Excellent graph. It explains quite clearly why we have stopped warming over the last decade. The minimums matter far more than the maximums and we are in a very pronounced minimum. What the (*)(*)(*)(*) are you talking about? The integration always applies. The total energy entering the system isn't TSI. Its the integral of TSI. Did you fail ever single subject? Oh let me guess your teachers were all a bunch of socialists and they gave your ignorant as an A+ so long as you kissed their socialist asses.
No because that massive ball of hydrogen has its own lags. You wont have the same perfect relationship that sin(x) and cos(x). Bun in a real lagy system sun spots will still procede TSI which it does. Wrong method friend. You should ave looked at what polynomial cointegration is before spouting off with a spurious linear correlation. I know that you aren't bright enough to get your brain around the concepts of lags. When correlating lagged systems linear correlation models fail and lead to spurious correlation (Philips, 1986). Since most real world systems are lagged systems linear correlation is a worthless correlation model especially when we are talking about the earths atmosphere which has a thermal lag of over a decade. When we use the correct correlation model which is called polynomial cointegration When correct model is used ADF4 = -2.22 and PP = -2.72 this falls well short of the minimum -4.76 and -7.77 to show cointegration proving that the linear correlation between CO2 and temperature is spurious. When I said energy I mean the energy entering the system which is solely the integral of TSI.
It takes eight minutes for solar energy to reach the Earth. Not much of a lag on a climatological scale. Sunspots cause TSI changes, so we expect sunspots to lead. That's not statistics, that's physics. Fair enough. What's the polynomial cointegration between TSI and global temperature? Are we looking for an insult match? Because I'd be happy to oblige you, dipschitz. Proving that the lagged correlation between solar activity and global temperature is spurious. Now perhaps we can take a moment to remember that doing statistics is no substitute for doing science. Congratulations, you now know Thing 1 about climate. Thing 2 to know is, that to be in thermal equilibrium, energy inflows must balance energy outflows. Thing 3 to know is that when the Earth's temperature goes up, it's because we're not in equilibrium: inflows are greater than outflows. That does NOT necessarily mean that inflows have increased! It can also mean that outflows have decreased. Thing 4 to know is that Earth's temperature is going up, so we're not in equilibrium. Thing 5 to know is that inflows have been measured, and are not increasing. Thing 6 to know is that outflows have been measured, and ARE decreasing. How much of this have you not followed so far?
So you say... Yet we know the Oceans absorb a lot of that energy, only to release it at some future date, otherwise known as "lag time". So please... Such simple things may be difficult for some to understand, but they are not so difficult for intelligent people.
Again, so you say... Yet several have offered you empirical data which would suggest otherwise. So what I don't get is how you can ignore direct evidence that contradicts what you are espousing? How do your little "theories" hold up when they are directly refuted by the evidence? Looks to me like your ignorance knows no bounds.
You talk about intelligent people but surely scientists are by definition intelligent people So why would they not have already figured out such a simple mechanism? Yes there is lag time in the oceans but somewhere sometime what goes in has to equal what comes out and there just has not been the solar output to account for the ocean warming Look at this site - this is Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution - they are a PRIVATE company and they study the oceans http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83559&tid=3622&cid=8839&c=2 Do you not think these people capable of working out what is happenings for themselves?
Because the "evidence" we are supposed to swallow has more holes than weevilly bread and is about as good for you Look at the recent "evidence" you tried to pass off as "proof" - the old furphy that the solar system is heating Then there is the "theory" that "Climate changes because it just DOES" Then we had James Cessna posting simultaneous threads on CO2 NOT being responsible for current climate change and CO2 being responsible for preventing "snowball Earth" And then there is the dishonesty of nearly every denialist site out there often so poorly put together that a high school student can pick the problems - my favourite is the "Oregon Petition" so full of fraud that 10 minutes of Googling by Betty Boop would uncover the deception but people keep quoting it and even defending it and while they do they only make themselves look incompetent
Oceans don't create energy. If the current surface warming were caused by ocean cycles, the only way that can happen is if the depths are cooling as the surface warms. But the ocean depths are warming too. So no, you can't blame the oceans. Now that you know the truth about the oceans, can we expect a retraction of this remark?
