10

Does this mean that you will cease to use your false juxtaposition of the two decades?

Not false, fact. Does not change anything, it should be clear, even by you now, that the warming by AGW and el ninos overrode the cooling factor of Mount Pinatubo and that the decade following it was still even hotter despite many more natural cooling factors. You continue to ignore natural variation in the climate system that are known to be cooling, and other evidence of warming such as ocean warming, Arctic melting etc in preference for cherry picking. Look at the big picture and again despite flat ENSO over a 60 year period, a huge cooling volcano, flat to falling solar we have 0.6 degrees c of WARMING. Wow, can you not get that?

Michael has primarily been your false use of data and false numbers

THIS IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE AND I WOULD ASK MODS TO SHOW SOME STANDARDS AND BALANCE. I provide the sources for all of my data. YOU DO NOT. SUBJECTIVE COMMENTS WITHOUT SOURCES.

Where do you get this number from Michael?

GISS. 1991 0.4 1998 0.6 – the period include the Mt Pinatubo cooling. Again actual data.

From the NOAA:

Source thanks. All quotes should come with a source, that is what I teach my students, where did you go to school? Also nobody denies uncertainty, it does not change the basic science and the overwhelming trends. IT IS OCCURRING every international science organisation agrees and most of the science points to it. Science is always improving, that does not mean we sit on our hands while we twiddle our thumbs watching the climate degenerate waiting for some mythical unattainable goal of perfect information. You take out of context remarks and ignore the conclusions.

Why don’t you read the papers I referred you to rather than just the abstracts?

I did. Told you that, and they do not support your claims. Did you?

”The science of what this would mean to climate.” – From the Pinatubo paper, which you accept:

That quote says absolutely nothing about what caused the drop in cloud cover and what it means to climate. It is about a large volcanic eruption and the effects of its aerosols, in fact it claims ongoing cooling which is the opposite of explaining the warming. It seems you are admitting that all natural factors are strongly cooling. You keep avoiding and misrepresenting the questions. You have no actual science or understanding to back up your claims. The fact remains, I have provided the proof and the science that shows warming through natural cooling, confirming ongoing and significant AGW. You persistently add to my cooling while being unable to explain the warming, yet cannot admit it. DO you give up yet?
From your quote you ignore the following

only to say that there will be a certain amount of warming and that other things will likely change.

Also from NASA

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

I ask again, please answer the questions properly and with sources.

02

Sure, I will accept that.

Well finally Michael. Does this mean that you will cease to use your false juxtaposition of the two decades?

like most of the science you put forward, does not help your case

My “case” Michael has primarily been your false use of data and false numbers (which I will continue with).

Let me put it to you this way: We all agree that the Earth has been warming for several hundred years. Your position is that this is entirely due to CO2 emissions. You even go so far as to claim that CO2 emissions are responsible for puling our climate out of the LIA. You have not been able to show this, however it is clear that is your position.

Thus, my “case” is not that the Earth has warmed. Since the Earth has been warming, it is not unusual for a decade to be warmer than the previous. Can you show me a decade which hasn’t been? Yes, there are some – perhaps you can explain those in the face of rising CO2 levels?

Yet from 1991 to 1998 we had 0.2 deg of warming. Wow!

Where do you get this number from Michael? From the latest IPCC report we have:

The rate of warming over the past 15 years (0.05°C per decade) is smaller than the trend since 1951 (0.12°C per decade)

I think you will find Michael that “0.2 degrees” was the IPCC prediction in the previous report and it has failed miserably. It is only 1/4 of what you or they have said. At least they admit it.

I have consistently used the actual data to show that most natural factors were in cooling directions or flat for the 60 years since 1950

No Michael. You have cherry picked only those things which you feel supports your argument. From the NOAA:

However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

If they don’t know, how can you possibly know Michael? You simply believe there is a correlation between CO2 emissions and warming and draw your conclusions from that. Correlation (even though they do not correlate well) does not show cause.

Again I would request in regards to your cloud claims.

