Is the World Ready for Another Ice Age? by Geoff Sharp

[BethesdaWX]

He's referring to the fact that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic to concentration. There is no saturation point, but the effect of additional CO2 becomes less at higher concentrations. Unfortunately, by the time we got to 800ppm world temperature would have already risen 2-3C which would jeopardize the Greenland ice sheet, cause widespread extinctions, major ecosystem disruption, and excessive flooding and droughts.

Thats the extreme, and Unlikely scenario (see below).....given that CO2 is about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and that water vapor completely & easily overwhelms any CO2 warming.

Now......that 0.04%......humans create about 3% of that..... So ya, the effect is minimal at best.

[beneficii]

That's fine. I understand that there are a lot of people that you can't have a reasoned conversation with over the specifics of what I brought up...but it is the elephant in the room. I'm not sure what you do for a living but my job and education are in accounting. So, it's only natural that I look at the money side of things. Therefore, if someone says that A is going to happen, I try to look at where A came from. Further, in dealing with numbers and datasets , I'm quite aware that even the most objective-looking information can be manipulated if that is one's aim.

That makes motive important. If I'm performing a financial statement audit and a client has the intent to deceive me (and his bankers and investors), he's going to be able to do it if he's got any decent kind of intellectual capacity. It's not because I'm lacking but it's because, as I like to say, "there are 1,000 ways to tell a lie but only one way to tell the truth." I simply can't cover every possibility. That's the very reason that our first job in an audit is to assess the character and integrity of the client. That includes assessing possible motives for the client to commit fraud. I don't have to know how the fraud is committed, but if I assess that it's very likely that fraud is occurring, I'm supposed to not even undertake the audit.

That's the way I'm trained to think and, therefore, I think it's legitimate. I don't think I have to immediately jump onto the full-blown conspiracy bandwagon to ask these questions. However, you and I live in the same town and you and I probably know lots of people who equivocate modern-day environmentalism with some hideous master plan. So, while you're thinking in terms of CO2, Mauna Loa, ice cores, feedback mechanisms, and the like...they're thinking of quotes by Maurice Strong and others.

In any case, my point in saying this is that you can't really expect anything to get done on this as long as there is a significant chunk of the politically active portion of society that is of the belief that the MMGW movement has, at its heart, a terrible desire. It seems as if these concerns get either ignored, ridiculed, or scoffed at. That's not going to get the job done here. It's a terrible way to build unity within a democratic framework. As you can see, the resistance has gained enough critical mass so that (fear of) ridicule is no longer causing people to jump sides here. People on both sides are merely fortifying their own camps....and, when there is dialogue, they can't really even speak to each other because noone's really listening to the other side.

Look at the debate on here which is much more elevated on the topic than in the general discourse:

Proponent: Here is graph A showing global temperature over time.

Opponent: Where is that derived from?

Proponent: It's from satellite data.

Opponent: The start point on your graph precedes the satellite era by a mile.

Proponent: It was reconstructed through....

Opponent: Method X is an unreliable way to reconstruct the data according to a study done by....Furthermore, the basis of AGW is that carbon has a causative effect on climate change and...

Clearly, you can see that the opponent doubts the data because of distrust. I think it is clear that the opponents (even on here) have substantial doubt that the scientists are neutral and objective. This is a real problem and peer review does not solve the issue if people believe that there is a systemic bias within the system arising from a nefarious motive. Systemic bias is now further being supported by allegations of blackballing scientists based upon the conclusions reached rather than the soundness of the scientific methodology with which that conclusion was reached.

These are major problems and, since it is the proponents of AGW that see the status quo as unacceptable, it is, by default, the opponents who win in permanent stalemate.

I see that as well, and it is something that is palpable beneath the surface. I've noticed that many opponents have a strong sense of self-righteousness, as though they are one of the few who know how it really is and they are fighting dragons; but in reality, they're tilting at windmills. Now, you don't seem to be like that, though I'm still not clear why you think the science on AGW is wrong and the various scientific organizations that affirm AGW are all untrustworthy (even after reading the rest of what you wrote).

