September Was Warm: 2015 Is Warm

Greg's motto: Alarm! Alarm! Earth is burning. We will all die.

Again. Again. GÄHN.

@Fridolin: What's also alarming is that some people are so dense they do not understand why this is alarming. At this point - even Big Oil admits we have a major problem - it must take a great deal of effort and mental gymnastics to remain in such a state of denial. Too bad we can't shuffle the lot of you off to South Florida and leave you there indefinitely so the adults can get on with being responsible.

Alarm is in the eye of the beholder. Rather than freak out and then try to dismiss the observations as "alarmist" it is better to look at the issue calmly and rationally. Temperatures are rising. Find out why (there's plenty of evidence) and then support and get involved in efforts to change the situation.

More evidence that team warming is correct. We can be sure, however, that our friends on the not-see side of the aisle will, when confronted with this evidence, blame this declining-temperature-meme-destroyer on some combination of things, not excluding el Nino, urban heat islands, unspecified solar effects, corrupt temperature takers, corrupt data managers, cosmic rays, natural cycles, a global conspiracy of climatologists, a global conspiracy of communists, and moonbeams.

Of course, there is a good chance that our politics-blinded friends will just ignore this new data and continue with their judgement that climatologists and people interested in climatology are nothing more than alarmists. In fact, I think that they already are doing just that.

"At least one science denier has told me that the fact that August and September were the same means that global warming was not real. What an idiot."

Heeh! You are being too kind.

"Greg’s motto: Alarm! Alarm! Earth is burning. We will all die."

1) The data shows an alarming increase in global average temperature. If it was not alarming, no one would be sounding the alarm--- let alone all of the world's scientists.

2) Earth is not burning, Sub-genius.

3) Yes, you are going to die. How about you change your behavior, and live your life so that someone will miss you?

Another convert to the "denier" side
(and he's a liberal, Dem vegan!):

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-sc…

It is Interesting how pouncing lurker trolls seem to wait around the web site for newly released communications. It is also interesting that the pouncing lurker trolls (PLTs) have a track record for trying to put a negative spin on things, and for getting things twisted, backwards or just plain wrong;almost as if they were paid to do so.

Greg Laden's piece doesn't even have a word devoted to sounding alarms, it is all just data and graphs. I guess the PLT writer with the German truck name avatar found the inclusion of a piece of iconic artwork illustrating a burning Earth to be just too alarming.

The deniers I encounter roll out these arguments in roughly this order:

It's sad, but the climate change science is just appallingly shoddy In 20 years the big story will be how incompetent the 97% were..

Big Science! Big Science is a lobbying leviathan that rolls over the opposition and gives a false impression of the strength of the denier position.

They are in it only for the money. Obviously Greg (et al.) knows that the path to riches is to succumb to the big lie that we are screwing up the planet.

These are pretty smart guys, but guys that are definitely Republicans who think the Koch bothers are swell guys. And they are not scientists: a lawyer, math teacher, software developer, EE. I find the IT/CS and engineering crowds have a high percentage of deniers. When I pointed out that Richard Muller flipped after conducting a Koch funded study one guy lamented 'another scientist ripped off the poor Koch brothers.' Really.

Here's an odd question: I'm getting tired of arguing with deniers, so here's what I want to do- start challenging them to bets! For example, I was thinking of offering a hundred-dollar (US) bet at 5:1 odds that this year will be the hottest year in the modern record. But I don't understand confidence intervals; do I need to specify that in the bet? For example, in my understanding, there was only I think 47% confidence in the 2014 hottest year figure (with much lower confidence for the other candidate years).

For those making fun of climate models, I was also thinking of offering a longer-term bet... say, a decade. Any suggestions as to what would be safe bet for me that would seem tempting to a denier?

Dan, ignore the confidence intervals. Those are large enough to assure that there always will be a prior year for which the confidence interval will overlap with the current year (whichever it is). Perhaps 1998 is the only exception, i.e. no year prior to 1998 having overlapping confidence intervals, but I am not sure about that.
More importantly is to chose a dataset. Expect deniers to chose a satellite dataset, because those are so enormously much noisier.

Decadal bets should be in the form of 2011-2020 warmer than 2001-2010 by x (e.g. 0.1) degrees; again, agree on a dataset. 0.1 should be a safe bet and tempting to a denier.

The climate change denialists are putting on a full court press giggling about a supposed Liberal Vegan who has joined their camp. And this person appears to be doing quite well at saturating the media with a bolus of ignorance, obsolete ideas, distortion, and misinformation. This individual seems to have discovered that they can sell books by copying and pasting misinformation and distortions, largely from WUWT and the Heartworm Institute.

To the right wing media, a self-described Liberal and intellectual coprophage becomes a Liberal Vegan. Look. Liberalism is about being able to discard traditional ignorance and superstition for new ideas. It is not about the freedom to be stupid. For that you need to subscribe to somethings like Libertarianism .

The bigger the effect of el nino, the bigger the effect of natural climate variability.

I have noticed a rise in the use of natural variability as an explanation on the climate alarmist side of the debate recently.

It is being used as an explanation of the pause or hiatus.

Now we see great anticipation of a warm year or two based on another natural phenomenon - el nino.

Why the anticipation and glee?

Because it might end the pause or the hiatus - which is messing up the narrative on your side of the debate.

Does anybody see how this increase in natural variability as an explanation of climate necessitates a lowering of climate sensitivity?

What if natural climate variability is .15C per decade instead of .1C per decade as is often asserted?

What are the odds of 3 decades in a row of warming? Instead of the cancelling (a decade of warming followed by a decade of cooling - due to natural climate variability) climate alarmists count on to ignore natural climate variability?

What did cause the LIA?

Maybe a bunch of decades of natural cooling in a row?

Maybe the sun?

Maybe some combination of sun and ocean cycles?

I don't think we know yet what caused the LIA or the MWP or any other large deviation in the recent climate.

Even though we do know that it is warmer during the day than at night (on average), and we know that it is warmer in summer than winter - we really don't know how much warmer than today it will be in 2101-2110 (for example).

But we should keep working on it - I am in favor of that.

Dan, ignore the confidence intervals

Yes - overlapping intervals may indicate there is no significant difference between the quantities being estimated, but that doesn't have to be the case: separate intervals can overlap when the estimate for the difference can show statistical significance.

Hey Desterphile. I ain't figured out why denialists have to confuse and lump together scientific awareness of a phenomenon with alarm about a phenomenon. They are just two different things, but the denialists lump everyone together and call them all the same name . Heck, some of us are dead certain that a million pounds per second of highly infrared-active carbon dioxide added to the at-moss-fear is enough to twerk up the global temperature , but we ain't the least bit aye-larmed about it. Heck, some of us are completely amused that Gawd has blessed us with a ring side seat to a grudge match between the Laws-o'-Physics and the Not-See gang. Gawd, meanwhile, is having a grand time watching us trying to educate the un-educatable. That is Nature's Gawd, by the way. The one the founders mentioned in the Declaration. The one owned by Nature.

Have a wunnerful day discovering the wunners of Nature.

"Does anybody see how this increase in natural variability as an explanation of climate necessitates a lowering of climate sensitivity?"

