To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid

[flacaltenn]

You have no idea what I've said. Your ass gets kicked so bad --- I'm surprised you know how to find your way back here everyday..

No, the problem seems to be that you have no idea what you've said. Maybe you meant something sensible, but what you wrote ... wasn't.

Never said ANYTHING even remotedly as stupud as "the ocean don't store and release heat".. If that's your level of participation here --- please bite me and bug off..

This bit of babble is yours.

1) None of that SUPPORTS the GW assertion that the Oceans are eating 90% of global warming. They MAY BE eating 90% of the direct insolation -- but that's another matter. And the fact that skeptics are pointing out there is no valid mechanism to magically pick-up and deposit down-dwelling IR (or actually -- reduced losses from skin) is NOT an attempt to refute the energy balance -- but to refute the assertion that the oceans APPETITE for IR has somehow increased to account for "the Pause or Hiatus" or the other braindead propaganda being promulgated as "climate science"...

I can see why you're running from it now. If I had posted something that senseless, I'd also disavow it after sobering up.

I'm NOT the one on the defensive here. Also not the paranoid one of us two..

Do let us know when you make up your mind. Can heat going in and out of the oceans affect short term climate or not?

Did you just make up the term "short term climate" to mean WEATHER? Well yes the stored heat in the oceans affects weather AND climate, the stored heat in the blackbody of the land -- pretty much ONLY climate. Didn't you know that?

The issue I was addressing in my quote you pulled is part of the thrice failed fallacy of the oceans eating RECENT global warming.. Thrice failed because ----

1) the data being proffered as "proof" shows the oceans have been "eating warming" at the SAME RATE since about 1960... They did not suddenly start to eat MORE during the Pause or the Hiatus the clowns were desperately trying to explain.

2) Even NOAA chastizes this statement on the basis of no acknowledged mechanism to get that warmth to depth SO FAST when IR surface heating is so INEFFICIENT at the task..

3) The rise of heat in a massive storage pond like the oceans is BETTER explained by longer term EARLIER stimuli like the run-up in solar insolation since 1700 and increased fresh water runoff over a couple centuries. You do not raise the deeper layers of that mass on a dime and a day.

Questions?? You following along here?? Or are you just stalking me???

 

[Billy_Bob]

I posted this for Crusader Frank, but it will do for you as well jc.

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

LOL....

1. All matter emits black-body radiation. Your chart shows but 7..

2, Because all matter emits black-body radiation, you can not quantify what is actually retarded by so called GHG's.

What kills me is the alarmists are using 'new' names for well established process that even today we can not fully give attribution.

Without the ability to quantify precise origins you can not determine what is actually being retarded or emitted by what.

This is called cherry picking by the alarmists...

 

[Wuwei]

Honestly, I don't trust any numbers today. The science has been watered down so much today, I trust noone. I definitely don't trust NASA. They are untrust worthy. the more I watch how they have manipulated things since they existed, I don't trust them.

Simply put, the sun rays get absorbed and then the longwave IR gets radiated upward. In the arctic and the antarctic, that doesn't happen. So we lose energy right there since only reflected short wave IR is headed back to space.Short wave IR CO2 does not absorb. So, I've asked and Frank has asked where is the warmth in the world going if it is supposed to be warmer? And the ocean didn't eat it. Nope it never was there and why there has been a pause for almost nineteen years now.

Anyone can post up warmest evah numbers, but then the numbers are watered down. So, I'll stick with satellite records.

You do not realize that the two numbers I posted have been in the scientific literature for many decades to over 1 hundred years and have been verified and refined countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

If you don't want to accept them you have satisfied my curiosity on how deniers think. Not only do you guys deny global warming, but you deny solid science. I knew these people existed, mostly those who are creationists or young earthers - sort of like science Luddites. It was quite interesting to me to see the nature of your thought process and just how deeply anti-science you are.

Your "Simply put" assessment is quite wrong, and I see that you just can't help dragging the subject back to global warming. I have told you several times that the two numbers I posted and the conclusion has nothing directly to do with global warming. They also underlie global cooling, but you can't seem to help your self from thinking I am a die-hard advocate of AGW. I am not. I am a die-hard advocate of accurate scientific thinking.

