http://euanmearns.com/the-end-of-the-little-ice-age/

How is your reading coming along ???

 

You mock yourself.

 

Projection. Classic.

 

LOL, using graphs from the failed cartoonists blog (un)SkepticalScience for climate information is like getting your news from InfoWars.

 

Yes. Notice how the choice of scales “clearly shows” the “relationship” between CO2 and temperature. Too funny.

Our alarmist friend continues to avoid the reality of all nine of the previous and very similar Holocene warming periods took place at constant CO2 concentration. No correlation there.

 

And if it had ever been claimed CO2 was the only thing affecting climate, that supposed point wouldn't look so stupid. But since nobody has ever claimed or implied that, it does look stupid. You made up a strawman and then tried to shoot it down.

So, you either couldn't understand that nobody had ever claimed CO2 was the only thing affecting climate, or you knew it and lied about it. Which was it?

 

Check it out. It looks like Hoosier8 here is actually claiming that CO2 and temperature aren't correlated now. When the cult tells him to believe something, he really BELIEVES, literally not caring at all what reality says.

 

Someone with a basic grasp of English would have understand I was pointing out water surface temperature controls air temperature above it, and therefore using SSTs as a proxy for surface air temperature is quite valid.

And the level of backradiation coming down, which has been steadily increasing, hence the ongoing increase in ocean temperatures. You can't just handwave away the data that disproves your nonsense, though you'll keep trying, because it's all you can do.

"WAAAA! YOU HAVE TO REFUTE MY WHOLE IDIOT PAPER LINE BY LINE OR I WIN!".

That's not how it works. You made the positive claim, so you are obligated to back it up, or else get laughed at. In your own words, what is causing the current warming?

Be sure your theory matches the directly observed data concerning ocean temperatures that are still steadily rising with no slowdown (which kills the "it took a while for the oceans to warm up after the last solar increase" theory), and a cooling stratosphere (which kills the "it's now the sun!" theories").

So far, no "it's a natural cycle!" theory can explain the directly observed data, which is why all such "natural cycle" theories are wrong.

 

What percentage of the current period’s global warming does AGW account for ???

What does the IPCC focus on and how is that justified ??

What caused the previous 9 global warming periods of the Holocene ?? What caused the subsequent cooling periods ?? Why doesn’t the IPCC not address these cycles of which the current cycle is unremarkable in temperature rise rate and magnitude ??

 

The water temperature has nothing to do with the composition of the atmosphere. The water temperature is a function of circulation, wind patterns, cloud cover, and solar irradiation.

The free book has a detailed discussion of this.

 

The hard evidence contradicts that claim, as we directly measure increased backradiation coming down, and that's due to the CO2.

And if, like you, it leaves out he backradiation, it's laughably wrong. You seem to have just discredited the book as junk propaganda.

 

The data unfortunately for you is what is used by the author who is an oceanographer to show that SST has nothing to do with the local atmospheric (CO2) concentration. And of course back radiation is accounted for.

 

About 110%. That is, the world would have cooled a bit if it wasn't for greenhouse gases.

The IPCC looks at every factor and does not focus on any single factor. That's justified as being honest.

In stark contrast, you deliberately won't look at CO2. Such dishonesty on your part is scientific malpractice.

For both, orbital factors and CO2 feedbacks.

Incorrect question, as the current cycle is very remarkable. The rate of warming is way beyond anything seen before, and it's happening during the cooling part of the cycle.

And why have you claimed CO2 was constant in the previous holocene cycles? CO2 has tracked along with temperature in previous holocene cycles.

 

Irrelevant. The effects of local minor CO2 fluctuations will be overshadowed by other factors. On a global scale, the increased CO2 overwhelms everything, and we see the steady warming of the oceans.

So what's causing the current warming of the oceans at all levels?

 

You don’t know what the Holocene is.

 

The first statement cannot be supported.

Neither can the second.

 

You claim CO2 has no effect on climate, but everyone can see CO2 tracking temperature closely. And so your defense becomes "but .. but ... it's not a perfect match, so CO2 has no effect!". And no one cares, since nobody claimed CO2 was the only thing affecting climate.

We measure more heat coming down to the earth's surface from backradiation. Only the greenhouse gases can do that. Your theory fails to explain that, so your theory is wrong.

 

It's common sense. When a bumblebee flies between the sun and me, the temperature doesn't drop. When a cloud does it, the temperature drops. Scale matters.

All of your claims defy common sense and the hard data. That's why nobody outside of yoru poltical cult pays any attention to them. It's not a secret global socialist conspiracy. Your science just stinks.

And I'm still waiting to hear what's causing the current fast warming of the oceans. Changes in circulation don't explain it, because we measure the whole ocean. The whole ocean is warming. Changes in circulation wouldn't make more heat, they'd just shift heat around.

 

You don't know what the Holocene is. And you nor the IPCC can explain the previous warming periods and subsequent cooling periods of the Holocene. That's telling.

 

Global heat balances matter. And the lack of oceanic data points makes any claims about the average temperature of the oceans bogus.

https://www.academia.edu/35571845/D...h_the_most_extensive_peer_reviewed_references

 

CO2 increases after warming. Come'on man.

 

This is delightful, watching all the excuses you come up with to deny the obvious, that CO2 affects temperature.

But then, that's why they call you deniers.

We simply point out that CO2 isn't the only influence on temperature. And since that's a very clear and valid explanation, it's telling that you choose to pretend we don't have an explanation.

It's both a forcing and a feedback. Come on. These are the absolute basics, and you willfully get them completely wrong every time. Your cult orders you to be wrong, and you don't dare disobey.

This is why it's so good to be part of the rational-American community. If data contradicts our position, we change our position. That means our position always matches the data, so we never have to invoke conspiracy theories to explain why the data contradicts us.

 

That’s a big zero. ^^^

Didn’t you just claim in a previous post that if it wasn’t for increasing CO2 we would be in a global cooling period ??? 110%. That’s hilarious.

 

He says with zero evidence.

 

But with total conviction. There is a lot of that going around these days. Perhaps the result of the extreme focus on increasing the self esteem of the kids going through the public education system ??