The Problems with CAGW

[blizzard1024]

I know this is going to over like a lead balloon but here goes....

 

 

1) The climate is always changing. 100 years or so of data is a snap shot in a long period of changing climate. How do we know that the climate was stable before CO2 was increasing??? It never was before so why was it in the late 1800s stable???

 

2) CO2 itself is a minor GHG. This is little credible evidence that it dominates the climate system. In ice cores, the lag effect of CO2 vs temperature should have put this whole thing to rest but of course there is a hokey explanation that makes NO physical sense. There were many times that global temperatures were falling and CO2 was going up and vice versa during the glacial to interglacial cycles. It was not a driver of the climate then so what makes it a driver now? 

 

3) If you double CO2, you get about 3.7 w/m2 extra forcing. Since the entire greenhouse effect is about  333 watts/m2  this is just over a 1% change. So we are saying that the Earth's atmosphere is essentially unstable enough that a 1% change in either direction is enough to spiral the climate out of control? If this were really true some other minor event in the past would have wiped life out completely. It took huge extraterrestrial impacts to do so back then. Now it is a small push? This is the common sense stuff...

 

4) The greenhouse effect is primarily water vapor and clouds. So by increasing CO2 or any external factor that warms or cools, the hydro cycle amplifies the change. Yet, we know that all atmospheric models on the planetary scale do not handle clouds and precipitation well. Precipitation is a SINK of the primary greenhouse gas. An increase/decrease in cloud cover alone could easily cause changes in planetary albedo too which swamps any small effect of CO2. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).  shows variations in cloud cover that can explain the changing global temperatures based on MSU satellite data since the early 1980s.

 

5) Paltridge et al shows declining water vapor at high altitudes which shows a negative water vapor feedback. Lindzen's work and Dr Spencer's work also shows this too. Some seminal papers on this topic from Dessler and also Soden both show a positive H20 feedback but if you read these papers their results are related to the SOI and changes in the tropical convection. Hardly evidence on a planetary scale. In fairness Paltridge's work is suspect too and others are not bullet proof either. There is a lot of uncertainty on this very important part of this whole subject.

 

6) The so-called tropical "hot spot" seen in the climate models is not observed.

 

7) The ocean currents alone can easily explain the temperature variations in the last hundred years with uncertainties growing too large back before the satellite era.

 

8) Arctic sea ice has declined but Antarctic sea has increased dramatically. Global sea ice now is above normal. This is related to ocean currents and is cyclical. We happen to be observing the consequence of a warm AMO which is now dropping.

 

9) The Little ice age ended in the late 1800s. The 20th century showed much higher levels of solar activity which naturally leads to the conclusion that we are recovering from the LIA. Solar activity is down now, but lag effects could make any drop in temperature delayed.

 

10) the oceans have enormous heat capacity which can easily soak up any small forcing in either direction damping it out or even delaying it from becoming sensible heat for centuries. This is a big part of TCR which could delay or damp changes for a long time...and it might only be 1-2C at best!

 

 

I know there are more so if there are at least one or two others on this forum with some objectivity please add them.

 

In summary, a small modest warming from CO2  (1C or so) will be swamped by natural fluctuations in the long run. That's my scientific opinion and frankly many METs do agree with this. Not all, but many don't see CAGW coming.

 

 

Thanks for listening.

[wildweatherman179]

I have no objectivity or even good sense to add to that. Just compliments. Very well written. Awfully quiet in here. Lol.

[csnavywx]

I have no objectivity or even good sense to add to that. Just compliments. Very well written. Awfully quiet in here. Lol.

There's a reason for that. It isn't the one you're implying.

[blizzard1024]

There's a reason for that. It isn't the one you're implying.

 

What amazes me is that the views I hold are very valid to an unbiased atmospheric scientist. But I get lumped in with flat earthers, sasquatch believers, HAARP folks, JFK and 911 conspiracy theorists.  There is a massive amount of tribalism going on and this forum is one that is especially so. But I prevail....

[PisgahNCWeather]

Well done.  Enjoyed reading this very much.

[nflwxman]

What amazes me is that the views I hold are very valid to an unbiased atmospheric scientist. But I get lumped in with flat earthers, sasquatch believers, HAARP folks, JFK and 911 conspiracy theorists.  There is a massive amount of tribalism going on and this forum is one that is especially so. But I prevail....

