Wxman

Was aware of the data, but the first time I'd seen the chart, which only reinforces the fact there are natural cycles of temp/CO2. More importantly, and the central question in this whole debate, is what is the real cause/affect between the two. Does the rising CO2 cause a temperature increase (AGW alarmists) or does a rising temperature cause a rise in CO2. Recommend you read the entire article http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658. Their conclusions below. Let me guess your response...no peer review, debunked, full of holes Blah, Blah, Blah. 12. Conclusions. There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature. (1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere. (2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. (3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. (4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. (5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. (6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. (7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris. (8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

Thanks for the graph (400K). Clearly shows the cyclic, periodic nature of both parameters and proves my point. Climate is a cycle of cycles.

Thanks. Had a great time. I think I had as many "beverages" as strokes. Gee, a 150-year record. How about 3-4 Hundred thousand year record. How the heck can you conclude massive warming without a valid context. Again, it's like looking at a 5-second uptick in the DOW and declaring a Bull Market.

Have not abandon the site. Just a nice, long golf vacation. To answer your question "Has man ever affected the climate?" I'd have to give that a big no. The "climate system" is very complex and must be viewed over hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years to determine trends, repeatable cycles. Atmospheric Science/Climate are very young (fronts/jet stream not named/understood until WWII). Only when the "climate system' is understood can you "hypothesize" a cause if the occurrence is outside a "norm", let alone if man caused the anomaly. At a minimum, the climate system is a three-dimensional integration of many complex process over a very long time period. AGW alarmists have taken a " minuscule snapshot in time" and inferred a one-to-one relationship with a gas that constitutes .0039% of the atmosphere. That is not science. In case you haven't noticed, the only thing getting warmer (bigger) is Uncle Al's bank account.

"Arguments are not made based on ones credentials, but based on ones logic and evidence." A mind-boggling statement. Without the appropriate knowledge/training how the hell can you judge or evaluate the evidence. "The evidence is very clearly in support of the human contributions being the single largest current driver of recent increases in average annual global temperatures." Wrong again. The "evidence" tenuous at best is based on much too a short time period, the models don't have a clue (especially the last 15-17 years), I've shown that the warming oceans is a common occurrence, and the missing heat "hiding" in the ocean is a red herring. "Also, as has already been repeatedly pointed out, science is almost never "settled," but we can still draw conclusions that have an incredibly high likelihood of accuracy. Your right the science is not settled, glad to see you finally agree. Again, if you starting with faulty theory then you can also have a high likelihood of being wrong.

The science is real and the "science" of AGW is a long way from being settled. The fact you brought up the Koch brothers (forgot Bush) has significantly undermined your credibility in this discussion. You have singlehandedly weaponized denial. And exactly what are your qualifications to discuss climate science again?

Overtone. That's the AMO not the PDO. So new info just denial?

And a Whoop-de-frikkin-do day to you as well. Yes, AGW is not magic nor is it a given. What I'm trying to do is show there are many inputs to the climate system, many of which are not completely understood...and do not have a sufficient period of record to know if current readings/trends are an anomaly or not. There are a number of other recognized oscillations besides the AMO. Some are long term, some are short period: PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscilation): http://climateobserver.blogspot.com/2009/09/pacific-decadal-oscillation-pdo.html La Nina/El Nino: AO (Artic Oscillation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_oscillation NAO (North American Oscillation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_oscillation MJO (Madden-Julian Oscillation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madden%E2%80%93Julian_oscillation It's also important to understand how these oscillations interact. Sometime amplifying an outcome and sometimes canceling themselves out. I had a devil of a time reading the "oscillation tea leaves" while supporting long-range energy traders. And lastly: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/questions-the-media-should-be-asking-the-ipcc-the-hiatus-in-warming/

Gee, the oceans have warmed, how convienent for the IPCC. Here's a different explaination. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) is a mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean and which has its principle expression in the sea surface temperature (SST) field. The AMO is identified as a coherent pattern of variability in basin-wide North Atlantic SSTs with a period of 60-80 years. Please note this is a NATURAL occurence. Where is the IPCC going to "hide' the heat next time? Also, exactly how large is that ocean heating shown in your graph? Is it significant? “Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.” http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/AMO.htm

Without full knowledge of all the relevant physical processes (models wrong) over a representative time period (only last 1-2K years...really) how can one possibly come to an informed conclusion? If there is a 5-minute uptick in the DOW and all the analysis/"experts"/models says a Bear market is definitely (95%) started are you going to go all in?