However, your mind is not the one that needs to be put to ease. If you're trying to change hearts and minds (and from all your posts here, it seems you are), then you need to address the underlying issues.

Personally, I believe both sides of the debate are possible. I was once a firm believer in the AGW hypothesis and I remember being completely convinced by the ice core data. Some later research on the subject (as the result of a denier's allegations) led me to read some stuff on the UN's site that really want to vomit (Huxley). And, that invariably led to Sanger and later Strong and I kept hoping to disprove it but I turned up enough first-hand sources that I just felt sick about it. This is not stuff that any sane person wants to believe. Admittedly, you can read most of it in a way that's rather benign and you can admit that things like racism were more of a norm in society a few decades ago and that everyone's got skeletons and so on and so forth. I look at some of the comments that [some of the aforementioned and others] have made and some of them were really vile...so much so that I excluded them from posting here.

With all of that said, I don't really believe that the modern environmental movement is about the genocide or starving everyone or even world government (but perhaps a global structure for dealing with carbon emissions). It may be about what we call "soft" methods of birth control or it may be about greed or it may just be about the environment. Personally, though, the greed thing doesn't bother me so much. People make money at the expense of others. This has happened through all of history and I'm certainly not one to change it. So, if someone gets rich from saving the planet or even if they are just pretending to save the planet to get rich, then, at worst, it's no different than what my expectations are of society as a whole. However, there is doubt there and that doubt it seems a little like playing Russian roulette in that there's a small probability of a terrible outcome versus a much larger probability of a not-so-bad outcome. Therefore, I really "default" myself into a skeptic's position out of a fear. Maybe I'm being rational and maybe I'm being irrational. IDK, but I do know that I'm not alone in feeling this way. If AGW is a real concern, all of the skeletons need to come out of the closet and it needs to be discussed openly in society and the people who are not in the science purely to get it right, regardless of outcome, are the ones that need to be blackballed and ostracized. Furthermore, anyone found to be attempting to falsify or eliminate data contrary to their conclusions can be put on trial for fraud when using grant money. This is not something that we need to play games with....it's a serious matter and full honesty is the only way to get anything accomplished within a democratic framework. The idea that people can just say, "there's a strong consensus" and "the debate is over" and just get rid of opposition is not democratic. Amongst the people, there is no strong consensus. And there won't be as long as the opposition keeps dragging new skeletons out of the closet and throwing them in the growing pile of yet-to-be-explained items.

Trust and transparency are the hallmarks of a healthy democracy and those items seem to be in short supply in this debate...and in a host of others as well.

That's about as honest as I can be on the subject.

However, there I readily admit that I find a little bit of global cooling to be attractive (as in, I'd kind of like it to be true) just so we can get more snow. However, snow is an unimportant (mostly) fantasy, and, if there's a real problem, I'm not one to say we should ignore it and deny the problem but I still don't see

Interestingly, the view of many people that accept the science of AGW is that their opponents are ultimately being riled up by myopic corporate interests that only care about the bottom line right now and don't want to have to adjust the way they do things. The mistrust goes both ways.

Also, regarding the concept of risk and probability, tell me, for the average home owner (and if you are one count yourself) in Memphis, how likely is it their house will be hit by a tornado? How likely is their house to catch fire and burn down? I'd contend that the probability of either occurring is quite low, but that's not the point. It's the risk. If a fire does happen, the owner would be out of luck. So the owner buys insurance. The idea extends to AGW, in that the government representing society should buy the insurance (that is take policies to minimize the risk of massive losses), because even if the probability is low, the risk as argued is quite high.

The idea is that right now the science is pointing to continued warming and the current understanding is so much warming in so short a time would cause major environmental issues and adaptive issues that it would end up costing everybody several times more than simply taking certain preventive measures to cause the probability of such disasters occurring from decreasing. Even if it turned out not to be so, you would only be going off of 20/20 hindsight.

[beneficii]

Thats the extreme, and Unlikely scenario (see below).....given that CO2 is about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and that water vapor completely & easily overwhelms any CO2 warming.

