Comments for Climate Etc.

I am saying either the missing heat is in the ocean or it went back to space. These have different implications for sensitivity.

The global surface temperature change is more solid than the forcing. It is the denominator that is uncertain.

Jim D,

For there to be any sensitivity of any quantity to temperature, there must be a delta Temperature.

AGW delta T.

“Either heat is missing or less energy came in.”

It can’t be otherwise…

It will all come out in the wash.

“The energy thought to come in exceeded the warming seen.”

Imputations don’t match observations. Science is objective.

Normally you would use several decades for sensitivity, so there would be a temperature change, but any recent forcing reduction factors going with the “pause” may help revise the forcing down for the period.

I was just summing up the missing heat problem. Maybe you think there isn’t a problem. I am not sure what you are saying.

Jim D,

We all agree that the temperature is increasing. The earth is in an integlacial, (metastable) pause, between glacial extents. The earth is in an ice age, other wise.

The question is attribution. How much warming is AGW? And what would we do otherwise? Will AGW kill us before the next glacial epoch does?

(Beyond that; how long will the temperatures continue to increase? 100 years? 1000 years? Absent AGW, how long?)

What I am saying is that you must discern between observation and imputation.

When observations don’t agree with hypothesis, something gives.

Carrying on, by way of missing heat, is sitting astride the horns of the dilemma.

just change the order of graphs 2 & 3.

“I am saying either the missing heat is in the ocean or it went back to space. These have different implications for sensitivity.”

We agree. Thank you, Jim D.

And it ain’t cheaper neither. But, someday we may have a high-speed ( high on speed?) train to nowhere for that bride to nowhere. So we got that going for us …

…ain’t cheap…I meant to say.

PS: If it was the sun, we still agree. (you left that out…)

Attributable AGW delta T.

Lithium isn’t just for batteries don’t ya know.

I wonder if it´s a cultural, Nature Climate editorial practice, or just plain nerdiness which turns the abstracts from this particular journal into pure gabble. I notice the same issue in the IPCC reports. I used to get this “flavor” from engineers trained in Latin America (those from Argentina were really adept at writing extensively while conveying little information). When I suggested we had to retrain engineers so they could write compact, intelligible english sentences which conveyed the information as required, I was told I was fighting years of training in their universities. So are climatologists trained to write, or do they go on with a basic High School education and don´t get a quality technical writing course along the way?

Latest Images