Dana Nuccitelli's Skeptical Science OHC grapple – down for the count

Dana1981 at SkepticalScience Tries to Mislead His Readers

Guest post by Bob Tisdale

Dana1981 (aka Dana Nuccitelli) recently authored a SkepticalScience post titled Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy?  Believe it or not, in it, he complained about my comparison of modeled and observed ARGO-era Ocean Heat Content. See Figure 1. But his complaints do nothing more than misrepresent my graph and the modeled and observed trends of the Ocean Heat Content data. His intent is blatantly obvious. It is to mislead his readers. And it’s so obvious, it’s silly.

In this post, I’ll simply respond (once again) to complaints about that graph.

Dana1981’s initial reference to my graph comes in the opening sentence of his post. It reads:

Recently there have been a number of claims of a large discrepancy between modeled and observed ocean heat content (OHC), for example by Roger Pielke Sr., David Evans, and Bob Tisdale.

The post he linked was the WattsUpWithThat cross post of my most recent quarterly NODC Ocean Heat Content (OHC) update titled October to December 2011 NODC Ocean Heat Content Anomalies (0-700Meters) Update and Comments. The only model-data comparison graph in that post is Figure 1. So that simple graph is the only one he chooses to complain about.

Figure 1

Dana1981 uses the ridiculous heading of “Inaccurate, Unskeptical Graphs”.

First, there’s nothing inaccurate about my graphs in general or Figure 1 specifically. The data for Figure 1 is available through the KNMI Climate Explorer, and the model projection is based on Hansen et al (2005). I include a detailed description of that graph in that post. Second, I’m not sure how unskeptical applies to a graph. Unskeptical according to MS Word means open minded. Whatever Dana1981 was yakking about, it’s nonsense. Figure 1 is an accurate presentation of the model projection and the data.

Dana1981 then goes on to write under that heading:

The first cherrypicks have already been discussed above – ignoring OHC below 700 meters, and ignoring the OHC increase prior to 2003.

Figure 1 appears in my post under the heading of “ARGO-ERA OCEAN HEAT CONTENT MODEL-DATA COMPARISON.” That limits the period of discussion, don’t ya think? There’s really no reason to include OHC data prior to 2003 in a graph of ARGO-era OHC data since ARGO floats had such poor coverage before then.

Dana1981 claims that presenting the NODC 0-700 meter OHC data is cherry-picking, apparently believing the NODC’s OHC data for depths of 0-2000 meters should be illustrated as well. There’s a very obvious problem with that logic, and Dana1981 fails to recognize it. The Hansen et al (2005) paper “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications” has been the reference all along in my series of OHC updates. It presents the NODC OHC data for 0-700 meters, not 0-2000 meters. Dana1981 even uses Figure 2 from Hansen et al (2005) as Figure 1 in his post.

Dana1981 then posts a graph from Tamino that represents the problems Dana1981 sees with my model-data presentation in Figure 1. We’ll overlook the obvious difference, which is that he’s looking at annual data and I’ve presented the data on a monthly basis. I’ve added a couple of notes to the SkepticalScience Figure 4 and posted that graph here as Figure 2. My graph in Figure 1 presents the extrapolated trend of the model mean. Tamino’s graph presents the trend for the annual Ocean Heat Content data, not the model mean. He also elected to show a trend for the data for the period of 1993 to 2002. But the period used in the Hansen et al (2005) paper that Dana1981 referenced was 1993 to 2003. The only reason to omit the 2003 data point is because the trend is lower without it. Then Dana1981 notes:

By choosing the baseline such that the models and data are equal in 2003, Tisdale and Evans have graphically exaggerated a model-data discrepancy.

