Oneuniverse
You are making very good points.
But what I am saying is the trend for the GMST and rate of change of CO2 are identical as shown =>
http://bit.ly/PafSwC
Look at your trend line for CO2 (red curve) matches the trend line for GMST (blue line).
The trend for the GMST came from the oscillating GMST where on average the warming side of the saw tooth shape is greater than its cooling side.
mwgrant | October 27, 2012 at 1:40 am said: ”Because in my mind the MWP and LIA concepts are and shall remain linked”
Yes they are ”linked” because both are concocted lies. b] for few days being colder than normal around London / river frozen – turned into few hundred years of GLOBAL cooling LIA = Liar’s Lie, c] few imprints of warmer than normal for few days some other places; turned into a PHONY ”MWP” phony GLOBAL increase of temp for hundreds of years You and the other clowns were in Australia, Antarctic, Patagonia, spreading thermometers, hundreds of years before James Cook discovered Australia. Warmist are blushing when you people tell those lies; because their lies are much smaller and they have purpose and benefit. Why are you lying about concocted fairy-tales? You don’t know what was last year’s temp; but are lying about temp 300-400-800years ago; disgrace of humanity
So, don’t play naive, warmings / coolings are NEVER global; global warming is NOT possible = Warmist don’t have a case – the only reason for them prospering, is because they are fanatically supported by clowns as you and him = therefore: any crime, injustice the Warmist do – you, the Fakes are 70% guilty of those crimes. i hope they are rewarding you enough, for persisting with the cheapest / most destructive lies; which have being proven that are lies – even the leading Warmist are embarrassed of using them – so, don’t play naive
I found the PBS frontline report enlightening – I’m awaiting to see if David Rose gets found guilty of misleading the Sunday Mail readers in the Press Complaints authority. Seems climate belief is often heavily aligned with ones political view. Pity that an international body of leading climate scientists can’t put out a consensus report themselves.
It is 1.5 deg C.
Mathematics as a science of patterns.
This is what the “science of patterns” says about future warming => http://bit.ly/TIVGEJ
mwgrant yes, interesting question isn’t it? Ice core studies show 800+ yr lags of CO2 to movements in T. Any ideas as to what may be the source of the covariance? Solar activity? Magnetic polarity flip flops? Tectonic activity at the ocean floor? If so are any predictable? Probably not, most likely due to the respective systems being chaotic and non ergodic by nature.
O villain, villain, damned villain.
My tables – meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain -
(Hamlet. Tsk! His mother married his dead father’s murderer!)
stefanthedenier | October 27, 2012 at 2:28 am |
Hmmm…I have never been accused of being a part of a conspiracy before. It’s kind of exciting, but alas is not true. And I don’t get paid. I do all this great waste of time pro bono!
Anyway, you really can relax. I have no stake in whether the MWP and LIA are real or never occurred, whether global or regional, whether striped or polka-dotted, etc. To me real or imaginary MWP and LIA are linked because one follows close on the heels of the other—nothing more and nothing less.
Anyway g’day and be of good cheer.
“Let me see if I can make it even simpler for you Myrrh – NOBODY is claiming visible light heats the earth. THAT CLAIM IS JUST A STRAWMAN YOU CREATED – or to put it another way, it is just you telling lies about what others say, to try make yourself look clever.”
I think everyone is making claim that visible light heats the Earth.
And I agree with everyone.
But I would say the infrared light between 750 and 2500 nm heats the Earth more than visible light [and UV] does.
A lot people say visible light passes thru the atmosphere and warms the Earth surface and the heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect. And the Greenhouse Effect is caused by greenhouse gases.
Whereas I would say that less than 1/2 of the visible and infrared light [250 to 2500] reaches the surface as direct sunlight.
About 1/2 of the sunlight at TOA reach surface as scattered or re-radiated sunlight and about 40% of sunlight is reflected, scatter, and re-radiated direct back into space.
And at the surface a unknown but large percentage of indirect sunlight energy and direct sunlight energy is scatter, reflected, and re-radiate and about 1/2 or less of this energy is absorbed and thereby heats the surface.
It seems to me, that the ocean absorbs more energy than compared land surfaces, much of the energy absorbed by the ocean, is used to evaporate water. Also large amount of ocean heat travels poleward [such as with gulf stream heating Europe].
And the radiant effects from all greenhouse gas [including H20 gas, which dominate greenhouse gas] has a rather insignificant effect in terms of trapping radiant energy- H20 gas has large effect due to it’s latent heat.
Montalbano | October 27, 2012 at 2:07 am saiud: ”Stefan No, you have NOT provided expermental evidence that CO2 does not stay mixed”
You need exclusive experiment for you; if warm CO2 goes up? Do you want another experiment to find out if 2+2=4,?
You go and read the few posts on my homepage; all the proofs are there, CO2 has nothing to do with climate / climatic changes have nothing to do with the phony GLOBAL warmings – all proven, beyond any reasonable doubt
Montalbano YOU ARE A COWARD, SCARED TO FACE REAL PROOFS
Girma will now be on this kick for eternity.
