If we add solar cycles, we will see that Earth would have been cooling for the past 50 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
I'm sure that they would have found out quite a few years ago if dialing back CO2 sensitivity would have gotten climate models back to real life.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/i...
Look at my graph. Above average =/= rising. The warming caused by the Sun ended decades ago. If everything but solar activity were constant, the equilibrium temperature would have passed the actual temperature on the way down.
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 11, 2013) – A natural shift to stronger warm El Ni?o events in the Pacific Ocean might be responsible for a substantial portion of the global warming recorded during the past 50 years, according to new research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
“Our modeling shows that natural climate cycles explain at least part of the ocean warming we’ve seen since the 1950s,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAH’s Earth System Science Center and the new study’s lead author. “But we also found that because the globe has had more frequent La Ni?a cooling events in the past ten or fifteen years, they are canceling out some of the effects of global warming.”
The paper detailing this research, “The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes During 1955-2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model,” is scheduled for publication in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science, and is available online at
It's kind of funny, but this question of yours disproves your answer to another question. You said there:
"Skeptics do not get to publish papers in the climate/change/biased world they get rejected., many journals and newspaper refuse to even allow comments from skeptics"
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
Might want to try and keep your questions and answers internally consistent.
EDIT: This is the problem with denial--through your own question I showed that what you said was wrong, so rather than admit that you were wrong, you are trying to change what you said. This is Ottawa Mike's favorite tactic too. If you look at his old questions...oh right, he blocks people from looking at them so you can't...you would see that whenever anybody points out an error, he adds a different question to the original. After he gets rebutted 3 or 4 times in the same question he has often moved onto a completely different subject than his original question. His "questions" always end up as long and meandering series of barely connected half-baked arguments.
"
New study show climate is only half as sensitive to CO2"
Do you realize this contradicts your tiresome plethora of previous claims that CO2 has *no* effect?
You are like a murderer citing evidence that the claim that you murdered two people is wrong...that it is proven you only murdered one person.
Furthermore, for some reason, in seeing different claims, you think that proves the ;least strong claim must be true.
Does this mean that the IPCC can take their probability percentage down to 90 again?
I think the computer they were using for that decision was taken out of service and used in the ObamaCare data collection scheme.
This isn't the truth for Christ's sake. It is a study based on models, one of the things you criticize, Your posts continue to get lamer. Make up your mind you like models or you don't like modes or is it, like all the other DA deniers, if it agrees with your warped lack of science then you believe it.
You posted 5 questions yesterday and frequently make multiple question posts daily. Get a life. Do you even realize you are spamming this forum??????????
Solar cycles and solar flares don't have sh*t to do with AGW Even a 12 yo knows that
http://skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles...
to CO2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/11/new-study-climate-system-is-only-about-half-as-sensitive-to-increasing-co2-as-previously-believed/
Hmm this is new? I thought most people knew this, if they added solar cycles we might get the full truth