The problem is that you are way out of the scientific mainstream.  In your diatribe up there you only had some easily debunkable points and highlighted the regional uncertainties of climate science.  However, you didn't propagate an alternate testable hypothesis.  Rigorous science demands an alternate hypothesis that passes the sniff test.  Tell me, what has caused the 0.8C (soon to be 0.9C) warming the last 50 years if not the radiative imbalance the earth has proven to have caused by GHGs?

 

There are many unbiased climate scientists that have come to the same conclusion.  90+%.   You ever thought, as an atmospheric scientist, that you are not qualified to make these calls?  Climate and atmospheric science are far apart in practice.  

[BNAwx]

The problem is that you are way out of the scientific mainstream.  In your diatribe up there you only had some easily debunkable points and highlighted the regional uncertainties of climate science.  However, you didn't propagate an alternate testable hypothesis.  Rigorous science demands an alternate hypothesis that passes the sniff test.  Tell me, what has caused the 0.8C (soon to be 0.9C) warming the last 50 years if not the radiative imbalance the earth has proven to have caused by GHGs?

 

There are many unbiased climate scientists that have come to the same conclusion.  90+%.   You ever thought, as an atmospheric scientist, that you are not qualified to make these calls?  Climate and atmospheric science are far apart in practice.  

 

Can scientists say for certain what caused previous ice ages?  Theories abound but not with 100% certainty. Why then is someone supposed to have definitive proof of what's causing the current warming?  If you don't know for certain on the first question then how can you accurately answer the second?

 

As far as 90% of unbiased climate scientists reaching  the same conclusion, I would offer that 90% agree the climate has and continues to warm.  I don't think you'd get 90% to agree that man is the sole contributor and catalyst for CAGW.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Can scientists say for certain what caused previous ice ages? Theories abound but not with 100% certainty. Why then is someone supposed to have definitive proof of what's causing the current warming? If you don't know for certain on the first question then how can you accurately answer the second?

We know they're related to orbital parameters. That said, exactly how tiny changes in the distribution of insolation can force ice ages is not understood yet, but it does suggest large positive feedbacks are at work.

As far as 90% of unbiased climate scientists reaching the same conclusion, I would offer that 90% agree the climate has and continues to warm. I don't think you'd get 90% to agree that man is the sole contributor and catalyst for CAGW.

Whether man is the sole contributor or not, most scientists agree that we are changing the climate, and having a detrimental impact on polar ecosystems. Are you denying that?

[BNAwx]

We know they're related to orbital parameters. That said, exactly how tiny changes in the distribution of insolation can force ice ages is not understood yet, but it does suggest large positive feedbacks are at work.

Whether man is the sole contributor or not, most scientists agree that we are changing the climate, and having a detrimental impact on polar ecosystems. Are you denying that?

 

I never said I denied that man has had an influence.  I'm just unsure how much of an impact we're having.  I've basically waivered back and forth for several years on this issue.  I feel there is good work being done on both sides of the fence and the phrase "the science is settled" is a dishonest and dangerous viewpoint regardless of whether you're a  skeptic or staunch CAGW believer.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I never said I denied that man has had an influence.  I'm just unsure how much of an impact we're having.  I've basically waivered back and forth for several years on this issue.  I feel there is good work being done on both sides of the fence and the phrase "the science is settled" is a dishonest and dangerous viewpoint regardless of whether you're a  skeptic or staunch CAGW believer.

 

 

The science is settled in regards to radiative forcing being increased by Mans will.

[blizzard1024]

The problem is that you are way out of the scientific mainstream.  In your diatribe up there you only had some easily debunkable points and highlighted the regional uncertainties of climate science.  However, you didn't propagate an alternate testable hypothesis.  Rigorous science demands an alternate hypothesis that passes the sniff test.  Tell me, what has caused the 0.8C (soon to be 0.9C) warming the last 50 years if not the radiative imbalance the earth has proven to have caused by GHGs?

 

There are many unbiased climate scientists that have come to the same conclusion.  90+%.   You ever thought, as an atmospheric scientist, that you are not qualified to make these calls?  Climate and atmospheric science are far apart in practice.  

 

What caused the radiative imbalance that caused the Earth to warm from 1900 to 1945 or so before CO2 started increase significantly? What caused the radiative imbalance that caused the Earth to warm into the Medieval warm period? This is a snap shot of climate the last 50 years.  

