Poirot, what a good big sister you are to your scamp of a younger brother, bonny, who has such a big ego and thinks he is so much better than the rest of us.

Perhaps you can do his homework for him and explain what is wrong with my little example above about temperature and CO2 increases, all sourced, as I say, from bonmot's very own best science sources?

I'm sure you'll do that because you don't think you are better than the rest of us, do you?

Behold my mighty hoop!

if you do not jump through it, you will LOSE!

Why do you not jump through it, puny blogger?

Dear cohenite,

Could well be my fault in that I'm not communicating this properly.

You have said that Foster and Rahmstorf both contradict and refute the IPCC and Hansen 1981. You are obviously happy with their science or else you would not have posted it.

In the conclusion to their paper they wrote about finding the “true global warming signal” (which is what you have acknowledged and accepted) and that its “unabated increase is powerful evidence that we can expect further temperature increase in the next few decades, emphasizing the urgency of confronting the human influence on climate.”

This is why I remain confused.

Do you

a) accept their science and their conclusion therefore why do we have an issue?

b) accept their science but not their conclusion which is why I asked you the original question?
Quote
If you don't believe in AGW nor it seems in the greenhouse effect then why are we splitting hairs on the very processes and studies that support them? Shouldn't you just be completely rejecting them outright or am I missing something?
End Quote

or c) reject their science and their conclusion therefore why do you say it contradicts and refutes the IPCC and Hansen 1981?

In light of my obvious confusion perhaps replying with questions may be unhelpful.

csteele says:

"You have said that Foster and Rahmstorf both contradict and refute the IPCC and Hansen 1981. You are obviously happy with their science or else you would not have posted it."

Why would I be happy with F&R and not either of the other 2 parties to what is confusing you? That is my point; they all contradict each other, yet we are told the science is settled.

Other than being another part of the AGW jigsaw F&R do not contribute; their alleged contribution is to isolate a "true global warming signal", which I have not accepted; however this signal for AGW is treated by them as an independent variable; do you know what that means csteele? It means that global warming is correlated with global warming because an independent variable is determined by the experiment against which other variables are tested; in effect F&R have predicted the trend.

Look at the results of F&R's multiple regression for GISS [based on Table 1 of the F&R paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf :

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend [independent variable] + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

What they are saying is based on the above equation which is derived from their paper:

Trend (GISS) = 1.024 Trend(GISS) + “other factors”

therefore:

- 0.024 Trend(GISS) = “other factors”

This has the effect of burying the “other factors” as -0.024 * GISS, and simply fitting GISS to itself. The true AGW signal is what F&R have determined themselves.

{end part 1]

I'm comming to this late in the piece and am not going to read all the foregoing stuff. Let me make a plain point and see what you all have to say.
The curve for population growth is close to identical to the curve for increase in CO2. We know that correlation does not imply causation. It seems extremely unlikely that the increase in CO2 has caused the increase in human population. It is at least plausible, however, that the increase in human numbers has a causal connection with the increase in CO2 that so closely mirrors it. It is further a great coincidence, is it not, that both curves begin their great climb from the time of the industrial revolution and the increasing burning of fossil fuels. What are the chances that none of these things are related to one another and are just random coincidence?

Or maybe there is a third factor that has caused both: oil.

No, it is not that simple, but this factor has certainly facilitated both population growth and of course CO2 output.

Without it, world population would have arguably been a fair bit lower and CO2 production would presumably have been a whole lot lower.

Even with coal, gas, deforestation, farting cows and the rest, we would probably not be even talking about AGW if we hadn’t have had that black gold miracle energy source.