Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[PMZ]

So... FCT, you with me there?

I'm years ahead of you on this.. I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..

Fact remains --- The major ACCEPTED reconstruction/satellite results all get that TSI is responsible for about 30% or more of the warming since 1750.

I find this gem you unearthed particularly entertaining..

Foukal & Lean (1990), among others, have noted that the well-determined 0.1% TSI excursion from solar minimum to maximum (Willson & Hudson 1988; Fröhlich 2000) appears quite insufficient to account for the observed rise in global temperature over the past century. If the Sun is the dominant driver of recent global warming, either the effects of its 0.1% variation must be significantly underestimated by present models, or it must be capable of larger variations than have been directly observed since 1978.

I'll wade thru your "discoveries" and get back to you on the quality of the "excuses"...

''Fact remains --- The major ACCEPTED reconstruction/satellite results all get that TSI is responsible for about 30% or more of the warming since 1750.''

Depends on what you assume the contribution of AGW is.

The fact remains, that even if you were the rightest person in the world, despite being of very few resources and nearly alone in your opinions, nothing would change. We can't change TSI. We can, and have to, move to sustainable energy leaving fossil fuels odd man out.

 

[Abraham3]

Foukal & Lean (1990), among others, have noted that the well-determined 0.1% TSI excursion from solar minimum to maximum (Willson & Hudson 1988; Fröhlich 2000) appears quite insufficient to account for the observed rise in global temperature over the past century. If the Sun is the dominant driver of recent global warming, either the effects of its 0.1% variation must be significantly underestimated by present models, or it must be capable of larger variations than have been directly observed since 1978.

I saw that. I even highlighted it. Believe it or not, I read what I post. But what do you think this is saying? When the line starts with the word "If" you have to realize the writer is giving you two options; one of which is that the sun is NOT the dominant driver of recent global warming.

Wonder how that could happen Abe??

How what could happen? How a study might actually have objective and accurate information and not be a conspiratorial snakes-nest of lies? Go figger.

You just coughed up a DISTORTED PLOT of TSI that was used to feed the NASA GISS climate model...

I never looked into the source of the NASA GISS graphic. And you have no evidence that anything I've put up here is "distorted" with any intent other than to make it more accurate.

Wonder why the present models "significantly underestimates the effect of TSI" do ya??? That's funny... GIGO Look it up....

I know why the IPCC reduced the TSI variation estimate because they and their sources explained it to us. You are no where near the level of objective justification that the IPCC provides. Your incessant accusations of dishonesty and conspiracy approach a significant level of paranoia. You need to step back, take some deep breaths and start over again with a cooler head.

I'll wade thru your "discoveries" and get back to you on the quality of the "excuses"...

Don't bother. I'm pretty sure we've already heard your conclusions.

 

[RollingThunder]

There are a number of scientific studies now that show that the oceans have been absorbing about 90% of the extra heat energy the Earth is retaining due to CO2 driven global warming.

Total Earth Heat Content from 1962 to 2008 (Church et al 2011).

Other studies have determined that natural variations in climate caused by the things like the ENSO cycle cause periodic variations in the rate of warming and may, at times, even temporarily overpower the ongoing background warming trend that is being caused by the over 40% increase (and still climbing fast) in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Recent research has confirmed that the current slight slowdown in surface temperature increases is largely happening because these natural variations have resulted in more of the excess heat energy being transported to the ocean depths. This heat has not vanished but will shortly, as the natural cycles move in the other direction, at least partially return to the surface and drive surface temperatures to new record highs.


Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us
SkepticalScience
by Rob Painting
15 October 2011
(excerpts)
In a stable climate (i.e no human-caused global warming, or some other natural climate forcing) the 'peaks and valleys' of natural variability in global surface temperatures would average out to zero over the long-term.

The ocean heat content of the real world, however, is steadily increasing, and this affects global surface temperatures. Therefore if we take that natural oscillation, with a long-term average of zero, and now plot it on a warming trend:

* Meehl (2011) is a climate model-based study that shows hiatus decades, of little or no increase in global surface temperatures, are relatively common even under conditions of global warming similar to the present.
* This see-sawing pattern of global surface temperatures has been apparent in climate model projections for some time now.
* These hiatus decades are simply the cool phase of a cool-warm natural cycle where heat is exchanged between the surface and subsurface ocean.
* The deep ocean warms during these hiatus decades because heat builds up in mid-latitude regions and is quickly funneled downwards.
* Heat buried in the deep ocean remains there for hundreds to thousands of years. It is not involved in the heat exchange occurring in shallower layers.
* Oceanic patterns in the hiatus decades are very similar to both La Niña and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. So the model is simulating well-observed phenomena.
* The ocean, as a whole, is still steadily building up heat, so the next warm phase of this natural cycle may drive global temperatures to new record highs (the ocean heat coming back to haunt us).

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

So... FCT, you with me there?

I'm years ahead of you on this.. I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..

Fact remains --- The major ACCEPTED reconstruction/satellite results all get that TSI is responsible for about 30% or more of the warming since 1750.

I find this gem you unearthed particularly entertaining..