Now......that 0.04%......humans create about 3% of that..... So ya, the effect is minimal at best.

A is a large positive number that is less than B, a large positive number. A increases by 3%, which now causes it to be larger than B. What do you think will happen to the difference A-B?

[BethesdaWX]

A is a large positive number that is less than B, a large positive number. A increases by 3%, which now causes it to be larger than B. What do you think will happen to the difference A-B?

I think you missed the point

[beneficii]

I think you missed the point

I disagree. It's just like gross sales vs. cost of sales. For example, the gross sales is $100 and the cost of sales if $99, then your net sales is $1. But if your gross sales increases by 3% (your figure) to $103, while the cost of sales stays the same, then your net sales is $4, four times as much. So even if you want to say, big deal, it's only 3%, it actually is, because of the way the differences work at the margins.

It's just like that for CO2:

"The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. "

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

[Snow_Miser]

Maybe you should read a peer reviewed journal and find out.

So still no examples? Not even one from the 100s of PhDs you mentioned earlier?

[beneficii]

So still no examples? Not even one from the 100s of PhDs you mentioned earlier?

Have you cracked open a peer-reviewed journal yet? May I recommend Nature?

Anyway, you can search in several places, such as:

http://www.nature.com/

http://www.pnas.org/

[BethesdaWX]

I disagree. It's just like gross sales vs. cost of sales. For example, the gross sales is $100 and the cost of sales if $99, then your net sales is $1. But if your gross sales increases by 3% (your figure) to $103, while the cost of sales stays the same, then your net sales is $4, four times as much. So even if you want to say, big deal, it's only 3%, it actually is, because of the way the differences work at the margins.

It's just like that for CO2:

"The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any. "

http://www.skeptical...l-emissions.htm

huh? We're discussing CO2 warming as effect of increase... You've strayed off course everytime I try to talk to you, and take snippets and try to sspeerate them from the formentioned conclusion.

[beneficii]

huh? We're discussing CO2 warming as effect of increase... You've strayed off course everytime I try to talk to you, and take snippets and try to sspeerate them from the formentioned conclusion.

To be honest, I'm still not sure you accept that CO2 is increasing largely due to human activity, because of the effects on the margins of the CO2 release/absorption system that exists on this planet. Until I'm sure you understand that, I don't feel I can have a productive discussion with you on anything else.

[skierinvermont]

So still no examples? Not even one from the 100s of PhDs you mentioned earlier?

You want me to give you assigned reading material?

Try Nature, Science, or the Journal of Climate to begin with.

[skierinvermont]

Thats the extreme, and Unlikely scenario (see below).....given that CO2 is about 0.04% of the atmosphere, and that water vapor completely & easily overwhelms any CO2 warming.

Now......that 0.04%......humans create about 3% of that..... So ya, the effect is minimal at best.

I have corrected you at least a dozen times on this.

Humans are responsible for for ~30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, or 120ppm of the current 400ppm. You have even agreed to something similar to this. NOT 3%.

And yet a week later you come back with your humans are only responsible for 3% of the Co2 in the atmosphere.

Humans are responsible for the rise from 280 to 400ppm... ergo they are responsible for 30% not 3% of the Co2 in the atmosphere.

[beneficii]

I have corrected you at least a dozen times on this.

Humans are responsible for for ~30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, or 120ppm of the current 400ppm. You have even agreed to something similar to this. NOT 3%.

And yet a week later you come back with your humans are only responsible for 3% of the Co2 in the atmosphere.

Humans are responsible for the rise from 280 to 400ppm... ergo they are responsible for 30% not 3% of the Co2 in the atmosphere.

But but but you're just taking snippets and separating them from the formentioned (sic) conclusion or something or other.

[BethesdaWX]

To be honest, I'm still not sure you accept that CO2 is increasing largely due to human activity, because of the effects on the margins of the CO2 release/absorption system that exists on this planet. Until I'm sure you understand that, I don't feel I can have a productive discussion with you on anything else.

