Well, interesting that you provide absolutely no backup for your claim so it is just opinion. BTW, what do you think an oscillation superimposed over other oscillations would look like? There are a lot of oscillations at work here. ENSO, AMO, possibly the Stadium Wave, the Sun, the oscillation of the moon around Earth, Earth around the Sun, and the oscillation of the Earth itself as the poles change in plane with the orbit around the sun.
If each peak of an oscillation is higher than before, it's due to some external forcing. The oscillation itself, by definition, is self-canceling. Climate scientists have looked at all the known oscillations. None explain the current warming trend. As for your rate of change claim, I misread it. I haven't looked at data from the 1600s and 1700s; I'll have to do some research to respond to that.
Spaghetti graphs are propaganda designed to fool the eye. If you look hard you will see that for most of the "reconstructions" the medieval warm period is as warm or warmer than the present. And as usual they truncate the borehole data because borehole data shows a strong medieval warm period.
You have a choice: Go with our best analysis of what we know, or assume the analysis is wrong (without bothering to demonstrate it), or assume the cause is some as-yet-undiscovered effect (again, without bothering to provide evidence). Could everything we know about the oscillations be wrong? Sure. Is that likely? No. Should we base policy on that conjecture, rather than on the best understanding currently available? No.
Since it has been shown that they cannot model ocean oscillations I'm going to assume its wrong. Better to admit you don't know than to pretend you do. Pretending to know is what gets people hurt.
Despite is name the ENSO is actually not oscillatory. This has lead people to make some bad assumptions because they do not do any analysis themselves. This is not true the record has plenty of events of back to back el ninos and back to back la ninas. One does not always follow the other. It is not a true oscillation. While we do not know the exact mechanism we do know that the PDO and ENSO are coupled. During positive PDOs we see more el ninos durning a negative PDO we see more la ninas. The relationship might be reversed however. There is also the hypothesis that it is the ENSO that fuels the PDO and not the other way around. The ESNO has been better defined as a “quasiperiodic climate pattern” meaning its sometimes oscillatory and sometimes not.
As it stands right now they cannot model ENSO because they know very little about why they are formed. They have some idea but not enough to be able to model them.
A funny thing happens when you combine cyclical and exponential functions. The increasing trend from the cyclical function not only repeats, it lasts longer each time. Below is an illustration I created showing a simple 2nd order polynomial added to a simple 2nd order exponential function. If I superimpose this over global temperature for the last 150 years, you might notice the same pattern appears in both. While global climate is much more complex than just two 2nd order functions, this illustrates how human CO2 emissions (exponential) combined with climate variability (cyclical) can produce observed global temperature changes, including the current "hiatus".
The great thing about science is how we keep learning new things. http://www.livescience.com/14176-tree-ring-el-nino-records-climate-change.html
While the pattern is complex, ENSO is still an oscillatory function. When it's in a warm phase (El Nino), it pulls heat from the deep ocean to the surface, while in the cool phase (La Nina) it pulls heat from the surface to the deep ocean.
You mean like when it was going down from the MWP to the LIA and now how it is going up from the LIA to now?
Global temperature was decreasing for 8000 years before going up in the last century, which makes the LIA the recovery from the MWP. If it wasn't for CO2, we'd still be cooling.
It was only warmer during the MWP in the northern hemisphere. Globally, temperatures today are warmer than anything in the last 5,000 years, and at the current warming rate it will be well above the Holocene maximum by the end of the century.
My understanding is that reports of global warming stalling refers to a decade or so rather than several decades. Also, in relation to the MWP and LIA: "How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?" http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm "What ended the Little Ice Age?" http://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-little-ice-age.htm
Continuing to rely on a CAGW advocacy site will keep you from reading other records and theories. The Greenland ice core gives a different record. There are other scientists that are labeled 'deniers' by SKS which is misrepresentation of what they believe, scientists that have both contributed to the IPCC and do not rely on government funding due to having tenure at universities so are able to speak out because they can not be influenced by the pressures of the current political meme.
You could find this info yourself but for those that are stuck in the CAGW meme rarely read anything that is not based on the meme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming I suggest you follow this blog, which is by far the most balanced blog allowing scientists to debate the issues (for instance, try and find anything critical of Michael Mann's work on SKS). Judith Curry has been labeled 'anti science' by Michael Mann (heavily involved in SKS) who is suing anyone and everyone right now that challenges his particular view, to which she proposed "Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide." Keeping an open mind is what is necessary to get at the truth instead of buying into a particular political meme. If you actually read beyond SKS you will start to discover that there are great uncertainties that are not modeled or cannot be modeled accurately such as rain and clouds, ENSO, AMO and the list goes on. You will understand that much is not known and that climate science is hardly 'settled'. http://judithcurry.com/
Posts like this lead me to believe that even you don't actually believe what you write. #1, most climate scientists are university professors. Many of them are tenured. So you claim a distinction for deniers that simply doesn't exist. #2, what makes you think tenured researchers don't rely on government funding for research as much as anybody else? You clearly don't know how the process of generating research funding works at universities. Hint: while universities provide some research support (in the form of lab space), very few provide anything other than nominal research funding. Professors have to secure their own grants, pay their own graduate students, buy their own equipment, etc. Indeed, the ability to secure such grants is one of the factors that leads to tenure. There are three main sources for grants: private companies, nonprofit organizations, and the government. Private companies provide only limited support for university research, because such research is public, and private companies usually want to keep their research proprietary. Further, private companies tend to only support research that can be monetized. Climate science, pretty much by definition, can't be monetized. So there is very little corporate support for such research (or any "basic" research, for that matter). In climate research, what support there is tends to come from fossil-fuel companies, and go to deniers who produce crap, non-peer-reviewed papers. Nonprofits are a very small player. They just don't have huge amounts of money. That leaves the government, which in the United States provides way more support for basic research than any other source.
Not just an advocacy site, but also science organizations. An example is the NAS, which looks at Vostok data in its final report: http://nas-sites.org/americasclimat...eports/americas-climate-choices-final-report/ Also, several skeptics funded an independent study of the matter, as reported here: "Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds Global Warming Is Real, On The High End And Essentially All Due To Carbon Pollution" http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/ Finally, the IPCC reports are indeed influenced by politics, but not in the way many imagine: "U.N. climate report was censored" http://grist.org/news/u-n-climate-report-was-censored/ The reason is not hard to understand: governments rely primarily on businesses for tax revenues, but businesses can only contribute more if there is more economic activity. Thus, conclusions given in the report have to be conservative.
