if that level keeps us out of thermal equilibrium, as it will, temperatures will continue to rise and the resupply rate will continue to increase.

If I were you, I'd be looking hard at the changes that have taken place in the AMO, apparently due to increasing temperature. The world has never experienced a truly runaway greenhouse effect (as has Venus) so one hopes there is some sort of mechanism to keep the thing in check before all life is roasted to a crisp. Perhaps changes in ocean circulation, both vertical and horizontal, are the key. Perhaps not.

I have a favored ditty by Stephen Crane:

"I exist" said the man to the Universe.
"Yes" it replied, "but the fact has not created in me any sense of obligation".

I do not believe in the Gaia Hypothesis.

 

[Abraham3]

You're the one using sea shells and snail holes as thermometers and you have NO cajones.

That's a bit personal don't you think. I try to respond to people in a manner appropos to their behavior. Poster Westwall - to whom my "cojones" remark was addressed - started out treating me rudely. I asked him about it and he continued to be rude. So I have no hesitation to be rude to him in return. I have not received such treatment from you before this point and was keeping myself in check in return. If that is not to your liking, do let me know. If you'd rather we maintain a civil conversation on these points (as I'd prefer), you could retract the above.

Why are you citing proxies as proof --- when we have satellites? Maybe because you can fudge history?

1) I do not know to what you refer
2) There are no proofs in the natural sciences
3) I don't use proxies where instrumented records are available
4) Satellites cannot see back in time

I think we're rejecting your tales of past temperatures based on crap.. Especially when we see GISS changing temps in the 1890s and 1940s today, tonight and tomorrow..

Was AGW refuted before those changes? Do you know for a fact that there was no valid reason to alter those values? Do you know those thermometers to have been perfect?

If you want to really argue against AGW, you need to address the fundamental basics, not carry on with all this ridiculous nit-picking. Phil Jones didn't create AGW with a trick. Michael Mann didn't create it with a tree in Siberia. Kevin Trenberth didn't create it with an XBT. There is an enormous amount of evidence that AGW by GHG emissions is a valid theory. Until you find a refutation for it (and the nits picked don't do it) and a replacement (better than 0.7W/m*2 TSI) you just don't have it.

Have you EVER considered simply accepting AGW as valid? I'm going to guess your answer would be no. Then I'd have to ask "Why not?". You tell me that I should make sure of my facts before spending billions on a response. I wonder that you think you have sufficient facts to challenge the vast bulk of mainstream science.

 

[flacaltenn]

The radiation argument about the utility of water vapor stored heat.. I just spent 12 pages defending the radiative theory of the GreenHouse against slackers who reject the concept that the atmos "backradiates" IR EM energy to the ground at all. They claim RADIATIVE heat energy only flows from hot to cold.. Hope you don't have the same perception..

The Atmos radiates radiates what it's BBody emission total is.. It does that in ALL directions regardless of the destination temp.. The NET FLOWS will obey thermo laws, but when the atmos sheds heat primarily from radiation (which it does) simplistically 1/2 will go up --- and 1/2 will go down. The 1/2 that goes UP never comes back because of the temp diff. (nothing significant radiating from that direction except the original sun source) Now to be rigorous, it's line of sight transmission, so looking down you have less field of view due to curvature of the earth and such.. So iF ANYTHING, LESS of that water vapor heat goes dwn..

Re the Med Warm Period and your shouting about the RATE.. If the MAGNITUDE of the MWP event was to be CORRECTED as a Global event by the High Church of the Warming, then the RATES would also INCREASE ---- wouldn't they? dtemp/dtime remember? And it was a very SHORT event. As we speak your rate over 40 years is DECREASING year by year as time ticks off here.

Your chart from the IPCC does EXACTLY what I said was hypocritical.. All those contributions are from the IMMEDIATE time frame.. Thats what they are TODAY.. The only solar forcing they've included is from the PRESENT solar spot cycle. They are dissallowing the very "excuses" that they are making now for the CO2 forcing is "hiding". The increase in TSI doesn't even SHOW on that chart for a period of time commitant with a CLIMATE analysis.. If there is storage in the oceans for CO2 forcing, there WAS storage in oceans for solar forcing.. And YES --- those scientists are misrepresenting the thermal budget of heat energy over time.. I do assert they **** up --- and perhaps on purpose..

