Peer reviewed AGW “science” is meaningless.

Temperatures are not increasing? What makes you think that? Which data set shows this, and over what timescale?

Yes, we do see the evidence of positive feedbacks in the real world. Northern polar regions are warming far more rapidly than anywhere else, due to one particular feedback. Ice ages could not occur without positive feedback, and they could not end without it either.

It looks very much like you are taking a position which is not based on the evidence. Simple numbers show that CO2 forcing dominates. I do not see you showing how any other forcing is currently comparable to CO2 forcing, or arguing that my numbers were wrong, I just see you vaguely stating some misconceptions which find no support at all in the peer-reviewed literature.

When the modelers finally begin to realize they have been doing their calculations based upon humbuggered data, it will be time for the fat lady to sing.

The effect of oscillations averages out to zero, by definition. You cannot explain the secular upward trend in temperatures by recourse to these oscillations. The current rise in temperatures of about 0.2°C per decade is exactly in line with expectations given the rising concentrations of CO2 and the smaller effect of all the other forcings.

Which factors do you believe are more important than CO2?

Take the base CO2 concentration as 283.4ppm. One equation for calculating forcing is ΔF = 5.35ln(C/C0) where C0 is the reference concentration. In 1915, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 301.4ppm. In 1947 it was 310.2ppm. The forcings are then.. well, do you want to do the calculations?

What you can then go on to calculate is the expected climate response, if these CO2 forcings were the only forcings operating, and if the climate system was given enough time to reach equilibrium. The climate sensitivity is generally estimated at about 0.75°C/W/m². What you should find is that the temperature changes are not huge. Other effects are comparable. The solar constant increased by about 0.8 W/m² between 1920 and 1945, giving a forcing of 0.14W/m². You can calculate the forcing due to the change in CO2 concentrations over the same timescale. Is it larger or smaller? What would the expected climate response be from solar forcing in isolation?

Now, do you think that CO2 concentrations are the only factor in determining global temperatures, or do you think that anyone in climate science thinks this? It appears that you must, from your statement that the CO2 forcing did not result in warming during the 30-year period after 1947. I suggest you look up a TSI reconstruction so you can estimate the solar forcing over this period, compare that with the CO2 forcing, and also consider the effect of volcanoes and anthropogenic aerosols over that period. How much do you think temperatures should have changed by? How much did they actually change by?

“Too busy to look it up this morning, but what did the CO2 forcing delta look like around 1915 when the increasing temperature trend started? – being an overt disbeliever when you haven’t done basic research is foolish.”

I respond: Characterizing someone’s actions as foolish is not productive – let’s be civil in our discussions. And you still did not answer my question.

“I would expect the delta in 1915 was a lot less than +0.6 W/m2 – why would you expect that when you haven’t done any research? You are wrong. Do you know what logarithmic curves look like?”

I respond: Then please tell me the correct answer. If I am wrong, I will admit it.

“(a value that did not cause increased temperatures in 1947) – replace did not cause with contributed to and your statement is correct.”

I respond: Some revised language to better convey my point: “(a value that did not result in warming during the 30-year period after 1947)”

Isn’t there a conflict of interest when the AGW promoters create the models, select the data, and then interpret the data, And then tell the world how their science shows severe AGW? – no, I don’t think there is a conflict of interest when scientists do science.

Too busy to look it up this morning, but what did the CO2 forcing delta look like around 1915 when the increasing temperature trend started? – being an overt disbeliever when you haven’t done basic research is foolish.

I would expect the delta in 1915 was a lot less than +0.6 W/m2 – why would you expect that when you haven’t done any research? You are wrong. Do you know what logarithmic curves look like?

(a value that did not cause increased temperatures in 1947) – replace did not cause with contributed to and your statement is correct.

And it looks like high temperatures in the 30s and late 90s is when the PDO and the AMO coincide. – why, then, were 1990s temperatures about 0.5°C higher than 1930s temperatures?

General note to all: if you think the Heartland Institute or the Register are reliable places from which to inform yourself about science, you’re a fool.

OK, I’ll bite Scientist. So please show us how it is built into their models??

Oh yeah, they didn’t do any model runs predicting the current PDO temp stagnation or cooling until AFTER the PDO went NEGATIVE!!

Scientist, does that include the AMO that may be going negative also??

In a couple years are they going to include the lower solar output we are currently experiencing??

Hey, I bet you could model the earth’s climate for us too, IN HINDSIGHT!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA