2013 was the 4th warmest year based on noaa data

[flacaltenn]

"1) Trenberth MISLABELED it because ENERGY is not in W/m2.. Which is important in this discussion --- because being in a unit of power is INCAPABLE of relating to Heat ENERGY stored in the ocean or elsewhere."

The surface area of the Earth is constant. The surface area of the oceans and land masses is constant, for all practical purposes. W/m^2 is irradiance.

Because the surface area is constant, it doesn't matter if the calculations are done in units of irradiance first then multiplied by the surface area or multiplied by surface area before doing the calculations.

Addition is distributed. It is that simple

You missed the subtlety.. Power is in W/m2 (or just Watts for a point source).. If you're gonna store it and call it ENERGY, then it's not AREA that's the issue --- Its TIME.. Like in the difference between Watts and KWatt-Hrs ?? Got it?? That heat at ocean depth is in Joules -- Joules has a TIME component. 100 x 10^22 Joules could have gotten there from ANY amount of power depending on the RATE of storage.. Trenberth's heart was in the right place.. For something as big and complex as the Earth's Climate --- it's ENERGY that needs balancing.. But that's not what was in his diagram..

 

[orogenicman]

Trouble? No. Pain? Yes. My sides are aching from all this laughter!

So, again, you have no actual thoughts come to mind, just emotional bullshit.

I'm afraid I just can't bring thoughts to mind after hearing the kind of mental drivel you're peddling.

So basically you are admitting that when someone presents a thoughtful response, your brain shuts down. Is there anything else you care to admit, Mr. Obvious?

 

[SSDD]

Of course. So you'll agree that the reduction in surface warming was easily offset by the increase in ocean heat content; that, just as the ToA imbalance CLEARLY indicates, the Earth is continuing to accumulate thermal energy.

You make this claim of accumulating heat based on the ToA imbalance quite often. Did you get that from a skeptical science crayon graph? You certainly didn't get it from any reputable source because NOAA says that the outgoing longwave at the ToA is on the increase, not decreasing. Here, NOAA global outgoing longwave radiation [OLR] from annualized monthly means:

... that's an incomplete sentence but I think what you meant is that BTK's discovery is the source of our "massive problem". Imagine: a field of science that doesn't know everything there is to know about its own topic. How unusual. Certainly unlike all the other fields of science. Right?

I provided you multiple peer reviewed published studies stating that the sea level increase has either decreased or is dropping....if BTK were correct, then the thermal expansion due to increased heat, in addition to the meltwater you claim would have sea levels increasing rapidly....not slowing down or stalling. Add that to the fact that outgoing LW is increasing at the ToA and you have some serious problems with your beliefs.

I bet you are. Now this is actually a recent one and, lo and behold, it's actually from Kevin Trenberth. But there are numerous copies and versions around including some on WUWT. And does it show energy storage ANYWHERE? Hmm... no, it doesn't. What DOES it show? Why, it shows energy TRANSFERS. And the last time I checked, storage and transfer were two different processes. And, if you do the math (and I KNOW you do the math) you will find that the graphic shows more energy going IN to the ocean then it does coming OUT of the ocean. Seems to me, that pretty strongly implies some storage. But, hey, maybe you're talking about some other "cartoon" entirely. Please let us know, because I'd like to see the evidence by which you conclude that those primitive climate scientists of 15 years back were unaware that the world's oceans had any heat capacity.

The trenberth cartoon? Really? That's as big a joke as the hockey stick.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll admit that the surface temperatures over the past 10 years has stopped. This is why we call it a pause.

The skeptics were right about this all along. What the warmers need to do is come out and be more honest about certain things. Science is all about trying to explain things.

 

[SSDD]

As an aside, here are two other independent versions of the same thing as the Trenberth 2009 energy flow diagram. The point being that conspiracies specifically about Trenberth don't make any sense, since the whole world comes up with the same thing.

