Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc
Renato, merely referencing good papers does raise you above people like the anti-vaxxers quoting Andrew Wakefield. Misinterpreting a good paper's results in order to suit your pre-determined views doesn't exactly do you any favours!
One of the underpinnings of science is that you consider evidence that is contrary to your viewpoint, and if that evidence is sufficient, you change your view to one that is consistent with the evidence.
Below you made this comment:
I have pointed out to you more than once that >90% of the extra heat accumulation goes into the oceans, which continue to rapidly gain heat (e.g. Levitus et al 2012, IPCC AR5 WG1chapter 3 and many references therein). Only a few percent goes into surface temperatures. Box 3.1 in the IPCC chapter, page 264, shows the total energy gain by the various components of Earth as a result of the energy imbalance (see attached image). Earth has gained about :
1970-1980: 40 ZJ (zettajoules, 10^21J)
1980-1990: 60 ZJ
1990-2000: 45 ZJ
2000-2011: 130 ZJ
But according to Renato, the Earth stopped warming recently!! 
Ocean warming observations are consilient with the most rapid sea level rise being since 2000, accelerated melting of tidewater glaciers and marine-terminating ice sheets, and the observed energy imbalance at the influential CO2 bands in the infrared spectrum of Earth.
So Renato, do you now accept that Earth has gained more heat since 2000 than in comparable periods prior to 2000? Are you scientific?? |
Andy,
With respect, this is ridiculous.
The four previous IPCC assessments reports cited atmospheric warming rates of 0.15C per decade, and were confidently predicting warming rates of 0.2C per decade.
But the current 5th Assessment Report clearly and unambiguously refers to the "Hiatus" - citing rates of 0.05C and 0.04C per decade, which is within uncertainty of measurement and statistically insignificant from zero.
It's pointless pretending as John Cook does, that this isn't the biggest conundrum facing climate modellers across the planet. To date, I read somewhere that 12 explanations have been offered to try account for this unpredicted occurrence, including the warming oceans - but they all have their critics (e.g. observed temperature/energy increase in the ocean can't account for the Hiatus), and plainly they can't all be right.
If the Hiatus continues, it's a case of back to the drawing boards.
Regards,
Renato