And again, you don't care that this is a lie. Again with the bogus data sets. Where are the other temp data sets?
(1) You call your opponents stupid in pretty much every post. So by your logic, you're losing the debate. Since Monday, here are some quotes from you: "You and I both know that they are deluded, probably religious (so they are used to intentionally ignoring science), Fox News watching, WSJ reading, card carrying, ignorant, right wingers. IOW Republicans." "Yes. Thank you for confirming that you are a COMPLETE fucking idiot." "You must be the biggest, most ignorant asshole on ET. And that is saying something." "You did not understand anything I said did you? You have no interest in the facts do you?" "Oh my fucking god, how many times to I have to tell you denier idiots that this chart is a lie." "What IS shown by your saying that is that you are indeed deluded. How's the grass over there on the right? Where do YOU get your climate science? Fox News? WSJ ? Forbes ? lol" (2) I'm replying to a post where you claimed expertise (of course without providing any proof of anything, LOL): "I know more about the science than you have even dreamed about knowing." If you want to claim expertise, you have to accept that your expertise will be subject to debate. That's not an ad hom attack. It's an undeniable fact that there were hundreds of climate papers written and published in peer reviewed journals about the pause. You claim that there was actually no problem with the models. So if we did assume you were right about this (you're not), the unavoidable conclusion is that climate scientists wrote hundreds of pointless papers and published them in the peer reviewed literature. The sad fact is that you cannot rewrite climate science without simultaneously demonstrating that climate science is incompetent. And the implication of incompetence is that climate science cannot be trusted. Your insights on the fascinating relationship between trading and climate science are surely unique and valuable. Why don't you write it up and get it published at Nature Climate Change? (You can follow the climate science technique and recommend your nutcase friends as "pal" reviewers.) I'm sure the academic universe will be interested. Maybe you'll get a Nobel Prize. And when you do get it published, we can discuss it because it will be in the peer reviewed literature. But until you do get your crackpot ideas published, I feel myself under no obligation to respond to them, LOL.
No, all the models and temp data agree. ALL of them. Temps will be and are going up. Pretty fast. 100%. Just like the consensus among publishing climatologists.
And you still don't get. Even if we accept that there is a pause in new yearly highs after the strong El Nino year of 98, the fact that the models did not predict that in no way makes the models invalid or wrong or climate science "incompetent" (whatever that means). They were not expected to have that resolution and the temps are within their probability bands. The "pause" would have extend for fifty years before we could call the models wrong. Do I need to post the models vs temps again that show the temps are well within range? You seem to be confused by propaganda, as per fhl's bogus chart above. You never show any science or charts. Why is that? How about something from NOAA or NASA for a change? Too much real science for you?
Past temperatures are important because they tell us how much natural variation exists in the climate. And the reason the last 7000 years are of particular interest is that the modern times happen to have the strongest solar activity (and therefore the weakest cosmic rays) for thousands of years. Cosmic rays create charged particles in the atmosphere and effect the formation of clouds. Clouds have huge effects on weather and climate. So if solar acitivity (also called space weather) effects earth's climate, the modern period should show this strongly. Here's a graph from a recent peer reviewed article on solar activity over the last 9000 years. The point is that the present is the time of the weakest cosmic ray intensity ever. So if there is any relation between cosmic ray intensity and climate, knowing the climate of the past, as well as the cosmic ray intensity of the past can help explain the climate of the present (and the climate of the future). I've annotated the graph to show how the present is at the lowest part of the graphs: 9,400 years of cosmic radiation and solar activity from ice cores and tree rings Steinhilber, Abreu, Beer, Brunner, Christi, Fischer, Heikkila, Kubic, Mann, McCracken, Miller, Miyahara, Oerter and Wilhelms Affiliations: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science, Laboratory of Ion Beam Physics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Climate and Environmental Physics at University of Bern, Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization, Institute for Physical Science and Technology at University of Maryland, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, and Institute for Cosmic Ray Research at University of Tokyo Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America April 17, 2012, Volume 109, Issue 6, 5967-5971. Abstract: ... The newly derived records have the potential to improve our understanding of the solar dynamics and to quantify the