Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Toddsterpatriot]

The greenhouse effect is real. So is rising CO2 levels.
So, obviously, the temperature rise cannot have paused.
AGW 101.

As we both know (since you've repeatedly argued the point), GHGs are not the ONLY source of increased radiative forcing. So, obviously, the temperature rise CAN pause and has done so on numerous occasions in the past. I once more direct your attention to the world's temerature between 1941 and 1979. Have you looked?

Many things affect the Earth's temperature. Do you actually wish to contend that means that anthropogenic GHGs could not be the source of the current warming?

It's possible that it's being caused by aliens from another galaxy, but it's not particularly likely, is it. The point - that I really shouldn't have this much difficulty making - is that the Earth's temperature is the end result of a number of factors and processes, many quite complex. Warming from GHGs is slight, but consistent. That warming overlays warming and cooling from a number of other factors. The current hiatus is due to historically high levels of reflective aerosols from high rates of vulcanism and from changes in the pseudo-periodicity of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). And those ENSO changes may well be the result of primary and secondary warming effects: increased fresh meltwater being dumped at the poles for one.





How about answering my questions? You have yet to tell us what you believe is happening and why.

The terminal warming of the LIA ended in 1850. At that point the rate of warming increased almost six-fold. Can you tell us why?






Many of them didn't.

From Wikipedia's article on the LIA

o The population of Iceland fell by half...
o Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.
o The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished, as crops failed and livestock could not be maintained through increasingly harsh winters
o In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages.
o Hubert Lamb said that in many years, "snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today."
o Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317
o "Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country.
o In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively."
o Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.



Faster means that it is very unlikely to have the same cause as the MWP. Faster matches the rate of GHG radiative forcing CALCULATED FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES.

Does the Earth always warm or cool at the exact same rate?

Of course not, but firmly evidenced and peer-reviewed studies show that it has not warmed at the current rate at any point prior in the entire Holocene Epoch. Firm evidence (the Vostok ice cores and others) show that CO2 has not risen at the current rate in the previous 800,000 years. These points are not direct evidence that human GHGs are the cause of the warming, but they do make other causation theories difficult to maintain.

How fast did it warm when the ice in my backyard melted?

About a quarter of a Centigrade degree per century, tops.

Many of them didn't.

From Wikipedia's article on the LIA

o The population of Iceland fell by half...
o Iceland also suffered failures of cereal crops, and people moved away from a grain-based diet.
o The Norse colonies in Greenland starved and vanished, as crops failed and livestock could not be maintained through increasingly harsh winters
o In North America, American Indians formed leagues in response to food shortages.
o Hubert Lamb said that in many years, "snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today."
o Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of dearth and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317
o "Famines in France 1693–94, Norway 1695–96 and Sweden 1696–97 claimed roughly 10% of the population of each country.
o In Estonia and Finland in 1696–97, losses have been estimated at a fifth and a third of the national populations, respectively."
o Viticulture disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused serious flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent loss of large areas of land from the Danish, German and Dutch coasts.

Yes, colder is worse, warmer is better.
That's why they call warm periods Climactic Optimums.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?

Yes.

No, it's not working.

It is doing what I want it to do. That may not be what you're expecting me to do, but that's a different issue altogether.

Now, how about telling us specifically what about the theory of anthropogenic global warming you reject? What do you think lacks sufficient evidence?

And when I reply, your formating is gone. That's why you should stop.

 

[Abraham3]

Tens of trillions worth lower?
Use some solid numbers for your claim.

You haven't. However:

Based on 3.5.3.3 Cost-benefit analysis, damage cost estimates and social costs of carbon - AR4 WGIII Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context and my cynicism regarding the human species' ability to exercise good judgement regarding long term issues, I will say that by 2030, the impact cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be in the range of $80US/ton with temperatures 3.2-4.0C above 2005 levels. Scenario IV (a mid range estimate) would have carbon emissions at about 40Gt/yr. Thus we have a cost estimate of $320 billion US, PER YEAR, damage to the human infrastructure. That's only by 2030 and that's assuming some mediation takes place between now and then. If, as you would seem to desire, less or even no mediation takes place, the cost of the damage will be higher and will grow over time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tens of trillions worth lower?
Use some solid numbers for your claim.

