2017 is the Second Warmest Year on Record

It doesn't matter where you place it. It could have been well above or well below the temperature line. Hell, you could put it off into its own separate chart. Any reasonably minded person would still see the correlation. I mean, it's kind of obvious. But, yeah, I agree correlation does not, on it's own, imply causation.

 

To be clear, "warmers" don't claim that CO2's link with the temperature is one-way like what you're implying. They acknowledge that temperatures can force changes in CO2 concentration. But, they also think the link works in reverse such that CO2 can force a change in temperature. In the past CO2 lagged temperature because CO2 was not the cause of those temperature increases. But, that doesn't prove that CO2 can't be a temperature forcing mechanism itself. Remember, there were no artificial sources of CO2 back then so why would you expect CO2 lead the temperature?

Yes they have. And the theory predicts that the Earth should be cooling right now. Afterall, it's been 60 years since the Sun's secular cycle peaked. Easterbrook and others (like Soon, Baliunas, Idso, Postmentier, etc.) who have invoked the solar cycle theory predicted that the Earth should be cooling...and it's not. Even the 10yr short cycles should be showing up in the global mean temperature as troughs followed by peaks. But, instead what we observe is more like pauses followed by new highs. So while I agree that we know, without doubt, that the Sun is correlated and causative of temperatures it cannot be the dominating factor. Something else is...either natural or anthroprogenic.

Then what is it?

I read the whole thing. I also read other papers by these authors. I highly recommend everyone do this.

 

Actually solar scientists are predicting cooling around 2020.

 

Any person would see the temperature decline at the end of the LIA, the cooling trend in the 60's - 70's, and the equal temperature rate of rise in the 1900 - 1940 compared to the 1990 to the present. The superposition of the CO2 curve is done to deceive.

And well informed persons would note that the period of steady temperature from ~ 2000 to the present has been adjusted up by the dishonest Karl correction.

 

That chart looks like it's in pretty good agreement with various datasets including those from the different groups using reanalysis techniques which show basically the same thing. It also shows the pause with 1998 being warmer than 2011 that most everyone agrees with. Is this chart using Karl's dataset? Also, remind me, wasn't Bates the one who accused Karl of dishonest data manipulation but when asked about it later he said that there was nothing dishonest or fraudalent regarding Karl's dataset and that his beef had more to do with the procedures and timing of the publication. I thought this all went down earlier this year.

 

All the charts from global warming alarmists use Karl's corrections. Karl's corrections used ship intake data (which is biased warm) to replace more accurate buoy data. That hasn't changed.

The chart shows temperature warming, cooling, and steady in a period in which CO2 has "constantly" risen. And it shows a warming rate at lower rate of increase of CO2 equivalent to a warming rate at significantly higher rate of CO2 increase.

 

Here is a paper that compares Karl's dataset to 3 others. 2 of the 4 are reanalysis datasets which compute a true global mean temperature while the other two (including Karl's) are actually just proxies. According to the paper Karl's dataset does not incorporate observations taken at the poles (where warming is higher) so it may be under estimating the warming. And, in fact. of the 4 datasets Karl's has the lowest estimate of the current warming rate. Unsurprisingly the reanalysis datasets compute global mean temperature anomalies that are very close to each other (usually on the order of 0.01C) even for the shorter and more variable monthly means. Since 1979 the various reanalysis datasets (including those omitted from this publication) show 0.17C/decade rate while Karl's computes out to 0.16C/decade. The only dataset that uses Karl's correction among the 4 are Karl's alone. In fact, the various reanalysis datasets don't apply any corrections or adjustments at all to the observations they assimilate. They just build 3D fields that best fit the raw inputs.

https://www.ecmwf.int/sites/default...ons-and-trends-global-surface-temperature.pdf

But wouldn't you expect that given the 11yr'ish solar cycle. I mean, we know without a doubt that the Sun is a forcing mechanisms for temperature and a pretty significant one too. It's just that scientists don't think it's the dominating mechanism anymore. I guess what I'm saying is that it would be surprising if you couldn't identify a solar cycle signal in the data. Is the up-pause / up-pause pattern indicative of this signal? If so why is that signal not up-down / up-down instead? If there weren't another forcing mechanism you'd a expect more of a sine wave locked onto to a zero baseline. Unfortunately 100 years of real observations only includes a dozen or less cycles so it's not like we have a huge (or even statistically significant) sample size yet. I wonder if this signal can be eeked out as we collect more data.

