High ranking Global Warming scientist whistleblows on manipulated data ...

a reply to: Greven

grevan

I will not withdraw my statement because it is a true one. You have stated on many occasions that the Pause starts at the peak of the 1998 El Nino and you find it hilarious.

In actual fact, fact, my dear. The Pause is a period of years during which the RATE of waming is not statistically different than the norm. It not about comparing the actual temperatures.

blogs.nicholas.duke.edu...

This blog is old but explains it well and the graph shows clearly examples of the last and previous pauses that took place throughout the century.

The problem, is physics. The Law of the Conservation of Energy. The temperature measurements of land and oceans showed that the excess heat was not in the ocean, the land or the atmosphere but the theory of Global Warming states that the more carbon dioxide that accumulated in the Troposphere, the more heat was reflected back to the earth.

The fact that the hiatus started in 1998, just before the BOTTTOM of the El Nino and lasted until 2014 (or 1914 if you buy into the Pause Buster study) and the excess heat supposedly created by excess Carbon Dioxide wasn't in the global temperature is proof that the Theory of Global Warming is false.

That is why scientists have offer 40 or 50 different explanations including a study in 2016 that offered the startling explanation that hiatuses occur because "trees forget to breathe" during cooling periods.

The current global temperature as of January 2017 is 0.3 degrees above the 30 year average of 14 degrees. Can you look all your stupid graphs and find the last time that a global temperature of 0.3 degrees occurred? I believe that occurred in 1988.

The PAUSE IS BACK and it is now lengthier than "evah""

So 1/3 of all the carbon dioxide that was discharged by man was discharged in this century. Now the question remains - where is all the heat????

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The PAUSE IS BACK and it is now lengthier than "evah""

False.

So 1/3 of all the carbon dioxide that was discharged by man was discharged in this century. Now the question remains - where is all the heat????

In the atmosphere and in the ocean. Where else would it be?
www.nodc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

yes and I sure you did all the calculations to prove that. We are all waiting with bated breath.

a reply to: Phage

heat content for both 0-700 meters and 0 - 2000 meters have also fallen.

where exactly in the ocean is the heat hiding. Does it have intelligence to hide from scientists so quickly?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

heat content for both 0-700 meters and 0 - 2000 meters have also fallen.

Yup. Right back to where they were 50 years ago. Right?

a reply to: Phage

Absolutely not but we dropped the global average temperature for land and ocean from 0.8 degrees before El Nino and now down to 0.3 after El Nino

Seriously, where is the heat?

a reply to: Phage

Absolutely not but we dropped the global average temperature for land and ocean from 0.8 degrees before El Nino and now down to 0.3 after El Nino

Seriously, where is the heat?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Global Temperature Anomaly vs Ocean Heat Content:

Third Quarter of 2016: 0.88, 19.146
Forth Quarter of 2016: 0.76, 21.558
I could be wrong but it looks like heat could be being transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean.

Interesting also, I could be wrong but it looks like heat was transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere during the El Nino event.
OHC 2015: 22.401
OHC 2016: 20.799

But both El Nino and La Nina have meteorological affects that can temporarily affect forcing (cloud distributions, for example) so, it's pretty hard to pin it on any single thing.


www.nodc.noaa.gov...
www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

a reply to: Phage

There is no doubt that ocean heat was transferred to the atmosphere during the El Nino event - that is what El Nino is all about. But there is also no doubt that the heat has not been re-absorbed back into the ocean.

The only place the heat could be is transferred into space. But global warming says that can't be happening.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

But there is also no doubt that the heat has not been re-absorbed back into the ocean.

Why is there no doubt? Is not OHC rebounding? Is the data wrong?

The only place the heat could be is transferred into space. But global warming says that can't be happening.

Really? Global warming says that there can't be temporary variations in forcing?

"Hey, Warming! Can there be temporary variations in forcing?"
"No, man. No way."

a reply to: Phage

Because OHC has dropped - that is why. If heat had been re-absorbed in the ocean, OHC would have risen.

1/3 of all anthropogenically sourced Carbon Dioxide has been discharged into the environment since 2100. We just dropped 0.5 degrees. How is the earth to be catastrophically heated by Carbon dioxide by 2100 if the heat keeps getting lost to space?

How is the Pause to be erased by the Pausebuster Study and Zeke Hausfather's latest study and the other 50 or so different scientific studies saying there never was a Pause because the found the heat, if the Pause keeps coming back?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

If heat had been re-absorbed in the ocean, OHC would have risen.

It has risen.

Global Temperature Anomaly vs Ocean Heat Content:

Third Quarter of 2016: 0.88, 19.146
Forth Quarter of 2016: 0.76, 21.558

www.abovetopsecret.com...

How is the Pause to be erased by the Pausebuster Study and Zeke Hausfather's latest study and the other 50 or so different scientific studies saying there never was a Pause because the found the heat, if the Pause keeps coming back?

They didn't "find the heat" they found a source of bias in the instrumentation which had not been considered in the previous temperature models.

a reply to: Phage

And what is OHC in January 2017? stop trying to mislead

a reply to: Phage

They created a warming bias by 'adjusting" good buoy data with "bad" ship data and declared the Pause erased.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

And what is OHC in January 2017? stop trying to mislead

The data is not provided on a monthly basis.
How did I mislead?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

They created a warming bias by 'adjusting" good buoy data with "bad" ship data and declared the Pause erased.

Is that what Dr. Bates said happened?

“The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data,” he said, “but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was.”

www.eenews.net...

And, once again, you ignore the results which did not use ship data at all. Results which match those of Karl.

a reply to: Phage

The global average temperature for land and ocean is 0.3 degrees over average In January 2017

You state the heat is in the ocean by comparing OHC in Oct and Dec 2016

If you don't what it is January 2017 then you have absolutely no clue that the heat went into the ocean and you were just misleading.

a reply to: Phage

That is what Zeke Hausfather and Karl et al said what happened (I am sorry, I thought you had participated in this thread)

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

You state the heat is in the ocean by comparing OHC in Oct and Dec 2016

The average for the quarters ending September and December, actually. The most recent data available since the end of the El Nino event.

I compared them to the global average temperature anomalies for the quarters ending September and December. Temperature anomaly declined, OHC increased.


How is that misleading?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I don't see where any of them said:

They created a warming bias by 'adjusting" good buoy data with "bad" ship data