Why did you snip my last post? Did I make a point or two you were uncomfortable with?

BR

Both correct.

“- 1940-1980 Up and down, but mostly down”

Incorrect.
The “down” was only ~1945 to 1951, thereafter the trend was short term up and down with a shallow upward long term trend.

Why?
1) A huge surge in industrial aerosol dimming during WWII and the post war boom in the absence of pollution controls, plus 2) fair correlation with solar variability.

“- 1980-2000 Up!”

Correct.
US Clean Air Act and similar legislation in Western Europe rapidly reduced aerosol dimming, plus a strong anticorrelation with solar variability, which flattened.

“- 2000-present day Flat to down”

Incorrect.
The long term trend continued up to peak in 2005, the 1998 El Nino influenced outlier not withstanding, with 2007 essentially a tie with 1998. Temps have been down slightly only the past 1-1.5 years due to 1) strong La Nina, 2) very quiet sun, 3) aerosol dimming from Asian Brown Cloud.

Why is it that those who expect a monotonic rise in CO2 to produce a monotonic rise in temperature also expect the cessation of all other factors and natural variability?

Apples? Oranges?

Projections…based on direct observations?
Observations: CO2 late 1800s to present day — up, up and up!
Whereas temp trend (plus or minus a few years):
- 1900-1910 Down
- 1910-1940 Up
- 1940-1980 Up and down, but mostly down
- 1980-2000 Up!
- 2000-present day Flat to down

Paleoclimate? I believe the record (and several posts above) reference times in the paleo-past when temperatures (and CO2, for that matter) were higher than present levels. Implication: Perhaps the current “anomaly” is not that anomalous.

Models? As I said, models are not proof — just projections based on data and assumptions. Assumptions are just that….however, well informed or peer reviewed.

And AR, IMHO, people who are driven by ideology cannot legitimately be called scientists. I’m sure you’d agree.

Kind regards,
BR

>All of the modeling being done right now is data driven. You reject the data because paid professional deniers tell you that the modeling is just playing with numbers. The modeling is data driven, and is way too conservative, in my opinion, but the modeling itself shows dire consequences by 2100.

Leland,

Modeling isn’t proof. It’s just modeling (data + assumptions = output). It’s possible to disagree with conclusions drawn from model outputs without rejecting the data.

And, remember, all the “deniers” (aka skeptics) aren’t paid and many acknowledge the “data”, they just disagree with some of the assumptions used in the modeling.

[JR: Way too much mixing of apples and oranges here I'm afraid. The projections of what will come from unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions are based on direct observations of what the emissions and warming to date have been, paleoclimate data, and modeling. The modeling is only one piece of this and frankly given the rate at which humans have been pouring in emissions into the atmosphere, the future impacts are now relatively insensitive to even large swings in assumptions about climate sensitivity. But a central point of this blog has been to clearly show that the climate is MORE sensitive to external forcings then the models have been assuming, which is why the climate has been changing faster than the models had predicted.

As I have previously blogged, I try to use the term denier for the professional disinformers. The people who have been suckered by their disinformation I try to use the term "delayer" for. Scientists are the professional skeptics here. People who are driven by ideology to reject science cannot legitimately be called skeptics.]

>What was the sea level then?

Probably not much different from today. See http://www.warbirdforum.com/bluielonghouse.jpg
for a photo of Eric’s (the Red) settlement in SW Greenland.

[JR: Who knew they had photos back then!!]

If the implication of the question was that sea levels must have been much higher than today because the glaciation was less, I think the photo disproves that. Foundations appear to be no more than 12-15 feet above today’s sea level. I don’t think the Vikings would have built their houses on the beach.

http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-inner-mounting-flame/

The video is short, but to the point and there are some other links as well.