What you have offered are datasets that you haven't even bothered to look at yourself. THE DATA SAYS YOU'RE WRONG. Solar activity peaked in 1981 according to your own dataset. You're flat-out lying.
Many actually have, where do you think I get the information I link to? That you ignore them because they don't agree with you is your problem, not mine.
Not just because it does, it is because it is what has been happening since the begining of time... About as long as the Sun and Earth have been around, no matter how much or how little CO2 was present. Imagine that.
I never said they did... They are warming because the Sun continues to warm them. I simply pointed out that they store the Sun's energy and it dissipates, over time, which helps create the "lag" between Earth's temperatures and the Sun's input.
But the Sun isn't getting any warmer, while the oceans ARE. Try again. Still doesn't work, and for the same two reasons: First, the oceans cannot warm unless (a) the Sun is getting warmer (and it's not); or (b) greenhouse gases are increasing (AHA!). Second, for the oceans to release their heat into the air, they would have to cool. And they're not.
Given the size of the Oceans heating can and will continue until the amount of energy they are gaining is less than that which they are losing... Since it takes some time for the water to not only heat up but then to lose that heat, there will be a time when they continue to heat slightly beyond the extreme of the Solar influence. And, if you look at ALL of the data, most are showing a leveling off, and even a slight downward drift to the Ocean Temperatures... http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
If the mins matter more than the maxs, and the mins for 1987 and 1997 are approximately equal, then, according to your logic, the sun had no effect on the warming between 1987 and 1997; so it must have been the GHGs; specifically CO2 because that did increase in that time period. Try it without an insult and I might address your point.
There was no warming between 1987 and 1997. Januarary 1997 was actually about a two 10ths of a degree colder than January 1987. Warmmongers like yourself like to extrapolate linear trends where there is no such trend. All the warming in the 30 years of satellite record occurred during two steps 1984-1987 and 1998-2001. Outside of those short ranges there is no warming.
How can the oceans gain any heat at all when the Sun is not warming? Clearly you're not looking at "all the data", since the graph on SkS only shows the "upper ocean", i.e., the top 700 meters. To really look at "all the data", you need to look at all the data: down to 2000 meters. (Below that, we don't have data). Here's all the data: No cooling. No leveling off.
Nice try. But you are still wrong. And you might want to inform astronomers that their method of measuring long distances is wrong. Look up "Type Ia supernovae"
A trend from 2 datapoints (January 1987 and January 1997). So does that mean if December 1996 was warmer than December 1986, I can claim that ther was warming? A three year (1984-1987) warming "trend" is a trend only to the deniers.And I would like to see how yo get 2 steps from this: source
You know if you weren't so dishonest it would be funny Mannie. I know that you aren't a total moron. I don't for one minute believe that you first went into wood for trees and graphed the above data. I dont think you are that stupid. I beleive that you went into wood for trees and graphed the data from 1987-1997. I have enough respect for your intelegence to beleive you did that. However, you are also not an honest person. The data from 1987-1997 is quite clear. So seeing that I was right you then proceeded to make the above graph to obfuscate the issue. While I do at times question your absolute intelligence, I think you often bite off more than you can mentally chew. I do have some respect for for your intelligence. Your intellectual honesty however is a whole other story. I don't for one moment believer that you didn't check the data from 1987-1997. And the fact that you ignored it and tried to find something you could spin proves that I'm very right about the kind of person you are.
Its is a step more than it is a linear trend. I dont how you think the above data shows otherwise. A step function is closer to the actual data than the linear trend. The step is what is known as the function of best fit. How you can insist to use the linear trend is beyond me. Its flat out stupid. And it isn't a fallacy since it exists. And given Dr. Spencer's recent research on the coupled correlation between ocean oscillations and cloud cover there is a perfectly sound physical explanation too. The steps correspond with ENSOs. The el nino phase of the ENSO reduces pacific cloud cover which in turn allows more energy to enter the system further fueling the el nino. This is only partially reversed by the la nina so the net effect on the system is a warming. We suspect that the net effect of an ENSO is determined by the phase of the PDO.
