Heat in the pipeline

[magellan]

As many may recall, I've been very critical of Hansen et al 2005, which IPCC derives much of their conclusions from.

Remember, OHC is the "smoking gun" for AGW.

OHC is the telltale, or at least the best we have to monitor global warming, not surface temperatures. My argument has been the two premises Hansen claims are false.

a) Hansen's main conclusion

Earth is now absorbing 0.85 +/- 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space.

and b) there is .6C "in the pipeline", a main tenet of alarmists

The observed 1880 to 2003 global warming is 0.6- to 0.7-C (11, 22), which is the full response to nearly 1 W/m2 of forcing. Of the 1.8 W/m2 forcing, 0.85 W/m2 remains, i.e., additional global warming of 0.85  0.67 È 0.6-C is ‘‘in the pipeline’’ and will occur in the future even if atmospheric composition and other climate forcings remain fixed at today’s values(3, 4, 23) .

On point a, observational data are self-evident; Earth is not absorbing .85 W/m2 more than it is emitting to space.

On point b, a new paper just published says there is no heat "in the pipeline".
climatesci.org/2009/03/05/is-there-climate-heating-in-the-pipeline/

Thus, there is no “warming in the pipeline” using the author’s terminology, nor any heating within the atmosphere! Perhaps the heating that was observed prior to 2003 will begin again, however, it is scientifically incorrect to report that there is any heat that has not yet been realized within the climate system.

The answer to the question posted in this weblog “Is There Climate Heating In “The Pipeline”? is NO.

Now we have three metrics to conclude warming is over; no increase in OHC, no extra stored heat waiting to rear its ugly head, and no atmospheric warming.

In case nobody has heard, Met O prepared the warmer masses for a long period of "non-warming", posted in this forum. Now cracks are forming at NOAA with their latest:
climatesci.org/2009/03/06/ness-report-on-the-lack-of-recent-global-warming/


The tea leaves have been read.

[socold]

There are disagreements between the measures of sea level, the ocean heat content and mass balance over the past few years. Either sea level hasn't risen contrary to observations, ocean heat content has risen contrary to observations or ocean mass has increased more than observations.

As the paper below states "Despite excellent agreement of
seasonal and interannual sea level variability, the 4-year trends do not agree suggesting that systematic long-period errors remain in one or more of these observing systems."

ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/~jwillis/willis_sl_budget_final.pdf

[tallbloke]

Josh Willis is on record as saying the OHC has cooling slightly for the last few years. This consistent with the Hadley sea surface temperature measurements. It's also consistent with the fact that since a maximum in sea levels in 2005, the levels have been dropping on the average.

Perhaps the inconsistency you are talking about only arises when AGW proponents willfully abuse and misinterpret the data.

--
You can torture the data until it confesses.
Even to crimes it did not commit.

[hilbert]

Are there numbers available for the last year and a half? The Colorado sea level site only seems to go partway into 2008.

[socold]

Mar 7, 2009 15:02:25 GMT tallbloke said:

Josh Willis is on record as saying the OHC has cooling slightly for the last few years.

It has, and sea level has risen and ocean mass has increased. The numbers don't add up. That's the inconsistency and seeing as it's straight from Willis's own paper..

[magellan]

Mar 8, 2009 11:58:00 GMT socold said:

Mar 7, 2009 15:02:25 GMT tallbloke said:

Josh Willis is on record as saying the OHC has cooling slightly for the last few years.

It has, and sea level has risen and ocean mass has increased. The numbers don't add up. That's the inconsistency and seeing as it's straight from Willis's own paper..

Get over it socold. The oceans have not gained heat since 2003. The Lyman material you keep referring to does not change that. There are several others available with the same conclusion.