Temperature Fraud Expands

[Jonger]

im not going to get into any discussion in here because many arent very welcome in this subforum....I rarely visit anymore anyway...but since I saw the title "temp fraud" I decided to read the article and it made me think of something Harry and I uncovered in November. Im not getting into any discussion on the subject, just displaying the facts.

 

When NCDC calculates new normals, there is a certain amount of quality control that goes into the raw data. Well, that "quality control" is apparently to adjust all temps upward.

 

The relatively new NOWdata tool used on NWS websites (and NWS has a similar, even more high-tech thing I cant remember what its called) will show you the raw calculated #s...which theoretically should be the same as the official averages. But the 1981-2010 NOWdata avg is CONSISTENTLY colder than the "OFFICIAL" 1981-2010 averages as released by the NCDC.

Here is DTW avg monthly mean, 1981-2010

.......................Jan......Feb....Mar......Apr......May....Jun.....Jul.......Aug....Sep.....Oct.....Nov....Dec

NOWDATA.....25.3.....27.9....36.9....49.0....59.4....69.2...73.4....71.8....64.2....52.2....41.3....29.9

OFFICIAL.......25.6.....28.1....37.2....49.2....59.7....69.4...73.6....72.0....64.4....52.4....41.5....30.1

So each month at DTW, the "official" 1981-2010 normals are consistently 0.2-0.3F WARMER than the ACTUAL raw-data would indicate. Good idea to make the normals for a station that already has seen a huge increase in UHI over the last 20 years WARMER than the ACTUAL numbers are! FWIW, NOWdata snowfall avg is 43.8"....but the new official normal is 42.7".

 

 

lol at using Harry as an expert on climate.

 

and there have been a series of papers on whether temps are correct, most famously the Berkeley study, which shows that all of these conspiracy theories are grounded on nothing.  even Anthony Watts had to give it up after the study he was involved in showed there was no conspiracy.

 

this is the kind of the stuff which really has no place in this forum.

You sure like censorship.

[tamarack]

So what you are saying is that there is no legitimate reason to make adjustments to the data? Or only upward adjustments are wrong? How does the NCDC data set compare to other temperature data sets? Can you point me to any studies that show these adjustment result in unreliable results?

 

What other natural effects lead you to believe that the earth is cooling instead of getting warmer? Are glaciers and artic ice getting larger? Are growing zones moving south? Please elaborate on your thinking here, I am interested in know how you arrived at these conclusions.

 

Your first paragraph asks legitimate questions, especially the 1st, 3rd, and 4th, as I don't see msf making the claim questioned by #2.  (He said that all the adjustments were upward, not that only the upward adjustments were wrong; actually, I don't think he was claiming specifically that they were wrong, just puzzling.)  The quoting of just one data set is a pretty weak argument, and not portraying anything that would indicate he investigated the rationale for adjustments further weakens it.

 

The 2nd paragraph was puzzling to me.  The specific post to which you were responding didn't seem to hint at such claims, though perhaps other posts by msf have done so.  There's enough acrimony on the cc forum without appearing to put words into another's mouth.

[FloridaJohn]

Your first paragraph asks legitimate questions, especially the 1st, 3rd, and 4th, as I don't see msf making the claim questioned by #2.  (He said that all the adjustments were upward, not that only the upward adjustments were wrong; actually, I don't think he was claiming specifically that they were wrong, just puzzling.)  The quoting of just one data set is a pretty weak argument, and not portraying anything that would indicate he investigated the rationale for adjustments further weakens it.

 

The 2nd paragraph was puzzling to me.  The specific post to which you were responding didn't seem to hint at such claims, though perhaps other posts by msf have done so.  There's enough acrimony on the cc forum without appearing to put words into another's mouth.

 

Fair enough. I was being a little snarky with my questions, mainly because michsnowfreak started his/her post with "im not going to get into any discussion." Which makes me wonder why he bothered to post in the first place, since this is the place for discussion (it's pretty much all you do on a forum).

 

As far are the second question about the upward adjustments, michsnowfreak seems to indicate (at least they way I read the post), that because the adjustments were upward, that is a problem. He didn't specifically say that downward adjustments would be wrong, too, so I may have read more into his post than he meant. Of course, that is why I ask the questions. Hopefully michsnowfreak will come back and clarify what the actual problems were with the adjustments, and we can have a useful discussion of why or why not that may be the case.

