Been there, done that, wore out the t-shirt...

Of course. But those measurements aren't the same as using a thermometer. And I am curious, do you seriously think the precision on an ice core is as good as a thermometer?

Cool. So now the variability doesn't just include that within the systems themselves, but now has a temporal component to get across the equator. Do you know if this same time lag happened during the Roman warming, the Holocene A or B, or the Miocene? You are aware that there have been cycles before, I believe someone wrote an interesting book on them. Do you have an estimate of how many coal fired powered plants it took to cause those ones?

Please reference any model which has managed to backcast through the ice ages. Fitting time series data for some recent trend...please.....tell me, if these same models were to fit temperature data between 1PM and 2PM in the afternoon, do you think they will get the nightly low temperature correct?

I recommend some light reading, for those so inclined.

http://dpa.aapg.org/gcc/index.cfm

 

I have not advanced a sunspot theory, stop lying. I have not invoked rainbows or mythical creatures or any other irrelevant nonsense, stop lying.

Which sunspot theory are you talking about? AFAIK, about all my "sunspot theory" predicts is that sustained low cyclical sunspot maxima are associated with declining global temperatures, while sustained high cyclical maxima are associated with rising ones.

Based on the proxy-study temperature dips associated with the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton sunspot minima, I'd say it varies from effectively no lag to about 25 years (two sunspot cycles?). How and why it varies, I won't hazard a guess.

Sunspot number is far too simple a parameter. If sunspot number was a significant factor in global temperature, or even a good proxy for a significant factor, we would see a strong 11-year temperature cycle. We don't. The relevant factor seems to be related to sustained variations in cyclical maxima in sunspot number.

<yawn> I have made predictions, and so far they are quite a bit more accurate than those of AGW "scientists." For example, I predicted more than 10 years ago that atmospheric CO2 would continue to rise more or less exponentially, but temperatures would show little or no increase in the 2000-2030 period compared to the 1970-2000 period, falsifying the CO2-based AGW theory. AGW "scientists" predicted that continued CO2 increase would be accompanied by continued proportional temperature increase. So far, my prediction has been accurate, and theirs has been wildly false.

LOL! Making a "prediction" about what your model says is not much of a trick. AGW "scientists" predicted warming in rough proportion to CO2 increase. They have been proved wildly wrong over the last 15 years.

"Hide the decline." "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." "It's a travesty that we can't account for it."

See, that's how I know you are not a scientist. A single series of observations in such a complex system cannot honestly be interpreted as failure of a theory. There are too many variables in play, and their interactions are too complex and laggy.

<yawn> I know the physics far better than you. CO2 is saturated.

Uh, it beats curve NOT matching, which is the best AGW "scientists" have managed...

And in fact, curve matching is definitely science. It is a way to find relations in data that may seem unrelated, or whose underlying relation is too complex to characterize in simpler ways.

It's not a fact, so it doesn't bother me.

It didn't, stop lying. BB'S OWN GRAPH showed temperature obeying sunspots.

Unlike AGW "scientists," skeptics don't rely on cherry picking data.

 

You are lying about what dissenting scientists have done. They wouldn't have had hundreds of articles published in peer-reviewed journals if they were just doing "speculatory and unsupported handwaving about magically convenient natural cycles."

There have been natural climate cycles, however much you deny that fact.

They have not been magical or "convenient," however much you deny that fact.

Dissenting scientists are trying to understand them, however much you deny that fact.

Lying AGW scum, by contrast, claim that natural climate cycles have ceased; that they are fully understood and can't possibly have contributed to recent variations; even that they never happened in the first place ("get rid of the Medieval Warm Period").

The current direct evidence falsifies it.

But temperatures somehow not rising. Riiiiiight.

Nope. Atmospheric CO2 has continued its exponential rise over the last 15 years, while temperatures have shown no significant trend over the same period. That fact FLAT-OUT FALSIFIES AGW theory.

You are lying. They didn't get it all right. Politically motivated AGW propagandists claiming to be "scientists" predicted warming in proportion to CO2. That simply did not happen. Not even close.

 

???? BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAA!!!!!!

I will be laughing about that asinine claim for a long time.

That is the sort of cretinous pronouncement that proves you have NO scientific background WHATSOEVER.

It was global, not local. Cherry picking proxy data from a location where it didn't show up in that proxy in some cherry-picked time frame is not evidence that it was only local, sorry.

