Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

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.

Actually the 1.6W/m2 agrees with IPCC CO2 forcing in that chart.. I'll be darned.. I thought it was 3.x something.. As derived from CO2 log forcing function on concentrations from 1800... ??????

Human contributions are not 3.2W/m2 -- Net human contributions show as also about 1.6W/m2 in that figure.. Maybe all the POSITIVE forcings add to 3.x, but that's not the pertinent figure I was doubting..

Imagine that --- a shiny data gem for the day..

 

[westwall]

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.

Read the link I provided and it will show you how Marcott and Co. falsified their data to come up with their hockey stick. But only do that if you're brave enough to learn something.

 

[itfitzme]

We've got to be satisfied with 1979 to 2012? *Why? *Only complete data set?

What are the oscillations?

 

[Old Rocks]

More than a dozen differant studies, and they all came up with the 'hockey stick'. Of course, they all falsified their data according to you dingbats. Walleyes, when you or someone else has the evidence that will stand up at the annual AGU Conferance, get back to me.

 

[Abraham3]

Read the link I provided and it will show you how Marcott and Co. falsified their data to come up with their hockey stick. But only do that if you're brave enough to learn something.

1) I have read the attacks on Marcott, Shakun et al and I have read their responses.
2) If you think the dataset you provide is an accurate depiction of reality, you need glasses.
3) It is standard procedure to synch proxy data with instrumented records when possible. It has been a common point of attack for deniers, but it is an attack with no value whatsoever.
4) Marcott, Shakun et al were not attempting to provide accurate data for 20th century temperatures. Why would they? We have instrumented data for that.

Taking this route is simply evidence that you have no valid or significant material with which to support your view.

 

[flacaltenn]

We've got to be satisfied with 1979 to 2012? *Why? *Only complete data set?

What are the oscillations?

Satistified with THAT?? No way... It's "adjusted" to a THEORY... THat's not a discerned temp chart from instrumentation.. BTW: -- IF it were to be true.. The rise is about 0.12degC/DECADE.. Not gonna get you close to 4DegC by 2080 is it??

What I like about this study is that Climate Science seems to be maturing.. No more simplistic propaganda.. It's STARTING to look like honest science..

I said STARTING --- there's a long way to go..

 

[flacaltenn]

Read the link I provided and it will show you how Marcott and Co. falsified their data to come up with their hockey stick. But only do that if you're brave enough to learn something.

1) I have read the attacks on Marcott, Shakun et al and I have read their responses.
2) If you think the dataset you provide is an accurate depiction of reality, you need glasses.
3) It is standard procedure to synch proxy data with instrumented records when possible. It has been a common point of attack for deniers, but it is an attack with no value whatsoever.
4) Marcott, Shakun et al were not attempting to provide accurate data for 20th century temperatures. Why would they? We have instrumented data for that.

Taking this route is simply evidence that you have no valid or significant material with which to support your view.

Your #4 is wrong.. You said so yourself at your #3.
The entire PURPOSE of these proxies is to show CONTINUITY into the current current "instrumented" era.. That's the icing on the cake. Why did Briffa and Mann need tree rings into the 20th century?

Because the PR folks told them to extend their data into the 20th century to show it AGREES with the instruments..

 

[Abraham3]

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...

The shorter lifetime of methane does essentially NOTHING to refute the existence of the numerous positive feedbacks in the system. Period.

Let's make the core argument simple. You are claiming that the primary warming agent is increased TSI.

Where is the dip in TSI that might explain the 1941-1979 dip? The CO2 levels have one.

Where is the reaction in the global temperature to the dip in TSI at 1980? It doesn't seem to have had any effect?

Hmm....

 

[Abraham3]

Satistified with THAT?? No way... It's "adjusted" to a THEORY... THat's not a discerned temp chart from instrumentation.. BTW: -- IF it were to be true.. The rise is about 0.12degC/DECADE.. Not gonna get you close to 4DegC by 2080 is it??

What I like about this study is that Climate Science seems to be maturing.. No more simplistic propaganda.. It's STARTING to look like honest science..

I said STARTING --- there's a long way to go..

