ACCORDING to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis while surface temperatures may vary from year to year, as long as we spew out carbon dioxide there will be a gradual accumulation of heat in the climate system eventually resulting in a climate crisis.
In 2005, NASA boss James Hansen stated in an article in the journal ‘Science’ that confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the oceans which are the principal reservoir for excess energy.
A problem for the AGW hypothesis now, is that the oceans have been cooling. Indeed there is no known mechanism to account for what some describe as vast amounts of missing heat, suggesting that contrary to the AGW hypothesis, heat is not accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer any radiative imbalance from all the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
According to William DiPuccio, in a guest post at the blog ‘Climate Science’, this not only demonstrates that the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis.
Mr DiPuccio concludes “When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.”
***********************
Notes and Links
Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? – A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio
http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
The graph by Mr DiPuccio shows the increasing deficit of upper ocean heat from 2003 through 2008 based on GISS projections. Actual heat accumulation is plotted from observed data (using ARGO) and shows the overall linear trend (after Willis and Loehle). Seasonal fluctuations and error bars are not shown.
Mr DiPuccio notes in the above article that: Heat is not the same as temperature. Two litres of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one litre of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature. A larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool.
William DiPuccio was a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. More recently, he served as head of the science department for St. Nicholas Orthodox School in Akron, Ohio (closed in 2006). He continues to write science curriculum, publish articles, and conduct science camps.
Previous blog post on this issue:
The Ocean Really is Cooling
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/the-ocean-really-is-cooling/
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Nope ! Alas and alack …
Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed
instrumentation problems
S. Levitus,1 J. I. Antonov,1 T. P. Boyer,1 R. A. Locarnini,1 H. E. Garcia,1
and A. V. Mishonov1
Received 31 December 2008; revised 26 February 2009; accepted 18 March 2009; published 11 April 2009.
[1] We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean
for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously
available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental
biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding
some Argo float data. The strong interdecadal variability of
global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced
in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain
similar to our earlier estimate. Citation: Levitus, S., J. I.
Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia, and A. V.
Mishonov (2009), Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of
recently revealed instrumentation problems, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
L07608, doi:10.1029/2008GL037155.
Estimates?….. 1955 to 2008?
What instrumentation and methodology are they using…. Toe dipping the water temperature?
… and peer reviewed no less.
As far as I can see, the paper Luke has linked to also shows the cooling trend over the period of time that this posting is about.
Although more time period data is needed before anything definitive can be said about this…
“Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed
instrumentation problems….”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA You complete idiot. Nineteen-Fifty-Five bloody Ahura Mazda you are a compulsive lying lunatic blockhead. Are you sure you are not the lunatic that is haunting my site at the moment. Its hard to imagine that two different people could be both so idiotic and dishonest. 1955 cherry-picked as the base year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
” Indeed there is no known mechanism to account for what some describe as vast amounts of missing heat, suggesting that contrary to the AGW hypothesis, heat is not accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer any radiative imbalance from all the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.”
Well they won’t find what is really going on if they don’t LOOK. Fifty billion spent on these know-nothing science workers and they won’t look for the answers. One thing to look for is delayed reactions from the solar effect on the momentum of the oceans currents. High warmth may be expected to be maintained if the ocean currents have a lot of momentum on account of Stefan-Boltzmanns law.
And another thing to look for is the effect of cooling on the waters viscosity. Which will increase resistance to circulation and therefore bring the cooling on stronger. We don’t expect all effects of changes to solar activity to be instantaneous.
Another thing to look for is the strength of solar winds. Which are held to be an even better indication for heating and cooling than solar irradiance. Also they ought to be looking at the composition of that irradiance. The alarmists have got people used to aggregating the information excessively. Sucking all the reality out of it. Some parts of the spectrum may have a greater effect then others. Quite independent of the watts-per-square metre at the tropopause. Particularly joules are more important if they are in a form of light that can penetrate further. Punch deeper into the ocean. Or otherwise affect the atmosphere in such a way as to allow other parts of the spectrum to punch deeper into the ocean.