No, there's not an increase in natural variability. Natural variability imposes short term apparent "randomness" on top of the overall rising trend.

But imagine you were right for a moment. What would be causing the increase in natural variability? Sky Fairies? It can't arise on its own.

dhogaza #18:

Yep - natural variability has always been here and always will be here.

The question is how much of the warming from 1880 or so is caused by humans and how much would have naturally occurred, but for the presence of humans?

We know we have been warming since 1750 (end of LIA) - how much of the .8C since 1750 would have naturally occurred without us being here?

You know - from a more active sun - from ocean currents bringing up heat stored hundreds and even thousands of years ago from the deep ocean, or from any other natural cause (cosmic rays, magnetic effects from the sun, naturally released methane, naturally released CO2 from tundra or peat, or any of a hundred other causes).

We also know it has been warming for the last 20,000 years because the sea level has risen 120 meters in the last 20,000 years. How much of the .8C since 1750 is just a continuation of that natural warming which has been in process since the last ice age?

Nobody knows how to allocate the warming between humans and nature (in my opinion). The argument that because we don't understand the climate, so therefore it only makes sense if we assume 100% of the warming since 1880 is human caused is a joke. Sure that is a valid hypothesis - but it is by no means proven.

Personally, I think it makes sense that part of the warming is human caused and part of the warming is natural (say 50/50 just for discussion).

Now the falling climate sensitivity makes sense.

As natural variability accounts for a bigger piece of the .8C of warming from pre-industrial, naturally CS comes down. It makes a huge difference if you assume all .8C is human caused or only .4C is human caused.

I think the median is now between 1.5 and 1.8C for CS, and it has been dropping like a rock for years.

So doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will cause about 1.5 - 1.8C (median value)(latest best science). Could be higher or lower than that - but the midpoint is just .18C per decade.

The pause shows that natural variability is enough to negate the human portion of global warming - at least over 18 years. So natural variability could be as large or even larger than than the human impact.

No wonder it is so hard to tease out the human signal from the background variation.

We need more data over many more years so we can improve the climate models and figure out how much of the warming is human caused and how much is natural.

Personally, I think it prudent to wait out a whole 60 year or so cycle of ocean currents, just to make sure we didn't accidentally start satellite monitoring during the start of the warm phase of an ocean cycle (30 years). Lets wait until 2039 or so (the full 60 years) and see what the data show then before making hasty wrong conclusions about the impact humans are having on climate.

dhogaza #18:

I have been thinking and saying pretty much the same thing since 2010 - and the data just keep proving that we need more data before we decide what impact we are having on the climate. See this post someone else wrote about a comment I made (and my comment in the thread):

https://prajwalk.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/is-it-reasonable-to-deny-clim…

I also discuss why I dislike the term denier - which I have also been consistently against since 2010.

"We can never be sure, so just, you know, gather more data... But DON'T DO ANTYHING!"

RickA you're so transparent...

"We also know it has been warming for the last 20,000 years because the sea level has risen 120 meters in the last 20,000 years. "

Since RickA apparently trusts that science, let's add a little more science:
Sea levels started to rise 20,000 years ago, caused by the Milankovitch trigger followed by *increasing amounts of greenhouse gases and other feedbacks* raising the temperature of the earth. That sea level increase largely *stopped* about 8000 years ago. The sea level rise over this 12,000-year period amounted to about 10 cm per century, with enormous amounts of ice sheets available to cause such sea level rise.

The current sea level rise is three times *faster* than that, despite significantly less ice sheets available (less than half of that available 20,000 years ago). We know Milankovitch cycles are currently not at play for the observed warming. We do know greenhouse gas concentrations have been increasing, of which plain old physics says it will raise the temperature of the earth's atmosphere.

RickA #19
You seem to believe that unknown or little understood elements of "natural variability" are enough to justify your assertions that

"Nobody knows how to allocate the warming between humans and nature (in my opinion)... Personally, I think it makes sense that part of the warming is human caused and part of the warming is natural (say 50/50 just for discussion)"

The elephant that you are ignoring is that a known greenhouse gas has increased over that period and that the basic laws of physics show how much extra heat that increase will cause in Earth's heat budget over time. That the observed increase we have measured matches very well what the physics mandated it should be, shows that it is highly unlikely that there are any aspects of natural forcings or variability that have been unaccounted for.

The only reason you cling to these crackpot ideas that somehow mysterious unknown variabilities might explain it is because you have read the pseudo-scientific assertions of the delusional denialosphere and been sucked in by them.

Nick Palmer 26.

I was not going to comment on this because my view is unpopular, but since you bring it up. You are quite correct, but...

Some of the blame for "ignoring that a known GHG has increased over that period and that the basic laws of physics..." lies with scientists and writers and commenters.

I've been following this and commenting for multiple decades now, and people still seem to be falling into the same trap, which might have made sense thirty years ago, but now is absurd.

The settled science of anthropogenic climate change is not dependent on the vagaries of this surface temperature graph. It is dependent on the calculations of the imbalance in radiation caused by GHG.

So, every time someone engages in this discussion, they are validating the implicit claim of the Denialists that there is something wrong with those calculations.

Everyone, Please Stop!

Forget about pause/no pause/caused pause. Stop hedging about attribution of extreme events.

"Natural Variation" is acting on a climate system which has more energy in the system than there would be without GHG. That's where we begin the discussion. If the denialists don't want to participate on that basis, just ask them to show you the alternative calculations that invalidate the existing theory.

And please ask those who are actual experts to focus on the future, not rehashing the arguments of the past.

Dan: Climate has a strong internal variation. The upward trend in surface temperature is reliable given the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere, but it can squiggle up and down. If, in 15 years, there is a sudden AMO collapse, for example, we'll probably plummet back about 10 years in global surface temperature as the ocean sucks in a huge amount of heat for a while.

For these and other reasons, if you make a bunch of bets, you may lose a certain percent. (Nobody is going to take the sure thing bets).

If you make 11 bets, win ten, and lose 1, that one loss will be very widely publicized and used as evidence against global warming. Remember, you are playing with dishonest people who have nefarious intentions.

This is my first counter-argument whenever anyone suggests a bet.

Marco #24:

Are you sure it is not 1 meter per century?

120 meters in 12000 years or 120 centuries, is 1 meter per century of sea level rise.

So that is 10 times greater than your calculation and is 3 times higher than our rate.

Sorry - you are making my case for me.

Nick #26:

Physics only says the temperature will increase about 1.2C from a doubling of CO2 - and I accept that.

What I doubt is the tripling of this with the indirect feedback amplifying warming - which observations have failed to support.

I am fine with planning on 1.2C warming over pre-industrial based on a doubling of CO2.

Lets plan for that.

We are .8C there and have about .4C to go.

Now personally, I have not noticed any problems during the first .8C and I doubt .4C additional warming is going to be a problem either.

I would cut off the earliest part of the sea level rise because the data is not as good, and start at around 15K when stands were about 110m lower than today. You can end it at 8 if you like (there were a few meters after that). So let's say 15K - 8K = 7K years during which 105 meters of rise occurred. That's the rapid melting of continental glacial period glaciers, which is not the same phenomenon we are seeing now, at about 0.015m per year, or 1.5 meters a century.

