[IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers]

Yep it is an exercise in curve fitting like the IPCC climate models. However, in this case, it happens to show that phenomena other than CO2 can explain the warming. It is sufficient to refute the IPCC claim that the warming cannot be explained without the effect of CO2 even if it is not sufficient to prove that it is the correct explaination.

All it shows is that Spencer can get the graph he wants by using bad data, you know GIGO.

[IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers]

Try here for Spencer.

A quick read of this paper and I find some problems.

Fig. 1. Projected warming (assumed here to occur by 2100) from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from the IPCC climate models versus from various observational indicators.

8 years of observations??

In effect, I asked the model to show me what combinations of those model parameters yielded a temperature history approximately like that seen during 1900-2000. And here’s an average of all of the simulations that came close to the observed temperature record:

Weren't you the person complaining about curve fitting in a previous post?

Fig. 4. A simple energy balance model driven by cloud changes associated with the PDO can explain most of the major features of global-average temperature fluctuations during the 20th Century. The best model fits had assumed ocean mixing depths around 800 meters, and feedback parameters of around 3 Watts per square meter per degree C.

"ocean mixing depths around 800 meters"??

Mixed-layer: definition.

the mixed-layer is the layer between the ocean surface and a depth usually ranging between 25 and 200m

source

Sorry. Dr. Spencer is not on my "credible" list.

[IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers]

I simply assumed that anyone familiar with the topic would be aware of it since there is a lot of support for literature. Here is one paper.

Anomolies factor out the seasonal cycle and make it easier to compare Dec temps to July temps. However, the earth's energy balance is a function of the absolute temperature - not anomalies. It is the energy balance that determines how much warming we experience. The fact that the models cannot agree on the where we are now does not give us much confidence in their predictions of where we are going.

Try here for Spencer.

You would have to read Svalgaard's comments at Climate Audit to see what he thinks when he is not writing diplomatic scientific prose.

Thanks for the links. I'll return once I've read them.

[IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers]

The IPCC argument is that there is 'no other explanation' but CO2 for the warming. They make this claim despite the fact that they cannot reproduce the 70 year quasi-periodic ESNO signal in GMST without resorting fudge factors with aerosols. That is not science. That is speculation. The fact is ocean currents transport a lot of energy around the globe and the take centuries to do it. We don't have the data that would allow us to determine what scale of heat transfer is going on. That said, ocean currents are just one potential internal source of energy that is being ignored. Clouds are another. Roy Spencer has developed a simple model that shows that random changes in cloud cover can persist for decades and can cause climate to change without any external forcing.

Help me out here. What "70 year quasi-periodic ESNO signal"?

You can download the data and graph it yourself from the climate model from the climate explorer.

The graph is correct. And Gavin from RC has acknowledged that the climate models do produce different GMSTs, however, he thinks it is not important. I disagree because the climate modellers claim that the models actually represent the physics of climate. This cannot possibly be true if they cannot agree on the current temperature of the earth.

Ignoring my obvious question, let me ask you if you know why anomalies, rather than actual temperature are used?

Svalgaard is much less tentative in statements he makes in other forums. He has stated explicitly that his reconstruction has been accepted by the solar science community and that is sufficient to cast a lot of doubt on any climate models that require older reconstruction to reproduce past temperatures.

OK. You mention Spencer with no link to his paper. You mention comment by Svalgaard with no links to his comments. You mention a 70 year cycle with nothing I can review. It would help this discussion if you posted something for me to read instead of having to guess what you're referencing.

[IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers]

The oceans have been rising for the last 10,000 years and will continue to rise no matter what humans do. We also have no data on deep ocean heat content so we have no way to know if heat sequested in the deep ocean is heating the ocean surface as well as the air.

You still need a cause and evidence for the sudden release of heat from the ocean. Without a way to check and confirm, your conjecture is nothing but speculation. And once again, speculation is not science.

Some do but not the models used to make predictions for the future which are the only models we care about because those are the models being used to justify major government policies. Perhaps the best illustration of why we cannot trust the models can be found in this graph.

That graph shows the absolute temperature of the earth produced by the models instead of using differences from some baseline. You can see that the IPCC models think the real earth temperature is anything from 13degC to 16degC - an error that is larger than the amount of future warming predicted by the IPCC. This large range of error also illustrates that the climate models do not model the physics of climate correctly. If they did they would be able to agree on what the current earth temperature is.