You did it again....going astray. We were discussing how CO2 warming in itself is debatable...

[beneficii]

You did it again....going astray. We were discussing how CO2 warming in itself is debatable...

Were we? To be honest, I really have no idea. I just see you making an obvious error that you've made repeatedly despite being corrected. It really makes it difficult to really read or take the rest of what you say seriously. I'm not your schoolteacher and it's not my job to grade your posts like a schoolteacher grading papers.

Want to have a serious discusison? Quick making stupid, obvious errors. Here's a hint for how to do that: Actually read up on what the science has to say on the subject.

[BethesdaWX]

Were we? To be honest, I really have no idea. I just see you making an obvious error that you've made repeatedly despite being corrected. It really makes it difficult to really read or take the rest of what you say seriously. I'm not your schoolteacher and it's not my job to grade your posts like a schoolteacher grading papers.

Want to have a serious discusison? Quick making stupid, obvious errors. Here's a hint for how to do that: Actually read up on what the science has to say on the subject.

LMFAO

I'm definitelty gonna quote this

[beneficii]

LMFAO

I'm definitelty gonna quote this

Try to pretend you've been engaging in serious scientific inquiry and I'll quote this:

As for "what it would take for me to believe in AGW"... If We continue warming through 2045 wiith decreasing solar, then I'm definitely in the AGW camp.

[BethesdaWX]

Try to pretend you've been engaging in serious scientific inquiry and I'll quote this:

[WeatherRusty]

You did it again....going astray. We were discussing how CO2 warming in itself is debatable...

Hi guys! Glad I found you....

Warming by CO2 is not debatable. It's a fact that it acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It contributes about 20% to the overall averaged greenhouse effect. Take it away and the whole greenhouse effect collapses and the Earth freezes over nearly to the equator within 50 years.

Increase atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature will rise. It's simple physics.

239W/m^2 in from Sun, 239W/m^2 radiated by Earth's X Earth's albedo (.3) X Planck constant....= 255K surface temp. Actual temp 288K = 33K greenhouse warming.

3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 gives 1.2K of warming @ 0.3K per Watt (Planck Response)

[skierinvermont]

Hi guys! Glad I found you....

Warming by CO2 is not debatable. It's a fact that it acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It contributes about 20% to the overall averaged greenhouse effect. Take it away and the whole greenhouse effect collapses and the Earth freezes over nearly to the equator within 50 years.

Increase atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature will rise. It's simple physics.

239W/m^2 in from Sun, 239W/m^2 radiated by Earth's X Earth's albedo (.3) X Planck constant....= 255K surface temp. Actual temp 288K = 33K greenhouse warming.

3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 gives 1.2K of warming @ 0.3K per Watt (Planck Response)

YES!! You are back, you have been missed. Nobody knew how to contact you. How did you find out?

[Snow_Miser]

Hi guys! Glad I found you....

Warming by CO2 is not debatable. It's a fact that it acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It contributes about 20% to the overall averaged greenhouse effect. Take it away and the whole greenhouse effect collapses and the Earth freezes over nearly to the equator within 50 years.

Increase atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature will rise. It's simple physics.

239W/m^2 in from Sun, 239W/m^2 radiated by Earth's X Earth's albedo (.3) X Planck constant....= 255K surface temp. Actual temp 288K = 33K greenhouse warming.

3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 gives 1.2K of warming @ 0.3K per Watt (Planck Response)

CAGW itself is a scam, as co2 warming is logarithmic, which is NOT debatable.

Fig. 5. However, there is a problem with this method. The 255K data point is not just zero CO2, it is zero water vapor as well. In reality, there would always be some water vapor present, even if there were no CO2. This means that the actual temperature for zero CO2 would be higher than 255K, which would change the shape of the curve. For example, if the CO2=0 value was 271 (halfway between 255 and the current temperature), the prediction changes to 288.55K, or about a 1.39 degree increase for doubling of CO2. This can be seen in the blue curve (see enlarged graph below). The result is not much different than the 1.76, but the important point is that as the estimates become more realistic, the predicted temperature does not increase, but decreases slightly.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

[WeatherRusty]

YES!! You are back, you have been missed. Nobody knew how to contact you. How did you find out?