So the point where the trend meets the data is Dana1981’s basic complaint. Yawn. Somehow in Dana1981’s mind the intercept makes the graph inaccurate and unskeptical. Dana1981 linked Tamino’s post Favorite Denier Tricks, or How to Hide the Incline, but he failed to also link my rebuttal here or the WUWT cross post Technical paper training for “Hansen’s Bulldog”. Dana1981 also failed to realize how the Corrections to the RealClimate Presentation of Modeled Global Ocean Heat Content impacted Tamino’s unfounded criticisms. So I’d better point it out to him.

Figure 2

Where should the model intersect with the data? Let’s take a look.

Dana1981 uses the uproariously funny heading of “Accurate Graph”. Dana1981 then presents the corrected RealClimate graph that compares model outputs and OHC data. The graph is from the RealClimate post OHC Model/Obs Comparison Errata. Yup, that was the first time in two and a half years that RealClimate posted an “accurate graph” in one of their OHC model-data comparisons. I’m not sure Gavin Schmidt liked being reminded of that fact by Dana1981, but I sure appreciated it. I’ve reposted the graph here and thrown on another question for Dana1981. It is: Where would an extrapolation of the model mean trend (1993-2003) intersect the NODC OHC data, Dana1981?

Figure 3

Gavin Schmidt was kind enough to post the answer to my question. He provided it when he corrected the OHC model-data comparison graph in his post 2011 Updates to model-data comparisons. See Figure 4. I’ve noted the answer on the graph. They don’t intersect. In my graph, Figure 1, the model and data at least intersect during the ARGO era but in the RealClimate graph that Dana1981 calls an “accurate graph” they don’t intersect. Would you rather I shifted the model trend to the left, away from the OHC data, Dana1981? Would that make it an “accurate graph” for you?

Figure 4

Figure 5 is the same OHC model-data comparison graph from RealClimate. In it, though, I’ve highlighted the ARGO era, which is the period I presented in Figure 1. I removed the NODC data for 0-2000 meters since it has no bearing on this discussion. I’ve also approximated Tamino’s linear trend of the NODC OHC data from 1993 to 2002 that Dana1981 would like us to believe represents the model mean. Does Tamino’s linear trend come close to representing the model mean? Nope! For some reason, things that are blatantly obvious to most of us elude Dana1981 and his cohorts at SkepticalSeance.

Figure 5

What Dana1981 failed to realize is, when Tamino pulled the two sleights of hand with that graph (using the data instead of the model mean and using the trend of the data from 1993 to 2002 instead of 1993 to 2003), the erroneous data that RealClimate was posting at the time, Figure 6, was aligning with the bogus Tamino trend. That erroneous model trend only made it appear that Tamino’s presentation was right. But it never was.

Figure 6

I was going to overlook Dana1981’s complaint that I was neglecting a raft of other sources of OHC data, but I’ve decided to respond to it. I use the KNMI Climate Explorer as the source of data for my quarterly Ocean Heat Content updates. That fact is discussed in the first few paragraphs of those OHC updates. It’s tough to miss it, being right up front. I use data that’s readily available from KNMI in my posts for a reason: so that anyone can reproduce my graphs. Up until a few weeks ago, the NODC Ocean Heat Content data for 0-700 meters was the only updated Ocean Heat Content dataset available at the KNMI Climate Explorer. I would have been more than happy to include other OHC datasets, but there haven’t been any—until recently.

KNMI recently added an Ocean Heat Content dataset based on the UK Met Office EN3 analysis. I haven’t really investigated that dataset in depth (pardon the pun) so I haven’t prepared a full post about it. Figure 7 compares the UKMO EN3 data to the NODC ARGO-era OHC data for 0-700 meters and also to the GISS model trend. The UKMO EN3 data appears similar to the NODC’s ARGO-era OHC data before the NODC’s 2010 modifications. I’ll confirm that in an upcoming post. If you haven’t noticed, the trend of the ARGO-era UKMO EN3 OHC data (0-700 meters) is negative from January 2003 to March 2012.