The Levitus paper has some serious divergence from other OHC estimates. Figure S9 says it all:
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
From 2003 to 2008, Levitus (2009) has monstrous ocean heating, almost a complete step-change no doubt introduced from trying to overcorrect the data.
Papers/analyses that completely disagree with this result:
1) Willis (2008)
2) Ishii and Kimoto (2009)
3) Loehle (2009)
Luke, give up mate. What have you got left?
Atmo normal, ice normal, troposphere cool, seas cooling.
The energy budget’s blown.
What’s the burr under your blanket?
“What’s the burr under your blanket”
Money–all pimps are the same.
“What’s the burr under your blanket”
Luke BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEIVES!!!!!!
AGW is as real as Vulcans!!!!
Luke, pretty soon YOU are going to have to start making up these papers cause no one else will have so little self respect!!
I say chaps, stop being mean to poor Luke. It’s that SJT who leads him astray…
Guys I’m sorry. You see denialist bilge isn’t marketed at serious scientific minds. Just redneck rousing fodder for yo’all rednecks. Something to getcha all riled up.
So we have a little unpublished anecdote from some retired high school teacher versus NOAA’s best.
hahahahahahahahahaha
Ask me why there’s earthquakes?
Luke from the last issue, the 1967enso was neutral not a la nina and the IOD was negative not positive.
The year 2007 was really a neutral year at +3.35, neutral falling between -5.0 and +5.5.
I certainly don’t accept your info because the basic research is wrong.
I hope you understand this isn’t my opinion, the info is just wrong.
You should have done some research first. 1967-68 is classified as a moderate short La Nina by many. A cold event at least. So I don’t accept your comment either.
You are wrong Luke admit it, also what about the 1967 positive IOD really being a negative IOD, you are wrong again.
The 2007 la nina only registered 3.5 so really was neutral, wrong again.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
http://wxmidwest.com/Lanina/index.htm
You’re a moron !
Six years? You are going for the Denialist Shortest Time Spane Makes A Trend Award this year. Tell, where did all the heat come from in 1998?
Our AGW believing friends can only repeat the ad homs, and ignore the data. As usual.
As for shortest time frame, I think the 2004-2005 hurricane season, when AGW promoters confidently predicted more bad years of cyclones as a trend would qualify as shortest trend line ever. Then those pesky facts about world ACE came out, and well, the AGW community had to just yell louder.
How many predictions about AGW have to fail before an AGW true believer critically examines AGW?
Trick question. The answer is, an AGW true believer will not leave their faith.
Hunter makes a stupid generalisation about generalisations. Good grief !
Neville – Cai & Cowan were drawing attention different classifications of the IOD – indeed Ummenhofer using Meyers et al puts 1967 as a neutral IOD, with 1968 as -ve. However in another paper Behera put 1967 as +ve.
So much for your analysis chump.
So instead of opening your mind to the real issues you’ve picked a stupid fight about classifications of IOD and ENSO. Gawd !
But this is the stupid 6 degree polynomial thread. WTF !
“Trick question. The answer is, an AGW true believer will not leave their faith.”
It’s a matter of science, and I see precious little of it here. This topic being an excellent example.
Levitus has form; an attempt to varify Levitus’s early work was done by Barnett et al in 2005; they also used the 1955 start but constrained the modeling to closed system forcings, such as ocean currents and seasonal changes with only one external forcing, the increase in CO2 but not ENSO; since the model ‘roughly’ tracked observed heating in the oceans it was assumed that this heating must be due to CO2 only.
