Solar v Anthropogenic Causes of Global Warming

[JoeNormal]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Thank you, I have seen/heard this argument before. I have even made the case myself. Of course whenever I do, I am called a "science denier". I wonder what the fallout will be from this guy's lecture....

Hopefully, they'll incorporate it into the models that they have. Even though this is a significant contributor, you can see from the overlay upon actual (and modeled) global temperature that there are a lot of other very significant contributors from the environmental processes that are being measured and increasingly understood. The doctor who made this presentation says that sunspot activity is unpredictable but has bounds of both magnitude and duration so while no really accurate prediction can be made, a range of predictions could be. He believes that the typical cycles of the sun would most likely give us an additional 1 degree C increase but I don't think he's including positive feedbacks so we're not done yet.

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

The models the use are not simple. The simulate the wind and ocean currents that Formula One and aviation companies use and incorporate many more processes in addition.

 

[JoeNormal]

Seriously? This

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

Why don't you identify these overly "simple" models you believe climate scientists are using. And don't you think someone modeling the behavior of the atmosphere and the ocean might actually be using some computational fluid dynamics?

Then you can explain to us the difference between modeling a car and modeling the whole fucking planet Earth.

Here, look at this you ignorant ass.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/CMIP5_output_metadata_requirements.pdf

Poor crickey, too complex even for a fool like you huh. From YOUR hero's! All the way back to 1965. All they have ever had are simple models for two reason. The first is they are lazy. The second is a complex computer model is beyond their ability to create. They simply aren't smart enough silly boy!

The Very, Very Simple Climate Model
The Very, Very Simple Climate Model | UCAR Center for Science Education

Simple Models of Climate Change

Simple Models of Climate


Simple climate models for teaching

Tim Osborn's simple models for teaching

Learning from a simple model
Learning from a simple model

SIMULATED CLIMATOLOGY OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL WITH A HYDROLOGIC CYCLE SYUKURO MANABE, JOSEPH SMAGORINSKY, AND ROBERT F. STRICKLER

"general circulation model with a simple hydrologic cycle is performed"

Seriously? This is the basis of your contention that the models they use are simplistic?

 

[JoeNormal]

Seriously? This

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

Why don't you identify these overly "simple" models you believe climate scientists are using. And don't you think someone modeling the behavior of the atmosphere and the ocean might actually be using some computational fluid dynamics?

Then you can explain to us the difference between modeling a car and modeling the whole fucking planet Earth.

Here, look at this you ignorant ass.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/CMIP5_output_metadata_requirements.pdf

Poor crickey, too complex even for a fool like you huh. From YOUR hero's! All the way back to 1965. All they have ever had are simple models for two reason. The first is they are lazy. The second is a complex computer model is beyond their ability to create. They simply aren't smart enough silly boy!

The Very, Very Simple Climate Model
The Very, Very Simple Climate Model | UCAR Center for Science Education

Simple Models of Climate Change

Simple Models of Climate


Simple climate models for teaching

Tim Osborn's simple models for teaching

Learning from a simple model
Learning from a simple model

SIMULATED CLIMATOLOGY OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL WITH A HYDROLOGIC CYCLE SYUKURO MANABE, JOSEPH SMAGORINSKY, AND ROBERT F. STRICKLER

"general circulation model with a simple hydrologic cycle is performed"

Seriously? This is the basis of your contention that the models they use are simplistic?

 

[westwall]

Seriously? This

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

Why don't you identify these overly "simple" models you believe climate scientists are using. And don't you think someone modeling the behavior of the atmosphere and the ocean might actually be using some computational fluid dynamics?

Then you can explain to us the difference between modeling a car and modeling the whole fucking planet Earth.

Here, look at this you ignorant ass.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/CMIP5_output_metadata_requirements.pdf

Poor crickey, too complex even for a fool like you huh. From YOUR hero's! All the way back to 1965. All they have ever had are simple models for two reason. The first is they are lazy. The second is a complex computer model is beyond their ability to create. They simply aren't smart enough silly boy!

The Very, Very Simple Climate Model
The Very, Very Simple Climate Model | UCAR Center for Science Education

Simple Models of Climate Change

Simple Models of Climate


Simple climate models for teaching

Tim Osborn's simple models for teaching

Learning from a simple model
Learning from a simple model

SIMULATED CLIMATOLOGY OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL WITH A HYDROLOGIC CYCLE SYUKURO MANABE, JOSEPH SMAGORINSKY, AND ROBERT F. STRICKLER

"general circulation model with a simple hydrologic cycle is performed"

Seriously? This is the basis of your contention that the models they use are simplistic?