I had a suspicion that this group wouldn't just disappear for ever, so once in a while I would do a Google search for weather related forums. It must have taken better than a month for this one to rise through the ranks and show up on the first search results page. Then I recognized a few familiar screen names and here we are!

Actually I waited about a week for my account to be verified as my sign-up e-mail never made it to my inbox. Have been gnawing at the bit looking to respond to obvious errors and misrepresentations of the science in the posts I have browsed while waiting to be verified. Let's have at it.

[WeatherRusty]

CAGW itself is a scam, as co2 warming is logarithmic, which is NOT debatable.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Yes the response to increasing CO2 is logarithmic. So it is for water vapor, but that fact does not preclude increases in water vapor from adding to the greenhouse effect now does it?

The logarithmic function is accounted for in that for each doubling of these substances you get the same response. In the case of CO2 a doubling results in a forcing of 3.7W/m^2 which gives 1.2C of temperature response in an atmosphere near the density of Earth's atmosphere. The addition of a great deal more quantitative increase in CO2 is required to bring about each successive doubling. 280ppm to 560 gives the same increase in forcing as 560 to 1120ppm.

We are really only concerned with the first two doublings which would increase forcing by CO2 alone to about 7.4W/m^2 or 2.3C increase in surface temp. The feedback mechanisms would likely result in a temperature response at equilibrium between 2C and 4.5C for the first doubling and again for the second doubling.

[BethesdaWX]

Hi guys! Glad I found you....

Warming by CO2 is not debatable. It's a fact that it acts as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It contributes about 20% to the overall averaged greenhouse effect. Take it away and the whole greenhouse effect collapses and the Earth freezes over nearly to the equator within 50 years.

Increase atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature will rise. It's simple physics.

239W/m^2 in from Sun, 239W/m^2 radiated by Earth's X Earth's albedo (.3) X Planck constant....= 255K surface temp. Actual temp 288K = 33K greenhouse warming.

3.7W/m^2 per doubling of CO2 gives 1.2K of warming @ 0.3K per Watt (Planck Response)

Sources?

Several errors regardless.

1) You can't base an entire solar formula off Radiation/IR alone....thats foolery. Warm periods in years past caused by Solar, RWP, MWP & LIA, all had higher deviations from avg then we have seen with our entire current WP. The RWP & MWP were Solar Induced, as was the LIA. LIA temps....if we measured them today, could end up in the -0.6C range, The RWP was much warmer than the MWP throughout, both were solar induced. So is the sun somehow less of an issue now?

And what studies do we base this off anyway? Nothing else could have created a RWP with anoms upwards of +1C above avg.

2) Again, The CO2 molecule, and how it interacts with the thousands of forcings in place on this planet, are two different things. Again, do you want to compare the supposed CO2 expactations with the actual Data? I don't think so.

3) If you're going to post formulas, post their verifications too........I can see why you wouldn't want to do that.

[BethesdaWX]

Welcome back BTW

[WeatherRusty]

Sources?

Several errors regardless.

1) You can't base an entire solar formula off Radiation/IR alone....thats foolery. Warm periods in years past caused by Solar, RWP, MWP & LIA, all had higher deviations from avg then we have seen with our entire current WP. The RWP & MWP were Solar Induced, as was the LIA. LIA temps....if we measured them today, could end up in the -0.6C range, The RWP was much warmer than the MWP throughout, both were solar induced. So is the sun somehow less of an issue now?

And what studies do we base this off anyway? Nothing else could have created a RWP with anoms upwards of +1C above avg.

2) Again, The CO2 molecule, and how it interacts with the thousands of forcings in place on this planet, are two different things. Again, do you want to compare the supposed CO2 expactations with the actual Data? I don't think so.

3) If you're going to post formulas, post their verifications too........I can see why you wouldn't want to do that.