 

The second paragraph was mainly to illustrate the point that even without any temperature record at all, there are other sources of data that lead us to believe the earth is getting warmer. If, for example, glaciers were actually growing, but the temperature record showed an increase in temperatures, then that would be a good reason to doubt the temperature record. However, the physical effects are exactly what one would expect to see as a result of warmer temperatures. So if all signs point to a warming earth, then it is possible that the temperature record is actually correct. I admit, it was a bit of a stretch to assume michsnowfreak was doubting the temperature record as a whole, but the fact that upward adjustments set him/her off for some reason led me to believe that michsnowfreak thought that up was bad and down was good.

 

So, I apologize to michsnowfreak for possibly misinterpreting what he/she was trying to say, and would appreciate it if michsnowfreak could elaborate on his/her point so that we can discuss what the actual issue was with the adjustments. If michsnowfreak doesn't want to participate after posting, then we have to start making assumptions on what was meant, and use that as a point of discussion.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You sure like censorship.

 

So you don't have the "wits" about you to understand that the NCDC isn't pulling fast ones on snow bunny's?

 

When does this crap stop Man?  They post all of there methodologies.  Wouldn't the first thing you ask for is why?  which is easily accessible? 

 

How is that censorship? 

[skierinvermont]

In terms of the 1981-2010 baseline norms, NCDC has posted the following on its website:

 

Several changes and additions have been incorporated into the 1981-2010 Normals. Monthly temperature and precipitation normals are based on underlying data values that have undergone additional quality control. Monthly temperatures have also been standardized to account for the effects of station moves, changes in instrumentation, etc. These enhancements are described in more detail in the following peer-reviewed papers:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf

and

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-williams2009.pdf

 

 

Perhaps Mich or Harry could explain to us why such quality control is not necessary. 

[Jonger]

You sure like censorship.

 

So you don't have the "wits" about you to understand that the NCDC isn't pulling fast ones on snow bunny's?

 

When does this crap stop Man?  They post all of there methodologies.  Wouldn't the first thing you ask for is why?  which is easily accessible? 

 

How is that censorship? 

My post was in reference to wxtrix and her broken record response to anything she doesn't like....Her go-to action is to call for hushing the poster... Ironic, considering she is banned from PR.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Perhaps Mich or Harry could explain to us why such quality control is not necessary. 

 

This is even more interesting:

 

A number of recent articles have also raised

concerns about the site characteristics of U.S. HCN

stations by way of photographic documentation

(e.g., Davey ahnd Pielke 2005; Pielke et al. 2007a,.

Moreover, there is evidence that a large fraction

of HCN sites have poor ratings with respect to the

site classification criteria used by the U.S. Climate

Reference Network (A. Watts 2008 personal communication;

refer also to www.surfacestations.org1).

 

 

The NCDC is so damn crooked they take Anthony Watt's work in identifying bad weather stations into consideration?

[skierinvermont]

My post was in reference to wxtrix and her broken record response to anything she doesn't like....Her go-to action is to call for hushing the poster... Ironic, considering she is banned from PR.

 

So you think unfounded accusations of fraud and conspiracy theory which are easily disproved should be posted in this forum?

 

Personally I have no interest in reading such nonsense. Do you? 

 

It's time to lay down your cards Jonger. Are you going to stand up for what you know is right, or are you going to continue to speak out the side of your mouth to protect this sort of nonsense? You don't have to swallow everything mainstream science tells us (although you should) but why not spend more of your time standing up for the facts you know to be true, and less time trying to change the subject and protect nonsense.

[nzucker]

So you think unfounded accusations of fraud and conspiracy theory which are easily disproved should be posted in this forum?

 

Personally I have no interest in reading such nonsense. Do you? 

 

It's time to lay down your cards Jonger. Are you going to stand up for what you know is right, or are you going to continue to speak out the side of your mouth to protect this sort of nonsense? You don't have to swallow everything mainstream science tells us (although you should) but why not spend more of your time standing up for the facts you know to be true, and less time trying to change the subject and protect nonsense.

Mainstream science hasn't been entirely correct with AGW either. The temperature plateau this past decade may be explained by solar, volcanic, and ENSO/PDO; at the same time, it wasn't exactly expected.

[tamarack]

So, I apologize to michsnowfreak for possibly misinterpreting what he/she was trying to say, and would appreciate it if michsnowfreak could elaborate on his/her point so that we can discuss what the actual issue was with the adjustments. If michsnowfreak doesn't want to participate after posting, then we have to start making assumptions on what was meant, and use that as a point of discussion.