I tracked down your last image, but I'm not going to track down every claim you link to. I'm too familiar with blogs making incorrect statements to accept everything that is stated. If you have a IPCC source for the linked graph, I need to see it before I respond. Otherwise, I'll just view your link as another unreferenced blog with no credibility.

One paper is more than enough to overturn mainstream thinking. In this case, the Svalgaard position is more or less accepted as the best representation of reality among solar scientists. The only people clinging to old reconstructions are climate scientist on both sides of the debate who need a large solar effect to justify their positions.

How can you state that this paper is enough to overturn mainstream thinking when Svalgaard himself writes:

But to be proactive y'all might at least contemplate what your stance about climate change would be, should I turn out to be correct that solar activity right now is no different from what it was 100-160 years ago.

mine bold

[IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers]

The ocean is constantly moving water and heat around the globe. Sometimes it absorbs heat from the atmosphere. Other times it releases heat. The quasi-periodic El Nino/La Nina phenomena is a short term example of this process, however, the climate models used for the IPCC projections do not reproduce this phenomena. That fact alone is enough to demonstrate that the models do not model the real climate and therefore cannot be considered to be evidence of the effect of CO2.

What evidence do you have that the ocean has been releasing it's heat since the 1970s? Oceans have been warming as evidenced by the rising sea levels.

Incorrect. IPCC models do indeed simulate aspects of ENSO.

• Progress in the simulation of important modes of climate

variability has increased the overall confidence in the models’ representation of important climate processes.

As a result of steady progress, some AOGCMs can now simulate important aspects of the El Niño-Southern

Oscillation (ENSO). Simulation of the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO) remains unsatisfactory.

WG1 ch 4

The IPCC models are based on out of date solar reconstructions. The most recent reconstructions show that there was no change in solar forcing over that period which means it cannot be used to explain the warming (see http://www.leif.org/research/TSI-LEIF.pdf). GHGs forcing were also too small to explain the rise. The lack of volcanos is also not a compelling explaination since we have had no major volcanos for 17 years yet temperatures are stable for the last 10 years.

But the claim was that IPCC had no cause for the early 20th century cooling, not that the IPCC was wrong. One paper is not enough to overturn mainstream thinking. Even Svalgaard admits more research is needed. So looks like you and I agree. IPCC did have a cause for early 20th century cooling.

[IPCC Report 2007 - Summary for Policy Makers]

I was invited to join this forum by a member and have been following this discussion. I'm with wyly and waldo here, a "warmist". No one has addressed this post so I'll give it a shot.

The 'cause' can be internal to the system. i.e. oceans can release heat that was sequestered thousands of years ago causing the air to warm. From our perspective such changes would have no identifiable cause because we cannot measure the net exchange of energy between the oceans and air.

If you disagree then please explain the 'cause' of the warming from 1910 to 1940. You will find that there is no known cause. It just 'happened' according to the IPCC.

Heat just doesn't suddenly decide it needs to be released. You still need a reason for the heat to released. So unless you have a cause for your sudden release of heat, your have nothing but speculation and speculation is not science.

IPCC suggests that the warming of the early 20th century was due to solar forcing and GHGs.

Although natural internal climate processes, such as El Niño, can cause variations in global mean temperature for relatively short periods, analysis indicates that a large portion is due to external factors. Brief periods of global cooling have followed major volcanic eruptions, such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. In the early part of the 20th century, global average temperature rose, during which time greenhouse gas concentrations started to rise, solar output was probably increasing and there was little volcanic activity. During the 1950s and 1960s, average global temperatures levelled off, as increases in aerosols from fossil fuels and other sources cooled the planet. The eruption of Mt. Agung in 1963 also put large quantities of reflective dust into the upper atmosphere. The rapid warming observed since the 1970s has occurred in a period when the increase in greenhouse gases has dominated over all other factors.

mine

Understanding and Attributing Climate Change IPCC

I get my climate info from peer-reviewed papers found with Google scholar, RealClimate, Skepticalscience, Science Daily, NOAA, GISS, etc for the "pro-AGW" information and Wattsupwiththat, climate audit and Daily Tech for the "anti-AGW" information.