GregLocock, although humorous, your first response does little to help answer my question. As I am genuinely intrigued by the prospect of your analysis, I am interested in clarifying your intention and methods. Which is why I appreciate your second response as it attempts to address my question. However, your second response only adds to my confusion (or, rather, illustrates my point).
GregLocock said:
why does the CET record, which was done with thermometers, not show the long term trend that the other more politically convenient estimates of historical temperature, using tree rings and so on, do?
Ignoring the unnecessary verbiage, you still have not addressed why using a
regional data set up to 1974 is at all relevant to a discussion on global climate change. As I stated, although you feel it is much more accurate than other data sources, it is a regional data set that is not necessarily reflective of global temperatures. Furthermore, your statement that CET shows a different long-term trend than other global paleoclimate data is untrue, on top of being irrelevant.
[image
]
Clearly, the trends match each other closely, with CET having much higher year-to-year variability. Again, this highlights the inherent variability in looking at such a small regional data set and the inability to project conclusions globally. Beyond that, the only conclusion that could be reached by the comparison is that CET, which you believe is much more accurate, validates the other data sets. Although I feel this is, unfortunately, contrary to your opinion.
The irrelevancy of CET data only grows when you are attempting to provide some link to ENSO events. Why use CET (north Atlantic) data when trying to conclude something about ENSO (which develop in the equatorial Pacific)? Might I suggest looking at AMO, which would be much more relevant to CET data.
There certainly are multi-decadal oscillations (hence the “MO” in AMO) prior to the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, with the temperature trend of both CET (regional, AMO) and BEST (global, AMO and ENSO) following roughly sinusoidal trends. This is in keeping with our understanding of both AMO and ENSO, which have a significant short term effect on temperature, oscillating between positive and negative, but have no inherent mechanism that could result in a long term imbalance. Conversely, after the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, both CET and BEST seem to follow an equation roughly closer to T(t)= sinX(t) + Y(t). Note this is also during a time when solar activity was in decline and aerosols were increasing, both of which should contribute to decreasing temperatures.
To say that ENSO (or AMO) are responsible for the recent long-term warming trend would be contrary to the physical understanding of these phenomena and contrary to both paleoclimate and modern data, including your chosen (but still irrelevant) CET data set. Yet, when the complete picture is taken into account (CO2, solar, aerosols, ENSO, AMO, albedo, etc) you can both explain and simulate temperature trends, with CO2 being central to both paleo and modern observations.
I remain interested in your analysis and am hoping that you can provide clarification if and where I have misunderstood your intentions. However, I also remain skeptical of both the relevancy and accuracy of any conclusions regarding recent global climate change that can be drawn by connection ENSO and CET data up to 1974.
To aid you in your research,
this might be of use and
this.
TGS4, you were attempting to invalidate my argument by attacking my person. My argument was that the lack of coherency and lack of defense against rebuttals has severely denigrated this debate. You responded by saying I was whining that people weren’t agreeing with me. This purposefully misses the point, in an attempt to portray me as arrogant and whiny (which is likely true but is nevertheless irrelevant). You’ve continued to miss the point in this reply, so let me be clear:
My issue is not that people disagree with me. My issue is that people are unwilling to engage in any sort of debate. When presented with facts and figures that counter their claims, very infrequently do people address such rebuttals. In order for the quality of this debate to improve, from both sides, this needs to be addressed. But after reading these replies, I’m not holding my breath that this will happen. (and if you consider this whining, then I suppose we have different definitions of what a rational dialogue is)
Beej, I have not replied because:
1) by addressing each and every one of your posts, I feel complicit in this nonsensical charade of random, unrelated arguments. At the very least it encourages and slightly validates it, so I will stop.
2) almost all of my criticisms of the litany of unrelated and unsupported arguments you’ve present remain open, without defense by you. I’d encourage you to defend previous arguments before opening new ones.
3) the demand that I address your posts presents a frustrating double standard. It’s a game that I will no longer take part in.
4) IPCC reports clearly outline temperature projections along different emission paths. As you’ve said you read the reports in detail, I’m sure you’re familiar with them and, thus, I shouldn’t be required to restate it.
5) you’ve manufactured a straw man scenario that is not representative of real attempts to reduce CO2 emissions, at least not the attempts I advocate for. You’ve failed to address those that I do advocate for, such as revenue-neutral carbon taxes that have had success in BC.
6) As stated to cranky a while back, what to do to minimize climate change is a separate question than whether or not climate change is caused by anthropogenic CO2. If you don’t agree it’s caused by anthropogenic CO2 than discussing what to do about it is meaningless. If you’re willing to state that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the primary cause of climate change and that future, unmitigated climate change will be negative, then I suppose I could talk about mitigation measures with you.
7) I’ve been busy organizing, preparing my soccer team for and going to a showcase tournament out of town, which I just got back from.
![[ponder]](/data/assets/smilies/ponder.gif "[ponder] [ponder]")
![[pipe]](/data/assets/smilies/pipe.gif "[pipe] [pipe]")