 

Appreciate the comprehensive response, and agree with all of it, especially what I've boldfaced.  There are some things in the temp record that I find puzzling (the large northward shift in hardiness zones in Maine, which magnitude doesn't seem to be reflected in the temp records, for one), but that doesn't mean I think there's a conspiracy going on.

[blizzard1024]

So you think unfounded accusations of fraud and conspiracy theory which are easily disproved should be posted in this forum?

 

Personally I have no interest in reading such nonsense. Do you? 

 

It's time to lay down your cards Jonger. Are you going to stand up for what you know is right, or are you going to continue to speak out the side of your mouth to protect this sort of nonsense? You don't have to swallow everything mainstream science tells us (although you should) but why not spend more of your time standing up for the facts you know to be true, and less time trying to change the subject and protect nonsense.

Why do you publicly call people out on this forum? Isn't that against the codes of conduct? Isn't that what PM is for??? Seems kind of nasty to me. Why would he respond? Just saying...

[blizzard1024]

be patient. I have a full time job, 3 kids, disabled wife and a house to care for.  geez.

[BeastFromTheEast]

be patient. I have a full time job, 3 kids, disabled wife and a house to care for.  geez.

 

LOL GTFO with that crap. You aren't the only special one here who has a life and responsibilities.. 

 

It's been 3 days since you said you'd bring up the references. You've been posting plenty the last few days so it's not like you haven't had the quick few minutes of time to find support for your claim..

 

And if you think we're being mean to you well, hate to break it to you this is a science board, and of course we won't take too kindly to unsupported claims and potential lies.

[WeatherRusty]

be patient. I have a full time job, 3 kids, disabled wife and a house to care for.  geez.

 

It's easy to claim warmer has better suited the general state of human civilzation during the Holocene than has cold. That is not to say everyone, everywhere has benefited however. Where sea level has risen substantially, older civiliations near the shore were flood out. The Egyptian Empire may have suffered from expanding drought and desertification with a consequent reduction of water flow in the Nile. Modern day civilization is far more vulnerable due to it's sheer mass and global coverage, with huge numbers of people dependent on climate stability.

 

Now, if global temp rises to levels never experienced by humanity and the current biosphere even if just by a few degrees, the disruption will be unpresidented. The ramifications are far more significant than being able to wear a tee shirt rather than a hooded sweatshirt.

[blizzard1024]

be patient. I have a full time job, 3 kids, disabled wife and a house to care for.  geez.

 

The book that has tons of references is called "The Little Ice Age" by Brian Fagan. That is where I got this from.

I have also studied this in my paleoclimate course...warmer earth = better for humans. colder earth = not good for humans. 

[blizzard1024]

It's easy to claim warmer has better suited the general state of human civilzation during the Holocene than has cold. That is not to say everyone, everywhere has benefited however. Where sea level has risen substantially, older civiliations near the shore were flood out. The Egyptian Empire may have suffered from expanding drought and desertification with a consequent reduction of water flow in the Nile. Modern day civilization is far more vulnerable due to it's sheer mass and global coverage, with huge numbers of people dependent on climate stability.

 

Now, if global temp rises to levels never experienced by humanity and the current biosphere even if just by a few degrees, the disruption will be unpresidented. The ramifications are far more significant than being able to wear a tee shirt rather than a hooded sweatshirt.

When the climate changes, there is always winners and losers. Since the climate presently is slowly warming, if this continues, adaptation will be the key. 

[skierinvermont]

Mainstream science hasn't been entirely correct with AGW either. The temperature plateau this past decade may be explained by solar, volcanic, and ENSO/PDO; at the same time, it wasn't exactly expected.

 

It was expected. That is what error bars are for, and we remain within the error bars of a 3C climate sensitivity. 

[nzucker]

It was expected. That is what error bars are for, and we remain within the error bars of a 3C climate sensitivity. 

 

We all know the warming has been less than anticipated...let's not play games with error bars. There's clearly been a slow-down when rising CO2 concentrations support even faster warming. None of the natural variability stuff was even in the discussion, for the most part, when global warming got big in the 90s. I don't remember much talk in the 90s about the PDO cooling the climate, or the solar minimum...it was just "1998 was a record warm year and we're going to be setting records every couple of years." It's rubbish when you try to play the statistics card since it takes a long time to fall outside error bars on 100 year predictions when you know what I am saying. 

[toronto blizzard]

lol at using Harry as an expert on climate.

 

and there have been a series of papers on whether temps are correct, most famously the Berkeley study, which shows that all of these conspiracy theories are grounded on nothing.  even Anthony Watts had to give it up after the study he was involved in showed there was no conspiracy.

