It`s easy to prove you wrong
Then why do you fail to do so?
the problem is that people like you are unable to accept scientific proof which is based on actual & measured data and yields real correlations.
Just for starters and cause this is just about my favorite nagging point: there's no such thing as proof in the natural sciences. Secondly, I have no problem accepting proper applications of the scientific method. That's why I tend very strongly to accept the views of mainstream science. You're the one that is rejecting all the actual evidence out of hand.
Your lot is hell bent to average everything that is not ppm CO2 & temperature to death, till it`s a constant "average" value, which is then plugged into these garbage in/garbage out computer models.
I have done no such thing. Models make use of lots of averages and integrals and running means and average standard deviations and floating norms and RMSs because the have to; the world is a very big place.
Thus you keep insisting it`s CO2 that drives temperature first and foremost.
The world's climate scientists tell us that CO2 is the primary driver because that is what their calculation tell them. And, as I have told you before, you're just going to have to pardon me for preferring their word to yours.
You got your heads buried far too deep in your own bullshit while "climate science estimates" have been "updated".
Your babbling.
Here is what the IPCC stated in the AR4:
Yes. I've read it
Between 1902 and 1957, Charles Abbot and a number of other scientists around the globe made thousands of measurements of TSI from mountain sites. Values ranged from 1,322 to 1,465 W m–2, which encompasses the current estimate of 1,365 W m–2
That's an 11% range of values. Yet modern measurements show less than 3% in the 11-year cycle and less than half that in the last century's change. I'd say this was an indication of some crap data pre-satellite. Funny how much that sounds like something you'd say about some dataset we 'warmers' had presented.
Tett et al., 1999; Cubasch and Voss, 2000) suggest that the changes in solar radiation could cause surface temperature changes of the order of a few tenths of a degree celsius.
Tett (
Gambassa - Ammon Tuimaualuga - web document - (Tett et al. 1999) was suggesting TSI changes affected global temperatures in the early part of the century. His paper fully accepts and supports AGW.
Cubasch and Voss were talking about the 11-year cycle when they mentioned a temperature change of a few tenths C. The two of them have spent the last several years working on SOLVO: "The aim of this project is to investigate the solar influence on climate with a GCM recently developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, USA. The model is the first that has been designed specifically to investigate the interaction between radiation, chemistry and dynamics from the Earth's surface to the thermosphere (140 km). The close collaboration with NCAR's experienced model team ensures the realization of the project which adds new aspects to previous work with GCMs looking for the mechanism of Sun-climate interactions."
Neither of these folks have said anything that would alter the current understanding of AGW. All three of them accept AGW as settled science.
So... where's your proof?
There are tons of data, but none of that will ever appear on one of these dumb blogs you keep quoting:
I've seen these plots in numerous locations. They are not being repressed.
Take another look at solar irradiance & temperature @ 1940...you know the data point you tried to use in order to "prove" that CO2 leads temperature !
Surprising that you would bring that up. At that point point in time, CO2 levels dropped and, within two years, temperatures dropped. TSI, on the other hand, chose that point in time to accelerate an upward climb. So, what correlation are you seeing?
If you only trust reconstructions that re-inforce your CO2 psychosis and have an issue with solar irradiance reconstructions there is much more recent data that show the same nearly perfect correlation...
Changes in TSI do have an effect on global temperatures but they're small ones. The actual changes in TSI over the pertinent time period simply have not been large enough to have caused the observed warming.
Scroll down column 5 and keep track how far off the "current estimate" is, which these milkmaid math computers models have been plugging in.
I can`t find even a single occurance of 1365 [watts/m^2] most are at ~ 1360 to 1361.5 which is the highest one listed.
That's right. Cause if you look at the TSI sources to which the IPCC refers, you will see the change over the last century has been much smaller than some earlier estimates - the estimates you and FCT like to use.
It takes a real idiot to try find the 1.6 watts/m^2 "missing heat" in the ocean`s depth while the IPCC`s "estimate" has been 5 watts/m^2 too high for the entire time period and data set since it has been logged with ERBS, ACRIM-III, VIRGO, ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II.
I am uncertain what you're trying to say here. If you're suggesting that BTK did not find a sharp recent rise in OHC, I would have to say you're full of __it. If you're trying to say something else, you're going to have to make yourself a little more comprehensible.
