General AGW

[WeatherRusty]

note the sine wave associated with the PDO phase. Of course, that is natural, so that can't be the reason. Also note that we've only seen one half of the entire PDO signature, which is roughly 65 years, and yet we are sure we can just throw that baby out.

Do you need to be told that coupled/atmospheric cycles do not add to the heat stored by the Earth? They rearrange where the warmer and cooler areas reside. If the atmosphere is warmed, the oceans necessarily will have to cool in order to obey the first law of thermodynamics. Both the oceans and the atmosphere have warmed over the past several decades. The PDO is a case of internal climate variability, it is not a climate forcing.

[skierinvermont]

agree completely. We've been under constant sea level rise since the holocene started 10-12,000 years ago, yet recent rises (last 40 years) are all due to AGW. That is what the alarmists want you to believe. It's hogwash.

False. Sea levels had not been increasing for 2000 years until 100 years ago. It took a long time for the ice caps from the last ice age to melt once the ice age ended 10,000 years ago, but this process was largely completed 2000 years ago.

[hazwoper]

Based on what? The last 2000 years don't even show up on your graph of the last 500,000 years. Why 'SHOULD' arctic temperatures be the warmest of the last 2,000 years? We have been in an interglacial for 10,000 years now in which temperatures have remained fairly steady.

True. My guess is, that if we could take a snapshot of other interglacials one would be able to find similar warming over such a small period of time, but, alas, we cannot.

I'll answer your question with another question....why shouln't they be the warmest of the last 2,000 years?

[hazwoper]

"coming out of"... is that the scientific term?

Temperatures have remained steady for the last 10,000 years.. actually were on a slow decreasing trend until 100 years ago.

WOO HOO! AGW saves all of humanity by staving off the next ice age and the extinction of mankind.

[skierinvermont]

True. My guess is, that if we could take a snapshot of other interglacials one would be able to find similar warming over such a small period of time, but, alas, we cannot.

I'll answer your question with another question....why shouln't they be the warmest of the last 2,000 years?

Because global temperatures have stayed within a fairly narrow range the last 2,000 years and when they have moved, they move slowly. Then suddenly coincident with human CO2 emissions temperatures began rising at an unprecedented rate to an unprecedented magnitude. It doesn't single-handedly prove that the current rise is due to CO2, but it is pretty unlikely if not impossible that such a rapid rise would occur naturally. Just one more piece among many that CO2 is the primary cause of our current warming. The primary piece of evidence being basic physics.

All of this other evidence is simply superfluous to the fact that CO2 causes warming as dictated by basic physics. All of this other stuff is just icing on the cake.

[skierinvermont]

WOO HOO! AGW saves all of humanity by staving off the next ice age and the extinction of mankind.

Quite possible yes we would have headed into an ice age within the next 5-50,000 years. Or if not an ice age, a much cooler climate. So yes it is good that CO2 has staved this off.. unfortunately we will likely over-correct much too far in the opposite direction.. leading to massive sea level rise, mass extinctions, droughts, floods, etc.

[WeatherRusty]

fixed your quote Rusty.

... and why is it that we've gone from warm to cold and from cold to warm cycles in the past, but we cannot this time. Seems to me that powerful negative and positive feedbacks exist in our planetary system that it has suffered some truly catastrophic hits from above and below, and still maintains a relatively benign state.

As you know, adding up forcing given by natural factors fails to account for both the degree and pace of the warming over the past 150 years. Adding the known forcing by anthropogenic factors completes the picture.

Climate will always return to the point of balance given by the energy into and out of the system once the perturbing influence has dissipated.

[skierinvermont]

As you know, adding up forcing given by natural factors fails to account for both the degree and pace of the warming over the past 150 years. Adding the known forcing by anthropogenic factors completes the picture.

Climate will always return to the point of balance given by the energy into and out of the system once the perturbing influence has dissipated.

Exactly.

Even if we had no idea what past climate was like and we had none of these fancy graphs to throw around on the interwebz .. we would still know that CO2 would cause warming due to basic physics. These fancy graphs are just icing on the cake.

[WeatherRusty]

Why are they not applicable? In the grand scheme of long term climate, we are still "coming out" of the last ice age. I don't think you can look at the last 100 years and say natural cycles do not apply.

Milankovitch cycles (orbital) currently favor a cooling climate and have for several thousands of years since the Holocene Climate Maximum some 6,000 8,000 years ago. Something has rapidly and dramatically altered that trend.

[WeatherRusty]

True. My guess is, that if we could take a snapshot of other interglacials one would be able to find similar warming over such a small period of time, but, alas, we cannot.

I'll answer your question with another question....why shouln't they be the warmest of the last 2,000 years?