Where is 300 year limit on temp rates written? I've told you that the multipliers for CO2 warming are bogus. They are bogus because those frozen calthrates melting are METHANE primarily and have 1/12 the atmos residency time of CO2. Something like 7 years..

You have failed to PROVE the additional superpowers of CO2 to CAUSE catastrophic warming. We both accept a much smaller number for that effect. All you have is models that were BUILT to prove the singular driving force of CO2 --- and those are currently going thru a full scale TRAINWRECK because of the arrogance of the Climate pimps who wanted to honk their horns before they had a comprehensive climate model available..

I aced two semesters of thermodynamics and advanced heat transfer. I think I can hang with your transfer discussions.

Your first point here is semantic. The discussion was TSI and the atmosphere. Once the thermal energy has left the atmosphere for the earth or the seas, it is as lost as the energy that leaves for space. It has increased the temperature of the planet. It's source identity is gone. We cannot differentiate it on reradiation from energy conducted from the core, from energy conducted (vice radiated) from the atmosphere or energy from that campfire the kids built in the backyard last night. And, in the calculation of net radiative energy transfer, you would now have to subtract the increased radiation from the warmer Earth and Ocean from the incoming solar radiation.

Even assuming the maximum value from every MWP-era proxy around the globe, the maximum global temperature will be close to current values. The rate is dominated by the difference in time the Earth has taken to reach values then and now. We've made our climb in 150 years (and we're still climbing). The MWP took at least 500 years to reach a state a good deal spottier than the current situation. The rate will be nowhere near what we've been experiencing.

The IPCC chart is not being deceptive. It is correctly labeled. If you want to examine past values for those same parameters, you will find TSI to be even LESS. How does that help you? Your argument does not make sense. TSI has never provided sufficient radiative forcing to be responsible for the temperature increases we've experienced.

Who do you believe is arguing that there is "CO2 forcing" being stored in the oceans? If your talking about Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen, the argument is that changes in ENSO have led to an increase in the amount of surface heat being transferred to the depths. How does that help you show TSI has more power than the power meters actually show it to possess? You would need that effect to have been taking place constantly since 1880 yet it seems to have not begun till well into the 21st century.

You have told me that "the multipliers for CO2 are bogus". The problem is that your arguments have not convinced me in the slightest. I believe they are quite real. Warming from CO2 has put additional water vapor, CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. Warming has melted snow and ice cover and decreased our albedo. The mechanisms you propose to counter those fundamental effects are ad hoc in the extreme. BTW, ignoring the water vapor and added CO2, the world has not run out of methane clathrates (or any of the other methane sinks made active by warming) and is unlikely to do so at any time in the next few centuries. So where does your short CH4 half life come into play? Discussions of CO2 half life are calculations of how long it will last after we have stopped pumping it into the atmosphere. If the supply is constantly renewed, the half life only provides a maximum level that can be obtained for a given resupply rate. And if that level keeps us out of thermal equilibrium, as it will, temperatures will continue to rise and the resupply rate will continue to increase.

If I were you, I'd be looking hard at the changes that have taken place in the AMO, apparently due to increasing temperature. The world has never experienced a truly runaway greenhouse effect (as has Venus) so one hopes there is some sort of mechanism to keep the thing in check before all life is roasted to a crisp. Perhaps changes in ocean circulation, both vertical and horizontal, are the key. Perhaps not.

I have a favored ditty by Stephen Crane:

"I exist" said the man to the Universe.
"Yes" it replied, "but the fact has not created in me any sense of obligation".

I do not believe in the Gaia Hypothesis.

Actually the dustup over heat transfer from the atmos came up in the context of "positive feedbacks" for water vapor -- not TSI..

I show you the preferred merged record of TSI.. Average increase from 1750 is OVER 1W/m2. From TrenBerth -- 1/2 of that HITS THE GROUND.. Where in the IPCC chart is THAT number? You mention TSI to a warmer and they show you a Sunspot cycle chart with the TSI removed. I believe that's what's actually in the IPCC dismissal..

Contrary to your assertion ABOVE ------

You would need that effect to have been taking place constantly since 1880 yet it seems to have not begun till well into the 21st century.