That and every Abstract I have ever read from them starts with those very words. Every. Single. one.

 

[westwall]

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Thank you, I have seen/heard this argument before. I have even made the case myself. Of course whenever I do, I am called a "science denier". I wonder what the fallout will be from this guy's lecture....

Hopefully, they'll incorporate it into the models that they have. Even though this is a significant contributor, you can see from the overlay upon actual (and modeled) global temperature that there are a lot of other very significant contributors from the environmental processes that are being measured and increasingly understood. The doctor who made this presentation says that sunspot activity is unpredictable but has bounds of both magnitude and duration so while no really accurate prediction can be made, a range of predictions could be. He believes that the typical cycles of the sun would most likely give us an additional 1 degree C increase but I don't think he's including positive feedbacks so we're not done yet.

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

The models the use are not simple. The simulate the wind and ocean currents that Formula One and aviation companies use and incorporate many more processes in addition.

F1 uses CFD models that the climatologists can only dream about. They can't implement, use, or comprehend a single one of them. Nor do the CFD models that F1 and aerospace use, have a single relationship to any of simplistic models that climatologists use. The reason for that is F1 teams want to win, and aerospace companies don't want their aircraft falling out of the skies. Climatology models are so simplistic that they don't even consider clouds and their effect. Clouds are one of the primary drivers of climate we are finding and too ignore them because ("they are too hard for us to model") is simply not an acceptable way of dealing with them.


66. Clouds are hard
66. Clouds are hard – Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

 

[Crick]

Re Clouds and CMIP5 GCMs, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about

Abstract
Clouds are a key component of the climate system affecting radiative balances and the hydrological cycle. Previous studies from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) showed quite large biases in the simulated cloud climatology affecting all GCMs as well as a remarkable degree of variation among the models that represented the state of the art circa 2005. Here the progress that has been made in recent years is measured by comparing mean cloud properties, interannual variability, and the climatological seasonal cycle from the CMIP5 models with satellite observations and with results from comparable CMIP3 experiments. The focus is on three climate-relevant cloud parameters: cloud amount, liquid water path, and cloud radiative forcing. The comparison shows that intermodel differences are still large in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) simulations, and reveals some small improvements of particular cloud properties in some regions in the CMIP5 ensemble over CMIP3. In CMIP5 there is an improved agreement of the modeled interannual variability of liquid water path and of the modeled longwave cloud forcing over mid- and high-latitude oceans with observations. However, the differences in the simulated cloud climatology from CMIP3 and CMIP5 are generally small, and there is very little to no improvement apparent in the tropical and subtropical regions in CMIP5.

Comparisons of the results from the coupled CMIP5 models with their atmosphere-only versions run with observed SSTs show remarkably similar biases in the simulated cloud climatologies. This suggests the treatments of subgrid-scale cloud and boundary layer processes are directly implicated in the poor performance of current GCMs in simulating realistic cloud fields.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00451.1

 

[Old Rocks]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Thank you, I have seen/heard this argument before. I have even made the case myself. Of course whenever I do, I am called a "science denier". I wonder what the fallout will be from this guy's lecture....

Hopefully, they'll incorporate it into the models that they have. Even though this is a significant contributor, you can see from the overlay upon actual (and modeled) global temperature that there are a lot of other very significant contributors from the environmental processes that are being measured and increasingly understood. The doctor who made this presentation says that sunspot activity is unpredictable but has bounds of both magnitude and duration so while no really accurate prediction can be made, a range of predictions could be. He believes that the typical cycles of the sun would most likely give us an additional 1 degree C increase but I don't think he's including positive feedbacks so we're not done yet.

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

What a liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell


Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Dr. Hansen published that in 1981, when people like you were denying that there was any warming at all. And the Northwest Passage opened up for the first time in 2007. And last year, a large luxury cruise ship did the Northwest Passage. The whole of the article can be read at the link.

 

[westwall]

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Thank you, I have seen/heard this argument before. I have even made the case myself. Of course whenever I do, I am called a "science denier". I wonder what the fallout will be from this guy's lecture....