solar influence on climate. http://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967.full This graph of solar activity (from the same link) shows that solar activity of the last 9000 years is similar to the climate over that period, as measured in a Chinese cave. Uh, note that the graph is shown upside down so that it matches ups and downs with the cosmic ray intensity graph shown above: The above concept, (that the sun effects the climate, LOL) is being explored by geologists. Here are some more articles on the subject: Persistent link between solar activity and Greenland climate during the Last Glacial Maximum Adophi, Muscheler, Svensson, Aldahan, Possnert, Beer, Sjolte, Bjorck, Matthes and Theiblemont Nature Geoscience 7, 662-666 (2014) We conclude that the mechanism behind solar forcing of regional climate change may have been similar under both modern and Last Glacial Maximum climate conditions. ... The Sun is the main energy source for the Earth’s climate system. Satellite observations indicate variations in total solar irradiance (TSI) of about 1 W m−2 associated with the solar 11 yr cycle1. Despite these small changes in forcing there is compelling evidence for a solar influence on climate arising from palaeoclimate studies (see ref. 1 and references therein). One proposed mechanism to amplify the Sun’s influence on climate involves the relatively large modulation of the solar ultraviolet output, which alters the radiative balance in the stratosphere through ozone feedback processes and eventually propagates downwards causing changes in the tropospheric circulation1. Palaeoclimate studies allow an assessment of solar forcing of climate under various past orbital configurations and mean climate states, and thus may provide valuable insight into climate sensitivity to and mechanisms of solar forcing. ... http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/full/ngeo2225.html Late Holocene Sedimentary Response to Solar and Cosmic Ray Activity Influenced Climate Variability in the NE Pacific Patterson, Prokoph and Chang, Sedimentary Geology, Volume 172, Issues 1-2, pages 67-84, November 2004. Marine-laminated sediments along the NE Pacific coast (Effingham inlet, Vancouver Island) provide an archive of climate variability at annual to millennial scales. ... ... 6. Conclusions Solar activity appears to have a major influence on regional and global climate as is recorded in the sedimentation patterns and diatom abundance data from Effingham Inlet, British Columbia. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0037073804002507 http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond et al 2001.pdf Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene Bond, Kromer, Beer, Muscheler, Evans, Showers, Hoffmann, Lotti-Bond, Hajdas and Bonani Surface winds and surface hydrography in the subpolar North Atlantic appear to have been influenced by variations in solar output throughout the Holocene. Science, December 7, 2001, 294, 5549 ... The results of this study demonstrate that Earth's climate system is highly sensitive to extremely weak perturbations in the Sun's energy output, not just on decadal scales that have been investigated previously, but also on centennial to millenial time scales documented here. ... Our findings support the presumption that solar variability will continue to influence climate in the future, which up to now has been based on extrapolation of evidence from the last 1000 years. ... http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/seminars/spring2006/Mar1/Bond et al 2001.pdf Changes in solar activity and Holocene climate shifts derived from 14C wiggle-matched dated peat deposits Mauquoy, Geel, Blaauw, Speranza and Pilcht The Holocene, January 2004, Vol 14, No 1, 42-52 ... The 14C wiggle-matched peat sequences which form the subject of this review have served to precisely date palaeoclimatic change during the Bronze Age/Iron Age transition and the 'Little Ice Age'. They have revealed a correspondence between these changes in climate and changes in solar activity as recorded by variations in Delta 14C. ... http://hol.sagepub.com/content/14/1/45.refs The problem is that rising temperatures naturally increase the CO2 in the air because warm temperatures imply warm ocean water and warm water dissolves less CO2. So the historic graphs do not show causation, just correlation. The period of accurate temperature records, 1850 to 2000 corresponds to one of increasing temperatures and increasing CO2 so you cannot extract phase information from it. To get phase information you need to go through at least 180 degrees of a cycle and better to see a few full cycles. (Of course I ended the "period of accurate temperature records" at 2000 because you claim that the temperature records after that were inaccurate, LOL.)
Yup. CO2 is the greenhouse gas that largely controls the temperature of the planet and we have raised it's level by 40% so we are seeing the temps rapidly rise. I'm pretty sure that is what you are getting at with this post. Good job.
The hoaxers said that 350ppm was the maximum sustainable for a living planet. We zipped right on through that barrier and we're all still alive and the temperature isn't even going up. If one of the con men tells you it's going up, ask them if it was going up before they adjusted the data.