The 20th century rate has been about 0.3 meters per century. However, this is complicated. The rate in the early part of the 20th century was less related to global warming (though it was somewhat) and more natural variability and land use patterns (so much was human caused, but not warming per se). In theory, the rate of sea level rise should have slowed, with MSL even going down for the later part of the 20th century, but instead, it kept going up due to warming.

That warming, however, influenced sea level mainly through expansion of the sea from warming.

So the per century rate estimated from the 20th century comes first (the first half, roughly) from phenomena unrelated to post-glacial melting and unrelated to global warming, so the comparison is apples and oranges. The rate from the second half of the 20th century comes mainly from thermal expansion. Again, more or less apples and oranges, because thermal expansion is not going to be as much of a factor in the future.

Scientists looking at glacial melting druing the 20th century and early in this century saw it happening at a glacial pace and put SLR on the back burner of things to be concerned about. But the last five to ten years of observation has shown significant increases in melting rates across about half of the polar ice sheets, and really fast melting rates on mountains. Now we are looking at possible catastrophic events happening in the near (ish) future.

Put against the background of Eemian SLR being many meters above the present with nearly comparable CO2 levels, that is concerning.

On the other hand, between about 400ppm and 550 ppm, there seems to be a weak association between CO2 and SL, and remember the long delay between CO2ppm and surface temperature.

Now add: 1) Arctic warming is extreme and was largely unforeseen. Things like the dark snow phenomenon are just now being discovered and accounted for. There are imaginable rapid melting scenarios. Quite a bit of Greenland ice melts every year and re-freezes. Drainage systems may be evolving. We could see much of that meltwater pour off rather than refreeze at some time (when?) in the future, and once the evolution of the drainage system gets past a certain (unknown) point it may more rapidly evolve. and 2) If the AMO shuts down Greenland will get colder and stop melting, maybe, for a decade (roughly). Maybe.

So, what does this add up to? 1) Extremely rapid melting, possibly rivaling post-Pleistocene melting for a decade here or a decade there, 2) happening any time between right now and two centuries from now.

One thing is almost certain, though. As we move from 400 to 500 ppm, or even if we don't increase CO2 very quickly, surface warming will continue and melting will increase. So as we move along in dimension 2 (when will it start?) the chances of it starting go up every decade.

"Physics only says the temperature will increase about 1.2C from a doubling of CO2 – and I accept that."

No, it does not. That would apply to a planet with a nearly pure N/O atmosphere and CO2 as the only greenhouse gas. That would be a planet other than Earth. You need to come to grips with the fact that you live on Earth, not some other planet!

We have already seen an increase of about 1 degree following a 40% increase. Given the man decades delay due to the fact that the Earth also has an ocean, there is simply no way to have a climate sensitivity of 1.2. It is more likely between 3 and 5.5.

RickA #31

“Physics only says the temperature will increase about 1.2C from a doubling of CO2 – and I accept that”

No, it doesn't. I know that there are plenty in the delusionosphere who will assert this half truth to fool the gullible, but it ignores the certainty from basic physics that the warming from CO2 will, and already has caused extra water vapour in the atmosphere. The denialosphere will endlessly tell you that water vapour is the most importantt greenhouse gas, so tell me why this extra powerful greenhouse gas water vapour wouldn't cause yet more warming?

RickA, apart from the stupid mistake I made, I am still not making the case for you. You ignore
a) the physics behind the sea level increase (warming primarily due to greenhouse gases and albedo changes)
b) the fact that sea level rise essentially stopped (compared to today's rates) some 8000 years ago. That is, the current rise cannot be due to the warming that began 20,000 years ago *because that Milankovitch and feedback-triggered warming has already stopped*

Dan, you should tell them to ignore the confidence intervals. If they are so certain, they should not have any problem with it. If they do, ask them which year *is* the warmest in the last 100 years, and if they say "none", ask them whether they then argue that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 100 years. If they accept there has been, they should be willing to come up with a way to determine what year has been the warmest (hint: it requires ignoring the confidence intervals, because with those included, not a single year, apart perhaps from 1998, is statistically significantly warmer than one of the prior years).

"Because it might end the pause or the hiatus...."

What pause or hiatus?

Nick #34:

You can use math and physics to calculate the amount of warming we should directly theoretically see from doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. That is the direct effects and the number is about 1.2C. This number has been around since like 1896 ish.

No disagreement from me on that number.

The feedback effect from extra water vapor cannot be calculated directly - but is the realm of hypothesis and models. Clouds matter a great deal also - and can negate the effects of extra water vapor - and guess what - clouds are related to water vapor.

None of the models and hypothesis are being validated by the actual data - the models are wrong.

People are just guessing about feedback warming and all their guesses (so far) have been shown by actual observations to be incorrect.

They are predicting more feedback warming than is actually happening.

That is why CS has been coming down for years - because the data require it.

Now we are only .3C above direct warming of 1.2C (1.5C).

This is only 1/2 of the 3C number which was the fad a few years ago - which makes sense if only 1/2 of the warming is caused by humans emitting CO2 and the other half is caused by all the various natural effects which are still acting on us and which may have acted on us hundreds or thousands of years ago - but the effects are happening today.

The climate system just isn't as simple as plugging a few numbers into a calculator and presto we know how warm it will be when we hit 560 ppm or 2100 or whenever.

That is why people are so sceptical - because this is pretty difficult stuff and all the scientists who have made predictions have made wrong predictions - or the projections have not panned out - or whatever you want to call it.

So my proposal is to ignore the indirect warming - and lets agree to plan for a warmer world where we use just the direct effects of warming (1.2C from doubling from 280 to 560 ppm).

Lets do a cost benefit on a plan that deals with that amount of warming - and see if the plan (there is no plan yet) makes sense.

Marco #35:

It is a relief to know that the three different effects from Milankovitch cycles no longer impact Earth.

I guess we are no longer tilted, rotating around the Sun or moving further and closer to the sun in our orbit.

I guess we are no longer in the middle of an inter-glacier.

Thank you for sharing that fact with me.

Could you also stop the sun from turning into a red giant in 5 billion years? That would also be a relief.

Or perhaps you could guarantee our sun won't go super nova?

I am worried about that also.

All kidding aside - Milankovitch cycles didn't stop 8000 years ago - they still exist and are very very slowly either making us warmer or cooler. Nobody knows the date we will switch over from warming to cooling from Milankovitch cycles, or even if we already did.

Rick A

You are badly confused.

You have muddled up transient climate response (TCR) with equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).

No - I think I know the difference.

You tell me.

ECS is an imaginary number which is what the temperature response would be to a doubling of CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm, if we held every variable constant and let things settle out for like 1000 years. That is the 3C number I was talking about.

TCR has several different definitions that I have seen.

The IPCC defines it as the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling (not waiting for the system to settle down after it reaches equilibrium).

So we can get a measure of TCR by simply waiting until we hit 560 ppm and measuring the average Earth temperature (as we currently do).

I have also seen TCR as a 1% increase in CO2 each year for 70 years - then measure temperature difference.

I don't think we can really measure ECS - but please tell me if you think I am wrong.

The point is that observations are below calculated values of both TCR and ECS from where the models say we should be at 400 ppm.

Why don't you straighten me out.

