The step function usually fails AIC compared to linear because it has more parameters. That's not stupid, it's standard. Sure models exist. The question is, are they the best models? You haven't shown that. Which explains precisely nothing. WHY is it only partially reversed by La Niña? ENSO is driven by barometric pressure differences across the Pacific basin, and I can assure you that the weight of the atmosphere, over the long haul, has not changed. Again, this explains nothing. Ocean cycles are not an energy source. They can only cause the surface to warm by transporting heat from the depths. Therefore ocean cycles can only cause surface warming by also causing cooling deeper down. So if ocean cycles were the cause of the surface warming, the depths should be cooling. They're not.
Yes we know Trenberth found his missing heat buried deep in the ocean where we don't have the data to know if its really there. Answer me this??? How exactly did the deep ocean warm from CO2 without the surface warming over the same period? Occam's razor my friend. It didn't. NOAA simply found what it was looking for because Trenberth was looking like an idiot.The deep ocean hasn't warmed we don't have enough data to know either way. To say it has is to extrapolate too much. This graph sums up ocean heat content nicely We simply dont know Dr. Pielke Sr. has probably done just about as much analysis on our ocean data and the fact is we simply don't have enough data. He attributes much of that 2003 jump to a change in datasets.
Well, we're getting there thanks to ARGO. It took its heat from the surface. In an equilibrium situation, when the the depths warm, the surface cools. In this case, we're not at equilibrium because of greenhouse gases. So the surface cooling was offset by greenhouse warming, leaving the surface trend flat-ish, as OHC continues trending upward. We've got the data: it's right there in the graph. Since the data disagrees with your set-in-concrete mindset, you ignore it. That's sooooo much easier than learning something new, isn't it? No it doesn't. That graph is the top 700 meters only. The graph I posted is the top 2000 meters: it's 3 times more complete. Whistling past the graveyard? Just keep pretending we don't know what we do know, because your reassuring ignorance is better for your mental health than the certain knowledge that your denier friends have been lying to you for years.
And most of the jump that you are pointing to in your one dataset that disagrees with the others is because of the switch to ARGO. Other studies simply corrected for it better than Levitus. That doesn't make any sense. It didst' occur contentiously. It wasn't a consistent rise which is what you would see if we are at a perfect equilibrium (gaia worshiping bull(*)(*)(*)(*) by the way the incoming energy does not perfectly equal what is going down the ocean depths yet another totally implausible coincidence that warmmongers expect us to believe.) The rapid rise occurs over a very short time frame. And then levels out. Occam's razor friend. It is not circulation in perfect balance with global warming. It is an a very implausible explanation. And it is also not supported by the data. The explanation is simply the effect of witching over to ARGO in early 2000. The rise occurs during the ARGO switch over not because of a coincidence but because of the switchover. No we dont. We have mismatched datasets comparing apples to oranges. No it is more incomplete because all the data prior to the AGRO deployment is totally unreliable. Your jump is nothing more than byproduct of switching datasets and not representative of an actual warming that really occurred. It is very important to admit what we dont know in science. Its probably more important to admit that than what we do know. Lest we make the mistake of mistaking things we are not sure of as things we know.
What "jump"? The increase looks smooth to my eye. If we were at equilibrium, you wouldn't see a rise at all. The rise occurs because we're NOT at equilibrium. Please explain why a rise in OHC lasting 40 years is a "very short time frame." And there is no leveling out when you look at the whole ocean. And please, please, please continue to IGNORE THE DATA. It makes your side look stupid, ignorant, and lazy when you do. Every time you do that, I win. It's far more plausible than the magic fairy dust theories that deniers espouse. Or what is it this week? Cosmic rays? PDO? Ozone? It's hard to know what you deniers actually propose to explain the evidence, because you guys don't care a whit about evidence. Nor about explaining anything. Then why does the rise in OHC continue after 2000? Pwnd again. They're not mismatched at all. One is a dataset of OHC for 0-700 meters, and one is OHC for 0-2000 meters. If you like, you can subtract A from B and get OHC for 700-2000 meters. And why is OHC-to-OHC and apples to oranges comparison? If you believe that, why did you post a graph that contains mostly pre-ARGO data? And your source for this insight is ... what, exactly? Answer: wishful thinking, unsupported by a shred of evidence.
What scientists - hint old chap Tallboy's blog is not a scientific paper Neither is anything published by the Oregon Institute Still has to obey the laws of conservation of energy - you cannot get out of the system more heat than is put in cycle or no cycle and just because the sun was warmer decades ago does not mean that that trapped heat is still warming the planet to increasing degrees now. Now if we add an increased ability to insulate the planet like say in a greenhouse, then it could get warmer inside See it is not such a hard concept
Well done. However, you missed a step. The PMOD started min in 1984. You mentioned 1987 as the starting point. So my first graph from woodfortrees was the 1984 to 1997 temps source Did you choose the dates 1987 and 1997 because they fit your claim? Why did you not start in 1984? What were you stating about intellectual honesty? And you still did not address the point about you using a monthly data point separated by a year and implying that was significant. What were you stating about intellectual honesty? And you stated "All the warming in the 30 years of satellite record occurred during two steps 1984-1987 and 1998-2001." How do you infer that from the graph? What were you stating about intellectual honesty? BTW, thanks for showing me a way to explain why short periods are not significant in determining trends.