This one is from AR5, based on a 2012 paper by Martin Wilder and others.

And this one is from NASA, coming from Loeb 2009.

Small differences between them show up because, while we know exactly what's happening at the top and bottom of the atmosphere, and thus know the net energy balance accurately, the middle is fuzzier. We can't measure the middle of the atmosphere from the ground or from satellites.

You guys crack me up with your cartoons...they all come from the same place...check the references for each graph....Even if, as you claim, two way energy flow were possible with the net being from warm to cool, your cartoons are wrong....160 absorbed by the surface from the sun...340 absorbed by the surface from magical backradiation....clearly your cartoon shows the net moving from cool to warm....

 

[orogenicman]

I'll admit that the surface temperatures over the past 10 years has stopped. This is why we call it a pause.

The skeptics were right about this all along. What the warmers need to do is come out and be more honest about certain things. Science is all about trying to explain things.

The fact that surface temperatures have not substantially increased during the past decade doesn't mean that the surface warming has stopped. It is still above the global average, as the slopes these guys keep posting readily demonstrate.

 

[SSDD]

"1) Trenberth MISLABELED it because ENERGY is not in W/m2.. Which is important in this discussion --- because being in a unit of power is INCAPABLE of relating to Heat ENERGY stored in the ocean or elsewhere."

The surface area of the Earth is constant. The surface area of the oceans and land masses is constant, for all practical purposes. W/m^2 is irradiance.

Because the surface area is constant, it doesn't matter if the calculations are done in units of irradiance first then multiplied by the surface area or multiplied by surface area before doing the calculations.

Addition is distributed. It is that simple

The surface area being irradiated by the sun is not constant...another big problem with your models....the surface area being irradiated is as changing as the clouds blocking the incoming radiation.

 

[SSDD]

I'll admit that the surface temperatures over the past 10 years has stopped. This is why we call it a pause.

What evidence do you have that it is a pause.....pause is a claim, the fact is that the warming has stopped and you hope it is a pause so that you don't have to admit that you were a first class passenger on the AGW crazy train. Cooling is the more likely senario...for a good long time.

If you can't rationally and accurately explain the "pause" then you can't rationally and accurately explain the cause of the warming in the first place. CO2 clearly is not the culprit as it has continued its merry increase since the beginning of the "pause"...nearly 17 years now, not ten.

skeptics were right about this all along. What the warmers need to do is come out and be more honest about certain things. Science is all about trying to explain things.

Modern climate science isn't about explaining things....modern climate science is about political control of money and power....maintaining the big paydays...and coming up with explanations, no matter how crazy in an effort to maintain their status quo. If it were about science, the AGW scam would have been over long ago, if it had ever been able to gain traction in the first place.

 

[SSDD]

I'll admit that the surface temperatures over the past 10 years has stopped. This is why we call it a pause.

The skeptics were right about this all along. What the warmers need to do is come out and be more honest about certain things. Science is all about trying to explain things.

The fact that surface temperatures have not substantially increased during the past decade doesn't mean that the surface warming has stopped. It is still above the global average, as the slopes these guys keep posting readily demonstrate.

if you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

 

[orogenicman]

I'll admit that the surface temperatures over the past 10 years has stopped. This is why we call it a pause.

The skeptics were right about this all along. What the warmers need to do is come out and be more honest about certain things. Science is all about trying to explain things.

The fact that surface temperatures have not substantially increased during the past decade doesn't mean that the surface warming has stopped. It is still above the global average, as the slopes these guys keep posting readily demonstrate.

if you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

Attempting yet another straw man argument, I see. Oh dear.

 

[SwimExpert]

So, again, you have no actual thoughts come to mind, just emotional bullshit.

I'm afraid I just can't bring thoughts to mind after hearing the kind of mental drivel you're peddling.

So basically you are admitting that when someone presents a thoughtful response, your brain shuts down. Is there anything else you care to admit, Mr. Obvious?