The latest Levitus paper is also problematic; as Joel says, fig S9 is instructive in respect of the comparison with 2 other studies, Ishii and Kimoto and Domingues, both of which are in ‘rough’ agreement with the Willis and Loehle results; of the 2 Ishii and Kimoto is the most divergent; it is interesting that Domingues has been critiqued for over-estimating heat content;
http://climatesci.org/2008/06/20/diagnosis-of-global-sea-level-and-upper-ocean-heat-content-on-seasonal-to-interannual-timescales-paper-willis-et-al-2008-published/
‘I lurve to go a cherry pickin in the springtime,
I lurve to go a daisy pulling in the springggggg,
The world goes round bout me,
While I be oblivious to what it saaayysss,
Oh, I how I lurve to go a furphy pickin in the springtime…………’
that graph is simply false.
you can t take a short period, and put the model projections as a straight line ito them.
over here, we are moving into summer. a projection of temperature for the next few months would be a line pointing up.
but at the moment, it is also getting dark today. so the temperature over the next few hours will decrease.
this decrease does NOT contradict the projection for the next months!
´3) Loehle (2009)
you are quoting Loehle. you are quoting E&E. this is WEAKENING your point!
it is the JOB of Craig Loehle, to downplay any damage to the environment. Craig Loehle gets paid to make false and misleading claims about the environment, and he can t even manage to publish them in a real journal!!!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Craig_Loehle
This here story used to be about dumb-left-wingers looking a gift-horse in the mouth. In this story most of us thought that there was a little bit of a warming overlay and we thought there was some evidence for this. It was just a matter, one thought, of trying to show people that its wrong to look askance at good fortune and we ought to take the extra rainfall, more robust biosphere, benefits to agriculture and the impeding of the new “little ice age” as a free gift from industrial civilisation and the carbon fossil fuel industry. Now we cannot even seem to find evidence that would make us the least confident about the impeding of the little ice age via extra CO2. What one thought was evidence turned out to be leftist tainted data. Its OK to be hopeful about such a thing so long as one admits that the evidence just isn’t there.
Oh, Sod, mercy me. Sourcewatch, the ultimate in organised ad homming. Or at least ad homming anyone with a political orientation slightly right of Karl Marx. If that’s all you’ve got, you’ve got problems.
Tell you what, if you think Sourcewatch provides unbiassed information, go in and see what they say about John Pilger.
Slightly ironic isn’t it that idiots like Sod shout on the one hand “it’s the science. it’s the science, peer review, peer review” and then point at Sourcewatch as their own authority.
Go back to cuddling Tim Lambert
Its clear that some haven’t actually read the DiPuccio article. Here’s a quote:
“Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.”
So 6 vs. 10 years is not that different. We’re talking the ocean here, not the atmosphere so shorter timespans are more robust.
SJT, Jeremy C, and sod back to thermodynamics 101 for you.
And Craig Loehle is the principal scientist for the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement according to your link sod. That’s it. How sinister.
“Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically.”
DiPuccio is verballing them.
Luke,
“…NOAA’s Best.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Are we talking about the same NOAA that your wonder boy James Hansen has to readjust for his GISS fantasy?? The ones who don’t really believe in UHI??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’ll take a schoolkids paper in a second compared to them!!
Hey SJT, forget to read again?
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Fig. 2. See any flat or negative trends that last longer than a year? Didn’t think so.
“Fig. 2. See any flat or negative trends that last longer than a year? Didn’t think so.”
The models don’t claim to be able to predict any short term trends. They never have. Testing them against such short term trends is a waste of an unemployed school teachers time.
SJT, define short. 6 years in the oceans is worth at least double in the atmosphere.
Would you agree that 10 years of no significant ocean warming would constitute a problem since this is the very same timeframe that Hansen et. al. used in their “proof”?
Lively little discussion, though a few too many insults. I have a few comments.
1) I never claimed the length of time from 2003-2008 was adequate for testing anything–that is just how long the ARGO network has been operational.
2) Pretty funny how I was attacked–working for industry makes you a liar? How about working for greenpeace? Pure as snow? Try scholar.google for my 116 publications and see what type of work I do. Couldn’t get it published? Well, how about I didn’t want to wait two years to fight through the biased editors?