RickA #47.
"Nobody knows the date we will switch over from warming to cooling from Milankovitch cycles, or even if we already did"

Rubbish. The current state of the Milankovitch cycles is well known and they show that we should be cooling due to them.

RickA #46
"The feedback effect from extra water vapor cannot be calculated directly – but is the realm of hypothesis and models."

You are just parroting pseudo-science. The increase in water vapour expected due to the initial warming from increased CO2 is physics. Warmer air holds more water vapour before additional clouds form. Clouds are reasonably well understood but you arrogant lot don't understand them better than the experts, so on what ludicrous basis do you think you know better? How dare you gamble our futures that a bunch of bloggers, Galileo wannabes and ultra fringe scientists are right and the vast majority are wrong. Pathologically irresponsible

The delusionosphere - presumably using the very same methodology of "hypothesis and models" (that you don't trust from the experts who have studied the field extensively) Pollyanna'ishly believe that somehow the assertions of non-experts such as Watts that climate sensitivity will be low enough so that there is no problem, we will be perfectly Ok. Why do you trust their irresponsible ramblings to be accurate on CS? Paleo-climatology shows that ECS absolutely cannot be as low as the fringe crackpots think.

Why do people like you, who have consistently shown that you only believe in things, or fringe people, that you want to believe, no matter how scientifically illiterate, crackpot or irrrational their views are, so convinced that you know better? I don't listen to the bloke at the bar who hands out medical advice, I listen to consultants. You are metaphorically doing the equivalent of trusting the over-confident quacks who assert that drinking wheat grass juice will cure your cancers...

Why are you prepared to gamble the future of civilisation, and the billions that depend on it, just because you and your ilk have a pathological case of wishful thinking?

SN: Another convert to the “denier” side (and he’s a liberal, Dem vegan!)

Is David Siegel the new Steve Goreham? He seems to be, in that he raises a complicated and apparently sophisticated set of arguments that, when examined, breaks down at many points.

* His ten statements avoid numbers completely. That's never a good sign.

* "One key paper can be worth more than thousands of papers reinforcing a myth. The claim that 97 percent of scientists believe in man-made global warming is one such myth."

This will be true when that "one key paper" comes along — but not until then.

* "Almost all scientists expect a small man-made contribution to warming, so the claim is misleading."

This is an out-and-out lie.

* "Smoking gun #2: Government agencies have rigged climate data to support man-made global warming."

I think this is where Siegel jumps the shark. His charge that it's all a con would, if questioned, bring the retort that the data provided are likewise fabricated. I'll skip any further analysis, and invoke the well-known words of Upton Sinclair as justification.

Siegel's conclusion: "Changing your mind this much is like getting a tattoo removed, but I feel like I’m seeing more clearly. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately."

David, my heart bleeds for you ten years ago. It's tense; think about that.

RickA

No – I think I know the difference.

Well I don't or you would not have written this:

Now we are only .3C above direct warming of 1.2C (1.5C).

1/. You have used the no-feedbacks ECS to 2 x CO2 of 1.2C. Not 'low feedbacks' - no feedbacks. That's sufficiently unphysical to be self-evidently wrong. You have just argued that increasing average temperatures do not increase surface evaporation and the WV content of the troposphere.

2/. You have used the no-feedbacks ECS for a doubling of CO2 but we have not yet doubled CO2 over pre-industrial levels (~280ppm) and even when we do, the tempertature at that time will be the transient climate response (TCR) *not* the ECS. Equilibrium is only achieved when the thermal inertia of the oceans is finally overcome. This lag is sometimes referred to as 'warming in the pipeline'.

As a consequence of the fundamental confusions (1) and (2), your argument fails.

And while we are sorting the mess out, let's get TCR straight.

This is a muddle:

TCR has several different definitions that I have seen.

The IPCC defines it as the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling (not waiting for the system to settle down after it reaches equilibrium).

So we can get a measure of TCR by simply waiting until we hit 560 ppm and measuring the average Earth temperature (as we currently do).

I have also seen TCR as a 1% increase in CO2 each year for 70 years – then measure temperature difference.

This is the formally correct definition:

While ECS is the equilibrium global mean temperature change that eventually results from atmospheric CO2 doubling, the smaller TCR refers to the global mean temperature change that is realised at the time of CO2 doubling under an idealised scenario in which CO2 concentrations increase by 1% yr–1 (Cubasch et al., 2001; see also Section 8.6.2.1).

The literature is very strong on ruling out clouds as a negative feedback, unfortunately.

#52 BBD,

You have just argued that increasing average temperatures do not increase surface evaporation and the WV content of the troposphere. "

Exactly!

An illustration of the point I made at #28, I'm afraid. The implication is there, but buried within jabbering on about temperature.

If RickA can't explain why water vapor wouldn't increase with the increase in temperature, or energy as I prefer, it is meaningless to discuss ECS, TCR, and so on.

But that's how propaganda/trolling works. Distract from the absurd inaccuracies and misdirections that you want people to hear.

In RickA's case, "nobody knows" if he's going to be involved in a car crash in the next year.

...so RickA doesn't bother to buy insurance. The reason should be self-evident; it is to RickA.

"Nobody knows..."

No, RickA, YOU don't know.

It is not just me that doesn't know.

See http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/content/85/8/990.short

See also http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209099771500022X

Nobody knows exactly where we are in the Milankovitch cycles - but I am glad you three (Desertphile, Brainstorms and Marco) do know exactly where we are.

The first link you gave is to someone who thinks that Jupiter and Saturn create resonances within the Sun which affect earth's climate. It it irrelevant as to what the current state of the Milankovitch cycles are. What scientific illiterate from the delusionosphere told you that these papers supported your nonsense? How come whenever delusionists assert that some paper supports their views, it never actually does when examined?

The second is about ancient variations in the cycles affecting cyclostratigraphy (study of how the formation of sedimentary rocks are affected by Milankovitch etc cycles). It is completely irrelevant to whether we currently know the state of the precession, obliquity and, we know it very well. hell, I've even got an astronomy prgramme on my computer which uses them to accurately predict the sky. It's not rocket science.... errh, OK it is! There is no dispute about the current state of the cycles and they are causing a cooling influence. End of.

"This paper estimates the resulting uncertainties in ancient Milankovitch cycle periods and shows that they lead to: (i) problems with using Milankovitch cycles for accurate measurement of durations (potential errors are around 25% by the start of the Phanerozoic); "

Don't you get fed up of having your cherished pseudo-science being constantly shot down? Answer me this, RickA, how come Big Oil never beats a path to your door asking for your "brilliant insights" so they don't have to take a big hit to their financial bottom line? If there was a trace of validity in your pseudo-scientific nonsense they would be shouting it from all the rooftops.

If your rubbish held even a small get out of jail free card for Big Oil, they would use it so they could go on profitably selling increasing amounts of fossil fuels. Yet obviously they don't rate delusionist pseudo-science at all nowadays.

There seems to be something wrong with the way people like you think, because you seem literally incapable of realising how massively wrong you, and all the others like you, are even when others have repeatedly shown it to you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

RickA

Nobody knows exactly where we are in the Milankovitch cycles – but I am glad you three (Desertphile, Brainstorms and Marco) do know exactly where we are.

