Hansen/NASA created US warming?

There you go again, lost on your one way track, a typical denialist screwup. Rising temperature releases CO2 and rising CO2 directly and indirectly through the increased water vapor feedback increases temperature. It couldn't be simpler but you guys always crash because you don't get the complete picture. One way linearity seems to be a standard denialist hangup. I really think it may be some kind of math thing. Perhaps your obsession with statistics is due to not being able to understand it. I know that was true of an anthropologist friend of mine who kept taking it over and over because she really couldn't grasp it.

 

Of course, your problem is the inability to understand that counter to the CO2 models, temperature is not rising as hypothesized. Now, almost all scientists are now trying to explain and there are now 52 different explanations but you have yet to catch up. Shall we call you a typical denialist?

 

Want to show us the historical precedent for the 20th century hockey stick? And what climate scientist that hasn't been debunked a 1000 times makes the claim that it is in the realm of natural variability?

 

You mean Mann's reconstruction of Proxy data that you think is irrelevant if it is old? The Hockey Stick that hides the temperature decline in the proxy record? The only precedent that the Hockey Stick sets is bad science. Want to explain the cooling from the 40's to the 70's or the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warming? How about the warming before the 40's or do you think that is CO2 also? Many of the current explanations for the pause are given over to natural variability, something that was not considered by the narrow focus on CO2 previously.

 

Since you discount the ocean temperature rise which is part of your denialist cluelessness, of course the relative flattening of the atmospheric temperature since 1998(2005 and 2010 set the record) is the drowning straw you grasp at. Just out of curiosity, if 2014 turns out to be the new atmospheric record, as some think it will be, what's the next denialist card you intend to play? lol

 

It is obvious you don't understand the uncertainties involved, something that is not relayed to the public and is a deceptive practice nor do you understand statistics. Now, do you think the warming previous to the 40's was caused by CO2? If you do then you are not in accord with the IPCC. Also, what caused that warming period which was just as much and just as fast as since the 70's? Got a clue other than bandying about name calling you don't even understand?

 

A little bit of natural variability or whatever to feast on.



Or for fun let's take it back to the ice age.

 

Yep, a credible guy on a credible site. Better stick with whatsup.... or you might have some truth inflicted on you.

 

You have yet to catch up to the truth. We will stick with the science and wait for you.

 

Yeah, the science of spin. lol

 

You would know a lot about that since you post from spin sites all the time.

 

True, but the amount of ocean heating from the sun is determined by TSI, which has been declining since the 1950's. So how else do you explain current warming trends in the oceans?

Since TSI started declining in the 1950's, how do you explain the warming in the 1970's?

Warming prior to the 1940's is easily explained by increasing TSI, but as TSI has been decreasing since the 1950's, it cannot explain warming in the 1970's.

 

You evidently are not aware of total sun output and what is involved. I don't know how you can say, on one hand, that warming is natural variation and on the other driven mainly by CO2, especially since it quit warming as predicted and now is explained by natural variation again. You will need to decide at some point in time which is what.

 

A) You can't show historical precedent across any reasonable sampling of Earth's climate history because we don't have the data used to manufacture the hockey stick across even part of a climate cycle, let along several, and B) you imply that the hockey stick is accurate. Based on what we know about Mann's work, I do not.

Kobashi et al, 2011

Kobashi, T., Kawamura, K., Severinghaus, J.P., Barnola, J.-M., Nakaegawa, T., Vinther, B.M., Johnsen, S.J. and Box, J.E. 2011. High variability of Greenland surface temperature over the past 4000 years estimated from trapped air in an ice core. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 10.1029/2011GL049444.

I doubt he has your varied experience in life, him being one of those academic types, I have no doubt. In the eyes of someone as self-learned as yourself, this probably counts against them, but it isn't as though you have published anything quantifying uncertainty within a particular system in your life, right?

 

I've explained several times already how natural variation will mask long term trends for a short period of time.
View attachment 30487
You haven't explained how decreasing TSI explains warming over the last six decades.

 

No they don't. In fact the models cannot even hind cast with known data. They cannot model ENSO or AMO. If you don't know the natural variations, how can you be sure of AGW?

Again, temperatures are lagging total solar irradiance by 10 to 15 years. That is part of the new Notch Delay model that is predicting cooling. Russian scientists who also believe the sun is the major driver of the earths warming also predict cooling.

 

Except when they do.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...got-el-nino-right-also-show-warming-slowdown/

The sun is certainly the major driver of Earth's climate, but it doesn't explain the recent warming trend.

 

You mean the lack of recent warming trend called the pause.

 

Of course you don't, you're a denialist. Mann's hockey stick temperature presentation has been duplicated by many others. I have read enough to know we have plenty of data, certainly enough to question anything like the temperature rise in the 20th century as part of a natural cycle.

I mean natural variability, really?

Straw man. The issue isn't whether there were warmer temperatures on some parts of the earth during the Holocene but the rapidity of warming change world wide being duplicated during that period. I suspect your other names partake in those sort of straw man diversions. In addition the Greenland studies are regional, not in themselves applicable to the whole world.

Here I found your names in a nice neat package, all doing the natural variability runaround. Sorry, you flunked that one.

http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/mar/20mar2012a1.html

 

Yeah, using Mann's tortured datasets and calculations. LOL

 

Have you now? Natural variability doesn't MASK anything, it just IS. Within a cooling trend into the LIA, there was natural variability. Within a warming trend coming out of the LIA there was natural variability. Certainly if you are trying to make the point that cherry picking half wits who choose short time frames to try and fit equations to are upset when things they don't understand screw up their R^2 values, I would agree with you.

But you really shouldn't confuse the two, the variability around any given trend, it is just a matter of quantifying it, separating the variables, so that you can independently model the individual pieces.

I'm not sure that is the same as your point, because the way you wrote that sentence seems to indicate that you don't quite understand how multiple, potentially independent effects, are not required to mask, or attenuate, some signal buried within a given time series dataset.

That's because the topic is how Hansen and NASA managed to change the entire trend of the temperature in the US without so much as a by-your leave of those more capable of understanding the validity of their extensive and some might say..questionable…statistical manipulations.

 

Duplicated, not duplicated, and refuted by ice core information as well as historical written records. Funny thing that, Mann couldn't even be bothered to READ some old stuff to realize that he was manufacturing something contradicted by reality. Oops. More science, less statistical manipulation by climate folks who can't be bothered to learn much about statistics.

"Rapid" is a relative word. Of course the world has experienced rapid warming before…if you can be generally vague, so can anyone else.

I didn't say you would understand natural variability, only that peer reviewed science had already taken a crack at trying to pin this stuff down, and had an answer. Now, I understand that local temperatures aren't global temperatures, but the standards used by Kobashi apply to relative changes certainly, and within those ranges, sounds like Greenland is perfectly normal, even now.

But it is now that people are getting all fussy over changes in Greenland…and yet..it hasn't changed outside of the ranges of natural variability as quantified by Kobashi. I realize you don't have to LIKE it, but you certainly haven't refuted it by pretending that relative changes are invalid because its only Greenland.

 

So much of what you say is misleading.

Care to back it up from official data?

 

I have explained it several times. Thermal inertia, lag, ocean movement, etc.

Beside, TSI has effectively been stable since 1950 until this recent cycle.