BornFromTheVoid

Indeed, I have, and you know that. Only your example of it is not happening. The oceans are accumulating heat, not releasing it. Perhaps I'm just well below your own mental faculties, but the rest point 1 makes no sense to me. Climate is quite variable on long time scales, and regionally, on short time-scales. That is of course, barring some cataclysmic event. Your insistence that people who accept the science behind climate change, believing in these idealised fantasy scenarios is false. The reference period is just that, a reference period upon which to gauge change. Turning into a largely semantic argument is needless. I never said anything about her being worthless. But just keep making up false accusations, it seems to work well for you, and you keep getting away with it. Or because it's little more than straw clutching by a few and largely insignificant, just as the faster than projected warming from 1992 to 2006 was insignificant.The models are not used for short term variability.

EDIT: I'm looking at the August data!

While JC presents one point of view, I think the other couple of hundred or so scientists involved in the latest IPCC report's views are more worthwhile. They are, at least, peer reviewed and not an opinion blog.

No it isn't. There is a clear belief that it used to better in 'the good old days' My contention is that 'the good old days' never existed with reference to climate and by extension, the environment, regardless that it might be a romantic and attractive notion. Maybe there is by some people, but it's not my view, and it's irrelevant to this discussion,

Update for the week to September 28th The current 1 day extent is 5,510,230km2, while the 5 day mean is on 5,419,716km2 The daily anomaly (compared to 79-11) is at -1,192,420km2, a decrease from -1,196,880km2 last week. The anomaly compared to the 07, 11 and 12 average has increased from +1,077,843km2 to +1,174,673km2 this week. We're currently 7th lowest on record, compared to 6th lowest last week. The average daily increase over the last 7 days was +42.6k/day, compared to the long term average of +41.9k/day, and the average of the last 5 years of +44.4k/day. The average long term increase over the next week is +83.4k/day, with the average of the last 5 years being +70.5k/day. The loss so far this September is the 18th lowest/highest on record, at -155,170km2. To record the largest September loss on record, an average of -174.0k/day is needed for the remainder of the month.

Fine, more informed decisions (which are likely to to result in "better" decisions, imo, than less informed one). Your second paragraph is nothing but inflammatory nonsense.

SI, I'm guessing by "convicted" you mean acquitted, yeh? Simple mistake... But I'm sure that matters more than the deaths, illnesses,environmental destruction, costly wars, etc, resulting from fossil fuel use... Scientists are not deciding policy, only providing information in order to inform policy, so I don't agree with it being a case of one or the other. Science doesn't claim what's right and wrong. In predictions, it lays out the evidence and methodology and predicts what may happen. It then will state, based on the evidence once more, what needs to be done to avert certain scenarios. It's the people that make their judgements after that. What is right and wrong, what's is or isn't of benefit to humanity, what's worth acting on and what's not worth acting on, is all going to be interpreted differently, based on the persons inherent values, level of knowledge and ability for critical analysis. That's where I see the problem at least. Climate science, to me, provides additional data to help make better decisions for our future, as any good science should. Nowadays we have organisations and individuals paid to espouse an anti-scientific/pseudo-scientific viewpoint in order to maintain the status quo, and thus the wealth and power of certain industries. This has resulted in certain scientists having to speak out and engage in the public in order to both defend themselves and to try and clear up some of the disinformation that now continually rains down. I don't think that necessarily impacts on the scientific evidence regarding climate change. These scientists and the odd scientist/campaigner, when conducting research, still have to go through the same conditions, the same standards, the same peer review as anyone else. While not perfect, this helps to largely filter out the bias of the individual. It's the result of the research that is the scientific contribution to policy makers, not individual opinions.

He's qualified and his research mattered enough to him that he tries to do something about it. Very, very different to Monkton

Yep, trust the government members to think ahead. Short term political gains takes precedence over scientific and economic evidence as always, with nothing more than a made up story as its basis. Perhaps if the money spent on invading foreign countries for their oil and mineral deposits was spent on renewables we'd already be over the cost of transition to a green economy. The more CO2 we emit (taking into account that we don't consider the climate cost or the pollution from our fossil fuel extraction and use when pricing fossil fuels) the more costly it will be for society in general. It will be the ordinary person on the street paying for the adaptation and health costs. But at least their electricity bill will be a few pounds cheaper.