Your first link at #65 only points to the well-understood problem of increasing uncertainty with Milankovitch cycles as you look back into deep time (see eg. Laskar et al. 2011). Chaotic behaviour in planetary motion means that these computations become unreliable beyond about 50Ma ago.

That is not relevant to the claim that we do not know where we are at present in terms of the three factors (eccentricity, obliquity, precession). These have been computed over the last ~1.5Ma with a relatively low degree of uncertainty.

Insolation at 65N latitude peaked about 12ka and has fallen gradually ever since. Holocene climate has exhibited a slight, generalised cooling trend over the last 5ka (Marcott et al. 2013) which suggests that - without human intervention - the slow decline back into glacial conditions might be beginning.

Your second link is irrelevant.

* * *

It's interesting that you should bring up deglaciation under Milankovitch (orbital) forcing. This is a particularly good piece of evidence that the climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks which amplify an initial change in forcing. Consider the converse: if negative feedbacks (eg. cloud) damp down the effects of forcing change, how could a mere spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TSI under orbital forcing trigger a shift from a glacial to an interglacial climate state?

Why are we not still stuck in a glacial?

A major climate shift like deglaciation requires that even the spatial and seasonal reorganisation of TSI under Milankovitch forcing entrains strongly amplifying positive feedbacks which operate on a global scale. Remember that globally, TSI barely changes even at high obliquity (the point at which glacial terminations occur).

A quick search finds this at AGW Obsever:

Papers on anthropogenic global warming and next glaciation

https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/papers-on-anthropogenic-gl…

RickA, several people have already pointed out the irrelevance of the two papers you cited in support of your claim, so I can only repeat my prior comment:

"No, RickA, YOU don't know."

BBD #69:

You say "the climate system is dominated by positive feedbacks which amplify an initial change in forcing."

I see your point.

But I have to ask the flip side of your question.

If you are correct and positive feedbacks dominate - how did we get into all the previous glaciations?

Nick #67:

You asked "Don’t you get fed up of having your cherished pseudo-science being constantly shot down? "

Nope.

Remember - I am arguing for our lack of understanding of the climate system - based on actual evidence. The models are wrong and have been wrong for over 20 years. That is why they keep getting changed year in and year out - because we learn more about the climate system and it requires the models to be tweaked.

You guys are the ones pleading perfect knowledge of the climate system with your appeal to authority of all the climate scientists who know all the forcings and feedbacks perfectly.

But we know that is not correct - or our models would actually work - and they do not.

Every year we diverge further and further from predictions/projections.

Maybe the naturally occurring el nino will warm more than average over the last 18 years so 2015 or 2016 doesn't also further diverge.

But that doesn't help validate the climate models - in does the opposite. It helps show we don't fully understand natural variability - and therefore how much warming is due to humans and how much to nature.

RickA

If you are correct and positive feedbacks dominate – how did we get into all the previous glaciations?

As orbital dynamics modulate (reduce) insolation at high north latitude, ice sheets begin to develop. This increases albedo and so the reflected loss to space of solar energy which in turn amplifies the original change in solar forcing.

Ice albedo is a positive feedback which amplifies the original (solar) forcing change.

As GAT gradually falls, complex ocean processes reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, reducing the global GHG forcing. This amplifies the effect of the original change in solar forcing.

CO2 is a positive feedback which amplifies the original (solar) forcing change.

RickA

The models are wrong and have been wrong for over 20 years.

This is so strong a claim as effectively to be wrong.

It is based on a misunderstanding of what models are - and are not - designed to do.

Climate models (AOGCMs) are *not* capable of 'predicting' natural variability, so they do not capture variation in the amount of volcanic aerosols or solar variability (eg. the 'quite sun' of SC24) nor the now-evident variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake responsible for much of the recent slow-down in the rate of surface warming (England et al. 2014).

When CMIP5 models are run with *real world* forcings rather than assumptions made a decade ago, they come into much better agreement with observations Schmidt et al. 2014).

When the natural variation in forcings and the rate of ocean heat uptake are taken into account, the recent divergence between the multi-model mean and observations of our single instance of the real world climate largely disappear.

The much-touted (and misnomered) 'pause' is revealed as a transient phenomenon and claims that 'the models are wrong' are shown to be mistaken.

Desertphile

Otherwise known as “astrology.” Walkham appears to be an astrologer, and therefore “Ricka” is enamored of him.

I think you are doing Waltham a disservice. From Wiki:

If the Earth were the only planet orbiting our Sun, the eccentricity of its orbit would not perceptibly vary even over a period of a million years. The Earth's eccentricity varies primarily due to interactions with the gravitational fields of Jupiter and Saturn.

Eccentricity plays its part in the orbital forcing of climate, (apparently more so over the last ~800ka) although exactly how is still the subject of legitimate scientific debate.

I think Waltham is saying that stratigraphists should be careful with attribution to orbital forcings as uncertainty increases in deep time.

Desertphile

No worries. If referenced by a contrarian, it will be bollocks or irrelevant ... or misrepresented, as in this case.

BBD #74:

I can see how more snow and ice can be a positive feedback in a cooling world.

More cooling more snow and ice - more sun reflected back into space.

So I totally get that.

But I don't get how more snow and ice can be considered a positive feedback in a warming world.

More warming - less snow and ice - less sun reflected back into space.

Now I am a layman and not a climate scientist - but do the feedbacks switch from positive to negative depending on whether we are cooling or warming - or are they always the same sign?

Or is more CO2 always a positive feedback - whether in a warming world or a cooling world?

Thanks for responding - because I am truly interested.

Never mind - I get how less sun reflected is more warming - and therefore is a positive feedback.

Sorry that was dumb.

I do see how higher albedo can be a positive feedback.

Just need to keep reading and learning I guess.

RickA:

"Just need to keep reading and learning I guess."

That would've been a good idea BEFORE you started asserting that climate models have been wrong for 20 years blah blah blah.

If there's anything worse than an assertion from unwarranted personal authority, it's an assertion from personal ignorance.

Marco, Greg and Desertphile, again, thank you for your input on my tentative bet plan.

Desertphile @#39:

// What pause? What hiatus? Have you any evidence any scientists actually think there was or is such a thing? I see hundreds of non-scientists stating such a thing happened; I see dozens of politicians saying such a thing happened; please, if you would, name a climatologist who believes human-caused warming of Earth has “paused.” //

I've followed and accept the arguments here, at RealClimate and at Open Mind that there has been no genuine pause. That said, it seems maybe it's going a bit far to say no scientists have ever acknowledged such an occurence (or maybe I'm mis-interpreting your claim). If that is true, then this article from the Met Office was rather unfortunately named:

"The recent pause in global warming (2): What are the
potential causes?"
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global…

maybe it’s going a bit far to say no scientists have ever acknowledged such an occurrence

Unlike global warming denialists, scientists do have an interest in studying statistically insignificant events such as the temporary slowdown in global warming which ended in 2013.

Interestingly, the NOAA (land/ocean) data set now shows statistically significant global warming since December 2010 of 0.68±0.53℃/decade.

Statistically significant global warming in under 5 years. Is that a new record?