[blizzard1024]

The science is settled in regards to radiative forcing being increased by Mans will.

 

The late 70s were a known global cool period after a cold AMO pattern. That is when the satellite record for sea ice began. This is a small snap shot of the Arctic sea ice variations. We are witnessing normal climate variations with small contributions from CO2. The recovery will occur when the AMO goes cold again.

[blizzard1024]

The problem is that you are way out of the scientific mainstream.  In your diatribe up there you only had some easily debunkable points and highlighted the regional uncertainties of climate science.  However, you didn't propagate an alternate testable hypothesis.  Rigorous science demands an alternate hypothesis that passes the sniff test.  Tell me, what has caused the 0.8C (soon to be 0.9C) warming the last 50 years if not the radiative imbalance the earth has proven to have caused by GHGs?

 

There are many unbiased climate scientists that have come to the same conclusion.  90+%.   You ever thought, as an atmospheric scientist, that you are not qualified to make these calls?  Climate and atmospheric science are far apart in practice.  

 

This is the problem. You are wrong on climate and atmospheric science... climate is a branch of atmospheric science. Most climate scientists are either atmospheric scientists, physicists or mathematicians. Many are just geography majors which tends to be less rigorous academically. If you polled all the folks with MET tags on this whole site(not just the climate change forum) I bet more than 50% do not agree with CAGW. I bet most do agree in some small warming(like me) but not the craziness that is proclaimed by the mainstream climate science. I would not want to be in the "mainstream". As I said its tribalism....

[Harry]

The problem is that you are way out of the scientific mainstream.  In your diatribe up there you only had some easily debunkable points and highlighted the regional uncertainties of climate science.  However, you didn't propagate an alternate testable hypothesis.  Rigorous science demands an alternate hypothesis that passes the sniff test.  Tell me, what has caused the 0.8C (soon to be 0.9C) warming the last 50 years if not the radiative imbalance the earth has proven to have caused by GHGs?

 

There are many unbiased climate scientists that have come to the same conclusion.  90+%.  You ever thought, as an atmospheric scientist, that you are not qualified to make these calls?  Climate and atmospheric science are far apart in practice.  

 

I sure as heck hope you are joking here? If not then you need to be stripped of your credentials. I have seen some outlandish comments in my time but that ranks up there among the top.

 

Oh and lol at the science is settled crap. Settled by who? Now remember before answering we are talking about SCIENCE here and one that has never been known to be a exact science?

 

The late 70s were a known global cool period after a cold AMO pattern. That is when the satellite record for sea ice began. This is a small snap shot of the Arctic sea ice variations. We are witnessing normal climate variations with small contributions from CO2. The recovery will occur when the AMO goes cold again.

 

We'll see and thus yeah i am keeping a open mind about it.

[StudentOfClimatology]

Academically speaking, climate science and atmospheric science are essentially the same thing, as far as educational material goes. There is no "climate science" degree...based on my experience, after you get your degree in Atmospheric Science/Physics, you can move onto a more specialized masters/doctorate like paleoclimate, systems science, particle physics, mathematics, etc

I'm currently hold degrees in A.S/Physics, and am trying to specialize in paleoclimate. You are a "climate scientist" if you work in that specified field of research. But the degree you hold will likely be one of relevance to oceanographers, meteorologists, physicists, systems-scientists, engineers, mathematicians, so on

[Msalgado]

This is the problem. You are wrong on climate and atmospheric science... climate is a branch of atmospheric science. Most climate scientists are either atmospheric scientists, physicists or mathematicians. Many are just geography majors which tends to be less rigorous academically. If you polled all the folks with MET tags on this whole site(not just the climate change forum) I bet more than 50% do not agree with CAGW. I bet most do agree in some small warming(like me) but not the craziness that is proclaimed by the mainstream climate science. I would not want to be in the "mainstream". As I said its tribalism....

 

Why don't you try acting like a scientist instead of appealing to logical fallacies?

 

Instead of straw polls and tribalism why don't you try telling us where the increase in temperature is coming from if not from increase GHG?  

[nflwxman]

I sure as heck hope you are joking here? If not then you need to be stripped of your credentials. I have seen some outlandish comments in my time but that ranks up there among the top.