3) The Levitus analysis is based on a whole series of different instruments/measurement types, each with problems that make the surface station network look like ideal data. There are more adjustments in that paper than you can shake a stick at. Even if done “objectively” there is plenty of room for error. The ARGO network is much cleaner but STILL has had to be corrected. Willis et al detected cooling and then had to retract it in 2006. I used their corrected data.
“Lively little discussion, though a few too many insults. ”
You’ve never read Steve McIntyre’s comments on his own web site, then, have you?
2) Pretty funny how I was attacked–working for industry makes you a liar? How about working for greenpeace?
i wouldn t consider greenpeace an unbiased source.
but just by chance, absolutely ZERO percent of what we know about AGW is based on scientific research done by greenpeace.
Try scholar.google for my 116 publications and see what type of work I do.
please help me out. which one of your publication would you call highly critical of your boss?
Couldn’t get it published? Well, how about I didn’t want to wait two years to fight through the biased editors?
well, most serious scientists have to face the same editors. they publish their papers in real magazins anyway, because they want them to be read by other real scientists.
publishing in E&E is not serious science. its just another attempt to misguide those in the right-wing blogosphere, who don t understand the difference. pure obfuscation of facts, not search for knowledge.
E&E did publish the beck paper, that shows CO2 concentration jumping up and down by 100s of ppm in a few years. just until accurate measurement started…
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2006/10/beckco2.png
how can you publish anything in the same journal?
Why do you keep lying about this sod. Your political pseudo-scientific thesis has been proved wrong. Move on or face unspecified future punishments for being a traitor, a lying dog, and a no good economic sadist who likes hurting people for no reason whatsoever.
This will not go good for you liars when we all know now that you have already been proved wrong. You wait until people are really hurting. They’ll want to lash out at the criminals who have gone out of their way to hurt them and rightly so.
Birdy – you’re a great advert for the sceptic cause – are all your mates utterly barking mad rabid nutters too?
You are trying to perpetuate harm on the viability of this country. With malice and sadism you are attempting to inflict damage on its people. So if there is any cosmic justice you will die of some horrible wasting disease as any just God would have it. You ought not expect to come out of this business unscathed. Because people will lash out when they find out the scope of the harm you lunatics have caused with your lying and your endless attacks on science.
SOD
You seem to be somewhat clueless about the peer review process and it’s pitfalls – based on total ignorance of the process? The late Tommy Gold wrote an excellent article about scientific reality in the Journal of Scientific Exploration some years back which is being republished in AIG News shortly. Well worth reading and taking it on board – peer review has degenerated into a herd mentality process.
Of course there is not much point reading it if it is on the Progressive Index of Banned authors – so I apologise for wasting your time.
Luke,
Being a rabid nutter is always preferable to being a liar.
And your new icon is accurate as well – a one-eyed reptile – suits you.
SOD,
You might also do some research on CO2 estimation – the existing IR methods are not as accurate as the previous chemical methods. I discovered that last night on the internet, though probably that is also on the Index of Banned Sources, so you probably will be punished by your peers for reading sceptical facts.
Being a consensus seeking, peer following herder has it downside, hasn’t it.
How about the excitable comments published on page 2 of today’s The West Australian Newspaper?
“Hot air at Belmont
The debate over climate change can get incandescently heated. The recent release of Professor Ian Plimer ’s book, Global Warming: The Missing Debate, questioning the science behind the accepted theology of climate change, has caused a furore amid charges that the eminent professor is full of, well, hot air. For his part, he says most climate change protagonists are religious fundamentalists with little regard for science, particularly if it doesn’t support their faith.