You haven't. However:

Based on 3.5.3.3 Cost-benefit analysis, damage cost estimates and social costs of carbon - AR4 WGIII Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context and my cynicism regarding the human species' ability to exercise good judgement regarding long term issues, I will say that by 2030, the impact cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be in the range of $80US/ton with temperatures 3.2-4.0C above 2005 levels. Scenario IV (a mid range estimate) would have carbon emissions at about 40Gt/yr. Thus we have a cost estimate of $320 billion US, PER YEAR, damage to the human infrastructure. That's only by 2030 and that's assuming some mediation takes place between now and then. If, as you would seem to desire, less or even no mediation takes place, the cost of the damage will be higher and will grow over time.

So, if we spend the $10s of trillions you wish, how much will that reduce the $320 billion annual number?

How much lower will temperature be in 2080, if will spend the $10s of trillions, as compared to not spending $10s of trillions?

How much lower will the CO2 level be?

I will say that by 2030, the impact cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be in the range of $80US/ton with temperatures 3.2-4.0C above 2005 levels.

Wow! up to 4 degrees warmer in only 17 years. That's a bold prediction.

 

[Abraham3]

Here, between the asterisks, is a quote, using the QUOTE button, of your entire post.

***************************************************

How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?

Yes.

No, it's not working.

It is doing what I want it to do. That may not be what you're expecting me to do, but that's a different issue altogether.

Now, how about telling us specifically what about the theory of anthropogenic global warming you reject? What do you think lacks sufficient evidence?

And when I reply, your formating is gone. That's why you should stop.

******************************************************************

Now I don't particularly care for nested quotes and so I rearrange them to produce a linear, chronological view of the conversation. Like this:

******************************************************************

How does your cut and paste look in my reply? The same?

Yes.

No, it's not working.

It is doing what I want it to do. That may not be what you're expecting me to do, but that's a different issue altogether.

Now, how about telling us specifically what about the theory of anthropogenic global warming you reject? What do you think lacks sufficient evidence?

And when I reply, your formating is gone. That's why you should stop.

******************************************************************

Are you suggesting that my Preview Post button does not show me what a post will actually look like?

 

[Abraham3]

So, if we spend the $10s of trillions you wish, how much will that reduce the $320 billion annual number?

Do you have some experience or, perhaps it's your superior math skills, that indicate reactionary spending to be more efficient than foresighted spending? Do you wish to argue that it's best to wait till the last possible moment to try to correct a growing problem?

How much lower will temperature be in 2080, if will spend the $10s of trillions, as compared to not spending $10s of trillions?

If not one breath of additional CO2 were emitted starting from today, the world's temperatures would continue to rise, likely for more than another century. But the RATE would be down and would continue to decrease. If we do nothing to check our GHG emissions, the rate will increase logarithmically over time. The distinction is between a rough time and a global catastrophe.

How much lower will the CO2 level be?

Why do you care? You don't think it is causing warming.

I will say that by 2030, the impact cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be in the range of $80US/ton with temperatures 3.2-4.0C above 2005 levels.

Wow! up to 4 degrees warmer in only 17 years. That's a bold prediction.

You could use some of that superior math skill to try to conceptualize what logarithmic means. Look at the difference in the warming rate over the last 100 years and that after the 1941-1979 hiatus:

From 1900-2000, we experienced about 0.9C/century. From 1993 to 2003, the rate was 3 C/century. I fully expect to see the same effect when the current hiatus ends. And it will end.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here, between the asterisks, is a quote, using the QUOTE button, of your entire post.

***************************************************

Yes.



It is doing what I want it to do. That may not be what you're expecting me to do, but that's a different issue altogether.

Now, how about telling us specifically what about the theory of anthropogenic global warming you reject? What do you think lacks sufficient evidence?

And when I reply, your formating is gone. That's why you should stop.