 

Oh and lol at the science is settled crap. Settled by who? Now remember before answering we are talking about SCIENCE here and one that has never been known to be a exact science?

 

 

We'll see and thus yeah i am keeping a open mind about it.

Woah nelly, take it easy there.  No need for the hyperbole.  I was merely being skeptical.  Being a meteorologist does not make you an automatic expert on climate and that's not even a controversial statement.

 

Many people who study climate have an academic background in meteorology, however the practice of the two disciplines is quite different.  Climatology is very heavy on statistics and and physics (radiative flux, ect).  Climatologists use SAS and other statistically based software that many meteorologists haven't even heard of.

 

Blizzard- for the sake of constructive conversation, what constitutes CAGW over just AGW?  

[nflwxman]

What caused the radiative imbalance that caused the Earth to warm from 1900 to 1945 or so before CO2 started increase significantly? What caused the radiative imbalance that caused the Earth to warm into the Medieval warm period? This is a snap shot of climate the last 50 years.  

A mix of solar, GHGs, and natural climate variations (ENSO).  Perhaps with a bit of measurement bias thrown in.

[Snow_Miser]

If the MWP were indeed warmer than the CWP, we would have a pretty big problem, since that would actually support a very high climate sensitivity to changes in radiative forcing, since changes in forcing during the MWP are considerably smaller than the changes occurring present day.

 

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/crowley.html

[Msalgado]

I know this is going to over like a lead balloon but here goes....

 

 

1) The climate is always changing. 100 years or so of data is a snap shot in a long period of changing climate. How do we know that the climate was stable before CO2 was increasing??? It never was before so why was it in the late 1800s stable???

 

2) CO2 itself is a minor GHG. This is little credible evidence that it dominates the climate system. In ice cores, the lag effect of CO2 vs temperature should have put this whole thing to rest but of course there is a hokey explanation that makes NO physical sense. There were many times that global temperatures were falling and CO2 was going up and vice versa during the glacial to interglacial cycles. It was not a driver of the climate then so what makes it a driver now? 

 

3) If you double CO2, you get about 3.7 w/m2 extra forcing. Since the entire greenhouse effect is about  333 watts/m2  this is just over a 1% change. So we are saying that the Earth's atmosphere is essentially unstable enough that a 1% change in either direction is enough to spiral the climate out of control? If this were really true some other minor event in the past would have wiped life out completely. It took huge extraterrestrial impacts to do so back then. Now it is a small push? This is the common sense stuff...

 

4) The greenhouse effect is primarily water vapor and clouds. So by increasing CO2 or any external factor that warms or cools, the hydro cycle amplifies the change. Yet, we know that all atmospheric models on the planetary scale do not handle clouds and precipitation well. Precipitation is a SINK of the primary greenhouse gas. An increase/decrease in cloud cover alone could easily cause changes in planetary albedo too which swamps any small effect of CO2. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP).  shows variations in cloud cover that can explain the changing global temperatures based on MSU satellite data since the early 1980s.

 

5) Paltridge et al shows declining water vapor at high altitudes which shows a negative water vapor feedback. Lindzen's work and Dr Spencer's work also shows this too. Some seminal papers on this topic from Dessler and also Soden both show a positive H20 feedback but if you read these papers their results are related to the SOI and changes in the tropical convection. Hardly evidence on a planetary scale. In fairness Paltridge's work is suspect too and others are not bullet proof either. There is a lot of uncertainty on this very important part of this whole subject.

 

6) The so-called tropical "hot spot" seen in the climate models is not observed.

 

7) The ocean currents alone can easily explain the temperature variations in the last hundred years with uncertainties growing too large back before the satellite era.

 

8) Arctic sea ice has declined but Antarctic sea has increased dramatically. Global sea ice now is above normal. This is related to ocean currents and is cyclical. We happen to be observing the consequence of a warm AMO which is now dropping.

 

9) The Little ice age ended in the late 1800s. The 20th century showed much higher levels of solar activity which naturally leads to the conclusion that we are recovering from the LIA. Solar activity is down now, but lag effects could make any drop in temperature delayed.

 

10) the oceans have enormous heat capacity which can easily soak up any small forcing in either direction damping it out or even delaying it from becoming sensible heat for centuries. This is a big part of TCR which could delay or damp changes for a long time...and it might only be 1-2C at best!

