olde.sault wrote on Mar 27th, 2013 at 7:09am:[quote author=MOTR link=1364206159/0#0 date=1364206159]  http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/BTK13Fig1.jpg
Taking into account the heating of the oceans global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years {quote}
Motr, why don't you convince those in the UK, those buried in their cars after record-breaking snowfalls?
Tell these freezing buggers that the globe is warming?
Is this mere "vitriol" or, is it I daring to tell the truth? |
|
I wouldnt go by that graph MOTR used. Here is a better, less propaganda graph
The abstract of Balmaseda et al (2013) reads :
The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.
It would be interesting to see just how much the warming trend is reduced when ARGO data is removed. Hence the graph below.
Do Balmaseda et al (2013) address how much of the long-term warming is also a response to “surface wind variability”? As an example, see Figure 3, which shows the NODC ocean heat content (0-700 meters) for the North Pacific north of 24N, with and without the 1989-1990 shift that’s likely caused by a shift in the “surface wind variability”. Figure 3 was presented and discussed (as Figure 25) in the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/figure-3-n-pac-ohc-w-o-shift.pngIn Closing
Ocean heat content is at best a make-believe dataset. Refer again to the post Is Ocean Heat Content Data All It’s Stacked Up to Be?
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/is-ocean-heat-content-data-all-its-stacked-up-to-be/ Even with all of the adjustments to the NODC’s ocean heat content data, the data still indicates the warming resulted from natural factors, as shown in that linked post.
A reanalysis is an even more abstract form of ocean heat content “data”—one that also requires “corrections” to provide the desired results.
Curiously, Paul Voosen’s October 2011 article Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming
http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1 includes quotes from a handful of well-known climate scientists—including Kevin Trenberth. Voosen had this to say about Trenberth’s opinion of ARGO:
Trenberth questions whether the Argo measurements are mature enough to tell as definite a story as Hansen lays out. He has seen many discrepancies among analyses of the data, and there are still “issues of missing and erroneous data and calibration,” he said. The Argo floats are valuable, he added, but “they’re not there yet.”
A reanalysis didn’t make the ARGO floats any better; it simply provided a way for Trenberth to confirm his beliefs–regardless of whether or not those beliefs are realistic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/26/trenberth-still-searching-for-missing-heat/
