New IPCC Report Throwing in the Towel on AGW?

[JimBowie1958]

Well, the models didn't understand all the variables. One being the PDO that is turning out to be the reason for the warming between 1910-1940, stable between 1940-1975, and warming between 1975-2000.

Same is occurring now.

You seem too sure given the little data we actually have on the PDO and its changes over time.

How was the PDO behaving during the Little Ice Age or the Middle Ages Warm Period?

Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past... [Nature. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI


Dosbat: Arctic Sea-Ice in the Little Ice Age.



The results from Kinnard et al complement an earlier study by Kaufman et al (2009) who find:

Strong warming in the 20th century contrasts
sharply with the preceding cooling trend. An Arctic
summer temperature of –0.5°C (relative to the period
1961–1990) might have been expected by the
mid-20th century on the basis of a simple forward
projection of the linear trend in the proxy data for
the period from 1 C.E. to 1900 C.E. (Fig. 3C).
Instead, our reconstruction indicates that temperatures
increased to +0.2°C by 1950. This shift correlates
with the rise in global average temperature,
which coincided with the onset of major anthropogenic
changes in global atmospheric composition,
the absence of major volcanic eruptions, and
changes in solar irradiance (30).


Leaving aside the bleedin' obvious about present sea-ice conditions being exceptional in the context of the last 1400 years. The LIA was around 1600 to 1800, a period of unusual cold in Europe and probably elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, Kinnard et al shows that at the time the Arctic experienced a dip in sea-ice extent. That's an apparent reduction in sea-ice at a time of purported cooling.

There's a denialist fringe that wants to explain all climate change in terms of the Sun (insolation) or Earth's relationship to it (e.g. Milankovitch Cycles). The behaviour of the Arctic seems to present a problem in terms of this brute force relationship between insolation and temperature. However as I've discussed previously there is reason to expect a more subtle solar impact upon terrestrial climate.

Not to be rude, BUTTTTT....

1. I was asking about the PDO Pacific decadal oscillation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia not the arctic ice cap.

2. Proxy data and 'reconstructed data' is a case for GIGO if there ever was one. While it can help one look for real data it is in itself NOT real data. Measured data is real data, not second party data that is presumed to match up or correlate to the data we want primarily.

3. The use of 'denialist' is a very nonscientific approach to this controversy. Either one can disprove the 'denialists' arguments and answer their questions or one cannot. That the relevant questions came from 'denialists' is immaterial to an honest scientific inquiry, though it is bread and butter for social engineers who are more management/funding courtiers than actual test/research scientists any more.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ben Santer?s 17 year itch | Watts Up With That?

 

[JimBowie1958]

We're heading for the 6th warmest this year.

Global Analysis - August 2013 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

That 'data' is massaged data, as is apparent since they threw out version 3.1.0 and replaced it with 3.2.0. Honestly, how can you trust these people whose hysteria drives their funding to not weight the evidence toward the sky is falling hype?

Do you know what the relevant changes from the raw data to the new and improved data sets are?

How can anyone seriously consider this science? REAL direct measurement values over time that test a disprovable hypothesis is real science.

This Climate Change -> Global Warming -> AGW moving goal posts are not a disprovable theorem since they change the data as they go and ALL possible results, from extreme cold to extreme heat, few hurricanes to a horde of hurricanes ALL PROVE their theory.

Lets see what RAW UNMINED DATA shows us and let us decide for our own selves. THAT is what a real scientist would do.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When will anyone get it through their heads that the UEA (University of East Anglia) altered the climate forcings in the HadCRUT4 models? Statistics don't lie unless you make them.

 

[JimBowie1958]

NASA: 2012 Was 9th Hottest Year on Record

The year 2012 was the ninth hottest on record, according to a new global temperature report from NASA, the United States space agency

The agencies' findings show that, with the exception of 1988, the nine warmest years in the 132-year global weather record have all occurred since the year 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranked as the hottest years ever.




lolol!!!

AGW has stopped, my butt!!

Odd; what was your butt doing that had to be stopped?

Nevermind; I don't want to know!

 

[JimBowie1958]

if 2010 and 2005 were the hottest years on record, that means AGW didn't stop in 1998.

or 2001

or 2002

or 2003

or 2004

'if'

 

[TemplarKormac]

NASA: 2012 Was 9th Hottest Year on Record

The year 2012 was the ninth hottest on record, according to a new global temperature report from NASA, the United States space agency

The agencies' findings show that, with the exception of 1988, the nine warmest years in the 132-year global weather record have all occurred since the year 2000, with 2010 and 2005 ranked as the hottest years ever.




lolol!!!

AGW has stopped, my butt!!

Odd; what was your butt doing that had to be stopped?

Nevermind; I don't want to know!

 

[Peterf]

Well, the models didn't understand all the variables. One being the PDO that is turning out to be the reason for the warming between 1910-1940, stable between 1940-1975, and warming between 1975-2000.

Same is occurring now.

baloney. the same very wrong models were predicting "Ice Age" in the 70s. the hysteria about "warming" did not start until early 90s.

there was NOTHING STABLE ever

Oh you mean those computers that were 1/100,000,000,000 as powerful as we have today could predict the climate. LOL The fact that we understand far more about the climate(variables) and far more powerful should offer pulse when talking about predictions at the time.

Feed rubbish into a billion times more powerful computer and you get an answer a billion times more stupid.

The famous computer models were so designed that what numbers were put in 'global warming' would come out. The technical term for this process is a 'con trick'. That is, something to separate the rubes from their money.

 

[Peterf]

if 2010 and 2005 were the hottest years on record, that means AGW didn't stop in 1998.

or 2001

or 2002

or 2003

or 2004

'if'

It works like this. Every year there will be some places where it was 'the hottest on record'. Eco-loons point at them, jumping up and down in excitement.

Of course there will also be places where in was the coldest on record but that inconvenient truth will be resolutely ignored.