What, exactly, do warmists think that deniers are denying?

[edthecynic]

The world had been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years, until the past couple decades.

Wait a second. Are you saying we averted an oncoming ice age?

That would be a better debating point than denying global warming!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What, exactly, do warmists think that deniers are denying?

It’s not a matter of ‘denying’ anything but rather a matter of their unfounded, unwarranted fear.

Those who refuse to consider the evidence concerning GCC have contrived this bizarre, inane notion that to seek to address the effects of GCC will somehow result in people being forced to give up their cars and live in multi-family dwellings without air conditioning under a One World Government.

The issue is one of being irrational, not being in denial.

 

[westwall]

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.

That's nice. It's still not what I'm talking about. But you make sure to have fun with whatever you're doing.

Back on my planet, which is earth, the ice age gradually ended, temps rose, temps peaked from around 8000 - 5000 years ago, and then started their slow decline.

If you want, you can save some face by declaring I should have said "8000" instead of "5000". But my point stands. The world had been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years, until the past couple decades.

The Pleistocene epoch ended 12,000 years ago, along with the ice age. Since that time we have enjoyed numerous warming and cooling periods, the HTM, the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Periods were ALL warmer than the present day. And in between were periods of moderate to low cooling, and some of INTENSE cooling such as the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and the Little Ice Age.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't even know the simple basics that any 5 year old does know.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

 

[edthecynic]

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.

That's nice. It's still not what I'm talking about. But you make sure to have fun with whatever you're doing.

Back on my planet, which is earth, the ice age gradually ended, temps rose, temps peaked from around 8000 - 5000 years ago, and then started their slow decline.

The main figure shows eight records of local temperature variability on multi-centennial scales throughout the course of the Holocene, and an average of these (thick dark line). The records are plotted with respect to the mid 20th century average temperatures, and the global average temperature in 2004 is indicated. The inset plot compares the most recent two millennium of the average to other high resolution reconstructions of this period.

If you want, you can save some face by declaring I should have said "8000" instead of "5000". But my point stands. The world had been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years, until the past couple decades.

The Pleistocene epoch ended 12,000 years ago, along with the ice age. Since that time we have enjoyed numerous warming and cooling periods, the HTM, the Minoan Warming Period, the Roman Warming Period and the Medieval Warming Periods were ALL warmer than the present day. And in between were periods of moderate to low cooling, and some of INTENSE cooling such as the 6th Century Climate Catastrophe and the Little Ice Age.

Once again you demonstrate that you don't even know the simple basics that any 5 year old does know.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

You don't know that! Again you are just using the inaccurate proxies that you agree with and ignoring the inaccurate proxies you don't agree with. The thick black line is the average of the 8 local proxies and the 2004 global average is marked on the right edge and it is clearly higher than the average of the 8 local proxies. So more of the proxies were less warm than today.

Here is another chart using 10 different local proxies for the last 2,000 years:

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years).
It is unknown which, if any, of these reconstructions is an accurate representation of climate history; however, these curves are a fair representation of the range of results appearing in the published scientific literature.

 

[SSDD]

The earth will continue its exit from the present ice age just as it has been doing for millennia

The world exited the ice age 5000 years ago. It's been heading back into one since then.

Sorry, but it didn't. The earth is still in an ice age. Here is a real simple chart for you. The earth won't be out of the ice age till there is no ice left at one or both of the poles and looking at the past gives one no reason to believe that the warming will not continue till there is no ice at one or both poles....the bulk of earth's history has been considerably warmer than it is today and the idea that the fact that it is getting warmer coming out of an ice age is somehow strange is just plain stupid.

, at least until the past few years. Then the slow cooling suddenly switched to fast warming, for reasons that no natural causes can explain.

You really think a fraction of a degree (heavily adjusted) in a century is fast warming? Is there any reason to think that it didn't warm more rapidly going into the holocene maximum...or the roman warm period...or the medieval warm period? What sort of evidence do you have that proves that the present miniscule warming is unprecedented in the history of the earth?