******************************************************************

Now I don't particularly care for nested quotes and so I rearrange them to produce a linear, chronological view of the conversation. Like this:

******************************************************************

It is doing what I want it to do. That may not be what you're expecting me to do, but that's a different issue altogether.

Now, how about telling us specifically what about the theory of anthropogenic global warming you reject? What do you think lacks sufficient evidence?

And when I reply, your formating is gone. That's why you should stop.

******************************************************************

Are you suggesting that my Preview Post button does not show me what a post will actually look like?

I'm suggesting that formatting that doesn't last past your post is worse than useless.
Some of your post disappears and sometimes quotes are misattributed.
I did the same thing when I first started posting here.
I learned from my mistake.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So, if we spend the $10s of trillions you wish, how much will that reduce the $320 billion annual number?

Do you have some experience or, perhaps it's your superior math skills, that indicate reactionary spending to be more efficient than foresighted spending? Do you wish to argue that it's best to wait till the last possible moment to try to correct a growing problem?

How much lower will temperature be in 2080, if will spend the $10s of trillions, as compared to not spending $10s of trillions?

If not one breath of additional CO2 were emitted starting from today, the world's temperatures would continue to rise, likely for more than another century. But the RATE would be down and would continue to decrease. If we do nothing to check our GHG emissions, the rate will increase logarithmically over time. The distinction is between a rough time and a global catastrophe.

How much lower will the CO2 level be?
[//quote]

Why do you care? You don't think it is causing warming.

I will say that by 2030, the impact cost of adding carbon to the atmosphere will be in the range of $80US/ton with temperatures 3.2-4.0C above 2005 levels.

Wow! up to 4 degrees warmer in only 17 years. That's a bold prediction.

You could use some of that superior math skill to try to conceptualize what logarithmic means. Look at the difference in the warming rate over the last 100 years and that after the 1941-1979 hiatus:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg

From 1900-2000, we experienced about 0.9C/century. From 1993 to 2003, the rate was 3 C/century. I fully expect to see the same effect when the current hiatus ends. And it will end.

Do you have some experience or, perhaps it's your superior math skills, that indicate reactionary spending to be more efficient than foresighted spending? Do you wish to argue that it's best to wait till the last possible moment to try to correct a growing problem?

I'm suggesting, when you want to spend $10s of trillions to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.2 degrees, you have better facts on your side.

Look at the difference in the warming rate over the last 100 years and that after the 1941-1979 hiatus:

You did this and came to the conclusion that temps will be 4 degrees warmer in 2030 than they were in 2005?

From 1993 to 2003, the rate was 3 C/century. I fully expect to see the same effect when the current hiatus ends.

How do you go from 3 C/century to 4 C warmer in 2030?

 

[Abraham3]

So the problem is that the system will not allow you to quote MY quotes because they lack the post identifier.

Okay. Mea culpa. I will not drop the post ID number.

 

[Abraham3]

I'm suggesting, when you want to spend $10s of trillions to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.2 degrees, you have better facts on your side.

I never said I would reduce temps by 0.2C by 2080. I personally think we're doomed: there are too many people who believe as you do.

I have asked you repeatedly now to tell us what in the AGW theory, specifically, you reject. What facts (ie, what opinions held by the vast majority of climate scientists) do you find lacking?

You did this and came to the conclusion that temps will be 4 degrees warmer in 2030 than they were in 2005?

The 3.2-4.0 C above 2005 temps estimate came from AR4. It did not take the current hiatus into account. But I expect that we will be great deal closer to that than to today's temperature.

How do you go from 3 C/century to 4 C warmer in 2030?

Logarithmically.


Pls let me know if these quotes are, themselves, quotable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure thing there olfraud. Here is a excerpt from your dear Dr. Hansen....Probably the first truthful and accurate thing he's stated in decades.

"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....

Two points:
1) You seem to be unaware (and that ignorance would seem to be from infamiliarity) that the core purpose of science is to improve science. The reason for peer review, for challenging theories, for testing and retesting, it to constantly move closer to the truth. It is not to preserve and push dogma.

