There wasn't 0.7 deg rise. If you want to know how to calculate trends let me know.
Trend? Who said anything about trends? I said a raw thermometer increase! Why should I start butchering it? In an oscillation there is no trend. Its like a tuning fork it goes back in forth unless something perturbs it. You have trendenitis. I don't want rates here. One could use rates but you still have to convert to a displacement to look at it again as an oscillation.
We can look at the downward oscillation from 1878 and thats a raw .6degC in the same time period 33 years as the subsequent warm phase. That difference might suggest an underlying residual from the LIA a tenth of a degree over 66 years. Or it could be the actual GCRs combined with TSI and magnetic disturbances that affect wind pattern changes which affect current changes which may tend to amplify the affects. Just speculating but some of these major changes we see, at least between ice ages might be something that has to do with the shapes of land masses and oceans where you can get something moving faster and deeper depending upon the direction of the forcing. . . . .like wind through a mountain pass.
We had an interesting blog for a while called Atmospheric Insights by Ed Berry with his howling rottweiler as he watched wind patterns develop to drive ENSO.
You can chose to be a moron about it if you want to but everything on this planet does not need to be driven by temperature. There is almost an endless heat storage capacity on this planet in the oceans. Most of the ocean is near freezing and practically none of it is included in climate models.
Everybody is focused on short term change change measured and estimated assuming stuff with only the top hundred or so meters of the ocean getting into the game. . . .when in reality that changes in various ways. Short term sensitivity analysis done based upon a short term weather patterns that best fit at a 40 meter deep mixing (like Spencer's recent work).
But one has to keep in mind 40 meters is an average based upon limited climatic conditions. Even in those conditions there are likely deep running currents driven by consistent wind direction patterns that find harmonics depending upon the shape of the shorelines and ocean bottoms.
As climate changes sensitivity calculated in such a manner will change.
However, even if we accept your erroneous calculation, your point is still not valid. If the 1910-1945 warming and the 1975-2010 warming were solely due to ocean oscillations then the temperatures in the 1940s would have been the same as they are now. They weren't. Temperatures for the recent decade are ~0.5 deg warmer than during the warmest 10 year period in the 1930s/1940s. Not in the USA! Explain that! You can try to pass the USA off as representing some small percentage of the globe but it is the best and most open and transparently measured region of the globe.
Why would the USA be isolated from climate change affecting the rest of the globe for 70 years? An auditor looking for the answer for that would instantly look for that answer in the poorest sampled area of the globe not so much in the USA.
Since CRU did most of this work for everybody in the remote corners of the globe and we have seen Phil Jones' true attitude to his work and we know he was groomed at CRU from a young age for his position (they did not go look for a whizbang outsider to come in and manage and review perhaps the most important dataset in global climatology, no no no no no, good gawd no! They promoted an insider!) and Phil Jones is probably a near perfect reflection of the culture at CRU.
The only thing that doesn't fit that scenario is the European temperature records. A lot of that was probably disrupted by WWII and indeed Europe sits on the gateway to the Arctic and the big thermohaline conveyor which more than likely represents a huge transfer of heat with deep ocean bottoms that could change typical oscillation patterns for decades perhaps a century.
We need to explain why the antarctic is gaining ice and the arctic is losing ice. That potential oscillation could have huge climatic influences that can span centuries because our short term sensitivity analysis involves forcings (like volcanoes) that have no affect on these deep ocean exchanges.
So in truth you have to be a moron to believe this doesn't exist. Heck apparently Hansen is not a moron because he is becoming a believer. Of course it provides the only explanation that fits his theory of where the heat went.
But the deal is as that shoe drops everything else flies out the window too. You cannot just simply selectively use this phenomena as an excuse. You need to understand it and realize it is at work all the time on some kind of time scale, perhaps centuries. And since you don't know what drives it you are clueless about what really controls our climate because we know it isn't CO2. So unless somebody comes up with a theory of CO2 molecules growing bucket arms to accelerate heat diving into the ocean its going to stay that way.
Since 1940 there has been ~1.2 w/m2 increase in ghg forcing which is about 1/3 of the the forcing from a CO2 doubling (~3.7 w/m2), so expect another 1 degree rise over the coming 60-70 years.
Hey raw temperature wise there has only been .41degC rise since 1878.
So what do you mean by another? Is this one of your trend calculations?
Obviously not another because while there has been a 1 degree rise in the data over the past century you have to cherry pick low to high to get that trend. Akasofu calculated at .5degC per century. Hadcrut after some value adding is now .57degC per century since 1878 to present peak to peak.
Another 1/2 degree is certainly possible but it would seem to be rather unremarkable.
OTOH, I think the data indicates the warming is ending. Whether it lasts for only 30 years and comes back as a vengence is certainly a possibility. I actually think it is improbable and I would give my money a slight edge for actually turning towards cooler than a 1/2 degree positive in the next 60-70 years. I would also rate as probable in the interim actual cooling including the formation of a new temperature step post La Nina below the previous one.