 

There's no such thing as a true global mean temperature. That is based on extrapolation of a limited number of measurements over hundreds of square miles. It's disingenuous to take averages using from data in one year (1979) and a year in the future. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is based on data ~ 1 deg C. AR5 acknowledges the lower limit but based on data to be 1.5 deg C. The upper limits are based on models. To quote a decadal rate and use that as a comparison is meaningless.

When the statement is made that global warming can be attributed to man's CO2 emissions entirely that is a false statement. That's the point. There is no justification in assigning the entire warming trend to human CO2 emissions.

 

Thus is that statement not made...at least not by anyone but deniers. Instead it is referred to as a contributor.

 

Not at all. Choosing graph scales is perfectly acceptable to prove a point. If different scales were chosen, the graph would simply be shifted, but the same conclusions could be drawn.

 

Has anybody on this thread stated that ALL warming is due to human CO2 emissions? Your putting words into the mouths of others.

 

Choosing graph scales to be deceptive is unethical.

 

I'm correcting those who preface any discussion on global warming with the statements such as: "settled science, that the earth is warming and human activity is the principle cause of the warming." That is not a true statement. The preceding quote comes from a book I'm now reading written by Ken Stern, an admitted lib prog and former CEO of NPR and author of "Republican Like Me - How I left the Liberal Bubble and Learned to Love the Right" - 2017.

 

No, your moral Philosophy is quite squeued. Leaving a Post-AGW world to our children and grandchildren is UNETHICAL.

 

Leaving a world unable to adapt to climate variations is immoral.

 

Now you're backing off from the "ALL" word, that you posted earlier. You have consistently done this, throughout this thread - stated a falseood, and then when proven wrong, backed off. If your goal is to argue with AGW proponents, you should stop using the extreme words like "ALL". This said, I will agree that many AGW proponents overinflate the contribution of AGW to current weather events. NASA is very Conservative about making these claims, as evidenced in all their FAQ videos.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

Now to the issue of CO2. There is no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. On the flip side, there is no question that other factors cause warming, much more than CO2. That's why the levels and effects of CO2 and warming have to be analyzed, with year-by-year data. Other factors are somewhat constant, over these long periods - the sun, moisture, etc. Even a multi-year event, such as El Nino, can be considered somewhat constant, when analyzed over decades. CO2 is the consistently higher variable.

 

No I'm not. Principle = all. That's how the alarmists look at it. They repeatedly refuse to accept any other explanation for global warming.

And the earth began it's current warm period in the mid 1800's at the same rate which we see today when CO2 was not increasing nearly as rapidly as it is today.

 

You forgot an argument. Can't we leave the post-truth malarkey to the right wing politicians?

 

I've made the argument throughout this forum. So again what is your fact based opinion on the value of the Climate Sensitivity of CO2 ??

 

I've only seen you dodge question, so congrats if you don't always do that!

 

He says as he dodges the question.

 

Have you managed to find a recent article that rejects AGW because of 'Climate Sensitivity of CO2'? That's a negative isn't it?

 

He says as he dodges the question again.

 

We know that the profession rejects your position as likely as David Icke's Lizard People (e.g. "“It is now clear that man-made greenhouse gases are causing climate change" Met Office). I've just been decent and asked you fellows if you have one credible source to reject AGW and to show that you have more than conspiracy theory. I know you have none and you will continue to have none. Actually David Icke probably has more evidence!

 

He says as he dodges the question again and again.