Hansen/NASA created US warming?

Yes, the world has warmed since 1750. The warming seems to be on a very long vacation right now. Will it return? Will it cool? Hard to say. Thing is, I have a problem with saying the earth is warming due to CO2. I see it as little more than coincidence.

Did you know the sun started warming in 1713?

 

Global warming has only been on "vacation" since 2001. Thirteen years may seem like a very long time to you, but it's still less than half of the standard period used to measure climate.

Do you think you're the only one who knows this? According to Wang, Lean, and Sheeley (2005), TSI was essentially unchanged from 1713 thru 1900. It did increase from about 1365.5 to 1366 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] between 1900 and 1950, but that only accounts for 0.15°C of the 0.4°C warming measured in the early 20th century.

Did you know that TSI has actually been decreasing since 1950, and yet temperature increased another 0.5°C. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) found that since 1979, solar activity has had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade. Lean and Rind (2008 ) found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005. Similarly, Schurer et al. (2013) finds that the sun is unlikely to have caused more than 0.15°C of the observed approximately 1°C warming over the past 300 years. If you're looking for coincidences, you should probably look elsewhere.

 

I agree. Still, what will you say if the next solar cycle is even weaker, and we start cooling?

Of course not, but I find it funny that the three studies you pointed out are in conflict.

 

A far as the atmospheric temperature 2010 tied 2005 for highest temperature. When you add in the ocean it is up up and away unless you have information that there was a dramatically different total warming trend after 2008.



This gives you ocean warming to 2013 so you can see the upward heat sequestration continued.

 

If you paid attention to the OP instead of blathering you would see that the adjustments are occurring in the distant past before the satellite record existed.

There are two wsys to get s trend you know.

 

Levitus et. al. Is not data it's model output. A reanalysis is not data. Its model output that some propagandist try and pass off as data to anyone who is stupid enough to believe them.

 

Only a fool assumes one order of correlation direct and second order correlation are far more common. A pot of water doesn't stop warming just because you turn the stove down from 9 to 7.

I know that the authors of your papers aren'tthat stupid but they sure think their followers are. Seems they may not be wrong.

 

I see the NOAA isn't as wise as you. While I have your denialist attention you might want to see if you can run away from this one.

http://grist.org/news/we-just-had-t...term=Climate%20Sept%2025&utm_campaign=climate

 

Longer for the troposphere where it was supposed to show up first.

 

ARGO is not under NOAA. Nice try though. NOAA can say what ever it wants a reanalysis is not data. Its just model output.

 

That's really what gets me. They are dishonest with the implications of their wording, cherry picking of studies, etc. Since the science has been corrupted with political, I call it a political science.

 

Why run away from it? Since the oceans are more than 90% of the trend, it means solar is the dominant factor. Shortwave will penetrate the surface waters a few hundred meres. Longwave from CO2 will not.

 

You might want to note that this has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

I was responding appropriately to the person I had an exchange with. Why don't you call out your denialist buddies for being off topic?

I will try to get on topic with the next post however.

 

For all your huffing and puffing there is surprisingly little change between the two graphs. If you remove the post 1998 temperature readings on the second graph what apparently looks like a big shift mainly disappears.

It looks like your denialist ideology kicked you in the butt again. I keep reminding folks this forum has to do with science, not religion. There is a religion forum.

 

I have buddies, none of them participate on this forum, and those choosing to THINK about this topic in a wide ranging conversation are actually ON topic....as compared to those trying to distract because..honestly...what Hansen and NASA have done in this one small example, has the potential to be devastating to the credibility of all those wanting to claim science is on their side. When it is becoming apparent that they don't even READ the science involved, let alone THINK about it.

 

Incorrect. With nothing more than a few adjustments, corrections, estimates and multiplicative fudge factors, Hansen and NASA took a temperature record that didn't show one thing, and completely changed it into one showing something else. Similar to Mann making the entire paleoclimate record disappear one afternoon. Gore got an Academy Award for the acting that was in that documentary. And all he had to do was misrepresent the CO2/temperature relationship by pretending that the wrong one was causal in nature. I am truly surprised that Hansen hasn't received at least a Golden Globe or something for his "acting".

Never thought that science was an ideology, but I suppose some might consider it such.

 

As I indicated, once you align the dates there is very little difference between the graphs. But there is no point in arguing the matter, folks can see for themselves.

Gore got an academy award for effectively promoting a good cause, vetted through real climate scientists, in terms that were mainly understandable to ordinary folks. But to denialists of course he is a villain. Why denialists are so stubbornly invested in promoting their earth destroying lies is a good question.

You persist in your one way nonsense about CO2/temperature. This is bottom of the barrel rookie silliness but loudly bloviated by the misinformed. I'm baffled that you keep calling yourself a scientist when you peddle such 3rd grade flat earth ignorance..

 

They can. And have. Which is why it is obvious from the work provided that the profile was changed to support a position previously, and repeatedly, made by the same scientists, Hansen in particular. I mean really, spending all your time claiming that the world is warming, and the US doesn't? How dare the data not provide the expected answer!! Some adjustments, corrections, estimates and manipulations later (still without a single independent review by even a remotely appropriate professional statistical association, and with no uncertainty estimates whatsoever) and presto!! The US is warming!!

As I have said before, I would have been fired for changing the entire interpretation of historical information without what I consider a normal review process, but apparently in the climate science world, well, they can't be bothered with quality control on science, after all, they are smart guys!!

We've discussed this. Apparently "learning" for you isn't even a superficial characteristic. Mankind is no more capable of DESTROYING the earth than you are of growing yourself some wings and learning to fly like a bird.

And in that "mankind" I include you, and your fossil fuel burning and CO2 emitting ways, because at the end of the day, what you consider this special knowledge hasn't stopped you from posting on fossil fuel derived computers, using fossil fuel electricity to power them, hydrocarbon energy for your car rides and plane trips, or stopped you from even wearing the synthetic fabrics in the clothes you wear.

Denier, warmer, distinctions without a difference in this regard.

 

LOL, then Gore had some pretty bad scientists advising him since his silly film is so full of errors. BTW, the academy loves horror flicks. The horror is that some actually believe the Goracle.

 

An Lord Monkton?? Who is countering his scientific inaccuracies? Good grief!! Holding up a Doco as the last word on the science of climate change is like claiming "The day after tomorrow" was accurate forecasting:roll

 

And this is still only one scientist in one country

Conspiracy theory - and taken from the blog "real science" who has a habit of posting cut outs from newspapers to "prove" his point

Obviously does not understand the term "average"

 

Well then, you agree that Gore's film was rubbish. Great!

 

It was a documentary - meant to get a message across and it did

It was NOT a scientific report nor was it a meta analysis nor was it ever meant to be

I like my evidence straight and from the research articles themselves

 

Nothing like baseless fear to drive a political agenda.