lee wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:


No they didn't. That is a dishonest misrepresentation of what they actually said.
The IPCC said that scientists are:
Quote:


They did not say that humans had no effect on the warming prior to 1950.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:



But the IPCC and the "Science" say it was undetectable until the second half of the 20th century. Now 1930 is in the first half of the 20th century.

So you must have some proof that they don't.

What caused the other warm periods? Fred Flinstone and his SUV? Elephant farts across the Alps with Alexander?

Funny.

'Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included (Figure 9.5). No model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global mean warming trend or the continental mean warming trends in all individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. '

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

For those who believe in the infallibility of the models. The ones that don't work forward or back.

' The late 20th century has been unusually warm. Palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the second half of the 20th century was likely the warmest 50-year period in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 1300 years.'

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-9-2.html

Oops, the MWP was warmer? Be still my beating heart.

The_Barnacle wrote on Jun 16^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:



Quote:


Quote:

Ajax wrote on Jun 18^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:


Those quotes are only talking about after 1950. You are making the same mistake that Lee did. Just because those quotes don't mention pre 1950, that doesn't mean they are saying there was no AGW prior to 1950.

Ajax wrote on Jun 18^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:


You AGW deniers do love to cherry pick your data. But I guess that is the only way you can make your arguments sound scientific.

The warming in the 1930s was a mixture of AGW, natural variation and a reduction in dust pollution due to the great depression.
Remember that data has to be for at least a 30 year interval before it is considered climate. So to cherry pick the 1930s is as equally dishonest as those who cherry pick the 1998 - 2014 hiatus. 

Ajax wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 11:59am:



The models are not science. There are so many "forcings" underpinning the output, that a change of just one. would vary the output significantly. And that is why all the models vary so widely.  The closest to reality is the Russian model and we don't know if that is a mere fluke. By taking a mean of the models all they are doing is bringing the higher ones down.

Ajax wrote on Jun 19^th, 2016 at 11:59am:


No they don't.
The quotes you have stated make no mention of anything prior to 1950. You have simply made an assumption which is quite clearly wrong.

A new paper -

'Abstract The project presented here so ought to determine whether changes in anthropogenic ther rmal emission can have a measurable effect on temperature at the national level, taking Japan & Great Britain as type examples. Using energy consumption as a proxy for thermal emission, strong correlations (mean r 2 = 0.90 & 0.89 respectively) are a found between national equivalent heat output HO and temperature above background levels ∆t t averaged over 5 to 8 year periods between 1965 and 2013, as opposed to weaker correlations for CMIP5 model temperatures above background levels ∆mt t (mean r 2 = 0.52 & 0.10). It is clear that the fluctuations in ∆t are better explained by energy consumption than by present climate models, and that energy consumption can contribute to climate change at the national level on these timescales.'

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000352/pdf