Future Timeline

[Jesse]

Thought I'd share this website here to see what everyone thinks about it. It contains some really interesting predictions regarding where we go technologically and culturally in the coming decades/centuries, but of course also contains some near doomsday AGW and evironmental predictions. Some of this stuff seems really farfetched, while other ideas are more reasonable IMO.

Figured this might stir up some interesting debate at least (as if there isn't enough of that on the climate change sub-forum ) So anyway, have at it!

http://futuretimeline.net/index.htm

[BethesdaWX]

freaky as hell

[Jesse]

freaky as hell

I notice it's calling for global temps to rise 3c by the year 2056. Is there any reputable source calling for anything even close to that?

[BethesdaWX]

I notice it's calling for global temps to rise 3c by the year 2056. Is there any reputable source calling for anything even close to that?

Jim Hansen?....

I don't understand, even if we were to warm drastically, it would benefit us as humans more than hurt us.

[skierinvermont]

Jim Hansen?....

I don't understand, even if we were to warm drastically, it would benefit us as humans more than hurt us.

3C of warming would melt all of Greenland and perhaps begin melting Antarctica. It would definitely melt Greenland which would be 30 feet of sea level rise.

Nevermind trigering a mass extinction and damage to agriculture.

Sounds good to me.

Good thing 3C of warming is not actually expected by 2056.

[BethesdaWX]

3C of warming would melt all of Greenland and perhaps begin melting Antarctica. It would definitely melt Greenland which would be 30 feet of sea level rise.

Nevermind trigering a mass extinction and damage to agriculture.

Sounds good to me.

Good thing 3C of warming is not actually expected by 2056.

I assume you mean if we warmed to 3C and continued warming? We spiked pretty good early in the Holocene more than 7000yrs ago, about 2C warmer than today.

I personally would prefer a warmer world.....don't see how a warmer world would hurt agriculture, More CO2 = More vegitation. Notice how most of the worlds biotic life is focused around the equator. A faster water cycle can only help.

Less Ice up north would allow us to expand our population, find better shipping routes. Longer growing seasons, less snowfall would reduce winter economic expenses. Around here it costs alot more to Heat a Home then to cool a home.

Sea level rise is something we can easily adapt to I'd think.

[skierinvermont]

I assume you mean if we warmed to 3C and continued warming? We spiked pretty good early in the Holocene more than 7000yrs ago, about 2C warmer than today.

I personally would prefer a warmer world.....don't see how a warmer world would hurt agriculture, More CO2 = More vegitation. Notice how most of the worlds biotic life is focused around the equator. A faster water cycle can only help.

Less Ice up north would allow us to expand our population, find better shipping routes. Longer growing seasons, less snowfall would reduce winter economic expenses. Around here it costs alot more to Heat a Home then to cool a home.

Sea level rise is something we can easily adapt to I'd think.

Temps were not 2C warmer than present in the HCO.. they were only slightly warmer. The last time temperatures remained steady at 2C above current levels, the Greenland ice sheet melted.

[BethesdaWX]

Temps were not 2C warmer than present in the HCO.. they were only slightly warmer. The last time temperatures remained steady at 2C above current levels, the Greenland ice sheet melted.

You cannot Compare Proxies and Measurement data, they will never Match up. There are many other reconstructions telling a very Different story.

As for More Recent Ice Studies...

Volstok Ice Core And Greenland Ice core data show this: You can See Greenland was over 3C warmer than today once, and over 2C warmer than today several times.

Antarctic Ice Core

Greendland Ice Core

[skierinvermont]

You cannot Compare Proxies and Measurement data, they will never Match up.

Yes you can you just need to understand the implications of what you are doing. You need to understand the resolution of the proxy data. If it only has century-scale resolution it will obscure some variability, for example.

As for the charts you show.. all three basically show the same thing as what I posted they just omit the recent instrumental temperature increase.

All three of your charts basically show the same thing as the chart I posted. A gradual drop of nearly 1C from the peak of the Holocene Thermal Maximum around 8k years ago.

So they show the exact same thing as my chart. They just omit the 1C instrumental rise that has occurred this century.

