Dana Nuccitelli Can’t Come to Terms with the Death of the AGW Hypothesis

Dana Nuccitelli published an article today in The Guardian Does the global warming “pause” mean what you think it means?…a play off a line by Inigo Montoya from “The Princess Bride”. Dana has expressed his misunderstanding of one of the most commonly used metrics of global warming—the surface temperature record. And he continues to display his unwillingness to accept that the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead.

Nuccitelli presents Box 3.1 Figure 1 from Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (my Figure 1).

01 IPCC-AR5-WG1-Box-3_1-Fig-1_450

Figure 1

(See the approved Chapter 3 (Observations: Ocean) of the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report.)

Nuccitelli writes:

The speed bump only applies to surface temperatures, which only represent about 2 percent of the overall warming of the global climate. Can you make out the tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure? That’s the only part of the climate for which the warming has ‘paused’.

Nuccitelli is correct that the halt in global warming applies to surface temperatures, but he’s incorrect that it applies only to it. The warming of the top 700 meters has also slowed to a crawl, and is nonexistent in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, but more on that later.

The global surface temperature record includes land surface air temperature (measured at 2 meters from the surface) and sea surface temperature measurements. And as a reference, the GISS, NCDC and UKMO global surface temperature products show little (GISS) to no (UKMO & NCDC) warming since January 2001, based on the linear trends. (See Figure 2, which is from the post here.)

02 comparison-2001-start

Figure 2

Nuccitelli refers his readers to “tiny purple segment at the bottom of the above figure” (my Figure 1), which is identified by the IPCC as “Atmosphere” in the illustration—not the surface of the oceans.

In their discussion of “Atmosphere” for their Box 3.1, Figure 1, the IPCC explains that the atmospheric component is estimated from lower troposphere and lower stratosphere temperatures, based on satellite measurements. The lower troposphere temperature measurements are from the layer that is approximately 3000 meters above sea level.

The IPCC has NOT presented the heat content for the surface of the oceans in their Box 3.1, Figure 1. The ocean surface warming is included in top 700 meters of ocean warming—not in the atmosphere.

# # #

Further to the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1, Dana Nuccitelli forgot to advise his readers that the data in the IPCC’s graph have been smoothed with a 5-year filter, and that the smoothing would hide the slowdown in warming of the oceans at depths of 0 to 700 meters and 700 to 2000 meters. And he has elected not to tell his readers that the quarterly NODC ocean heat content data for the North Atlantic during the ARGO era continues to show very little warming for depths of 0-2000 meters and cooling at depths of 0-700 meters. (See Figure 3.)

03 N. Atl OHC

Figure 3

He’s overlooked the fact that the ocean heat content data for the North Pacific show cooling at both levels, with the 0-2000 meter data cooling at a lesser rate than the 0-700 meter data. (See Figure 4.)

04 N. Pac OHC

Figure 4

(Figures 3 and 4 are from the post here. And the data are available here from the NODC website.)

CO2 is supposed to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas. Obviously, increased CO2 emissions in recent years have had no impact on the ocean heat in the Northern Hemisphere.

# # #

Nuccitelli uses the tired and misleading “atomic bomb” metric:

As the IPCC figure indicates, over 90 percent of global warming goes into heating the oceans, and it continues at a rapid pace, equivalent to 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonations per second.

The IPCC doesn’t mention Hiroshima atomic bombs anywhere in their Chapter 3; the words “Hiroshima”, “atom”, and “bomb” do not appear in Chapter 3 of the IPCC’s AR5; so don’t think the IPCC is responsible for this nonsensical claim. One would have to assume Nuccitelli is referring to the 0.6 watts/meter^2 imbalance at the surface found in papers like Stephens et al (2013). See Figure 5.

05 Figure 1 from Stephens et al 2013

Figure 5

As I wrote in Climate Models Fail:

The total of the downward shortwave (solar) radiation and longwave (infrared) radiation is about 534 watts/meter^2, so the estimated imbalance of 0.6 watts/meter^2 is only about 0.1% of the total downward radiation at the surface. Or, in other words, the total amount of downward radiation at the surface is about 890 times more than the difference. Also note the uncertainty in the imbalance. The estimated imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/meter^2. That is, the uncertainties are 28 times greater than the estimated value. Bottom line: the surface imbalance may exist or it may not.