Figure 7

The UKMO EN3 OHC data is presented in 4 depths at the KNMI Climate Explorer: 0-400m, 0-700m, 0-1000m, and 0-2000m. We can compare the global ARGO-era 0-2000 meter UKMO EN3 data to the trend of the GISS model mean for 0-750 meters, Figure 8. The models are still out of the ballpark. There’s no reason to search for the GISS model trend for 0-2000 meters to illustrate that point.

Figure 8

CLOSING

When Gavin Schmidt published those corrections to the RealClimate OHC model-data comparisons, I believed that no one would be foolish enough to ever again complain about where the OHC model trend and data intersected in my ARGO-era graphs. But I was proved wrong. Dana1981 raised the bar on foolishness. And his readers went along with it.

Roger Pielke Sr. also published a post yesterday about Dana1981’s OHC post. Roger’s post is titled Grappling With Reality – A Comment On The Skeptical Science Post By Dana1981 “Modeled and Observed Ocean Heat Content – Is There a Discrepancy?”  Yup, Dana1981 and many of the commenters on that SkepticalScience thread are grappling with reality, but they’re losing the wrestling match.

By the way, Dana1981, thanks for allowing me to post the ARGO-era model-data comparison graph once again. It’s one of my favorites.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rick K

Booya!

Algebra

If he doesn’t understand that the slope of the trend line is the important thing……..it’s just sad.

Ray

Bazinga indeed!!!

Really well explained and properly calculated. Thanks for that.

jcbmack

Well thought out and calculated. Thank you for clearly explaining the trends.

Big D in TX

I, too, love figure 1. It raises an important and yet unanswered question.

Jack Cowper

Nice one Bob
Dana1981 always has a nasty undertone about him. He could learn a lot from you and Pielke Sr.

Camburn

Thank you Mr. Tisdale. The ARGO erra data is much more reliable than the xbt data previous to their deployment/calibration.
It is not surpriseing to observe the divergence problem. Air temps have very little influence on 0-700M OHC. Sunlight does by virtue of wavelength.
I look forward to Mr. Nuticelli answering and understanding your post. I am sure he is welcome to post on this thread at any time by virtue of Anthony’s policy.

Peter Whale

Game set and match. Facts sure do get in Dana’s way.

@Dana1981 – please see visual explanation of what just happened – http://i.imgur.com/mUePQ.gif

Otter

Jack Cowper says:
Dana1981 always has a nasty undertone about him. He could learn a lot from you and Pielke Sr.
—-
That would involve having an Open Mind…

Louis Hooffstetter

Great post; please keep them coming. This illustrates yet again why bloggers at Real Climate, Rabbet Run, Climate Progress, Stoat, Tamino, and Skeptical Science routinely practice deception and obfuscation. Clarity is their enemy. They can’t win using available science and data, and they know it.

Re: “the trend of the ARGO-era UKMO EN3 OHC data (0-700 meters) is negative from January 2003 to March 2012.”
For a future post, that last decade ARGO trend may be similar to the temperature trend from the Holocene Climatic Optimum to the present. e.g. “2.0°C warmer in the annual mean temperature at the mid-Holocene (6000 years ago) compared to the recent pre-industrial.”
Climate change between the mid and late Holocene in northern high latitudes – Part 1: Survey of temperature and precipitation proxy data, Sundqvist et al 2010.

Snowlover123

Jack Cowper says:
May 30, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Nice one Bob
Dana1981 always has a nasty undertone about him. He could learn a lot from you and Pielke Sr.
============================================
I notice that this is the case for everyone at that Skeptical Science website. I think of it as more of an arrogant undertone.

George E. Smith;

Bob; it’s not fair to bring a shot gun to a knife fight; you don’t leave the varmints anywhere to run and hide !
George

Snowlover123 says:
“I notice that this is the case for everyone at that Skeptical Science website. I think of it as more of an arrogant undertone.”
But as Bob Tisdale demonstrates, they have nothing to be arrogant about.
Great deconstruction of Nuticelli’s pseudo-skeptical pseudo-science, Mr. T.

beng

Years ago there used to be a CAGW agitator named DanaO (or something similar) that trolled sites like Climateaudit.
Wonder if this Dana1981 is the same…

mycroft

Ouch! thats gotta sting…nice one Bob
To Dana1981
When doing battle with a master, it pays to know when to quit..and to bring adequate weapons to the field.