Thanks again for satisfying my curiosity.

 

[Wuwei]

If we used your numbers, we should be an ice box.. were not. Just a cursory look into them gives thinking persons reason to doubt them. they simply dont add up.

They are not my numbers. As I told JC above, you do not realize that the two numbers I posted have been in the scientific literature for many decades to over 1 hundred years and have been verified and refined countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

I would think that a cursory look at the numbers I posted would give a thinking person an incentive to dig deeper and want to check them out. And then investigate to find an explanation of why they don't add up. But I see that you are not interested as is a lot of the frequent posters on this board.

You have satisfied my curiosity on how you think too.

 

[jc456]

Honestly, I don't trust any numbers today. The science has been watered down so much today, I trust noone. I definitely don't trust NASA. They are untrust worthy. the more I watch how they have manipulated things since they existed, I don't trust them.

Simply put, the sun rays get absorbed and then the longwave IR gets radiated upward. In the arctic and the antarctic, that doesn't happen. So we lose energy right there since only reflected short wave IR is headed back to space.Short wave IR CO2 does not absorb. So, I've asked and Frank has asked where is the warmth in the world going if it is supposed to be warmer? And the ocean didn't eat it. Nope it never was there and why there has been a pause for almost nineteen years now.

Anyone can post up warmest evah numbers, but then the numbers are watered down. So, I'll stick with satellite records.

You do not realize that the two numbers I posted have been in the scientific literature for many decades to over 1 hundred years and have been verified and refined countless times by countless scientists and institutions.

If you don't want to accept them you have satisfied my curiosity on how deniers think. Not only do you guys deny global warming, but you deny solid science. I knew these people existed, mostly those who are creationists or young earthers - sort of like science Luddites. It was quite interesting to me to see the nature of your thought process and just how deeply anti-science you are.

Your "Simply put" assessment is quite wrong, and I see that you just can't help dragging the subject back to global warming. I have told you several times that the two numbers I posted and the conclusion has nothing directly to do with global warming. They also underlie global cooling, but you can't seem to help your self from thinking I am a die-hard advocate of AGW. I am not. I am a die-hard advocate of accurate scientific thinking.

Thanks again for satisfying my curiosity.

See, this is just a perfect example of the manipulation. Now you post these figures have been around for over a hundred years, well if so, how is it the warming is different today then 100 years ago as the warmest evah? See, that just doesn't add up bubba. that would mean the data published showing warming is wrong. We do know that the earth is in a cooling phase and not a warming phase. It's what the argument is. BTW, the climate in Chicago is no different today then it was in the 70's. Why?

 

[Wuwei]

See, this is just a perfect example of the manipulation. Now you post these figures have been around for over a hundred years, well if so, how is it the warming is different today then 100 years ago as the warmest evah? See, that just doesn't add up bubba. that would mean the data published showing warming is wrong. We do know that the earth is in a cooling phase and not a warming phase. It's what the argument is. BTW, the climate in Chicago is no different today then it was in the 70's. Why?

Why?? I already said why several times. I have already said that the figures accepted by all scientists provide a background for understanding both global warming and global cooling. There is no point in me repeating the same thing if you don't understand it. There is no point in repeating it if you have such a deep distrust and deny the science behind it - science that Spencer and Watts accept. There is no point in repeating it if you continue to be paranoid and think I'm trying to fool you into accepting AGW.

What you are proving is that you are a victim of the title of Crick's opening post, "To be an AGW denier is to be paranoid"

 

[IanC]

I totally agree with W's question.

Until those who deny backradiation can come up with an explanation using physics to account for surface temperature being all out of proportion to solar input, then the discussion is useless. And make no mistake, the difference is huge, it is not some small quibble over measuring surface temps or solar input. It is 15C difference, more than enough to turn the Earth into a frozen ice cube.

 

[mamooth]

Thrice failed because ----

1) the data being proffered as "proof" shows the oceans have been "eating warming" at the SAME RATE since about 1960... They did not suddenly start to eat MORE during the Pause or the Hiatus the clowns were desperately trying to explain.

