http://landshape.org/enm/swansons-pc-projection/#more-2704

the models are the same – if not using similar components. Do you think there’s a parts bin marked “AGW component”.

“Climate models start out with a universal equation into which is programmed reality as the programmers envision it” – utter bullshi

Coho disown this bozo. It’s stuff like this that just makes you ROTFL.

If you had a half a brain Robbo (stupid “if” by me) you would have read Parker et al and thrown yourself out the window. Remember who’s the crank – this is the bloke who’s had the full acid trip “THERE IS NO BACK RADIATION”. which got morphs to “Well it’s not doing anything” which got run over by his idol Spencer who gives CO2 the marks it deserves.

Robbo your pants are around you ankles and we’ve done your hair in plaits. Off to mummy with you now. Quietly does it. Don’t annoy Timmy the ranter.

ee-ore ee-ore ee-ore eey-ore

The other side of that coin was the study by Tsonis et al. One person on that study (Swanson) was over at realclimate kissing butt and using Keenlyside’s argument that the lack of a warming trend was only temporary. IMHO, the Tsonis study was far more to the point and a compare and contrast is given here between Tsonis and the RC suck Swanson.

http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/natural-climate-shifts-swanson-v-tsonis/

Here’s what Tsonis had to say:

“But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said.

Richard Lindzen interpreted the work of Tsonis et al to mean warming had leveled off, not that it was in remission. Only a crank modeler or one of their religious followers could read that into Keenlyside or Tsonis.

If you’re refering to the models used in the study of ocean systems like ENSO, that’s a far different matter than the gobbeldy gook used in models in the AGW paradigm. Scientists have been using models since the 1960’s, when computers became readily available. Dr. Joanne Simpson was using them to model clouds back in that era, and when she retired from NASA recently, after a distinguished career as a meteorlogist, she claimed they were not accurate enough to use as climate predictors.

The models used in the study of oceans are used largely to model ocean currents and wind systems. Those variables can be directly observed and confirmed, whereas the climate cannot. That’s what the IPCC affirmed in TAR. Climate models start out with a universal equation into which is programmed reality as the programmers envision it. Unfortunately, not many of them have expertise in physics and many of the parametres programmed into the models are either wrong or poorly understood.

Ocean models have been around since the 1960’s and they are far more sophisticated than climate models.

No…you have it wrong. It is the mathematicians, atronomers, biologists, chemists, geophysicists and computer programmers passing themselves off as climate scientists who cannot be trusted. There are many good scientists who still use the traditional method of direct observation, rather than the virtual science used by climate modelers. Do get with it, Lukey.

What does this (Canadell Pataki Raupach et al“Saturated carbon sinks” ) say?

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/ocean_heat_and_mlo_co2_rate_2004-20091.png

CO2 declining in tandom with declining OHC; where is Will Steffan when you need him?

Decline in uptake of carbon emissions confirmed
Reference: 07/211

A decline in the proportion of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions absorbed by land and oceans is speeding up the growth of atmospheric CO2, according to a paper published today in the US Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

IT DOES NOT SAY SATURATED you utter shonk.