Note: Radiative imbalance is the metric that alarmists like to portray in terms of atomic bombs. What the alarmists fail to tell their readers is that sunlight and natural levels of infrared radiation at the surface are almost 890 times the number of atomic bombs they’re claiming, and that the uncertainties in radiative imbalance are 28 times the radiative imbalance.

# # #

Nuccitelli continues to mislead his readers in that article:

Over longer time frames, for example from 1990 to 2012, average global surface temperatures have warmed as fast as climate scientists and their models expected.

As I noted in the post Open Letter to the Honorable John Kerry U.S. Secretary of State, the modelers had to double the rate of the warming of global sea surface temperatures over the past 31+ years in order to get the modeled land surface air temperatures even close to the observed warming. (See Figure 6.)

06 Global SSTa since Nov 1981

Figure 6

So let’s look at the difference between modeled and observed global sea surface temperatures since 1990 to put it into the time period Dana Nuccitelli prefers, Figure 7. “Climate scientists and their models expected” the surface of the global oceans to have warmed at a rate that was almost 3 times faster than observed since 1990.

07 Global SSTa since Jan 1990

Figure 7

Three times as fast must mean “as fast as climate scientists and their models expected” in the new climate change doubletalk of global warming enthusiasts.

# # #

Nuccitelli and the global warming enthusiasts from the IPCC like to present global warming in terms that are meaningless to most people, in Joules with lots of zeroes after it. The units in the IPCC’s Box 3.1, Figure 1 (my Figure 1) are in Zettajoules or Joules*10^21. But as we’ve illustrated and discussed recently, the warming of the oceans takes on a whole new perspective when we present it in terms familiar to people: deg C. (See Figure 8, which is from the blog post here.) Surface temperatures stopped warming, the warming of the top 700 meters of the oceans has slowed to a crawl, so if there is continued warming at depths of 700 to 2000 meters, it is so miniscule that it’s not coming back to haunt anyone at any time in the future.

08 fig-3-temp-anom-comparison-a

Figure 8

# # #

After a long discussion of multidecadal variations in surface temperatures, Nuccitelli’s final paragraph begins:

In terms of the threat from long-term global warming and climate change, it really doesn’t mean anything. It just means that at the moment, more global warming is being absorbed by the oceans, but the next time ocean cycles shift, we’ll experience accelerated surface warming just like we did in the 1990s.

But Nuccitelli misses the obvious. We discussed this in the post Will their Failure to Properly Simulate Multidecadal Variations In Surface Temperatures Be the Downfall of the IPCC?:

Most people will also envision the multidecadal variations extending further into the future. That is, they will imagine a projection of future Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures repeating the slight cooling from 1945 to the mid-1970s along with the later warming, followed by yet another slight cooling of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures, in a repeat of the past “cycle”. That is, they will envision the surface temperature record repeating itself. And in their minds’ eyes, they see an ever growing divergence between the models and their projections, like the one shown in Figure [9].

09 multidecadal oscilations into the future

Figure 9

FURTHER READING

In my book Climate Models Fail, I have collected my past findings about climate model failings, and illustrated others, and I’ve presented highlights from the research papers critical of climate models—and I “translated” those research findings for persons without scientific or technical backgrounds. And as noted earlier, there is also a discussion of the natural warming of the global oceans. The free preview of Climate Models Fail is available here. It includes the Introduction, Table of Contents and the Closing. Climate Models Fail is available in pdf and Kindle formats. Refer to my blog post New Book: “Climate Models Fail” for further information, the synopsis from the Kindle webpage and purchase/download links.

Ocean heat content data and satellite-era sea surface temperature data indicate the oceans warmed via natural ocean processes, not from manmade greenhouse gases. This has been addressed in dozens of blog posts here and with cross posts at WattsUpWithThat for almost 5 years. I further discussed this in minute detail in my book Who Turned on the Heat? It is only available in .pdf form. A preview is here. Who Turned on the Heat? is described further in, and is available for sale through, my blog post “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About El Niño and La Niña”.