2) Hansen is not backing off any of his prior warnings, he is telling us that the projections of the world's climate scientists are getting worse, not better.

This is the clearest case in my lifetime of science and technology of the Dogma being released before science got it's pants on.. (apologies to Twain)..

As for Hansen --- the CO2 theory of EVERYTHING hasn't gotten CLEARER for him in a handful of years. The situation has gone from manageable to desparation.. Just as Global Warming has morphed to Climate Change and now some voodoo inspired "Global Weirding" where excess of rain in New Mexico and a drought in Arizona is suddenly his only card to play...

 

[flacaltenn]

The warming trend of the last 150 years IS our fault.

If only you had proof.

There is no proof anywhere in natural sciences. One uses evidence to support theories. Welcome to Science 101. You should have gotten this in the 7th grade.

Over the last 150 years the world has gotten warmer at a rate unprecedented in the last 22,000 years. Atmospheric CO2 levels have risen at a rate and to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. The source of the increased CO2, by isotopic analysis and simple bookkeeping, is human combustion of fossil fuels. NO climate model that does not assume anthropogenic global warming has ever been able to reproduce the warming of the last 150 years.

So, tell us, what part of that do you think is inadequately evidenced?



That is wishful thinking but it is refuted by a number of studies on the likely impact of rapidly increasing global temperatures. Are you going to suggest that warming weather will bring more land to the till? I'm afraid that will not be the case. The losses will outnumber the gains by orders of magnitude.



It refers to "a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P."
--Wikipedia



And which of my claims do you believe to be "silly"?

How much do you feel we should spend to stop AGW?

I would suggest spending some significant portion of what we believe AGW will cost us. Current estimates are that with no remediation, costs over the next century will be in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. So... if we could save that money (and pain and death and extinction) by spending a few tens of trillions now, I'd do it. Besides, there are lots of other benefits from moving away from fossil fuels. They're running out. They're polluting (check out the Beijing skyline) and we it'll be easier to build a new infrastructure when we choose to rather than when we have to.

What would you do?

If you get your wish, what will be the result in 2080?

I will still be alive, in the body of an 18 year old, living in a palace in the clouds experiencing non-stop orgasms. You?

Gladly tell you.. (enhanced text above)... Why do you stop at 22,000 yrs?? A series of iceball events are TYPICAL for CO2 forcing?? Is that your contention? That's the almost absolute ice/thaw condition of the past 22,000 yrs is similiar to today's climate? With CO2 largely trapped in its cycle by ice? I don't care if you read tea leave or ARE Mr. Shakun --- the data from ice cores can't accurately read rates of rise by decades... Maybe MILLENIUM --- but not decades.. So you can't even CONFIRM the claim you made about rates of rise....

There is general agreement that forcing by CO2 can be calculated from basic principles. And skeptics and warmer alike largely agree that forcing for a doubling from 250 to 500ppm results in about 1.1DegC change.. At THAT RATE (about 1.1degC per century) this isn't even front page news..

What is inadequately evidenced is two-fold..

1) The AGW folks invented SUPERPOWERS for CO2 above and beyond the physical ability of it to further warm the planet.. THey are selling a view of a fragile earth and a fragile climate being harrassed and abused by evil tenant. But THEY can't agree on the simple (and nonsensical) GLOBAL climate sensitivity numbers that grant these superpowers. We are faced with ESTIMATES of anywhere from 1.4 to 5 or even higher. AS IF -- there is a meaning to the GLOBAL AVERAGE response to warming..

2) It is only now -- when all their CO2 driven models go off the rails -- that Climate Science suddenly discovers thing like thermal storage and thermal inertia and NATURAL FORCINGS so that YOU can make excuses for them missing every mark they aimed at.
WHY --- were these not in play before? BEFORE the rhetoric ramped so violently high?

Were they distracted by using tree rings as thermometers.. Too busy revising surface temps in the official records of the 1940s??? Emailing each other to rig the publication process?? What took this LONG to get them to THINK like scientists???

That's what enquiring minds want to know...