Contrary to that claim, the science actually says that the heat going into the oceans increased during the slight slowdown in surface warming.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda et al (2013)
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

2) Even NOAA chastizes this statement on the basis of no acknowledged mechanism to get that warmth to depth SO FAST when IR surface heating is so INEFFICIENT at the task.

That's rather vague. Exactly what NOAA statement are you talking about?

3) The rise of heat in a massive storage pond like the oceans is BETTER explained by longer term EARLIER stimuli like the run-up in solar insolation since 1700 and increased fresh water runoff over a couple centuries. You do not raise the deeper layers of that mass on a dime and a day.

The recent acceleration in measured sea level rise contradicts that theory. And "dime and a day" is your strawman.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thrice failed because ----

1) the data being proffered as "proof" shows the oceans have been "eating warming" at the SAME RATE since about 1960... They did not suddenly start to eat MORE during the Pause or the Hiatus the clowns were desperately trying to explain.

Contrary to that claim, the science actually says that the heat going into the oceans increased during the slight slowdown in surface warming.

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content
Balmaseda et al (2013)
Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

2) Even NOAA chastizes this statement on the basis of no acknowledged mechanism to get that warmth to depth SO FAST when IR surface heating is so INEFFICIENT at the task.

That's rather vague. Exactly what NOAA statement are you talking about?

3) The rise of heat in a massive storage pond like the oceans is BETTER explained by longer term EARLIER stimuli like the run-up in solar insolation since 1700 and increased fresh water runoff over a couple centuries. You do not raise the deeper layers of that mass on a dime and a day.

The recent acceleration in measured sea level rise contradicts that theory. And "dime and a day" is your strawman.

Like I said --- you don't understand A WORD I say.. Because you're not not capable or not paying attention.,.,

I SAID the oceans are gobbling heat at pretty much the same RATE... Your chart is in ENERGY units. Not Power. So if the rise rate of STORAGE is pretty constant (given the fact you chose "SIMULATED" version , not the NOAA actual data version) That would imply a CONSTANT forcing function.. [[[ that's why the authors imbedded that little orange cheatsheet in the lower right corner -- so folks who KNOW what they're REALLY looking for -- would have a visual reference to a set of CONSTANT forcing numbers in W/m2]]]

Drip water into the tub at a constant RATE -- and the STORAGE increases linearly.. Storage ( in some fashion) will apply an INTEGRAL to the forcing function.. In other words to see the effect of the GW forcing function -- you have to IGNORE the linear rise in that chart and look at the higher derivatives of that curve.

UNFORTUNATELY -- the Balsameda-Trenberth SIMULATED re-analysis has a bunch of phony simulation artifacts in it that the NOAA charts do not. This makes it difficult to see when and if the FORCING RATE actually changed. But I'm not wasting time with THAT discussion again either.

Suffice it to say that in the NOAA REAL data -- The only IMPORTANT change in the slope of that graph is the SLOWDOWN on the rate of eating heat that you see at the VERY END of the Trenberth version.. From 2004 and on out --- whilst the PAUSE --- was still raging..

They ASSUME folks are that stupid when the activists make those sweeping claims that they've identified "where the missing heat went"... And of course -- with fan boys like you --- they would be right.

Wake me up when the FULL version of that fantastical paper gets written.. I've noticed that "excuse" has pretty much fallen short of it's immediate propaganda value and has apparently been ditched.

I didn't really even read the rest of your post. Not much sense -- is there???

 

[Crick]

You're missing a point. The forcing function pushing energy into the oceans has not risen dramatically over that time period - though it HAS risen - it is where that energy is being stored. The increase in deeper waters is at a much higher rate than that in shallow waters. That can be explained by changes in circulation driven by changes in wind patterns. No magic required.

 

[SSDD]

So what do you believe has caused the rapid rise in warming rate since the middle of the 20th century? When I first came here you said it was from TSI. I haven't seen you mention that idea in quite some time.

The rapid rise in the warming rate is the result of data manipulation....nothing more....nothing less.

 

[SSDD]

Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.