Now a climate change controversy has erupted in Perth over a planned speech next Monday at a Belmont community group which has greenies rallying to have it shut down. In their sights is geologist David Archibald , whose paper The Past And Future Of Climate is a systematic dismantling of the science and beliefs behind the Greenhouse Effect and global warming. But it’s not the veracity of Archibald’s argument that has piqued IC’s interest — it’s the intensity of a letter-writing campaign to the Belmont Business Enterprise Centre, which is hosting the event, seeking to muzzle Archibald which has IC ’s dander up.
It’s enough to make the Taliban blush, such is their dislike for the expression of views counter to their own.
Adam Mullet fulminates in his letter to the BEC: “Your centre is hosting someone who is preaching what I’d call heretical claptrap.” He then goes on to threaten: “I demand you have his speech cancelled. If you do not, I will boycott your centre.” Heresy? Isn’t that a religious term?
Robert Catomore ’s biggest beef seems to be that the audience will be too thick to understand the debate. He lectures the BEC that “rather than speaking … in a forum for educated scientists, he (Archibald) has chosen to denounce the … world’s climate scientists to an audience who must base their opinions largely on trust”.
Oh dear. He then goes on about “dangerous views” and threatens to “boycott your centre”. Another writer talks about the BEC’s “duty of care” to not allow the discussion to proceed.
The language of fundamentalism is clearly alive and well in Perth.
The BEC, which last year ran Green Advantage workshops with Edith Cowan Uni, says the talk will go ahead, along with the other 40-odd presentations during its Design Edge Innovation festival throughout May.”
Are you, Luke, SJT and the rest of the Climate Changers going to write to the BEC demanding they cancel David Archibald’s lecture? Par for the course isn’t it? Consensual group peer pressure to silence non-peer approved opinions.
“geologist David Archibald”
IIRC, he’s nothing more than your common or garden variety man in the street.
Part of David Archibald’s speech is here; perhaps little will or Deltoid regular, sod, can critique it and explain why it deserves to be banned.
Archie eh?
Maaaattteee
What is it about Perth that attracts denialist faux sceptic fruit loops. Almost more per square metre than NZ ! (and as we know – as long as we beat NZ)
Hey Louis – yourself, Warwick and Archie could do the can-can together. Hahahahahahahahahaha
Follies faux sceptics bergere http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhW2dMxUbfM&feature=related
I’m writing to stop any ban.
The event must go ahead.
The show MUST GO ON !!!
I support the show fully.
And myself and the brothers intend coming given it’s a local dig. Do we need tickets?
In fact I think I’ll have a couple of questions about Leif Svalgaard’s opinion of Davie boy’s science.
Or read out Nexie’s opinion? http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2007/02/dd.html Maybe Nexie might come too. “The worst climate science paper ever of all time anywhere ”
Might even ask some pertinent questions about Davie’s capsicum sidelines. Hope it will be videoed.
hahahahahahahahahaha – we’re mad I tell you.
SJT, as opposed to you being a supercilious common twit of the street?
And the Luke fish is biting well too 🙂
Archibalds story is just a straight telling of where the science stands at this moment. It ought not even be controversial. If you were to review the whole lot of what is out there, cut out the irrelevant, the speculative the useless and the science sentiment, with only a small amount of independent research from Archibald thats what you’d get. Its just incredible that people would lie about this sort of thing. I’m not saying that there isn’t a lot of other things involved. But Archibald is basically just telling the story straight.
The starting point is that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. One can be pretty hopeful about things but the alarmists are yet to show that we are able to prevent catastrophic cooling or even slow it down with this CO2. All that fuss and they cannot even do that. What a bunch of idiots. Losers. Unless of cause acheivments in advanced bludging is now the measure of their performance. From that point of view they are fabulous winners. We might have a whole new TV program for leftist science workers. Call it the ‘biggest winner’ or something.
“Archibalds story is just a straight telling of where the science stands at this moment.” ahahahahahahahahahah – classic – you clown !
“The starting point is that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age.” – we are? where’s that ?
Over your brain?