CLOSING

The hypothesis of human-induced global warming is dead. Global warming enthusiasts like Dana Nuccitelli and the IPCC just haven’t come to terms with their losses. They should be burying it with dignity, and moving on to greener pastures, but they’re not. They’ve chosen to parade around a failure of science like a pull toy.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dingo

The problem is “blog post” – why not submit your work to a journal to get it peer reviewed?

gopal panicker

on el nino or la nina…one place warms while the other cools…and vice versa…why is it not a wash as far as the so called global average temps are concerned ??

gopal panicker

to dingo…the peers wont let it be published…i know…i tried

fretslider

It’s worth reading the komments section below the article…
[Nuccitelli – mod] manages to get a “cherry pick” in there quite easily, but it seems ‘error418 ‘ got the better of him

Steve Keohane

Thanks Bob.

Mike Hebb

Excellent!

cd

Dingo
The problem is “blog post”
Indeed but it carries more weight than that of a poorly informed journalist with a particular world view, and one who writes for a newspaper that considers climate scientist to include biologists, psychologists and sociologists (as stated in one article) but not geologists (as stated in another).

James Strom

Dingo says:
October 18, 2013 at 5:47 am
The problem is “blog post” – why not submit your work to a journal to get it peer reviewed?
_________________
I agree. Send it to Phil Jones for a quick review.

Gareth Phillips

I suppose Dana’s essay and Bob’s both seem pretty plausible. though they arrive at completely differing viewpoints using the same data. Short of doing as Dingo suggests and submitting both studies for peer reviewed publication, we can only assume it’s another nail in the coffin for those who feel that science is always objective and there is no subjective influence governing the conclusions.

Patrick

“Dingo says:
October 18, 2013 at 5:47 am”
Same dog that stole the EAU CRU raw data?

cd

Bob
The problem is even when the obvious is pointed out to them they’ll still continue to peddle whatever nonsense their editor tells them.
The two worst papers in the UK are the Daily Mail (note not the Sunday Mail) and the Guardian. Both play to their respective galleries irrespective of the impact of such irresponsible journalism. The only difference is that the Guardian assumes (as does its readers) the seriousness of a broadsheet. It has no such qualities, its articles are generally simple binary pieces with heroes and villains. If one wants a proper left-leaning paper read the Independent.

Gareth Phillips

Apologies Bob, our posts seem to have crossed each other, I did not see yours until after I had posted, cheers G.

JJ

Nutticelli’s blog post is an example of the pseudoscientist warmists’ current tactic, which is to redefine what ‘global warming’ means, so that they can pretend that it is still happening the way their chicken little scare stories claimed it would. This method of telling a lie is so common that it has been given a formal name: equivocation.
Sorry warmists. You don’t get to equivocate. You conceptualized, defined, modeled, and sold ‘global warming’ to a gullible public as a phenomenon of globally averaged surface temperature. Your attribution of ‘global warming’ to human causes, and your effects studies that claim ‘global warming’ will be the death of us all, all depend on dramatic increases in globally averaged surface temperature. Those scary stories talked about an increase of 4-8C in globally averaged surface temperature. That ain’t gonna happen, and you know it as well as we do. More to the point, you knew it as well as we did, and told the scary stories anyways.
You want to redefine ‘global warming’ to be a phenomenon that manifests as a change in ocean heat content? Fine. Back to first principles for you. Call back in 150 years, when you have enough ocean heat content data to talk about.
And this time, do it on your own dime.

@James Strom – that is the Phil Jones that conspired to change what a “peer reviewed” paper was to ensure none that did not conform to their opinions, correct?

cd

Bob
I remember not so long ago everyone was getting excited when it was suggested that seismic events may be the trigger for El Nino events (and obviously not the source of the thermal energy). I take it this has now been assigned to the shelf of “many possibilities”.

SideShowBob

The total global heat content for the 0-700m range can be found here
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
I’d like to see someone subtract of the 0-2000m to leave the 700-2000m heat content… just out of interest, I think WillisE did that in a post but I can’t find it
anyway the problem with trying to drive home the whole “pause” in surface temperatures angle is that they can easily just point to heat content, as Dana does.

