Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Toddsterpatriot]

[MENTION][/MENTION]

Everybody knows how many data points you have. Zero.

I'm not claiming to know the globally averaged temperature .
LOL!

Let me know when you find out how many data points.

Let me get this straight. You don't know what this years globally averaged temperature is, but you know that what the IPCC's data says it is is wrong.

Explain to us how that works.

"Globally averaged temperature" is a joke.

Let me know when you find out how many data points they used to pull that number out of their ass.

 

[PMZ]

Consider: if you are a Dittohead, you are committed to a cult whose intellectual opposition is this:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC."
*
"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."
*
"Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva."
*
"The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions."
*
"Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive."

With near zero in resources, education, tools, expertise, respect and relevance, how could such a PR battle turn out in any way favorable for the Dittoheads?

In other words what bands the conservative cult together in a debate between such massively desperate capabilities?

But more important, what does the intellectual equivalent of David vs Goliath say about our culture?

We have always been a country where contribution has been rewarded, but are at least now flirting with the opposite, because public propaganda has developed such that it has at least marginally the influence to pull it off.

The significance behind Dunning-Krugar is not that it's an abstract thought, it is that it's the foundation of advertising and in our technology advertising is pervasive.

The empowerment of ignorance is real now, and an extremely lucrative business. I have a feeling that we can't even imagine the threat that that truth is to democracy.

Democracy depends on an informed electorate. Business depends on a less informed market. Where will that lead?

 

[PMZ]

I'm not claiming to know the globally averaged temperature .
LOL!

Let me know when you find out how many data points.

Let me get this straight. You don't know what this years globally averaged temperature is, but you know that what the IPCC's data says it is is wrong.

Explain to us how that works.

"Globally averaged temperature" is a joke.


Let me know when you find out how many data points they used to pull that number out of their ass.

You are a joke. Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how, with the resources to gather the data.

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me get this straight. You don't know what this years globally averaged temperature is, but you know that what the IPCC's data says it is is wrong.

Explain to us how that works.

"Globally averaged temperature" is a joke.


Let me know when you find out how many data points they used to pull that number out of their ass.

You are a joke. Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how, with the resources to gather the data.

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.

Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how,

That is unbelievably, incredibly awesome.

How many data points did they use?

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.

Qualified people love to talk about how they achieved their results.
They don't need a room temperature IQ clown like you to defend them.

 

[gslack]

Consider: if you are a Dittohead, you are committed to a cult whose intellectual opposition is this:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC."
*
"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."
*
"Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva."
*
"The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions."
*
"Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive."

With near zero in resources, education, tools, expertise, respect and relevance, how could such a PR battle turn out in any way favorable for the Dittoheads?

In other words what bands the conservative cult together in a debate between such massively desperate capabilities?

But more important, what does the intellectual equivalent of David vs Goliath say about our culture?

We have always been a country where contribution has been rewarded, but are at least now flirting with the opposite, because public propaganda has developed such that it has at least marginally the influence to pull it off.

The significance behind Dunning-Krugar is not that it's an abstract thought, it is that it's the foundation of advertising and in our technology advertising is pervasive.

The empowerment of ignorance is real now, and an extremely lucrative business. I have a feeling that we can't even imagine the threat that that truth is to democracy.

Democracy depends on an informed electorate. Business depends on a less informed market. Where will that lead?

LOL, everytime sockogets caught being an idiot he posts appeals to authority and hides..

basically he is saying he might be an idiot but that doesn't mean the IPCC is wrong!

ROFL

 

[PMZ]

"Globally averaged temperature" is a joke.


Let me know when you find out how many data points they used to pull that number out of their ass.

You are a joke. Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how, with the resources to gather the data.

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.

Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how,

That is unbelievably, incredibly awesome.

How many data points did they use?

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.

Qualified people love to talk about how they achieved their results.
They don't need a room temperature IQ clown like you to defend them.

You're right and that's why I'm not defending them. They don't to be.

You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources, little education, no expertise, so you have no valid reason to express any opinion at all, but as Dunning-Kruger predicts, you'd like to share what you don't know hoping that, if you don't know what you don't know, others will be fooled too.

There are areas in which each of us is ignorant. Those are areas where smart people listen. You however believe thaf you can sell your politics with your ignorance of science.

I'm going to stand in the way of that. Count on it.

