It Is The Sun

[tomclarke]

OHC is indeed massive, and increasing at a fair lick.

So where is the extra heat coming from?

I see no evidence for this unprecedented change in solar output that you claim. Of course, we do not understand the sun, so it is difficult to say it will not suddenly start to do something different from normal.

"some one has calculated" a complex and not obvious correlation?

You know well that leaves in teacups give you such correlations. In climate you can find good looking correlations for anything. Sounds like wishful thinking. Now, if that was a substantive quantified physical mechanism it would be better. But then we could check it in other ways and it would not wash. Or, if the temperature were actually decreasing, but as you've pointed out total global heat is increasing, and surface temperature is increasing, though slower than in the 90s, and at a rate where the trend is not easy to distinguish over a short timescale. But it certainly is not decreasing.

How much evidence of temperature not decreasing will you need before you abandon this unlikely hypothesis?

Now that it no longer fits their theory they seem to be back-tracking?

It fits and we are doubling down. You have to understand that OHC is massive. It takes about one to two sunspot cycles for a change in solar output to manifest. If you count from 2003 and add 11 this is the year. Pay close attention to NH winter this year. What you see will accelerate for the next 20 years at least.

Some one has calculated that when the average Sun Spot Number (SSN) is above 40 we get warming (not immediately) when it is below that we get cooling (not immediately). I think that is probably correct. Although the actual balance point may have to be adjusted up or down as more people look into the question.

[tomclarke]

The US, big though it is, is less than 2% of the globe's surface so extrapolating from hot or cold there to globally hot or cold is a fool's errand.

You will see the decline manifested in the atmosphere this winter. Although North America is experiencing a cool summer. In my neck of the woods about 10F below average. But it could just be a fluctuation (I think it is the start of a trend).

You may want to look into - missing heat - the current explanation of why warming is not manifesting. Or - missing heat oceans - for more.

And why is it "missing"? The models predict.........................

[TDPerk]

The US, big though it is, is less than 2% of the globe's surface so extrapolating from hot or cold there to globally hot or cold is a fool's errand.

Except the concept of AGW posits a mechanism of increased heat retention which is instantaneous, and the atmosphere of the US in homogenous with the rest of that over the rest of the northern hemisphere. We aren't going to diverge from global climate changes for long at all or to any degree. We're on the same planet.

[tomclarke]

It is a matter of being sensible about the numbers. Weather makes for large fluctuations even in global temperature over periods of less than 30 years. We are talking here about a period of less than one year, and 1/50th of the globe.

Your argument would only work if weather correlated across the whole of the N hemisphere. Even then the length of time would be statistically insignificant! But the short time and the small region affected makes any conclusion impossible.

You will see very often that global weather works with higher temps in one region and lower temps in another, balancing. Though of course that is not a precise rule!

The US, big though it is, is less than 2% of the globe's surface so extrapolating from hot or cold there to globally hot or cold is a fool's errand.

Except the concept of AGW posits a mechanism of increased heat retention which is instantaneous, and the atmosphere of the US in homogenous with the rest of that over the rest of the northern hemisphere. We aren't going to diverge from global climate changes for long at all or to any degree. We're on the same planet.

[TDPerk]

Your argument would only work if weather correlated across the whole of the N hemisphere.

It would be more than curious for human released CO2 to have an effect over all the rest of the globe but not in the US. It's over the whole world the AGW demanded increase has halted, not just the US. The CO2 increase is common to the whole atmosphere, the greenhouse effect instantaneous.

It must effect the whole globe if it is real. The flat period--and by AGW impossible for its duration--in temp measurements is worldwide.

[tomclarke]

You are not getting it. Global warming does affect the whole globe, equally. However it is a small slowly increasing positive trend superimposed on weather variations of +/- 5C.

The total AGW increase is around 0.15C/decade. You need a lot of decades for that to become significant compared with local weather extremes!

Your argument would only work if weather correlated across the whole of the N hemisphere.

It would be more than curious for human released CO2 to have an effect over all the rest of the globe but not in the US. It's over the whole world the AGW demanded increase has halted, not just the US. The CO2 increase is common to the whole atmosphere, the greenhouse effect instantaneous.

It must effect the whole globe if it is real. The flat period--and by AGW impossible for its duration--in temp measurements is worldwide.

[tomclarke]

In fact even when you average temperature over the globe, so reducing regional variations like this year's record cold N US and record hot Australia, you get a very noisy global temperature graph. You can see from this that the AGW signal is still not larger than the noise if you look over even 30 years, and impossible to distinguish over one year.

woodfortrees is a great site where you can compare raw data from all the different indices and also do your own processing, with graphical output.

Great also for cherry-pickers of course!

[TDPerk]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/23/i ... d-by-ncdc/

Actually, the warmist's signals are produced by fraudulently adjusting data records upwards when if anything a downward adjustment is called for.