INow. Wow, over the previous 15 years. The warming (air/ocean) at this rate/level has never occured before over the lets say 1 million years. Hey, everybody has a chart to prove their point. Agree with Phill for all. There are Zombies...on both sides of the issue.

Indeed we do have a mystery. Why has the global temperature rise remained nearly flat over the last 15-17 years, yet CO2 has continued to increase..."October 1st marks the 17th year of no global warming significantly different than zero,” agreed Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. “And those 17 years correspond to the largest period of CO2 emissions by far over any other 17-year period in history.” Moreover, over 70 models are wrong, even the ensembles. A complete understanding of how CO2 impacts the global climate is obviously lacking (science not settled). The IPCC response....don't directly address the "pause" and raise their confidence to 95%. Now that's a mystery and, well, embarrassing.

) Steve McIntyre: IPCC - Fixing The Facts Climate Audit, 30 September 2013 Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft clearly showed the discrepancy between models and observations, though IPCC’s covering text reported otherwise. I discussed this in a post leading up to the IPCC Report, citing Ross McKitrick’s article in National Post and Reiner Grundmann’s post at Klimazweiberl. Needless to say, this diagram did not survive. Instead, IPCC replaced the damning (but accurate) diagram with a new diagram in which the inconsistency has been disappeared. Here is Figure 1.4 of the Second Order Draft, showing post-AR4 observations outside the envelope of projections from the earlier IPCC assessment reports (see previous discussion here). Figure 1. Second Order Draft Figure 1.4. Yellow arrows show digitization of cited Figure 10.26 of AR4. Now here is the replacement graphic in the Approved Draft: this time, observed values are no longer outside the projection envelopes from the earlier reports. IPCC described it as follows: Even though the projections from the models were never intended to be predictions over such a short time scale, the observations through 2012 generally fall within the projections made in all past assessments. Figure 2. Approved Version Figure 1.4 So how’d the observations move from outside the envelope to insider the envelope? It will take a little time to reconstruct the movements of the pea. In the next figure, I’ve shown a blow-up of the new Figure 1.4 to a comparable timescale (1990-2015) as the Second Draft version. The scale of the Second Draft showed the discrepancy between models and observations much more clearly. I do not believe that IPCC’s decision to use a more obscure scale was accidental. Figure 3. Detail of Figure 1.4 with annotation. Yellow dots- HadCRUT4 annual (including YTD 2013.) First and most obviously, the envelope of AR4 projections is completely different in the new graphic. The Second Draft had described the source of the envelopes as follows: The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). ,,, The [AR4] data used was obtained from Figure 10.26 in Chapter 10 of AR4 (provided by Malte Meinshausen). Annual means are used. The upper bound is given by the A1T scenario, the lower bound by the A1B scenario. The envelope in the Second Draft figure can indeed be derived from AR4 Figure 10.26. In the next figure, I’ve shown the original panel of Figure 10.26 with observations overplotted, clearly showing the discrepancy. I’ve also shown the 2005, 2010 and 2015 envelope with red arrows (which I’ve transposed to other diagrams for reference). That observations fall outside the projection envelope of the AR4 figure is obvious. Figure 4. AR4 Figure 10.26 The new IPCC graphic no longer cites an AR4 figure. Instead of the envelope presented in AR4, they now show a spaghetti graph of CMIP3 runs, of which they state: For the AR4 results are presented as single model runs of the CMIP3 ensemble for the historical period from 1950 to 2000 (light grey lines) and for three scenarios (A2, A1B and B1) from 2001 to 2035. The bars at the right hand side of the graph show the full range given for 2035 for each assessment report. For the three SRES scenarios the bars show the CMIP3 ensemble mean and the likely range given by -40% to +60% of the mean as assessed in Meehl et al. (2007). The publication years of the assessment reports are shown. See Appendix 1. A for details on the data and calculations used to create this figure… The temperature projections of the AR4 are presented for three SRES scenarios: B1, A1B and A2. Annual mean anomalies relative to 1961–1990 of the individual CMIP3 ensemble simulations (as used in AR4 SPM Figure SPM5) are shown. One outlier has been eliminated based on the advice of the model developers because of the model drift that leads to an unrealistic temperature evolution. As assessed by Meehl et al. (2007), the likely-range for the temperature change is given by the ensemble mean temperature change +60% and –40% of the ensemble mean temperature change. Note that in the AR4 the uncertainty range was explicitly estimated for the end of the 21st century results. Here, it is shown for 2035. The time dependence of this range has been assessed in Knutti et al. (2008). The relative uncertainty is approximately constant over time in all estimates from different sources, except for the very early decades when natural variability is being considered (see Figure 3 in Knutti et al., 2008). For the envelopes from the first three