[BethesdaWX]

Actually my Chart does have insrumental Data in Red...I wouldn't call it a Gradual Decline, there were 3.5C spikes in 300yrs over greenland, and several Spikes of 1.5-2.5C, its pretty regular. I'll do some more research on it, I'm not as knowledgable in this area as I am in Solar. Although the Red on my Last Graph is measurement Data, the Arctic has warmed more than greenland.

[Clifford]

As for the charts you show.. all three basically show the same thing as what I posted they just omit the recent instrumental temperature increase.

All three of your charts basically show the same thing as the chart I posted. A gradual drop of nearly 1C from the peak of the Holocene Thermal Maximum around 8k years ago.

So they show the exact same thing as my chart. They just omit the 1C instrumental rise that has occurred this century.

The last chart that BethesdaWX posted does show the 1/2 °C temperature rise (note the red).... which is pretty well hidden in the previous 2-3°C temperature shifts

...and the poles are where the largest warmings occur.

I'll post a linked explanation of the Ice Cores Later on

Keep in mind that the ice core data (North and South) are Proxy measurements too.

They measure either ²H (Deuterium) or ¹⁸O concentrations. That is used to determine the temperature based on the ²H/¹⁸O solubility in the oceans. While the N and S poles don't always match, I believe this is representative more of global sea surface temperatures, than polar sea surface temperatures.

[BethesdaWX]

The last chart that BethesdaWX posted does show the 1/2 °C temperature rise (note the red).... which is pretty well hidden in the previous 2-3°C temperature shifts

Keep in mind that the ice core data (North and South) are Proxy measurements too.

They measure either ²H (Deuterium) or ¹⁸O concentrations. That is used to determine the temperature based on the ²H/¹⁸O solubility in the oceans. While the N and S poles don't always match, I believe this is representative more of global sea surface temperatures, than polar sea surface temperatures.

Yes absolutely, I was stating they were measured at the poles was all. Knowing both poles match up is a good sign too.

Tree-ring proxies really cannot be used as a proxy.

[weatherMA]

Neat link and a good read for when I have more time.

I'll try to remember to bump this thread in 2050 to see how we're doing.

[Mello]

Hope someone saves this page so our grandchildren can have a few lulz.

[WeatherRusty]

I notice it's calling for global temps to rise 3c by the year 2056. Is there any reputable source calling for anything even close to that?

By 2056 under a business as usual scenario CO2 concentration should be approximately doubled since pre-industrial times.

The full forcing (3.7W/m^2) by a doubling of CO2 will be in place. However the climate system will not yet have reached equilibrium with that forcing. That equilibrium will require an additional few decades. Depending on how additional atmospheric forcings such as methane and aerosols have progressed, the net forcing will be somewhat more or less than the forcing from CO2 alone.

If we take the anticipated 0.2C/decade average value as most likely, then we should have experienced about another 1C of warming by 2056. Added to the 0.8C we have experienced to date the world should have warmed something like 1.8C since pre-industrial times. However another 1C will remain in the pipeline if the equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 3C, which would not be fully realized until late century.

[tacoman25]

3C of warming would melt all of Greenland and perhaps begin melting Antarctica. It would definitely melt Greenland which would be 30 feet of sea level rise.

Nevermind trigering a mass extinction and damage to agriculture.

Sounds good to me.

Good thing 3C of warming is not actually expected by 2056.

Hasn't that been within the possible range for some models, the ones that include major positive feedbacks? Although I think the consensus is more like 2-4C over the next 100 years, right?

[Clifford]

With all these predictions of Antarctica and Greenland melting....

What is the time period?

I.E.

If you took an ice cube... two miles thick.

And set it outside at 33°F, +½°C?

Only exposed at the top.

How long would it take to melt?

[BethesdaWX]

By 2056 under a business as usual scenario CO2 concentration should be approximately doubled since pre-industrial times.

The full forcing (3.7W/m^2) by a doubling of CO2 will be in place. However the climate system will not yet have reached equilibrium with that forcing. That equilibrium will require an additional few decades. Depending on how additional atmospheric forcings such as methane and aerosols have progressed, the net forcing will be somewhat more or less than the forcing from CO2 alone.

If we take the anticipated 0.2C/decade average value as most likely, then we should have experienced about another 1C of warming by 2056. Added to the 0.8C we have experienced to date the world should have warmed something like 1.8C since pre-industrial times. However another 1C will remain in the pipeline if the equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 3C, which would not be fully realized until late century.