Hopefully, they'll incorporate it into the models that they have. Even though this is a significant contributor, you can see from the overlay upon actual (and modeled) global temperature that there are a lot of other very significant contributors from the environmental processes that are being measured and increasingly understood. The doctor who made this presentation says that sunspot activity is unpredictable but has bounds of both magnitude and duration so while no really accurate prediction can be made, a range of predictions could be. He believes that the typical cycles of the sun would most likely give us an additional 1 degree C increase but I don't think he's including positive feedbacks so we're not done yet.

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

What a liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell


Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Dr. Hansen published that in 1981, when people like you were denying that there was any warming at all. And the Northwest Passage opened up for the first time in 2007. And last year, a large luxury cruise ship did the Northwest Passage. The whole of the article can be read at the link.

Two thousand seven huh? Might want to check your facts on that. Why lookey here....Roald Amundsen did it way back in 1905, and the Russians were doing it back in the 1800's and there's even a case of one trip doing it back in the 1700's. All in tiny little wind powered vessels. Put another way, you're a moron who can't seem to read history.

 

[Crick]

The Northwest Passage is a sea route connecting the northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Arctic Ocean, along the northern coast of North America via waterways through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.[1][2][3][4] The various islands of the archipelago are separated from one another and from the Canadian mainland by a series of Arctic waterways collectively known as the Northwest Passages or Northwestern Passages.[5]

For centuries explorers sought a navigable passage as a possible trade route. An ice-bound northern route was discovered in 1850 by the Irish explorer Robert McClure; however, it was through a more southerly opening in an area explored by the Scotsman John Rae in 1854 that Norwegian Roald Amundsen made the first complete passage in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable.[6][7][8][9]

It took Roald Amundsen three years to traverse the Northwest Passage; hardly a clear and navigable route.

 

[westwall]

The Northwest Passage is a sea route connecting the northern Atlantic and Pacific Oceans through the Arctic Ocean, along the northern coast of North America via waterways through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.[1][2][3][4] The various islands of the archipelago are separated from one another and from the Canadian mainland by a series of Arctic waterways collectively known as the Northwest Passages or Northwestern Passages.[5]

For centuries explorers sought a navigable passage as a possible trade route. An ice-bound northern route was discovered in 1850 by the Irish explorer Robert McClure; however, it was through a more southerly opening in an area explored by the Scotsman John Rae in 1854 that Norwegian Roald Amundsen made the first complete passage in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year. Arctic sea ice decline has rendered the waterways more navigable.[6][7][8][9]

Here's another wiki page for you to look at clown boy. Would you look at that, waaaay the heck back in the middle 1700's they were exploring the crap out of the place! Who knew! Well, me for one, but not you or your fellow clowns who share a universal ignorance of history.

"The Great Northern Expedition (Russian: Великая Северная экспедиция) or Second Kamchatka expedition (Russian: Вторая Камчатская экспедиция) was one of the largest organised exploration enterprises in history, resulting in mapping of the most of the Arctic coast of Siberia and some parts of the North America coastline, greatly reducing the "white areas" on the maps. The endeavour was initially conceived by Russian Emperor Peter I the Great and implemented in practice by Russian Empresses Anna and Elizabeth. The main organiser and leader of the expedition was Vitus Bering, who earlier had been commissioned by Peter I to lead the first Kamchatka expedition. The Second Kamchatka expedition lasted roughly from 1733–1743 and later became called the Great Northern due to the immense scale of its achievements."


Great Northern Expedition - Wikipedia

 

[Crick]

They did not find a Northwest Passage.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

That is a pretty long video. Would you be willing to summarise? What are the basics? If necessary, I will do further research based on that. I know this is a complex issue, and is likely not explained in a short format, however, If you could try to, or at least direct me to where I might find such a summary, I would certainly appreciate it.

It's really about half as long as it appears because there's a lengthy Q and A of dubious value at the end but here's the gist of it:

There's a strong correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature increase. I used to think this was a correlation without causation because if an aspect of solar activity were to have an effect, it would be solar output. Solar output probably does have an effect but the variation is extremely small so it doesn't do much. Why does sunspot activity matter? It's because strong gusts of solar wind affect the earth's magnetosphere and vary the amount of cosmic radiation that gets through. This cosmic radiation causes cloud cover to be more or less reflective and thus allows the solar radiation to warm or cool the planet.

