Bob
Let’s take your points one by one.
First, you pulled the old “sleight of hand” trick on me, by changing the data series from the past 15 years (May 1997 through April 2012), to the past 16 years (starting May 1966 instead).
Here’s the past 15 years’ HadCRUT3 record, which shows slight (if statistically insignificant) cooling, as I wrote:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997.5
Mauna Loa agrees with other CO2 measurements, so it’s not wrong.
I have not questioned the Mauna Loa readings at all.
why do you insist on using HADcrut 3?
IPCC uses HadCRUT3 extensively in its AR4 report; I just did the same.
The IPCC climate sensitivity is not an assumption.
The IPCC climate sensitivity is based on assumptions, which have been fed into computer models to arrive at estimates. GIGO?
And you are judging a transient response using an equilibrium calculation
IPCC has told us that the anthropogenic warming of the early decades of the 21st century would represent 0.2C per decade (transient). This equals 0.3C over 15 years (transient). The calculation I made shows the same 0.3C theoretical rise over the 15-year period. In actual fact, however, there was very slight cooling over this period instead. That was my point, which you have been unable to refute. The whole “transient” versus “equilibrium” discussion is one that is highly theoretical, in the first place, but –as you see – IPCC has figured 0.2C per decade as a transient response.
So you see, Bob, that all your points are invalid and you have been unable to explain the major discrepancy beyween the IPCC modeled projections and the observed reality.
Max