Have you wondered why All IPCC AGW predictions have been failing miserably? Simple Physics are not plausible to predict warming of the climate, because the atmosphere reacts to different energies/forcings differently in regards to Temperature... As in, Solar vs CO2 are quantified Via Feeback, "access" to different potential responses/feedbacks, and how it would effect temperature in tis own way.

You can Get CO2 to Double, and Solar to Double, and Yet one could be doing all the work, depending on how the atmosphere and its complex system of feedbacks and intercorrelations re accessed by these drivers.

Theres no evidence CO2 has ever caused significant warming to Earth in the Past. The warmth during the time of the Dinosaurs in not comparable due to several factors, including the fact that the Atmosphere was NOT Hydrogen Based! Thus we have no record of CO2 ever warming the planet! It has lagged warming by 800 years, and the planet began cooling before CO2 dropped.....So, why would be base predictions of 2-4C of warming off a Trace gas that we have no proof in creating/enhancing high temperatures in the past at much higher PPM?

CO2 warming is naturally contained by the planet, we barely understand how the energy system works, so we'll keep failing until we become more objective, In my view.

Now, we have alot more SOLAR evidence of warming, many 1-3C jumps/dips within the Holocene era due to the Sun. We attribute the warming to CO2 this time, but the SOlar variable has remained the Constant similar solar spikes in the past have led to similar Global temperatures....,CO2 in the air has not added to the expected SOlar outcome Via past temperature reconstructions. We do not know how much Energy will Lead to how much warming....its impossible...and what type of energies and feedbacks will lead to what type of results.

Examples of failure:

- IPCC "cone of projection" failed miserably, predicted by climate models...Even the lowest sensitivity models have been Failing

- IPCC cannot predict temps accurately 5 years out.....how can they predict them 100 years out?

- Why have we Been Flatlining for 14 years, and Cooling for 9 years?

- The amount of "missing heat" is getting larger every year, and there is no proof it is in the deep oceans.

- PDO warmed steady from late 1998 to 2006, AMO warmed throughout the entire timeframe, IOD was warm much of the time.

Things are beginning to crumble.

[WeatherRusty]

Have you wondered why All IPCC AGW predictions have been failing miserably? Simple Physics are not plausible to predict warming of the climate, because the atmosphere reacts to different energies/forcings differently in regards to Temperature... As in, Solar vs CO2 are quantified Via Feeback, "access" to different potential responses/feedbacks, and how it would effect temperature in tis own way.

You can Get CO2 to Double, and Solar to Double, and Yet one could be doing all the work, depending on how the atmosphere and its complex system of feedbacks and intercorrelations re accessed by these drivers.

Theres no evidence CO2 has ever caused significant warming to Earth in the Past. The warmth during the time of the Dinosaurs in not comparable due to several factors, including the fact that the Atmosphere was NOT Hydrogen Based! Thus we have no record of CO2 ever warming the planet! It has lagged warming by 800 years, and the planet began cooling before CO2 dropped.....So, why would be base predictions of 2-4C of warming off a Trace gas that we have no proof in creating/enhancing high temperatures in the past at much higher PPM?

CO2 warming is naturally contained by the planet, we barely understand how the energy system works, so we'll keep failing until we become more objective, In my view.

Now, we have alot more SOLAR evidence of warming, many 1-3C jumps/dips within the Holocene era due to the Sun. We attribute the warming to CO2 this time, but the SOlar variable has remained the Constant similar solar spikes in the past have led to similar Global temperatures....,CO2 in the air has not added to the expected SOlar outcome Via past temperature reconstructions. We do not know how much Energy will Lead to how much warming....its impossible...and what type of energies and feedbacks will lead to what type of results.

Examples of failure:

- IPCC "cone of projection" failed miserably, predicted by climate models...Even the lowest sensitivity models have been Failing

- IPCC cannot predict temps accurately 5 years out.....how can they predict them 100 years out?

- Why have we Been Flatlining for 14 years, and Cooling for 9 years?

- The amount of "missing heat" is getting larger every year, and there is no proof it is in the deep oceans.