Hello BethesdaWX:

1) You most certainly can determine a planet's effective temperature from solar radiation alone (plus albedo). Solar radiation is what warms Earth's surface just like any other heavenly body. The Sun is just as relevant as it has ever been. Based on solar output alone the Earth should have cooled slightly during the past 30 years, rather than that 30 year period being the period of modern global warming.

2) What do you mean by CO2 expectations? What has caused the Earth to be warmer now than 30 years ago even though the Sun has cooled slightly on average?

3) They are not my formula. I have merely paraphrased standard text book physics and have every reason to believe that these fundamental tenets of physic have been verified countless times.

[skierinvermont]

Sources?

Several errors regardless.

1) You can't base an entire solar formula off Radiation/IR alone....thats foolery. Warm periods in years past caused by Solar, RWP, MWP & LIA, all had higher deviations from avg then we have seen with our entire current WP. The RWP & MWP were Solar Induced, as was the LIA. LIA temps....if we measured them today, could end up in the -0.6C range, The RWP was much warmer than the MWP throughout, both were solar induced. So is the sun somehow less of an issue now?

And what studies do we base this off anyway? Nothing else could have created a RWP with anoms upwards of +1C above avg.

2) Again, The CO2 molecule, and how it interacts with the thousands of forcings in place on this planet, are two different things. Again, do you want to compare the supposed CO2 expactations with the actual Data? I don't think so.

3) If you're going to post formulas, post their verifications too........I can see why you wouldn't want to do that.

Where did he say the sun no longer matters? He posted well known equations for calculating the surface temperature of any planet which indicate how earth will respond to CO2. He said nothing about solar. As his more recent reply stated, we have every reason to believe solar still does matter, but that it is not responsible for our present warming even though it was paritally responsible for the MWP.

Sure we compare the formulas with the actual data. Models based on these formulas accurately predict both the last century, and the last 1,000 years of temperatures.

[BethesdaWX]

Hello BethesdaWX:

1) You most certainly can determine a planet's effective temperature from solar radiation alone (plus albedo). Solar radiation is what warms Earth's surface just like any other heavenly body. The Sun is just as relevant as it has ever been. Based on solar output alone the Earth should have cooled slightly during the past 30 years, rather than that 30 year period being the period of modern global warming.

2) What do you mean by CO2 expectations? What has caused the Earth to be warmer now than 30 years ago even though the Sun has cooled slightly on average?

3) They are not my formula. I have merely paraphrased standard text book physics and have every reason to believe that these fundamental tenets of physic have been verified countless times.

Hello,

1)

I think you missed my point.......which is partially My fault as I was a bit vague. Its not that the sun doesn't matter (thats not what I meant), its the fact that Solar is more than Just IR. You don't seem to accept the fact that the Sun warmed the Earth In the MWP matching our current WP.....The RWP was also solar, and nearly doubled the MWP in tems of temperature. The LIA....the opposite effect in the Solar Min... as well as the Maunder, which ended around 1850.

GCC could be an answer.....the 3% decrease we've seen Is an easy cause for over 0.4C of warming in its timeframe. Is the Decrease in GCC related to solar? We cannot say for certain. However, we do know that it has NOTHING to do with CO2 increase, given that More moisture should be in place. WV has dropped as well, which has manifested almost solo in GCC decrease. The Upper Levels have Increased in both departments GCC wise, which is interesting, as that suggests less low level moisture.

2)

The Sun was record High through the early 2000's, and had experienced a soft, but distinct lull in the 1970's, around the time the ice age scare began. So no, the sun has not been cooling. Either way, the High Solar Cycle, Decrease in GCC, Urbanization/UHI, and the Warm Oceans, could easily be the answer for the Temperature rise weve seen. Lag..... Cold PDO arrived in 2007, interrupted by the latest ENSO spike. AMO is record warm.....Solar Lag should last another yr.

Am I saying that these are surely the answers? No, and its not like we won't find out. Atrace Gas that makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere, VS the immense cycles, CO2 is gonna loose. Human enhanced WP is 0.28% when all gases including CO2 are analyzed.