 

[PMZ]

Consider: if you are a Dittohead, you are committed to a cult whose intellectual opposition is this:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts. In the same year, the UN General Assembly endorsed the action by WMO and UNEP in jointly establishing the IPCC."
*
"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters."
*
"Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva."
*
"The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions."
*
"Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive."

With near zero in resources, education, tools, expertise, respect and relevance, how could such a PR battle turn out in any way favorable for the Dittoheads?

In other words what bands the conservative cult together in a debate between such massively desperate capabilities?

But more important, what does the intellectual equivalent of David vs Goliath say about our culture?

We have always been a country where contribution has been rewarded, but are at least now flirting with the opposite, because public propaganda has developed such that it has at least marginally the influence to pull it off.

The significance behind Dunning-Krugar is not that it's an abstract thought, it is that it's the foundation of advertising and in our technology advertising is pervasive.

The empowerment of ignorance is real now, and an extremely lucrative business. I have a feeling that we can't even imagine the threat that that truth is to democracy.

Democracy depends on an informed electorate. Business depends on a less informed market. Where will that lead?

LOL, everytime sockogets caught being an idiot he posts appeals to authority and hides..

basically he is saying he might be an idiot but that doesn't mean the IPCC is wrong!

ROFL

What authority? Hide where, from whom?.

As the forum's Dunning-Kruger poster boy, you have no idea of how little you know. None.

My job is to help others avoid making that same mistake and accidentally rewarding your ignorance.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are a joke. Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how, with the resources to gather the data.

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.

Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how,

That is unbelievably, incredibly awesome.

How many data points did they use?

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.

Qualified people love to talk about how they achieved their results.
They don't need a room temperature IQ clown like you to defend them.

You're right and that's why I'm not defending them. They don't to be.

You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources, little education, no expertise, so you have no valid reason to express any opinion at all, but as Dunning-Kruger predicts, you'd like to share what you don't know hoping that, if you don't know what you don't know, others will be fooled to.

There are areas in which each of us is ignorant. Those are areas where smart people listen. You however believe thaf you can sell your politics with your ignorance of science.

I'm going to stand in the way of that. Count on it.

You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources

When you find the data and resources used to determine "globally averaged temperature", count the data points they used and let me know.

 

[PMZ]

Globally averaged temperature is a calculation made from data by those educated enough to know how,

That is unbelievably, incredibly awesome.

How many data points did they use?

That leaves you so far unqualified to discuss it, that, anyone who is qualified, would regard you as irrelevant.

Qualified people love to talk about how they achieved their results.
They don't need a room temperature IQ clown like you to defend them.

You're right and that's why I'm not defending them. They don't to be.

You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources, little education, no expertise, so you have no valid reason to express any opinion at all, but as Dunning-Kruger predicts, you'd like to share what you don't know hoping that, if you don't know what you don't know, others will be fooled to.

There are areas in which each of us is ignorant. Those are areas where smart people listen. You however believe thaf you can sell your politics with your ignorance of science.

I'm going to stand in the way of that. Count on it.

You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources

When you find the data and resources used to determine "globally averaged temperature", count the data points they used and let me know.

No.

If you have a question, research it. I guarantee the answer's out there. Your ignorance is exclusively your problem.

 

[IanC]

Todd is correct when he states that the type, number and position of the stations used make a difference in the global temperature. The infilling of empty grids and the homogenization process even more. Every change in methodology for the last two decades has increased the trend in historical readings. I find it unlikely that we were incorrectly reading thermometers before 1995.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right and that's why I'm not defending them. They don't to be.

You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources, little education, no expertise, so you have no valid reason to express any opinion at all, but as Dunning-Kruger predicts, you'd like to share what you don't know hoping that, if you don't know what you don't know, others will be fooled to.

There are areas in which each of us is ignorant. Those are areas where smart people listen. You however believe thaf you can sell your politics with your ignorance of science.

I'm going to stand in the way of that. Count on it.

You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources

When you find the data and resources used to determine "globally averaged temperature", count the data points they used and let me know.

No.

If you have a question, research it. I guarantee the answer's out there. Your ignorance is exclusively your problem.

Tell you what, I'll research it if you tell me how many data points we would need to get an accurate "globally averaged temperature".

 

[Abraham3]

Hmmm...

I don't think summer is quite over up there. Do you? FCT? WestWall?

I don't do ice.. Watching small ice cubes melt tells me NOTHING important..
When 15% ice coverage is the definition --- you know someone rigged the game in their favor... Not worth the effort...