Gareth Phillips

Dana N. sets out his rationale on Skeptical Science, http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-global-warming-pause-mean-what-you-think.html I’ll also link Bobs response on that site. I’d be very interested to see Dana’s response to Bobs analysis of the situation.

James Strom

Bob, nice post. I do accept that there is a forcing from CO2, but the size of the net forcing is up in the air, so to speak. The trend for the past one or two decades has been tiny. You illustrated one huge problem when you said–
>>Also note the uncertainty in the imbalance. The estimated imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/meter^2. That is, the uncertainties are 28 times greater than the estimated value. Bottom line: the surface imbalance may exist or it may not.<<
In both sea and atmospheric temperatures, to claim that we have measured a warming trend is to pretend to a precision that does not exist. And the same holds for net energy flows, as you show.

Chuck L

One must wonder if Nuccitelli is ignorant or disingenuous. I vote for the latter.

cd

Bob
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/00EO00194/abstract
I didn’t read it all, just the abstract. I remember some excitement about the possible association. I think there are others, I’ll have a look.

cd

Bob
I think this has references to a causal link. The last link had the causality the other way around.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/29/science/theory-ties-earthquakes-in-pacific-to-el-nino.html

JK

Could you give a more precise statement of “the hypothesis of human-induced global warming” that you claim is now dead?
For example, many skeptics say that they think AGW in general is plausible, but they object to the idea of “catastrophic” AGW, although different skeptics define this in different ways, often without saying exactly what they mean making it hard to make comparisons. Here, you seem to be rejecting not just CAGW, but AGW as a whole.
Another example, are you claiming that “the hypothesis of human-induced global warming” across the whole twentieth century is dead?

Galvanize

Wasn`t there a post somewhere, recently, that showed that on the SkS search facility, “ocen heat” was searched for roughly four or five times a year, yet in the last two years that number has reached in to the hundreds?
And they say that the emphasis has never been on atmospheric temperatures?

dccowboy

“The estimated imbalance is 0.6 +/- 17 watts/meter^2. ”
Why on earth would anyone try to draw ANY conclusion about energy imbalance based on that? It truly boggles the mind that anyone would think that that was significant in any way.
Ask a gambler to place a bet if you give him “The Dallas Cowboys will score 30 points +/- 840.” (obviously I’d take that bet all day long). It’s meaningless, as is the imbalance estimate.

Peter Miller

I really do not like the title of this otherwise excellent article.
It is common practice for alarmists to muddle up AGW with CAGW. Sceptics should not make the same mistake.
AGW exists, but nobody knows how to quantify it or how to tell you what the Earth’s temperature would have been like over the past 100 years without the activities of man. What we do know about AGW is that it is a mild, almost entirely beneficial phenomenon.
CAGW, on the other hand, is a total hoax, something dreamed up by the Global Warming Industry to scare gullible politicians into pouring billions of tax dollars into the overflowing troughs of bad science, thus perpetuating the comfortable lifestyles of dubious ‘climate scientists and statisticians’.
Bottom line: The concept of AGW, as it really is, pays no bills, while CAGW keeps those troughs overflowing.

cd

Chuck
It’s a tough one. I’d guess he holds a certain world view that means AGW is right and in the end he will be proved right. And for that reason alone all the disinformation and obfuscation is justified.
You get this from left-leaning “mediocrities”; they love to extol their wisdom and virtue and impart it to the rest of us. Sanctimonious hypocrites of you ask me.

Bill Illis

The Ocean Heat Content uptake has not increased.
The rate has fallen.
It has not increased, temporarily taking energy away from potential surface temperature increase. The OHC uptake rate has decreased and the surface temperatures have flatlined.
There is something missing or not correctly outlined in global warming theory. It is as simple as that.

Chuck L says:
October 18, 2013 at 7:05 am
One must wonder if Nuccitelli is ignorant or disingenuous. I vote for the latter.

