Bender seemed to have a strange like of the Broecker paper, said it somehow proved what he thought, but never actually quoted which part.
“Re: Broecker (2001). I am not referencing a person. I am referencing a paper. What would motivate someone to write the words that were written?”

Have you looked at what Broecker wrote?

Better still Look at Wallace S. Broecker’s wiki entry, it’s hilarious that he’s Bender’s darling defeater of hockey sticks…

take a look over at WUWT;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....es-hansen/

He has a fun Hansen related article!!!!

talk to Leif Svalgaard, he keeps assuring us over at WUWT that it can not be counted for the difference up or down. I would point out that the temps have been going nowhere since the MAX, NOT the min and that the area under the curve is huge compared to the tiny changes on the top that get graphed as if they are large.

That is, the TSI ranges from about 1316-1408 over a yearly period. The large variation is NOT due to the solar cycle. It is due to orbital eccentricity.

Here is the data for SORCE:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce.....091015.txt

Column 5 shows TSI at 1AU, the number you watch if you are studying the sun.

Column 10 is the TSI at Earth Distance.

(SORCE does not cover a full cycle)

The sun varied about 2 w/m2 over cycle 23:

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php.....pace_virgo

Darn few people who can actually calculate this stuff think that this small variation accounts for the climate. That is why Svensmark’s finding is important. It takes a little more away from the forcings that get swept into the GHG bin.

It is also why the alarmists resist Dr. Spencer’s work so much. His negative feedback findings with clouds conceivably rearranges a LOT of forcing. It could also salvage the idea that GHG’s heat the earth without there being a warming problem. Negative cloud forcings balance the GHG positive forcing.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

By the way, less TSI wouldn’t hide anything. If you reduce amplifier power, are you HIDING an increase in volume??? No, the energy is not entering the system to provide signal amplification. The best that can said, in that situation, is that the ability to amplify the signal when the power is returned is still there!!

Finally, do not confuse El Nino’s, La Nina’s, ENSO, AMO… with DRIVERS like the sun. For instance, the wind drives a windmill producing power, but, the air molecules do not produce the momentum they carry. That is forced into them from an outside energy source whether it is gravity or thermal energy.

Similarly, those ocean cycles do not produce the energy, they simply show where it is, or is not, moving through the system.

Broken my irony meter again.

The solar cycle may well be an explanation for some of the hidden warming over that period. Solar cycle 23 peaked in 2000. It reached a minimum in 2007 and has stayed there ever since. From my limited reading on Wikipedia , it would seem that the peak to trough difference in forcing is probably sufficient to hide 10 years of global warming.

While solar cycles average 11 years, or 5.5 years from peak to trough, this one has gone longer, with the trough extended. When you add a la nino to that in 2008, my suspicion is that we basically have our explanation.

Would 20 degrees over 50 years qualify as unprecendented??

http://www.uswaternews.com/arc.....cor11.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....type=HWCIT

Onward, our hostess likes to work with the last 10 years. One of the important reasons for this is that there has NOT been a major low latitude volcanic eruption that went stratospheric since the early 90’s. There have been few large eruptions.

This means that neither natural nor human produced sulfur compunds are hanging around in large amounts to suppress AGW. Funny thing is, temps have been flat for this time period.

Clear skies to get that solar insolation into the oceans and ground. Lots of built up energy in the oceans we are told. Co2 continuing to rise. We are assured that there is warming in the pipeline. Why hasn’t it exhibited?? Where is it?? What is the mechanism that is suppressing it???

This would tend to make Dr. Spencer sound quite credible at this point. That is, the most likely mechanism for the temp change is cloud cover. As the temps are flat, it would tend to make the idea of positive cloud feedbacks false.

I am personally getting tired of scientists claiming extraordinary hidden mechanisms to cover holes in their theories. Unknown mechanisms are not testable among other things.

That does not really seem to address the issue that I had with your post, which was that your argument was silly on its face. The argument that I referred to was:

“If the science really says we need have zero CO2 emissions by 2050 to avoid ‘dangerous climate change’ then we are screwed and mitigation is a waste of time.”

Re bans on nuclear, I would not ban nuclear. It is going to be part of the solution.

