The Cool Down Is Coming

Only those that include Karl et al. You really don’t know much about this do you?

 

Well there is a saying. All models are wrong. For some the idea that some programmer, often not a scientist, can accurately predict the future based on sometimes simple and other times complex computations is fact other than conjecture.

GIGO, garbage in garbage out. Common in computer models. If any of the computations in are in error then the output is too.

There are so many unknown unknowns and known unknowns in climate science that that to base political decisions based on models is insane.

All of the hysteria is based on models and not observed science. On top of that, it is based on the most unrealistic worst case scenario models.

 

And, as they are excellent at doing, they solved the mystery.

 

Projection? You really are not aware of much. You probably don’t understand how much other outputs are based on the US record that includes Karl et al.

 

Karl's NOAAGlobalTemp dataset definitely shows the hiatus from 1998 to 2012. What mamasaid is referring to is the inclusion of the heat content stored in the ocean. Note that in the context of conventional datasets land and ocean refer to the air temperature 2 meters above the surface either land, ocean, or both. So when you see "ocean" used in the context of those datasets they aren't talking about the ocean temperature over a sufficient depth of it. They are talking about the air temperature above it. Sometimes the sea surface temperature is used as proxy for the air temperature.

 

With 60+ explanations? Which one was correct?

 

False. Look up Hausfather, for one. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

 

The explanations for the mechanism all agree that the ocean stored more heat than was thought at the time. So, not relevant. And if your intention is to argue that, because we don't know every detail of a topic we can't know anything about it.
.well, I think I will just step aside ans let you embarrass yourself with that tactic.

 

So, what heats the oceans? Do you understand the difference between the heat content of oceans to atmosphere and the law of thermodynamics?

 

Not aware of the 60+ explanations eh?

 

Yes, and thanks for asking. Before you continue to waste my time...are you implying that the global scientific community is incompetent, or lying? Thast a straightforward question.

 

I don't know if it's been solved, but there are certainly some convincing arguments that explain the divergence between models and observation. The reasons I've seen cited are that models underestimated the heat flux processes that cause heat to transfer from the ocean to the atmosphere. It's also believed that aerosol emissions were slightly higher than assumed. Another factor is that there was a tremendous amount of energy that was used to melt ice in the Arctic region. And it is curious to note that while models overestimated the heat uptake of the atmosphere they underestimated the latent heat uptake of melting ice. In other words, models totally underestimated the ice melt that occurred in the Arctic region in the 2000's. And then, of course, 1998-2012 just happens to be cherry-picked such that it begins with an El Nino and ends with a La Nina. This would be the best way to cherry-pick if your desire was to minimize the perceived warming. In the end, it's probably a combination of all of these factors.

 

It has, as far as the mystery, "where did the extra heat go?"

 

Ah, the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Which science, the inconvenient science to the dogma?

 

Just answer the question. Incompetent, liars, or both? These are the only choices you have left for yourself. So, choose. I want to know the level of crazy you possess.

 

Well, yes, I totally agree with you on that point. The heat got stored in the ocean and the latent heat of fusion to turn ice into water. But, the crux of the mystery is not with a full accounting of the heat. That was predicted pretty well. The problem is why models did not correctly predict the distribution of the accumulated heat.

 

Not really. Do you accept all science or only the science that confirms you political bias?

 

Right. Nevertheless, the long term predictions are not affected.

 

In the models. Not in the real world. I don’t think you understand the limits of models.

 

You did not answer my question.

Liars, incompetent, or both? Clearly they would be incompetent, if a bunch of uneducated slobs who read blogsnon the internet have outsmarted them all. So that seems absurd.

That leaves the idea that they are all being deceptive. Unfortunately, that is even more absurd.

This is a fine corner you have painted yourself into. I do not envy your position.

 

@iamanonman
@Hoosier8
@Mamasaid

Why not just a bubble of magma circulating close to the crust above.
No volcano eruption needed. No predictability.

? ?
Ignoring geothermal influences as are probably involved with the
Greenland and Antarctic ice melts that seem to happen from the bottom, up.
In both places water is found flowing under major ice.


Moi
BTW Weren't CO2 levels five times higher in the Jurassic?
What could mankind have done to pollute the Jurassic with so much CO2?

Hoards Ice Science.



​

 

Not my problem you don’t understand science. You have been captured by hysteria. Truly, you need to widen your knowledge of the subject.

 

Do you honestly think that people who have dedicated their lives to science dod not think of this before you did? The US Geological society endorses the scientific consensus. Do you not think their members know a thing or two about volcanoes amd magma deposits? Have you bothered to research the answer to your question somewhere besides a message board?

 

You are still dodging my question.

Liars, incompetent, or both? Remember, you are not just accusing me of not knowing science, but also the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists.

 

True, new geothermal activity has been discovered under some of the Antarctic.