- PDO warmed steady from late 1998 to 2006, AMO warmed throughout the entire timeframe, IOD was warm much of the time.

Things are beginning to crumble.

1) No I don't wonder why because the IPCC scenarios are not predictions. Nothing has failed miserably because each of the past four decades has been warmer than it's predecessor.

2) A forcing is independent of it's cause. The climate will respond to increased energy by warming. Basic physics.

3) If Solar output doubled we would really be in immediate serious trouble. As in boiling away the Earth's oceans.

4) Well there certainly are strong candidates, such as the PETM and the end Permian cataclysm. Also CO2 is responsible for about 20% of today's greenhouse effect. Remove all CO2 and the globe would ice over to nearly the equator in less than 50 years.

5) Watch yourself! The Earth's atmosphere is not hydrogen based today either. The Earth's earliest atmosphere may have been a reducing or hydrogen based one but it did not last long.

6) NO way has the temperature moved by as much as 3C during the Holocene. A full blown ice age climate exists at 5C to 6C and colder. Look at a graphical reconstruction of the transition from ice age to Holocene and tell me again global temp has swayed by 3C since then. It has been many millions of years since the Earth was last at 3C warmer than today.

7) The Stephan Boltzmann Law relates energy to temperature for any body in the Universe. That means even the Earth!

8) You don't understand the science you are attacking. "The atmosphere was not hydrogen based", true but what is the relevancy?

9) The only thing crumbling is our hope to avoid serious disruption to our climate brought about by our own hands.

[BethesdaWX]

1) No I don't wonder why because the IPCC scenarios are not predictions. Nothing has failed miserably because each of the past four decades has been warmer than it's predecessor.

2) A forcing is independent of it's cause. The climate will respond to increased energy by warming. Basic physics.

3) If Solar output doubled we would really be in immediate serious trouble. As in boiling away the Earth's oceans.

4) Well there certainly are strong candidates, such as the PETM and the end Permian cataclysm. Also CO2 is responsible for about 20% of today's greenhouse effect. Remove all CO2 and the globe would ice over to nearly the equator in less than 50 years.

5) Watch yourself! The Earth's atmosphere is not hydrogen based today either. The Earth's earliest atmosphere may have been a reducing or hydrogen based one but it did not last long.

6) NO way has the temperature moved by as much as 3C during the Holocene. A full blown ice age climate exists at 5C to 6C and colder. Look at a graphical reconstruction of the transition from ice age to Holocene and tell me again global temp has swayed by 3C since then. It has been many millions of years since the Earth was last at 3C warmer than today.

7) The Stephan Boltzmann Law relates energy to temperature for any body in the Universe. That means even the Earth!

8) You don't understand the science you are attacking. "The atmosphere was not hydrogen bases", true but where is the relevancy?

You really take things out of context easily....slow down, and think of things in a less general sense. And you still fail to reject the null hypothesis.

1) Then you obviously don't know what the IPCC "cone of confidence" is, and how I referenced it. We had a Warming trend from 1976 to the Late 1990's...all falls in line....Then we Flatline and begin to Cool. Its not about how a Final Decade comes in if the Trend just stops and reverses, as it has done.....and done so in a time when Natural Drivers would be against it, (Warming PDO from late 1998-2006, Warming AMO from 1995-present, +IOD), and we still cool. Where does CO2 play in there?

2) No one argued that, its the AMOUNT warming that "shows up", as a result of how different forcing mechanisms impact the climate through feedbacks, and how certain forcings are nautrally subdued/enhanced. Using TSI as a base for energy change by Solar is Stupid, it does not vary significantly over decades/centuries. There are certain, important aspects of solar that correlate to warming temps. Your own Argument is your enemy dude, The Stratosphere has been essentially Flat since the mid 1990's, and the original decline in Stratospheric temps can be attributed to Ozone depletion as a result of Solar Activity, increased Solar Acces to the Atmosphere as a result of a 15% drop in the MagF. So, when you argue for CO2 to cause massive energy imbalance/build-up, if the overall energy balance in the stratosphere is Much smaller compared to that of the toposphere/Oceans...so if the stratosphere cannot be subdued, how can we expect the oceans to do so?