KnR

To be fair to Dana1981 they are just following normal the Team practice, they are after all RC’s ‘little bitch’ eager to please their gods.

JinOH

Why bother to feed the trolls? Skeptical Science is neither and the cartoonist in charge of that site is a fool as we all know.

. . . how many years are required until the models can be said to have failed?

The general direction if their argument is that you’re using the wrong starting point (for a linear trend(!)), thus the models appear to have been throughly falsified as of 1997 or so.
The answer is thus negative fifteen. So fifteen years prior to the first run of any given OHC model, it can be safely assumed that it has already been demonstrated utterly false.

Bill Illis

This is the not the first time we’ve seen something like this from Dana so I think he just likes to present “a nice tidy picture” by changing the numbers in his charts so that the lines match up. It is not about accuracy, it is only about “communicating climate change”.
But OHC 0-700 metres from 1990 to 2011 is about 12 W/m2, not the +20 predicted by GISS and the climate models.
OHC 0-2000 metres from 1990 to 2011 is about 18 W/m2, not the +30 predicted by GISS and the climate models.
In the Argo era, 0.3 W/m2/yr is less that the 0.95 W/m2/yr predicted by GISS and the climate models.
It is about PR, like a TV commercial about how good the the new Chevy Volt is.

dana1981

Other errors in this post aside, you really butchered my name. It’s Nuccitelli.
[Moderator’s Observation: Hey, he got 60% of the letters in the right position! My name has half the letters yours does and very often writers (including my students) don’t even make 60%. Heck, POTUS has half the letters in his name that you do, is more famous, and yet lots of commenters here never seem to spell it the way he does. Is a puzzlement. -REP]

Great deconstruction of the house of cards..
As regarding feeding the trolls – this is not feeding, its literally knocking the ground out from under them.

Mike Wilson

“Other errors in this post aside, you really butchered my name. It’s Nuccitelli.”
So Dana, are you going to show us anything wrong with this post besides your name or is that the worst error in it?

David Jones

dana1981 says:
May 30, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Other errors in this post aside, you really butchered my name. It’s Nuccitelli.
WOW!! What an incisive response!!
/sarc

cui bono

Is this the same Dana1981 who last year ‘explained’ the absence of sea level rise by saying global water had been diverted to the Bangkok floods? 🙂

Jimmy Haigh

I prefer Nuttycelli.

ExWarmist

Bob performs intellectual judo and defeats Warmist arguments with their own data.
But, they keep getting up for more… (it helps to be funded by Government http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/does-climate-money-matter-is-a-monopoly-good-for-a-market/ )

“So Dana, are you going to show us anything wrong with this post besides your name or is that the worst error in it?”
Well, I’ve learned that commenting here isn’t a very constructive exercise, to put it kindly. As a quick summary, I should clarify that I don’t know if Tisdale’s graph is in error, because he shows so little data. And that’s really the problem – he’s looking at the mean run from just one climate model, comparing it to one OHC reconstruction, only looking at 0-700m data (with the exception of his new graphic, which is grossly inconsistent with all other 0-2000m OHC reconstructions, which I summarized in my post), and looking at less than a decade’s worth of data. It’s cherrypick upon cherrypick upon cherrypick. Let’s just say my post is a lot more thorough.
And that’s all I’m going to say on the matter because as I noted, commenting here isn’t a constructive exercise.
REPLY: This from a man whose website drove the very Civil Dr. Pielke away:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/response-to-skeptical-science-on-a-series-of-weblog-posts/

