Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

Ahem you dont have the scientific education or general skill to know what you are saying.

I however do. The ocean has approximately 1000 the heat capacity of the atmosphere. If the ocean is absorbing all the AGW heat then there is no problem. it only if that heat is in the atmosphere then it is significant. In the ocean it is insignificant. No problem crisis over.

 

Checking google will take you to many CAGW whining outlets. Use your brain for a change.

 

The ocean absorbs and the ocean releases.

You're welcome.

 

Still, if the atmosphere does raise in temperature, and time equalized the temperature to ocean, a 2 degree rise in atmospheric temperature only becomes about a 0.002 degree increase once equalization is realized, assuming the 1000:1 is real.

I don't know what the heat capacity difference is, but is is huge. 1000:1 is probably pretty close. The CO2 capacity is about 50:1.

 

When? Its easy to say but ygat heat is claimed to be in the deep ocean. It ain't comming back anytime soon.

Now remember im playing devil's advocate here there is no actual evidence here just more model runs that stuoid people think is data because the model run is called a "data based reanalysis".

 

That's a really pretty graphic but who made it and from where came this data?

So, based on this there has been a 2000 % increase in pretty much everything?

Ah, you know what? Without a reference and data to support it, the fact you see anyone questioning the data as a "denier" tells me your little chart is total horse(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

No it doesn't but I've been on this forum long enough to learn the level of denialist analysis so I'm not surprised you believe that.

 

Its not data the actual ARGO data shows no trend since it was fully implemented in the early 00s.

it is what is called a reanalysis. A reanalysis is model output. The purpose of a reanalysis is to infil missing data. if you have breaks you uae a model to fill in the gaps.

Warmmonger scientivists however have discovered a new use for reanalysis. They pass the entire fricking data set through a model and end up eith model output that they call reanalysis data. This reanalysis is then claimed to confirm the very models that produced the reanalysis. In short models confirming models.

The scientivists know that yhis is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) if course. They however feel that their rank and file are amongst the dumbest people ever born. So they call their reanalysis a "data based reanalysis" and assume that their rank and file is too stupid to understand what that actually means. Words ars parsed carefully to give the impression that their reanalysis is actual data. It goes out to the warmist media who we all know are very very stupid. They buy it never even bothering to take thd 2 minutes it takes to find out what reanalysis actually means and then it filters down to the rank and file.

 

That's key to so much of their work. The way they word things to lie, without actually lying!

 

re-analysis = made up (*)(*)(*)(*)?

Anyone can sit down to a cheap presentation program and create a graph. My question is what is the source data, who made the graph from what?

Otherwise it's merely a computer etch-a-sketch

 

There is no source data.

Its model output.

In a typical reanalysis you will have mostoy actual data and model output filling in gaps. In the case of these propagandist its 100% model output.

 

Font be fooled into liberal thinking. There are more types of lying than lies of comission. There are lies of omission, lies of context etc. There are many forms of lying. A hallmark of liberals is their insistence that only lies of comission are lies while the speak eith forked tongue and engage in every type of lying there is.

Alwsys call them out on their lies. Just say lie by context etc. and they lose it because they know full well just h9w deceitful they are. They pride themselves on their ability to get away with it.

 

Thinking they got away with it.

 

You are really giving away the secrets to the scheme Windigo, those modeling noise do not appreciate the rules to the game being so openly discussed!!

And the REALLY funny part of this game? Is when all the results clamored about EXIST because of the "reanalysis", "correction factor", "adjustment".

Mann's hockey stick being one of the more famous examples. Include this data string in the dataset, it delivers an answer you like. Don't include it, you don't get the answer you like, regardless of the combinations of the others.

Analogous to the survivor effect in statistics, this kind of problem has come up before in oil and gas field reserve growth studies, which is where I bumped into it previously.

But for a young academic, trying to make a name for themselves, which result do YOU choose? It certainly has been lucrative, to ride the way of warming popularity, it does not appear to be as pleasant, riding ones reputation down as science dismantles the validity of your original idea. Lawsuits and investigations and whatnot. Yick, scientists don't tend to seek this kind of stuff out, they got into academia in the first place so they could avoid being held accountable for results.

 

Not quite. The beauty of re-analysis as described isn't just that it makes up an answer, but it can be configured (without even trying hard I might add) to deliver whatever answer you'd like. "My R^2 to deliver the answer is better than your R^2!!!" being the clarion call among modelers "proving" how much better one's regression fit is over another.

All great fun for the modelers.

 

[h=2]Argo data show 16 year Ocean Warming Trend[/h]

 

That isn't data. It is processed information. Argo probes measure temperature. Why don't you check out of a graph of that instead?

 

What I consider to be a fair criticism of how the Argo data has been used by some, and as a data miner myself, strikes me as quite a reasonable point to make. It is disappointing that scientists in other fields themselves didn't recognize the limitations within this particular data set, or account for the obvious uncertainty in the method the data was obtained in a much more robust way. As someone who has used kriging related to subsurface geologic properties as they relate to oil and gas well productivity estimates, I'm not sure that the solution of just using kriging can account for the levels of uncertainty laid out in the article.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/krige-the-argo-probe-data-mr-spock/

 

Love to see all these denialists trying to dismiss the two graphs showing global warming. When you guys get done with all your linguistic cartwheels you might want to weigh in on the round earth conspiracy. lol

 

"The warming ocean is revealed by changes in heat content from 1993 to 2008, shown by the black line with error bars, as constructed by Lyman et al.[SUP]1[/SUP]. This analysis samples the ocean to 700 m depth and gives an average warming trend of 0.64 W m[SUP]−2[/SUP] (red line). The data available from Argo floats since 2003 enable an estimate to 2,000 m depth (blue line)[SUP]8[/SUP] to be made. The differences between the black and blue plots after 2003 suggest that there has been significant warming below 700 m, and that rates of warming have slowed in recent years.

 

Sorry but no the ARGO network was not fully functional until the early 00s.

The trend you are trying to claim is real is just a by byproduct of the systens instalation.

 

Yes 2003. The ARGO is accurate after 2003 any attempt to use pre 2003 data or reanalysis of that data is just a fraud.

 

Hey pinhead, the BLUE LINE is the Argo data.

 

No. It isn't. Argo measures temperature, the graph is not in temperature units. Therefore some processing has taken place, and as the climate modelers have taught us, you can't trust their assumptions any better than what they also call "data", on more than one occasion.

This one being my favorite example of why scientists need to worry about not only their processing techniques, but what they even call "data".

 

Yeah, for bad stations they 'homoginize' the data to change it so it is a wonder that different techniques come up with different temperatures. This 'warmest' August really means nothing since it is within the statistical error range.