 

[Abraham3]

This is the clearest case in my lifetime of science and technology of the Dogma being released before science got it's pants on.. (apologies to Twain)..

Of what dogma do you speak?

As for Hansen --- the CO2 theory of EVERYTHING hasn't gotten CLEARER for him in a handful of years. The situation has gone from manageable to desparation.. Just as Global Warming has morphed to Climate Change and now some voodoo inspired "Global Weirding" where excess of rain in New Mexico and a drought in Arizona is suddenly his only card to play...

I have not seen that Dr Hansen has had any difficulties with his understanding of global warming. As has been noted here before, his projections are certainly superior to anything that any AGW denier has ever put out.

What is your point here? Do you reject human causation? If so, what do you think IS responsible?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm suggesting, when you want to spend $10s of trillions to reduce temperatures in 2080 by 0.2 degrees, you have better facts on your side.

I never said I would reduce temps by 0.2C by 2080. I personally think we're doomed: there are too many people who believe as you do.

I have asked you repeatedly now to tell us what in the AGW theory, specifically, you reject. What facts (ie, what opinions held by the vast majority of climate scientists) do you find lacking?

You did this and came to the conclusion that temps will be 4 degrees warmer in 2030 than they were in 2005?

The 3.2-4.0 C above 2005 temps estimate came from AR4. It did not take the current hiatus into account. But I expect that we will be great deal closer to that than to today's temperature.

How do you go from 3 C/century to 4 C warmer in 2030?

Logarithmically.


Pls let me know if these quotes are, themselves, quotable.

I never said I would reduce temps by 0.2C by 2080.

I know, you never said how much the $10s of trillions in spending would reduce temps.
Here's your chance.

The 3.2-4.0 C above 2005 temps estimate came from AR4.

And when the actual temps aren't 3-4.0 C warmer, how do we get our trillions back?

 

[flacaltenn]

This is the clearest case in my lifetime of science and technology of the Dogma being released before science got it's pants on.. (apologies to Twain)..

Of what dogma do you speak?

Oh quite clearly that would have to be the leap to hysteria.. Going from basic principles of a 1.1degC results for doubling CO2 to a whopping 3 or 4 degC by evoking a fragile climate climate theory that says we are sitting on a junker of a planet that will turn itself into a literal fuel-air bomb because of a 1.1degC "TRIGGER".. That's the AGW hysteria in a nutshell..

As for Hansen --- the CO2 theory of EVERYTHING hasn't gotten CLEARER for him in a handful of years. The situation has gone from manageable to desparation.. Just as Global Warming has morphed to Climate Change and now some voodoo inspired "Global Weirding" where excess of rain in New Mexico and a drought in Arizona is suddenly his only card to play...

I have not seen that Dr Hansen has had any difficulties with his understanding of global warming. As has been noted here before, his projections are certainly superior to anything that any AGW denier has ever put out.

What is your point here? Do you reject human causation? If so, what do you think IS responsible?

I've already told you what I believe a doubling of CO2 would do.. I do believe that man is OVERCHARGED for his contribution. Since we get the bill for cow farts and forest fires. But when Hansen switches from CO2 forcing to giving the AGW circus ammunition for claiming that ANY weather induced news event is scientific PROOF of "Global Weirding" --- that shows the desparation of his cause.. I just watched a Senate hearing with your comrades blaming the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on CO2.. You don't think Hansen gave them that gun to shoot themselves in the foot?

 

[Abraham3]

Why do you stop at 22,000 yrs??

That is the beginning of the Holocene Epoch; a good representation of the era of the "modern human" and, more specifically, the era since the end of the last full up ice age. It is also the period covered by two works: A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years at A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years and Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

Both these works use a broad range of proxies to do a thorough and very careful temperature reconstruction: the former from the present back to 11,300 years, the latter between 22,000 and 11,000 year BP. That's why I chose 22,000 years.

A series of iceball events are TYPICAL for CO2 forcing?? Is that your contention? That's the almost absolute ice/thaw condition of the past 22,000 yrs is similiar to today's climate?

