The pause continues.
WebRubTelescoop continues to confuse land-only warming with ECS. Land temp rises more because it tends to be dry, especially in winter in higher latitudes, and thus lapse rate feedback (which is negative) doesn’t play as large a role in reducing CO2 sensitivity. It’s not rocket science just the physical response of a common substance (H2O) to illumination by back-radiation from CO2.
answer to previous question “When is a yardstick not a yardstick?”
When it’s a treemometer!
HAHAHAAHAHAHA – I kill me sometimes.
“Doc, Your model is embarrassingly crude”
Indeed it is, but then again, as Mosher would say, what is the model for?
The very crude model is designed to test the postulate of Nic, and questioned by Pekka, of climate sensitivity being near 1.4 degrees for 2x[CO2].
For a value of less that 2.2 one needs, at minimum, something, other than CO2, which caused global warming between 1974 and 1999 and is causing cooling post-1999.
The Sato aerosol data does not provide this; there is less aerosol cooling post-1999 than in the period 1974-1999. If anything, any usage of aerosols will tend to increase the apparent climate sensitivity. If one were to model the temperature rise in the years 1974-1999 it would be very easy to overestimate aerosol cooling and so to overestimate the value of CO2 climate sensitivity. Researchers living and working in this period could quite easily come to the conclusion that climate sensitivity was very high, >2.5, if they were to believe that the contribution of aerosols was also high.
The second possibility explored is that there is some regular cycle whereby heat is not thermalized immediately, but stored away from the surface, accumulated and then released, altering the SST. Such cycles appear to exist; the AMO and the PDO. In my ‘embarrassingly crude’ model the amplitude of a hypothetical cycle is only +/-0.117 degrees and has a periodicity of around 60 years. The ‘embarrassingly crude’ model suggests that one can change the estimate of CO2 induced warming from an estimate of 2.2 degrees into an estimate of 1.4 degrees.
Finally, the ‘embarrassingly crude’ model does catch present temperature data rather well, even though run from 1959-2012, whereas Pekka believed that Nic’s value of 1.4 was someone cherry picked as it only used the recent 17 years of data.
Remember, antique diamond rings range extensively, both in-style and in value.
The fee at each quarry is different but extremely cost-effective.
You’ve certainly seen the prong setting in jewelry.
JC,
Who’s “biased against” CO2??
Scientists understand it’s role very well – we’d be in serious trouble without it.
CO2 is great…..in moderation.
See what trouble you get yourself into when you take a lead from Donna’s silliness?
I guess measurements of OLR at the TOA would be one indicator. My understanding is that the contribution of each GHG to the overall GHE can’t be calculated exactly but CO2′s contribution is estimated to be around 20-25%.
In any case your null hypothesis only addressed the question of whether CO2 caused surface warming, not the actual amount of warming it caused.
Hello David,
I followed your link, which led to another link to the ARGO web site, where I found this:
“* How accurate is the Argo data?
The temperatures in the Argo profiles are accurate to ± 0.005°C and depths are accurate to ± 5m. For salinity,there are two answers. The data delivered in real time are sometimes affected by sensor drift. For many floats this drift is small, and the uncorrected salinities are accurate to ± .01 psu. At a later stage, salinities arecorrected by expert examination, comparing older floats with newly deployed instruments and with ship-based data. Following this delayed-mode correction, salinity errors are reduced further and in most cases the data become good enough to detect subtle ocean change.
* How much does the project cost and who pays?
Each float costs about $15,000 USD and this cost about doubles when the cost of handling the data and running the project is taken into account. The array has roughly 3000 floats and to maintain the array, 800 floats will need to be deployed each year. Thus the approximate cost of the project is 800 x $30,000 = $24m per year. That makes the cost of each profile around $200. 28 countries have contributed floats to the array with the USA providing about half the floats.”
Do I really believe that a $15k float, running unattended and uncalibrated in the open ocean will produce temperature data over an expected temperature range of 0-30 C with 5 millidegree error bounds over its operational life (4+/- years)?
Uncle willard
In his counting house
Sitting on his
Bags of moneyquotes.
================
I won’t go near Wilson’s claims of optical depth and CO2. It is simply a diversionary tactic on his part to change the subject from the soli-lunar forcings. Take a look at his latest post
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com/2013/12/variations-in-earths-climate-on-decadal.html
and compare it to what I am writing about
http://contextearth.com/2013/12/18/csalt-model-and-the-hale-cycle/
The fact of the matter is that the orbital oscillation contributions may in fact be measurable. However, they also may be rather inconsequential in comparison to the larger CO2 control knob contribution to global warming. That is why he is upset and wants to change the subject to optical depth.
Aren’t these deniers so transparently phony when it comes down to it?
You will persist with your nonsense.
Sun is not a harmonic oscillator (definition: oscillator with a constant amplitude and a constant frequency which does not depend on the amplitude).
Solar oscillations are not of constant frequency and cycles with lower amplitude are usually longer.
Further more you misunderstand what Hale cycle is, it is change of magnetic polarity from N to S and reverse, so you can’t have something at 7 or 3 or whatever shorter years. You could just possibly consider length of 2, 3 or more periods, i.e. ~42 , ~65 (variable AMO), ~ 85 (Gleissberg), ~105 (see previous post) etc., years.
Note how the attribution of “nonsense” has reversed polarity.
To the deniers such as Vuc, it is all about ABCD.
It’s a record!
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/record.htm
It is nice to know that my attack on the IPCC claim that they are 95% certain of things related to CAGW, is supported by one extremely eminent scientist, namely Pierere Darriulat. In http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4360
he writes “Such behaviour is unacceptable. A proper scientific summary must rephrase the main SPM conclusions in a way that describes properly the factors that contribute to the uncertainties attached to such conclusions.”
I am sure what I have written does not carry much authority, but I hope the warmist denizens of Climate Etc will note what Pierre has written. I would be interested in any criticism of his submission to the UK Parliamentary Committee.
Just take a look at this before spouting your Hottest November crap.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/thirteen-years-of-nasa-data-tampering-in-six-seconds/
Note it uses actual GISS data.
Why don’t you look at Nic Lewis’s submission which says the range of warming since 1950 is mostly due to man? Mirroring the IPCC attribution statement.
I merely couldn’t leave your web site ahead of suggesting i extremely liked the most common data someone source on your company? Can be likely to be once again continually to be able to check out brand new content
This is one of the great errors of the Grand Catastrophic Narrative, that warming change is bad. Where would we be without the warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age(and the depths of the Holocene)? The greater man’s effect on that warming, the colder we would now be without that effect.
Better hope that Nature caused most of that rise, because otherwise we’d be slip slidin’ out of the Holocene, and only Anthropogenic CO2 holding off the glaciers.
===================
“Regarding the oceans absorbing heat, it is another argument without solid proof.”
And contrary to basic thermodynamics. The oceans are not “absorbing” heat from the atmosphere, as the thermo gradient between the two is strongly from ocean to atmosphere.
“NOAA of course won’t talk about this, and will massively tamper with the data before releasing it.”
Absurd.