 

 

I know there are more so if there are at least one or two others on this forum with some objectivity please add them.

 

In summary, a small modest warming from CO2  (1C or so) will be swamped by natural fluctuations in the long run. That's my scientific opinion and frankly many METs do agree with this. Not all, but many don't see CAGW coming.

 

 

Thanks for listening.

 

1.  The fact that the climate has changed before certainly does not mean anything about whether or not climate change is real or not.  Fire occurred before man, however we are all aware that man can create and cause fire.  Using the "its changed before" line is nonsense and a scientist with a minimal amount of critical thinking would understand that.

 

2.  This shows a lack of familiarity with some of the more important current literature.  CO2 only lags in one hemisphere and mainly due to the differences in place having to do with the bi polar see saw.  I've discussed this before, but your approach is incredibly lazy and does not look to do anything but repeat the same talking points over and over.  

 

3.  I find it incredibly annoying how certain people here defend having a red tag as if everything they say is gospel.  Yet, those people don't recognize really bad mistakes that a redtag might make such as when they say the total green house effect is equal to 333 w/m^2.  This is the same guy who in his point 2 calls out some climatologists because they have geography degrees.  Well, I've never met a climatologist who applied all forcing by the sun merely to the green house effect.

 

Furthermore, if you think about a 1% change in TOTAL forcing and expect it to give you a 1% change in temperature then you're going to see a 2.7 degrees Celsius increase.  Pretty sure thats right in the ball park for IPCC figures so why are we dismissing a 1% change in forcing again?  Such a gigantic lack of critical thinking here based on nothing more than 1% being a small number to the OP.

 

 

I'm not going to bother with the rest.  So yes, it was quiet in here and its because the post from OP was so incredibly bad.  I know personally it just gets old explaining basic things to someone who thinks they already know better based on what they've accomplished in the past and refuses to learn anything new.  

[Jonger]

A mix of solar, GHGs, and natural climate variations (ENSO).  Perhaps with a bit of measurement bias thrown in.

 

Do you really think those 10-15ppm of co2 warmed the atmosphere as much as the next 75ppm? 

[nflwxman]

Do you really think those 10-15ppm of co2 warmed the atmosphere as much as the next 75ppm? 

1) It was not just CO2.  

 

2)The "next" 75ppm has not taken full effect, as there is still warming in the pipeline.  We are still due for at least another 0.5 deg C warming even by conservative projections.

 

[Isotherm]

Contrary to popular belief, there are countless peer-reviewed scientific articles in existence right now that do not support the claims of high-impact anthropogenic induced warming as proposed by the IPCC.

 

I will post a number of the peer reviewed articles that I'm referring to. I've compiled an extensive list of resources, but this is only a very small portion.

 

There are questions as to the long term solar modulation of cosmic ray flux, and its influence on cloud dynamics / feedbacks, questions concerning the amount of surface temperature response via the doubling of Co2 (how does the radiative forcing increase translate to temperature?), the relative contribution / influence of oceanic forcing mechanisms such as the PDO/AMO, and the relative role of Co2 in forcing temperature in past / present climate.

 

Those who say or believe that the science is settled on climate suggests a very apparent lack of objectivity in my opinion.

 

Climate sensitivity in many peer reviewed studies is suggested to be less than IPCC implications. I posted on such article below.

 

I believe it to be unwise to argue that anthropogenic activity has yielded no effect on global temperatures. There's no doubt that the environmental footprint of humans on this Earth is a significant one; however, the question is, how resilient is our climate to our GHG forcing in the grand scheme of things? I tend to believe based upon my own objective review of the literature that we have yet to determine the percentage influence of anthropogenic warming, and evidence to date demonstrates that the correlation between Co2 and temperature isn't a strong one. The effects of Co2 might possibly realize over a longer duration in a more subtle way. At this point, I don't believe we can say with certainty that Co2 is related to most of the observed warming, and I would probably estimate natural forcings and feedbacks to account for the majority of said global temperature change.

 

 

1.

 

Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future  (Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125, March 2007)
- Willie H. Soon

 

 

 

 

2.

"Plant responses to atmospheric CO2 enrichment in the face of environmental constraints: a review of the past 10 years' research"

 

 

3. "Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications"

 

 

 

4. http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=3217

"On the recovery from the Little Ice Age"

 

 

 

5."Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage-a missing link in solar-climate relationships"

 

 

6. "What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979?"