 

this is the kind of the stuff which really has no place in this forum.

You have no place in this forum. All you do is post Junk science

[skierinvermont]

We all know the warming has been less than anticipated...let's not play games with error bars. There's clearly been a slow-down when rising CO2 concentrations support even faster warming. None of the natural variability stuff was even in the discussion, for the most part, when global warming got big in the 90s. I don't remember much talk in the 90s about the PDO cooling the climate, or the solar minimum...it was just "1998 was a record warm year and we're going to be setting records every couple of years." It's rubbish when you try to play the statistics card since it takes a long time to fall outside error bars on 100 year predictions when you know what I am saying. 

 

The error bars are there specifically for the purpose of the uncertainty created by natural variability. Nobody ever said we'd be setting records every couple years - at least not in any peer-reviewed literature or IPCC report. This is a straw-man. Climate scientists simply did not attempt to predict how short term natural variability would effect climate. They did not deny that it existed - just the opposite. They pointed out that it existed, and that it was impossible to make short-term predictions precisely for this reason. Hence error bars. If there was no natural variability, error bars would be much smaller. If scientists did not accept natural variability, then we would have fallen far outside the error bars many years ago. It is difficult to fall outside error bars precisely because the error bars represent natural variability. That's why error bars are big. They weren't made big just for fun, and they weren't made big because it's a 100yr prediction (that has no bearing on the size of the error bars). You want to toss aside the error bars that were created precisely because of natural variability, and then turn around and claim that scientists didn't acknowledge natural variability. That's rubbish.

 

The effect of ENSO and TSI on global temperature is found directly in the IPCC report. And it has been widely discussed in the peer-reviewed literature for decades.

[blizzard1024]

LOL GTFO with that crap. You aren't the only special one here who has a life and responsibilities.. 

 

It's been 3 days since you said you'd bring up the references. You've been posting plenty the last few days so it's not like you haven't had the quick few minutes of time to find support for your claim..

 

And if you think we're being mean to you well, hate to break it to you this is a science board, and of course we won't take too kindly to unsupported claims and potential lies.

 

This is hardly a real science board. It is a "believer" board. I rarely learn anything of substance on this board that is not already in the IPCC assessments.

That is why I am trying to post reasonable scientific material based on other viewpoints in the literature and 30+ years of observing and forecasting the

atmosphere and short term climate. I have extensive knowledge of the climate system from an observational viewpoint. Not a modeling viewpoint. That

is where I differ. I don't trust models especially when they deal with non-linear feedbacks. In fact the most uncertain aspects of the climate system...clouds

and convection are parameterized in GCMs. That is a big red flag for a MET. 

 

For most of you, just read the IPCC assessments. The science is settled. what is there to discuss? Why are you on this forum? There is nothing more for you folks to

learn. So you bash people who want to learn or have a different viewpoint. 

 

Plus I already posted the book where I have the references that describe that mankind thrives during warm periods

and doesn't during colder periods.That pretty much is common sense to most of us...except many on this forum. 

[skierinvermont]

This is hardly a real science board. It is a "believer" board. I rarely learn anything of substance on this board that is not already in the IPCC assessments.

That is why I am trying to post reasonable scientific material based on other viewpoints in the literature and 30+ years of observing and forecasting the

atmosphere and short term climate. I have extensive knowledge of the climate system from an observational viewpoint. Not a modeling viewpoint. That

is where I differ. I don't trust models especially when they deal with non-linear feedbacks. In fact the most uncertain aspects of the climate system...clouds

and convection are parameterized in GCMs. That is a big red flag for a MET. 

 

For most of you, just read the IPCC assessments. The science is settled. what is there to discuss? Why are you on this forum? There is nothing more for you folks to

learn. So you bash people who want to learn or have a different viewpoint. 

 

Plus I already posted the book where I have the references that describe that mankind thrives during warm periods

and doesn't during colder periods.That pretty much is common sense to most of us...except many on this forum. 

 

You've barely posted anything from scientific literature. I've found many of the charts you post on denier blog sites. People post scientific articles, you pretend to be interested and that you will read them, and then you dismiss them without valid reasoning. 

 

As explained to you MANY MANY times (this must be at least the 10th time I have explained it to you) climate sensitivity is not based on MODELING.

 

Why do you repeat this LIE over and over and over? You think it sounds smart using words like parameterized and saying how knowledgeable you are and reminding everybody you are a "MET" and so clearly must be an expert on the limitations of modeling and all of climate science?