I would not eliminate the possibility he is both.

timetochooseagain

Interesting that Stephens et al don’t display what the models’ imbalances are. One can do the math for oneself, I suppose. It would appear that the average model has a TOA imbalance 2.2 W/m^2. I’m not sure the mins and maxes go with each other for the different things, but assuming they do, the minimum corresponds to an imbalance 9.8 W/m^2 and the maximum to -6.3 W/m^2 (yes negative). Curiouser, for the observations I get .5 W/m^2 not .6, but close enough.
With the surface those values are .9 W/m^2, 64.8 W/m^2, -6.6 W/m^2, and .6 W/m^2 respectively. Well at least this time the observational value matches that Stephens et al put down exactly. It appears that:
1. The models have too high of imbalances on average and
2. Models do not make a meaningful set of predictions about the imbalances, since they appear to give ranges of values much larger than the uncertainties in the measurements thereof, and even spanning no imbalance.
An observation one could make simply glancing at the values Stephens et al. did give: It’s quite obvious that we cannot be meaningfully said to have measured the surface imbalance, since the uncertainy is two orders of magnitude larger than the central estimate of it’s value. One wonders why we speak of the surface imbalance at all, since it is not actually known to exist.

BW2013

I am confused. Dana seems to discount efforts to use any type of natural cycle as a reason for the current cooling. Then in his next statement asks the reader what will happen when the ocean shifts to a warming phase? Doesn’t that statement mean he accepts natural cycles?
Also, having sensor accuracy 28 times larger than the perceived mathematical difference would have shut this whole debate down in the real world.
Bob, you do great at explaining in layman terms what is happening, thank you! Could you do me a favor and find a better word for “crawl”? Adjectives in technical papers always set off my alarm bells.
Thanks again…..

Henry Clark

Aside from not wanting people to notice, Nuccitelli and his partner activists at modern Anglosphere environmental studies institutions aren’t bothered in the slightest bit by several tenths of a degree contradiction in their rewriting of history (as highlighted, for example, about 1/2 of the way down in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg ), which makes worthlessly untrustworthy their claims implying hundredths of a degree change in deep ocean water temperatures.
The very fact that they publicize, to the public, ocean temperature change solely in joules rather than in degrees, to mislead, should already make someone realize dishonesty is more probable than not.
Heck, looking at figure 8, it appears that, among other aspects, they were sloppy enough to just make up about a straight line of pretended data from 2008 on, neglecting how poorly that compares for plausibility to the surface temperature pattern; they had for earlier years tried to follow it more, to make the BSing less obvious, but gave up when unwilling to show the inconvenient downturn.
If someone lies to you X times in a row, there is no reason to auto-trust them on the X+1 iteration. When a source is compromised, it is compromised. Few people appreciate such (partially due to carry-over of politeness instincts from face-to-face conversation), and liars take advantage of the mistake, too often correct in figuring that, if they just keep lying harder and harder, repeatedly and repeatedly, people will sooner or later believe. Claimed ocean heat content is garbage. Would people believe if they next were told the heat was hiding on the other side of the universe, conveniently away from independent verification?
If the NODC was disgusted to be partnered with the dishonesty of the rest of the CAGW movement, accordingly speaking against such, and, if it was staffed all by people who wouldn’t ordinarily come to it (non-environmentalists), then there might be some reason to trust them. As it is actually? No way.

JK says: “Another example, are you claiming that ‘the hypothesis of human-induced global warming’ across the whole twentieth century is dead?
Henry says
fyi
Dana is nuts. He automatically wipes all comments made by known skeptics.
They must keep a close record of that (at his guardian newspaper)?
It showed to me how close we are to being watched by big brother and how easy it is to ostracize certain people (like in the the nazi period it was jews, we know that in the future it will be those who believe in Christ)
look at global minima to rubbish AGW (minima are not pushing up the average temps)
look at global maxima if you want to predict the future (maxima are an independent proxy for energy coming through the atmosphere)
if you follow these simple procedures you will or you should get the same results as I got
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
once you have figured that all out
it should not be long before you come to agree to my final report on this
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

Jim Cripwell

gopal panicker says:
on el nino or la nina…one place warms while the other cools…and vice versa…why is it not a wash as far as the so called global average temps are concerned ??
It probably does, but the issue is, over what time period? The PDO cycles over 60 years. So there is bound to be a residual in the noise, unless the signal is integrated over a time period that is very long compared with 60 years. Our data has far too short a time period for the ENSO residual to be “a wash”