Current data inconveniently show AGW theory is false. Temperatures are not tracking the exponential increase in CO2, not even close, and they will continue not to do so. Take it to the bank.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

None of the above.

Blatant fabrication.

First you need to address why it doesn't. And you can't: "It's a travesty that we can't account for it."

You mean, the real cause of the warming that isn't happening...?

Well, Gore got one....

 

Not for the recent minimum, it doesn't.

<sigh> It is only a BIG DROP from the post-Little Ice Age high. So until the last genuinely low maximum, solar activity was STILL HIGH relative to long-term averages, and temperatures were therefore STILL CLIMBING. When you turn the element down from HIGH to MEDIUM, the water in the pot doesn't get colder. It keeps getting warmer, just not as fast.

That would be if you are concerned about temperatures becoming more optimum. I'm not.

A non-response.

Look at YOUR OWN GRAPH again.

No, I stated a fact, which you are predictably refusing to know.

<yawn> No, I mean the actual atmospheric CH4 concentration has leveled off:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/ser/enz07-dec07/html/chapter8-atmosphere/figure-8-3.html

Nope. Only over time scales that are integer multiples of the 60-year PDO wavelength.

You don't even understand THAT much of the science.

When what you post disproves your own claims, I don't feel any need to post links.

 

I am not even going to GO to the rest of the post because this bit here is just blowing my mind. When I was talking about Ice Cores I was referring to atmospheric composition not temperature sheeesh!

Temperature levels have been extrapolated from proxy data like tree rings and coral growth

 

and they, just like temperature proxies, have plenty of uncertainty around them as well, which when combined with temperature records, have shown that temperature begins to change before CO2 atmospheric composition does. Another point which modelers who assume causality should take into account.

Having never investigated all of the nuance of the modelers, do you know of any research where they have honestly tried to put the uncertainty of their knowledge into a model, and then calculated the answers with the attendant probabilities of occurrence in their conclusions?

 

If you're going to dish it out so freely, stop squealing like a sissy because you got some back.

You feel solar factors are the cause, based on some rough curve matching, but you can't identify anything specific. That's why I refer to your theory as "magic". That's a reasonable classification. If you don't want your theory referred to as magic, then tell us the exact solar factors at play here, with the data to back it up, directly showing the physical mechanism that creates the warming. We do know it's not cosmic rays, because temperatures have moved the opposite direction of what the discredited cosmic ray theory predicted.

And history has shown you to be completely wrong. No doubt you are quite a legend in your own mind, and your efforts and creativity in the data manipulation department have not gone unnoticed. Perhaps it will even lead you to a profitable career as a wingnut welfare recipient. However, you've still been proven totally wrong. Your quasi-religious theory is lying there like a rotting beached whale, and it's time to load the dynamite under it and send the fetid blubber flying.

Denialist liars are a dime-a-dozen, so you might want to go lighter on doing the standard denialist lie-big-by-lying-about-quotes tactic. After all, you're supposed to pretend to be independent, and not reveal yourself to be yet another fringe political cultist.

Now, in order to really stand out from his comrades, a denialist merely has to be honest. However, that will get them purged from TheParty by their fellow denialists, so they do have a problem there. Oh well. Not my concern, the fleas they harbor after choosing to lie down with dogs.

That statement marks you as ignorant of the radiative physics at play here. I could explain it. You could probably even understand it, if you weren't so emotionally invested in not understanding it. Rest assured that actual scientists haven't made your basic flub for at least 50 years. Even if CO2 levels increased a hundred-fold, CO2 still wouldn't be saturated.

 

Major logical failure on your part.

Your unspoken assumption is "It happened a certain way in the past, therefore it must happen the same way now, even if conditions are wildly different."

That's embarrassingly bad logic, yet it's one of the foundations of denialism. And it's topped off by a conspiracy theory, implying that those darn scientists are all just stupid and dishonest because they haven't made the same logical error as the denialists.

Rest assured, actual scientists know statistics. If you had nothing else but a vast knowledge of statistics, you could be a good climate scientist, that's how important it is. I'm not sure where this "those darn scientists ignore statistical uncertainty!" claim comes from, being that it's so completely at odds with reality.

 

Absolutely not. If asked, I would specifically exclude such nonsense, for the same reasons as I have mentioned earlier. And I am not the one who has to prove what conditions are "wildly" different, hell, I would be happy to know that those building the models even know what the past conditions WERE, something they certainly haven't established to date.