Yet, according to the flac theory, much tinier changes in solar energy received are what is driving massive climate changes.

Now, most people can correctly point out that the oceans store heat, which makes the earth's climate like a low-pass filter, so that the regular yearly cyclic variation is averaged out. But flac can't, because he's declared it's impossible for the oceans to store heat.

So, since flac is unable to explain why the earth acts like a low-pass filter, he's invoking a magical theory about the color of sunlight. There's no evidence to back up that strange claim, but that's not necessary for flac's "Have you conclusively proven it's not the case? No? Then it must be true!" brand of science.

you're irrelevant squidward.. Totally useless to the cause and the discussion. There are CONSTANT LONG TERM solar variations. NOT just yearly or 12 year solar cycles. There was a ramp up after the Maunder Minimum that went out 160 or 200 years.. Flattened out about the 1970s. ABOUT to probably go way negative AGAIN..

To deny that -- puts you in the robes of your church, and reciting dogma.. Since they IGNORE and redefine the Total Solar Irradiance to hide that fact in their holy books. But it's undeniable science.

And they (climate science) haven't even begun to consider the huge variables in specific wavelengths coming in from the sun and what effects those individual wavelength fluctuations may have on short and long term climate....they look at incoming radiation from the sun in the same way as they look at the average global temperature....both are meaningless to anyone except those pandering to politicians for grant $$

 

[Crick]

Magnitude of long term solar variations

1360 to 1362. Enormous.

 

[Old Rocks]

I posted this for Crusader Frank, but it will do for you as well jc.

Here's one you might have a little more difficulty with Frank. But it's a real, recently published study on the warming being produced by greenhouse gases. The study is at
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)

Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract. There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

All emphases below are mine.

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.

The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured. The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen. We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).

As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.

LOL....

1. All matter emits black-body radiation. Your chart shows but 7..

2, Because all matter emits black-body radiation, you can not quantify what is actually retarded by so called GHG's.

What kills me is the alarmists are using 'new' names for well established process that even today we can not fully give attribution.

Without the ability to quantify precise origins you can not determine what is actually being retarded or emitted by what.

This is called cherry picking by the alarmists...

Damn, Silly Billy, that is a graph of absorption spectra, not emission. I think what is 'retarded' here is you. LOL

 

[mamooth]

Like I said --- you don't understand A WORD I say.. Because you're not not capable or not paying attention.

Don't blame others for your inability to write coherently.

I SAID the oceans are gobbling heat at pretty much the same RATE... Your chart is in ENERGY units. Not Power. So if the rise rate of STORAGE is pretty constant (given the fact you chose "SIMULATED" version , not the NOAA actual data version) That would imply a CONSTANT forcing function.. [[[ that's why the authors imbedded that little orange cheatsheet in the lower right corner -- so folks who KNOW what they're REALLY looking for -- would have a visual reference to a set of CONSTANT forcing numbers in W/m2]]]

Drip water into the tub at a constant RATE -- and the STORAGE increases linearly.. Storage ( in some fashion) will apply an INTEGRAL to the forcing function.. In other words to see the effect of the GW forcing function -- you have to IGNORE the linear rise in that chart and look at the higher derivatives of that curve.

Excellent, Captain Obvious. You've managed to figure out that the slope of the power curve gives rate. I probably should have taken care to explain that more carefully. I had assumed that people were smart, and would instantly look at the slope to see how the rate of ocean energy absorption was up during the slight slowdown. But it probably didn't matter. When you want an excuse to evade, nothing is going to stop you.

UNFORTUNATELY -- the Balsameda-Trenberth SIMULATED re-analysis has a bunch of phony simulation artifacts in it that the NOAA charts do not. This makes it difficult to see when and if the FORCING RATE actually changed. But I'm not wasting time with THAT discussion again either.

Of course you won't. It's science that contradicts your claims, hence it's given you'll auto-declare it's fraudulent.

Suffice it to say that in the NOAA REAL data -- The only IMPORTANT change in the slope of that graph is the SLOWDOWN on the rate of eating heat that you see at the VERY END of the Trenberth version.. From 2004 and on out --- whilst the PAUSE --- was still raging..

