You complain about people using SkepticalScience and RealClimate as sources, yet you blithely trot out Watts Up With That and Lord Monckton as sources. Good grief.
Monckton's a joke, so yeah, I dismiss him. Watt is biased, but I actually will take the time to look at a claim that comes from his site. I think Real Climate is a great site; I haven't found significant issues with their presentation or their facts. On the other hand, I take things at Skeptical Science with a grain of salt, because sometimes his claims exceed the evidence. I try to get competing views on the same data before making an assessment. You, however, are still a hypocrite.
I know - I have offered on more than one occasion to do a comparison - see who can find the most lies on websites I would look at any denialist site and they can look at SS of RC No=one has taken me up on it
A good site to view is Judith Curry's (labeled a denier by Micheal Mann) but she allows everyone to participate, unlike Skeptical Science that Mann is involved with, and has links to other websites both pro and con. She brings up whatever is current in the science and allows scientists to comment, again pro or con. Some of the best reading is in the comments section. http://judithcurry.com/
If you think Monkton is in the same solar system as the "truth" then I have some very bad news - and can prove it BTW have the Brits finished being upset over his false claim to be a member of the house of lords??
Explain it then. It was a .5ºC change between 1900 and 1970 that started the whole issue of global warming in the first place. Michael Mann called Judith Curry "anti-science", not a denier, and he's a contributor at RealClimate, not Skeptical Science.
No, it was the rise in CO2 starting in the 50's. In the 70's is was cooling. Michael Mann is heavily involved with John Cook's Skeptical Science. "On the other hand, serial climate disinformer Judith Curry (Georgia Tech) announced “Consensus distorts the climate picture.” - Michael Mann Michael Mann and SkepticalScience: well-orchestrated
Thats called curve fitting. A models ability to hindcast is not an indicator of the accuracy of the model. You have the data and can fit your model to the data. Its the ability of a model to forecast that matters. And the models do not hind cast well at all. They almost all fail to model the 1945-1976 period becuase they are over tuned to CO2..
Your idea of a lie is anything that disagrees with your bias. Your Reichsfurrer Cook can be called out by multiple scientific authors for lying about the conclusions of their papers to make his 97% consensus argument and you wont say a word.
Well that proves you don't know a thing. The ppm increase of CO2 from 1910-1945(when the warming actually occured) was not significant enough to cause any noticable global temperature change. CO2 emisisons only started becoming high enought to theoretically cause a change post WWII. And from 1945-1776 there was cooling.
Sorry, but the rise in CO2 wasn't detected until the 1960's. And a positive trend in temperature does not count as cooling. How much warming would you expect over a century from a .09 ºC decadal trend? OMG! Michael Mann publishes papers and writes books on climate change while Skeptical Science reports on climate change. Who would have ever thought they would be connected?
Please explain how they curve fit temperature predictions from a 1996 paper to actual temperatures which hadn't been measured yet?
The stall refers to the short-term download slopes that take place very few years. Global warming, though, refers to the long-term trend line that goes upward.
It not easy to predict short term climate variability like PDO or volcanic activity, which is why climate models are better at predicting decadal rates. Plus, you might want to consider what comes after a "hiatus".
Sorry, I was referring to this graph: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 That is, the surface temperature change goes up and down, and in several cases, one detects a decline across several years (the blue lines). But the global warming trend (the red line) moves upward.
Oh, the SKS stair step graph. Well, if you do some reading you will find that the stair step corresponds to ENSO and the hypothesis for ENSO is that it is driven by a warmed ocean surface from the sun. There is still no correlation with CO2 and even less so as time goes on. Now, in a couple of years if the hiatus continues, it will be completely out of line with all of the computer models and predictions. Some predict the hiatus to continue for longer than that due to natural variation. Also, back in the late 1600, early 1700's the temperature rise was much greater than the last 100 years by more than double. There are many reasons that temperature increases and decreases and the pet hypothesis is that CO2 is doing all the driving right now. It is just an hypothesis that is now under pressure because the observations are not matching the dire predictions. Don't get me wrong, there are almost no scientists that think CO2 does nothing to contribute.
But ENSO is an oscillating function and can only explain the "stair step" in temperature when combined with an increasing function. What increasing function do you think that might be? You have a source to back this up? Below is a graph showing various temperature reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. Note that zero on this graph corresponds to the 1880-1960 mean, which is about .6 °C below current global mean temperature. Nothing shown here comes close to recent warming, much less more than double.
First, there are other proxies that show different temperatures like the Greenland ice core data. You will also note that I said 'rate of change' not temperature. Notice that Mann is mentioned which means this may be some of the Briffa tree ring data that has now come under question. Before I could comment on the Jo Nova graph presented, I would need to see that graph in context with the accompanying article in Jo Nova. It is often said that the rate of change is unprecedented which just isn't true. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/climate-change-could-make-humans-extinct-says-expert/