They do. But that doesn't mean they quantify the uncertainty in their models any better than the example I provided from Hansen. Did you happen to notice that uncertainty spelled out on his projections? Me neither. But I'll bet you dollars to donuts that Hansen understands statistics. And for the record, the awards on my wall at the office usually contain within them the phrase "Excellence as a staff scientist" somewhere along the way, so I agree with you from personal experience that yes, scientists do understand statistics, even if some of them don't quantify it so that we can see how likely it is that those models miss the central tendency, and by how much. Some of those graphs do exist, I've seen them. Want to bet that the scientists who know statistics, and refuse to quantify the uncertainty in their conclusions, do so in part because it would be obvious that the error is such that a large percentage of the change they envision might not ever happen?

 

We have no evidence whatsoever if a person on the forum is a scientist or not.
All we have is someones word.

It is beside the point. If someone were a scientist they would have an idea about the position they take.

If it is natural warming following a natural cycle there should be some idea as to where in this cycle we are and what the future climate will be.

Ice cores can tell if if the temperature was cooler or warmer in the past because of the presence of light hydrogen and heavy hydrogen.

It takes more energy to evaporate water with heavy hydrogen then it does water with light hydrogen. This turns up in the ice core. More heavy hydrogen=warmer. Less heavy hydrogen=cooler. It has to do with the amount of energy it takes to evaporate the water.

 

And...as the Moon moves farther away from the earth there would be less gravity pulling on the oceans. Because the further away you are from something the less "pull" gravity has. The high tide would be a little lower and the low tide would be a little higher.

It would have no influence at all on the amount of water in the ocean.

 

And if a scientist does not have sufficient information to take a position, you think maybe they flip a coin? Consult the Pope? Read a web blog of amateurs debating technical topics using, for Gods sake, something as silly as political affiliation as a basis for who does, or does not, agree with conclusions they have already drawn?

Reasonable. We are in an interglacial period. At some point in the future it would be natural to expect that we will enter another glacial period. However, singularities, like the Azolla event, are always a possibility. The Azolla event was triggered by a warm, CO2 rich atmosphere which kicked off a wild biological event, plunging the world into its current cold configuration. "Cold" consists of both glacial and interglacial periods, spanning a temperature range of perhaps 10-20C? Here is a graphic of it, since the Eocene Maximum.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/geol/img_LG14.htm

It is interesting that those so strident against warming are actually complaining that it is somehow unreasonable that the planet might be returning to a more "normal" configuation, that is, it has mostly been warmer than it is now, and at some point might be expected to return to that configuration, with or without human involvement. Humans have adapted to, and prospered quite a bit, in the climate warming starting some 20,000 years ago. But change just scares some people, and I imagine some of those people are scientists, and see what they choose to see, rather than what might actually be showing up in the data. Hansens model I referenced earlier being an example of how such a belief system may play out, when compared to reality.

 

And an understanding of how chaotic cycles interface with periodic cycles.

Lie. I have identified the fact that global climate has been oscillating on a millennial time scale since at least several thousand years before anthropogenic CO2 could possibly have been a significant factor. This natural oscillation gave us the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period before that, and several other centuries-long periods of relatively warmer alternating with relatively cooler global climate, dating all the way back at least to the Holocene Optimum.

No, it's stupid and dishonest.

<yawn> The fact that (unlike AGW liars) I decline to engage in such ridiculous speculations cannot prevent your claim -- that non-AGW theories of climate change are "magical" -- from being a stupid and absurd lie.

We know no such thing.

Nope. If you were as stupid as a bag of particularly stupid hammers, you might claim that the water in a pot continuing to get hotter when the element is turned down from HIGH to MEDIUM means we know it's not the element heating the water.

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: that claim IS logically equivalent to your claim.

No, you are lying. History has proved me exactly correct, and alarmist AGW ninnies wildly wrong.

No, that is a lie. Global temperatures and CO2 concentrations have done exactly as I predicted, and have conclusively falsified the apocalyptic predictions of AGW "scientists." The actual empirical evidence against the CO2-AGW theory is far better than the empirical evidence against the cosmic ray theory.

<yawn>

Nope. I have actually studied radiative physics. Unlike you.

If you understood it...

I already understand it better than you.