1. “The actual mechanism and cause for the drop in cloud cover.” – Why don’t you read the papers I referred you to rather than just the abstracts?

2.”The science of what this would mean to climate.” – From the Pinatubo paper, which you accept:

The presence of the volcanic aerosol veil with a peak global midvisible optical depth (tau) of at least 0.1 (Sato and others, 1993), initial radiation losses of up to 5% for the first 10 months (Dutton and Christy, 1992), and the concomitant, measurable climate anomalies such as global surface cooling of perhaps in excess of 0.5°C in 1992 (Dutton and Christy, 1992; Hansen and others, 1993)

Now Michael, if we have radiation losses of up to 5% causing significant cooling, what do you suppose radiation gains from loss of cloud cover would do? I know you don’t like me appealing to common sense, since you don’t appear to have any, but I will ask it for the benefit of others at least. Step out into the sun some time, it’s a nice feeling.

Here is a primer for you from Nasa to help you understand some of the simple things I talk about. Please note:

Yet in spite of the need to forecast climatic changes accurately, current understanding of how the climate works is not detailed enough for climatologists to predict exactly when, where, or to what extent changes will take place, only to say that there will be a certain amount of warming and that other things will likely change.

Again, how can you possibly know the things you think you do?

20

The Pinatubo climate forcing was stronger than the opposite, warming effects of either the El Niño event or anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the period 1991-93.

But those things obviously overrode the volcanos effects by the end of the decade and then some.

00

because the previous decade was significantly affected by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Sure, I will accept that. What you fail to realise is that it, like most of the science you put forward, does not help your case.

Firstly from the paper you provided…

Climate models appear to have predicted the cooling currently occurring with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Like I said!

Effects on climate were an observed surface cooling in the Northern Hemisphere of up to 0.5 to 0.6°C

Yet from 1991 to 1998 we had 0.2 deg of warming. Wow! That is a massive turnaraound, from minus .6 to plus .2 in less than a decade, how come?

The Nature paper is peer reviewed science that supports my argument, the papers you provided did not support your argument.

Besides the Nature paper I have consistently used the actual data to show that most natural factors were in cooling directions or flat for the 60 years since 1950, though global temperatures rose 0.6 degrees. You have not provided the actual source for your ENSO info, I have. Please show an actual source for all 60 years if you do not agree with mine. Anecdotal subjective descriptions of ENSO are unacceptable. You have been unable to come up with any natural source for the warming with proof in data or science. The scientific american article was only to explain the ENSO mechanism for you.

Again I would request in regards to your cloud claims.
1. The actual mechanism and cause for the drop in cloud cover.
2. The science of what this would mean to climate.

No opinion thank you, actual science and data to prove your case.

Mods, I think your actions should be balanced and even, then I would not get so annoyed. If insults are unacceptable by me then they should be unacceptable for everyone. If I have to answer questions put to me then everyone should answer questions put to them etc.

00

” Explain reality ”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Michael, far better people than you or I have attempted to explain reality and failed. If you are delusional enough to think that is important take a swing at it.

Our issue here is that for some unknown reason YOU think that .6c of UNPROVEN warming:

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/giss1999-2013usadjustments.gif

(Yup Official GISS data!!)

in the last 60 years is a problem. You have shown various papers, most of which were MODEL based which you finally admit have nothing to do with reality. YET, you have shown us no reason to worry about a .6c warming real or not.

You continue to fail at the most basic issues. You really are STUPID when you claim that solar has been declining over this period. We have been in what is called by the experts a Grand Maximum until mid 2000:

http://sidc.oma.be/sunspot-index-graphics/wolfaml.php

Notice that we did not go below “normal” until Cycle 23 which was around 2000. So, you are either LYING or simply have not bothered to LOOK at the records.

Which is it Michael the DELUSIONAL??

Are you STUPID or LYING??

Michael the Delusional, the serious question in your court is what science, what papers, peer reviewed or otherwise, gives you reason to expect that the observations, adjusted or otherwise, of the last 60 years is going to somehow cause us future problems based on the growth of CO2 or any other reason.