His credibility has long been shot, and this just confirms the fact that he completely lacks physical insight.
@bbd
Progress at last! It’s taken a while, but you’ve eventually begun to address the definitive issue that the GAT hasn’t risen for fifteen years despite a considerable rise in CO2 levels.
So let’s take your points one by one.
1. ‘Climatologists never predicted monotonic warming’
False. IPCC AR4 Summary for Policymakers. P12
‘For the next two decades, a warming of about
0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES
emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of
all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept
constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of
about 0.1°C per decade would be expected’
About as unequivocal a prediction of monotonic warming as could be imagined. And just to ram the point home for the Camerons, Merkels and Bushes of the world they stuck it in a special highlighted box.
2. ‘Climatologists never predicted that natural variability would cease’
OK. Though its relevance has escaped me.
I doubt that even the most ardent warmist would ever have claimed that all other climatic forces would completely disappear.. But there have been plenty of claims that AGW would by now be overwhelmingly the dominant force on climate change. Are you claiming that the lack of warming is down to 15 years worth of natural variability? Because that’s a significant difference from the earlier understanding that AGW is the only significant game in town.
3.’Climatologists do argue for significant warming by the end of the century’
Fine. But again I fail to see the relevance. You can ‘argue for significant warming’ all you like. But your argument to be able to predict that far out is based on models that did not even foresee the recent temperature hiatus. They really don’t have a lot of credibility as predictive tools. AFAIK they have never made a single quantified prediction that has been shown by subsequent observations to be even approximately right.
And ‘significant warming’ is a delightfully imprecise term. I’m not going to dampen my underwear at the idea of ‘significant warming’ 88 years out.
4. ‘Climatologists suggest several possible causes for the current warming hiatus’
Progress again. You have formulated some hypotheses (though not presented them here). But ‘suggesting causes’ is not the same as constructing a persuasive evidence-rich case that all or any of them are true. There’s a lot, lot of work to do yet.
(Historical observation. Many climatologists, when faced with ‘the divergence problem’ with tree-ring proxies hid behind the standard observation that ‘this has been discussed in the literature’, as if the act of discussing it made the problem somehow go away. It didn’t, and the current state of play remains ‘f..k it, we don’t know’. Not an answer, and not very scientific either)
5. ‘Climatologists reject claims that the hiatus invalidates any of the above on grounds of robust physics and parsimonious reasoning’
OK. Pleased to know what climatologists do. But how you apply those wondrously vague ideas to this case has escaped me. It is just a platitudinous statement (and sounds very much like a content-free composite resolution to the Trades Union Congress moved by the Consensus of Concerned Climatologists. Is your background in politics, not science?).
6. As to my motivation. I explained it earlier. To refresh your memory go towards the end of my remarks here
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/21/sunday-mail-again/#comment-260424
But you have done me an enormous favour by bringing to mind Keef and Mick’s excellent anthem from my youth..with perhaps the most recognisable intro of any bit of pop music evah!
For its true…whenever I look at the quality of evidence and argument
and general disregard for scientific principles advanced by many climatologists, then I really don’t find it at all satisfactory. And relying (as the IPCC does) on self-assessment to attest to its quality is risible.
You guys have to raise your game a long long way
Anecdote. Seems to me that climatology is in roughly the same place as the England football team were in 1953. Smug, self-satisfied, living in their own little bubble, never been exposed to outside influence, convinced of their own superiority over everybody else. Unbeaten at home for 52 years. The classic conditions for self-reinforcing Groupthink.
So they didn’t worry too much about a visit from little Hungary. The rest is history. Hungary won 6-3. ‘A fluke’ claimed the Anglophiles.Next year they repeated the feat in Budapest. Only this time Hungary won 7-1 and it wasn’t a match it was a demolition. England were forced to rethink from the beginning and 12 years later they won the World Cup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNTR3-y86Xc&feature=related
Think of the ‘hiatus’ as your Hungarian moments. And start that rethink right now.
Well, OK, but those two words don’t make any sense together.
Translated into Imperial, 1′/century, near enough. Wake me when it’s over.
Unavailable, times out.
“But if the evidence against it continues to dissipate, to whom should we turn for answers? Scientists? ”
There, FIFY.
Definitely not the ‘scientists’ who concocted the fake data in the first place!
Are you claiming that the lack of warming is down to 15 years worth of natural variability?
The answer to that is Yes. BBD’s reluctance to accept, that speaks volumes of his own bias, ignorance and emotional motivation that he.tries to hard to project onto others.
What is important is the change in CO2 concentration has been positive, which means the oceans are releasing CO2 as a result of the warming. As a result, claim of ocean acidification as a result of CO2 absorption is not supported by the data.
Here is the positive rate of change of CO2 concentration =>
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/derivative/compress:12
Here is the correlation between GMST and CO2 concentration =>
http://bit.ly/RamVBN