My Final Comments
I appreciated the opportunity to engage on SkS, and will ask them a couple of further questions this week, but find they still persist in an argumentative manner of debate. Instead of focusing on areas of agreement, they repeatedly argue (often with snarky tone) the same points over and over again. Instead of accepting there is disagreement, they dogmatically insist that they are right. I suspect many readers turn off SkS because of the tone they use in the comments. That is too bad, as a site that accepts the IPCC but is willing to constructively and courteously debate science issues, is very much-needed. Hopefully, SkS will work to improve the tone of their weblog, and recognize that you can disagree on issues, but still respect those you are debating with. Snarky comments are not constructive.

BTW, the misspelling of your name is my fault, not Bob’s. I actually typed it in search to make sure I had it right, it is was erroneously confirmed by this Google Search
http://www.google.com/search?q=Dana+Nutticelli
Apparently, misspelling your name is a common problem on the web, but I offer my apology anyway. Won’t happen again.
Loved the scooter picture at Pielke’s today,

You should get a bumper sticker that says “My other scooter is nuclear powered”. 😉 – Anthony

just some guy

dana1981 says:
May 30, 2012 at 2:28 pm
Other errors in this post aside, you really butchered my name. It’s Nuccitelli.
That’s his rebuttal? How embarrassing.

dana1981

Actually I should clarify – it’s a *linear extrapolation* of the mean 1993-2003 run from one climate model. Tisdale (and everyone else doing this analysis, including myself) is assuming that a linear OHC extrapolation is accurate, which is only true if the radiative forcing 2003-2011 is the same as 1993-2003, which very well may not be true due to rising aerosol emissions.
Bottom line is that we can’t say for sure whether or not there’s a model-data discrepancy, but Tisdale’s analysis in particular is nowhere near thorough enough to make that determination. I couldn’t even make that determination in my more thorough analysis. The difference is that I admitted as much.

Firey

Usually when the output of predictive models does not match results obtained from actual measured data then the model needs to be recalibrated. Relying on an unvalidated model is silly but in the case the model is invalid.
The problem is model output is used heavilly in green agenda/advocacy to promote carbon trading, so called green energy and wealth redistribution. As the models fail the prospects for advocacy diminish.

I was wondering if someone could justify for me the usage of the projection as if the 1990s and 2000s are comparable in terms of which forcings were acting on OHC; we’ve already posted several times at SkS about the increase in aerosol forcing, the decrease in solar output from the ~2003 peak to a prolonged minimum, differences in ENSO (the 1990s seem dominated by El Nino, whereas that’s not quite the case for the 2000s), so on. How would the model itself respond to these changes in forcing, how would it say the 0-750m OHC should have changed due to these forcings? I cannot see how extrapolating is at all justified from a physical or statistical sense.
I would also ask where you obtained the 0-2000m data for your last figure Bob, the NODC data doesn’t show a decrease over that time period so I’d like to see how and perhaps why the METOffice data does.
Thanks ahead of time for anyone who can give some answers.

Nowadays when I see Warmists grapple with data, trying and make it fit their prejudices – I am always reminded of the Ugly Sisters trying desperately trying to stuff their fat feet into Cinderella’s abandoned slipper!

dana1981

My previous comment that I was clarifying on appears not to have gone through – probably lost it when I had to sign in. My point was that Tisdale is only looking at the mean run of one model (which I clarified to note that it’s actually the linear extrapolation of that mean model run), compared to one OHC reconstruction, only of 0-700m data (with the exception of his new 0-2000m graph, which is a gross outlier compared to every other 0-2000m OHC reconstruction, which are discussed in my post), and over a timeframe of less than a decade. It’s an uber-cherrypick.
Even analyzing a lot more data, I couldn’t say for sure whether or not there’s a model-data discrepancy in my post. Tisdale certainly can’t make that determination in his post with so little data being analyzed.
REPLY: No, its right there at 3:33 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/30/dana-nuticellis-skeptical-science-ohc-grapple-down-for-the-count/#comment-997401

Snowlover123

Dana it is an utter and complete joke that you say that “commenting here isn’t a very constructive exercise” when, as Anthony showed, Skeptical Science drove Dr. Pielke away, viciously slash out his comments (Source: http://nigguraths.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/comment-deletion1.gif?w=580) and then your commentators resort to ad-hominem attacks instead of debating science.
And you criticize this website as being unconstructive? What a joke!