Thanks for posting this. .

1) -- there's a BIG difference between Sun Spot counts and evaluating the full Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). Estimates of solar output using Sun Spot counts exclude the "BASELINE" longer term increases/decreases that are LONG TERM actual variance in output. This is the way that the IPCC LIED and excluded the 1W/M2 increase in TSI since the last solar minimum in 1700. The FACT is that the sun reached a Solar MAX in the early 70s and has STAYED there (for the most part) over the past 35 years or so.

2) ---- the other observation is that the complexity of the Climate system PRECLUDES the likelihood that the shape or magnitude of a surface temperature result HAS to be direct correlated with a INPUT forcing function that LOOKS exactly the same and is in perfect time alignment.. It would be a fluke if that was the case because of the MASSIVE heat storage capability of the planet in the oceans and weather systems. And DELAYS in response to forcing are complicated due to the MANY time constants associated with the transfer function known as "climate sensitivity number" -- also discussed in the vid. So even if the sun performed a "step up" from the LIA and just SAT THERE --- you could be BUILDING heat in a linear fashion in the climate system.. Thus causing a temperature RAMP when the solar forcing is relatively constant.

I'm watching the vid right now. BBL with other comments.

 

[flacaltenn]

I listened to the talk and a few of the questions. JoeNormal .. It's all very interesting from the perspective of filling in the gaps on knowledge of the "climate sensitivity" estimates. CSensitivity #s are the function that relates forcings to temperatures. And they certainly are at the core of the accuracy of the climate models.

So he made a strong case for solar activity REDUCING the CS #s by quite a lot. About 1/3 or even more. But there's a diff between solar activity (as determined by sun spots and solar storm metrics) --- and solar OUTPUT. Total Solar Irradiance is what has changed since 1700. The "solar activity and the 11 year cycles just ride on top of the BASELINE increase from a solar minimum to the current solar maximum that peaked back in the 80s and pretty much stayed there.

So the effects of cloud generation and minute influences on sea level and such don't DIRECTLY affect the solar forcing, he's concerned in how they affect the "feedbacks" and "feedforwards" in the system diagram. The TSI run-up from solar min to solar max is in ADDITION to these effects.

BTW -- it's silly and stupid to have just ONE CSensitivity number. The Earth does not have just ONE climate zone. They all react DIFFERENTLY to solar and GHGas forcings. And until the models account for these differences in "regional" Climate Sensitivity well and completely -- their accuracy is doomed to be very limited. EVEN WITH this guy's "improvements and suggestions". We need more DETAILED science in this field and less big GLOBAL guesses. Which is part of he said in the talk.

 

[Crick]

How rapidly do you believe those zones change? Is the Sahara going to bloom anytime soon? Are the Himalayas going to flatten by next month? Will the oceans dry? Will we gain a new inland sea any time soon?

It can very accurately be said that the only energy input to the Earth is solar radiation and the only output is radiation escaping to space. The Earth can be treated as a system.

 

[JoeNormal]

Seriously? This

To be honest the models they have are worse than useless. The first problem they have is they are simple. A simple model is not capable of modelling the real world. It just isn't, and can never be. What i would like to see is some real effort to build a computer model that actually can work. As an example Formula One racing teams use Computational Fluid Dynamics computer models that cost millions of dollars, and are run by dozens of people to look at the aerodynamic impact of minor changes to the various bits of the chassis. That is all they do.

Climatology on the other hand has wasted tens of billions of dollars on "studies" that use simple models that are so bad that no matter what number you plug into them they always generate a warming trend. Furthermore they can't even do a one day hindcast with absolutely perfect knowledge of all of the variables involved. Until they can at least come close to doing that the models are less than worthless.

Why don't you identify these overly "simple" models you believe climate scientists are using. And don't you think someone modeling the behavior of the atmosphere and the ocean might actually be using some computational fluid dynamics?

Then you can explain to us the difference between modeling a car and modeling the whole fucking planet Earth.

Here, look at this you ignorant ass.

http://cmip-pcmdi.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/CMIP5_output_metadata_requirements.pdf

Poor crickey, too complex even for a fool like you huh. From YOUR hero's! All the way back to 1965. All they have ever had are simple models for two reason. The first is they are lazy. The second is a complex computer model is beyond their ability to create. They simply aren't smart enough silly boy!