You want IMPORTANCE to the Arctic -- Yet you never commented on the MIT-UConn paper I posted to educate you about REAL SCIENCE of ocean temperatures on climate. THAT will tell you more about ice melts than watching that stupid graph..

Also never told me why the IPCC LIED about TSI...

You've told me you don't "do ice". Considering your contention and what the ice has been doing, I'm not surprised. Your contention that ice extents is meaningless, however, is unsupportable.

Whatever you intended to convey with the phrase "You want IMPORTANCE to the Arctic" is indiscernible.

A thousand pardons for not reading your MIT U-Conn paper. I was new and this board is not really well laid out. Too easy to lose track of where things are. If you could post it once more, I will have a look.

But, while we're talking about that sort of thing; do you really think you're justified to call the NSIDC data "stupid"? I don't think you are and I find your expression offensive.

I would also like to ask you where you believe the IPCC lied about TSI. Was it in this graphic:

?

 

[Abraham3]

TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potentials and Patterns of Forcing <>
The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m&#8211;2. Improved understanding and better quantification of the forcing mechanisms since the TAR make it possible to derive a combined net anthropogenic radiative forcing for the first time. Combining the component values for each forcing agent and their uncertainties yields the probability distribution of the combined anthropogenic radiative forcing estimate shown in Figure TS.5; the most likely value is about an order of magnitude larger than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in solar irradiance. Since the range in the estimate is +0.6 to +2.4 W m&#8211;2, there is very high confidence in the net positive radiative forcing of the climate system due to human activity. The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m&#8211;2, which is the dominant radiative forcing term and has the highest level of scientific understanding. In contrast, the total direct aerosol, cloud albedo and surface albedo effects that contribute negative forcings are less well understood and have larger uncertainties. The range in the net estimate is increased by the negative forcing terms, which have larger uncertainties than the positive terms. The nature of the uncertainty in the estimated cloud albedo effect introduces a noticeable asymmetry in the distribution. Uncertainties in the distribution include structural aspects (e.g., representation of extremes in the component values, absence of any weighting of the radiative forcing mechanisms, possibility of unaccounted for but as yet unquantified radiative forcings) and statistical aspects (e.g., assumptions about the types of distributions describing component uncertainties). {2.7, 2.9}

 

[Abraham3]

From Wikipedia "Solar Irradiance"

In contrast to older reconstructions,[39] most recent reconstructions of total solar irradiance point to an only small increase of only about 0.05% to 0.1% between Maunder Minimum and the present.[40][41][42]

39. ^ a b Board on Global Change, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council. (1994). Solar Influences on Global Change. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-309-05148-7.
40. ^ Wang, Y.-M.; Lean, J. L.; Sheeley, N. R. (2005). "Modeling the Sun's magnetic field and irradiance since 1713". The Astrophysical journal 625 (1): 522&#8211;38. Bibcode:2005ApJ...625..522W. doi:10.1086/429689.
41. ^ Krivova, N. A.; Balmaceda, L.; Solanki, S. K. (2007). "Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux". A&A 467 (1): 335&#8211;46. Bibcode:2007A&A...467..335K. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066725.
42. ^ Steinhilber, F.; Beer, J.; Fröhlich, C. (2009). "Total solar irradiance during the Holocene". Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 (19): L19704. Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3619704S. doi:10.1029/2009GL040142.

 

[Abraham3]

Solar variation and climate

Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.[54] The topic continues to be a subject of active study.

As discussed above, there are three suggested mechanisms by which solar variations may have an effect on climate:

1) Solar irradiance changes directly affecting the climate ("Radiative forcing"). This is generally considered to be a minor effect, as the amplitudes of the variations in solar irradiance are much too small to have significant effect absent some amplification process.[11]

2) Variations in the ultraviolet component. The UV component varies by more than the total, so if UV were for some (as yet unknown) reason having a disproportionate effect, this might explain a larger solar signal in climate.

3) Effects mediated by changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind) such as changes in cloud cover.

Early research attempted to find a correlation between weather and sunspot activity, mostly without notable success.[5][14] Later research has concentrated more on correlating solar activity with global temperature.

Crucial to the understanding of possible solar impact on terrestrial climate is accurate measurement of solar forcing. Unfortunately accurate measurement of incident solar radiation is only available since the satellite era, and even that is open to dispute: different groups find different values, due to different methods of cross-calibrating measurements taken by instruments with different spectral sensitivity.[1] Scafetta and Willson found significant variations of solar luminosity between 1980 and 2000.[55] But Lockwood and Frohlich[56] find that solar forcing has declined since 1987.

