Sorry, no. And that is precisely the point. There are far too many factors in WARMING involved to draw any such conclusion. That CO2 causes some fraction of increase in heat deposition to the planet is obviously incontrovertible physics, but whether that increased heating will result in actual temperature increases is totally unknown.
So doesn't that heat have to go somewhere?
It's impossible to reproduce 20th century temperatures (modeling, of course) with only natural forcings. By natural, that means volcanic and aerosols. Only with anthropogenic forcings (including SO2 aerosols, besides greenhouse gases) can realistic results be obtained. If you take out CO2, then some other mystery factor with similar radiative forcing power has to be substituted. I've been down this road before... there isn't any other realistic factor. It's fruitless to continue discussion on this point with people that think there is. (Same goes for glacial-interglacial cycles, which is why I really want to do this in depth on my future blog.)
This quote says you don't know ANYTHING about science. ALL science is about making predictions, special relativity no less than atmospheric physics. ... And right now, the evidence is that the solar physicists are doing a better job of predicting what climate will do than the AGW climatologists.
I know about science and predictions. Part of climate science is forecasting future climate states. Relativistic physics does not do "forecasts". (If I'm wrong, enlighten me. Is it forecasting an oncoming gravity wave tsunami?) Now, solar physics is different, and they are trying their skill with forecasting. I guess we'll see how that works out over the next few years and cycles.
The physicist's models have predicted cooling. Cooling is currently happening. The climatologists have predicted warming, and warming is NOT happening.
Are you quoting from Lean and Rind 2009?
World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns
"The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El Niño events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases."
As solar activity picks up again in the coming years, the research suggests, temperatures will shoot up at 150% of the rate predicted by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Lean and Rind's research also sheds light on the extreme average temperature in 1998. The paper confirms that the temperature spike that year was caused primarily by a very strong El Niño episode. A future episode could be expected to create a spike of equivalent magnitude on top of an even higher baseline, thus shattering the 1998 record."
Checking... ahh, Judith Lean is a noted solar physicist. David Rind is a climate modeler at GISS. I'm comfortable with these predictions. (Actually, I think they're very troubling, but I'm comfortable with the accuracy of their predictions.) BTW, Rind shows up in the Climategate emails. He comes across as critical, and no friend of the "Team". Don't take my word for it, check for yourself.
Also this summary article:
Climate science, from Bali to Copenhagen
Note the stuff about Latif, about halfway down. More about the Sun, from Lockwood, after that.
Sorry, but my interpretation/understanding of the archeological and historical record says that it was warmer then than at present.
Feel free to think so. I'll go with the NAS on this one.
Would you mind, just for my own understanding, lay out precisely what your academic background is in science.
It's in my profile. I didn't have the necessary mathematical acumen for a Ph.D. in chemistry; I couldn't handle physical chemistry math. I was trying for analytical chem. I dabbled in geochemistry to see if I could hack it there, but ultimately decided the pursuit of science (primarily in an academic setting) wasn't in the cards. If you think that my understanding of the subject of climate change is therefore inconsequential, that's fine. I'm not aggrieved by that.
That there was warming up until recently is correct. That for the last few years the warming has stopped, is also correct.
Well, that will make what happens next year pretty interesting, won't it? It's all up to El Nino. The ensemble mean of models is that El Nino will last into Northern Hemisphere summer 2010. If that happens, 2010 will set a new all-time global temperature record. (Big IF, of course.)
(The El Nino conditions in the Pacific just officially became an El Nino episode. I'll make a tiny little prediction here: if the following 12-month period could be compared to any other 12-month period in the instrumental record: May 2009 - April 2010: I predict that this period will be the warmest 12-month period ever recorded. I wonder if anyone in the climate science community will try that analysis in May 2010.)
Why would I comment on something with no link to the methodology. I have no way of knowing how those specific numbers have been derived, and given the proven propensity for warming non-scientists for "cooking the books", the graph is worth precisely nothing.
"So doesn't that heat have to go somewhere?"
Sure, but there are MANY other factors involved. Not all feedbacks are positive. One may cause increased heating, one increased cooling. The delta T is the result of all this.
It's impossible to reproduce 20th century temperatures (modeling, of course) with only natural forcings. By natural, that means volcanic and aerosols. Only with anthropogenic forcings (including SO2 aerosols, besides greenhouse gases) can realistic results be obtained. If you take out CO2, then some other mystery factor with similar radiative forcing power has to be substituted. I've been down this road before... there isn't any other realistic factor. It's fruitless to continue discussion on this point with people that think there is. (Same goes for glacial-interglacial cycles, which is why I really want to do this in depth on my future blog.)"
Sorry, but the existing models are simply inadequate. They do not include the effect of water vapor, for which even the direction of the feedback is not known. And even your own "Team" admits (clandestinely) that their models have failed to predict current cooling. You don't believe THEIR OWN analysis???
"I know about science and predictions. Part of climate science is forecasting future climate states. Relativistic physics does not do "forecasts". (If I'm wrong, enlighten me. Is it forecasting an oncoming gravity wave tsunami?) Now, solar physics is different, and they are trying their skill with forecasting. I guess we'll see how that works out over the next few years and cycles."
Which again just proves that your knowledge of science is inadequate. Look up "theory of relativity" and "global positioning system" and then come back and tell me that "relativistic physics does not do "forecasts"".
"Are you quoting from Lean and Rind 2009?"
No.
"World will warm faster than predicted in next five years, study warns"
And other solar physicists have made different predictions.
"It's in my profile. I didn't have the necessary mathematical acumen for a Ph.D. in chemistry; I couldn't handle physical chemistry math. I was trying for analytical chem. I dabbled in geochemistry to see if I could hack it there, but ultimately decided the pursuit of science (primarily in an academic setting) wasn't in the cards. If you think that my understanding of the subject of climate change is therefore inconsequential, that's fine. I'm not aggrieved by that."
Yup, that's pretty much my opinion. Answer just ONE chemistry question---what is the Beer-Lambert law, and how does it affect global warming??
"Well, that will make what happens next year pretty interesting, won't it? It's all up to El Nino. The ensemble mean of models is that El Nino will last into Northern Hemisphere summer 2010. If that happens, 2010 will set a new all-time global temperature record. (Big IF, of course.)
"(The El Nino conditions in the Pacific just officially became an El Nino episode. I'll make a tiny little prediction here: if the following 12-month period could be compared to any other 12-month period in the instrumental record: May 2009 - April 2010: I predict that this period will be the warmest 12-month period ever recorded. I wonder if anyone in the climate science community will try that analysis in May 2010.)"
I'll wait for the data.