3) Huh? The Geo-AA index cannot double? The Sunspot Number cannot double? The Geomagnetic Flux Cannot Double? Come on Now Rusty, think for a Minute and don't make a fool of yourself. This is the problem with you Using TSI as a Base...you need to think of the Aspects of the Sun that Control earths climate, not "TSI".

4) Water Vapor is responsible for about 90% of the GHE, CO2, Methane, and the rest of the GHG's are responsible for around 10% of the GHE. Even if CO2 was responsible for 20% of the GHE, that 20% does not increase with the amount of CO2 emitted, due to the Logorithmic forcings WP...this before we even factor in feedbacks/energy processing by the Earth, and if this extra energy even exists within the planet, and has not been recycled already. http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

5) Don't nitpcick a Minor discrepancy from a very truthful statement. Do you how that Earths Atmosphere was built in the Dinosaur age compared to todays? How about continental plate differences? How about the Sun Burning Differently? Point is they cannot be compared, period.

6) Yes They Have, Look......Do you know what Gases/Particulates these Ice Core Proxies Measure, and How we can determine the Global Temperature from them? Ice Core Data on Both Poles Match.

Ok maybe its more like 1-2.5C, but you get the Idea.

7) So what?

8) Maybe you wouldn't have to write something silly like this if you read my post more slowly/carefully, and perhaps looked into it a bit.

Cheers

[LakeEffectKing]

By 2056 under a business as usual scenario CO2 concentration should be approximately doubled since pre-industrial times.

The full forcing (3.7W/m^2) by a doubling of CO2 will be in place. However the climate system will not yet have reached equilibrium with that forcing. That equilibrium will require an additional few decades. Depending on how additional atmospheric forcings such as methane and aerosols have progressed, the net forcing will be somewhat more or less than the forcing from CO2 alone.

If we take the anticipated 0.2C/decade average value as most likely, then we should have experienced about another 1C of warming by 2056. Added to the 0.8C we have experienced to date the world should have warmed something like 1.8C since pre-industrial times. However another 1C will remain in the pipeline if the equilibrium climate sensitivity is approximately 3C, which would not be fully realized until late century.

Where's the "heat in the pipeline" from our "insane" CO2 outputs from the 60, 70, and 80's???

[WeatherRusty]

Where's the "heat in the pipeline" from our "insane" CO2 outputs from the 60, 70, and 80's???

The +0.9W/m^2 TOA imbalance..

[WeatherRusty]

You really take things out of context easily....slow down, and think of things in a less general sense. And you still fail to reject the null hypothesis.

1) Then you obviously don't know what the IPCC "cone of confidence" is, and how I referenced it. We had a Warming trend from 1976 to the Late 1990's...all falls in line....Then we Flatline and begin to Cool. Its not about how a Final Decade comes in if the Trend just stops and reverses, as it has done.....and done so in a time when Natural Drivers would be against it, (Warming PDO from late 1998-2006, Warming AMO from 1995-present, +IOD), and we still cool. Where does CO2 play in there?

2) No one argued that, its the AMOUNT warming that "shows up", as a result of how different forcing mechanisms impact the climate through feedbacks, and how certain forcings are nautrally subdued/enhanced. Using TSI as a base for energy change by Solar is Stupid, it does not vary significantly over decades/centuries. There are certain, important aspects of solar that correlate to warming temps. Your own Argument is your enemy dude, The Stratosphere has been essentially Flat since the mid 1990's, and the original decline in Stratospheric temps can be attributed to Ozone depletion as a result of Solar Activity, increased Solar Acces to the Atmosphere as a result of a 15% drop in the MagF. So, when you argue for CO2 to cause massive energy imbalance/build-up, if the overall energy balance in the stratosphere is Much smaller compared to that of the toposphere/Oceans...so if the stratosphere cannot be subdued, how can we expect the oceans to do so?

3) Huh? The Geo-AA index cannot double? The Sunspot Number cannot double? The Geomagnetic Flux Cannot Double? Come on Now Rusty, think for a Minute and don't make a fool of yourself. This is the problem with you Using TSI as a Base...you need to think of the Aspects of the Sun that Control earths climate, not "TSI".