The temperature has risen 0.8C in a century of time. Very rapid and unusual, though not unprecedented.

[Sunny and Warm]

As you know, adding up forcing given by natural factors fails to account for both the degree and pace of the warming over the past 150 years. Adding the known forcing by anthropogenic factors completes the picture.

Climate will always return to the point of balance given by the energy into and out of the system once the perturbing influence has dissipated.

I don't know that and neither do you. That in a crux is the problem. You believe that crude proxies by a close knit climate science cabal that might show this should be the basis for upsetting everything humanity has done for the last several thousand years. I do not.

[WeatherRusty]

Because global temperatures have stayed within a fairly narrow range the last 2,000 years and when they have moved, they move slowly. Then suddenly coincident with human CO2 emissions temperatures began rising at an unprecedented rate to an unprecedented magnitude. It doesn't single-handedly prove that the current rise is due to CO2, but it is pretty unlikely if not impossible that such a rapid rise would occur naturally. Just one more piece among many that CO2 is the primary cause of our current warming. The primary piece of evidence being basic physics.

All of this other evidence is simply superfluous to the fact that CO2 causes warming as dictated by basic physics. All of this other stuff is just icing on the cake.

If nearly all recent warming has been natural, then how do we fit in the known impact of growing CO2 concentration? CO2 has risen about 40% toward a doubling since the industrial revolution and the total anthropogenic impact has increased forcing by about 1.6W/m^2 which at equilibrium should warm the Earth by 0.5C before feedback.

You can't just neglect the forcing by CO2. The physics does not lie.

[Sunny and Warm]

If nearly all recent warming has been natural, then how do we fit in the known impact of growing CO2 concentration? CO2 has risen about 40% toward a doubling since the industrial revolution and the total anthropogenic impact has increased forcing by about 1.6W/m^2 which at equilibrium should warm the Earth by 0.5C before feedback.

You can't just neglect the forcing by CO2. The physics does not lie.

How about the negative forcing by plants, which may be underestimated by up to 40% in models?

[Sunny and Warm]

The temperature has risen 0.8C in a century of time. Very rapid and unusual, though not unprecedented.

what record is that based upon?

[LakeEffectKing]

Milankovitch cycles (orbital) currently favor a cooling climate and have for several thousands of years since the Holocene Climate Maximum some 6,000 8,000 years ago. Something has rapidly and dramatically altered that trend.

We're up around +.4- +.7 currently. And you are comparing temperatures to 6,000 years ago, inherently inferring that our ability to accurately assess the temps back then are sufficient to claim "rapidly and dramatically...." ?? I'm thinking that during the 60-80 centuries since then, we "missed" some "dramatics" in there, thus falsifying your above statement.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't know that and neither do you. That in a crux is the problem. You believe that crude proxies by a close knit climate science cabal that might show this should be the basis for upsetting everything humanity has done for the last several thousand years. I do not.

I accept the accounting as basically accurate as done by the best science to date. I can't help it if you don't. I don't start with the premise that the science is fraudulent. I find the whole of the physical scientific basis very compelling as based on several years of close scrutiny and the coherency I find between this subject and other physical sciences.

[WeatherRusty]

How about the negative forcing by plants, which may be underestimated by up to 40% in models?

The net forcing by everything involved (without having to know what they individually contribute) has created a negative energy balance at the top of atmosphere. Line by Line radiative transfer codes informs us of the forcing given by the greenhouse gases and shows most if not all of that imbalance to be due to a growing greenhouse effect.

[WeatherRusty]

what record is that based upon?

Oh, so now we heading back to the " it hasn't warmed as much as we are told" argument.

[Sunny and Warm]

I accept the accounting as basically accurate as done by the best science to date. I can't help it if you don't. I don't start with the premise that the science is fraudulent. I find the whole of the physical scientific basis very compelling as based on several years of close scrutiny and the coherency I find between this subject and other physical sciences.

For example, many in the dendro field believe that you cannot extract all the factors that affect trees other than temps as Briffa claims to have done in his bristlecone pine study. Yet, that is but one study that many use to claim we are the warmest in forever and we have a fever. Can you say with complete conviction that Briffa got it right, and is not wrong in his peer reviewed assertions?

[Sunny and Warm]

Oh, so now we heading back to the " it hasn't warmed as much as we are told" argument.

just asking you what it was based upon. Proxies, instruments, recording agency, etc. Pretty simple question.

[WeatherRusty]

We're up around +.4- +.7 currently. And you are comparing temperatures to 6,000 years ago, inherently inferring that our ability to accurately assess the temps back then are sufficient to claim "rapidly and dramatically...." ?? I'm thinking that during the 60-80 centuries since then, we "missed" some "dramatics" in there, thus falsifying your above statement.