Let's see what NOAA actually says.

Ocean warming doubles in recent decades
---
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists, working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades.
---

So, your theory goes boom, again. A systems response to a sort-of step function requires that most of the heat uptake happen shortly after the beginning of the step function, and then that the rate of uptake decays away as the new equilibrium is approached. That's absolutely not happening. The rate of heat uptake is increasing. Hence, your theory fails. Nice try, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

They ASSUME folks are that stupid when the activists make those sweeping claims that they've identified "where the missing heat went"... And of course -- with fan boys like you --- they would be right.

Wake me up when the FULL version of that fantastical paper gets written.. I've noticed that "excuse" has pretty much fallen short of it's immediate propaganda value and has apparently been ditched.

I didn't really even read the rest of your post. Not much sense -- is there???

Not for you, being any actual science would confuse you mightily.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Solar energy varies by about 6% each year, as the earth goes from the nearest to farthest point in its elliptical orbit. And that changes climate ... not at all.

Yet, according to the flac theory, much tinier changes in solar energy received are what is driving massive climate changes.

Now, most people can correctly point out that the oceans store heat, which makes the earth's climate like a low-pass filter, so that the regular yearly cyclic variation is averaged out. But flac can't, because he's declared it's impossible for the oceans to store heat.

So, since flac is unable to explain why the earth acts like a low-pass filter, he's invoking a magical theory about the color of sunlight. There's no evidence to back up that strange claim, but that's not necessary for flac's "Have you conclusively proven it's not the case? No? Then it must be true!" brand of science.

you're irrelevant squidward.. Totally useless to the cause and the discussion. There are CONSTANT LONG TERM solar variations. NOT just yearly or 12 year solar cycles. There was a ramp up after the Maunder Minimum that went out 160 or 200 years.. Flattened out about the 1970s. ABOUT to probably go way negative AGAIN..

To deny that -- puts you in the robes of your church, and reciting dogma.. Since they IGNORE and redefine the Total Solar Irradiance to hide that fact in their holy books. But it's undeniable science.

And they (climate science) haven't even begun to consider the huge variables in specific wavelengths coming in from the sun and what effects those individual wavelength fluctuations may have on short and long term climate....they look at incoming radiation from the sun in the same way as they look at the average global temperature....both are meaningless to anyone except those pandering to politicians for grant $$

The AGWCult has already determined the Sun has no input or influence on our climate

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You're missing a point. The forcing function pushing energy into the oceans has not risen dramatically over that time period - though it HAS risen - it is where that energy is being stored. The increase in deeper waters is at a much higher rate than that in shallow waters. That can be explained by changes in circulation driven by changes in wind patterns. No magic required.

Hilarious!

Atmospheric CO2 is driving heat down deep into the oceans. You should be a sit com

 

[flacaltenn]

Magnitude of long term solar variations

1360 to 1362. Enormous.

Enormous is relative when you're looking to explain only about 3.2W/m2 of "global warning".. Aint it??

 

[flacaltenn]

Like I said --- you don't understand A WORD I say.. Because you're not not capable or not paying attention.

Don't blame others for your inability to write coherently.

I SAID the oceans are gobbling heat at pretty much the same RATE... Your chart is in ENERGY units. Not Power. So if the rise rate of STORAGE is pretty constant (given the fact you chose "SIMULATED" version , not the NOAA actual data version) That would imply a CONSTANT forcing function.. [[[ that's why the authors imbedded that little orange cheatsheet in the lower right corner -- so folks who KNOW what they're REALLY looking for -- would have a visual reference to a set of CONSTANT forcing numbers in W/m2]]]

Drip water into the tub at a constant RATE -- and the STORAGE increases linearly.. Storage ( in some fashion) will apply an INTEGRAL to the forcing function.. In other words to see the effect of the GW forcing function -- you have to IGNORE the linear rise in that chart and look at the higher derivatives of that curve.

Excellent, Captain Obvious. You've managed to figure out that the slope of the power curve gives rate. I probably should have taken care to explain that more carefully. I had assumed that people were smart, and would instantly look at the slope to see how the rate of ocean energy absorption was up during the slight slowdown. But it probably didn't matter. When you want an excuse to evade, nothing is going to stop you.