 

7. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change

(Suggesting an estimated climate sensitivity of 0.4C or less)

 

 

8. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0450%281981%29020%3C0114%3ARTRGWO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

 

(Suggesting an estimated climate sensitivity of 0.3K)

 

 

9. "A minimal model for climate sensitivity" - Ecological Modelling

(Suggests a TCS of about 1 degree C).

 

 

 

 

 

[Snow_Miser]

One of your papers Tom was published in 1981. Seems a bit outdated to me. 

[nflwxman]

Isotherm, 

 

I'll agree there is certainly uncertainty related to TCR and ECS.  I don't think anyone debates that and the IPCC has a wide range.  However, I don't think it's wise to assume TCR is below the 1.5C range as outlined by the IPCC.  Positive feedbacks are well documented in paleoclimate records.  My issue is that all the natural indicators suggest we should have been cooling fairly rapidly since the 90s, but we have not.  Look at when the PDO collapsed last in 1945- there was an immediate 0.2C response in the climate.  If you believe all of these natural forces have a significant lag, then the next 15 years or so should prove out your theory.

[chubbs]

Contrary to popular belief, there are countless peer-reviewed scientific articles in existence right now that do not support the claims of high-impact anthropogenic induced warming as proposed by the IPCC.

 

I will post a number of the peer reviewed articles that I'm referring to. I've compiled an extensive list of resources, but this is only a very small portion.

 

There are questions as to the long term solar modulation of cosmic ray flux, and its influence on cloud dynamics / feedbacks, questions concerning the amount of surface temperature response via the doubling of Co2 (how does the radiative forcing increase translate to temperature?), the relative contribution / influence of oceanic forcing mechanisms such as the PDO/AMO, and the relative role of Co2 in forcing temperature in past / present climate.

 

Those who say or believe that the science is settled on climate suggests a very apparent lack of objectivity in my opinion.

 

Climate sensitivity in many peer reviewed studies is suggested to be less than IPCC implications. I posted on such article below.

 

I believe it to be unwise to argue that anthropogenic activity has yielded no effect on global temperatures. There's no doubt that the environmental footprint of humans on this Earth is a significant one; however, the question is, how resilient is our climate to our GHG forcing in the grand scheme of things? I tend to believe based upon my own objective review of the literature that we have yet to determine the percentage influence of anthropogenic warming, and evidence to date demonstrates that the correlation between Co2 and temperature isn't a strong one. The effects of Co2 might possibly realize over a longer duration in a more subtle way. At this point, I don't believe we can say with certainty that Co2 is related to most of the observed warming, and I would probably estimate natural forcings and feedbacks to account for the majority of said global temperature change.

 

 

You need to look at greenhouse gas forcing and not CO2 concentrations when correlating with temperature or other measures of climate change. This is a mistake that is often made when downplaying AGW. Greenhouse gas forcing is proportional to the log of CO2 and there are other man-made gases that need to be accounted for. So a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature is not expected.

 

As shown below the correlation between greenhouse gas forcing (using NOAA AGGI) and GISS ST is actually quite strong.. With AGGI accounting for 86% of variation in the GISS record over the past 130 years. This strong  correlation combined with the underlying science provides convincing evidence.   Sure there are alternating periods of relatively slow and fast warming relative to AGGI but that is to be expected from natural variability. 

 

Note that AGGI increased most rapidly in the 1980s due to non-CO2 gases and the rate of increase has slowed somewhat since then.

 

The relatively rapid GISS ST rise between 1910 and 1940 is partially a recovery from the cool period in the early 1900s. Current solar, ENSO and PDO conditions are all similar to those in the relatively cool period 100 years ago yet temperatures are almost 1C warmer.   

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Isotherm]

Isotherm, 

 

I'll agree there is certainly uncertainty related to TCR and ECS.  I don't think anyone debates that and the IPCC has a wide range.  However, I don't think it's wise to assume TCR is below the 1.5C range as outlined by the IPCC.  Positive feedbacks are well documented in paleoclimate records.  My issue is that all the natural indicators suggest we should have been cooling fairly rapidly since the 90s, but we have not.  Look at when the PDO collapsed last in 1945- there was an immediate 0.2C response in the climate.  If you believe all of these natural forces have a significant lag, then the next 15 years or so should prove out your theory.