[blizzard1024]

You've barely posted anything from scientific literature. I've found many of the charts you post on denier blog sites. People post scientific articles, you pretend to be interested and that you will read them, and then you dismiss them without valid reasoning. 

 

As explained to you MANY MANY times (this must be at least the 10th time I have explained it to you) climate sensitivity is not based on MODELING.

 

Why do you repeat this LIE over and over and over? You think it sounds smart using words like parameterized and saying how knowledgeable you are and reminding everybody you are a "MET" and so clearly must be an expert on the limitations of modeling and all of climate science?

 

I am not lying man. I don't think the sensitivity analysis from the paleorecord accurately takes into account ice, clouds and water vapor that's all. It assumes CO2 is a major driver which I don't agree with. I believe it is ice albedo, ocean currents, clouds and convection that modulate our earth's climate. CO2 has a small role in my opinion. Nothing in

the paleo records suggests otherwise except that counter intuitive argument that I have gone through with you at least 10 times. How could a trace gas continue to rise when global temperatures fall because of orbital parameters (which are supposed to be very weak), and then all of the sudden, C02  then drives

the climate colder. To me it is the building of large ice sheets which take a long long time that eventually cools the Earth beyond the orbital parameters. That is why there is a slow drop in temperature which cools the oceans which then absorbs more CO2. CO2...I believe passively follows global temperatures with minor impact on global temperature. It is the ice albedo effect, clouds, additional snow cover at lower latitudes that dominates. The paleo record really shows this. My own research and studies indicate this. But I don't have the funds to publish since I am not in a climate research institute. They would never hire me or allow me to publish if I could because I have differing views of course anyway. 

[blizzard1024]

You've barely posted anything from scientific literature. I've found many of the charts you post on denier blog sites. People post scientific articles, you pretend to be interested and that you will read them, and then you dismiss them without valid reasoning. 

 

As explained to you MANY MANY times (this must be at least the 10th time I have explained it to you) climate sensitivity is not based on MODELING.

 

Why do you repeat this LIE over and over and over? You think it sounds smart using words like parameterized and saying how knowledgeable you are and reminding everybody you are a "MET" and so clearly must be an expert on the limitations of modeling and all of climate science?

I have been using models of the atmosphere for almost 30 years and I know a lot about how poorly they handle non-linear effects and parameterized phenomena, like clouds or convection,  anything sub-grid scale. I know weather models are initial value problems vs climate models which are boundary value problems but nevertheless they have similar issues with sub-grid scale processes. Also, the climate sensitivity as inferred from the paleorecords are done by running climate models!! Come on. They run models to come up with the CO2 sensitivity. I have read studies on this referenced in the skeptical science web site (which is a very left wing site nonetheless). What about clouds, ice albedo effects and ocean currents??  Climate sensitivity is uncertain and is the silver bullet if it can be accurately assessed. We are a long way off IMO. Just like we are a long way off from predicting the weather accurately 5-7 days out. These are my opinions from my experience in observing the atmosphere for many years and following the climate system. Real life experience vs theoretical modeling. That is likely why many (by no means not all) METs are more skeptical IMO. Maybe we should be banned from this forum...it would make your life easier huh?? 

[skierinvermont]

I am not lying man. I don't think the sensitivity analysis from the paleorecord accurately takes into account ice, clouds and water vapor that's all. It assumes CO2 is a major driver which I don't agree with. I believe it is ice albedo, ocean currents, clouds and convection that modulate our earth's climate. CO2 has a small role in my opinion. Nothing in

the paleo records suggests otherwise except that counter intuitive argument that I have gone through with you at least 10 times. How could a trace gas continue to rise when global temperatures fall because of orbital parameters (which are supposed to be very weak), and then all of the sudden, C02  then drives

the climate colder. To me it is the building of large ice sheets which take a long long time that eventually cools the Earth beyond the orbital parameters. That is why there is a slow drop in temperature which cools the oceans which then absorbs more CO2. CO2...I believe passively follows global temperatures with minor impact on global temperature. It is the ice albedo effect, clouds, additional snow cover at lower latitudes that dominates. The paleo record really shows this. My own research and studies indicate this. But I don't have the funds to publish since I am not in a climate research institute. They would never hire me or allow me to publish if I could because I have differing views of course anyway. 

 

 

So first you say you don't believe in 3C/doubling CO2 because you don't believe modeling. Except it is not primarily based upon modeling (as explained to you a dozen times).