UNFORTUNATELY -- the Balsameda-Trenberth SIMULATED re-analysis has a bunch of phony simulation artifacts in it that the NOAA charts do not. This makes it difficult to see when and if the FORCING RATE actually changed. But I'm not wasting time with THAT discussion again either.

Of course you won't. It's science that contradicts your claims, hence it's given you'll auto-declare it's fraudulent.

Suffice it to say that in the NOAA REAL data -- The only IMPORTANT change in the slope of that graph is the SLOWDOWN on the rate of eating heat that you see at the VERY END of the Trenberth version.. From 2004 and on out --- whilst the PAUSE --- was still raging..

Let's see what NOAA actually says.

Ocean warming doubles in recent decades
---
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory scientists, working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades.
---

So, your theory goes boom, again. A systems response to a sort-of step function requires that most of the heat uptake happen shortly after the beginning of the step function, and then that the rate of uptake decays away as the new equilibrium is approached. That's absolutely not happening. The rate of heat uptake is increasing. Hence, your theory fails. Nice try, and we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

They ASSUME folks are that stupid when the activists make those sweeping claims that they've identified "where the missing heat went"... And of course -- with fan boys like you --- they would be right.

Wake me up when the FULL version of that fantastical paper gets written.. I've noticed that "excuse" has pretty much fallen short of it's immediate propaganda value and has apparently been ditched.

I didn't really even read the rest of your post. Not much sense -- is there???

Not for you, being any actual science would confuse you mightily.

Well there ya go.. You still don't understand the storage (energy) relationship or you wouldn't haven';t have posted that propaganda piece for the masses from NOAA....

Because EVEN IF the forcing function (from GW or elsewhere) had NEVER CHANGED or varied slightly around a central rate ---- "working with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and university colleagues, have found that half of the global ocean heat content increase since 1865 has occurred over the past two decades." ---- doesn't say SHIT about how the forcing function VARIED...

The Balsmeda-Trenberth "re-analysis" threw all kinds of preconceived artifacts into that curve that can not and SHOULD NOT be seen in the rawer data.

For instance -- I've gotten 4 papers SINCE this fairytale asserting you never SEE VOLCANIC signatures at 700meters under the sea.. But BTK told the simulator to toss those in. They also told the simulator to key on CO2 levels as a proxy for surface temperatures. ALL of those "increased rates" that they discovered "are preconceived and CREATED" to show rate adjustments in storage that are just not there --- And NOT SUPPOSED to be there.

THATs the reason -- there hasn't been a DOZEN follow-up papers on this stinky herring..,


Is it getting warmer or not? If it IS -- the forcing function should make that STORAGE go very non-linear.. (After VERY long expected delays for mixing and storage to depth.)

It could "double since 1865" without ANY changes to the forcing function,.. Depending on where you normalize the data and take the doubling.. They INDUCED higher rates to make that claim. .

When you look at less "simulated", clearer NOAA data --- that rise since 1865 and it's recent flattening is FAR MORE compatible with the expected delayed reaction to the solar insolation change since mid 18th century,....

 

[flacaltenn]

And no -- I'm not bluffing about the "induced" transient rates that you see in BTK..

Here is the 700m depth chart from NOAA with ACTUAL data...

Where are MASSIVE "rate changes" over the last 2 decades SquidWard????

Lemme be BLATANT HERE.. . Here is the comparison to BTK.. .

THe ONLY REASON there are accelerated rates in the BTK "re-analyzed" data is because they TOLD the simulator that VOLCANIC effects were over-emphasized.. The simulator dutifully DEPRESSED the heat content for those events -- and then had to OVERCOMPENSATE with higher recovery rates to get back to the ACTUAL data..

It's fraud.. There I said it... That's where the "massive rate changes" came from.. It was so amusing to BTK that they decided to propagandize the finding with a "mini-paper" and MASSIVE PR press releases.....

We've been here before Squidward.. And you lost your superheroes then too.. I'm not paranoid -- I'm MAD....