Glenn Tamblyn

One tiny tiny problem with your whole argument Bob.
How can you compare what the GISS model supposedly says for the post 2003 period with OHC data for that period?
The GISS graphed data is only showing what the model produced up to 2003. GISS haven’t modelled 2003-2012.!!
You have no idea what the model would show for that period since it hasn’t been done.
So your argument is based on a very ery strange idea. We have GISS modelling for 1955 to 2003 and we can compare this to the observational data and they match pretty well. Not a single fixed trend, not a straight line in sight!
But since GISS hasn’t gone beyond 2003 I will just assume that if we had a crystal ball to let us look at future output of the model we would see some truly amazing behaviour. From 2003 the model stops doing complex things and just turns into a simple straight line!
One can just imagine the computer code involved in this
IF Year <= 2003
Call Full_GISS_Model
ELSE
Y = A*X + B
Essentially you are saying that GISS just gives up modelling after 2003!
Bob YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GISS WOULD SHOW FOR 2004-2012! NO IDEA WHATSOEVER.
So what was the point of your post? To demonstrate your psychic abilities?
If skeptics want to make any sort of case for the merit of their arguments surely step one is to first engage brain!
REPLY: Written by a guy who’s in the food business, I can’t wait for Bob’s response – Anthony

Alex C says: “I would also ask where you obtained the 0-2000m data for your last figure Bob…”
The source of data for Figure 8 was identified in the post as the KNMI Climate Explorer.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere
Alex C says: “…the NODC data doesn’t show a decrease over that time period so I’d like to see how and perhaps why the METOffice data does.”
The UKMO OHC data trend for 0-2000 meter is positive, Alex C. Not Negative. It’s simply not as positive as the NODC data for that time period.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/figure-8.png
On the other hand, the UKMO EN3-based global OHC trend for 0-700 meters is negative since 2003. But so was the NODC OHC data when they first released it based on Levitus et al (2009), if memory serves. It wasn’t until the NODC modified the data in late 2010 that it acquired the positive trend that exists now.
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/figure-7.png
Regarding your discussion of aerosols, you’ll need to look to see where the oceans are cooling before your try to say that the additional aerosols from China are causing that cooling.

phlogiston

Interesting that the UKMO EN3 OHC data shows declining OHC down to 700m in the last decade, while NODC shows slight increase. Is the UKMO EN3 a new OHC dataset? What are the differences?

sleeper

@ AlexC–

I was wondering if someone could justify for me the usage of the projection as if the 1990s and 2000s are comparable in terms of which forcings were acting on OHC; we’ve already posted several times at SkS about the increase in aerosol forcing, the decrease in solar output from the ~2003 peak to a prolonged minimum, differences in ENSO (the 1990s seem dominated by El Nino, whereas that’s not quite the case for the 2000s), so on. How would the model itself respond to these changes in forcing, how would it say the 0-750m OHC should have changed due to these forcings? I cannot see how extrapolating is at all justified from a physical or statistical sense.

Basically what you’re saying is models don’t handle natural variability well, so we should cut ’em some slack. Here’s an idea: just widen the hell out of the error bars.