From slightly below -0.2 to slightly above 0.2C.... but that doesn't matter. Governments aren't being convinced to spend trillions based on that. There is vastly more data, which you're aware of. It's an investment in the future, in clean energy, energy security and mitigation of serious impacts. Trillions more will be spent on adaptation measures if BAU is the way forward, and we'll still have the pollution issues and associated environmental and health effects of continued fossil fuels use. Ah c'mon now, few posts, on a regional forum, from an individual member, about no more sub 3C CETs, is completely irrelevant to this!

Proxies have their issues of course, different ones for each type use. Have they been getting lots of flack recently though? From where? I'm not sure I get your second point, sorry. Replicating solar activity within the graph? Do you mean that the solar activity of the last 100 years was unlikely to continue so high into the future? Yep, there is a lot of noise in the data, but the trend line shows an increase of about 0.45C during the time. Why would I expect anyone to be alarmist at anything? The 6.4C rise (extremely unlikely) would be compared to pre-industrial times, not the average used on the UAH graph.

The temperature data includes the effects of ENSO and whatnot. Proxies have error ranges, which are included in any reconstructions which use them (or at least should be included!) What's up with the zoom images on your posts?

Nothing is being ignored, which is an intrinsic part of cherry picking. All the temperature data we have adds to the weight of evidence. The last 30 years is just one small part of that, a trivial little point that makes up the mountains of evidence. For example, if you use the UAH data, you can find period of no significant warming up to 1998, and a period of no significant warming from 1998 to present, and claim, voila, there has been no warming at all! Or you could look at the whole data set You could also cherry pick to show a faster warming trend Looking at all the available data can in no way be considered cherry picking. Focusing on short term fluctuations in a noisy data set is just cherry picking! You can only find a pause by looking at the short time spans in a noisy dataset, which says nothing about the overall trend. CO2 is not dominant over short time spans, the noise from natural variation is. Climate projections have never claimed to be able to predict short term variability, ever. Things like volcanic eruptions, ENSO, solar activity etc, cannot be predicted, but over longer time periods, their effect largely balance out The planet is still accumulating warmth, we still have a large energy imbalance and we know that CO2 is the cause, from multiple lines of evidence. It isn't simply a correlation between the current warming and temperature, there is so much more to it! There so much more to CO2 induced warming than 30 years of data, I really don't know why you believe that to be the case!?

The past temperature oscillations associated with the ice age were investigated. The Milankovitch cycles were found to be the instigators, the feedbacks (CO2 being a very important one) drove the large ups and downs. The planet was on a gradual cooling trend from the last interglacial, the Holocene Climate Optimum about 8,000 years ago, until the turn of the 20th century when it shot up. The past glacial temperature data only adds to the certainty that our warming is unique, and that feedback mechanisms appear to be mainly positive (which drive the glacial/interglacial cycles.) Picking 1998 is clear cherry picking. It's purposely looking for a time period that shows a trend which fits a pre-convieved idea, whilst ignoring the rest of the data.Why the focus is on the current temperature, is due to it's relevance to current society. The glacial/interglacial cycles, and previous climates before that have all been analysed, by many of the same scientists studying the current and projected climates. It's not ignored in the slightest. You can find many period without substantial warming over the last 100 years, because it is such a noisy data set. They are only significant when the rest is ignored. Our view of the Earth's climate is improving all the time, and as it does so, we can incorporate more and more data into our understanding. Oceanic heat content is one of the more recent ones. Those that believe in AGW, as you say, (so almost every climate related scientists) are taking into account as much data as they can in order to understand what's going on. To leave out the ocean data would be wrong, just as it would be wrong to leave out the cryosphere, the stratosphere, solar, or anything else.

When you have a data set that shows a significant amount of noise, such as surface temperature, the start and end of of a trend can have a huge influence on the outcome. Picking 1998 (large el Nino) and continuing along through a number of years with several la Nina events is clearly going to produce a lower rate of warming than some other start point. Picking the 15 years up to 2006 produces a faster rate of warming than was predicted. Neither are representative of the long term trend, just the noise. The slow down (temps are still climbing on all but one of the global temperature datasets) in warming has been largely explained. Extra heat has entered the oceans (increased La Nina events), solar activity has declined and volcanic aerosols have all contributed, all the while the planet continues to gather heat and the radiative forcing from our CO2 emissions continues to grow, resulting in an increasing energy surplus, more coming in than going out. Studies have been carried out on the impact on a grand solar minimum during the next century, it's effect would be quite small and easily over-ridden by anthropogenic warming. Cherry picking a short time period to show that warming isn't happening as expected, is like picking a few weeks in October when there was a warming trend and claiming is disproves the theory of seasons. (EDIT: Not that that's what you're trying to do, but many have!)