And the fact that for most of earth history it has been a damned sight warmer than the present.....the fact that climate science is confounded by a fraction of a degree of temperature over the course of a century is no more than an acknowledgement that they don't have a clue. Considering the average temperature over the history of the earth...the pertinent question is why is it still so cold?

 

[bripat9643]

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.

That's nice. It's still not what I'm talking about. But you make sure to have fun with whatever you're doing.

Back on my planet, which is earth, the ice age gradually ended, temps rose, temps peaked from around 8000 - 5000 years ago, and then started their slow decline.

If you want, you can save some face by declaring I should have said "8000" instead of "5000". But my point stands. The world had been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years, until the past couple decades.

You just posted the infamous Hockey Stick Graph by Michael Mann - a proven fraud.

 

[edthecynic]

The last glacial period, popularly known as the Ice Age, was the most recent glacial period within the current ice age occurring during the last years of the Pleistocene, from approximately 110,000 to 12,000 years ago.

That's nice. It's still not what I'm talking about. But you make sure to have fun with whatever you're doing.

Back on my planet, which is earth, the ice age gradually ended, temps rose, temps peaked from around 8000 - 5000 years ago, and then started their slow decline.

If you want, you can save some face by declaring I should have said "8000" instead of "5000". But my point stands. The world had been slowly cooling for the past 5000 years, until the past couple decades.

You just posted the infamous Hockey Stick Graph by Michael Mann - a proven fraud.

Nothing on that chart came from Michael Mann, a person infinitely more honest than you.

Lie....er....er....try again.

 

[flacaltenn]

Variations in total solar irradiance were too small to detect with technology available before the satellite era. Total solar output is now measured as varying (over the last three 11-year sunspot cycles) by approximately 0.1%

Great chart.. You just need a larger historical perspective on the climate..

Quite a runup on that scale.. It "paused" back in the 80s.. But delays being what they are to equilibrium on a ball as big as the Earth.. There are likely substantial delays involved in distributing all that heat.. Over 1W/m2 since the Maunder Min back in the 1700s..

Warmers LOVE to use sunspot counts, include the 22 yr cycle variance, ANYTHING they can toss out there to ignore the baseline increase in insolation...

Interesting how you have a chart going back to the 1600s when there were no instruments capable of accurately measuring solar radiation. So you are using proxies, which vary greatly depending which proxy used. No problem, pick the inaccurate proxy that fits what you want and ignore all the other inaccurate proxies.

This figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b) [1]. In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland

Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon. Present period is on right. Values since 1900 not shown.

11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction SN = sunspot number. "The tabulated years correspond to centers of the corresponding 10-year intervals. Negative values are artifacts and are consistent with zero within the error limits."

Red curve shows 2,000-year solar Hallstadtzeit Cycles.

Amazing review of insolation proxies.. But I know all that.. I tend to go with the SORCE/TIM chart because thats the one that the sattellite jockies chose to merge with their data. You missed other important historical data and that would be the reports of Londoners skating on the Thames and the summer that never was.. All occuring within the Maunder Minimum

Still im rofling that you probably have no issues withe hockey sticks of Mann Shakun and Marcott that use sparse global samples from tree rings, mud bugs and ice cores. You know the proxies which are misinterpreted as evidence that OUR warming has NEVER EVER been seen before.. Even tho THOSE merged proxies dont have the temporal resolutions to make those claims.

 

[edthecynic]

Great chart.. You just need a larger historical perspective on the climate..

Quite a runup on that scale.. It "paused" back in the 80s.. But delays being what they are to equilibrium on a ball as big as the Earth.. There are likely substantial delays involved in distributing all that heat.. Over 1W/m2 since the Maunder Min back in the 1700s..

Warmers LOVE to use sunspot counts, include the 22 yr cycle variance, ANYTHING they can toss out there to ignore the baseline increase in insolation...

Interesting how you have a chart going back to the 1600s when there were no instruments capable of accurately measuring solar radiation. So you are using proxies, which vary greatly depending which proxy used. No problem, pick the inaccurate proxy that fits what you want and ignore all the other inaccurate proxies.

This figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b) [1]. In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland

Solar activity events recorded in radiocarbon. Present period is on right. Values since 1900 not shown.

11,000 Year Sunspot Number Reconstruction SN = sunspot number. "The tabulated years correspond to centers of the corresponding 10-year intervals. Negative values are artifacts and are consistent with zero within the error limits."

Red curve shows 2,000-year solar Hallstadtzeit Cycles.

Amazing review of insolation proxies.. But I know all that.. I tend to go with the SORCE/TIM chart because thats the one that the sattellite jockies chose to merge with their data. You missed other important historical data and that would be the reports of Londoners skating on the Thames and the summer that never was.. All occuring within the Maunder Minimum

Still im rofling that you probably have no issues withe hockey sticks of Mann Shakun and Marcott that use sparse global samples from tree rings, mud bugs and ice cores. You know the proxies which are misinterpreted as evidence that OUR warming has NEVER EVER been seen before.. Even tho THOSE merged proxies dont have the temporal resolutions to make those claims.

WOW! Unnamed unknown "satellite jockeys!" That settles it!

You obviously are not interested in an honest discussion.

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting how you have a chart going back to the 1600s when there were no instruments capable of accurately measuring solar radiation. So you are using proxies, which vary greatly depending which proxy used. No problem, pick the inaccurate proxy that fits what you want and ignore all the other inaccurate proxies.

Amazing review of insolation proxies.. But I know all that.. I tend to go with the SORCE/TIM chart because thats the one that the sattellite jockies chose to merge with their data. You missed other important historical data and that would be the reports of Londoners skating on the Thames and the summer that never was.. All occuring within the Maunder Minimum

Still im rofling that you probably have no issues withe hockey sticks of Mann Shakun and Marcott that use sparse global samples from tree rings, mud bugs and ice cores. You know the proxies which are misinterpreted as evidence that OUR warming has NEVER EVER been seen before.. Even tho THOSE merged proxies dont have the temporal resolutions to make those claims.

WOW! Unnamed unknown "satellite jockeys!" That settles it!

You obviously are not interested in an honest discussion.

They are not unnamed.. Their org is in the title of the chart I posted.. If you had DuckDuckGo'd SORCE/TIM -- it would have led you right to them.. 1st hit in Google.
I'd love to pursue proxy science with you.. It parallels my speciality of Detection Theory. But all this is a bit too specific for this thread..

 

[mamooth]

Are you saying we averted an oncoming ice age?

Essentially, yes. We've probably cancelled the next ice age.

However, since that would have happened 50,000 years or so in the future, it wasn't a smart thing to do. It's like cranking up the furnace to maximum heat in June because you know winter will eventually arrive.

 

[edthecynic]

Amazing review of insolation proxies.. But I know all that.. I tend to go with the SORCE/TIM chart because thats the one that the sattellite jockies chose to merge with their data. You missed other important historical data and that would be the reports of Londoners skating on the Thames and the summer that never was.. All occuring within the Maunder Minimum

Still im rofling that you probably have no issues withe hockey sticks of Mann Shakun and Marcott that use sparse global samples from tree rings, mud bugs and ice cores. You know the proxies which are misinterpreted as evidence that OUR warming has NEVER EVER been seen before.. Even tho THOSE merged proxies dont have the temporal resolutions to make those claims.

WOW! Unnamed unknown "satellite jockeys!" That settles it!

You obviously are not interested in an honest discussion.

They are not unnamed.. Their org is in the title of the chart I posted.. If you had DuckDuckGo'd SORCE/TIM -- it would have led you right to them.. 1st hit in Google.
I'd love to pursue proxy science with you.. It parallels my speciality of Detection Theory. But all this is a bit too specific for this thread..

So your chart is made up from a computer model fudged to fit the TIM satellite data that started in 2003, it is not actual data plotted on a graph. The deniers say computer models are worthless because you can program them to give you any result you want. Below is your chart with another collection of actual measured proxy data. Why doesn't the model manufactured Maunder minimum match the beryllium-10 measured proxy data?