assessments, although they cite the same sources as the predecessor Second Draft Figure 1.4, the earlier projections have been shifted downwards relative to observations, so that the observations are now within the earlier projection envelopes. You can see this relatively clearly with the Second Assessment Report envelope: compare the two versions. At present, I have no idea how they purport to justify this. None of this portion of the IPCC assessment is drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor is it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers. CNSNews.com) – Global temperatures collected in five official databasesconfirm that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). Christy's findings are contrary to predictions made by 73 computer models cited in the United Nation’s latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (5AR). Christy told CNSNews that he analyzed all 73 models used in the 5AR and not one accurately predicted that the Earth’s temperature would remain flat since Oct. 1, 1996. (See Temperatures v Predictions 1976-2013.pdf) “I compared the models with observations in the key area – the tropics – where the climate models showed a real impact of greenhouse gases,” Christy explained. “I wanted to compare the real world temperatures with the models in a place where the impact would be very clear.” (See Tropical Mid-Troposphere Graph.pdf) Using datasets of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, Christy found that “all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.” “All 73 models’ predictions were on average three to four times what occurred in the real world,” Christy pointed out. “The closest was a Russian model that predicted a one-degree increase." “October 1st marks the 17th year of no global warming significantly different than zero,” agreed Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for the Study of Science. “And those 17 years correspond to the largest period of CO2 emissions by far over any other 17-year period in history.” The 5AR's "Summary for Policymakers," released last week, acknowledged that “the rate of warming over the past 15 years…is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951,” before concluding that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” (See IPCC 5th Assessment Report.pdf) “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid 20th century,” the IPCC report noted, adding that “continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.” However, the same report also acknowledged that there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years.” “It’s a very embarrassing result for the climate models used in the IPCC report,” Christy told CNSNews. “Our own UAH measurement of a 0.1 degree Celsius increase per decade in the upper atmosphere was actually the warmest of all the datasets.” Reaching the 17-year mark with no significant warming is a milestone because a climate change research team at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory defined it as the minimum length of time necessary to “separate human-caused global warming from the ‘noise’ of purely natural climate fluctuations,” according to a 2011 press release. Michaels pointed out that 18 separate experiments published since Jan. 1, 2011 show that the IPCC’s climate models are off by 46 percent when it comes to temperature CO2 sensitivity. “The pressure to warm the atmosphere by CO2 has somehow been cancelled out completely by natural forces,” he said. “Surface temperature is simply not as sensitive to changes in CO2 as was assumed by the climate modeling community.” “Nature bats last,” Michaels added. “And Nature came up in the 9th inning 17 years ago.” Seventeen years without a temperature increase is also at odds with a report by the United Kingdom’s Met Office that said “global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013." (See Met Office July 2013.PDF) “The Met Office simply didn’t go back 17 years,” Christy said to explain the two-year discrepancy. When CNSNews asked Christy how the IPCC could claim “95 percent certainty” that human activity is causing global warming when it failed to predict that global temperatures would remain flat over the past 17 years, he replied: “I am baffled that the confidence increases when the performance of your models is conclusively failing. I cannot understand that methodology.” When asked how useful the just-released IPCC report will be in predicting future global temperatures, he said: “Not very. When 73 out of 73 [climate models] miss the point and predict temperatures that are significantly above the real world, they cannot be used as scientific tools, and definitely not for public policy decision-making.” In 2012, Christy testified before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, telling senators that “the recent anomalous weather can’t be blamed on carbon dioxide.” "We've had 17 years of no global warming, yet we have an energy policy right now that continues to harm American communities and will lead to much higher electricity prices all based on the 'fact' that the world is warming," Daniel Kish, vice-president of the Institute for Energy Research, told CNSNews.com. "Yet they cannot explain why all their projections are wrong. They're putting coal miners out of work all based on a 17-year history that doesn't exist." - See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/climate-scientist-73-un-climate-models-wrong-no-global-warming-17#sthash.T7NOhyMX.rzgs2unu.dpuf