The WMO’s concentration on deaths and MONEY have little to do with the actual strength and occurances of extreme weather. People who are not delusional that look at the records KNOW that extreme weather is DECREASING compared to pre 70′s.

You have already admitted the models are scenarios and do not match REALITY! Since you cannot depend on these models to PREDICT the future Climate development, and therefore have to let go of the PREDICTIONS based on the FINGERPRINT that includes the Flopspot and Stratospheric Cooling which comes from the models, WHERE IS YOUR SCIENCE?!?!?

Additionally I wish to finalize your LIES about understanding the Flopspot and the Stratosphere signatures. If you really understood the modeled science behind this you would KNOW that the cooling strat is due not only to the increase in CO2 in the strat itself but due to the Flopspot. Yes Michael the Delusional, they are TIED TOGETHER!! Without one you cannot have the other if there is warming. Seriously dude, how could the strat cool if there was MORE radiative forcing from below?? Yup, the real Flopspot is claimed to REDUCE the radiative forcing by preventing some of it from getting to the strat!!!! This is the Evil feedback situation that would cause dangerous warming!!! No, don’t tell ME that is STUPID or CRAZY!!! Tell the morons at Realclimate and the other AGW sites who promoted this fraud based on their Junk Models!!!

Now that the Flopspot has failed to appear over the period of time THEY CLAIMED was UNPRECEDENTED WARMING, there is NO SCIENCE to show CO2 will be a problem. What is YOUR scenario? What is YOUR prediction and what is it based upon?? Continual screams of “it is warming and it is dangerous are tiresome”. Or, are you changing it to, “it should be cooling and that means we are gonna die if we don’t DO SOMETHING!!!” Either way, you have shown us no logical, science based scenario, to back up your WHINES!!!

If you continue I am going to demand some cheese with that!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

00

Natural variation has caused much larger rises and falls in modern and paleohistory than are under consideration here. It is impossible therefore to discount it in respect to the last 30 years.

10

You still have to show the natural factor that explains the .6 deg warming.

No Michael. First you must show that there has be 0.6 degrees of warming in the past 60 years. Then we shall move on from there.

20

It is Backslider who did not adequately rebut me.

I doubt that anything would be adequate for you. You continue posting the same guff all over this blog even though I have clearly shown you that your ENSO comparisons are invalid. Here you do it yet again:

the 2001 to 2010 decade was much lower ENSO even though it was warmer than the previous decade.

There is no comparison Michael because the previous decade was significantly affected by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

Why do you continue to make a comparison based solely on ENSO when there are other significant and obvious factors at play?

Here is just one paper on Mount Pinatubo. There are plenty of others if you care to look (I know you do not care).

You have not shown any science which shows that, regardless of ENSO, the warming of the past 60 years was due to CO2. You have not provided a scrap of science to back up your claims, yet you expect us to accept your own interpretations of ENSO when you have shown yourself incapable of taking into account other factors?

You do realise that he has only offered opinion with no sources

This is patently false. I have referred you to numerous peer reviewed papers which you will not read.

Consequently the above proves that I have provided everything that Backslider says I have not.

Let’s see now. A link to an article in Scientific American which outlines that scientists cannot agree with each other on what is happening. This is clearly not peer reviewed, nor does it prove anything.

As for the Nature paper, we see:

We present a novel method of uncovering mechanisms for global temperature change by prescribing, in addition to radiative forcing, the observed history of sea surface temperature over the central to eastern tropical Pacific in a climate model.

Sorry Michael, but we do not accept “novel” climate models as science. They can draw whatever conclusions they like from their models, but it will never be science.

Show us something with real science Michael.

20

Now, what YOU have to explain is why it was ONLY NORMAL!!

Nope, thats your job. I have already proved that most major natural factors were flat or cooling. Point made. You still have to show the natural factor that explains the .6 deg warming. Nothing explains it but AGW. Again your flopspot comments, attacks on models (of where the flopspot came from) etc do not trump reality, they are merely excuses on your part because actual data and consequences are occurring and matching predictions. They are projections of scenarios, not reality. Explain reality.