From the SORCE/TIM site:
The values from their SATIRE model have been offset a small amount (-0.30 W/m2) to match the latest SORCE/TIM measurements during years of overlap and then extended using SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward.

From the source of the model:
The time series of accurate irradiance measurements are, however, relatively short and limit the assessment of the solar contribution to the climate change. Here we reconstruct solar total and spectral irradiance in the range 115–160,000 nm since 1610. The evolution of the solar photospheric magnetic flux, which is a central input to the model, is appraised from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. The model predicts an increase of 1.25 W/m2, or about 0.09%, in the 11-year averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum. Also, irradiance in individual spectral intervals has generally increased during the past four centuries, the magnitude of the trend being higher toward shorter wavelengths. In particular, the 11-year averaged Ly-α irradiance has increased by almost 50%. An exception is the spectral interval between about 1500 and 2500 nm, where irradiance has slightly decreased (by about 0.02%).

This figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b) [1]. In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland

 

[SSDD]

Are you saying we averted an oncoming ice age?

Essentially, yes. We've probably cancelled the next ice age.

However, since that would have happened 50,000 years or so in the future, it wasn't a smart thing to do. It's like cranking up the furnace to maximum heat in June because you know winter will eventually arrive.

Are you really stupid enough to believe that statement. A fraction of a heavily massaged degree in a century is really, in your mind, like cranking up a furnace? You have said some stupid things in the past, but that is setting the bar at a new low. Pure unsupported alarmism...nothing more...nothing less.

 

[flacaltenn]

WOW! Unnamed unknown "satellite jockeys!" That settles it!

You obviously are not interested in an honest discussion.

They are not unnamed.. Their org is in the title of the chart I posted.. If you had DuckDuckGo'd SORCE/TIM -- it would have led you right to them.. 1st hit in Google.
I'd love to pursue proxy science with you.. It parallels my speciality of Detection Theory. But all this is a bit too specific for this thread..

So your chart is made up from a computer model fudged to fit the TIM satellite data that started in 2003, it is not actual data plotted on a graph. The deniers say computer models are worthless because you can program them to give you any result you want. Below is your chart with another collection of actual measured proxy data. Why doesn't the model manufactured Maunder minimum match the beryllium-10 measured proxy data?

From the SORCE/TIM site:
The values from their SATIRE model have been offset a small amount (-0.30 W/m2) to match the latest SORCE/TIM measurements during years of overlap and then extended using SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward.

From the source of the model:
The time series of accurate irradiance measurements are, however, relatively short and limit the assessment of the solar contribution to the climate change. Here we reconstruct solar total and spectral irradiance in the range 115–160,000 nm since 1610. The evolution of the solar photospheric magnetic flux, which is a central input to the model, is appraised from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. The model predicts an increase of 1.25 W/m2, or about 0.09%, in the 11-year averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum. Also, irradiance in individual spectral intervals has generally increased during the past four centuries, the magnitude of the trend being higher toward shorter wavelengths. In particular, the 11-year averaged Ly-α irradiance has increased by almost 50%. An exception is the spectral interval between about 1500 and 2500 nm, where irradiance has slightly decreased (by about 0.02%).

This figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b) [1]. In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland

I've actually followed any adjustments to this plot. And the version I posted is PRE -- adjustment. This -0.3 OFFSET is relatively NEW and may or may survive scrutiny. But OFFSETS don't really matter to me since an offset doesn't affect the overall MAGNITUDE of the change since 1700.. (in the case of this adjustment, it makes the difference marginally larger) In fact, this reconstruction has been remarkably stable since the sat era begun. We've had problems just making the various SATELLITES agree as well. And those offsets and gain corrections are just part of the process..

Now when Mann selects a subset of tree ring data that looks NOTHING ALIKE and a bunch of mud bug proxies, and ice cores from sparse geolocations -- toss that crap into a model and PRETEND that you've covered the world well enough in time and space to create a 2000 year GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AVERAGE --- that's a whole 'nother herd of rodents. Measuring solar irradiance can be done from ANYWHERE on the planet (by proxies) or from one point in space and is easily corrected for geometry and time without much modeling at all..