So the IPCC is now 95% condfident of man-made AGW, even though global temp observations have not cooperated with their stellar models (see chart in link) over the last 15 years. Well, I'm now 95% sure the science is not settled. http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/

No comment on the 132 references?

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/GWReview_OISM300.pdf

Maybe you didn't read my last post carefully. I said the temp has been fairly flat the last 15 yrs....but the global temperatures were modeled/predicted/peer-reviewed to continue to rise just has the CO2 has continued to increase over the last 15 years....but hasn't. Let's see what the IPCC has to say.

Didn't say the studies were not real science. However, what have the scientists reviewed and agreed to. That an uptick of temperature over the last 1K years within a 4.5B record is unrepresented (really) and "caused" by increasing levels of CO2 (no other possible causes?). The FACT global temperature have been fairly flat the last 15 years, even though CO2 has continued to increase, hints the entire AGW premise may be flawed. The science is not settled.

Please see para 4 of my orginal post. The science is not settled.

And this from the UK. The science has not been settled. http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/19/leaked-documents-show-un-climate-change-group-was-urged-to-cover-up-fact-earths-temperature-hasnt-increased-for-last-15-years/

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/09/19/new-peer-reviewed-study-finds-threat-of-global-warming-greatly-exaggerated-by-un-climate-change-group/

Your level of condescension is quite unbecoming, especially from a senior member. Surprised you didn't use all Caps. Either case, the time period temps are available does not lend itself to any meaningfully analysis (10K yrs vs let's say even the last 1M years). This type of fluctuation has never occurred before? Mann did try and stick this uptrend on increasing CO2. Without a statistically relevant time period how the heck can assign a cause? The issue reminds me of the 1970s proclamation of another Ice age or how about the Ozone hole scam...haven't heard much about that lately have we. There are too many unknowns...I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Again, lets not spend Trillions of dollars until the science it settled. One more thing: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html

Your right on the sea ice...my bad. It's 78% larger than last year, but just a tad below the 1981-2010 avg. On the models. I worked with these everyday. For example, the American Global Forecast System (GFS), which is one of 3 global models. The resolution of the model varies in each part of the model: horizontally, it divides the surface of the earth into 35 or 70 kilometre grid squares; vertically, it divides the atmosphere into 64 layers and temporally, it produces a forecast for every 3rd hour for the first 192 hours, after that they are produced for every 12th hour. Alot of "horsepower" is required to crunch the temp, RH, pressure at each grid point every 3 hours. The sub grid energy is alised horizonatly and vertically and sometime the energy feedbaack "blows" the model up. Seen it hundreds of times. Prof Mann's hockey stick (30 yrs from now) screams feedback/blow-up. If his model was based on the effects of water vapor and not CO2 it would be believeable. Last 15 yrs: Try these: http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7m6ecjNSJToAcbJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzM2I4MWVpBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDA0OV8x/SIG=15v9ju876/EXP=1379132190/**http%3a//www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2259012/Global-warming-Met-Office-releases-revised-global-temperature-predictions-showing-planet-NOT-rapidly-heating-up.html ://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7myDcTNSWx0AJKVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0Yjcxb3M5BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1ZJUDA0OV8x/SIG=13t89tujh/EXP=1379131907/**http%3a//www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

Cut and paste is not a substitute for experience and knowledge. His credentials are solid for a physicist, but not for an atmospheric scientist (myself) or a climate scientist. It's time to dig a little deeper. Explore both side of the debate without any preconcived notions or emotions.

And exactly what are your qualifications? The discussion is far from over and the science has not been settled,