Effect on global warming
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.[57][58]

Estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes have decreased since the TAR. However, empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays.[2]

In 2002, Lean et al.[59] stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change." They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][60] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[61]

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[66]

 

[flacaltenn]

From Wikipedia "Solar Irradiance"

In contrast to older reconstructions,[39] most recent reconstructions of total solar irradiance point to an only small increase of only about 0.05% to 0.1% between Maunder Minimum and the present.[40][41][42]

39. ^ a b Board on Global Change, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, National Research Council. (1994). Solar Influences on Global Change. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. p. 36. ISBN 0-309-05148-7.
40. ^ Wang, Y.-M.; Lean, J. L.; Sheeley, N. R. (2005). "Modeling the Sun's magnetic field and irradiance since 1713". The Astrophysical journal 625 (1): 522–38. Bibcode:2005ApJ...625..522W. doi:10.1086/429689.
41. ^ Krivova, N. A.; Balmaceda, L.; Solanki, S. K. (2007). "Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux". A&A 467 (1): 335–46. Bibcode:2007A&A...467..335K. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066725.
42. ^ Steinhilber, F.; Beer, J.; Fröhlich, C. (2009). "Total solar irradiance during the Holocene". Geophys. Res. Lett. 36 (19): L19704. Bibcode:2009GeoRL..3619704S. doi:10.1029/2009GL040142.

Starting to lose faith in you Abraham.. Thought you were sharper... What is the current W/M2 of solar irradiation? About 1366 isn't it? And what is 0.1% of 1366?

How does 1.37 W/m2 compare to the IPCC claim? That's about 0.7W/m2 at the surface SINCE MMin and at least 0.4W/m2 in the historical timeframe of that shoddy IPCC propaganda piece..

Do you understand how stupid it is to DEFEND this serious omission from the "OFFICIAL" AGW literature? And the FORGERY of that number that appears in your IPCC chart above?

Just tell me that the Warmer Clergy doesn't WANT the debate to use REAL numbers for TSI --- and we can move on a more pleasant matters.. And you TRUST THEM so explicitly that you will LEAP on little factoids like the one you offered in this post --- without even sanity checking it..

 

[flacaltenn]

Hmmm...

I don't think summer is quite over up there. Do you? FCT? WestWall?

I don't do ice.. Watching small ice cubes melt tells me NOTHING important..
When 15% ice coverage is the definition --- you know someone rigged the game in their favor... Not worth the effort...

You want IMPORTANCE to the Arctic -- Yet you never commented on the MIT-UConn paper I posted to educate you about REAL SCIENCE of ocean temperatures on climate. THAT will tell you more about ice melts than watching that stupid graph..

Also never told me why the IPCC LIED about TSI...

You've told me you don't "do ice". Considering your contention and what the ice has been doing, I'm not surprised. Your contention that ice extents is meaningless, however, is unsupportable.

Whatever you intended to convey with the phrase "You want IMPORTANCE to the Arctic" is indiscernible.

A thousand pardons for not reading your MIT U-Conn paper. I was new and this board is not really well laid out. Too easy to lose track of where things are. If you could post it once more, I will have a look.

But, while we're talking about that sort of thing; do you really think you're justified to call the NSIDC data "stupid"? I don't think you are and I find your expression offensive.

I would also like to ask you where you believe the IPCC lied about TSI. Was it in this graphic:

?

I answered the IPCC question above.. They lie.. On purpose..

"You want importance to the Arctic" --- means a technical paper that describes HOW ocean heat ENDS up in the Arctic. The MIT/UConn paper describes how it's NOT "globally averaged ocean temperatures" at any depth that drives the warm water currents ---- but temperature DIFFERENTIALS between equator and pole that moves the heat. Stupid reasoning like that in the Trenberth article for this thread LOSES the meaning of the physical process that DRIVES this differential by stupidly AVERAGING every ounce of ocean water. (if you really believe they accounted for every ounce of seawater all over the globe in the 1st place)..

SIExtents are not meaningless.. But defining "ICED" as 15% of the surface volume is stupid.
Any patch with 15% ice IS GONNA MELT in the summertime. It's just a few cubes floating at the whims of weather and current. I did a stint in Earth Satellite Image processing. We did surveys on everything imaginable, from trees to asphalt to urban heat island measurements. And you could change the report just by making new definitions..