4) Water Vapor is responsible for about 90% of the GHE, CO2, Methane, and the rest of the GHG's are responsible for around 10% of the GHE. Even if CO2 was responsible for 20% of the GHE, that 20% does not increase with the amount of CO2 emitted, due to the Logorithmic forcings WP...this before we even factor in feedbacks/energy processing by the Earth, and if this extra energy even exists within the planet, and has not been recycled already. http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

5) Don't nitpcick a Minor discrepancy from a very truthful statement. Do you how that Earths Atmosphere was built in the Dinosaur age compared to todays? How about continental plate differences? How about the Sun Burning Differently? Point is they cannot be compared, period.

6) Yes They Have, Look......Do you know what Gases/Particulates these Ice Core Proxies Measure, and How we can determine the Global Temperature from them? Ice Core Data on Both Poles Match.

Ok maybe its more like 1-2.5C, but you get the Idea.

7) So what?

8) Maybe you wouldn't have to write something silly like this if you read my post more slowly/carefully, and perhaps looked into it a bit.

Cheers

1) The IPCC does not do original research. I don't base much of what I state on the IPCC and definitely not with regard to the core science. Where does CO2 warming play into the overall vagaries in the trend? It dominates the long term trend (decades and centuries), not the shorter term variations within that trend.

2) TSI is the energy source which raises Earth's temperature above the microwave background temperature of the Universe at 2.7K. It raises Earth's temperature then by 252K or C degrees. The Earth's greenhouse effect adds another 33C. How much does your hypothetical mechanism contribute? If in total if produces 1C to the total, then the amount it could modulate the total should be much less than 1 degree, don't you think?

3) By basing my arguments on standard model science I am not making a fool of myself. TSI is what determines most of Earth's climate.

4) Latest attribution to the greenhouse effect: Water Vapor=50%, Clouds=25%, CO2=20%, Everything else=5%

Every body in the Universe obeys the laws of thermodynamics and the Earth warms and cools according to the ratio between energy in versus energy out at it's interface with the vacuum of space where nearly all energy exchange is radiative . Period...

6) I guarantee, your graphic does not represent temperature variation on a global scale.

[BethesdaWX]

1) The IPCC does not do original research. I don't base much of what I state on the IPCC and definitely not with regard to the core science. Where does CO2 warming play into the overall vagaries in the trend? It dominates the long term trend (decades and centuries), not the shorter term variations within that trend.

2) TSI is the energy source which raises Earth's temperature above the microwave background temperature of the Universe at 2.7K. It raises Earth's temperature then by 252K or C degrees. The Earth's greenhouse effect adds another 33C. How much does your hypothetical mechanism contribute? If in total if produces 1C to the total, then the amount it could modulate the total should be much less than 1 degree, don't you think?

3) By basing my arguments on standard model science I am not making a fool of myself. TSI is what determines most of Earth's climate.

4) Latest attribution to the greenhouse effect: Water Vapor=50%, Clouds=25%, CO2=20%, Everything else=5%

Every body in the Universe obeys the laws of thermodynamics and the Earth warms and cools according to the ratio between energy in versus energy out at it's interface with the vacuum of space where nearly all energy exchange is radiative . Period...

6) I guarantee, your graphic does not represent temperature variation on a global scale.

Who's the denier now? You really didn't go into the Damning issue, which is the stratosphere. Also LOL at your "Volstok Ice core is Wrong" comment....Guess where your CO2 measurements come from.

http://debunkhouse.w...ss.com/2009/12/

The problem is that the stratospheric cooling and tropospheric warming have never been simultaneous. I calculated the monthly differences of the stratospheric and tropospheric temperature anomalies from the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) satellite data to get d-Strat and d-L Trop. Then I multiplied d-Strat times d-L Trop. A negative d-Strat * d- L Trop means that d-Strat and d-L Trop are moving in opposite directions and should indicate an increased greenhouse effect. A positive d-Strat * d- L Trop should mean that d-Strat and d-L Trop are moving in the same direction and should indicate a decreased greenhouse effect. If the Stratosphere is cooling due to a progressively increasing retention of heat in the lower atmosphere (enhanced greenhouse effect), d-Strat * d-L Trop should exhibit a measurable negative trend… But it doesn’t…

The slope is actually very slightly positive; which is consistent a very slight decline in total greenhouse warming over the last 30 years. This would mean that negative feedback mechanisms in the atmosphere are offsetting the increasing

atmospheric CO2 concentration.

