I will not argue that “warming” has not occurred. As a skeppetic, I’m telling you that you haven’t done enough to convince me of your position. Shame on you if you feel the need to slap a label such as “Denier” on me or anyone like me. It’s up to the people involved in the scientific endeavors to improve their methods of collecting data, better and transparent methodologies, free from even a perceived bias to convince me. I’m not stupid, and am entirely capable of learning new concepts.

I understand politics very well, am very familiar with UN operations and vision and that the IPCC is extremely political in it’s mandate. From an outsiders perspective – when people who decried the the rise in CO2 emissions, linked it to temperature , who then promptly got lost in the politics that overshadow and call in to question everything about what you are doing. Divorce yourself from activism, get back to science and it will sort itself out.

2. The two largest oceans, Pacific and Atlantic which cover half the globe ( http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ocean ), are in fairly synchronous. They differ by about 5 to 10 years. The PDO has switched to its cool phase and the AMO is expected to do so soon.

3. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_Explosivity_Index page shows that the 1980, 1982, and 1991 eruptions were only category 5, so they did not have as much of a cooling effect. Between 1883 and 1912 there were 3 VEI/category 6 with the next one was in 1991. The most recent category 7 was in 1815. The VEI scale is not linear but logarithmic.

4. If you are looking for a resource for the 0.15, it is quoted on the http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html site. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation site says “[t]he level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional — the last period of similar magnitude occurred over 8,000 years ago.” I will not quibble over the 70 year value. That page also quotes Sami Solanki saying 60 years. Others (Leif) have mentioned that this increased solar activity fell back down to ‘normal’ about 10 years ago. Perhaps that is where the 70 comes from. The fact that the oceans affect global temperature was published in Nature this spring.

You could have also said, “We agree on that” for number 6 as well.

Did I miss anything? If so, ask away.

John M Reynolds

1. There is no logic in your statement at all. Nothing requires that the end of the little ice age be attributed to natural causes. Essentially you are saying ‘it ended, therefore it was natural’, which doesn’t make sense.

2. Do you suppose that all the oceanic cycles oscillate in synchrony?

3. The eruptions of El Chichon and Pinatubo have occurred within the last thirty years. Two such eruptions is rather typical in any given thirty year period.

4. Please provide links to the data which supports these claims.

5. We agree on that.

6. That just emphasises how irrelevant orbital changes are when attributing climate change over the past century.

If a comment in a blog makes you believe something that decades of science contradicts, then I think we can presume that you are not seeking scientific answers, but only looking for articles which seem to confirm you preconceived views.

Patrick,
1. Emergence from LIA means that the warming was and continues to be natural. How could it not have been natural? If it is not natural anymore, then you would have to identify which forcing stopped. Until the alarmists can come up with a testable hypothesis, perhaps we should start ignoring them. They are kowtowing to a political consensus just like those who could not be convinced that the world was round.

2. About oscillations, one of the main cycles we need to be concerned with now, when it comes to short term climate, are the oceans’ cycles. They have a period close to 60 years. To define climate as 30 years is illogical. The noise from the ocean cycles cannot be filtered out of the temperature signal if the time period considered is less than the ocean cycle period. Climate must be defined as at least 60 if not 120 years.

3. Volcanoes only induce cooling when their eruptions are explosive enough to send the plume into the stratosphere. There have been few huge eruptions in the past 30 years.

4. Warming since 1985 is not a climate trend. That is just climate noise. We were warming in the 1990s because the oceans were in their warm phase. The increased solar output for the 60 years from around 1940 to around 2000 correlates fairly well with the last oceanic cycle. The Sun has been calculated to have caused 0.15C of warming. Oddly enough, that is about the amount that the background warming increased as compared to the previous oceanic cycle period.

5. Land use changes account for some of the glacial anecdotal evidence. That is about it.

6. The Milankovitch cycles are actually tens of thousands of years.

It appears that CO2 does not drive temperature:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/25/nas-reports-50-million-year-cooling-trend/#comment-43047

John M Reynolds

Until sceptics can come up with a testable alternative hypothesis, that hasn’t been shown to be wrong before, perhaps we should start ignoring them. Just as we ignore people who think the earth is flat, or 6000 years old.

This is so wrong it’s staggering. One by one:

1. ‘emergence from LIA’ cannot explain rising temperatures because it is defined by rising temperatures. Your statement is like saying spring can be explained by the emergence from winter.
2. Oscillations, by definition, cannot explain rising trends.
3. Volcanoes induce cooling. Global temperatures are not dropping.
4. All indices of solar activity have been steady or declining since 1985. Temperatures continued to rise.
5. Land use changes cannot account for the warming of the oceans and the cooling of the stratosphere.
6. ’tilts, orbits and so forth’ change on timescales of thousands of years, and are completely irrelevant when considering climate variations over 100 years.