--- MOST of the TSI increase from 1700 occurred before 1900 or so.. It fits perfectly into the realization that Trenberth didn't produce an ENERGY diagram --- he produced a POWER diagram (units are W/M2).. ENERGY has a time element. Includes thermal time constants (assume them very long to equilibrium) and thermal storage (in the oceans, in the warming polar regions, in various configs of atmos composition of gases) which have largely been ignored. You "300 year LAW" of temp change invokes that reasoning.

And all these revelations about thermal inertia (heat storage, thermal time constants) and NOT expecting the temp to respond immediately are ABSOLUTELY applicable to solar insolation as well. The surface doesn't know nuttin about where that 1w/m2 came from..

MWP was NOT spotty over 500 yrs.. The proxy record isn't even good enough to discern "spotty".. Let's call it 300 years. I'll give you 100 yrs up, 100 down.. If the PEAK is comparable to the today's "anomaly" --- how is that NOT a comparable RATE over 150 years? BTW --- What caused it? Let's hear your short list of other significant forcings being ignored here..

The balance of CO2 cycling on the planet kinda echos your Stephan Crane quote.. There are 700Gtons/yr of CO2 cycling per year.. Man's bill comes to 30Gtons (also a bogus accounting that I highly dispute). We are still speculating on the limits of the sinks. Higher temps and CO2 probably is an enforcer for the land sinks. We are 4% of the total exchange. (I'd take out the cow farts in exchange for the plains full of buffalo that they displaced and not charge man for every forest fire and make that a MUCH lesser number)

Positive feedbacks are speculation.. Termites emit more methane than the current Arctic calthrate leaks. Climate science has no humility.. Believing that our 4% of the cycle is the deadly part of the 700Gtons/yr. Give me an example in the historical record of Catastrophic runaway warming fueled by positive feedbacks. ESPECIALLY one based on a 1.0degC trigger...

 

[Abraham3]

Funny that they say 1.6W/M2 since the 1750 for CO2 forcing.. I was quoting 3.6W/M2.. I need to check that reference. The TSI chart shows 1.1W/M2 since about 1750.. Doesn't leave much room for MASSIVE Co2 warming does it??

Go back to the IPCC radiative forcings bar graph and add up all the human contributions. You'll get 3.2 W/m*2. And that includes NO positive feedbacks.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're the one using sea shells and snail holes as thermometers and you have NO cajones.

That's a bit personal don't you think. I try to respond to people in a manner appropos to their behavior. Poster Westwall - to whom my "cojones" remark was addressed - started out treating me rudely. I asked him about it and he continued to be rude. So I have no hesitation to be rude to him in return. I have not received such treatment from you before this point and was keeping myself in check in return. If that is not to your liking, do let me know. If you'd rather we maintain a civil conversation on these points (as I'd prefer), you could retract the above.

Why are you citing proxies as proof --- when we have satellites? Maybe because you can fudge history?

1) I do not know to what you refer
2) There are no proofs in the natural sciences
3) I don't use proxies where instrumented records are available
4) Satellites cannot see back in time

I think we're rejecting your tales of past temperatures based on crap.. Especially when we see GISS changing temps in the 1890s and 1940s today, tonight and tomorrow..

Was AGW refuted before those changes? Do you know for a fact that there was no valid reason to alter those values? Do you know those thermometers to have been perfect?

If you want to really argue against AGW, you need to address the fundamental basics, not carry on with all this ridiculous nit-picking. Phil Jones didn't create AGW with a trick. Michael Mann didn't create it with a tree in Siberia. Kevin Trenberth didn't create it with an XBT. There is an enormous amount of evidence that AGW by GHG emissions is a valid theory. Until you find a refutation for it (and the nits picked don't do it) and a replacement (better than 0.7W/m*2 TSI) you just don't have it.

Have you EVER considered simply accepting AGW as valid? I'm going to guess your answer would be no. Then I'd have to ask "Why not?". You tell me that I should make sure of my facts before spending billions on a response. I wonder that you think you have sufficient facts to challenge the vast bulk of mainstream science.

Someone cites an obvious challenge for the proxy study you tossed out in your first posts as proof. You deflect to WestWall not trusting INSTRUMENT READINGS?? That was your dismissal of a challenge to that study.

That's the origin of cajones comment. Defend the crap you admire man.. It's all yours.. I aint buying no alkenones at the store today... If you think the Hockey Stick or Shakun or Briffa's wood carving are miraculous --- deal with it. Or at least don't tell us how great it all is if all you do is dance around it..

I'll apologize since you're new and all...