RickA

Now I am a layman and not a climate scientist – but do the feedbacks switch from positive to negative depending on whether we are cooling or warming – or are they always the same sign?

Positive feedbacks remain positive regardless of whether forcing is increased or decreased. Ditto negative f/b.

Or is more CO2 always a positive feedback – whether in a warming world or a cooling world?

Thanks for responding – because I am truly interested.

CO2 is treated as a feedback to orbital forcing and is always positive. CO2 from volcanism and fossil fuels is considered a forcing - just to keep you on your toes...

Glad this has been useful.

Chris O'Neill:

"Unlike global warming denialists, scientists do have an interest in studying statistically insignificant events such as the temporary slowdown in global warming which ended in 2013."

Exactly. While stastitically insignificant short-term changes in rate (both directions) are expected, and don't challenge our basic knowledge of climate science, trying to understand the causes of these fluctuations is an interesting and valid thing to do. Scientists don't just say "natural variability" and walk away, they ask "what's causing this natural fluctuation?".

Most denialists have an odd sense of what would "disprove climate science" in entirely unsubtle ways, anyway. Back in the "naughts" we were hearing claims of "a new solar minimum!" causing temps to drop (didn't) and disproving CO2's role in climate, an amazing POV seemingly driven by a false belief that climate science ignores everything but CO2.

Then when natural variation led to an interesting slowdown in the pace of warming and scientists startd digging into the details, we heard that "NOW scientists admit not only CO2 is important!".

And then RickA comes along with even crazier notions ...

It's odd.

It would be helpful if contrarians could let go of the odd idea that warming is supposed to be monotonic. Especially since this is a strawman as well as wrong.

After all, it's not hard to understand that natural variability dominates the short term (eg. decadal) and the forced trend dominates the long term (multidecadal; centennial).

Understanding that the models are for investigating the long term forced trend and not short term natural variability would be the icing on the cake.

BBD #87:

I see natural variability dominating the short term and the long term.

It has been warming for 400 years - since the LIA and that is on a century scale.

It has been warming over 20,000 years - that is what caused 120 meters of sea level rise (well all except the last 8 inches or so - and that is if I attribute all sea level rise over the last century to humans). So that is natural warming on a millennium scale.

It seems to me that it is the the climate advocates that are taking a short term (1950 to 2015) and arguing that whatever portion of that is human caused (say 50%) dominates at all scales.

If climate advocates would argue that humans are taking an existing warming trend and making it a little bit worse - I would agree.

Instead they keep saying that humans are causing 110% of the warming and natural variation isn't causing any of the warming over the last 65 years.

That just seems flat out wrong to me.

It would be helpful if contrarians could let go of the odd idea that warming is supposed to be monotonic. Especially since this is a strawman as well as wrong.

They won't. Those who know they aren't correct are comfortable lying, and those who don't know are comfortable in their ignorance. It isn't clear which category the current "there is no problem" posters live in.

RickA

I see natural variability dominating the short term and the long term.

So do I, until humanity began to burn fossil fuels on a really large scale.

It has been warming for 400 years – since the LIA and that is on a century scale.

That's not correct. The LIA is generally acknowledged to have ended by about 1850.

It has been warming over 20,000 years

That's wrong too. The Holocene starts ~11.5ka ago. The peak of Holocene warmth ends about 5ka ago. There's been a punctuated but clear overall cooling ever since.

It seems to me that it is the the climate advocates that are taking a short term (1950 to 2015) and arguing that whatever portion of that is human caused (say 50%) dominates at all scales.

Please don't use emotive language like 'climate advocates'. Acceptance of the standard scientific position on any topic, eg. gravity, does not make one an 'advocate'.

Warming since 1950 is >100% anthropogenic as there are offsetting anthropogenic negative forcings to consider, principally aerosols.

It is *very* important to keep three things in mind:

1/ The climate does not change by magic but only in response to net forcing change

2/ The only major forcing change 1950 - present has been anthropogenic in origin and is predominantly increased forcing by CO2

3/ This is not the politics of the left or of environmental advocacy. It is physics

If climate advocates would argue that humans are taking an existing warming trend and making it a little bit worse – I would agree.

What forcing is responsible for this supposedly existing warming trend? Where is the energy coming from? There needs to be a physical mechanism - talk of a 'recovery' from the LIA Is unphysical nonsense. There is no pre-existent ideal Holocene climate state to which the system returns. Climate has to be pushed into changing and that requires a physical mechanism that modulates the amount of energy entering and/or leaving the climate system.

CO2 affects the rate at which energy leaves the climate system which causes energy to accumulate within the system. We may not like it, or the policy implications that arise from it, but there's no arguing with physics. It doesn't care.

BBD #91:

You said "but there’s no arguing with physics. It doesn’t care."

I couldn't agree more.

What warmed the Earth from 1850 to 1940 ish?

It wasn't because humans caused > 110% of it.

It was some natural forcing, and probably mostly natural forcing (I am sure humans had some effect). Maybe a warmer sun - maybe heat from the deep ocean was released by ocean currents - I have no idea.

But the LIA ended because it warmed - starting in about 1700 and continuing to today - so call it 315 years then.

Perhaps the same natural forcing acting since 1700 is acting now, coincident with our higher emissions.

Perhaps 50% of the warming is human caused and 50% natural forcing.

We cannot be definitive yet because the signal is so small relative to the noise.

More data over a much longer period of time will allow us to determine how much of the recent warming is human caused.

Until then - people who say it is one thing or another are just guessing. And that isn't science.

Physics doesn't tell us how much of the recent warming is human caused - that has yet to be determined.

My hunch that it is 50 % is a guess. Your hunch that it is 110% is a guess.

The most honest answer is I don't know.

But most bloggers who disagree with me are absolutely sure they are right. They won't admit we don't know.

Why? Because someone told them 97% of a group of people said so.

And by golly - they want to take action.

Any action - even if it is the wrong action - just to feel better about doing something (I guess).

The decision to add ethanol to gas was a decision like that - a feel good decision which turns out to have been a mistake.

Lets do a solid cost/benefit analysis about whatever plan our policy makers come up with.

Of course first we have to see a plan - and I haven't seen one yet.

Just a bunch of wishful thinking about keeping it to less than 2C or even less than 1.5C - or keeping CO2 to less than 350 or I suppose now less than 450 (since we are over 400 now).

But what concrete steps should we take to keep the temperature to less than 2C or CO2 to less than 450?

How to make country in the world comply?

Nothing.

Lets see some plans.

I am the only one on this thread laying out a plan and I don't even believe we need to do anything yet.

Lets hear from some others - what are your plans.

Lets hear them and we can talk about the cost / benefit of them.

Desertphile #93:

If you don't care what I "see" then please don't respond.

I would rather have a productive conversation with others then read your litany of insults.

It gets tedious.

RickA

What warmed the Earth from 1850 to 1940 ish?

It wasn’t because humans caused > 110% of it.

Of course not. But this has no bearing on the physical mechanism driving warming post 1950.

Please answer the question I asked you at #91:

What forcing is responsible for this supposedly existing warming trend? Where is the energy coming from? There needs to be a physical mechanism

I have no idea.

So what do you base your argument on?

“Anything and everything except human-produced CO2.”

"Because I don't want to be made to change my precious lifestyle."

