A lot of people seem to be forgetting that most of the warming is occurring in the oceans with just 5% of the excess energy being absorbed by Earth going into the atmosphere. So, what has heat content been doing over the last 10-15 years?
Not cooling, and perhaps they should be asking what caused the big jump around 2001 (also evident in surface temperatures; try removing 1998 and see what you get, a big jump up in 2001). The answer - natural fluctuations that brought it above the underlying long-term trend (long-term = decades to centuries, think of climate normals, like NOAA uses the 20th Century, or 1981-2010 for current weather normals):
Never mind the energy balance measurements that show that Earth is most definitely warming, regardless of what is claimed to be happening; otherwise, just where is the energy going? The following is from a scientific publication (as opposed to Skeptical Science - but then they reference these same publications, so I consider them to be as reliable as say Wikipedia, assuming they have good references - you can always look at references if you think the site is biased) on the energy balance in recent years:
So, you have to come up with something to explain why Earth is still warming, and there isn’t any known natural explanation, nor do I expect that there is some unknown reason (there are a bunch of conspiracy theories though).
I have found that when others resort to childish gorchas like that that that in reality the opponent has no good replies left, the reality remains that the researcher you pointed at does say with no evidence whatsoever that “It hasn’t gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years”. So just like Feynman, that is good enough attention for the likes of him.
He has discredited himself right out of the bat and the reality is that you are willing to continue to defend him. Fine with me, it is not my problem that you like to pall with discredited sources.
“Gotchas”? You’re the emperor of Gotchaland.
I mentioned your own 9 year-trend. When you deal with that, then I’ll answer about 14.
The IDEA comes from your website, from the link you gave.
Are you denying it?
Still, for the n-th time. Short-term cooling trend, long-term warming trend: I agree, I have always agreed. Those are your gotchas.
I’m not “generic denier”.
Still not defending our gods, are you? Maybe they’re indefensible as experts.
Both of them dealt with already, not my problem that you think it was not. No realist or honest scientist denies that there is a warming trend, and both the “9 year” or “14 years” statements are not supported.
Once again, you are denying the context, NOAA is not saying that we are in a cooling trend.
“Climate scientists pay little attention to these short-term fluctuations as the short term “cooling trends” mentioned above are statistically insignificant **and fitting trends to such short periods is not very meaningful in the context of long-term climate change. **[NOAA, 4/25/09]”
Once again, the experts clarify that your “expert” does not know what he is talking about.
Have you ever heard the expression “missing the forest for the trees?”
Indeed, it is not my problem that you are just attempting to justify a misrepresentation, all those short term coolings are already taken into account to declare that there is a warming trend still going on, the denier you brought fort is attempting to misrepresent the science, off to the dismissed pile he goes.
I accept that you only wasted your time, those items were already included before as I mentioned researchers like Latif on previous discussions, he and others explained before why those coolings can be used to deceive others on what is going on, declaring that we are in a cooling trend is just to continue to support people that are pushing a deception on others.
He actually goes through a lot of the basics on climate science and a lot the ways that AGW skeptics and believers talk past each other on this topic. BTW, is there a better word to use than believer? It is the antonym of skeptic, but I wonder if there is a less offensive term.
I went to his web site and a lot of the information there is more controversial, so I can’t recommend it, but the information in the Forbes article tends to have to follow closer to what is widely believed by climate scientists.
As I said before, you really need to understand some math to really understand global warming, so I suggest you start here:
Well this will surely be of interest to those who believe that scientific truth is determined by majority vote. What’s more interesting to me is what’s going on with Hansen’s predictions from 1988. Global surface temperatures are even lower than what he predicted would happen if emissions were drastically curtailed.
What’s also interesting is that Hansen’s computer simulation matched history very well, far better than it matched the future. Just look at the graph from 1958 to 1988. This is decent evidence that climate “scientists” tune their simulations to match history.
The reality is that there are scientific skeptics and deniers on one side and scientific proponents, plain proponents and yes, alarmists.
The trick the Forbes writer is using is to avoid dealing on what the scientists that are proponents of this are saying and making just the “believer” in the media or the lazy oafs out there. (That is a nice trick when also most of the media is a denier force or it just “forgets” about the issue as the OP noticed)
BTW history shows that it is really silly to use “believer”. History shows that it was the evidence that made scientists and specially the experts on the field to sound a warning. Curious fate that had to use evidence, the Forbes writer then relies on faith that what we see on one side are not deniers but skeptics. Followed by the straw man that most proponents are peddling catastrophe, more than once I pointed out that this will not be the end of the world, it is just that history does show that it takes only a little disruption to get humans to not do the right thing and cause unrest all over. And that is just by taking into consideration the recent droughts that are not caused by global warming, but made worse by it, and it would be indeed a matter of faith to think that this will get better when more warming is coming as even scientific skeptics can tell you. (And we have not touched ocean acidification issue yet)
Another trick the Forbes writer is using is to once again attempt to make this an ideological issue by pressing the side that this situation is happening among the proponents because it is the left pressing for the idea.
So what do a real climate scientist, Republican, has to say like many others do?
Most scientists do report (and from the same source this comes from) that if Hansen had used the current most agree sensibilities he would had been more on the money, once again this demonstrate that models are not really what researchers just use, real data and evidence changes and calling it “history” is misleading.
I mean peer reviewed papers written by actual climate scientists, like James Hansen or Gavin Schmidt. It isn’t that hard to find copies of the papers that aren’t behind a paywall with Google Scholar.
Based on your response, I would assume the answer is no.
It’s quaint to see how you went from “there is no cooling” to “there is cooling but it doesn’t matter on the overall trend” and claim any victory, especially since that was my position fromthe get-go.
Always avoiding specific points, always saying “tricks”, never engaging the numbers.
Why bother with your link if you, later, back off from them or then bring other links to cover the ones you previously posted.? You never engage the numbers, I won’t engage yours.
Geoff Haines-Stiles: Climate scientist? Published peer-reviewed scientist? Really? Is he one your gods? Will you ditch him as those from SkS you have not defended?
And most of the sites like Skeptical Science reference those papers when writing their articles; if you doubt their accuracy, just look at the references (as one would do with any non-primary source). Here is an example:
There are two links to scientific papers (italics) just in that one paragraph, plus several others in the rest of the article, including one from NOAA, which I consider to be as reliable as a scientific publication.
My point is that GIGObuster never reads the scientific papers or even the articles he cites from Skeptical Science.
However the link you give supports my point that you really have to read the articles to see what is really happening and the real uncertainties in the science.
The abstract seems to support the point they are making, but when you dig into it it you discover that they spend most of section 5 explaining the lack of warming since the late nineties and during this century.
Of course this doesn’t bother me since I’m a lukewarmer. It really only bugs the warmists
Right now, I’m trying to figure out Hansen’s new paper: Earth’s energy imbalance and implication
I started having a problem with it before I got through the abstract.
Our total energy budget is about 217 watts per square meter and you can measure imbalance to 3/10 tenths of one percent and you are sure AGW is causing it and it is sufficient basis to justify drastic economic action?
