@SdP: In the end the ONLY thing that matters is who is correct and who is not.
If you google
the only thing that matters
you will be hard pressed to find anyone who agrees with you.
And if you’re wrong about that you’re probably wrong about everything.
Hey, I like it. We’re from the religious right and we’re into objective perversion. Come join us, send us your contact info. ;)
-1000
No, it’s not. This year there is El Nino. The NE Pacific just has to stay warm, and it’s warming up.
She’s a little better at this than you are. The PDO, peak to peak, ~1940 to ~1983, 40 to 45 years tops. That’s why I thought the positive phase of the PDO was imminent.
The BLOB.
Yeah, pokerguy,
lies and more damn lies,
crooked menn and
crooked styles.
[…] …increase more along with that.That sounds like excellent news to me. More vapour = more food. More CO2 = more food.Let the good time roll. Talkwalker Alert: 50 results for [food news] […]
The Daily Mail has a good, substantive article about this paper
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3155568/Have-seas-HIDING-true-scale-climate-change-Nasa-report-claims-global-warming-pause-never-happened.html
The surface global temperature rose 0.15 C between their 90’s and 00’s decades. This alone accounts for the forcing change of 0.3 W/m2 between those dates, so the imbalance doesn’t have to be increasing, and you don’t need the OHC change to be accelerating, just to be linear as they suggest it is. I am not seeing the relevance to the hiatus because they include the 90’s back to 1993, since which there was a lot of warming. What am I missing?
+1 Rud Istvan
Ok, anaerobic menathogenesis produces methane, co2, and heat.
Suppose we have an increase in clear skies and a good supply of co2 and other nutrient. The oceans bloom. Then the sun goes away a bit. The big plankton eaters, get lean. The little ones starve, are eaten by predators and scavengers and excreted. Malthus reigns in the ocean. Decomposition releases methane, co2, and heat. Some dissolves immediately into the water, perhaps clathrates form over some. Eventually heat causes the clathrates to release their gas… Point is perhaps the deep ocean isn’t a FILO but a mixture of FIFO and FILO processes. A tiny bit might not of the action might not be on geological time scales.
Is it plausible? Probably not.
Next episode…
Trenberth’s Missing Heat is Carp
Or…
Global Warming is in the Tail-Pipeline!!!
/rockyandbullwinkle
Oops in moderation! Need ter be more moderate. (
> I referred back to the BBC text as you claimed my paraphrase was a misrepresentation, but it’s almost identical to the text of a report publicly transmitted.
Minimization #1: “almost identical.” The BBC claim “50 days to save the world”. The transcript says:
There are now fewer than 50 days to set the course for the next few decades […]
This contrarian claptrap is a dud.
***
> yes there is more detail in here but nothing that significantly moderates the overall message, very little that conveys any sense of considering the conditionals […]
Minimization #2: from “no conditional” we go to “very little.” In a sense it is quite true that if is very little. In another sense, it’s big enough to convey a conditional.
One does not simply there’s no conditional when there’s one.
***
> The view presented is not supported by the benchmark of the IPCC technical papers […]
Deflection #1: Browne’s “50 days” remark which was used as an example of a CAGW claim pertains to a political process, i.e. what to do once you accept AGW, not the IPCC report.
Misrepresentation #2: Browne cited results from the IPCC, among other results he read.
***
> It’s not ‘but the media’. It is ‘and the media’.
Deflection #2: the “but the media” covers excuses like “I referred back to the BBC text.”
***
> Do you really think his public or the world at large will get a balanced view of the science from this messaging?
Andy introduces the balance meme, which is related to the CAGW meme. This other meme deserves due diligence. For now, let’s just say it may presume a view from nowhere:
In pro journalism, American style, the View from Nowhere is a bid for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer. Frequently it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position “impartial.” Second, it’s a means of defense against a style of criticism that is fully anticipated: charges of bias originating in partisan politics and the two-party system. Third: it’s an attempt to secure a kind of universal legitimacy that is implicitly denied to those who stake out positions or betray a point of view. American journalists have almost a lust for the View from Nowhere because they think it has more authority than any other possible stance.
http://pressthink.org/2010/11/the-view-from-nowhere-questions-and-answers/
Honest brokers warn that views from nowhere can amount to stealth advocacy.
***
> [Contrarians] don’t want to keep the ‘C’ in CAGW, they want to lose it.
Acknowledgement #2 (#1 was that AGW implies risks): the CAGW is a contrarian meme.
Of course contrarians would rather prefer more “balance,” “balance” being what is not “CAGW.” The problem then, considering that AGW implies risks, i.e. RAGW (H/T BartR), is to decide where CAGW ends and RAGW begins. Another problem is to determine how a balanced viewpoint implies RAGW.
Considering that any quote is good to raise concern about the lack of balance in the media, there’s no reason to believe that contrarians will ever stop using the CAGW meme.
***
Speaking of the CAGW meme, here’s tony using “catastrophists”:
Is that a “balanced” view?
Which mensheviks–the bolsheviks? :O)
JCH,
Is that what this says?
“JC comment: In plain words, there doesn’t seem to be any observational evidence that Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ is hiding below 700 m.
Interestingly, reanalysis also do not seem to correctly reproduce the ocean warming rates and lie well outside the observation uncertainty at different depths and times. Both the hiatus and the net amount of heat absorbed by the ocean below 700 m are overestimated. Reanalyses are also inconsistent with ocean observations, in terms of the vertical and regional distribution of heating. ”
Then:”The hiatus clearly lives, both in upper ocean heat content and surface temperatures from OI SST data set. The Karl et al. ocean data seems inconsistent with the upper ocean heat content measurements (not to mention the OI SST data set).”
So the pause that was, Karl declared dead, is now not so dead?
Sounds like the pause in the pause of the pause to me.
Well…
I didn’t invent the PDO and AMO. Much like El Nino they are constructs.
From the PDO index graphic it is 1928 to 1993 which is about 65 years. What these cycles were doing pre-1900 is anybody’s guess.
Looked around for a good explanation of PDO and couldn’t find one (if you have one just link it). That makes predicting the PDO less informed than betting on horse racing.
The PDO/AMO might be related to the PMM and AMM but not TOM.
Given that the AMO seems in sync with the hemispherical temperatures it would appear the AMO/PDO are due to changes in the meridional currents.
We’ll see who is the better weather guesser. I predict the PDO will be temporarily positive until the La Nina hits and then it will submarine for a while and stay primarily negative for about 15 years.
Dimsheviks.
So, let’s see, the skeptics need a 98% consensus to win?
Bad Serf!
Having been to a few Heartland Climate conferences and done my readings and homework, it became clear to me that “skeptics” don’t have THE answer, but know enough to know the “It’s the CO2, Stupid” argument of the warmists is at best very incomplete and at worst, just wrong. A system as wickedly complex as climate is not going to be simple at any scale or time frame.
Partial, working hypothesis.
CO2 in ice-bubbles begins to dissolve with time and pressure. At a certain pressure range bubbles tend to “equilibrate” to about 280ppm. The ice itself though becomes saturated with a small amount of CO2 (perhaps the equivalent of 30 or 40ppm for typical bubble density in ice), a threshold to the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed from bubbles. As pressure increases the saturation point probably increases, but is still small.