The Very, Very Simple Climate Model
The Very, Very Simple Climate Model | UCAR Center for Science Education

Simple Models of Climate Change

Simple Models of Climate


Simple climate models for teaching

Tim Osborn's simple models for teaching

Learning from a simple model
Learning from a simple model

SIMULATED CLIMATOLOGY OF A GENERAL CIRCULATION MODEL WITH A HYDROLOGIC CYCLE SYUKURO MANABE, JOSEPH SMAGORINSKY, AND ROBERT F. STRICKLER

"general circulation model with a simple hydrologic cycle is performed"

Seriously? This is the basis of your contention that the models they use are simplistic?

That and every Abstract I have ever read from them starts with those very words. Every. Single. one.

I guess you didn't notice that the simple model is for education. When I started engineering school, one of the weed out classes was Physics 171 which was a calculus based class in Newtonian physics. It used coefficients of static and dynamic friction which were worlds ahead of the kinematic equations and pretty accurate for most real world applications. However, they didn't come close to the fluid dynamic simulations that are important in either highly complex or highly precise applications.

 

[oldsoul]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

Just more moldy old denier cult bullshit.

Scientists can directly measure solar irradiance - the amount of energy from the sun that reaches out planet, measured in Watts per square meter - with satellite instrumentation above the top of the atmosphere. There have been no increases in solar output. In fact, it has declined slightly.

The world science community is quite clear that it is the 45% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is causing the rapid abrupt global temperature increases, not the sun.

The George Marshall Institute was a rightwing front group for corporate interests, including a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry to deny human caused global warming. They were funded by EXXON, the Koch brothers, Peabody Energy, and a host of far-rightwing foundations with ties to the fossil fuel industry. In addition to working to prevent or delay any meaningful steps to deal with the climate change crisis, the Marshall Institute also worked hard to create a "false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion." One of the techniques these corporate sponsored denialist groups use is to find some fringe scientists that none of the real scientists agree with and tout them as some kind of idiotic rebuttal of the overwhelming scientific consensus on human caused global warming. Their aim is to create doubt and paralyze policy making.

Here's a little more about them from the link.

In 1989, at the same time the George C. Marshall Institute initiated its “Climate Change Policy Program,” the GMI released a report arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.” Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. [2]

In a 2009 essay, former Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford had this to say about his initial experience with the Marshall Institute (emphasis added):
“… certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.” [4]

Newsweek has described the George C. Marshall Institute as a “central cog in the denial machine,” and Naomi Oreskes has said that the Institute has lobbied politically to create a false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. [5] [22]

Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy documents revealed the George C. Marshall Institute as a creditor, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch). [56]

While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [57]

Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more. [58]

The Guardian also analysed and reported on the Peabody bankruptcy findings: [59]

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"? Why can one not merely be a skeptic, without being labeled as a cultist? Seems to me the only cult here is the "Warmers" and anyone who disagrees with them, is chastised as some dimwit, or other such label. Looks alot like the Spanish Inquisition: Thou shalt not disagree, lest thee be struck down as a heretic.

 

[RollingThunder]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

Just more moldy old denier cult bullshit.

Scientists can directly measure solar irradiance - the amount of energy from the sun that reaches out planet, measured in Watts per square meter - with satellite instrumentation above the top of the atmosphere. There have been no increases in solar output. In fact, it has declined slightly.

The world science community is quite clear that it is the 45% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is causing the rapid abrupt global temperature increases, not the sun.

The George Marshall Institute was a rightwing front group for corporate interests, including a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry to deny human caused global warming. They were funded by EXXON, the Koch brothers, Peabody Energy, and a host of far-rightwing foundations with ties to the fossil fuel industry. In addition to working to prevent or delay any meaningful steps to deal with the climate change crisis, the Marshall Institute also worked hard to create a "false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion." One of the techniques these corporate sponsored denialist groups use is to find some fringe scientists that none of the real scientists agree with and tout them as some kind of idiotic rebuttal of the overwhelming scientific consensus on human caused global warming. Their aim is to create doubt and paralyze policy making.

Here's a little more about them from the link.