And as is typical for you and your idiot friends, when one thing is said, you hear the opposite.

 

[Kosh]

So, again, you have no actual thoughts come to mind, just emotional bullshit.

I'm afraid I just can't bring thoughts to mind after hearing the kind of mental drivel you're peddling.

You are just a troll.

The irony of those comments!

 

[polarbear]

Global Highlights
• The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

Do you realize how silly it is to shout "2013 was the 4th warmest year" from the roof tops?
Or was it just the 10th warmest?...it all depends which one of these phony stats you want to quote.

Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

That`s a screwball`s way of denying the reality that every year since 1998 was colder than 1998:
http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/monckton1.png

While CO2 has gone up from ~370 ppm in 1998 to almost 400 ppm in 2013 ...no matter how you slice it, this fabricated AGW CO2 & temperature "correlation" has seized to exist for 16 years now.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Global Highlights
• The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

Do you realize how silly it is to shout "2013 was the 4th warmest year" from the roof tops?
Or was it just the 10th warmest?...it all depends which one of these phony stats you want to quote.

Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

That`s a screwball`s way of denying the reality that every year since 1998 was colder than 1998:
http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/monckton1.png

While CO2 has gone up from ~370 ppm in 1998 to almost 400 ppm in 2013 ...no matter how you slice it, this fabricated AGW CO2 & temperature "correlation" has seized to exist for 16 years now.

I'll admit it hasn't warmed at the surface since 1998. There's no denying it...The warmers here need to understand that 3-4c of warming isn't going to happen as co2 doesn't have the ability to do that kind of warming.

Simple as that.

 

[SSDD]

The fact that surface temperatures have not substantially increased during the past decade doesn't mean that the surface warming has stopped. It is still above the global average, as the slopes these guys keep posting readily demonstrate.

if you can't explain the pause, then you can't explain the cause.

Attempting yet another straw man argument, I see. Oh dear.

You claim to have a grasp on what caused the warming...it stopped and you can't explain why....clearly, you never had a grasp on what caused the warming in the first place.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Highlights
• The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

Do you realize how silly it is to shout "2013 was the 4th warmest year" from the roof tops?
Or was it just the 10th warmest?...it all depends which one of these phony stats you want to quote.

Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013.

That`s a screwball`s way of denying the reality that every year since 1998 was colder than 1998:
http://www.climatedepot.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/monckton1.png

While CO2 has gone up from ~370 ppm in 1998 to almost 400 ppm in 2013 ...no matter how you slice it, this fabricated AGW CO2 & temperature "correlation" has seized to exist for 16 years now.

That graph is exceedingly normal; no "Wider and wider swing with an overall warming trend" observable at all

 

[ScienceRocks]

Looks like the energy goes into the oceans and they control the atmosphere when we're talking about climate.

Look at the power the oceans have within the enso.

 

[SSDD]

Looks like the energy goes into the oceans and they control the atmosphere when we're talking about climate.

Look at the power the oceans have within the enso.

Compare the heat capacity of the ocean to the heat capacity of the atmosphere and tell me how stupid one must be to believe that the atmosphere can heat the oceans.

 

[mamooth]

The heat capacity of the solid things in my house is much greater than that of the air, yet the air in my house is what heats the solid things in my house. According to SSDD, that's not possible. So everyone, turn off your furnaces, because SSDD says they won't heat your house.

 

[SSDD]

The heat capacity of the solid things in my house is much greater than that of the air, yet the air in my house is what heats the solid things in my house. According to SSDD, that's not possible. So everyone, turn off your furnaces, because SSDD says they won't heat your house.

The depth od your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Do you manage to dress and feed yourself or do you have help with that? The solid things in your home are presumably not heated by the sun and are therefore cooler than the surrounding air...things heated by the sun are warmer than the surrounding air and are therefore not warmed by it.

The ocean is warmer than the atmosphere and therefore, not warmed by it. The ocean drives the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around.