Nature will force you to. With a force that is, literally, irresistible.

BBD #97:

Before humans existed all the forcings were natural.

And climate existed.

The warming from 1700 to 1950 is caused by some combination of the various natural forcings - with a smidge probably caused by humans.

I am not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Natural forcings are why we are in an interglacial and why we are out of the LIA.

Natural forcings are the null hypothesis and the default explanation of what causes climate to change.

I don't have to prove humans didn't cause the warming - you (collectively) have to prove humans did cause the warming.

That cannot be done yet based on the data to date.

I base my argument on the fact that climate changes naturally and while humans surely are modifying the forcing and feedbacks - we still don't know how much of the warming which has occurred since 1880 (or 1850 or 1700 or 1950 or whenever you want to start) is caused by humans.

In order to determine the human contribution we have to be able to subtract out the naturally occurring part - and we cannot do that yet.

Assuming all the warming is caused by humans (since 1950) is not science - just an inference.

"You (collectively) have to prove humans did cause the warming."

Right-o. Done. Completed years ago, in fact, and published on widely. No assumptions, just reams of data, and truck loads of analysis. The T-shirts have been bought.

Turn out the lights and everyone can go home now.

RickA

Be specific, What forcing change caused modern warming?

I know! I know! Sunlight energy trapped by a massively abnormal level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere!!

Am I right? Am I right! Am.. I... Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght!

What's the prize for getting the correct answer?

What's the booby prize for getting it wrong?

BBD #105:

I don't know which specific natural forcing acted from 1880 to 1940.

All I know is that it did warm and the consensus of climate scientists is that this warming was natural - and not predominately caused by humans.

B-B-B-B-Z-Z-Z-Z-ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ !!!!!!!!

Wrong answer, RickA! That is factually incorrect.

Climate scientists are certain that this warming is not natural and is caused almost exclusively by human activity. And that "activity" is digging up and pumping BILLIONS OF TONS of carbon into the atmosphere in the form of CO2.

the consensus of climate scientists is that this warming was natural

Do you have a citation for this claim or is it just rubbish?

The increased forcing of CO2 from 1880 to 1940 was 0.09 doublings or enough to produce 0.27℃ from an ECS of 3℃/doubling.

The increase in CO2 from 1880 to 1940 was easily enough to produce most of the warming in that period.

RickA:

It has been warming for 400 years – since the LIA and that is on a century scale.

Do you have a citation for that claim or is it simply rubbish?

I know you don't have evidence for it being globally significantly cooler 400 years ago than it was for the first two decades of the 20th century because there is no such evidence presented in the scientific literature.

That just seems flat out wrong to me.

This is the logical fallacy known as "proof by personal incredulity".

RickA

BBD #105:

I don’t know which specific natural forcing acted from 1880 to 1940.

See Chris O'Neill # 109 and also Wilcox et al. (2013) (discussion and link).

That's enough about pre-1950. Please answer the question:

What forcing is responsible for warming post-1950

I don’t have to prove humans didn’t cause the warming – you (collectively) have to prove humans did cause the warming.

That cannot be done yet based on the data to date.

Don't be ridiculous. You've just denied that CO2 is a forcing but this is well understood and quantified.

So, what forcing was responsible for warming since 1950?

BBD #111:

I am not denying that our CO2 emissions are a focing.

I am saying we cannot detangle and tease out how much of the forcings are natural and how much human because the human signal is too small relative to the noise, over the short period we are looking at.

Maybe in another 120 years we will have a better handle on the relative proportion of human versus natural.

But to answer you question - my guess is that since 1950 the forcing is 50% human caused and 50% natural forcings.

Chris #109:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understand…

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understand… :

It is very unlikely

that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone.

A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance

t is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th-century warming evident in these records.

Thanks for demonstrating that your claim has no supporting citation and is just rubbish, RickA.

RickA:

how much of the forcings are natural and how much human because the human signal is too small relative to the noise

You still don't understand the difference between forcing and noise. Noise or weather is what you still have even when there is no change in forcing. Forcing is something that changes the heat entering or leaving the atmosphere/surface, e.g. changes in geothermal heating, solar irradiance, reflective aerosols or greenhouse gas radiation absorption/reradiation are all forcings.

The second largest type of change in forcing in the past 200 years was solar irradiance. The largest types by far were all artificial: greenhouse gas forcing, sulphate aerosols and various others.

Chris #114:

You quoted:

A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere inter-decadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance

However, you do realize that volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance are natural and not human caused.

All that section is saying is it is not just natural effects moving heat around within the system naturally - but more or less heat getting in due to higher aerosols from volcanoes reflecting more incoming solar or actual lower incoming solar due to the maunder minimum.

It is not saying that more than 50% of the warming during the last 7 centuries is human caused - which is my point.

Only the warming since 1950 is attributed mostly to humans (or 100% percent by some).

Chris #114:

Here is the portion of the link I cited you should review:

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

This means that it is NOT very likely that most (> 50%) of the observed increase in global average temperatures BEFORE mid-20th century (before 1950) is caused by humans.

I am not saying zero warming was caused by humans prior to 1950 - I am saying that the IPCC is saying that the data do not show that > 50% of the warming was caused by humans before 1950 - which means (to me) that whatever caused the warming that brought us out of the LIA is mostly (> 50%) naturally caused. Ditto for over the last 20,000 years.

Whatever those naturally occurring effects are (and I admit I don't know) - they could still be acting on Earth from 1950 - 2015 and we need to quantify them to subtract them out in order to leave behind the human signature.

RickA

I am not denying that our CO2 emissions are a focing.

Actually, you are. The problem is that we have substantial warming over the last several decades (>0.5C since 1970) but no evidence *whatsoever* of any natural forcing change sufficient to explain the warming. So either you deny that CO2 is the cause or you do as I have repeatedly asked and state which forcing is responsible for modern warming. With references to the published literature of course.

Please answer the question.

* * *

I am saying we cannot detangle and tease out how much of the forcings are natural and how much human because the human signal is too small relative to the noise, over the short period we are looking at.

A false claim. Reference?

But to answer you question – my guess is that since 1950 the forcing is 50% human caused and 50% natural forcings.

This is *not* the answer to my question.

Nor is your 'guess' of any interest or value in a discussion of C20th forcing history.

RickA

Whatever those naturally occurring effects are (and I admit I don’t know) – they could still be acting on Earth from 1950 – 2015 and we need to quantify them to subtract them out in order to leave behind the human signature.

We've been through this. The LIA was over by ~1850. Orbital forcing peaked 12ka. The climate does not change by magic. There is no 'force x'.

You are repeating your earlier errors despite them being pointed out. That's not allowed in civilised discourse. You have to acknowledge your errors and modify your position in the light of improved understanding of the topic.

Or it is denialism.

RickA:

you do realize that volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance are natural and not human caused

You're missing the point. You left out the most important term:

inter-decadal temperature variability

Inter-decadal temperature variability is just the variation from one decade to the next. It does not mean the sustained multi-decadal increase in temperature from 1880 to 1940, which is what you're talking about.

All that section is saying is it is not just natural effects moving heat around within the system naturally

Exactly, which in no way supports your claim that

the consensus of climate scientists is that this warming was natural

It is not saying that more than 50% of the warming during the last 7 centuries is human caused – which is my point.