In 1989, at the same time the George C. Marshall Institute initiated its “Climate Change Policy Program,” the GMI released a report arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.” Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. [2]

In a 2009 essay, former Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford had this to say about his initial experience with the Marshall Institute (emphasis added):
“… certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.” [4]

Newsweek has described the George C. Marshall Institute as a “central cog in the denial machine,” and Naomi Oreskes has said that the Institute has lobbied politically to create a false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. [5] [22]

Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy documents revealed the George C. Marshall Institute as a creditor, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch). [56]

While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [57]

Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more. [58]

The Guardian also analysed and reported on the Peabody bankruptcy findings: [59]

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?

How idiotically ingenuous!

The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths.

You are obviously one of them too, with your denier cult label "Warmers" for the sane people who accept the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of human caused global warming....so tough shit if you feel all butt-hurt over being called a 'denier'.....you are one!

In the real world....

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia


Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.

The temperature record of the past 2000 years from several different proxy methods.

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

 

[flacaltenn]

How rapidly do you believe those zones change? Is the Sahara going to bloom anytime soon? Are the Himalayas going to flatten by next month? Will the oceans dry? Will we gain a new inland sea any time soon?

It can very accurately be said that the only energy input to the Earth is solar radiation and the only output is radiation escaping to space. The Earth can be treated as a system.

Do I look like a Greek Oracle?? Actually there are changes in the Northern Sahara since the 19th century. The borders of arable livable land are constantly changing there. MORE so, by man's influence in the type and practice of farming and water control than by the climate tho..

Some of these different Climate zones DO change more rapidly. You should KNOW that by the thousands of posts you've made into the POLAR discussions. Some are affected more STRONGLY by solar than GHG. The oceans for one example. If you didn't have HIGHER INCOMING flux at the Equator than the Poles --- we'd probably be a DEAD planet.. All of this needs to resolved with a couple decades of good PRIMARY Climate Science. And the emphasis on PROVING the catastrophic AGW shit needs to take a back seat to BASIC knowledge of how all these "modeling variables" REALLY work.. If you give a troop of chimps some tools, they will find ways to ABUSE and MISUSE them more than doing anything constructive.

 

[mamooth]

So even if the sun performed a "step up" from the LIA and just SAT THERE --- you could be BUILDING heat in a linear fashion in the climate system.. Thus causing a temperature RAMP when the solar forcing is relatively constant

As I've pointed out before, and which you never want to address, the observed evidence shows that's not what's happening.

System response to a step is only a ramp right at the beginning. It eventually levels out. It has to, otherwise the earth would eventually roast or freeze from any solar change.

Current temps are rising linearly, and showing no sign of leveling out. If we're still in the ramp part, that means that final equilibrium temp will be sky-high. That is, climate sensitivity to solar changes would have to be extremely large.

And if that were the case, it would have been seen historically. Earth would have frozen solid during the Maunder Minimum, and roasted during various higher TSI periods. That didn't happen. Hence we know climate sensitivity to solar changes is low, hence your theory is disproved by the observed evidence.

 

[oldsoul]

This is a compelling look at the role of solar activity in global warming. Others have noted the connection between sunspots and warming without explaining any possible mechanism to explain it. This video does offer that connection.

While I still think that positive feedbacks are going to do a number on our climate, this is the best alternative view of why current models are not as accurate as they should be.

Just more moldy old denier cult bullshit.

Scientists can directly measure solar irradiance - the amount of energy from the sun that reaches out planet, measured in Watts per square meter - with satellite instrumentation above the top of the atmosphere. There have been no increases in solar output. In fact, it has declined slightly.

The world science community is quite clear that it is the 45% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is causing the rapid abrupt global temperature increases, not the sun.

The George Marshall Institute was a rightwing front group for corporate interests, including a lot of support from the fossil fuel industry to deny human caused global warming. They were funded by EXXON, the Koch brothers, Peabody Energy, and a host of far-rightwing foundations with ties to the fossil fuel industry. In addition to working to prevent or delay any meaningful steps to deal with the climate change crisis, the Marshall Institute also worked hard to create a "false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion." One of the techniques these corporate sponsored denialist groups use is to find some fringe scientists that none of the real scientists agree with and tout them as some kind of idiotic rebuttal of the overwhelming scientific consensus on human caused global warming. Their aim is to create doubt and paralyze policy making.

Here's a little more about them from the link.

