I think the basic problem with climate science is in the assumption that climate is stable and you've pretty accurately described it here. To understand what the climate is, all we have to do is to wait long enough that the attractor has explored all of its phase space (in a statistical sense). What's recently becoming clear is the importance of the oceans. It started with the El Nino oscillation which lasts a few years. Now they're exploring the consequences of longer time period oscillations like the "Pacific Decadal Oscillation", "Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation" and "North Atlantic Oscillation" which have periods of about 50 years. Here's a recent Nature article: Ocean impact on decadal Atlantic climate variability revealed by sea-level observations McCarthy, Haigh, Mirschi, Grist & Smeed Nature 521, 508-510 (28 May 2015) ... In the past 90 years, the AMO has undergone three major transitions: warming in the mid-1990s and 1920s, and a cooling in the 1960s. ... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7553/full/nature14491.html The consequence of these oscillations is that some of the temperature rise seen in the 1990s is natural variation. The good news is that as each year goes by, we understand these better and better. Note that the above article has only been out for a few weeks. The bad news is that the alarmists are digging in their heels and ignoring the new science. They want to attribute *all* of the warming of the 1990s to CO2. The result is that their estimates for future warming are deeply biased to the high side. They are beginning to take these effects into account and the warming bias is slowly decreasing but their continued funding requires that they alarm the public so they have no motivation to share the good news. These long period oscillations imply that observations cannot distinguish the effect of CO2 and the effect of these oscillations until they are integrated out. What's going on is that the attractor has some very long memory built into it so it takes a very long time to fully explore its phase space. But even when you integrate over periods of a thousand years you still find massive cycles going on in the climate. For example: Reconstruction of Prehistoric Landfall Frequencies of Catastrophic Hurricanes in Northwestern Florida from Lake Sediment Records Liu & Fearn Quaternary Research, Volume 54, Issue 2, September 2000, pp 238-45 Sediment cores from Western Lake provide a 7000-yr record of coastal environmental changes and catastrophic hurricane landfalls along the Gulf Coast of the Florida Panhandle. Using Hurricane Opal as a modern analog, we infer that overwash sand layers occurring near the center of the lake were caused by catastrophic hurricanes of category 4 or 5 intensity. ... The most likely explanation of the abrupt stratigraphic change above 1.60 m is that there was a remarkable increase in hurricane frequency and intensity affecting the Florida Panhandle and the Gulf Coast after 3400 14 C yr B.P. as a result of a continental-scale shift in circulation patterns. Based on the chronology of eolian activity and sand dune deposition in the central United States, Forman et al. (1995) suggested that during the mid-Holocene thermal maximum (ca. 6000 14 C yr B.P.), the jet stream and the Bermuda High were situated to the north and northeast of their present positions, respectively. As a result of the anticyclonic flow around the southern and western flanks of the Bermuda High, moist air from the south Atlantic was pumped northward along the Atlantic coast of North America. However, by 3000 14 C yr B.P., Neoglacial cooling had caused the jet stream to shift south and the Bermuda High southwest from their ca. 6000 14 C yr B.P. positions, thereby pumping more moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean into the central plains of the United States (Forman et al., 1995). The more southwesterly position of the Bermuda High after 3000 14 C yr B.P. would also result in more hurricanes making landfall on the Gulf of Mexico coast instead of the Atlantic coast (Fig. 7). ... http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589400921665 Of course the above reads directly on claims of "climate change" or "climate variability". We don't know what the climate has changed in the past. As futurecurrents says, we don't even know what the temperature has been in the most recent 15 years. So of course we don't have a hope in hell of distinguishing the effect of CO2 from the natural variation in the climate. And when you integrate out the climate effects that last a thousand years or so you quickly run into longer cycles, that is, the ice ages themselves. This is the inherent difficulty in estimating the effect of CO2 in the absence of a working model of the ocean / atmospheric system. I expect that a working model of the ocean / atmospheric system will come together over the next 20 years and we will then know how much the CO2 is effecting the system. We will know when that model arrives because the model will be *extremely* useful to society in areas other than theoretical climate science. For example, farmers will plan their crops out a few years in advance. Right now, the alarmists are famous for making predictions that are random. The best argument the alarmists had was that recent changes in temperature are much faster than changes seen in the historic record but the geologists do not agree with this. Instead, the past has examples of much faster temperature changes than the mild rise seen in the last 50 or 150 years. In fact, most of the bad science done by the alarmists has been their attempts to deny temperature change in the past. It's a fact of life that when an idiot analyzes ancient temperature proxies they will use bad statistical analysis. And since bad statistics tends to destroy signals, the natural result of incompetent statistics is to deny ancient temperature