I am not denying the CO2 forcing but I tend to think that at the current levels of GHG feedback is negative from additions of GHG and that a lot of the warming is internal variability driving ocean currents and perhaps cloud cover.
So the raw forcing of one degree per doubling of CO2 is actually probably less.
There is no question the larger processes that are driving the planet (and hiding the missing heat) have been grossly overly simplified in models.
You just keep harping on high sensitivity because you have so much faith in what you have been told that it simply just has to be there and it has to be high sensitivity.
Err... I don't keep harping on about "high sensitivity". I've argued against "high sensitivity". That's why I don't think the sun is a prominent driver. OK I see where you are coming from. Perhaps from the above you can see where I am coming from.
As I pointed out I think sensitivity varies depending upon the type of forcing. . . .and explicitly in how that forcing affects wind and water currents and cloud cover.
I figure the sun is the primary driver but it does not always achieve the same affect on earth as I think their are directional controls exerted by the shape of the rock faces of the earth both mountains and deep sea canyons.
The essential problem today for AGW is now the ocean is their refuge but in accepting this shelter they have to live with the fact that the warming they saw prior to the warming disappearing probably had a lot to do with what they were seeing originally as well.
I think its apparent in the data. Folks have probably fudged the data but as an auditor you learn there are patterns to fudging that leaves information like fingerprints that are still valid.
The argument goes like this. You calculate high sensitivity for a forcing to explain the forcing as the sole forcing. All visible and apparent forcings seem to weak and would require even higher senstivities to explain the warming. Then you stumble into a 15 year period where all the warming disappears. By definition of how you established sensitivity in the first place sensitivity is now negative.
So out comes the boogeyman that sometime in the future this missing heat is going to come back and haunt us. But you have ignored in the course of this argument the complete lack of efficacy of figuring a sensitivity in the first place because now you don't know if that sensitivity wasn't being driven by the same force in reverse of what made it disappear a couple of decades later.
And ultimately any risk hangs on the very uncertain estimation that CO2 is at unusual levels in the first place. Certainly mankind has added to the CO2 in the atmosphere. But we can only detect that its about 3 to 4%. Thats another blackbox of how man made CO2 disappears in one form and reemerges in another either by conversion or by pushing other CO2 out as manmade CO2 pushes in.
Its all speculation not science. Science is about being able to replicate proofs. Extrapolation is not science. Thats a cognitive process and mostly its a political process. Strictly speaking its not a science process. An extrapolation moves outside of the empirical world into the cognitive world.
Extrapolation is how science is done but it isn't science. It only becomes science when the extrapolation leads to an experiment to make it science. Thats a role models can fill. But for it to become science the models have to produce projections that are confirmed by observation time and time again. Right out of the box they failed to do that. So another extrapolation is used as an explanation. . . .Gee whiz golly we didn't say we were going to predict the weather!
Yet weather and climate are the same thing. In fact, climate is defined by weather.
Poitsplace:
Your description of the possible mechanisms for a solar influence may (or may not) be correct. However they still imply high sensitivity. The main solar parameters (TSI, SSN, mag flux, GCRs, etc) all move in lock step. They don't vary independently of each other. The total solar energy output is given almost exclusively by TSI which only varies ~0.1%. Temperature observations over solar cycles match pretty much what theory predicts from the small TSI changes i.e. less than 0.1 deg change over the cycle.
GLC you are confused. That is in part caused by the definition given to sensitivity where absolutely everything is lumped into the sensitivity category and sensitivity is measured exclusively by observed change in the temperature of the atmosphere. Different folks come up with different results and different climatic conditions produce different results. And you use a trending tool to ensure that no inconvenient peaks get associated with solar minima peaks.
Fact is solar minima tends to be characterized by a delayed response of proximate lengths of the minima one can see it in the ENSO pattern and these super El Ninos and super La Ninas generate up to 10 times the shift you mention depending where you measure it and often double ordinary ENSO shifts despite being short lived diversions.
The very concept of the missing heat coming back to haunt us should throw you a clue that you can have extended periods of time at one sensitivity that later comes back and adjusts the temperature and as a result the sensitivity calculation of that day.
Further, different inputs are going to have different sensitivities. If more than temperature affects clouds for instance and GCRs affect clouds then TSI changes accompanied by GCRs are going to have a different sensitivity than CO2 and volcanic aerosols.
Throw in some accompanying magnetics that change polar vortex patterns and as a result maybe global wind patterns change and you can have ocean currents suddenly running faster through a deep cold trench like a wind from a certain direction accelerating through a mountain pass. Again a magnification of solar impacts that CO2 and volcanic aerosols may not be as effective in generating.
Does anybody want to go there and test that? Gee thats contrary to my pet theory!