You chose not to answer my questions about your own work, nor did you point out any flaws in my reasoning. You talked about the IPCC but my reasoning has nothing to do with the IPCC, though it is true that hundreds of climate scientists from around the world, including contrarians, volunteer their time to contribute to its reports.
Since you have no technical familiarity with climate science
Not true. While it’s tough to gain as much technical knowledge as a climatologist, it’s not so hard to reach the level of a skeptic. And if you have any expertise, you’ve hidden it very well!
Given your inability to respond to my questions and arguments, looks like I have more technical familiarity than you do.
I’ve kept this at a popular level … most current articles online are behind pay walls.
Excuses, excuses. You can always link to abstracts, or if you prefer to keep it at a ‘popular’ level, link to explanations by WattsUpWithThat.
There are numerous papers detailing the Holocene temperature reconstruction that clearly show an 8,000 year steady decline in lower troposphere temperatures continuing to the present day. Therefore my prediction that lower troposphere temperatures will continue to decline in the future is no feat of esoteric prestidigitation!
This relies on assuming the conclusion that humans can’t affect climate.
More importantly, although a natural cycle will produce a long-term temperature decrease, it’s about 100,000 years per glacial-interglacial cycle.
Looks like fastest temperature drop in the last glaciation took about 1300 years per 1C°, averaging 0.007° per decade. Glaciation is irrelevant on the 2000–2200 time scale that people are most concerned about.
I’ve seen no evidence that temperatures ever naturally rise 1C° in one century (though if there were evidence, that would not by itself invalidate the science of greenhouse gasses, especially since we’re supposed to be in a long-term cooling trend right now.)
Since we do not understand the full extent of naturally occurring climate variation, we cannot know the extent of human contributions, if any, to observed climate variation.
No contrarian climate models have ever predicted global warming without taking CO2 into account. As far as I know, contrarians haven’t even been able to predict past warming without reference to CO2, which is why contrarians (as well as many skeptics and deniers) disagree with you.
The IPCC reports deal only with response to human caused climate change, not with naturally occurring climate variation.
False. Definitively attributing global warming to greenhouse gasses requires an understanding of all major natural forcings and physical processes including solar radiation and the sun, albedo, ocean currents, and so forth. Climate scientists are not too dumb to know about Milankovich cycles, either.
The IPCC reports most certainly does deal with natural climate processes and it estimates the extent of natural variation. For example, see chapters 6 and 7 of AR5 WG1.
The climatology field is hundreds of years old and, back in the day, they studied naturally-occurring variation exclusively. Skeptics like to talk about how “contrarians” drive science forward, but under their own definition of “contrarian”, it was the pioneers claiming humans can affect the climate who were the original contrarians.