Foukal & Lean (1990), among others, have noted that the well-determined 0.1% TSI excursion from solar minimum to maximum (Willson & Hudson 1988; Fröhlich 2000) appears quite insufficient to account for the observed rise in global temperature over the past century. If the Sun is the dominant driver of recent global warming, either the effects of its 0.1% variation must be significantly underestimated by present models, or it must be capable of larger variations than have been directly observed since 1978.

Wonder how that could happen Abe?? You just coughed up a DISTORTED PLOT of TSI that was used to feed the NASA GISS climate model... Wonder why the present models "significantly underestimates the effect of TSI" do ya???
That's funny... GIGO Look it up....



I'll wade thru your "discoveries" and get back to you on the quality of the "excuses"...

What amazes me is that you actually think you know what you're talking about.

 

[Abraham3]

What amazes me is that you actually think you know what you're talking about.

To whom is this addressed?

 

[Abraham3]

I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..

Yes, I guess you can. So... did you conclude they were lying before or after reading their "excuses"?

 

[PMZ]

There are a number of scientific studies now that show that the oceans have been absorbing about 90% of the extra heat energy the Earth is retaining due to CO2 driven global warming.

Total Earth Heat Content from 1962 to 2008 (Church et al 2011).

Other studies have determined that natural variations in climate caused by the things like the ENSO cycle cause periodic variations in the rate of warming and may, at times, even temporarily overpower the ongoing background warming trend that is being caused by the over 40% increase (and still climbing fast) in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Recent research has confirmed that the current slight slowdown in surface temperature increases is largely happening because these natural variations have resulted in more of the excess heat energy being transported to the ocean depths. This heat has not vanished but will shortly, as the natural cycles move in the other direction, at least partially return to the surface and drive surface temperatures to new record highs.


Ocean Heat Poised To Come Back And Haunt Us
SkepticalScience
by Rob Painting
15 October 2011
(excerpts)
In a stable climate (i.e no human-caused global warming, or some other natural climate forcing) the 'peaks and valleys' of natural variability in global surface temperatures would average out to zero over the long-term.

The ocean heat content of the real world, however, is steadily increasing, and this affects global surface temperatures. Therefore if we take that natural oscillation, with a long-term average of zero, and now plot it on a warming trend:

* Meehl (2011) is a climate model-based study that shows hiatus decades, of little or no increase in global surface temperatures, are relatively common even under conditions of global warming similar to the present.
* This see-sawing pattern of global surface temperatures has been apparent in climate model projections for some time now.
* These hiatus decades are simply the cool phase of a cool-warm natural cycle where heat is exchanged between the surface and subsurface ocean.
* The deep ocean warms during these hiatus decades because heat builds up in mid-latitude regions and is quickly funneled downwards.
* Heat buried in the deep ocean remains there for hundreds to thousands of years. It is not involved in the heat exchange occurring in shallower layers.
* Oceanic patterns in the hiatus decades are very similar to both La Niña and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. So the model is simulating well-observed phenomena.
* The ocean, as a whole, is still steadily building up heat, so the next warm phase of this natural cycle may drive global temperatures to new record highs (the ocean heat coming back to haunt us).

There certainly are AGW unknowns. Chief among them is the response of land, water, ice, and atmosphere in dealing with energy imbalance. If we stopped adding to our past indiscriminate dumping of GHGs right now, I believe that it's anybody's guess as to how long it would take before we would see balance restored between energy in and energy out. Years? Decades?

 

[flacaltenn]

I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..

Yes, I guess you can. So... did you conclude they were lying before or after reading their "excuses"?

The number for TSI and the error bar are OUTRIGHT misrepresentations of the BASIC science data that's out there... I don't really CARE how they mangled it and lied about it.

I read their exposition on how they arrived at that number -- and It twas STILL mangled.

You only have to know ONE THING to understand WHY...

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

 

[PMZ]

I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..

Yes, I guess you can. So... did you conclude they were lying before or after reading their "excuses"?

The number for TSI and the error bar are OUTRIGHT misrepresentations of the BASIC science data that's out there... I don't really CARE how they mangled it and lied about it.

I read their exposition on how they arrived at that number -- and It twas STILL mangled.

You only have to know ONE THING to understand WHY...

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

Those words certainly read different to you than to me. I believe that to be a very precise definition of what they should be doing. AGW has been a given for decades. The risks associated with it are the question to be answered by science.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What amazes me is that you actually think you know what you're talking about.

To whom is this addressed?

To the guy the post says its addressed to.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I've already read the IPCC excuses for lying about the TSI from 1750... You can always find a study or two to mangle towards your agenda..

Yes, I guess you can. So... did you conclude they were lying before or after reading their "excuses"?

The number for TSI and the error bar are OUTRIGHT misrepresentations of the BASIC science data that's out there... I don't really CARE how they mangled it and lied about it.

I read their exposition on how they arrived at that number -- and It twas STILL mangled.

You only have to know ONE THING to understand WHY...