The purpose off Foster and Rahmstorf's work was to show that there had been no change in the greenhouse process itself. CO2 and other GHGs are still building up in the atmosphere and are trapping infrared radiation. The temperatures have stopped rising as they were due to increased vulcanism and changes in ENSO (and just to keep you happy, changes in TSI). The heat balance has been altered by an increased amount of energy reflected away by volcanic aerosols and increased subduction of warm water into the deep by changes in ENSO. This graph is not attempting to say that temperatures or the total global heat content are rising as they once were. It is saying that the process itself has not altered - it is simply undergoing natural variation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I rechecked the tree rings and there's no lull. Check back in a week for the next reading" -- MM

 

[Abraham3]

Read the link I provided and it will show you how Marcott and Co. falsified their data to come up with their hockey stick. But only do that if you're brave enough to learn something.

1) I have read the attacks on Marcott, Shakun et al and I have read their responses.
2) If you think the dataset you provide is an accurate depiction of reality, you need glasses.
3) It is standard procedure to synch proxy data with instrumented records when possible. It has been a common point of attack for deniers, but it is an attack with no value whatsoever.
4) Marcott, Shakun et al were not attempting to provide accurate data for 20th century temperatures. Why would they? We have instrumented data for that.

Taking this route is simply evidence that you have no valid or significant material with which to support your view.

Your #4 is wrong.. You said so yourself at your #3.

The entire PURPOSE of these proxies is to show CONTINUITY into the current current "instrumented" era.. That's the icing on the cake. Why did Briffa and Mann need tree rings into the 20th century?

Because the PR folks told them to extend their data into the 20th century to show it AGREES with the instruments..

Marcott, Shakun et al were producing the best data they could assemble FROM PROXIES. It would be pointless to say they were attempting to correct the instrumented record where it was available. Marcott and Shakun themselves have said this. Would you like to see the quote?

Of course the proxy data gets merged or matched into the instrument record. That's standard procedure. That's why it's so bloody STUPID to try to tell us it should have looked like the nonsense WestWall posted.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[flacaltenn]

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...

The shorter lifetime of methane does essentially NOTHING to refute the existence of the numerous positive feedbacks in the system. Period.

Let's make the core argument simple. You are claiming that the primary warming agent is increased TSI.

Where is the dip in TSI that might explain the 1941-1979 dip? The CO2 levels have one.

Where is the reaction in the global temperature to the dip in TSI at 1980? It doesn't seem to have had any effect?

Hmm....

I (being essentially of relatively sound mind) would NEVER claim that any one forcing function drives Climate scale temperatures..
That's part of your movement evidentally..

Where's the DIP?? Your dip is in that Lying Ass Chart from the IPCC you posted that PURPOSELY underweights the solar insolation amounts...

Seriously?? OK.. The dip PRECEDES the 1940 by about the same amount of time as the cessation of solar warming proceeds the current pause in temperature rate.. Get it? SomeONE -- (maybe me) should plot those 2 with a shift in time eh?

Love to see that.. Preferably with temp back to 1750 or so..

BTW: I forget the jist of the IPCC reports quicker than I forget the plot to an Adam Sandler movie..
Remind how the IPCC arrives at that laughably low evaluation of solar insolation change for the past 2 centuries..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More than a dozen differant studies, and they all came up with the 'hockey stick'. Of course, they all falsified their data according to you dingbats. Walleyes, when you or someone else has the evidence that will stand up at the annual AGU Conferance, get back to me.

"Hockey stick...lol... yeah made from a tree ring" -- MM

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Has global warming stopped? No - it?s just on pause, insist scientists, and it's down to the oceans - Home News - UK - The Independent

Global WarmerCoolering is not fucking around with us

 

[flacaltenn]

1) I have read the attacks on Marcott, Shakun et al and I have read their responses.
2) If you think the dataset you provide is an accurate depiction of reality, you need glasses.
3) It is standard procedure to synch proxy data with instrumented records when possible. It has been a common point of attack for deniers, but it is an attack with no value whatsoever.
4) Marcott, Shakun et al were not attempting to provide accurate data for 20th century temperatures. Why would they? We have instrumented data for that.