3)

Your "textbook" physics, again, CO2 Molecule we understand, that formula does not work the same in this case. What were the Books? When were they published? Who wrote them? Now...Has the forumla worked? Have we seen the expected increase in temps that your formula would suggest? (No) Any of this would be helpful.

4)....SKIER.....Still waiting for your immense list of "sources"......

[WeatherRusty]

Hello,

1)

I think you missed my point.......which is partially My fault as I was a bit vague. Its not that the sun doesn't matter (thats not what I meant), its the fact that Solar is more than Just IR. You don't seem to accept the fact that the Sun warmed the Earth In the MWP matching our current WP.....The RWP was also solar, and nearly doubled the MWP in tems of temperature. The LIA....the opposite effect in the Solar Min... as well as the Maunder, which ended around 1850.

GCC could be an answer.....the 3% decrease we've seen Is an easy cause for over 0.4C of warming in its timeframe. Is the Decrease in GCC related to solar? We cannot say for certain. However, we do know that it has NOTHING to do with CO2 increase, given that More moisture should be in place. WV has dropped as well, which has manifested almost solo in GCC decrease. The Upper Levels have Increased in both departments GCC wise, which is interesting, as that suggests less low level moisture.

2)

The Sun was record High through the early 2000's, and had experienced a soft, but distinct lull in the 1970's, around the time the ice age scare began. So no, the sun has not been cooling. Either way, the High Solar Cycle, Decrease in GCC, Urbanization/UHI, and the Warm Oceans, could easily be the answer for the Temperature rise weve seen. Lag..... Cold PDO arrived in 2007, interrupted by the latest ENSO spike. AMO is record warm.....Solar Lag should last another yr.

Am I saying that these are surely the answers? No, and its not like we won't find out. Atrace Gas that makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere, VS the immense cycles, CO2 is gonna loose. Human enhanced WP is 0.28% when all gases including CO2 are analyzed.

3)

Your "textbook" physics, again, CO2 Molecule we understand, that formula does not work the same in this case. What were the Books? When were they published? Who wrote them? Now...Has the forumla worked? Have we seen the expected increase in temps that your formula would suggest? (No) Any of this would be helpful.

4)....SKIER.....Still waiting for your immense list of "sources"......

Aside from your first point that changes in solar output are implicated in periods of climate variability of the recent past we (I and the standard science communitiy) strongly disagree with just about every other point you make in this post. How can you be so mistaken regarding well established science and expect to be taken seriously? If you have to ask who wrote the science then you have not studied the science you are so dissident with. Ever heard of Max Planck? Ever heard of Svente Arrhennius?

When you say the "formula" does not work in this case do you mean to say that well established physics is wrong? That Earth is a special case where the laws of physics do not apply? Scientist can even tell you the Earth is warming 0.0014C per year due to the current rate of CO2 increase when applying the Keeling Curve to the "formula" given by the rock solid Planck radiation flux which quantifies the energy contained within the wavelengths absorbed by CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

Aside from your first point that changes in solar output are implicated in periods of climate variability of the recent past we (I and the standard science communitiy) strongly disagree with just about every other point you make in this post. How can you be so mistaken regarding well established science and expect to be taken seriously? If you have to ask who wrote the science then you have not studied the science you are so dissident with. Ever heard of Max Planck? Ever heard of Svente Arrhennius?

When you say the "formula" does not work in this case do you mean to say that well established physics is wrong? That Earth is a special case where the laws of physics do not apply? Scientist can even tell you the Earth is warming 0.0014C per year due to the current rate of CO2 increase when applying the Keeling Curve to the "formula" given by the rock solid Planck radiation flux which quantifies the energy contained within the wavelengths absorbed by CO2.

huh?

What kind of response is this?

1)

So, are you saying that solar DIDN'T cause the RWP, MWP, & LIA? The RWP being almost 0.5C or more above what we are now? How about the LIA, at what today we'd call -0.6C when using the 1981-2010 base? The MWP?

