Is Entropic Man saying CO2 caused each of the Quaternary interglacials?
More likely the increase in CO2 was caused by degassing of the oceans caused by reduced solubility of CO2 as the oceans warmed, because of Milankovitch Cycles and possibly other influences, AIUI.

Who knows what he's saying, rfs, but that sounded like a goodbye from him.
Mind you, ATTP was always saying goodbye but ultimately needed some assistance (which a few people thought was his intention).

EM still occasionally does a drive-by at Roy Spencer's blog, and others see him elsewhere.

OK, one final comment.

Those who study the onset of interglacials agree with rfs,as I do.

Glacial conditions are typically 9C and 200ppm. An interglacial starts with Milankovich cycle changes which increase the temperature about 1C. This triggers release of more CO2 and the ensuing feedback pushes both towards an equilibrium around 14C and 280ppm.

Raff,
Further to your comment of May 25, 2015 at 3:39 PM, I agree that my claims about the Paraguay data appear illogical, but I would ask that you think the problem through, and check the data.
The raw data - across at least 8 temperature stations covering an area of about 200,000 km2 - shows that in the late 1960s average temperatures fell by about 1 degree Celsius. It was not present in temperature stations elsewhere. This was adjusted out by both UHCN and BEST data sets by the normal procedures. That is to have zero adjustment in the present day and adjust backwards. As a result, the past was cooled. So instead of 1965 data being 1 degree higher than 1970 data, it was made the same. If 1960 has preciously been the same anomaly as 2010, is would now be one degree lower. In fact the raw data shows slight cooling from 1960 to 1967, the 1 degree drop and flat data thereafter. The homogenised data shows about 0.5C warming from 1975 to 2010. The switch from cooling to warming post 1960 is caused by an homogenization process which is too broad brush. It does not recognize that local and sub-regional climatic temperature variation can be far greater than than at the regional level.
At my blog, I have links to the actual data, so you can check for yourself.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2015/05/03/temperature-homogenization-at-puerto-casado/
For the GCHNv2 "raw" data please check http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data_v2/
For the GISS Homogenised data please check http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
To find the adjustments.
- Copy and paste to Excel before and after
- Text to columns
- Find the adjustments by subtracting one from the other
Encarcion or Mariscal are the best examples. Pilar (incomplete data) and Asuncion (many station moves) are the worst.
But I list 8 stations. Just try with one, and work it out for yourself.

Ah the raw data, lovely. Take a look at it and one can see why it needs homogenizing.

But yes you are right, I was wrong, sorry. The effect of homogenizing Paraguay is that in the graph you linked to earlier, the baseline 1951-81 period in April is between 0.5 and 1C cooler. So the anomaly will be correspondngly larger. But all the same, when you say,

One example is that the map shows 2-4 degrees of warming in Central South America. This was due to errors in the homgenisation process in Paraguay, where sudden cooling at the end of the 1960s was adjusted to net warming, due to this being different from the surrounding areas.

you are suggesting that a 1C (lets be generous) greater anomaly in Paraguay caused the anomaly for two thirds of Chile and Argentina, an area perhaps 6 times greater, to be shown in red (2-4C anomaly) instead of orrange (1-2C). But in reality Paraguay overlaps just the corner of that red blob and the most difference it can make is to turn a few cells in the top right orange - hardly a noticable change (unless multiplied by 6).

I think we've entertained Raff for long enough. At this rate we'll all earn our Equity cards.

Geronino, individual BHers might be convinced, witness BBD, but BH itself, no. And few individuals will admit to having changed their minds. People will just lose interest and slink away when they start to have doubts. The faithful though will be here until their dying breaths. As the famous Max Plonck once said, Climate science "skepticism" progresses one funeral at a time.

Raff "Geronino, individual BHers might be convinced, witness BBD..."

Convinced of what? (BTW I followed BBD, there was no conversion, he simply pretended to be sceptic to provide more authenticity when he gave views that weren't sceptic. Try to imagine you're talking to someone who doesn't have a clue what you mean - i.e. me. I believe that CO2 is a GHG and that all other things being equal will warm the atmosphere. All other things aren't even as demonstrated by the recent pause, and the rise in temperature between 1910 and 1940 which CO2 couldn't be blamed for. So, for me, the other things are of interest. Notwithstanding that taking the view that CO2 will increase temperature doesn't lead me to believe there's a person on the planet who has the faintest clue what the extra warmth will do. I have empirical evidence for that in the form of 25 years of wildly inaccurate forecasts. So what are you suggesting I should be convinced about?

Max Planck didn't mention climate change in his famous statement. He said that, "Science advances one funeral at a time."
Brad Keyes tells me that this theory died with Max Planck.