However, if the science said that x needed to be done in order to avoid y, and x was a limit on carbon emissions, what would be ‘arbitrary’ about that?

On carbon trading versus a carbon tax, I do not really have a position. Given that a carbon tax is not on the table in Australia in the policy positions of any of the major parties, the issue is not on my radar.

I don’t care if you’re smarter than me. Big deal. Nor how you determine that.

“If you believe in action-damn-the-facts, then you hzve no place here.”
What? You don’t have any facts. Your case revolves around ‘we don’t know enough’.

“Re: Broecker (2001). I am not referencing a person. I am referencing a paper. What would motivate someone to write the words that were written? ”
So you went from referencing the paper, to the person. You are asking about his motivation. You are referencing a person, this person:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W.....h_Broecker

“In 1975, Dr. Broecker inadvertently coined the phrase global warming when he published a paper titled: “Climate Change: Are we on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?”[7] He has recently co-written an account of climate science with the science journalist, Robert Kunzig. This includes a discussion of the work of Broecker’s Columbia colleague Klaus Lackner in capturing CO2 from the atmosphere – which Broecker believes must play a vital role in reducing emissions and countering global warming. Broecker has been described in the New York Times as a geoengineering pioneer.[8]”

Quite clearly he is very upset about the Hockey Stick and thinks we should take no action. Of course when he wrote that Science article he was amazed about the lack of MWP and new that the Voodoo being used was political mischief. YEAH!

“He clearly found the Mann reconstruction INcredible, for the absence of a MWP. McIntyre too. Broecker’s response was to try to explain how the MWP had to be so significant and large-scale (if not global) that it could not be disappeared except through voodoo. ”

That’s a very interesting interpretation. I don’t remember seeing the word Voodoo anywhere. And he’s such a vocal voice against those nasty Team members…

What exact part of the paper leads you to think there is voodoo (or naughty tricks)?

“McIntyre found the source of the voodoo. And he did it again, And again. And again. And again. (1) Where are all these busted hockey sticks coming from and (2) why are they so easily broken by someone with knowledge, insight, and analytical skill?”

Well that doesn’t make much sense. If it was so easily busted why do they keep appearing? Because they weren’t actually busted? Becuase the authors aren’t aware of the bustedness becuase McIntyre doesn’t publish why each one is busted…

Regarding the notion that if we cannot replace emissions producing energy sources within 50 years then we might as well do nothing, this is a pretty silly argument and one of the reasons why sometimes I find it very difficult to take the position of those who doubt AGW seriously.

If we start with the assumption that two degrees of warming will have bad effects and that three degrees of warming will have worse effects and so on and so on, then even if we cannot avoid two degrees, avoiding three degrees is obviously desirable. Thus, even if we cannot succeed in stopping emissions within 50 years, stopping them within 100 years would be a very good thing to do.

There sometimes seems to be a progression in the arguments used by some people along these lines:

1.) There is no warming.
2.) There may be warming, but we’re not causing it.
3.) We might be causing it, but it’s not a problem
4.) If it is a problem, we can’t do anything about it.

While you have not gone down this path, you certainly seem to have jumped to position 4. Am I misrepresenting you here?

The Stern Report, the Garnaut Report (here is Australia) both say that mitigation now is the economically correct thing to do.

“The AGW alarmists are living in a fantasyland if they believe that we can replace fossil fuels over the next 20-50 years. 100 years might be possible depending on what technological advancements occur. If the science really says we need have zero CO2 emissions by 2050 to avoid ‘dangerous climate change’ then we are screwed”

well good, give up then. Don’t even try… I mean the CSIRO here in Australia certainly don;t have any plans, they’re certainly not trying to make polymer solar films. As cheap as money to print and able to stick on pretty much anything… Nope that won’t happen. Can’t build windfarms with natural gas back-up. Nope that’s just a pie in the sky.

I am glad we had this discussion.

I wonder why you all at CA think you are capable of ‘auditing’ the work of proxy reconstructions fairly when it’s pretty clear you have a reconstruction you want to see or expect to see. This is a clear bias. Your aim does seem to be to keep the MWP warm to affect a political change.