ALL the factors stopped simultaneously? wow ! and the massive heatsink of the ocean stopped exchanging energy with the atmosphere? and the cosmic ray interaction that affects water vapor greatly also stopped all variability ? All on the same day in 1950? you folks should listen to yourselves sometimes.
I see, when you can't deal with real facts, you resort to strawman arguments and ridicule. For the natural trend to end, as you should well know if you have the degrees that you claim to have, all that is required for natural warming to end is for the sum of natural forces to be reduced to zero or less. The oceans continue to act as heat sinks, but I hope you realize that the oceans are finite as is their capacity to absorb heat, and cosmic ray interactions not only have no measurable effect on the climate, if they did, they would likely be cooling it..
ROFL ! That must be the 'peer reviewed' source you are talking about, right?
No, that's the blog of an actual practising climate scientist, and he links to his data sources while explaining pretty precisely why everything you've written about the balloon data is pants-on-fire wrong.
You don't understand the Scientific Method at all, do you? a single counter-observation is enough to invalidate any theory. Einstein and Feynmann have famous quotes on this. But wait, the psychologist John Cook and his 'skeptical science' (which is all-too credulous of eco-lunacy) outranks Einstein and Feynmann in understand the Scientific Method, right?
I understand it quite well, but I'm not sure you understand the difference between finding a counter-observation and claiming you've found one.
Ok, now you are out and out lying. Of course you know the scaremongering used by the alarmists to extort Trillions of dollars from poor citizens to give to rich citizens in green boondoggles. The scaremongering which is increasing energy poverty and will condemn Billions in the Third World to poverty and even death (since you aim to make energy more expensive based on your anti-scientific Cult of Global Warming).
"Green boondoggles" whether or not they actually exist, have nothing to do with me or the statements I am making here. Appeals to consequences are fallacious arguments, so whether or not "trillions of dollars" are being extorted from "poor citizens" has nothing to do with whether or not climate science is correct.
You think you are the good guy of the story, but you are the villain who clings to failed predictions and twists and turns with your cherry picking because you cannot explain why the World does not warm at the rate your failed computer simulations predicted. But you will refuse to follow the Scientific Method and acknowledge the fundamental flaws in the feedback calculations that are the crux of CAGW theory.
Contrary to your claims, the models are reasonably accurate. I am following the scientific method, you have just failed to provide any data that actually contradicts any of the theories that you claim are false. Every argument you have provided has already been examined and debunked hundreds, if not thousands of times already.
You are one of the inquisitors condemning Gallileo for pointing out the observations don't match your eco-religious viewpoint - and you think shouting louder will make your failed predictions come true. This is anti-scientific and fanatical on your part.
Wait, are you Gallileo now? When did I start shouting? How tenuous is your grip on reality?
When I supply you with quotes of UN people saying they are only using Global Warming as a cover for their Collectivist political ambitions you simply dismiss the evidence you don't like. That makes you fanatical because you will not objectively examine any counter-evidence to your current ideological position.
Unsourced quotes from random people aren't exactly what I would call scientific evidence. Maybe things operate different in your area of physics? Can I disprove string theory by point out that Lubo Motl is an asshole?
Like the Wordpress article ? Could you show me where in the Scientific Method 'peer review' is required ? it isn't. But you are so bad at science you don't know this.
Wait a minute, you claim to be a practising physicist and you don't understand what peer review is? Peer review isn't required in the scientific method, peer review is one of the means used to make sure you actually followed the scientific method and didn't make any large, stupid, errors before publishing your results. Peer review is for improving the quality of the published literature.
The ONLY thing that determines reality in the Scientific Method are the observations - and the observations show that the predictions of the IPCC (which they continually revise down since they systematically get it wrong) are on the very fringe of their uncertainly distribution.
I've already shown this statement to false, the most recent IPCC predictions for equilibrium climate sensitivity are the same as the first IPCC predictions.
That is, observed reality has somewhere near a 5% chance of occurring from random error based on your models. Anyone who understands the meaning of such uncertainty distributions understands that the IPCC's CAGW hypothesis is WRONG - and the damage you eco-loons are doing to human progress is thus wrong, and quite frankly, deeply immoral. You are the bag guys who are condemning billions of brown people to death - all so you can virtue signal your 'green' credentials to you peers. That is absolutely disgusting behavior.
I'm sorry, but now you're just becoming incoherent, are you drunk posting?
How about you do this to get a clue:
1) Take one dataset, such as the RSS 6 data used to generate this http://woodfortrees.org/plot/u... [woodfortrees.org]
2) Remove El Nino (since they are not man-made, unless somehow you think they are ?)
3) Plot against the IPCC prediction curve using their most-likely TCS.
4) What is the statistical significance of the observed value versus the ensemble of IPCC predictions ?
5) Repeat for UAH
6) Repeat for the weather ballon data
7) Repeat for well-sited surface stations, after removing those contaminated by UHI and all the estimate data (which is nearly 50% these days), then correct for the lapse rate (since we're talking about the LTT).
Ok, James S. Risbey seems to have done that.
In all cases the IPCC models *grossly* overestimate the warming because they don't model the complexities of water vapor correctly and water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas - and the principal determinant of the TCS. Hence, the alarmists predict way to much warming, at too great a rate. CAGW, which is the position of the IPCC (and yourself), is falsified.
Interestingly enough, he got the opposite result from what you claim.
You are aware that AGW/CAGW is not really about CO2, right? it is about **water vapor** - but 'clouds' don't sound scary enough for the taxpayer shakedown the unelected anti-democratic United Nations control freaks have planned.
You are aware that this water vapour thing is a red herring right? The atmosphere is saturated with water vapour it's the change in CO2 (and other green house gases) that drive climate change. Water vapour concentration is determined by temperature, so it's a feedback that amplifies other green house gases. If you produce 1 degree of warming from CO2 you get another degree of warming from water vapour according to NASA's AIRS.
ps. The Arctic summer ice level is increasing (in fact, this September was the fastest growth rate on record), the Antarctic ice is near record levels (despite the melting from new discovered under-sheet volcanoes) and the polar bear numbers are at record high levels and INCREASING. All the predictions of the eco-loons have not only not happened, but the OPPOSITE has happened. Yet you will continue to deny reality, because environmentalism is a pseudo-religious cult and not about applying the actual Scientific Method.
Here's a graph from the National Snow & Ice Data Center, 2016 is higher than 2012, but is well below the 1981-2010 average, in fact it's the 5th lowest on record, and Polar Bears International says polar bears numbers are not actually increasing. Once again, every fact you have cited appears to be wrong.