My apologies for any confusion, but I never said any such thing. What I said is that evidence (those studies) indicate that the Earth has not experienced the warming rate we've seen over the last 150 years, at any time in the prior 22,000. The current warming rate is unprecedented in that period. Is that more clear?

With CO2 largely trapped in its cycle by ice? I don't care if you tea leave or ARE Mr. Shakun --- the data from ice cores can't accurately read rates of rise by decades... Maybe MILLENIUM --- but not decades.. So you can't even CONFIRM the claim you made about rates of rise....

Thank you for bringing that up. The temporal resolution of the two studies are approximately 300 years. Obviously, that is greater than 150 years and an increase such as we have experienced in the last century and a half would go unnoted in such a record... save for one thing. What goes up must come back down. For an event such as the current warming to be indiscernible in Shakun and Marcott's records, temperatures would have to rise AND FALL in less than 300 years. That, I'm afraid, violates several laws of physics. CO2, whether the initiating cause or driven out of natural sequestration by temperatures raised by other means, has a mean lifetime of many centuries. Even if all radiative forcing could be instantly terminated by some means, the world's mass will simply not cool off that fast.

There is general agreement that forcing by CO2 can be calculated from basic principles. And skeptics and warmer alike largely agree that forcing for a doubling from 250 to 500ppm results in about 1.1DegC change.. At THAT RATE (about 1.1degC per century) this isn't even front page news..

As you know, that would be forcing SOLELY from Greenhouse effects of increased CO2. That does not take into account the very real world effects that serve to amplify warming via positive feedback mechanism: increased temps increase evaporation and water vapor is a potent GHG. Reduced ice cover world wide lead to reduced albedo and increased absorption off solar radiation. Increased temperatures are melting the world's tundra - exposing an ENORMOUS supply of methane (another potent GHG) and CO2. And, as you already know, taking those into account give a climate sensitivity closer to 3C/doubling.

What is inadequately evidenced is two-fold..

1) The AGW folks invented SUPERPOWERS for CO2 above and beyond the physical ability of it to further warm the planet.. THey are selling a view of a fragile earth and a fragile climate being harrassed and abused by evil tenant. But THEY can't agree on the simple (and nonsensical) GLOBAL climate sensitivity numbers that grant these superpowers. We are faced with ESTIMATES of anywhere from 1.4 to 5 or even higher. AS IF -- there is a meaning to the GLOBAL AVERAGE response to warming..

Do you reject the existence and function of these amplifying mechanisms? If so, explain what is happening to solar radiation that strikes earth, rock and deep water where it used to strike ice and snow. Please explain why the water vapor, methane and CO2 released by warming does not enhance the Greenhouse Efffect already taking place.

2) It is only now -- when all their CO2 driven models go off the rails -- that Climate Science suddenly discovers thing like thermal storage and thermal inertia and NATURAL FORCINGS so that YOU can make excuses for them missing every mark they aimed at.
WHY --- were these not in play before? BEFORE the rhetoric ramped so violently high?

These are not new concepts and they are certainly not being used in an ad hoc basis. Did someone put forth a theory that the deep ocean was storing heat before it was found there? Was it theorized that the current hiatus was due to vulcanism and ENSO before the data were examined?

If you think the current hiatus is some make-or-break event for the theory of AGW, please look at the 1941-1979 period I have noted before. The current behavior of the current climate is NOT unprecedented; it is NOT outside the range of normal variation.

Were they distracted by using tree rings as thermometers.

Do you have some sort of problem with dendrochronology. Have you done any paleoclimatological reconstructions yourself? Why, precisely, do you make this remark?

Too busy revising surface temps in the official records of the 1940s???

I am unfamiliar with this specific reference but surely you understand that data of all sort is frequently corrected and adjusted for known or discovered errors in the collection systems. Are you under the impression that every measuring device ever created produces perfect results? Are you opposed to calibration in general or simply when it provides you something about which to complain?

Emailing each other to rig the publication process??