Now you are just redefining "saturated" to remove the concept from the debate entirely. For purposes of characterizing radiative energy transfer, a medium can be thought of as saturated when no measurable radiation at the wavelength in question gets through it except by being absorbed and re-radiated. For atmospheric CO2, that occurs at a concentration many hundred-fold LOWER than the current one.

 

Yep! Pharmacy industry does it all the time.............

What? You think everyone on Earth is going to react the same way to medication?

BTW - here knock yourself out http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/reports/trieste2008/ice-cores.pdf

Oh! and have you ever heard the term "confidence intervals"???

And look to save time - what say you come up with some arguments that have NOT been debunked more times than a drunken sailor in a Cyclone.

Here is a list of the common and already debunked arguments

 

I love how despite all the crying over "peer reviewed" the warmmongers flock to a guy who's claims have TWICE failed to pass peer review.

 

And since global warming theory has always taken that into account, what's your point?

It looks like you were tossing out a red herring and expecting not to be called on it. The lower atmosphere is saturated, but the thin upper fringes of the atmosphere are nowhere near saturation, and the upper fringe is the biggest factor affecting the radiative process.

 

The point is that adding to a saturated medium is unlikely to have much effect, which is why the temperature data don't fit the CO2 curve, and CO2-AGW theory has to invoke implausibly strong positive feedback mechanisms that would have caused runaway warming long ago, if they actually existed. Methane fits the temperature record much better than CO2, because it is much more powerful, it is not saturated, and temperatures leveled off after the 1990s, just as atmospheric methane concentration did.

Garbage.

Nope. The unsaturated "thin upper fringe" just moves up or down according to CO2 concentration, with little effect on equilibrium surface temperature. You clearly understand nothing whatever about the physics of the radiative transfer process.

 

Failing peer review is easy, I have done it myself on multiple occasions. It too is part of the process, and shouldn't be construed as a failure of any particular idea or concept.

 

Failing peer review is easy, I have done it myself on multiple occasions. It too is part of the process, and shouldn't be construed as a failure of any particular idea or concept.

 

The atmosphere disagrees with you, being that direct measurements show the decreasing outward IR radiation in the CO2 absorption band.

The first issue is one you bring up, that more CO2 absorption layers are added. That's like adding another blanket to the bed. It's not exactly the same process, but the analogy is valid. If there are more layers for the heat to work through, layers which absorb and re-emit, sending part the heat back down, it's going to take a bigger total delta-T to drive heat flow at the same rate. When that new equilibrium settles out, it will be warmer at the bottom.

And to get more precise, the CO2 band is not saturated. It's _mostly_ saturated. The fringes of the curve of the absorption spectrum are not saturated. Even spots in the center are not saturated, because the curve is actually a series of closely spaced spikes. Between the spikes, also not saturated. It's just a tiny change, those unsaturated areas getting blocked more, but the IR spectrum is so thoroughly plugged by all the greenhouse gases, even closing that little window matters.

You need to explain why adding another blanket to the bed and closing the window on a cool night wouldn't increase temperature. And then you need to explain why the direct measurements of the atmosphere also contradict your theory.

 

Of course I have. And thank you for the link, and for making my point for me. The uncertainties are recognized and enumerated, and there wasn't a single quantification of the cascading effects those uncertainties then create in the models and conclusions. As demonstrated by the Hansen model results I linked to earlier. Interesting quirk in the "science" in that one, from a group which certainly knows statistics. I wonder why......?

 

So what is the process? Do you make the corrections and resubmit or do you simply keep it in its flawed form and issue a press release as Muller did.

 

Typical skepticalscience trash. They used outdated preliminary study that used only 1 data point and wasn't confirmed by the later study.

 

For internal publications, two peer reviews are required, at least one of which has to be someone not involved in a particular project. Once you pass that hurdle and make recommended changes, it goes on to review and approval at the level of management, with a word smithing review in the middle of this somewhere. Once all changes and approvals have been done at this level, it can now be published. This includes abstracts and poster presentations as well. Once this level of review is complete, the paper can be submitted to journals and outside publications where the process starts all over again, generally requiring some fine line-treading because changes cannot be so substantial as to modify the original internal reviewers points. If they are, the process must be restarted, which really screws up the timelines of outside publications and journals.

I have rewritten entire articles because the first one into the process just wasn't up to snuff, and have myself squashed the work of others which did not hold together in light of my responsibilities as a technical reviewer of their idea.

It is a pain in the butt, but the products out the far end are pretty top notch.