 

So now you switch to saying you don't believe in 3C/doubling CO2 because CO2 was not the primary driver of climate during glacial cycles. Except, as also explained to you a dozen times, science has never shown that CO2 was the primary driver of the glacial cycles. It was one of many positive feedbacks to orbital factors. As you yourself just said, orbital cycles initiate the ice ages and then other factors such as surface albedo create positive feedbacks. 

 

The argument for 3C/doubling CO2 relies on two facts:

 

1. Doubling CO2 provides a forcing of 3.7W/m2 which leads to universally accepted 1.2C of warming by radiative physics.

 

2. The earth's feedbacks are net positive, approximately doubling or tripling this initial warming. 

 

 

As you yourself just said, the earth's glacial cycles show quite clearly that earth's feedbacks to an initial forcing like a change in orbital parameters are net positive. Otherwise the large variation in global temperature shown by the paleoclimate record would not be possible. 

[skierinvermont]

Also, the climate sensitivity as inferred from the paleorecords are done by running climate models!! Come on. They run models to come up with the CO2 sensitivity. 

 

False.

[blizzard1024]

So first you say you don't believe in 3C/doubling CO2 because you don't believe modeling. Except it is not primarily based upon modeling (as explained to you a dozen times).

 

So now you switch to saying you don't believe in 3C/doubling CO2 because CO2 was not the primary driver of climate during glacial cycles. Except, as also explained to you a dozen times, science has never shown that CO2 was the primary driver of the glacial cycles. It was one of many positive feedbacks to orbital factors. As you yourself just said, orbital cycles initiate the ice ages and then other factors such as surface albedo create positive feedbacks. 

 

The argument for 3C/doubling CO2 relies on two facts:

 

1. Doubling CO2 provides a forcing of 3.7W/m2 which leads to universally accepted 1.2C of warming by radiative physics.

 

2. The earth's feedbacks are net positive, approximately doubling or tripling this initial warming. 

 

 

As you yourself just said, the earth's glacial cycles show quite clearly that earth's feedbacks to an initial forcing like a change in orbital parameters are net positive. Otherwise the large variation in global temperature shown by the paleoclimate record would not be possible. 

It is the ice,clouds, ocean currents and albedo effect. Why has the climate been so stable during the Holocene? Glaciations had different boundary conditions that were far more sensitive to forcing than today...primarily melt water surges and changes in ocean currents which rapidly affected the Earth's climate. Now without large NH ice sheets, we don't see these wild swings anymore. You don't need CO2 to explain this. I believe the Earth;s climate is very sensitive when there are huge ice sheets in the NH and much less sensitive when there isn't. The paleorecords show this clearly. See graph below from my paleoclimate course...I have to look up the reference but believe me it is legit. Notice the flucuations in climate...even from deep sea cores...and meltwater flux in the past 20,000 years. Also notice how stable the holocene climate is. Different boundary conditions...different sensitivity. 

 

 

here is the ice accumulation rate for Greenland which is NOT just local. It is related to the north atlantic conveyor belt advecting warmth to the higher latitudes and thereby causing more snow at high latitudes and higher ice accumulation in Greenland. The great ocean conveyor belt distributes heat world wide so it is a macroscopic measure of the Earth's climate. Notice that this stabilizes in the Holocene. 

 

 

This graph was derived from GISP2 from my professor, who by the way believes in CAGW. So this is not made up stuff. 

[blizzard1024]

False.

That is not true. Go to skepticalscience.com   Most of the sensitivity studies use GCMs to simulate the glacial cycles and even

the Mt Pinatubo eruptions impact on climate and inferred sensitivity. There is one study that looks at solar maxes vs solar mins

and somehow infers a temperature change of 2.3k to 4+K for doubling CO2 but how can you completely attribute all the warming/cooling

just to solar cycles. Plus they use reanalysis data which is not good for climate signals. 

[blizzard1024]

please link to a post of mine where I have posted something that is not accepted by the climate change community, or retract this statement.

 

You have done the same to many on this forum. AND I am NOT agreeing on what this person said about your posts. 

I disagree with anyone who discredits and insults people that don't share their same views on this forum.  I hope

he or she does post what they don't agree with and retracts their statement. I don't like to see anyone get slammed

for their viewpoints. That does not lead to healthy debate and stifles learning. 

[toronto blizzard]

please link to a post of mine where I have posted something that is not accepted by the climate change community, or retract this statement.

You have an agenda that all you think is that we are the only cause of AGW. Simply not true.