John M

Bottom line is that we can’t say for sure whether or not there’s a model-data discrepancy

Give me an error bar long enough and a model on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

dana1981 says:
May 30, 2012 at 3:26 pm
“So Dana, are you going to show us anything wrong with this post besides your name or is that the worst error in it?”
Well, I’ve learned that commenting here isn’t a very constructive exercise, to put it kindly. As a quick summary, I should clarify that I don’t know if Tisdale’s graph is in error, because he shows so little data.
=======================================================
Dana….. you guys and gals continue to amuse me. Admittedly, I’m incredibly ignorant on the issues of OHC. I still haven’t figured out why we don’t calculate the different depths separately….. But, that’s not why I’m commenting.
I’ve decided to start looking into OHC and the various issues and considerations. And so I read. And this is the secret that you alarmists, quite frankly have never learned.
The commenters here can be very brutal. But, they’re not vicious…… (for the most part.) On issues I’m knowledgeable about, I prefer to seek out alarmist blogs and engage. The reason is twofold. 1) I learn. Invariably, because I’m a skeptic, I’ll be challenged. Once in a blue moon, I’ll find an alarmist more knowledgeable. That’s personal growth. But, 2) more often than not, they’re not more knowledgeable in the particular issue I’ve chosen to engage with them. I never go to those sites believing I’m going to change a commentator’s mind. It just doesn’t happen like that. But, always, there are people like me, on this issue. Interested, reading, but not commenting. If one produces well founded accurate information in a calm, clear and cordial manner, the silent reader will read what you have to say. They will also read the responses. Nasty doesn’t sway people. It repels them. (This isn’t a personal observation of you, but alarmists in general) For me, I love a good vitriol filled raucous argument from time to time….. keeps the blood moving.
Way back when, most of the traffic went to alarmist sites. Now, if I have something to say which I want a larger audience to hear, I come to a skeptic site such as WUWT. Stay and play, the worst that can happen is that you learn something. Else, if you present accurate information in a calm, clear and cordial manner……
James

Bruce of Newcastle

Suggestion to Dana. Try adding a sine fit to your Argo graph from 1993.
Should fit very well indeed. My old fashioned eyeball regression method suggests a wavelength of ~64 years would be spot on.
Oh I forget. CAGW people don’t like sine curves, they only like straight line trends.

@Sleeper:
“Basically what you’re saying is models don’t handle natural variability well, so we should cut ‘em some slack. Here’s an idea: just widen the hell out of the error bars.”
Thanks for quoting me so that people know what I actually said. So I can clarify it for you though, the straight line projection is not the model. Nope, no way, not it. It’s an extrapolation of a trend that was created from how the model responded to forcing during the 1993-2003 period, and you can’t say that’s how the model would say 2003-present would behave.
So, what I *actually* said was that I’m curious how the model would *actually* respond to the forcing data over the past decade. I said zero about the model’s ability to model natural variability, don’t misrepresent me.

@Bruce:
“Oh I forget. CAGW people don’t like sine curves, they only like straight line trends.”
Because sine waves aren’t physically justified, unless you’d like to present a sound explanation based on published literature(?). Tell me too, does this sine wave happen to be around an upward linear trend?
Awaiting citation…

Roger

In the current context the long comment towards the bottom of this page may be of interest:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/9/21/the-cook-timeline.html?currentPage=3

Camburn

Well written James. And very correct.
I used to go to alarmist sites, but most have now decided that my comments should not be seen.
I also went to be challenged, as I paid good money to read the literature and understand it.
I have found Anthony’s site to be very interesting. Sure, there is some highperbole…(sp), but there are also very good discussions embedded.
My occupation requires that I have a more than rudimentary understanding of climate and weather. It affects long range planning tremendously.
What has been obvious, at least in my area, is that the projections, based on modles, are not being fulfilled when it comes to climate. I want to understand the why? they aren’t beinf fulfilled.
We know that ARGO is a much much better source of data than the mixture presented previously. OHC is a large driver of climate AND weather.
Mr. Tisdale has done us all a great service with his well presented blog postings and I thank him for that.

Rosco

One would assume dana1981 is now 31 – old enough to have developed beyond the gullible 20 somethings – although some never grow out of gullibility.