Global warming does affect the whole globe, equally.

Except it's not. The currently period of no warming is disallowed by the AGW models.

[tomclarke]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/23/i ... d-by-ncdc/

Actually, the warmist's signals are produced by fraudulently adjusting data records upwards when if anything a downward adjustment is called for.

Global warming does affect the whole globe, equally.

Except it's not. The currently period of no warming is disallowed by the AGW models.

Perhaps then you should ignore global temperature record now and look at paleo studies and Pinatoba studies which estimate ECS from past temperature changes?

There is more than one way to skin a chicken...

If I have time and inclination I'll crawl through the above disinformation and give the otehr side of the story - which I expect will be more substantive. The temperature datasets are open and adjustments well documented - anyone who things they are wrong is free to create there own dataset and justify it.

[TDPerk]

"The total AGW increase is around 0.15C/decade. You need a lot of decades for that to become significant compared with local weather extremes!"

According to the AGW models, they are disproved if warming doesn't continue in 10-15years, and we're past that. If you want to complain that particular warmist was wrong, go ahead.

There's no reason we should listen to you or them.

They cook the books.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa- ... on-record/

[TDPerk]

"Perhaps then you should ignore global temperature record now and look at paleo studies and Pinatoba studies which estimate ECS from past temperature changes?"

No reason to ignore the global temp record when it agrees with your theory...


...Unless you're acknowledging it disagrees with your theory.

[tomclarke]

"Perhaps then you should ignore global temperature record now and look at paleo studies and Pinatoba studies which estimate ECS from past temperature changes?"

No reason to ignore the global temp record when it agrees with your theory...


...Unless you're acknowledging it disagrees with your theory.

I'm not having that. You were saying you thought it wrong, because it does not agree with your faith. I'm quite happy to consider and explain all evidence, or where I can't admit that. I've been doing so consistently. I don't claim that evidence I don't like must be falsified, as you have done.

My point is that even if you distrust the direct AGW signal from teh surface temp record - reckoning there are adjustments that distort this, there is much other evidence about AGW completely independent that you could look at.

[TDPerk]

"Perhaps then you should ignore global temperature record now and look at paleo studies and Pinatoba studies which estimate ECS from past temperature changes?"

No reason to ignore the global temp record when it agrees with your theory...


...Unless you're acknowledging it disagrees with your theory.

I'm not having that. You were saying you thought it wrong, because it does not agree with your faith. I'm quite happy to consider and explain all evidence, or where I can't admit that. I've been doing so consistently. I don't claim that evidence I don't like must be falsified, as you have done.

My point is that even if you distrust the direct AGW signal from teh surface temp record - reckoning there are adjustments that distort this, there is much other evidence about AGW completely independent that you could look at.

"I'm not having that."

Oh I agree you are rejecting reality and substituting your own.

"You were saying you thought it wrong, because it does not agree with your faith."

No I never said any such thing, however desperately you need it to be true.

" I'm quite happy to consider and explain all evidence, or where I can't admit that"

It's a known fact acknowledged by even most warmists, that they had a decline to hide, they hid it in the ocean* although no known mechanism can do so without (a) still causing an as yet absent increase in surface temps over land and (b) simultaneously have heat go into the depths without it's being on the surface, unless the upwelling current are as exactly as cold and voluminous as will balance the human CO2 increased heat to go into them. Quite a convenient and evidence less balance there.

" I've been doing so consistently. "

You've consistently been a warmist although there's no extra heat.

"I don't claim that evidence I don't like must be falsified, as you have done."

I claim that because of the prima facie evidence it was faked.

"My point is that even if you distrust the direct AGW signal from teh surface temp record"

It says you and AGW are wrong, BTW, as does the satellite record.

"reckoning there are adjustments that distort this, there is much other evidence about AGW completely independent that you could look at."

No there isn't any. It's not warmer*.

*If any increased heat energy is retained by the planet as a result of human released CO2, that heat retention cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability. th eIPCC models which predict such are falsified by measured reality.

17 years, no warmy.

*When that falls apart, they'll hide it somewhere else. Those grant requests won't approve themselves.

[MSimon]

tom.

The solar model predicts cooling for at least the next 20 years. The CO2 model does not.

The test is in progress. Would 20 years of cooling convince you?

[williatw]

tom.

The solar model predicts cooling for at least the next 20 years. The CO2 model does not.

The test is in progress. Would 20 years of cooling convince you?

Well a few years back I recall that they (the GW supporters) were making the argument that global warming might cause massive fresh water flow due to snow melt into the Atlantic Ocean; this in turn would disrupt the long range deep oceanic convection current, causing it to shut down. This would then cause cooling in the northern Hemisphere; in other words they already have hedged their bets by having an "explantion" ready; just in case some anomalous pesky hiatus/cooling takes place.