Truth To Power wrote: There is not a single climate model that predicts high CO2 sensitivity and also accounts for the most important natural forcing: the increase in solar activity to a multi-millennium high over the ~150 years up to around 2000. Solar activity has weakened substantially in the most recent cycle, and some solar physicists are warning that we may be in for a return to Little Ice Age levels in the next few decades, which would result in disastrous if not catastrophic global cooling.
...
Nope. Flat wrong. Solar activity was at a sustained high for over a century up to 2000, and since it has slackened, temperature has obediently stopped rising -- despite continued exponential rise in CO2.
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:Maybe we should check with the International Astronomical Union:
You mean, to see if they have obediently changed the facts to suit AGW theory, the way NASA, NOAA, etc. all have...?
The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity.
So they have changed the facts to suit AGW theory. Shocker!
The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were made public on 7 August at a press briefing at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) XXIX General Assembly, currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawai`i, USA.
You mean, the climate "research" that consists mostly of altering past temperature readings downward and current ones upward to fit the AGW narrative...? That climate research?
The Maunder Minimum, between 1645 and 1715, when sunspots were scarce and the winters harsh, strongly suggests a link between solar activity and climate change.
What?? You mean, it's possible that the sun actually warms the earth?!? What a scandalous admission!! The Indisputably Correct Narrative states that only use of fossil fuels can warm the earth, and the sun is irrelevant.
Until now there was a general consensus that solar activity has been trending upwards over the past 300 years (since the end of the Maunder Minimum), peaking in the late 20th century — called the Modern Grand Maximum by some.
You mean, a general consensus among those unfortunates who had not received the memo explaining how to generate "data" that support the Indisputably Correct Narrative?
This trend has led some to conclude that the Sun has played a significant role in modern climate change.
The poor, naïve fools....
However, a discrepancy between two parallel series of sunspot number counts has been a contentious issue among scientists for some time.
And the answer: increase the number of sunspots observed centuries ago in BOTH series, to remove the pesky increase in solar activity that so inexcusably contradicted the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
The two methods of counting the sunspot number — the Wolf Sunspot Number and the Group Sunspot Number — indicated significantly different levels of solar activity before about 1885 and also around 1945. With these discrepancies now eliminated, there is no longer any substantial difference between the two historical records.
But there is now a very
big difference between the historical records that were actually recorded at the time and the amended "records," which agree with the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
The results, presented at the IAU XXIX General Assembly in Honolulu, Hawai`i yesterday, make it difficult to explain the observed changes in the climate that started in the 18th century and extended through the industrial revolution to the 20th century as being significantly influenced by natural solar trends.
Which is precisely what those "results" were created to do.
The sunspot number is the only direct record of the evolution of the solar cycle over multiple centuries.
Which is why it had to be altered to fit the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number.
The "error" being that the empirically observed facts contradicted the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
Now that this error has been corrected, solar activity appears to have remained relatively stable since the 1700s.
As the facts have been suitably amended to fit the Indisputably Correct Narrative.
http://astronomynow.com/2015/08/08/corrected-sunspot-history-suggests-climate-change-not-due-to-natural-solar-trends/
These sleazeballs are a disgrace to science.
February breaks global temperature records by 'shocking' amount
Climate change is usually assessed over years and decades, and 2015 shattered the record set in 2014 for the hottest year seen, in data stretching back to 1850. The UK Met Office also expects 2016 to set a new record, meaning the global temperature record will have been broken for three years in a row.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ing-amount
Once the temperature records of earlier years had been suitably decreased and the current ones increased, that is.
As for sea level rise, it began long before CO2 could possibly have been a significant factor, and has not noticeably accelerated.
We present the first, to our knowledge, estimate of global sea-level (GSL) change over the last ∼3,000 years that is based upon statistical synthesis
Oooooh, a statistical "synthesis," was it? I wonder how
that was designed to turn out...
of a global database of regional sea-level reconstructions. GSL varied by ∼±8 cm over the pre-Industrial Common Era, with a notable decline over 1000–1400 CE coinciding with ∼0.2 °C of global cooling. The 20th century rise was extremely likely faster than during any of the 27 previous centuries.
Except the 9th C, when the Netherlands, which had been dry land in Roman times, was inundated by the ocean....
Semiempirical modeling
"Semiempirical"...? Sounds like a glass half-empty, to me...
indicates that, without global warming, GSL in the 20th century very likely would have risen by between −3 cm and +7 cm, rather than the ∼14 cm observed.
You mean, without the global warming caused by the multi-millennium high in solar activity which has now been made not to have happened....?
Semiempirical 21st century projections largely reconcile differences between Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections and semiempirical models.
http://www.pnas.org/content/113/11/E1434.abstract
Yes, well, the differences between empirical observations and the Indisputably Correct Narrative have to be reconciled with the fact that the latter is Indisputably Correct, so the former have to be altered. No surprises there.
It's your ability to be so completely wrong that is truly impressive.
I want you to remember this when it is proved, and universally acknowledged, that I am completely right. And I want you to be aware that there will never be anything you can do to expiate the disgrace of having participated in and supported the grotesque scientific malfeasance of AGW theory.