What you made up was the cycle, for which you have no cause and which would look very different for Greenland had the graph shown the most recent data for Greenland.
Firstly, that cycle was not made up it exists so the reason for it just needs to be discovered.
Secondly, the graph would look little different if it had more recent data as the graph for Norway demonstrates.
Interestingly, in this same general timeframe, NOAA reissued its World Ocean Database. Wallace was then able to extract the instrumental records he sought and turned the GEPH data into a meaningful time series chart, which reveals that the oceans are not acidifying. (For another day, Wallace found that the levels coincide with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.) As Wallace emphasized: “there is no global acidification trend.”
In the Nature Trick, thermometer data was famously spliced onto treemometer* data to create the desired Hockey Stick and cover up the divergence problem. In this case, simulated data has been used to claim ocean acidification when actual observations show that's not happening.
*one of nlp's heroes, Greg Laden came up with a novel explanation for the divergence problem and the way treemometers failed to work after the 80s..
So why then is there a reduction from Myhre et al (1998) where it was understood to be 3.7W/m^2 to Myhre et al (2012) where it's now 2.25W/m^2?
I'm not going to get into discussing that, because it is not relevant. It is, in fact, yet another Eelian slither. There will never be a change that will make your crackpot theory that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" become a reality, for reasons that are obvious to anyone who grasps the basic radiative physics of thermal emitters.
Why do you refuse to show us the "empirical data" which forms the bedrock for your own theory, which only you believe?
I havn't made anything up at all, I simply linked to a couple of long term trends both based on reliable source data.
That's very interesting. Suddenly you think proxies are "reliable", having previously doubted them, you claim to see a "long term cooling trend" in data that finishes in 1855 (something one of your sources lied about) - thereby conveniently ignoring entirely the modern warming which is the whole sodding point, and you are blissfully unconcerned that these are regional proxies, and you are talking about global temperatures. And rather than bolster your argument with links to science, you choose to link to well-known nutter websites.
[Here's another clue: two regional proxies don't equal a global proxy]
Maybe if you could link to something that shows different long term trends you would have a basis for your argument.
Well, the thing is, there was a slow long-term cooling trend: the planet was on its way towards the next glaciation in a few tens of thousands of years. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have rather scuppered this. That is the point.
At least your latest "theory" means you disagree with the oft-repeated claim that it is getting warmer naturally because we are "emerging from an ice age". That's something, I suppose.
If your thermometer breaks, you don’t use the data from it any more.
So somehow the treemometers 'broke' in the 80's, but apparently worked just fine prior..
Yes, some of them did. And we know they worked fine before because we can overlap the instrumental data. Isn't it a good job we have scientists to handle the messy complexity of nature, rather tnan bloviating mining buffoons whose job it is to produce vast piles of words about nothing very much at all, for the purposes of misleading the gullible?
I don't know why serial-disinformers like Steve McIntyre claim to find the divergence problem so hard to understand. But then, people like him will go to any lengths to deny reality - as we saw with his truly hopeless (some might say fraudulent) attempts to discredit the Hockey Sticks, all those years ago.
I'm not going to get into discussing that, because it is not relevant.
I see... so a standard paper setting out estimates and assumptions for CO2 forcing is.. not relevant?
Why do you refuse to show us the "empirical data" which forms the bedrock for your own theory, which only you believe?
Why do you refuse to name your "right satellite?". And if you could show the CO2 data, or just read the Myhre paper(s) you may find clue to find the numbers.. which may then help you rebut my statement.
And we know they worked fine before because we can overlap the instrumental data
The point you and Laden miss is that they're still overlapping, but aren't working fine at all. Any idea why? They're supposed to be reliable thermometer proxies aren't they?
That's very interesting. Suddenly you think proxies are "reliable", having previously doubted them, you claim to see a "long term cooling trend" in data that finishes in 1855 (something one of your sources lied about) - thereby conveniently ignoring entirely the modern warming which is the whole sodding point, and you are blissfully unconcerned that these are regional proxies, and you are talking about global temperatures. And rather than bolster your argument with links to science, you choose to link to well-known nutter websites.
[Here's another clue: two regional proxies don't equal a global proxy]
Well, the thing is, there was a slow long-term cooling trend: the planet was on its way towards the next glaciation in a few tens of thousands of years. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have rather scuppered this. That is the point.
At least your latest "theory" means you disagree with the oft-repeated claim that it is getting warmer naturally because we are "emerging from an ice age". That's something, I suppose.
Those two proxies both show that the current warming trend is just the top part of an already existing warming trend and only a small part at that.
When the current trend reveses CO2 will not be powerful enought to stop it.
A long term trend for which you have no explanation. Whereas we do have for our rising trend.
Apart from the fact that it exists and pre dates warming since the start of the industrial revolution.
In fact the current warming is part of a pre existing warming trend which is approaching it's peak.
Apart from the fact that it exists and pre dates warming since the start of the industrial revolution.
In fact the current warming is part of a pre existing warming trend which is approaching it's peak.
Why would we need to find explanations for the things you have invented in your head?
I haven't made anything up.
We're talking about a pre-existing warming trend which started about 180 years ago and of which the current warming is a very small part.
