When is doubling NOT doubling?

[para bellum]

Correct, you never did, it’s been stated over and over by others the IPCC reports have it. Nope

Not to be pedantic, but there is empirical evidence of warming. The planet is rebounding from the Little Ice Age, as one would expect.

Just no evidence of CO2 forcing and the magic thermostat theory. That part is purely theoretical.

 

[jc456]

Not to be pedantic, but there is empirical evidence of warming. The planet is rebounding from the Little Ice Age, as one would expect.

Just no evidence of CO2 forcing and the magic thermostat theory. That part is purely theoretical.

I disagree, no warming in either pole. Ice means no warning

 

[para bellum]

Umm... not always. Look at all that Argo float data and Spencer's satellite data and NOAA's radiosonde data that all turned out to be biased for different reasons. Empirical data can still contain flaws. It was empirical data that said the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

No, empirical evidence always rules. I never said empirical evidence is always right- there is always a margin of error, and mistakes are made.

Empirical evidence must be repeatable to be considered reliable.

The ARGO network takes empirical data, and runs it through a model. There aren't enough buoys to cover the entire planet.

To bust the "pause", NOAA adds a "fudge factor" to ARGO to compensate for what they say are historically "too high" temperature readings.

Rather than adjusting the historical data downwards, they adjust the current data upwards. They defend this by saying "it doesn't matter, we are only looking at the trend".

 

[para bellum]

I disagree, no warming in either pole

Not necessarily required, and I would probably question the quality of polar temperature data from 1850 or earlier, just for good measure...

Average increase at the surface of roughly 0.1 degrees C/decade since the end of the LIA, with the corresponding slight rise in sea level and decrease in stratospheric temps. That isn't really controversial, AFAIK.

We have warm spells and we have cool spells, we are just getting over a cool spell. Nothing to be alarmed about, and well within the natural range.

If there's a human signature, it's hidden in the noise...

 

[Crick]

Not necessarily required, and I would probably question the quality of polar temperature data from 1850 or earlier, just for good measure...

Average increase at the surface of roughly 0.1 degrees C/decade since the end of the LIA, with the corresponding slight rise in sea level and decrease in stratospheric temps. That isn't really controversial, AFAIK.

We have warm spells and we have cool spells, we are just getting over a cool spell. Nothing to be alarmed about, and well within the natural range.

If there's a human signature, it's hidden in the noise...

You think this is 0.1C hidden in the noise?

Global surface temperature - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jc456]

Not necessarily required, and I would probably question the quality of polar temperature data from 1850 or earlier, just for good measure...

Average increase at the surface of roughly 0.1 degrees C/decade since the end of the LIA, with the corresponding slight rise in sea level and decrease in stratospheric temps. That isn't really controversial, AFAIK.

We have warm spells and we have cool spells, we are just getting over a cool spell. Nothing to be alarmed about, and well within the natural range.

If there's a human signature, it's hidden in the noise...

I question every reading everywhere.

Been ice in both poles my entire life. 67 years

 

[para bellum]

You think this is 0.1C hidden in the noise?

2 things.

First, I did not say the 0.1C was the human signature. That is a conflation on your part.

Second, any graph with the Mann hockey stick is garbage.

 

[para bellum]

Been ice in both poles my entire life. 67 years

And will continue to be. Warming does not mean melting, it just means 'not as cold'...

1850 is the arbitrary starting date for the AGW crowd precisely because it's the end of the LIA. Back it up to the start of the LIA, get rid of the Mann hockey stick and NOAA's "pause busters", and the trend is flat. It would still show warming post-1850, but 1850 would just be a dip in the chart, bracketed by the MWP and today.

Shade the true margin of measurement error, it would get fatter as it got older- kind of like us, lol.

 

[jc456]

And will continue to be. Warming does not mean melting, it just means 'not as cold'...

Yep. And no warning anywhere else! Getting cooler

 

[Crick]

2 things.

First, I did not say the 0.1C was the human signature. That is a conflation on your part.

Second, any graph with the Mann hockey stick is garbage.

You said:

Average increase at the surface of roughly 0.1 degrees C/decade since the end of the LIA, with the corresponding slight rise in sea level and decrease in stratospheric temps. That isn't really controversial, AFAIK.

If there's a human signature, it's hidden in the noise...

What do you think is the cause of the warming from 1850 to the present in that graph if not a "human signature"?

The only thing wrong with MBH 1999 was the statistical minimization of the MWP and the LIA. The unprecedented rise from 1850 to the present was entirely valid and unaffected by later corrections. The Hockey Stick form has been produced by numerous different sources. The graph in my post was created by Ed Hawkins from HadCRU data.

So, again, where is it that you believe a human signal is hidden in the noise?

 

[jc456]

You said:

What do you think is the cause of the warming from 1850 to the present in that graph if not a "human signature"?