Ah your ever moving goal posts. Why did I chose 1987? FYI its not just one data point. That was only a quick example. As my graph shows the entire data set is consistent with the conclusion. So **** about cherry picking. You just proved it genius. The trend from 1987-1997 is 0 or slightly negative depending on the source the source RSS or UAH. Since trend from 1987-1997 is 0 as my graph showed, and the trend from 1984-1997 is 0.1-0.15 as your new graph shows., then all of the 0.1-0.15 degrees of warming occurred between 1984 and 1987.
Understood... I also understand that Water Vapor is the MAIN GreenHouse Gas and that it alone accounts for the vast majority of the Greenhouse Effect. While I also understand that the amount of CO2 in the "System" makes it a "trace" gas, and that it accounts for very little of the overall effect.
Ha Ha Ha poor debater really believes that the ocean heat content jumped 5 × 10^22 J in a single year. There isn't enough energy entering the system to create such a jump. You are trying to say that at the same time we experienced a decline in incoming radiation. Energy content in the ocean suddenly jumped. Who is arguing against the laws of physics now??? The jump is an after effect of the ARGO switch over nothing more.
Such an obvious strawman, it borders on outright prevarication. I never said that, and the graph I posted does not show that. Next time, try a little honesty.
You graph is of Levitus only smoothed, Levitus' raw data which I posted shows a 5 X 10^22 J jump in one year. Again re you denying the laws of physics??? Do you really believe that the earths ocean heat content jumped 5 X 10 ^22 J in one year? You have a choice. It either did jump that much with no corresponding increase in incoming radiation therefor violating conservation of energy or you can apply occam's razor and conclude that it was simply an after effect of switching over to the new data set. Which will it be. Will you deny physics and reality to further your own socialist ends or will you admit the truth?
If you don't believe the data that you post yourself, then don't post it. And certainly don't attribute it to me. Not only do I not believe it, I have never seen any evidence that it has. Since the graph you posted does not show the heat content of the entire ocean, but only the top 700 meters, you haven't shown any such evidence either. Strawman. Next time, try a little honesty.
Thats a logical stretch. Since I don't believe the data is accurate then don't post it to show how it is obviously not accurate. Is this your approach to all science.
Hhhhmmmmm - but are you going to remove the water vapour from the atmosphere or is it better to try and mitigate the amount of CO2 that is triggering the feedback loop of the water vapour? http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm
What? CO2 is doing no such thing... The increasing Solar input, over centuries, is triggering the GreenHouse Effect. How can something that is IN the particular Effect trigger its OWN Effect?!?!?!?!?
Actually it is about 9 days, not just "hours"... And it is continually being replenished, mostly by way of Solar Radiation. Imagine that. The Sun is the main contributor to the GreenHouse Effect.
It has been linked to many times now, why do you continue to ignore it? http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/data/tsi_data.htm The ERBS, ACRIM-III, and VIRGO continue to make observations. Willson [1997] combined the ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II data sets using their overlap with the ERB data, and his analysis suggests a net increase of solar radiation between solar minima in 1986 and 1996. (Note: only two solar minima have actually been observed thus far). The estimated increase of 0.04% would induce appreciable climate change if it persists for a sufficient number of solar cycles and if the climate system feedbacks reached their full equilibrium response to the forcing.
Hmmm - yes and it has been debunked many times now - why do you continue to ignore our responses? Look mate - this is from 1997
So now you believe you can debunk the actual data? If it is from 1997, then why does their Graph go to 2001, and there are references as late as; several from 2005 and one from 2007?
No, water vapor is the main contributor, amounting to 60% of the total greenhouse effect. CO2 is 26%. But water vapor cannot force climate change, because it moves into and out of the air too quickly for that. CO2, by contrast, stays in the ocean/atmosphere cycle for centuries before geological processes can remove it.
The data does not say what you say it says. The data you yourself post shows a decline in solar activity since 1980. And when he combined them, he made a mistake. Which is why everyone uses PMOD data nowadays instead of ACRIM. Wrong again. Three minima have been observed by satellite: 21-22, 22-23, and now 23-24. In the first place, the estimated increase of Willson is completely spurious (see Krivova et. al. 2009); in the second place, even if there were an increase of 0.04% per 11-year solar cycle, that's less than half the climate forcing of human greenhouse gas emissions.
Actual data, from Wang et. al., on your own linked site: TSI, 1989.5: 1361.7738 TSI, 2011.5: 1367.3473 Change in TSI, 1989-2011: -0.4265 W/m². After smoothing with an 11-year moving average; TSI, 1989.5: 1361.3144 TSI, 2011.5: 1361.1744 Change in TSI, 1989-2011: -0.14 W/m². Will you please stop misrepresenting the data?