See one of us is lying. And its not me. Its you. So you need to be beaten up for gainsaying me on this matter. Archibald is just giving us the straight science. With a small amount of his own inferences- all reasonable. Conservatives have to start learning how to differentiate between scientific evidence and science worker sentiment. They are not the same thing. And what leftist environmentalist filth need to do is focus real hard and stop their heart beating by zen thought control techniques. Because its pretty clear that they are taking up too much space and breathing too much air.
We are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. Thats what we call a FACT Luke you filth. Thats a FACT.
If you cannot get that right you may as well kill yourself now because you are just pathetic.
Imagine a movement so in denial that they dispute or ignore the fact that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. This global warming racket is the utter rejection of science. Its the voice of primitive tribalism. And the replacement of any methodology with stupid word-games and compulsive lying. Anybody whose had anything to do with this movement has no place in the public service.
Gee I didn’t know that a major ice sheet had engulfed North America and Europe – must turn on the news.
Anyway Birdy – you fat wingbag – what are you to do about it. Nothing. Just like your election performance – nothing. Just like failing your degree – nothing.
“This is too easy an answer. Erl has many points in his list, are you saying that every single one of those is well beyond your ability? If not, then comment on the ones that you think are within your ability. This is how science progresses, by examining every link in the chain and determining which ones are strong and which are weak, then finding explanations for the strong, or have the weak refute the end result. Same goes for Erl, and everybody else who professses to know what is going on. I’m excempt, of course, as I don’t claim to know how the sun influences the climate, if at all.”
Svalgaard gives Archibald a stern talking to.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2534#comment-186397
And another one.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2534#comment-199761
“20-321 (David A): Ice cores contain a record of aerosol concentrations such as dust and 10Be (which attaches to sulfate aerosols) that reflect climate conditions [in addition to cosmic ray influx]. So, give us a reference that specifically supports your assertion. And learn to be more civil: what other people say are not ‘fairy tales’ and they are not ‘blown away’.”
I didn’t fail any degree Luke you fakeass liar. I finished my last exam while still a teenager. Now is anybody NOT clear on the reality that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. This FACT appears to be in dispute with our lying alarmist traitors.
We want to clean this up quick smart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
“Svalgaard gives Archibald a stern talking to.” Crikey. Imagine what he’d do to you then. He’d kill you dead, exorcise your ghost, kill it, and its ghost, then eat the ghosts of your pets he killed with a tossed salad.
from Levitus: “based on historical data not previously
available, ” No need to read further.
Two points about why ocean heat content is much more relevant in refuting AGW:
1. The heat content (H) of the ocean is much greater than the heat content of the atmosphere so it is much more relevant to “global warming” than the “average global temperature” which is at best (and it’s very poor) is an indicator of atmospheric heat content.
2. It is much harder to fudge H. If T(i) is the temperature of a region of (upper) ocean of mass m(i) such that that the sum over i of the m(i) is the total mass M of the (upper)ocean we have H = sum{m(i)C(i)T(i)} where C(i) is the specific heat capacity of region i. Since C(i) will be almost the same for all i (call it c) we get H=c*sum{m(i)T(i)} Now m(i) is a perfectly well-defined quantity (proportional to the area each buoy samples) so a decrease in H does not depend on the operation of the secret weighting algorithms that go into the “average global temperature” of Hansen and his fellow-travellers.
Of course you finished your last exam as a teenager – Grade 10 – before you became a “shift worker” hahahahahahahahaa
Take a hike clown
Now listen Birdy – get off the magic mushies “we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age”
yea – so where’s the ice sheet covering North America and Europe. “Oh it’s not there is it”
“Gee I’m hallucinating again” or “maybe I’m mental”.