 

[edthecynic]

They are not unnamed.. Their org is in the title of the chart I posted.. If you had DuckDuckGo'd SORCE/TIM -- it would have led you right to them.. 1st hit in Google.
I'd love to pursue proxy science with you.. It parallels my speciality of Detection Theory. But all this is a bit too specific for this thread..

So your chart is made up from a computer model fudged to fit the TIM satellite data that started in 2003, it is not actual data plotted on a graph. The deniers say computer models are worthless because you can program them to give you any result you want. Below is your chart with another collection of actual measured proxy data. Why doesn't the model manufactured Maunder minimum match the beryllium-10 measured proxy data?

From the SORCE/TIM site:
The values from their SATIRE model have been offset a small amount (-0.30 W/m2) to match the latest SORCE/TIM measurements during years of overlap and then extended using SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward.

From the source of the model:
The time series of accurate irradiance measurements are, however, relatively short and limit the assessment of the solar contribution to the climate change. Here we reconstruct solar total and spectral irradiance in the range 115–160,000 nm since 1610. The evolution of the solar photospheric magnetic flux, which is a central input to the model, is appraised from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. The model predicts an increase of 1.25 W/m2, or about 0.09%, in the 11-year averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum. Also, irradiance in individual spectral intervals has generally increased during the past four centuries, the magnitude of the trend being higher toward shorter wavelengths. In particular, the 11-year averaged Ly-α irradiance has increased by almost 50%. An exception is the spectral interval between about 1500 and 2500 nm, where irradiance has slightly decreased (by about 0.02%).

This figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b) [1]. In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland

I've actually followed any adjustments to this plot. And the version I posted is PRE -- adjustment. This -0.3 OFFSET is relatively NEW and may or may survive scrutiny. But OFFSETS don't really matter to me since an offset doesn't affect the overall MAGNITUDE of the change since 1700.. (in the case of this adjustment, it makes the difference marginally larger) In fact, this reconstruction has been remarkably stable since the sat era begun. We've had problems just making the various SATELLITES agree as well. And those offsets and gain corrections are just part of the process..

Now when Mann selects a subset of tree ring data that looks NOTHING ALIKE and a bunch of mud bug proxies, and ice cores from sparse geolocations -- toss that crap into a model andPRETEND that you've covered the world well enough in time and space to create a 2000 year GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AVERAGE --- that's a whole 'nother herd of rodents. Measuring solar irradiance can be done from ANYWHERE on the planet (by proxies) or from one point in space and is easily corrected for geometry and time without much modeling at all..

The satellite era began 1978, but your model uses only TIM data which began 2003. I posted the satellite data from 1978, but it didn't fit your religious belief, so you rejected it for a model that contradicts the beryllium-10 proxy data. You did exactly what you condemn Mann for.

 

[flacaltenn]

So your chart is made up from a computer model fudged to fit the TIM satellite data that started in 2003, it is not actual data plotted on a graph. The deniers say computer models are worthless because you can program them to give you any result you want. Below is your chart with another collection of actual measured proxy data. Why doesn't the model manufactured Maunder minimum match the beryllium-10 measured proxy data?

From the SORCE/TIM site:
The values from their SATIRE model have been offset a small amount (-0.30 W/m2) to match the latest SORCE/TIM measurements during years of overlap and then extended using SORCE/TIM annual averages from 2003 onward.

From the source of the model:
The time series of accurate irradiance measurements are, however, relatively short and limit the assessment of the solar contribution to the climate change. Here we reconstruct solar total and spectral irradiance in the range 115–160,000 nm since 1610. The evolution of the solar photospheric magnetic flux, which is a central input to the model, is appraised from the historical record of the sunspot number using a simple but consistent physical model. The model predicts an increase of 1.25 W/m2, or about 0.09%, in the 11-year averaged solar total irradiance since the Maunder minimum. Also, irradiance in individual spectral intervals has generally increased during the past four centuries, the magnitude of the trend being higher toward shorter wavelengths. In particular, the 11-year averaged Ly-α irradiance has increased by almost 50%. An exception is the spectral interval between about 1500 and 2500 nm, where irradiance has slightly decreased (by about 0.02%).