The light is almost gone from the Arctic now. The peak was almost 60 days ago.. The excitement is pretty much over for another 8 months..

 

[flacaltenn]

Solar variation and climate

Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are hypothesized to affect global climate, but it has proven extremely challenging to directly quantify the link between solar variation and the earth's climate.[54] The topic continues to be a subject of active study.

As discussed above, there are three suggested mechanisms by which solar variations may have an effect on climate:

1) Solar irradiance changes directly affecting the climate ("Radiative forcing"). This is generally considered to be a minor effect, as the amplitudes of the variations in solar irradiance are much too small to have significant effect absent some amplification process.[11]

2) Variations in the ultraviolet component. The UV component varies by more than the total, so if UV were for some (as yet unknown) reason having a disproportionate effect, this might explain a larger solar signal in climate.

3) Effects mediated by changes in cosmic rays (which are affected by the solar wind) such as changes in cloud cover.

Early research attempted to find a correlation between weather and sunspot activity, mostly without notable success.[5][14] Later research has concentrated more on correlating solar activity with global temperature.

Crucial to the understanding of possible solar impact on terrestrial climate is accurate measurement of solar forcing. Unfortunately accurate measurement of incident solar radiation is only available since the satellite era, and even that is open to dispute: different groups find different values, due to different methods of cross-calibrating measurements taken by instruments with different spectral sensitivity.[1] Scafetta and Willson found significant variations of solar luminosity between 1980 and 2000.[55] But Lockwood and Frohlich[56] find that solar forcing has declined since 1987.

Effect on global warming
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) concluded that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amplification effect due to greenhouse gases but acknowledges in the same report that there is a low level of scientific understanding with respect to solar variation.[57][58]

Estimates of long-term solar irradiance changes have decreased since the TAR. However, empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change. The most likely mechanism is considered to be some combination of direct forcing by changes in total solar irradiance, and indirect effects of ultraviolet (UV) radiation on the stratosphere. Least certain are indirect effects induced by galactic cosmic rays.[2]

In 2002, Lean et al.[59] stated that while "There is ... growing empirical evidence for the Sun's role in climate change on multiple time scales including the 11-year cycle", "changes in terrestrial proxies of solar activity (such as the 14C and 10Be cosmogenic isotopes and the aa geomagnetic index) can occur in the absence of long-term (i.e., secular) solar irradiance changes ... because the stochastic response increases with the cycle amplitude, not because there is an actual secular irradiance change." They conclude that because of this, "long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][60] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[61]

A paper by Benestad and Schmidt[62] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[63] who claim that solar variability has a significant effect on climate forcing. Based on correlations between specific climate and solar forcing reconstructions, they argue that a "realistic climate scenario is the one described by a large preindustrial secular variability (e.g., the paleoclimate temperature reconstruction by Moberg et al.)[64] with the total solar irradiance experiencing low secular variability (as the one shown by Wang et al.).[65] Under this scenario, according to Scafetta and West, the Sun might have contributed 50% of the observed global warming since 1900.[10] Stott et al. estimate that the residual effects of the prolonged high solar activity during the last 30 years account for between 16% and 36% of warming from 1950 to 1999.[66]

That graph -- whatever dumpster you found it in --- is WOEFULLY wrong. The vertical axis is in tenth of a watt/m2. And BOTH the SORCE/TIM graph and several other MAINSTREAM graphs contradict those values.. AND your graph purposely HIDES the major uptick of solar forcing between 1750 and 1850... Clear indication of someone hiding the data to make points..

The number for solar contribution since 1750 is CERTAINLY AT LEAST 30% of the surface forcing. I'd accept that -- but I believe it's higher..
IPCC could NEVER have that statement appear in it's pages.. Because they'd lose the interest of the politicians and policy wonks that give them credibility..

 

[Abraham3]

Solar forcing 1850&#8211;2050 used in a NASA GISS climate model. Recent variation pattern used after 2000.

Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's the dumpster I found it in.

Let's see your dumpster, the one showing more TSI

 

[PMZ]

You're the problem. I'm attacking you because you have no data, no resources

When you find the data and resources used to determine "globally averaged temperature", count the data points they used and let me know.

No.

If you have a question, research it. I guarantee the answer's out there. Your ignorance is exclusively your problem.

Tell you what, I'll research it if you tell me how many data points we would need to get an accurate "globally averaged temperature".

I would think that anyone qualified to question the IPCC would know the answer to that without my help.