Replies

The forcing mechanisms of previous cycles are known…

Apparently, you failed to read the sampling of the quotes I posted in the previous message. Let reiterate the relevant snippets for you:

the subject of ongoing debate

still unclear

our knowledge of global climate trends is severely limited

Even if all these processes were fully understood conceptually, which isn't the case [emphasis added] …

Quite obviously, as these are direct quotes from the sources you referenced, it should be exceptionally evident that the forcing mechanisms are not known, but merely speculated. Regardless of how soundly such speculation seems to be arrived at, it remains speculation. As speculation, even scientific speculation, it is properly in the realm of scholarly debate, careful experimentation and meticulous observation. However, it is not properly in the realm of policy making that could induce severely adverse economic and humanitarian consequences.

Bottom line: No natural mechanism can be identified that is sufficient to cause the currently observed warming. The only forcing that is sufficient is anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

Bottom line: No natural mechanism has been identified for the origin of global warming. The only “forcing” that is sufficient is a deity (using analogous reasoning to yours).

Continuing to use similar reasoning to yours that we “must take action” on the “forcing” mechanisms:

All agnostics and atheists should be forced to convert or die as they create a real risk of angering the “forcing” deity and bringing destruction upon all of us.

Paleoclimatologists use the data that is available to determine the forcings operating in past climate states. If you have a problem with how that is done, your argument is not with me, because all I can do is describe how such research is conducted.

I have no argument with paleo-climatologists (nor you, personally) and their postulated sets of conditions for speculations on how paleo climates varied. Where I have a huge difference is when these paleo-climatologists try to foist their speculations on others as fact. Fortunately, few, if any of these individuals, do so.

Unfortunately, there are those who try in their stead to “force” acceptance of these speculations as fact. Worse, yet, these purveyors of innuendo, through disingenuous tactics, and even outright lies, try to create a false sense of imminently impending disaster to force the public and their elected representatives to accept, or perpetrate, potentially unwise and possibly calamitous actions.

The GHCN has sufficient quality-controlled data to examine 20th century trends. If you're going to argue about data quality, it's a non-starter, because the analysis of current trends and future changes is not critically connected to the 20th century record.

Perhaps, you did not see the quote from your own reference. Please allow me to restate it for you:

The well known plots of global temperature trends from the 1850 to the present should really be thought of as basically just representing the U.S. and Europe prior to 1900, perhaps even up to 1930 or 1940

Even if all these processes were fully understood conceptually, which isn't the case …

Sorry, missing 30 to 40 percent of the data is not sufficiently quality controlled.

For one thing, the trend of main concern is the warming since the 1970s -- and there is sufficient global data of high quality to determine that trend is happening.

Do you, or your paleo-climatologists have sufficient data to show that such a rapid rise has not occurred in one or more of the past cycles? As one of your referenced articles points out, the best “resolution” prior to the last half-century is in 300-year increments. Consequently, the answer to my posed question is a resounding no. Therefore, your rationale is akin to finding a warm meteorite fragment and concluding that the earth is imminent danger of a cataclysmic meteor strike of the variety postulated to have wiped out the dinosaurs.

Because there are no other apparent forcings of note operating during this period other than greenhouse gas forcing (and that's largely anthropogenic in nature), the attribution of the current warming trend to anthropogenic GHG forcing is well-supported.

Again, allow me to again quote from a source to which you referred earlier on this thread:

our knowledge of global climate trends is severely limited

Perhaps, you did not see the quote from your own reference. Please allow me to restate it for you:

The well known plots of global temperature trends from the 1850 to the present should really be thought of as basically just representing the U.S. and Europe prior to 1900, perhaps even up to 1930 or 1940

Even if all these processes were fully understood conceptually, which isn't the case [emphasis added] …

Specious argument. [referring to standard statistical analysis] The past range of values is not the primary way in which the current "diagnosic" of anthropogenic GHG forcing is made.

Your assertion of speciousness, notwithstanding, it would seem that you, or those upon whom you rely, are mathematically uninformed. The statistical criticism of anthropogenic forcing as the primary source global warming is valid.

After my short comment indicating that further discussion is pointless, I then checked on one quote from my references, specifically the GHCN reference. Turns out that the reference you quoted is from this:

The Colonial Era Archive Data Project

which contains the quote you provided. It was not from the link I provided, so you must have searched for it. Did you even read the whole thing, or only chuckle triumphantly when you read the introduction? Because you should have read further (and I will note that my reference was from 1997; they've done a lot more since then).

Here's what we read further down:

"As of July 1995, we have digitized data from approximately 200 stations in Africa. The average period of record is 40 years. The data start in the late 1800s and end with independence from the European colonial power. We have located almost all relevant publications in the major meteorological libraries of the world, and we have commenced digitizing of data from Asia and South America."

So they have been adding data to cover the period of record from other continents for almost a decade.

Now let's read this from the link I provided:

"Despite the problems we encountered with various source data sets and individual time series, we repeatedly see evidence, in both the digital archive and in old documents such as the 1894 Deutsche Ueberseeische Meteorologische Beobachtungen in Deutsch-Ost-Afrika (Peterson and Griffiths, 1996), that weather observations were generally made very meticulously. There are 4.7 million station months of temperature data in GHCN starting in 1701 and continuing to the present."

So I don't see that your argument against statistical validity is well-supported - and plus, you didn't argue fairly, as I had to find the Web page with the quote you provided. Most of your other points don't have anything to do with science, and I'm not interested in diatribes about politicians or the media hyping global warming. That adds too much noise to the discussion. Furthermore, scientists never state anything with absolute certainty, and skeptics always make a great deal about the expressions of uncertainty, when most of the time the scientists are a lot more certain than the way they sound. What you term "speculation" is usually much, much, much more an expression of well-defined knowledge with only some ambiguity remaining to be investigated.

Do you, or your paleo-climatologists have sufficient data to show that such a rapid rise has not occurred in one or more of the past cycles?

From the Eemian to the present, yes. As an example, the end of the Younger Dryas, which was a very rapid warming when the normal mode of oceanic circulation was reestablished, is known to have occurred in a period of decades or less.

The Younger Dryas

The deeper the layers are recovered from an ice core, the more the layers are compressed, but since here the actual data is subannually resolved for an event occurring about 11,000 years ago, it is possible to resolve decadal-scale events going back significantly further than that. Surprised?

Further info:

High-resolution record of Northern Hemisphere climate extending into the last interglacial period

The caption indicates 50 or 10 year resolution, 10 years for the oxygen isotopes which are the standard temperature proxy.