“Our academics supported the pope’s initiative to influence next year’s crucial decisions,” Sorondo told Cafod, the Catholic development agency, at a meeting in London. “The idea is to convene a meeting with leaders of the main religions to make all people aware of the state of our climate and the tragedy of social exclusion.”
And lo, the meeting was convened, and the leaders of the main religions did flock to preach the gospel..
And as reported by our own Bishop, included St Naomi Oreskes, St Peter Wadhams, St Martin Rees, St Hans-Jochim Schellhuber, St Jeffrey Sachs and St Joseph Stiglitz.
And as reported by our own Bishop, included St Naomi Oreskes, St Peter Wadhams, St Martin Rees, St Hans-Jochim Schellhuber, St Jeffrey Sachs and St Joseph Stiglitz.
I haven't made anything up.
We're talking about a pre-existing warming trend which started about 180 years ago and of which the current warming is a very small part.
I'm vaguely remembering nlp wibbling about creationists being deniers..
I guess sets are another thing you don't understand. Not everyone who is religious is a creationist.
Creationists are deniers: they deny the science of evolution in favour of their faith-based alternative to science. Sometimes their denial of science extends to other areas. Roy Spencer, for example, is a creationist who denies both evolution and the very possibility that anthropogenic global warming could be harmful - because he thinks God wouldn't allow that to happen.
Comments
Firstly, that cycle was not made up it exists so the reason for it just needs to be discovered.
Secondly, the graph would look little different if it had more recent data as the graph for Norway demonstrates.
Methinks you are clutching at straws.
In the Nature Trick, thermometer data was famously spliced onto treemometer* data to create the desired Hockey Stick and cover up the divergence problem. In this case, simulated data has been used to claim ocean acidification when actual observations show that's not happening.
*one of nlp's heroes, Greg Laden came up with a novel explanation for the divergence problem and the way treemometers failed to work after the 80s..
http://climateaudit.org/2014/12/19/reply-to-laden-and-hughes-on-sheep-mountain/
If your thermometer breaks, you don’t use the data from it any more.
So somehow the treemometers 'broke' in the 80's, but apparently worked just fine prior..
It being apparent from the close agreement between tree rings and instrumental records for the overlapping period prior to that.
Why do you refuse to show us the "empirical data" which forms the bedrock for your own theory, which only you believe?
[Here's another clue: two regional proxies don't equal a global proxy]
Well, the thing is, there was a slow long-term cooling trend: the planet was on its way towards the next glaciation in a few tens of thousands of years. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have rather scuppered this. That is the point.
At least your latest "theory" means you disagree with the oft-repeated claim that it is getting warmer naturally because we are "emerging from an ice age". That's something, I suppose.
I don't know why serial-disinformers like Steve McIntyre claim to find the divergence problem so hard to understand. But then, people like him will go to any lengths to deny reality - as we saw with his truly hopeless (some might say fraudulent) attempts to discredit the Hockey Sticks, all those years ago.
I see... so a standard paper setting out estimates and assumptions for CO2 forcing is.. not relevant?
Why do you refuse to name your "right satellite?". And if you could show the CO2 data, or just read the Myhre paper(s) you may find clue to find the numbers.. which may then help you rebut my statement.
The point you and Laden miss is that they're still overlapping, but aren't working fine at all. Any idea why? They're supposed to be reliable thermometer proxies aren't they?
Those two proxies both show that the current warming trend is just the top part of an already existing warming trend and only a small part at that.
When the current trend reveses CO2 will not be powerful enought to stop it.
The fact that you cannot see that it is not relevant just underlines how little you understand any of the science you pontificate about.
That's just some more rubbish you have made up in your head, with no basis in science.
You can't fight long term trends NJ whilst I only have to wait.
A long term trend for which you have no explanation. Whereas we do have for our rising trend.
Apart from the fact that it exists and pre dates warming since the start of the industrial revolution.
In fact the current warming is part of a pre existing warming trend which is approaching it's peak.
Still no explanations, just hopes.
An existing warming trend which predates the current one must have a cause.
Or do you have an actual explanetion for it?
I haven't made anything up.
We're talking about a pre-existing warming trend which started about 180 years ago and of which the current warming is a very small part.
And lo, the meeting was convened, and the leaders of the main religions did flock to preach the gospel..
http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/extraseries/sustainable.html
And as reported by our own Bishop, included St Naomi Oreskes, St Peter Wadhams, St Martin Rees, St Hans-Jochim Schellhuber, St Jeffrey Sachs and St Joseph Stiglitz.
More here-
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/12/29/a-salvo-of-silliness.html
Funny how you only dislike God getting involved when he has science on his side:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
I'm vaguely remembering nlp wibbling about creationists being deniers..
Yes, but you've only got upset about God botherers getting involved in the argument when they have science on their side.
Creationists to tend to be denying Evolution.
Creationists are deniers: they deny the science of evolution in favour of their faith-based alternative to science. Sometimes their denial of science extends to other areas. Roy Spencer, for example, is a creationist who denies both evolution and the very possibility that anthropogenic global warming could be harmful - because he thinks God wouldn't allow that to happen.
Hope that helps.
I gave you two links using reliable source data from different locations.
You're in denial if you think you can fight long terrm trends.