|
|
Post by icefisher on May 20, 2010 22:45:31 GMT
typo, I meant to say 0.04C cooling The problem I see with your solar and it also applies to the SD of the ENSO as well is that in general solar activity has averaged lower than your estimate of zero anomaly even with the Svalgard adjustments. Once you lower both those measure you need to suck more blood out of your background warming trend. |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 20, 2010 23:57:40 GMT
Cripes, Socold. My eyeball on your graph thinks that without your CO2 we'd be back in the oncoming ice-age hysteria of the 70's. Maybe A. Watt would give you a guest post?
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 21, 2010 0:20:03 GMT
So the flat temperature since 2005 doesn't mean the background warming trend has stopped. Yay, you've got down a concept that we've been trying to get across for years. There IS an underlying warming trend...but we can reasonably expect 20+ years of level (if not slowly dropping) temperatures. The ACTUAL warming trend should be measured since the warming period peak of the 40s. This works out to about .4C to .5C (meaning .5C or .6C per century). The climate's sensitivity is quite low. Sure, there very well may be a warming spike at the end just like the last warming period...but that would only bring us back up to roughly the .5C per century rate. The world is completely safe. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 21, 2010 2:35:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glc on May 21, 2010 19:53:29 GMT
Is there any chance you could state your point rather than talking in riddles. |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 21, 2010 22:07:55 GMT
GLC's comment seconded
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 21, 2010 23:14:49 GMT
In short, there can be no legitimate argument oceans are gaining heat below 700m; the heat "in the pipeline" bunk. At the end of 2010 that fallacy will fade into the AGW ash heap of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 21, 2010 23:19:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 21, 2010 23:30:31 GMT
einen sehr gut Hockeyshtick |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on May 21, 2010 23:33:44 GMT
LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on May 22, 2010 2:27:15 GMT
Anyone get the feeling they don't know WTF is really happening? Four years ago it was massive heat loss, then it was adjusted at least 4 times since. Now it takes a big leap upward. It should correlate with SST. Who wants to bet by years end there will be another correction once the bark is peeled away from what they did. P.S. Always be suspicious when scientists use the term "robust". Michael Mann use it profusely.  |
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on May 22, 2010 4:45:58 GMT
It's STILL leveled off, no matter how you look at it. Its just some minor tweaking in an attempt to make it look like there are still some increases. Also...there is a very clear step change. The step change is COMPLETELY out of place within the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 22, 2010 11:29:46 GMT
Anyone get the feeling they don't know WTF is really happening? Four years ago it was massive heat loss, then it was adjusted at least 4 times since. Now it takes a big leap upward. People were warned that the data in recent years was preliminary and subject to problems. They used it anyway to conclude there wasn't enough warming. It's STILL leveled off, no matter how you look at it. Its just some minor tweaking in an attempt to make it look like there are still some increases. Also...there is a very clear step change. The step change is COMPLETELY out of place within the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. If ocean heat content is rising because of increasing greenhouse gases you wouldn't expect the ocean heat content rise to be a perfect line. Because of measurement error alone. Also year to year variation. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 22, 2010 13:33:44 GMT
Anyone get the feeling they don't know WTF is really happening? Four years ago it was massive heat loss, then it was adjusted at least 4 times since. Now it takes a big leap upward. People were warned that the data in recent years was preliminary and subject to problems. They used it anyway to conclude there wasn't enough warming. It's STILL leveled off, no matter how you look at it. Its just some minor tweaking in an attempt to make it look like there are still some increases. Also...there is a very clear step change. The step change is COMPLETELY out of place within the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. If ocean heat content is rising because of increasing greenhouse gases you wouldn't expect the ocean heat content rise to be a perfect line. Because of measurement error alone. Also year to year variation. Considering Nino3.4 has a 20 year record of cooling perhaps the problem with the global OHC record is too much whacking off of the largest unexplained downturns like in Mike's Nature Trick so as to avoid sending a confusing message. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on May 22, 2010 14:02:41 GMT
"Considering Nino3.4 has a 20 year record of cooling"
Which is irrelevant
|
|
Too bad they still don't get it. 