This figure shows two different proxies of solar activity during the last several hundred years. In red is shown the Group Sunspot Number (Rg) as reconstructed from historical observations by Hoyt and Schatten (1998a, 1998b) [1]. In blue is shown the beryllium-10 concentration (104 atoms/(gram of ice)) as measured in an annually layered ice core from Dye-3, Greenland

I've actually followed any adjustments to this plot. And the version I posted is PRE -- adjustment. This -0.3 OFFSET is relatively NEW and may or may survive scrutiny. But OFFSETS don't really matter to me since an offset doesn't affect the overall MAGNITUDE of the change since 1700.. (in the case of this adjustment, it makes the difference marginally larger) In fact, this reconstruction has been remarkably stable since the sat era begun. We've had problems just making the various SATELLITES agree as well. And those offsets and gain corrections are just part of the process..

Now when Mann selects a subset of tree ring data that looks NOTHING ALIKE and a bunch of mud bug proxies, and ice cores from sparse geolocations -- toss that crap into a model andPRETEND that you've covered the world well enough in time and space to create a 2000 year GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AVERAGE --- that's a whole 'nother herd of rodents. Measuring solar irradiance can be done from ANYWHERE on the planet (by proxies) or from one point in space and is easily corrected for geometry and time without much modeling at all..

The satellite era began 1978, but your model uses only TIM data which began 2003. I posted the satellite data from 1978, but it didn't fit your religious belief, so you rejected it for a model that contradicts the beryllium-10 proxy data. You did exactly what you condemn Mann for.

No contradiction at all.. I just gave you MAJOR differences in proxy methods and explained there is far less opportunity for biasing the dataset and far less NEED for modeling to accomplish the TSI study..

To bring it back to what "what deniers --- deny".. One thing is for sure. We reject the premise that Global Temperature histories based on proxy data have the inherent temporal, spatial or measurement accuracies to COMPARE those results to our Modern Era warming experience.. NONE of those studies could ever hope to find a 50 year run-up in temps of 0.5degC.

So one of the most OFT REPEATED claims of AGW, that the recent temperature experience is HIGHER or FASTER than anything seen in XXXX years -- is bunk...

 

[flacaltenn]

Ed -- see for instance....

ftp://pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/TSI_longterm/reconstr_TSI_grl_rev_submitted.pdf

PMOD gets the same results on Be iso reconstructions.. And note that very little "modeling" is involved compared to those Global History temperature proxies. It's all from direct measurement in ice core and CLOSED FORM equations.. PMOD gets 0.9 Watt/M2 since Maunder Min. That's a huge chunk of the radiative forcing that we're looking for to explain our piddling little warming bump.. And Yes --- the IPCC has OBFUSCATED that point and outright LIED about it to avoid admitting that CO2 isn't the complete and total answer...

 

[Abraham3]

Ed -- see for instance....

ftp://pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/TSI_longterm/reconstr_TSI_grl_rev_submitted.pdf

PMOD gets the same results on Be iso reconstructions.. And note that very little "modeling" is involved compared to those Global History temperature proxies. It's all from direct measurement in ice core and CLOSED FORM equations.. PMOD gets 0.9 Watt/M2 since Maunder Min. That's a huge chunk of the radiative forcing that we're looking for to explain our piddling little warming bump.. And Yes --- the IPCC has OBFUSCATED that point and outright LIED about it to avoid admitting that CO2 isn't the complete and total answer...

No, they have not.

You really need to get a grasp on the point that you are not smarter or more knowledgeable - in any way - than are several thousand, actively researching PhDs.

 

[Iceweasel]

You really need to get a grasp on the point that you are not smarter or more knowledgeable - in any way - than are several thousand, actively researching PhDs.

What? I thought the science was settled?

 

[Abraham3]

Another one? I begin to discern the roots of denierism. It starts with a complete failure to comprehend the scientific method.