In 1989, at the same time the George C. Marshall Institute initiated its “Climate Change Policy Program,” the GMI released a report arguing that “cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases.” Although it was refuted by the IPCC, the report was used by the Bush Sr. Administration to argue for a more lenient climate change policy. [2]

In a 2009 essay, former Executive Director Matthew B. Crawford had this to say about his initial experience with the Marshall Institute (emphasis added):
“… certain perversities became apparent as I settled into the job. It sometimes required me to reason backward, from desired conclusion to suitable premise. The organization had taken certain positions, and there were some facts it was more fond of than others. As its figurehead, I was making arguments I didn't fully buy myself. Further, my boss seemed intent on retraining me according to a certain cognitive style — that of the corporate world, from which he had recently come. This style demanded that I project an image of rationality but not indulge too much in actual reasoning.” [4]

Newsweek has described the George C. Marshall Institute as a “central cog in the denial machine,” and Naomi Oreskes has said that the Institute has lobbied politically to create a false perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of second-hand smoke, the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking, the existence of acid rain, and on the evidence between CFCs and ozone depletion. [5] [22]

Peabody Energy's 2016 bankruptcy documents revealed the George C. Marshall Institute as a creditor, reports the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD/PRWatch). [56]

While the available bankruptcy documents do not list the scale or dates of funding, they outline Peabody Energy's financial ties to a large network of groups promoting climate change denial. [57]

Prominent individuals appearing in the documents include climate deniers Willie Soon, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer and Richard Berman. The long list of organizations also includes groups such as Americans for Prosperity, American Legislative Exchange Council, CFACT, Institute for Energy Research, State Policy Network, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens more. [58]

The Guardian also analysed and reported on the Peabody bankruptcy findings: [59]

“These groups collectively are the heart and soul of climate denial,” said Kert Davies, founder of the Climate Investigation Center, who has spent 20 years tracking funding for climate denial. “It’s the broadest list I have seen of one company funding so many nodes in the denial machine.”

The company’s filings reveal funding for a range of organisations which have fought Barack Obama’s plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and denied the very existence of climate change. […]

Among Peabody’s beneficiaries, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has insisted – wrongly – that carbon emissions are not a threat but “the elixir of life” while the American Legislative Exchange Council is trying to overturn Environmental Protection Agency rules cutting emissions from power plants. Meanwhile, Americans for Prosperity campaigns against carbon pricing. The Oklahoma chapter was on the list. […]

“The breadth of the groups with financial ties to Peabody is extraordinary. Thinktanks, litigation groups, climate scientists, political organisations, dozens of organisations blocking action on climate all receiving funding from the coal industry,” said Nick Surgey, director of research for the Center for Media and Democracy.

“We expected to see some denial money, but it looks like Peabody is the treasury for a very substantial part of the climate denial movement.”

Why is it that ANYONE who merely questions "human caused global warming" is always cast as a "science denier"?

How idiotically ingenuous!

The denier cultists on this forum are not "merely questioning" the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on human caused global warming.....they are insanely denying both the consensus and the fact that the Earth is warming and the fact that human activities are causing the global warming and its (already starting to happen) consequent climate changes. AGW deniers aren't "cast" as "science deniers" by other people.....they ARE science deniers, out of their own mouths.

You are obviously one of them too, with your denier cult label "Warmers" for the sane people who accept the conclusions of the world scientific community on the reality and dangers of human caused global warming....so tough shit if you feel all butt-hurt over being called a 'denier'.....you are one!

In the real world....

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia


Global mean surface temperature change from 1880 to 2016, relative to the 1951–1980 mean. The black line is the global annual mean and the red line is the five-year lowess smooth. The blue uncertainty bars show a 95% confidence limit. Source: NASA GISS.

The temperature record of the past 2000 years from several different proxy methods.

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment among scientists regarding the extent to which global warming is occurring, its causes, and its probable consequences. The scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect.[1][2][3][4]

This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these respected reports and surveys.[5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report stated that:

• Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
• Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
• Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
• The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
• The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global changedrivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]

Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments, and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change. Policy decisions, however, may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13]which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

For all of the words you typed, and accusations you threw out, you still have yet to answer the question. I can only assume that one of two things, possibly both, are at play here. Either A) you cannot defend this behaviour, or B) you realise how ridiculous the behaviour is, and therefore must deflect instead of addressing it.
Now, tell us again why it is that merely questioning the "consensus" makes one a "science denier". And, please, for the love of God, leave me out of it. I have neither the knowledge base, nor the inclination to say much of anything about the "science" of it all.