changes. Bad statistics also creates false signals, but when you average a number of such false signals, again you will get no signal, not even a false one. Since those same incompetent statistics are never applied to the modern period where temperatures are measured by accurate thermometers, the natural result is "hockey-stick" graphs of temperatures. The handle has little temperature signal because incompetent statistics has eliminated any signal, while the blade is provided by modern temperatures which are not washed out. Hence the alarmists deny the existence of previous warm periods such as the Medieval Warm Period when England exported wine to France. From a social point of view, when an incompetent scientist comes up with a hockey stick graph, he's treated as a hero by the people who hate industry and want to believe that CO2 is dooming us. They promote his work without looking at it carefully. In psychology, this is known as the "confirmation bias". Then the skeptic community (with the opposite confirmation bias) tears him apart. The alarmists end up divided in either supporting the old crap or moving on to something new. Either way it's not very convincing to neutral observers. This was all exposed in their climategate emails. In private they admitted that Mann's hockey stick was bogus but they never admitted this to the public because; to do so was inconvenient for their continued funding (i.e. it might result in unnecessary disagreements with people who would rule on their obtaining grants in the future, or convince the government that there isn't a problem and the money would be better spent on human health or real pollution problems).
Yes, this is the essence of your science arguments. Pure ad hominen attack with no science content at all. You repeat this stuff over and over with little variation. It's like you never took a class on debate. I can imagine your kindergarten report card. "Futurecurrents has good verbal skills and is especially proficient at coming up with bad names for the other kids. But he needs work on his math skills. "
"CO2 emissions increased from 3.5 to 4 gigatonnes as the world warmed from 1910 to 1942, increased from 4 to 17 gigatonnes from 1942 to 1975 as the world cooled, increased from 17 to 26 gigatonnes as the world warmed from 1975 to 2002, and increased again to 37 gigatonnes since 2002 as the world cools over the past 13 years. It is obvious to me that with global temperatures both increasing and decreasing with increased CO2 emissions, these emissions have nothing to do with climatic change. So why is reducing CO2 emissions referred to as “climate policy” at the G7 summit?"
I expect his kindergarten teacher would also comment on his fabulous cut & paste ability. Along with his apparent propensity for sniffing glue.
Let's start with your first sentence. Perhaps if it's true we can delve further into the festering pile of bullshit. "I think the basic problem with climate science is in the assumption that climate is stable.... " Well, you make it so easy to simply ignore the rest of the shit you write. The very first statement is laughably wrong and shows that you either know nothing about climate science or just find lying so easy that you cannot help but do it. Either way, when the very first sentence is so absurdly wrong it is obviously a waste of time to go any further into your pile of manure. piezoe, why do you now have another forum name? I can tell it's you by the huge piles of vacuous bullshit that sound impressive but say nothing substantive. And again with the lies about the emails and the hockey stick. They never said the hockey stick was bogus and nothing bad was revealed by the "e mails". Again, I ask, are you working for an interested party like the Cato Institute? Then later, you just can't help yourself and must mention the email thing, because it such effective denier propaganda. "This was all exposed in their climategate emails. In private they admitted that Mann's hockey stick was bogus but they never admitted this to the public because;" (^total horseshit) The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker.[4][5] Several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change, an unknown individual or group breached CRU's server and copied thousands of emails and computer files to various locations on the Internet. The story was first broken by climate change critics on their blogs,[6] with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[7] Climate change critics and others denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy, in which they alleged that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[8][9] The accusations were rejected by the CRU, who said that the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.[10][11] The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December.[12] Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[13] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."[14] Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] Thescientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[17] *********************************
Temperature stations are being placed near air conditioner exhausts, next to asphalt roads, next to buildings, all in contravention of NOAA policy. NOAA's rules specifically state that temperature sensors should not be placed within 100 feet of buildings, concrete, or asphalt parking lots, and certainly not in the vicinity of any heat producing devices such as air conditioners or hot air vents. Here's a link that shows pics of where these sensors are actually being placed. http://www.bobbyshred.com/fools/falsetemps.html Dang! It's hot right next to this asphalt road! Global warming!
Are you trying to baffle with BS? The temp sensors are not in compliance with NOAA policy. Do you dispute that? Your charts are nothing but adjusted numbers. Why anyone would believe a chart you post anymore is beyond me.