The only thing wrong with MBH 1999 was the statistical minimization of the MWP and the LIA. The unprecedented rise from 1850 to the present was entirely valid and unaffected by later corrections. The Hockey Stick form has been produced by numerous different sources. The graph in my post was created by Ed Hawkins from HadCRU data.

So, again, where is it that you believe a human signal hidden in the noise?

I didn’t see the words human caused in his quote. You’re lying yet again. Doesn’t that ever get old?

 

[Crick]

I didn’t see the words human caused in his quote. You’re lying yet again. Doesn’t that ever get old?

If you want to accuse me of having misquoted him, hit the fucking REPORT button because that's a violation of the rules.

What gets old is dealing with an ignorant trolling asshole.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You said:

What do you think is the cause of the warming from 1850 to the present in that graph if not a "human signature"?

The only thing wrong with MBH 1999 was the statistical minimization of the MWP and the LIA. The unprecedented rise from 1850 to the present was entirely valid and unaffected by later corrections. The Hockey Stick form has been produced by numerous different sources. The graph in my post was created by Ed Hawkins from HadCRU data.

So, again, where is it that you believe a human signal is hidden in the noise?

It's pure fiction bordering on fraud to continue to say we have accurate to a tenth of a degree temperatures from the 1850. Moreover the period in the 1940 that was warmer than today was adjusted downward because the AGW Cultists during the Obama Administration decided they had to "adjust the baseline"

 

[para bellum]

You said:

What do you think is the cause of the warming from 1850 to the present in that graph if not a "human signature"?

It is well within the range of natural variation. The earth's climate does not trend to stasis. It is naturally unstable, and moderated by infinitely complex mechanisms of positive and negative feedbacks.

<snip>

So, again, where is it that you believe a human signal is hidden in the noise?

I said IF there is a signal, it is HIDDEN in the noise. IOW, undetectable.

Furthermore, IF a human signal could be detected, it does not prove that CO2 is the magic thermostat. The sensitivity to CO2 is theoretical, not established by empirical evidence.

 

[Crick]

It is well within the range of natural variation. The earth's climate does not trend to stasis. It is naturally unstable, and moderated by infinitely complex mechanisms of positive and negative feedbacks.

It is demonstrably NOT in the range of natural variation. Earth's climate is not unstable. There are multiple inputs, both positive and negative (wrt to temperature) but at the level of interest here they are not "infinitely complex"

I said IF there is a signal, it is HIDDEN in the noise. IOW, undetectable.

The warming that began @ 1850 and has continued, accelerating, to this date, is a human signal. No other forcing factor has the magnitude to have caused that warming.

Furthermore, IF a human signal could be detected, it does not prove that CO2 is the magic thermostat. The sensitivity to CO2 is theoretical, not established by empirical evidence.

As I just stated, no other forcing factor has the magnitude to have produced the observed warming. The precise value of climate sensitivity can be thought of as theoretical but not that the system has such a response to changes in CO2 levels. That is based on observation and backed by a detailed understanding of the greenhouse process.

"Scientists know that the greenhouse effect causes the Earth to be warmer than it would be if it had no atmosphere. They also know that the concentrations of greenhouse gases have been increasing steadily since the mid-nineteenth century. These are scientific fact."

ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - Education and Outreach

The Global Monitoring Laboratory conducts research on greenhouse gas and carbon cycle feedbacks, changes in clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation, and recovery of stratospheric ozone.

gml.noaa.gov

 

[BackAgain]

If trace amounts of atmospheric CO2 don't truly contribute to climate changes then here’s the proof of doubling:

Baseline is zero. Add more CO2. Wait. Remeasure. Outcome: still zero.

2 x 0 = 0

 

[Crick]

If trace amounts of atmospheric CO2 don't truly contribute to climate changes then here’s the proof of doubling:

Baseline is zero. Add more CO2. Wait. Remeasure. Outcome: still zero.

2 x 0 = 0

CO2 is the primary of the warming observed since 1850. Virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-idustrial 280 ppm level was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Humans are the primary cause of global warming.

The topic of this thread was the OP's confusion between Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response (ECS and TCR).

The 50% increase that human GHG emissions have produced in atmospheric CO2 levels has produced a warming rate of 0.1C/decade. The OP demands to see this done in a lab. Think about that for a second. He hasn't.

 

[BackAgain]

CO2 is the primary of the warming observed since 1850. Virtually every molecule of CO2 above the pre-idustrial 280 ppm level was produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. Humans are the primary cause of global warming.

The topic of this thread was the OP's confusion between Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity and Transient Climate Response (ECS and TCR).

The 50% increase that human GHG emissions have produced in atmospheric CO2 levels has produced a warming rate of 0.1C/decade. The OP demands to see this done in a lab. Think about that for a second. He hasn't.

Uh huh.

 

[Crick]

Uh huh.

Yeah.

 

[BackAgain]

Yeah.

Sure.