JK says: “Another example, are you claiming that ‘the hypothesis of human-induced global warming’ across the whole twentieth century is dead?
Henry says
fyi
Dana is nuts. He automatically wipes all comments made by known skeptics.
They must keep a close record of that (at his guardian newspaper)?
It showed to me how close we are to being watched by big brother and how easy it is to ostracize certain people (like in the the nazi period it was jews, we know that in the future it will be those who believe in Christ)
look at global minima to rubbish AGW (minima are not pushing up the average temps)
look at global maxima if you want to predict the future (maxima are an independent proxy for energy coming through the atmosphere)
if you follow these simple procedures you will or you should get the same results as I got
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
once you have figured that all out
it should not be long before you come to agree to my final report on this
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
xxx

Henry Clark

Tiny edit to prior post: Once “deep ocean” would fit where “ocean” is used.

K says: “Another example, are you claiming that ‘the hypothesis of human-induced global warming’ across the whole twentieth century is dead?
Henry says
fyi
Dana is nuts. He automatically wipes all comments made by known skeptics.
They must keep a close record of that (at his guardian newspaper)?
It showed to me how close we are to being watched by big brother and how easy it is to ostracize certain people (like in the the nazi period it was jews, we know that in the future it will be those who believe in Christ)
look at global minima to rubbish AGW (minima are not pushing up the average temps)
look at global maxima if you want to predict the future (maxima are an independent proxy for energy coming through the atmosphere)
if you follow these simple procedures you will or you should get the same results as I got
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
once you have figured that all out
it should not be long before you come to agree to my final report on this
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
xx

Rick K

I enjoy your posts, Bob. Thanks.

Brian

I’m not sure how this is a rebuttal of Nuccitelli’s article. Bob spends a lot of time discussing surface temperatures and models, which do not contribute to the main point of Dana’s article. In fact Dana says “the best climate contrarians can do is find a flat 10-year surface temperature trend”, and Bob’s rebuttal does exactly that. Also, Bob largely ignores the ocean from 700-2000m, which is where Dana says heat is increasing most. Bob dodges the point by saying that people can’t understand Joules.
I’m not saying that Nuccitelli is correct, but this post does almost nothing to discredit him.

Henry Clark

^^^ One of the reasons dishonesty is so prevalent amongst many groups engaged in pushing a cause or argument is that it gives a major selective advantage, like natural selection, if the other side is too polite or unwilling to deviate from taking anyone’s published statements (or NODC “data” in this case) at face value auto-trusted. The dishonest side has the advantage then, as all they have to do can be to find a lie hard to disprove, like somewhere where there aren’t enough of other data sources for cross-checking. Such is particularly easy if prior lies and proof of bias are ignored, as if they should be auto-trusted anew each time, as sooner or later they can come up with something relatively effective in that context.
It is BS, though, compared to the overall picture in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg

JK says: “Another example, are you claiming that ‘the hypothesis of human-induced global warming’ across the whole twentieth century is dead?
Henry says
fyi
Dana is nuts. He automatically wipes all comments made by known skeptics.
They must keep a close record of that (at his guardian newspaper)?
It showed to me how close we are to being watched by big brother and how easy it is to ostracize certain people (like in the the nazi period it was jews, we know that in the future it will be those who believe in Christ)
look at global minima to rubbish AGW (minima are not pushing up the average temps)
look at global maxima if you want to predict the future (maxima are an independent proxy for energy coming through the atmosphere)
if you follow these simple procedures you will or you should get the same results as I got
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/
once you have figured that all out
it should not be long before you come to agree to my final report on this
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/

I wonder why any of my comments are not being posted…
REPLY: two reasons “henry”
1. Too many links trigger spam filter
2. Too many words w/ links increase likelihood of spam score being high
3. You change handles
All up now, in quadruplicate – Anthony

Bob,
This was the first time I have seen figure 5. The balance 0.6 +- 17 of course makes me ROFL. But what caught my attention was actually the other balance at TOA. You have probably digged into this already, but there seems to be some error with these values. Shouldn’t the balance be 0.5 +- 4 instead of 0.6 +- 0.4? I don’t see, in general, how the uncertainty could decrease when adding values together.
BR,
Nicklas

timetochooseagain

NicklasE- The uncertainty of such things can go down if errors are expected to be correlated between the different terms.