(IPCC models fail yet again.)

Hmm. Has stabilized. Which means … has not been declining.

======================

No, re-read it.

The critical part, has stabilized at higher levels. That means it has increased and is now tracking sideways

Err, um, wrong: Sun’s Activity Increased in Past Century, Study Confirms. It took me all of 10 seconds to find this article at Space.com.

Money quote:
. By analyzing the amount of titanium 44, a radioactive isotope, the team found a significant increase in the Sun’s radioactive output during the 20th century.

Over the past few decades, however, they found the solar activity has stabilized at this higher-than-historic level.

Hmm. Has stabilized. Which means … has not been declining.

They try to argue that since the increase leveled in the last few decades, this can’t be the source for the measured increase in temperature at the same time. I think there could be arguments made both ways, which is fine.

But that’s really besides the point. You, Hunter, are a shitbag. You are completely incapable of discerning the truth. You are lost in a self-referential quantum loop of brain farts, which you have mistaken for deep thoughts. In the meantime, you stink up the joint, and make life generally unpleasant for the rest of us.

Go crawl back under your bridge and play with your tickle-me-elmo doll. Leave the hard thinking to the adults.

“There is no way he or anyone else knows this”

You are appallingly ignorant; you should not assume that everyone else is. It is rather easy to estimate internal variability and put clear limits on it.”

Obviously it is possible write computer code to constrain “internal variabiity” or “natural variations” using any arbitrary value chosen by the programmer. It also possible to “estimate” “internal variability” or “natural variations” by running a computer climate model with and without “estimated” anthropogenic forcing. That is the method described in the IPCC. This method provides an “estimate”, not an empirical measurement. If you have a better idea, please explain.
Or course, this method provides an accurate “estimate” only to the extent the climate model accurately models “natural and anthropogenic forcing, along with their feedbacks. That is the point in contention. There is little reason to believe that climate models can do this, given the unknowns openly acknowledged in the IPCC. If you disagree, please explain.
I am a skeptic, but I am open to persuasion.

RE: internal variability: Certainly you can demonstrate just how easy it is to us feebs?

RE: PDO and temps and your assertion of no correlation:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

Oceans warming?
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-Nasa

Antarctic not warming:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html

I am getting bored with how stupid you are, but I do find you are right about one thing:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Fools like you do seem to believe the earth is flat.

When does clown college start back up? I am sure you have a natural like you could do well there. Best wishes,

That would only be relevant if you have evidence that he was claiming real temperature were below actual because natural effects were temporarily raising temperatures. 1998 el Nino being an example

Nick

“There is no way he or anyone else knows this”

You are appallingly ignorant; you should not assume that everyone else is. It is rather easy to estimate internal variability and put clear limits on it.

“Over the last 40 years, or at least over the portion from 1975-1995 when we saw most of the temperature increase, the sun was at its most active this century, as measured by sunspot numbers”

Wrong. All indices of solar activity have been declining since 1980 or earlier.

“The PDO, which has close links to temperature, was in its warm cycle”

There is no correlation on decadal time scales between the PDO index and global temperatures.

“We likely were continuing to see long-term cyclical recovery from the little ice age”

Warming does not cause itself. There is no concept of “recovery” in climate science.

“And anthropogenic land use changes were increasing both urban and rural temperatures”

The oceans are warming. The Arctic is warming. The Antarctic peninsula is warming.

“world temperatures increased from 1910 to 1940 by 0.2C per decade, in a period almost certainly only minimally influenced by CO2″

It’s trivial to estimate the effect of CO2 over this period. The influence was definitely not minimal. If you understand what a greenhouse effect is, you can understand why this is.

“So natural effects can cause warming in the 1930’s but not in the 1980’s because, why?”

Natural effects, obviously, can cause warming whenever they occur. If they don’t occur, there is no natural warming. If, for example, solar activity declines, or if several large volcanoes erupt.

“I am positive that Hansen would argue that natural effects are currently (and temporarily) canceling out some of the warming”

Why would he do that, when 1999-2008 has been 0.2°C warmer than 1989-1998?

“the world has stopped warming over the last decade”

And the world is flat.

“My answer seems at least as plausible as Gavin’s.”

Now that is pretty funny. Your answer is that of a retard who doesn’t understand physics. To believe that it is plausible, you’d have to be spectacularly incapable.

“we may just still be recovering from a period that could well have been the coldest period in the last 5000 years”

And still you believe that warming causes itself.

I predict that you will fail to respond to any of these points. You are clearly incapable of arguing your case.

Interestingly, I posted at Real Climate the following question regarding Lindzen recent column in the WSJ and received the following response from Gavin

56. The article [by Lindzen] makes the following statement:

“So how do models with high sensitivity manage to simulate the currently small response to a forcing that is almost as large as a doubling of CO2? Jeff Kiehl notes in a 2007 article from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the models use another quantity that the IPCC lists as poorly known (namely aerosols) to arbitrarily cancel as much greenhouse warming as needed to match the data, with each model choosing a different degree of cancellation according to the sensitivity of that model.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

I wonder if one of the modelers here could comment on this assertion?

[Response: There is uncertainty in both climate sensitivity and the degree of aerosol forcing (see figure 2.20). No model simulation can 'prove' that it has exactly the right sensitivity and aerosol forcing, but each of the simulations that match the 20th Century trends are plausible estimates of what might have happened. Projections going forward are obviously going to be a little different depending on that balance, but that is a real part of the uncertainty in those projections and shouldn't be swept under the rug. - gavin]