04

You maintain that warming was entirely due to CO2. Prove it.

No I have not. I have proven that going on the major natural factors such as ENSO, Solar and volcanos that we cannot explain the warming of 0.6 over the last 60 years without CO2, and this is consistent with the majority of the science and calculations of the effect of and science of CO2. You have been unable with actual data and confirming science been able to prove me wrong.

You maintain that warming over the past 60 years has been 0.6 degrees. Prove it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
and
“The analysis shows that the rise in average world land temperature globe is approximately 1.5 degrees C in the past 250 years, and about 0.9 degrees in the past 50 years.”
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/img/annual-comparison-small.png

You maintain that “solar flat to falling” over the past 60 years. Prove it

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceAndSunspots.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm&h=635&w=880&sz=39&tbnid=lTqj1ouMlKsoyM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=120&zoom=1&usg=__rKxxgF6FWhRstpL2CPJJnf2wmj0=&docid=8AACqO_b9RPpYM&sa=X&ei=5e04UrTdFoy6iAecjYCIBQ&ved=0CE4Q9QEwAw&dur=2505
Best i could find in a short time frame, no point spending to much time, you are not actually interested in the truth.

You maintain “ENSO effects coming out to zero”. Prove it.

Been done multiple times, read the analysis under the graph of ENSO

You maintain the The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of The Little Ice Age.

Not me, the PAGES paper suggested that we were in a long term cooling trend until CO2 emissions kicked in. Paper provided multiple times.

most scientists accept natural warming coming out of the LIA at 0.5 degrees per century

YOU PROVE THAT, BOTH THE MOST SCIENTISTS AND THE WARMING TREND AND GIVE THE MECHANISM. THE CLIMATE IS NOT MAGIC. IT RESPONDS TO FORCINGS.

It is a fact also that warming has “stalled, paused”, “stopped”

I have admitted multiple times that the climate is a complicated system with many forcings upon it of natural and anthropogenic causes and that this has/will cause many dips and flat spots but with a clear underlying long term warming trend due to mans emissions. This is what SKS, scientists, IPCC etc understand. You and other climate misinformers are affected by confirmation bias and this stops you from looking at the full picture and focussing on cherry picked elements of graphs and the science that confirms your point.

Again I have given everything asked and you still avoid and have been unable to answer any of my questions with actual data, explanations, science and peer review confirmation.

01

“Secondly, it still proves my point, over the 60 year period since 1950, with ENSO effects coming out to zero, with solar flat to falling and with a bloody big cooling volcano you have 0.6 deg of warming. Please explain?”

since you are still BEGGING for someone to show how stupid you are I will volunteer to be that big bad DENIER who does that.

You continue to harangue us with your ridiculous question as to why the temps went up .6c over 60 years. That is a very easy answer. Normal climate.

Now, what YOU have to explain is why it was ONLY NORMAL!!

Your IPCC science claimed that the upper end could be .6c/decade. That would be about 3.6c.

Your IPCC science has also claimed 4.5c for an upper end. That would be .45c/dec for 2.7c.

You IPCC claims a median temp rise of 3c. That would be .3c/dec or 1.8c.

You IPCC claimed that the actual warming was at .2c/decade or 1.2c.

Finally the IPCC has changed their bottom limit to 1.5c or .15c/dec, in the leaked AR7 draft, which would be .9c.

So Michael the delusional, I do not need to explain anything as the temp rise has been UNDER the IPCC BOTTOM projection!!! You have to explain why you are so STUPID to think there is a problem of some kind.

As I tried to tell you when I destroyed your Peer Reviewed Science (PS: the WMO is an ADMINISTRATIVE Organization and does not DO science MORON!!), without the FINGERPRINT, which includes the Flopspot, you and the IPCC have NOTHING!!!

I would also reiterate that the flopspot is not there because THERE WAS NO WARMING OF ANYKIND except in the imaginations of FOOLS, Scam Artists, and people TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD from who knows what!!!

30

Secondly, it still proves my point, over the 60 year period since 1950, with ENSO effects coming out to zero, with solar flat to falling and with a bloody big cooling volcano you have 0.6 deg of warming. Please explain?

You maintain that warming was entirely due to CO2. Prove it.

You maintain that warming over the past 60 years has been 0.6 degrees. Prove it.

You maintain that “solar flat to falling” over the past 60 years. Prove it.

You maintain “ENSO effects coming out to zero”. Prove it. This does not mean just your own interpretation of the graphs. It means you showing us the science which shows that ENSO effects come out to zero, not just your opinion.

You maintain the The Industrial Revolution pulled the Earth’s climate out of The Little Ice Age. Following your logic, were is not for CO2 emissions, we would still be in the LIA. The fact is Michael that most scientists accept natural warming coming out of the LIA at 0.5 degrees per century. The actual number thrown around for warming since records began is 0.7 degrees. Thus, if the warming in the last 60 years was 0.6 degrees then the warming prior was only 0.1 degrees. You will find this to be patently false. The greatest amount of warming was in the first half of the 20th century. Check your numbers please Michael.

It is a fact also that warming has “stalled, paused”, “stopped” or whichever adjective you would like to use. This is clearly borne out by the data and corresponds with the recent decline in solar activity and is predicted to continue falling. The IPCC admits this. Climate scientists admit this. You and SkS don’t, but then, you are not scientists.

So Michael, with all your ranting, please explain to us why temperatures have stopped going up. We await with bated breath.

20

The temperature drop was clarified by USGS, and lasted for about three years. As of 2005, some of the other environmental impacts are still in evidence.

Still waiting for the source. Mt Pinatubo is also one of the real life model experiments, they ran through the models what should happen after it erupted and then followed it over the following years. The models were found to predict the events very closely.

Secondly, it still proves my point, over the 60 year period since 1950, with ENSO effects coming out to zero, with solar flat to falling and with a bloody big cooling volcano you have 0.6 deg of warming. Please explain?

02

No you have not adequately rebutted Backslider with regard to the ENSO argument.

Yes I have. It is Backslider who did not adequately rebut me. You do realise that he has only offered opinion with no sources where I offered the actual data. But you allow him to get away with mere words while my actual data and peer reveiwed science is knocked back. What does this tell you?

Actual ENSO data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Clearly shows the preponderence of el nino events for about 1983 to 1998. The one affecting 1998 being equal highest up at level 3 on record with the 1983 one. CLearly shows the 2001 to 2010 decade being much lower than the previous decade. Discussion of the el ninos and la ninas since 1950 are below the graphic, and the overall period was roughly even with no net effect. Clearly the 0.6 deg rise over the 60 years was not due to ENSO, and that the 2001 to 2010 decade was much lower ENSO even though it was warmer than the previous decade.

Explanation of how ENSO affects global temperatures
“The sloshing back and forth can also influence global temperatures. During an El Nino, the tropical Pacific fills up with warm water, which enhances the transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. This tends to raise global temperatures. Conversely, during La Nina, the tropical Pacific fills up with cool water, which tends to depress heat transfer and therefore global temperatures.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=el-nino-la-nina-and-global-warming&WT.mc_id=SA_DD_20130322

Peer reviewed science explaining how the lack of rise in recent temperatures are just a natural cooling variation (but it has not cooled).
“Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html

Consequently the above proves that I have provided everything that Backslider says I have not. Now it is only fair that backslider rebuts this properly with data, science and peer review.

[Stop writing with such added twists of the knife as "allow him to get away with". This post is better and that is why it gets published, not because you whinge like a baby. You are the antagonist here and have been since your first post. Because of that, you will be held to a higher standard. Jo has explained this to you, other mods have explained this to you. Too many of your posts include an insult and this behavior is extremely annoying to the other writers and to us Mods. I strongly encourage you to focus on not annoying the Mods.] ED

01