This will help
Fab Five Freddie told me everybody’s high
DJ’s spinnin’ are savin’ my mind
Flash is fast, Flash is cool
Francois sez fas, Flashe’ no do
And you don’t stop, sure shot
Go out to the parking lot
And you get in your car and you drive real far
And you drive all night and then you see a light
And it comes right down and lands on the ground
And out comes a man from Mars
And you try to run but he’s got a gun
And he shoots you dead and he eats your head
And then you’re in the man from Mars
You go out at night, eatin’ cars
You eat Cadillacs, Lincolns too
Mercurys and Subarus
And you don’t stop, you keep on eatin’ cars
Then, when there’s no more cars
You go out at night and eat up bars where the people meet
Face to face, dance cheek to cheek
One to one, man to man
Dance toe to toe
Don’t move to slow, ’cause the man from Mars
Is through with cars, he’s eatin’ bars
Yeah, wall to wall, door to door, hall to hall
He’s gonna eat ’em all
Rapture, be pure
Take a tour, through the sewer
Don’t strain your brain, paint a train
You’ll be singin’ in the rain
I said don’t stop, do punk rock
SJT:
Either get more specific with your ad hominems, or F**** OFF!
“Svalgaard gives Archibald a stern talking to.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2534#comment-186397”
I cannot be bothered tracking down your unspecific references to find what you are criticising.
Ring Ring!
Hello? Yes, You are the communication committee for SJT’s village?
Yes, oh I see, you want your village idiot to return asap?
I will fcrward your request to SJT.
Click.
OK Sinkers – maybe you do have a sense of humour. But fair dink mate – like SJT – I have seen many online exchanges between Svalgaard and Archibald, where Svalgaard has ticked him off for advancing a science proposition based on entirely politico-emotional motivation (stick it up the warmists even if its wrong) or simply flawed unsubstantiated logic, or simply that there are reasonable other explanations. Svalgaard has a serious publication list as long as your arm, is regarded as kosher by McIntyre – while what – Archie has 1 or 2 in E&E (ROTFL !).
He’s your mate Sinkers. And like all good mates you ought be counselling him for bad calls.
“I cannot be bothered tracking down your unspecific references to find what you are criticising.”
It’s called a hyperlink, Louis. All you have to do is click on it and it does all the hard work for you. Glad to be of help.
Is anyone other than the terminally ignorant science illiterate Luke, in any doubt whatsoever, that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age.
Crap you alarmists are ignorant idiots. This FACT, This FACT that we are in an ice age, a brutal and pulverising ice age, is something that small children knew about less than three decades ago. Most people are under the delusion that they can think for themselves when manifestly they cannot. All it took was the leftist wall of sound and so many people out there were made to forget what they thought they knew about the climate.
Luke why do you comment? Why comment when you have not even a childs capacity to differentiate fact from fiction? When you are clearly a science incompetent? Why comment at all. WHY NOT JUST LEARN THE MATERIAL? There is simply no substitute for learning the subject.
Is anyone other than Luke still ignorant of our current ice age status?
Anyone else as
Birdy – can’t pass a degree, can’t win an election and can’t look out the window.
You pathetic 3 time loser.
Where are the ice age ice sheets you tub of lard?
Where are the sheets covering Europe and North America. Don’t you think it’s strange that not one news service has noticed?
Off you go now and change your diaper.
I told you straight up I passed my degree you fucking liar. Now fuck off.
Alright. Now. Is Luke the only alarmist idiot here that does not know that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age?
My god this is a stupid cult this global warming. A cult based on total unreason. Inability in science. And lying all the time.
Our starting point, and the only serious starting point for climate science, is that we are in a brutal and pulverising ice age. Therefore, were it possible for industrial-CO2 to provide warming, this would be an amazing stroke of dumb luck for the human race and the natural world both. This is blazingly obvious. And this is what Arrenhius thought also. Now as it turns out his speculation that CO2 would warm by any significant amount, if at all, was wrong. But nonetheless he wasn’t a lunatic, he too knew that we were in a brutal and pulverising ice age, and he knew that human-induced-warming would obviously be a good thing.
This unassailable logic, which did not escape Arrenhius, seems to totally evade idiots like Luke.
Ice Age – OK numb nuts – where’s the ice?