3336LikesEver the Master of the inane and stupid retort.Originally Posted by Earthling
Ever the Master of the inane and stupid retort.
Doesn't say that on Trenberth's chart.
The claim from your side of the coin is that Reflected Solar Radiation of
101.9 Wm² and Outgoing Longwave Radiation 238.5 Wm² add up to 340.4 Wm²
which is 0.9 Wm² short of the 341.3 Wm² from Incoming Solar Radiation.
And that the Net absorbed 0.9 Wm² is what's warming up the ocean.
I'm telling you that your side has no way of actually measuring the 340.4 Wm²
outgoing value. I'm telling you that they made it up. They needed 0.9 Wm² to
make their model work so that's what they put down on paper, they didn't
measure a damn thing.
Because they aren't really measuring a rising heat content. The ARGO
data has been compromised by Dr. Josh Willis to show an increase when
the floats initially said the opposite, and the IPCC tells us in their
AR4 report that ocean temperatures went up 0.1°C from 1961 to 2003.
Do you really think anyone actually measured that?
Are they all discredited?
Please explain why you believe the figure is too low?
How many is the vast majority?
Is there no limit to you inane insults?
Grow up, grandpaw.
FYI, Climate sensitivity is unpredictable, and it's still being discussed, so you can bet your boots it's not settled science.
Amazing all the different estimates that people get from the same data.
Actually, you seem to have forgotten. I look at the empirical
record and note that CO2 has gone up 40% and temperature has
gone up about 3/4°C. That doesn't add up to the 3.2 claimed
by the IPCC.
See above.
I go with the empirical record, see above.
Yes, I know, you regard free enterprise and personal freedom as a threat
to your existence,
See above, I look at the empirical evidence.
You are entitled to gloat. U.S. President Obama has every opportunity to lead
the country to prosperity.
Apropos climate sensitivity:
Nic Lewis on Statistical errors in the Forest 2006 climate sensitivity study « Climate Audit
You are assuming that the raw data is a better reflection of actual temp change than the adjusted data. Why?
Could you detail the data and methods they use to make that estimate?the IPCC tells us in their AR4 report that ocean temperatures went up 0.1°C from 1961 to 2003.
Do you really think anyone actually measured that?
For a start, once adjusted it is not longer data.
Here's what Wikipedia says:
You're assuming Dr. Willis had reason to change the data that was betterArgo data result errors
During 2006, the Argo Network was thought to have shown a declining
trend in ocean temperatures.[9] In February 2007, the author of the
paper, Josh Willis, discovered that there were problems with the data
used for the analysis.[10] After eliminating incorrect data, the trend
to that time remained cooling, but below the level of statistical
significance.[3]
Data results from year 2008 and after
Takmeng Wong and Bruce A. Wielicki published a paper on the Argo data
corrections in the NASA journal "The Earth Observer, 20(1), 16-19".[11]
Josh Willis, in an article published on the NASA Earth Observatory web
site states that after correcting the errors in the Argo thermometer
measurements, the results show that the world's oceans have been absorbing
additional energy and have been warming.[3][10]Rebecca Lindsey
(November 5, 2008). "Correcting Ocean Cooling". NASA.
than his mere dislike of the results. His dislike of the results is why
he did his investigation. Had the results shown that the ocean heated up
more than he expected, he would have accepted it without further question.
There's a pattern here that is as obvious as the neon signs in Las Vegas.
You don't seem to be able to see it or even consider the possibility.
It's not an estimate, it's a flat statement of fact. Here's what the
Chapter 5 of the IPCC's AR4 says:
The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature
has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. Consistent with
the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0–3,000 m) has
increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate
of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface. Two-thirds
of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m. Global
ocean heat content observations show considerable interannual and inter-decadal
variability superimposed on the longer-term trend. Relative to 1961 to 2003,
the period 1993 to 2003 has high rates of warming but since 2003 there has
been some cooling.
"...since 2003 there has been some cooling." I assume that's the ARGO data
before Dr. Josh Willis decided he didn't like the raw results.
You want a detail of the data and methods? People in hell want ice water.
By the way, the IPCC says in that first line that the temperature rise is 0.10°C.
They don't say 0.1° That second zero means they're claiming accuracy to 0.01°C.
Just imagine, they are claiming they measured ocean temperature over that 42 year
period accurate to one hundredth of a degree Celsius.
I've pointed all this stuff out to you before and as I recall you just blow it off.
You seem to think that the people running your "Global Warming" religion are above
reproach and don't engage in any of the sorts of things that dishonest people in
other segments of society come up with.
Last edited by Steve Case; 12th November 2012 at 02:23 PM. Reason: wording
Lost your dictionary? Are you not taking a risk in presuming spelling mistakes that are not there. That you cannot spell intelligent does not surprise me given your obvious lack of acquaintance with intelligence.
Is there no limit to you(sic) inane insults?
Grow up,(sic) grandpaw.
Grammatically challenged again?
Last edited by Agnotologist; 12th November 2012 at 03:34 PM.