Warming or cooling of the magnitude we are experiencing don't just happen out of the blue, they are caused by something unusual. They do happen however, usually it is thought on a regional basis more than globally. Something that might have global impact would likely to have come from the outside, like a meteor strike or a Grand Solar Minimum.

You may be surprised at the resolution evident in the paleoclimate record.

For example: SEE

[WeatherRusty]

For example, many in the dendro field believe that you cannot extract all the factors that affect trees other than temps as Briffa claims to have done in his bristlecone pine study. Yet, that is but one study that many use to claim we are the warmest in forever and we have a fever. Can you say with complete conviction that Briffa got it right, and is not wrong in his peer reviewed assertions?

Individual proxy methodologies if standing alone are quit useless. They need to be calibrated using other methods who's periods overlap. When bore holes, ice cores, pine cones, tree rings, oxygen isotopes, ocean sediments etc. etc. are cross referenced no one method stands alone and they all corroborate and calibrate each other. This is how the basic hockey stick plot by Michael Mann based on Briffa has been validated against other useful methodologies, most of which indicate a similar temperature trend.

[skierinvermont]

For example, many in the dendro field believe that you cannot extract all the factors that affect trees other than temps as Briffa claims to have done in his bristlecone pine study. Yet, that is but one study that many use to claim we are the warmest in forever and we have a fever. Can you say with complete conviction that Briffa got it right, and is not wrong in his peer reviewed assertions?

If that is what Briffa's peers supposedly think, then they are free to say so in their reviews of his papers or to submit their own analyses or responses to Briffa. They have not.

Instead they have submitted huge amounts of evidence using both similar and independent methods as Briffa which support his conclusions. But of course you think it is ALL one giant fraud so this conversation is pointless.

[Sunny and Warm]

Individual proxy methodologies if standing alone are quit useless. They need to be calibrated using other methods who's periods overlap. When bore holes, ice cores, pine cones, tree rings, oxygen isotopes, ocean sediments etc. etc. are cross referenced no one method stands alone and they all corroborate and calibrate each other. This is how the basic hockey stick plot by Michael Mann based on Briffa has been validated against other useful methodologies, most of which indicate a similar temperature trend.

and when they use poor statistical methods?

[The_Global_Warmer]

will someone please answer the question as best as possible?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Not seeing the big gains.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't know that and neither do you. That in a crux is the problem. You believe that crude proxies by a close knit climate science cabal that might show this should be the basis for upsetting everything humanity has done for the last several thousand years. I do not.

I have two grandchildren aged 7 & 9. I want nothing but the best for them. So don't tell me I want to upset the progress humans have made in developing societies over the past several thousand years. We have a problem which I would like to see addressed, yes. What I would like is for you guys to be part of finding possible solutions rather than being an impediment.

I am basically a pessimist however, I don't believe we will do enough to address AGW in any meaningful manner, and even if we did we will likely end up with a warming of more than 2C over pre-industrial no matter what we do from here on. That means lots of disruption to ecosystems and human societies, necessitating costly adaption as the climate changes through differing states over future decades and centuries. We are locked into a serious situation already which will continue to be perpetuated by human ignorance and societal inertia.

In addition, the era of cheap fossil fuels is rapidly coming to an end, but that is another story. As the human population continues to rapidly grow, it is becoming ever more vulnerable to economic and ecological disruption, but that is another story still. I feel the future is screwed and folks like you give me no reason to feel any better.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't know that and neither do you. That in a crux is the problem. You believe that crude proxies by a close knit climate science cabal that might show this should be the basis for upsetting everything humanity has done for the last several thousand years. I do not.

Let's see what we need to do.

Stop dumping GHGs into the environment.

What exactly has humanity been doing the last few thousand years that would be undone?

another weak generalization that means nothing.

[PhillipS]

note the sine wave associated with the PDO phase. Of course, that is natural, so that can't be the reason. Also note that we've only seen one half of the entire PDO signature, which is roughly 65 years, and yet we are sure we can just throw that baby out.

That curve, not a sine wave, has nothing to do with the PDO. That plot comes from Dr Roy Spencer's UAH site and he says about it:

The 3rd order polynomial fit to the data (courtesy of Excel) is for entertainment purposes only, and should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever.

[PhillipS]

Based on the chart I posted above, artic temps certainly are warmer then they have been in the past 2000 years which you pointed out to everyone. The problem is, natural cycles point to the fact that artic temps SHOULD be higher then they have in the past 2000 years.

That's an extraordinary claim and, as such, needs some extraordinary support. Please give us the links to the research papers that indicate natural cycles are responsible for arctic temps higher than they've been for 2,000 years.