2)

Now, with solar as high or higher now.....for some reason, CO2 is the cause and not solar? CO2 being a trace gas.....you know.......notice that the most diverse life is located near the Equator..the warmest & wettest part of the globe. In the Dinosour age, HUGE organisms, the Giant Dinosaurs, Giant caterpillars, all living in warm times. The warmer & wetter, the more life we have on the globe. Our growing seasons would be longer, we'd have more shipping routes, we'de have more space to spread out our population to prevent crowding, the temperature would rise to the human optimum 77F........how is that bad? We can adapt to whatever sea level rise would come out of this DISASTEROUS CO2 Warming. The Warming that has halted for a decade & a Half. Global cooling wouldput more pressure on the energy budget than warming would....cooling would scare more people into Cap & Trash.

You do realize, that during the warmer periods, CO2 was also much higher, right? Yes we're putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, but alot of it could very well be driven by temperatures, not the other way around.

the 275ppm CO2 in the 1800's is dangerously low for Earth Standards actually, usually its been al LEAST 600ppm. In Fact, the 275ppm reading could be incorrect.......

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/antarctic-ice-cores-the-sample-rate-problem/

And....

What the heck do you mean that solar has been cooling for 30yrs? The 1970's were a bit of a lull...Global temps matched it....as it was nothing extrordinary solar wise, but certainly not the uber solar we've seen through the mid 2000's.

3)

Again...

-what books did you get your "formulas" from?

-When were they published?

-who wrote them?

Mathematical formulas, if correct, will produce a reasonably correct outcome when the data is implemented in.....

[WeatherRusty]

huh?

What kind of response is this?

1)

So, are you saying that solar DIDN'T cause the RWP, MWP, & LIA? The RWP being almost 0.5C or more above what we are now? How about the LIA, at what today we'd call -0.6C when using the 1981-2010 base? The MWP?

2)

Now, with solar as high or higher now.....for some reason, CO2 is the cause and not solar? CO2 being a trace gas.....you know.......notice that the most diverse life is located near the Equator..the warmest & wettest part of the globe. In the Dinosour age, HUGE organisms, the Giant Dinosaurs, Giant caterpillars, all living in warm times. The warmer & wetter, the more life we have on the globe. Our growing seasons would be longer, we'd have more shipping routes, we'de have more space to spread out our population to prevent crowding, the temperature would rise to the human optimum 77F........how is that bad? We can adapt to whatever sea level rise would come out of this DISASTEROUS CO2 Warming. The Warming that has halted for a decade & a Half. Global cooling wouldput more pressure on the energy budget than warming would....cooling would scare more people into Cap & Trash.

You do realize, that during the warmer periods, CO2 was also much higher, right? Yes we're putting more CO2 in the atmosphere, but alot of it could very well be driven by temperatures, not the other way around.

the 275ppm CO2 in the 1800's is dangerously low for Earth Standards actually, usually its been al LEAST 600ppm. In Fact, the 275ppm reading could be incorrect.......

http://wattsupwithth...e-rate-problem/

And....

What the heck do you mean that solar has been cooling for 30yrs? The 1970's were a bit of a lull...Global temps matched it....as it was nothing extrordinary solar wise, but certainly not the uber solar we've seen through the mid 2000's.

3)

Again...

-what books did you get your "formulas" from?

-When were they published?

-who wrote them?

Mathematical formulas, if correct, will produce a reasonably correct outcome when the data is implemented in.....

Bethesda,

Can you read? My first sentence agreed with your assertion that solar impacted periods of climate variability you mentioned. Don't be so inclined to disagree with me that you totally miscomprehend what I say.

You are just plain wrong about the history of CO2 concentrations. Your numbers are not those from the main stream scientific literature.

Since the onset of the satellite era, the energy received at Earth from the Sun as measured by those satellites has slightly and steadily declined over the past 30 years.

Your numbers and ideas are easily debunked by the mainstream scientific literature. Unless you don't accept the science endorsed by the NAS, AGU, AMS and all of academia across the world.