It's currently -ve (August was -1.04) despite the north Pacific in general being close to record warmth. What those charts show is a shift toward the more classic -ve PDO pattern with the reverse "C" of cold anomalies around the N. Pacific coasts. Over recent months we've seen much warmer than average central N. Pacific and slightly warmer than average reverse "C", which, while not a classic -ve PDO pattern, still counts.

Nobody has dismissed their influence on climate variability, but the long term trends are something different. Can you produce some evidence that they have influenced the long term warming trend?

There are lots of ways to work out how greenhouse gasses influence our climate, such as measuring the reduction in energy leaving the Earth and attributing to the specific wavelengths being absorbed and re-emitted back by CO2 and other GHGs. Yes, solar (in the early part of the century at least) has influenced the temperature trend and ENSO has impacts of the decadal and interdecadal variability (like the higher than average rate of warming in the 15 years up to 2006), but as ENSO has no long term trend it cannot contribute to long term climate warming. For solar data There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to theincrease in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on directsatellite measurements of total solar irradiance. There is medium confidence that the 11-yearcycle of solar variability influences decadal climate fluctuations in some regions. No robustassociation between changes in cosmic rays and cloudiness has been identified

With regard to the slow down in warming since 1998, from section D.1: The observed reduction in surface warming trend over the period 1998–2012 as compared tothe period 1951–2012, is due in roughly equal measure to a reduced trend in radiative forcingand a cooling contribution from internal variability, which includes a possible redistribution ofheat within the ocean (medium confidence). The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarilydue to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle.However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing incausing the reduced warming trend. There is medium confidence that internal decadalvariability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and thesimulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. Theremay also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models, an overestimate ofthe response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by theeffects of aerosols). {9.4, Box 9.2, 10.3, Box 10.2, 11.3} EDIT: And for clouds, from section D.2:The net radiative feedback due to all cloud types combined is likelypositive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud feedback is due primarily tocontinuing uncertainty in the impact of warming on low clouds

The 06z GFS has October starting off very mild, first 4 days averaging about 15.3C.

[sarcasm]I see the IPCC has failed to acknowledge that CO2 is just a trace gas and therefor can have no effect on the climate. We can dismiss the rest of their eco-babble...[/sarcasm]

Summary for policy makers. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observedchanges are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations ofgreenhouse gases have increased Regarding the MWPContinental-scale surface temperature reconstructions show, with high confidence, multidecadalperiods during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (year 950 to 1250) that were in someregions as warm as in the late 20th century. These regional warm periods did not occur ascoherently across regions as the warming in the late 20th century I'm off to the gym soon, shall get my teeth stuck into this one later!

The Arctic always warms quicker than elsewhere. For his first comment about CO2, it's wrong.http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Observing/obs_3.php There was a large increase in solar activity around the time too, which may have contributed to a large part of the warming. The mid century pause doesn't look like 0.3C/decade to me, and I didn't see any evidence for that claim. The entire cooling for that period was about 0.1C, and was largely due to sulphate aerosol pollution. More here I'll pm you the rest of the stuff this evening, rather than derail this thread any more

The error range is shown on the graph. Something like that without an error range should be cause for concern! The author of that comment uses a common line of climate "sceptic" reasoning by claiming that CO2 cannot cause warming because is defies the 1st law of thermodynamics, which is complete and utter nonsense and renders the rest of his argument void! Anyway, he refers to a paper he published in E & E, which is Energy and Environment, which is faux climate related journal, known for publishing anti-AGW work, some of which has been really poor stuff. From here Boehmer-Christiansen “tries to give people who do not have a platform a platform,†says Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center (Germany). “This is then attractive for skeptic papers. They know they can come through and that interested people make sure the paper enters the political realm.†From here The journal’s editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull, in England, says she sometimes publishes scientific papers challenging the view that global warming is a problem, because that position is often stifled in other outlets. “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,†she says. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?†That guys argument is nonsense!

Yep, the change from recent years is rather impressive, but as to the impacts on winter weather, tis a tough one. This may be of interest Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years Relating the sea ice extent to weather backs 100s of years ago is a whole different kettle of fish though!