OK...So, to get on with the Rebuttal...

1) CO2 has never dominated the Long term trend before, why should it now? CO2 has always followed temperature, and temperature has spiked between 1.5-2.5C during the Holocene without CO2 increase, as I'll show you.

2) You can't seem to understand that Using TSI to compare to Global temps will not Produce Good Correlation, because only very specific aspects Solar correlate to climate. This is the Magnetic Portion, 10/BE conc, Geo-AA index, Geo-Flux Standalone, etc, that show great correlation. This correlation is possibly achieved through complex factors of Intricate Feedback & energy processing In the earths Upper Atmosphere, and its effect on the Tropopause, Cloud Cover, etc (Feedbacks), that we do not understand, + the reduction of the Earth's MagF by 10-15%. IPCC even states that it is highly unknown. Also remember that the Earths Magnetic Field has weakened 10-15% since 1850, which is unprecedented on its own, and would allow more penetration/less protection from Geomagnetic activity into the System. This drop in MagF correlates as well.

This study is a good read! Actually is a Pro AGW arcticle, assuming the PDO/AMO have no impact, and using GISS data instead of UAH, which of course gives the warm Bias.

http://www.academicj...10/July/Aly.pdf

Also, read into these for info on the Geo-AA Index..... http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

Earths Magnetic Field Decrease: http://www.megakastr..._modulation.htm

Look how The GEO-AA Index diverges from sunspots, and continues warming through 2003/04. Correlation to temps? YEP!

3) Yes, Aspects of TSI control the Earths climate...yes the Sun is the source of energy, but changes in the overall TSI will not reflect the changes in the specific variables of the solar cycles that correlate to temperatures. Standard Model Science has been Failing...thats the problem! IPCC models have failed, Hansen Models have Failed, AGW itself could be next.

4) Never been Refuted Bro: http://www.geocraft....house_data.html And either way, my point stands

5) Thats not the point.

6) Really? How so? So Now Volstok Ice Core and Greenland Ice Core are suddenly Wrong? Guess where your precious CO2 measurements before 1960 come from! If the Volstok Ice Core is Wrong as you say, that means the CO2 measurements taken there cannot be used for the IPCC,as they have been doing.

Again, you make no sense sometimes. You're claiming Volstok/Greenland ice core data are wrong, but accept CO2 data from them? We have over 80,000 Co2 bottle measurements ignored by the IPCC.....they choose Volstok Ice Core proxies instead. Cmon bro! They choose proxies in your self acclaimed "False" dataset (Volstok) over actual Measurements, but temp trends cannot be used from them?

Greenland Ice Core

[WeatherRusty]

6) Who said the Vostok ice cores are "wrong"? Regarding temperature, the ice cores represent conditions at one location which are likely quite close to reality for that location. Since Antarctica and Greenland are polar regions which should exaggerate the temperature trend experienced globally, just as today the arctic at least is warming faster than the remainder of the Earth. You can't extrapolate polar temperature range of temperature change to the remainder of the globe.

Regarding CO2, since CO2 is a well mixed gas the concentration of the gas as measured anywhere should be representative of the globe as a whole, unless the area in question suffers from local contamination.

[Clifford]

6) Who said the Vostok ice cores are "wrong"? Regarding temperature, the ice cores represent conditions at one location which are likely quite close to reality for that location. Since Antarctica and Greenland are polar regions which should exaggerate the temperature trend experienced globally, just as today the arctic at least is warming faster than the remainder of the Earth. You can't extrapolate polar temperature range of temperature change to the remainder of the globe.

Regarding CO2, since CO2 is a well mixed gas the concentration of the gas as measured anywhere should be representative of the globe as a whole, unless the area in question suffers from local contamination.

Remember that the ice cores are measuring Deuterium (²H) and Oxygen-18 (¹⁸O) as proxy measurements for the temperature changes, and not the temperature itself.

The Deuterium is bound to water (DHO).

I presume the ¹⁸O can be part of water (H₂(¹⁸O)), Free oxygen (¹⁸O¹⁶O), or Carbon Dioxide (C¹⁸O¹⁶O). I'm not sure if they differentiate the source, although the greatest contribution would be that as part of the water molecule.