No that wasn't your claim. Your claim is that it was mainly or entirely natural. The IPCC quote is just saying there was some amount of anthropogenic contribution without specifying an upper limit. You are confusing the term "some" with the term "less than half" or "none".

Your argument is rubbish. I'd never hire you as an advocate lawyer.

“Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

This means that it is NOT very likely that most (> 50%) of the observed increase in global average temperatures BEFORE mid-20th century (before 1950) is caused by humans.

No it does not mean that. It just means they do not want to claim that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% IPCC definition) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. It just means they are not making any claims about likelihood in that period. That doesn't mean they are making a claim about proportions in that period. They're just leaving that open with the proviso that the anthropogenic part is (significantly) greater than zero.

You have some problems with logic RickA. Not something I'd want to have in a lawyer.

BTW, you could look up what the IPCC means by "very likely" etc. sometime.

Of course, that should be:

It just means they do not want to claim that most of the observed increase in global average temperature in the first half of the 20th century is very likely (>90% IPCC definition) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. etc.

Forcing change from 1750 in perspective.

Can we believe that RickA is a practicing lawyer (as he claims) if these are the limits to his ability to reason?

Would you hire someone like this to defend your patents?

Can we believe that RickA is an electrical engineer (as he claims) if these are the limits to his ability to reason?

Would you hire someone like this to design the avionics for your airliner?

No and no, but anyone can claim to be anything on the internet so appeals to personal authority should be avoided.

I am the King of Old Siam.

@47. RickA :

"Or perhaps you could guarantee our sun won’t go super nova? I am worried about that also."

As someone with a more than basic knowledge of astronomy and astrophysics I can guarantee you that our Sun will never go supernova.

It lacks the mass to produce any sort of core collapse supernova and it lacks the presence of a companion star - certainly a close enough companion star to produce a type Ia white dwarf supernovae.

So you can stop worrying on that score.

OTOH, the same science that explains why we don't need to worry about our daytime star going kaboom also tells us most definitively and comprehensively and with all that key observed evidence and physics stuff that we Do need to worry about the impact of greenhouse gases on our atmospheric composition with their well established infrared trapping actions. IOW Yes, climatologists know what they are talking about and global overheating is a reality.

Every bit as much as we know that other planets and stars are reality and their astrophysical properties are as they are too. Or, in some aspects and on some points, even better.

But wait... "Experts" such as RickA tell us that pumping billions of billions of tons of CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere has essentially no effect on its climate.

Just like, well, Venus, which has a huge amount of CO2 in its atmosphere, and we know that it's not a planet that's overheated as a result... Right?

Um.. Right? Mebbe I should look up the temperature on Venus first... ::page, page::

OMG!!! It's 864 degrees Fahrenheit (462 degrees Celsius) !!!

My God, RickA, you're incredibly wrong about the CO2 effects!!!

@again 47 RickA :

"It is a relief to know that the three different effects from Milankovitch cycles no longer impact Earth. I guess we are no longer tilted, rotating around the Sun or moving further and closer to the sun in our orbit.

All kidding aside – Milankovitch cycles didn’t stop 8000 years ago – they still exist and are very very slowly either making us warmer or cooler. Nobody knows the date we will switch over from warming to cooling from Milankovitch cycles, or even if we already did.

I guess we are no longer in the middle of an inter-glacier."

You mean an interglacial?

Don't know where you live but very few houses are built on glaciers. Those that are tend not to last long as glaciers move -and have generally been moving faster than usual lately as scientific observations show.

(Mind you, my typing sucks so I can hardly talk but still.)

As for teh Milankovitch cycles, of course nobody is denying they exist - thing is they are already taken into account and the feedback from trapped GHGs overwhelms their smaller influence as this clip explains :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPtuxoPSnXg

Not that I expect Rick A to have the integrity to actually watch and learn from it but it nicely shows why the whole "natural" canard is ,well, a canard.

RickA:

"All kidding aside – Milankovitch cycles didn’t stop 8000 years ago – they still exist and are very very slowly either making us warmer or cooler. Nobody knows the date we will switch over from warming to cooling from Milankovitch cycles, or even if we already did."

Shorter RickA:

"we know about Milankovitch cycles, but we don't know about Milankovitch cycles"

How he reconciles this in his head is a mystery to me.

dhogaza, it's easy to figure that part out:

Step 1: Kill self's conscience, and make sure that any empathy for the plight of future generations of human beings, and concern for a healthy, functioning planet are completely dead & expunged.

Step 2: Say anything to steer people away from adopting public policies to mitigate the effects of pumping billions of billions of tons of CO2 into the Earth’s atmosphere.

Step 3: Continue existing investment in fossil fuels that produce "comfy lifestyle".

No logic, and no reconciliation is required!

Ricka: "I guess we are no longer in the middle of an inter-glacier.”

Words. Fail. Me.

@112. RickA :

"I am not denying that our CO2 emissions are a focing. I am saying we cannot detangle and tease out how much of the forcings are natural and how much human because the human signal is too small relative to the noise, over the short period we are looking at."

Really? This clip by David Attenborough and climate scientist Professor Peter Cox demolishes that claim right here :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

Have you not seen it or done any of the basic research that shows you are just laughably wrong at all?

"Maybe in another 120 years we will have a better handle on the relative proportion of human versus natural."

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe we already know more than enough. Actually there's really no "maybe" about that last sentence.

Meanwhile we should do what? Ignore all the science and evidence and realty that says we have a problem and its overdue that we accepted it and tackled it seriously? Let things get constantly worse without acting on what is clearly well known and established? What cost in lives, human misery and money are willing to suffer or make others suffer before you might think we should perhaps do something after all I wonder?

"But to answer you question – my guess is that since 1950 the forcing is 50% human caused and 50% natural forcings."

Your guess? Based on what exactly?

Which we are supposed to think overrides the assessment of all the experts in the field and scientific observations and understandings as taken by NASA, NOAA, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology et cetera, etc .. Because?

Seriously? Your asserted guess over pretty much all the work and observations of pretty much all climatologists who have devoted their lives to understanding this issue?

Nope, RickA, I think until and unless you provide some truly extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claims here as Carl Sagan's Law says; I'll stick with what actual climatologists have shown us with an overwhelming amount of published, peer-reviewed and properly supported evidence.

What cost in lives, human misery and money are willing to suffer or make others suffer before you might think we should perhaps do something after all I wonder?

Sociopaths do not care about these things. They care about what they want, for themselves, um, now. That's about it.

PS. Also one more key question for RickA - which I gather you've already failed to answer - which "natural forcings" are you guessing have contributed 50% here exactly?

Also why have these supposed "natural forcings" of yours been missed and not already taken into account so far? (Protip : Climatologists are well aware and and have already taken into account the natural factors such as Milankovitch cycles, solar irradiance, volcanic outputs, etc ..) Just how stupid do you think expert climatologists are?

StevoR:

"Have you not seen it or done any of the basic research that shows you are just laughably wrong at all?"

Oh, I'm sure he's done lots of research ... at WUWT, Curry's, etc.

@ ^ Desertphile : Yes indeed.