Taking this route is simply evidence that you have no valid or significant material with which to support your view.

Your #4 is wrong.. You said so yourself at your #3.

The entire PURPOSE of these proxies is to show CONTINUITY into the current current "instrumented" era.. That's the icing on the cake. Why did Briffa and Mann need tree rings into the 20th century?

Because the PR folks told them to extend their data into the 20th century to show it AGREES with the instruments..

Marcott, Shakun et al were producing the best data they could assemble FROM PROXIES. It would be pointless to say they were attempting to correct the instrumented record where it was available. Marcott and Shakun themselves have said this. Would you like to see the quote?

Of course the proxy data gets merged or matched into the instrument record. That's standard procedure. That's why it's so bloody STUPID to try to tell us it should have looked like the nonsense WestWall posted.

THere's always enough YAD061s around to make that happen..
Great job if you can get one like that..

Hey --- You know that
"I think that I never shall see --- a thermometer as lousy as a tree".. Wish I knew the attribution on that one. Maybe Dr. Judith Curry?

Got a new one..
"I think the world has never known, a thermometer as bad as an alkenone"...

 

[IanC]

1) I have read the attacks on Marcott, Shakun et al and I have read their responses.
2) If you think the dataset you provide is an accurate depiction of reality, you need glasses.
3) It is standard procedure to synch proxy data with instrumented records when possible. It has been a common point of attack for deniers, but it is an attack with no value whatsoever.
4) Marcott, Shakun et al were not attempting to provide accurate data for 20th century temperatures. Why would they? We have instrumented data for that.

Taking this route is simply evidence that you have no valid or significant material with which to support your view.

Your #4 is wrong.. You said so yourself at your #3.

The entire PURPOSE of these proxies is to show CONTINUITY into the current current "instrumented" era.. That's the icing on the cake. Why did Briffa and Mann need tree rings into the 20th century?

Because the PR folks told them to extend their data into the 20th century to show it AGREES with the instruments..

Marcott, Shakun et al were producing the best data they could assemble FROM PROXIES. It would be pointless to say they were attempting to correct the instrumented record where it was available. Marcott and Shakun themselves have said this. Would you like to see the quote?

Of course the proxy data gets merged or matched into the instrument record. That's standard procedure. That's why it's so bloody STUPID to try to tell us it should have looked like the nonsense WestWall posted.

Are you insane? Proxy data and instrumental data are different. Apples and oranges. Proxies have a resolution in hundreds of years, for Marcott. The instrumental record, at that resolution, would be a small red dash only slightly higher than the proxies. Have you looked at the proxy data? Its a hodgepodge of data that contradicts each other and usually has a span of 4C or more. Anyone who thinks it is more than a general guide, or believes the stated uncertainties are accurate, is fooling themselves by mathematics not designed for the purpose. Or in Mann's case, mathematics designed for an agenda.

 

[flacaltenn]

Priceless man.. Just priceless. From "Quotable Liberals" no less.

REALITY ---- based on PhotoShop... Who's confused about reality here?

 

[Abraham3]

Are you insane?

No, you?

Proxy data and instrumental data are different. Apples and oranges.

Of course they are, but they are being used to determine the same parameter. The proxy data is calibrated to match the instrument record. Coping with the varying resolution of the two is child's play.

Proxies have a resolution in hundreds of years, for Marcott. The instrumental record, at that resolution, would be a small red dash only slightly higher than the proxies. Have you looked at the proxy data? Its a hodgepodge of data that contradicts each other and usually has a span of 4C or more. Anyone who thinks it is more than a general guide, or believes the stated uncertainties are accurate, is fooling themselves by mathematics not designed for the purpose. Or in Mann's case, mathematics designed for an agenda.

Can I ask your qualifications to tell us PhDs Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix don't know what they're doing but you do? Are you an active, degreed paleoclimatologist?

That these proxies should show a relatively wide spread of temperatures is irrelevant as long as they RELATIVE behavior is similar. If all 73 proxies rise 2C over a millenia, we can be pretty certain that's what the actual temperature did.