Gee, I must not have been paying attention if BBD ever showed a bit of scepticism.

I'm beginning to feel like some sort of genius, admittedly one who doesn't know his arse from his elbow. Not of the first time I've asked someone, what I regard to be a simple question, in this case, what are refusing to be convinced of from Raff. And no response. It;'s really not that clever to ask someone exactly what they're talking about, but it seems to baffle the warming community.

Raff (who I'm not convinced isn't BBD's nom de plume - nobody remembers what BBD did here do they, except pretend to be a sceptic that is, so why would Raff remember him?), has used the most condescending, and indeed sometimes abusive, language and he has now told us that we're the sort of boneheads who'd never be convinced. Naturally I don't know what he's trying to convince me of since most of his posts are dealing with details that don't address anything other than the general dimness of the denizens of this blog.

So I ask him what it is we won't be convinced of, or by, and I get waffle followed by silence.

BTW I don't think you have the faintest clue how engineers think. When your uncle pulled out his slide rule and realised he didn't have all the answes, but decided to go with it anyway, was he building a bridge or designing an aeroplane?

Geronimo, BBD is a regular at ATTP and has said he was once a skeptic here. You say he wasn't. Guess who I believe.

BH won't be convinced that AGW is a problem. Simple.

On knowing how engineers think, I think I got it about right above about the "engineers" here - they are "can't do" types, the antithesis of what engineering is about.

Raff, you're just bitching now. What does it say about your personality that you persistently hang out where people don't like you? The next stage is a warmist form of turettes like Zeds or a split personality with a bunny. I know that warmist sites are very boring but maybe if you spent more time there writing something constructive you'd feel less bitter.

Raff, thanks for the reply. I take it you believe AGW is a problem. Would you like to explain why it's a problem? We've had 0.85C increase in temperature since 1880, of which, according to the IPCC, AGW was responsible for 0.3C. Regardless of where the heat came from there don't appear to be any problems at all associated with it. If I could just go over a few of the so-called likely climate problems:

1. There hasn't been any increase in tropical storms, in fact a decrease;
2. There hasn't been any increase in the intensity of storms, in fact a decrease;
3. There hasn't been any increase in droughts, in fact a decrease;
4. Global sea ice has been constant since satellites began monitoring it;
5. We can't say anything about ice-mass because loss or gain the period we're measuring over is much too short to make a judgement;
6. The glaciers are retreating but have been doing so since around 1800, so it's hardly likely that the 20th century warming backdated itself and caused the melt;
7. The claim that sea level rises had accelerated proves to have been the result of switching measurements to satellites from tidal gauges which have showed no acceleration, nor have the satellite measurements since the initial blip.
8. The increased CO2 appears to have stimulate plant growth globally - see NASA Earth Observatory, where they try to put a global warming slant on it.

So no bad things and at least one good thing. And you're wondering why people aren't convinced?

Now if you are talking about the future then you're merely expressing an opinion, you, and you aren't alone, have no ability to forecast the future state of the climate. People do it all the time they take two variables in a multi-variable problem and run these two variables forward to provide future state (Malthus did it). In this case the proposition is that CO2 will cause warming, and that "bad things" will come from warming. This is just boneheaded. Firstly because the climate is chaotic and its future state cannot be predicted, and secondly humans are interacting with a number of other chaotic systems like the economy, technology and society, all of which have shown improvements on an exponential scale over the last 3 or 4 centuries and all of which would have huge impacts on our ability to deal with any future problems, should there be any.

As I'm still not clear what you mean by problems with AGW, whether you mean now or at some unspecified future date I'll just make the point about people being able to foretell the future - they can't. No matter how many MIPs their birds entrails have, no matter how skilled they are at removing and looking at the entrails, they are just birds entrails, and anything that comes from looking at them is just opinion not fact. (They're not real birds' entrails I'm referring to of course).

As for BBD you can believe who you like, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference to me, but I was here watching his moves, and can tell you that I don't believe for one minute he was a sceptic. Well he was in one way, he used an awful lot of material from Skeptical Science blog.

Warmists love the idea of the "skeptic who turned" don't they?

They love the idea so much that many of them pretend to be sceptics in order to then "turn" and receive adulation and fame. I'm thinking of Richard Muller, and now the mini-me version on here BBD.

TNYJ. It's the fact that that flow is constantly the other way, they need converts. Seems odd to me that this all boils down to sceptics not believing AGW is a problem, that seems a wee bit nebulous to me.

BTW are you still in East Anglia?

Oh Shrub,

BBD has repudiated his own skepticism by claiming it was only 'denial'

You don't really think anyone thinks any of you lot are skeptics, do you?