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

Dude - you are full of shit. Complete bullshit. I can smell it a mile away. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Abraham3]

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

No it's not. Your interpretation is whacked. Are the police all criminals? That's precisely what you are saying. They are working to assess the risk. Neither the UN nor the IPCC discovered AGW. Why would you fixate on those few words and ignore "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis"? You do so because you are desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

The science is NOT on your side. THAT'S what you should care about. That and the sort of world that YOUR current work here is going to leave to your children and theirs.

Ridiculous.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

No it's not. Your interpretation is whacked. Are the police all criminals? That's precisely what you are saying. They are working to assess the risk. Neither the UN nor the IPCC discovered AGW. Why would you fixate on those few words and ignore "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis"? You do so because you are desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

The science is NOT on your side. THAT'S what you should care about. That and the sort of world that YOUR current work here is going to leave to your children and theirs.

Ridiculous.

Morons like flatulence think the IPCC invented AGW and that "climate change" is a new term the media invented to brainwash everyone.

 

[PMZ]

It has been well establish that without the warming of GHGs in the atmosphere, earth would be inhospitable to life. That fact is why the science of them has been well understood for so many decades before AGW was a concern.

But, like so many things, too much of a good thing is a bad thing. If we were to start building civilization now, we could site in properly for the new climate that we are creating, but it's too late now.

 

[westwall]

Yes, I guess you can. So... did you conclude they were lying before or after reading their "excuses"?

The number for TSI and the error bar are OUTRIGHT misrepresentations of the BASIC science data that's out there... I don't really CARE how they mangled it and lied about it.

I read their exposition on how they arrived at that number -- and It twas STILL mangled.

You only have to know ONE THING to understand WHY...

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

Those words certainly read different to you than to me. I believe that to be a very precise definition of what they should be doing. AGW has been a given for decades. The risks associated with it are the question to be answered by science.

If AGW is such a "given", why has it stopped? If it is such a "given", why can't they produce a single lab experiment demonstrating it? If it's such a "given" why is it that the only time it is even seen is in the addled workings of computer models that Harvard has proclaimed "nearly useless"?

 

[westwall]

Yes, I guess you can. So... did you conclude they were lying before or after reading their "excuses"?

The number for TSI and the error bar are OUTRIGHT misrepresentations of the BASIC science data that's out there... I don't really CARE how they mangled it and lied about it.

I read their exposition on how they arrived at that number -- and It twas STILL mangled.

You only have to know ONE THING to understand WHY...

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

Dude - you are full of shit. Complete bullshit. I can smell it a mile away. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Looked in the mirror lately?

 

[007]

Why are these stupid, worthless, bull shit threads resurrected?

 

[westwall]

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

No it's not. Your interpretation is whacked. Are the police all criminals? That's precisely what you are saying. They are working to assess the risk. Neither the UN nor the IPCC discovered AGW. Why would you fixate on those few words and ignore "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis"? You do so because you are desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

The science is NOT on your side. THAT'S what you should care about. That and the sort of world that YOUR current work here is going to leave to your children and theirs.

Ridiculous.

Actually the science IS on our side. That's why you guys have had to lie for so long. To cover up the fact that the planet stopped warming in contravention of everything you all were saying....

Here is the latest backtrack from the fraudsters in the queue....

Of course what they say is laughable, but they have had to admit that what they've been saying for the last couple of years has been horseshit so they had to come up with something to cover their collective asses.

I'm just amazed they came up with something so patently stupid...

Global Sea Level Rise Dampened by Australia Floods

Newswise — BOULDER - When enough raindrops fall over land instead of the ocean, they begin to add up.

New research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) shows that when three atmospheric patterns came together over the Indian and Pacific oceans, they drove so much precipitation over Australia in 2010 and 2011 that the world’s ocean levels dropped measurably. Unlike other continents, the soils and topography of Australia prevent almost all of its precipitation from running off into the ocean.

The 2010-11 event temporarily halted a long-term trend of rising sea levels caused by higher temperatures and melting ice sheets.




Global Sea Level Rise Dampened by Australia Floods

 

[westwall]

Why are these stupid, worthless, bull shit threads resurrected?

'Cause the fraudsters need to train their socks so bring threads up to try and rewrite history. You know where they don't get their asses handed to them....

 

[flacaltenn]

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

It's their JOB to minimize other numbers and squash evidence of other climate drivers..
Right there from the beginning...

No it's not. Your interpretation is whacked. Are the police all criminals? That's precisely what you are saying. They are working to assess the risk. Neither the UN nor the IPCC discovered AGW. Why would you fixate on those few words and ignore "comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis"? You do so because you are desperately trying to justify an unjustifiable position.

The science is NOT on your side. THAT'S what you should care about. That and the sort of world that YOUR current work here is going to leave to your children and theirs.

Ridiculous.

What part of ".... relevent to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced ....." didn't you comprehend? Where are your manners? Telling me I'm full of shit for educating you on the ROLE and REASON for formation of the IPCC?

Do you understand NOW why they lied about the magnitude of solar insolation since 1750?

What's this got to do with the police? And why do you think "the science" is on your side if the outcome of the science is pre-determined by the Mission Statement of the lead Global panel on the topic?