Although there may be a small amount of polar sublimation (which would not affect the molecular concentrations), the majority of the new snow at the poles is from ocean evaporation.

I don't know how far the clouds and water vapor are travelling, but it is likely significantly outside of the arctic/antarctic circles.

Any ¹⁸O as part of free oxygen molecules would likely be very well homogenized around the globe, and would be more reflective of tropical trends than polar trends.

[BethesdaWX]

6) Who said the Vostok ice cores are "wrong"? Regarding temperature, the ice cores represent conditions at one location which are likely quite close to reality for that location. Since Antarctica and Greenland are polar regions which should exaggerate the temperature trend experienced globally, just as today the arctic at least is warming faster than the remainder of the Earth. You can't extrapolate polar temperature range of temperature change to the remainder of the globe.

Regarding CO2, since CO2 is a well mixed gas the concentration of the gas as measured anywhere should be representative of the globe as a whole, unless the area in question suffers from local contamination.

I don't think you understand how Ice cores work. You're not measuring Polar temps directly through the Ice cores, as in, its not a reference to the polar temps......you're measuring global substances/particulates within that were dispersed, and still are dispersed, across the globe. This isn't a regional phenomenon/measurement of the Pole.

It is likely that during times when the globe warmed/cooled 2-3C within the holocene, the Polar regions warmed cooled Much Greater Values.

I explained earlier on, how CO2 measurements through Volstok are very likely underestimated. We have over 80,000 direct bottle measurements from before 1960, yet IPCC chooses a proxy instead, and adjusts it to match AGW requirements.

[WeatherRusty]

Remember that the ice cores are measuring Deuterium (²H) and Oxygen-18 (¹⁸O) as proxy measurements for the temperature changes, and not the temperature itself.

The Deuterium is bound to water (DHO).

I presume the ¹⁸O can be part of water (H₂(¹⁸O)), Free oxygen (¹⁸O¹⁶O), or Carbon Dioxide (C¹⁸O¹⁶O). I'm not sure if they differentiate the source, although the greatest contribution would be that as part of the water molecule.

Although there may be a small amount of polar sublimation (which would not affect the molecular concentrations), the majority of the new snow at the poles is from ocean evaporation.

I don't know how far the clouds and water vapor are travelling, but it is likely significantly outside of the arctic/antarctic circles.

Any ¹⁸O as part of free oxygen molecules would likely be very well homogenized around the globe, and would be more reflective of tropical trends than polar trends.

Thanks. My argument has been trashed on this issue. Well as they say, you can't win them all!

Bethesda, see what happens when you venture outside your comfort zone?

[BethesdaWX]

Thanks. My argument has been trashed on this issue. Well as they say, you can't win them all!

Bethesda, see what happens when you venture outside your comfort zone?

happens to everyone, and its not fun

[skierinvermont]

happens to everyone, and its not fun

The difference between you and Rusty is that even after you have been proven wrong dozens of times you keep repeating the same things.

These 'other' solar phenomenon don't correlate to temperature... Geo mag aa happened to show a positive trend over the last 100 years.... which gave the appearance of a general correlation. By the same standard, ANY phenomenon which shows a positive correlation would "correlate excellently to temperature" (your words). This is NOT a statistically powerful test, especially considering there is no plausible causative mechanism. And the correlation has fallen apart... geo mag aa has fallen off a cliff since 1990.. while we have continued to warm rapidly. It's quite apparent that you read somewhere that these other solar factors are responsible for the warming, and even though this has been proven wrong multiple times, you just aren't willing to let it go.

You also keep claiming that CO2 has not induced warming in the past and therefore isn't causing our current warming. Not only is this a fallacious argument but it is factually incorrect, as has been explained at least a half a dozen times. There ARE examples of past warming events triggered by CO2. And although the interglacials were not initiated by CO2, the magnitude of warming and cooling between glacial periods is ONLY explainable if we include CO2 as a forcing.

Finally, that geocraft link you keep posting (#3 above) actually agrees that doubling of CO2 alone causes 1.2C of warming. If you're going to keep claiming the CO2 effect is small, you should probably find a different source that actually agrees with you. Or preferentially, correct your false opinions.