I believe you will find that the discussion to which you refer was intended to improve the quality of information available. And if we are not allowed to gripe, bitch, moan and complain about that for which we do not care, where would places like this forum go?

What took this LONG to get them to THINK like scientists???
That's what enquiring minds want to know...

The problem is manifold: they ARE scientists but they are also quite human. They are opposed by a very well funded disinformation campaign put on by the fossil fuel industry which has no problem whatsoever taking advantage of the public's general ignorance of science. Research scientists are not accustomed to the jobs of spokesman, advocate, salesman or live debater. Thus they suffer from a great deal of frustration and it occasionally shows up. I also get frustrated. I look at the world we are going to leave my children and it makes me very, very unhappy. When folks, like you and others, actively work against doing what the human race so obviously needs to do, it makes me very frustrated as well. I occasionally lose my temper. My apologies in advance if it should come to that.

BTW, to all of you, thanks for the debate

 

[westwall]

And if he has children?

The work of Foster and Rahmstorf (current hiatus due to vulcanism and ENSO), Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen (ocean warming below 700 meters) and Shakun and Marcott (current warming rate unprecedented in 22,000 years) are all unchallenged. No one - certainly none of the more popular anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deniers - have presented ANY viable evidence to the contrary. Add this to the rather significant point that no denier has presented a working theory to explain the warming of the last 150 years and no theory as to why greenhouse warming itself should have ceased for the last 15 years and it becomes quite obvious that the deniers do not have a case.

If all you have to bring to the argument is to tell us that peer-reviewed science is fantasy hand-waving, you might as well stay at home.

Yet another sock. How many do you clowns need to make you feel better about yourselves? Doesn't matter though, the population of the world has pretty much figured out you're not relevant anymore so are ignoring you.

Now it's just the fraudsters and the anti-science religious fanatics who support AGW now.

 

[Abraham3]

I know, you never said how much the $10s of trillions in spending would reduce temps.
Here's your chance.

The number of unanswered questions is a great deal longer on YOUR side than on mine. I'll resume answering some of your questions when you've answered some of mine.

Additionally, I'm really not all that enthusiastic about participating in your red herring. You reject human causation. You therefore don't want to see a penny spent. Thus, your 'inquiry' on the economics is a pointless waste of my time.

And when the actual temps aren't 3-4.0 C warmer, how do we get our trillions back?

You don't put much value on the lives of others, do you.

 

[Abraham3]

Oh quite clearly that would have to be the leap to hysteria.. Going from basic principles of a 1.1degC results for doubling CO2 to a whopping 3 or 4 degC by evoking a fragile climate climate theory that says we are sitting on a junker of a planet that will turn itself into a literal fuel-air bomb because of a 1.1degC "TRIGGER".. That's the AGW hysteria in a nutshell..

I already addressed this in a post above, but let me give you another opportunity to explain what the effect will be of our reduced albedo (loss of ice cover) and the increase of water vapor, methane and formerly sequestered CO2 released to the atmosphere by warming?

I've already told you what I believe a doubling of CO2 would do.. I do believe that man is OVERCHARGED for his contribution. Since we get the bill for cow farts and forest fires. But when Hansen switches from CO2 forcing to giving the AGW circus ammunition for claiming that ANY weather induced news event is scientific PROOF of "Global Weirding" --- that shows the desparation of his cause.. I just watched a Senate hearing with your comrades blaming the death of 19 firefighters in Arizona on CO2.. You don't think Hansen gave them that gun to shoot themselves in the foot?

Where does the energy that drives our weather come from?

 

[Abraham3]

Yet another sock.

Are you always that rude?

How many do you clowns need to make you feel better about yourselves?

I seem to be doing quite well all by myself thank you. How many deniers am I debating today?

Doesn't matter though, the population of the world has pretty much figured out you're not relevant anymore so are ignoring you.

They never were paying sufficient attention. I hope, however, you're not getting the idea that they're now listening to you.

Now it's just the fraudsters and the anti-science religious fanatics who support AGW now.

I don't know who you're talking about, but I share views with 97% of the world's active climate scientists. How many scientists agree with you?