CO2 is a non player in the global climate picture as past historical data has shown.

CO2 and the GHG effects are a result of the climate not the cause in my opinion.

I maintain these 5 factors cause the climate to change and they are:

Initial State Of The Climate – How close climate is to threshold inter-glacial/glacial conditions

Milankovitch Cycles – Consisting of tilt , precession , and eccentricity of orbit. Low tilt, aphelion occurring in N.H. summer favorable for cooling.

Earth Magnetic Field Strength – which will moderate or enhance solar variability effects through the modulation of cosmic rays.

Solar Variability – which will effect the climate through primary changes and secondary effects. My logic here is if something that drives something (the sun drives the climate) changes it has to effect the item it drives.

Some secondary/primary solar effects are ozone distribution and concentration changes which effects the atmospheric circulation and perhaps translates to more cloud/snow cover- higher albebo.

Galactic Cosmic Ray concentration changes translates to cloud cover variance thus albedo changes.

Volcanic Activity – which would put more SO2 in the stratosphere causing a warming of the stratosphere but cooling of the earth surface due to increase scattering and reflection of incoming sunlight.

Solar Irradiance Changes-Visible /Long wave UV light changes which will effect ocean warming/cooling.
Ocean/Land Arrangements which over time are always different. Today favorable for cooling in my opinion.

How long (duration) and degree of magnitude change of these items combined with the GIVEN state of the climate and how they all phase (come together) will result in what kind of climate outcome, comes about from the given changes in these items. Never quite the same and non linear with possible thresholds.. Hence the best that can be forecasted for climatic change is only in a broad general sense.

In that regard in broad terms my climatic forecast going forward is for global temperatures to trend down in a jig-saw pattern while the atmospheric circulation remains

Reply

THE CRITERIA

Solar Flux avg. sub 90

Solar Wind avg. sub 350 km/sec

AP index avg. sub 5.0

Cosmic ray counts north of 6500 counts per minute

Total Solar Irradiance off .15% or more

EUV light average 0-105 nm sub 100 units (or off 100% or more) and longer UV light emissions around 300 nm off by several percent.

IMF around 4.0 nt or lower.

The above solar parameter averages following several years of sub solar activity in general which commenced in year 2005..

IF , these average solar parameters are the rule going forward for the remainder of this decade expect global average temperatures to fall by -.5C, with the largest global temperature declines occurring over the high latitudes of N.H. land areas.

The decline in temperatures should begin to take place within six months after the ending of the maximum of solar cycle 24.

Ya, fear of an uncertain future, especially regarding nature and climate, has been with us since before we were humans. The earliest religions practiced nature worship as if sacrificing a bull would lead to a successful harvest.

It would be amusing that the pro-science crowd does not have the self awareness to notice how they mimic primitive religion but they actually do recognize it, nurture it, and seek to exploit these religious beliefs in order to enrich themselves and gain political power over other humans.

Ben K, practical man built a roof over his head and a fire place to beat back the climate, the idol worshipers that wanted to control the weather found that it would be easier to control civilization, because after all it was control of people they always wanted.

It seems as long as the liberals control the media and the message, they win, if they institute the changes they want and it gets colder, they won, if it gets warmer, they won, hence the need to fast track their agenda.

The new religion is global warming and all heretics will be dealt with according to the level of their offense. Those with facts will be dealt with the harshest.

Nicely put.

I would suggest that the “theory” is more of a hypothesis, since it is failing the reality test. Theories require that they be tested against observation, as Richard Feynman says (reference: http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/the-evening-pause/richard-feynman-explains-the-scientific-method/).
“If it disagrees with experiment it [the hypothesis, guess, or model] is wrong.”

Thus, since the global warming models disagree with observation (the experiment or reality), they are wrong. They are not theories, as they are wrong. If we could find where they fail to predict reality, then we can fix them, prove them, and use them for future policy decisions, but today they are faulty and are insufficient for policy decisions.

As for “The Great Pause,” statistician William Briggs says that it is not really a pause “[b]ecause the IPCC’s model said temperatures would be high these past eighteen or so years, when in reality the temperature bounced around but did nothing special, the IPCC has taken to calling reality a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. Everybody must understand that this ‘hiatus’ is model-relative. It has nothing to do with reality. Reality doesn’t know squat about the IPCC’s model. The reality versus the model-relative ‘hiatus’ is how we know the IPCC’s model stinks. If the IPCC’s model did not stink, it would have predicted the reality we saw. It did not predict it. Therefore the model stinks. The debate really is over.” (reference: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=13716)

Using the phrase “The Great Pause” implies that there really is an upward trend that has paused. But we have no idea what will happen next, specifically because the IPCC’s thirty-three different models stink.

Maybe the next global average-temperature move will be downward. After all, we already know that another glacial ice age period is coming (due any millennium, now), and perhaps we should be preparing for the known consequences of that (polar ice caps as far south as 45 degrees, and snowy winters even farther south) even more than preparing for the hypothetical global warming consequences. Indeed, we know how bad an ice age is (wasn’t the whole plot of the movie “Ice Age” supposed to be a warning of the difficult conditions that exist during an ice age?), but we don’t yet know how bad a little more global warming is. There is evidence that one millennium ago the Earth’s temperature averaged a few degrees warmer than it does now, and we didn’t have a terrible time then.

Perhaps the next El Nino will produce another upward trend in temperature, but what happens at the end of *that* El Nino? Will temperatures again “pause,” continue to increase (as predicted by IPCC models), or decrease? Again, because the models stink, we don’t know. We don’t even know if the El Nino will bring higher temperatures; that is just another hypothesis.

Please also note that Briggs suggests that we be careful when looking at the “black line” (which is blue in Christopher Monckton’s essay), “The black line is not what happened!” Briggs also mentions the arbitrariness of defining trends, especially when choosing start-dates, or endpoints: “We must take reality as she is. All we need is a working definition of trend. Easy, right? No, sir. Not really. See this post. [Link to post is in original essay, above –Edward] But skip all that and call a trend, ‘Over any ten year period, the temperature increased more than it decreased.’ That’s one possible definition of trend.”

The global warming crowd is only the latest incarnation of this all too human need. If we can just find the right gods to appease, we can gain some protection from the scary vagaries of nature.

As a species we need to grow up.

The “causes” intent and the accompanying negative Karma may be causing the universe to exact a price on their dishonest activities.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-20141004-story.html

The harder they push and insist on their manipulation and agenda the colder it may become. They could insist our way right into another ice age. Think about it :)

The good doctor will soon have a new computer model PR solution for that:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2780587/Scientists-fast-track-evidence-linking-extreme-weather-climate-change-sign-panic-losing-propaganda-battle-sceptics.html

I ask again: When is the climate not changing? For that matter its like saying that day will turn into night, they have come up with such a base, universal, public pandering, all encompassing term that to me means nothing. Is the universe static? Is the earth static? I believe that the stronger and more reasonable and more demonstrable argument is the effects of pollution in general and not this climate change PR campaign.