 

 

Agreed. I've said before on here that I believe the next 10-20 years will shed significant light on the various influences of natural and GHG forcings. We will begin to see with increasingly clarity the relative role solar fluxuations (geomagnetic activity, UV, cosmic ray modulation, TSI) and oceanic variables compared to GHG in global temperatures. We surely won't know everything in 20 years, far from it, but I think we'll be able to see whether natural or anthropogenic is more significant in the total climate equation.

[Isotherm]

 

 

As shown below the correlation between greenhouse gas forcing (using NOAA AGGI) and GISS ST is actually quite strong.. With AGGI accounting for 86% of variation in the GISS record over the past 130 years. This strong  correlation combined with the underlying science provides convincing evidence.   Sure there are alternating periods of relatively slow and fast warming relative to AGGI but that is to be expected from natural variability. 

 

Note that AGGI increased most rapidly in the 1980s due to non-CO2 gases and the rate of increase has slowed somewhat since then.

 

The relatively rapid GISS ST rise between 1910 and 1940 is partially a recovery from the cool period in the early 1900s. Current solar, ENSO and PDO conditions are all similar to those in the relatively cool period 100 years ago yet temperatures are almost 1C warmer.   

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

 

 

 

 

However, there is plentiful research that postulates a stronger correlation between certain natural forcings and temperature change.

 

http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.html

 

 

See also H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss, German study explaining the combined effects of solar / PDO / AMO forcings.

 

 

This is not a global temperature image, but it's interesting to note nonetheless, the strong correlation b/t coupled AMO/PDO/Solar and US temperature variations over the past century.

 

[Harry]

Woah nelly, take it easy there.  No need for the hyperbole.  I was merely being skeptical.  Being a meteorologist does not make you an automatic expert on climate and that's not even a controversial statement.

 

Many people who study climate have an academic background in meteorology, however the practice of the two disciplines is quite different.  Climatology is very heavy on statistics and and physics (radiative flux, ect).  Climatologists use SAS and other statistically based software that many meteorologists haven't even heard of.

 

Blizzard- for the sake of constructive conversation, what constitutes CAGW over just AGW?  

 

You were not being a skeptic at all. Please.. Your mind has CLOSED on the matter which makes you hardly skeptical.

[sokolow]

9) The Little ice age ended in the late 1800s. The 20th century showed much higher levels of solar activity which naturally leads to the conclusion that we are recovering from the LIA. Solar activity is down now, but lag effects could make any drop in temperature delayed.

One comment on point 9 is that its actually a complex claim about Holocene climate, one that necessarily participates in using the more-or-less accepted findings of an active multidisciplinary and international scientific endeavor. It puts a lot of weight on paleoclimate researchers' ability to use the proxy evidence they have to identify, constrain, and attribute past causes of temperature variability around a normative baseline on regional, hemispheric, and global scales.

Its a pretty big claim that takes a term coined in no small part to describe a relative timing for changes in alpine ice within the neoglacial (Recess Peak moraine here, Matthes there, etc), and extends it more broadly to assert a chronologically & globally coherent anomalous climate regime on the one hand and a "normal" to return to on the other.

Specialists getting in on this game (Mann, say, back in 1998) have previously taken issue with using the LIA to describe a coherent global phenomenon and others (say Matthews and Briffa 2006) have contemplated (but not recommended) ditching the phrase and letting regional or specialized terms take over.

I personally don't mind and use it casually because I am a historian specializing in an alpine region with an alpine cultural identity for which "the LIA" is justified for various contexts & scales by a vast body of documentary & physical evidence spanning centuries, well interpreted by multiple scientific-scholarly traditions. On my end I am convinced that alpine ice & glacial landforms have the potential to serve as a sensitive & detailed climate record; the evidence is pretty strong that small changes in temperature / precip can cause impressive excursions in glacier length on relatively short timescales.

But if you're going deploy a claim like point 9 about an LIA, you're bought into the big ol' honkin pile of phenomena, methods, and physical theories used to define the LIA at its most basic level -- and like I've gone on about at tedious, boring length in the land ice thread you know that "we are recovering from the LIA" and returning to pre-LIA conditions is shall we say not so much supported as strongly spoken against by the evidence on hand.