LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......very revealing, Iamnuts. Since you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're rather ignorant about science and would thus have no ability whatsoever to understand raw "data", what you're really saying is that you'd rather believe the lies and distortions coming from the non-scientists who are pushing the fossil fuel industry's propaganda line because they tell you what you want to hear. It isn't "some of the 'professional climate scientists'" (or, in other words, the top experts in this field) whose conclusions you reject, numbnuts, it is virtually all of them and their conclusions are based on the laws of physics and the mountains of observations and data collected from many sources by scientists from all around the world. Your idiotic notion that the "conclusions" that the world scientific community have reached are "exaggerated and distorted" is itself an artifact of the propaganda campaign that has you so bamboozled and confused.Ah yes, the moldy old denier cult myths - "warming stopped in 1998' & 'temperatures flat for last decade'.
Global warming greatest in past decade
PhysOrg.com
September 1, 2008
(excerpts)
Researchers confirm that surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer over the last 10 years than any time during the last 1300 years, and, if the climate scientists include the somewhat controversial data derived from tree-ring records, the warming is anomalous for at least 1700 years.
"Some have argued that tree-ring data is unacceptable for this type of study," says Michael Mann, associate professor of meteorology and geosciences and director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center. "Now we can eliminate tree rings and still have enough data from other so-called 'proxies' to derive a long-term Northern Hemisphere temperature record." The proxies used by the researchers included information from marine and lake sediment cores, ice cores, coral cores and tree rings. "We looked at a much expanded database and our methods are more sophisticated than those used previously," says Mann.
What has global warming done since 1998?
Last updated on 18 December 2011
(excerpts)
To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.
This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content anomaly from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. Land + Atmosphere includes the heat absorbed to melt ice.
A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming has continued past 1998. The planet is still accumulating heat. So why do surface temperature records show 1998 as the hottest year on record? We see in Figure 1 that the heat capacity of the land and atmosphere is small compared to the ocean. Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.
In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.
CO2 is definitely more important than either one of those in the long term. CO2 levels can keep increasing indefinitely and the greenhouse effects will get greater. Cloud cover can both reflect sunlight away from the Earth and trap heat energy underneath them (clear winter nights are much colder than cloud covered winter nights) and the ENSO variations just move the heat around between the atmosphere and the oceans. Rising CO2 levels will inevitably trap even more heat energy in the Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
I'm more interested in what the professional climate scientists "think" than what some confused and deluded random bystander like yourself "thinks". That you are in fact a deluded tool of the fossil fuel industry is clearly revealed by your use of the idiotic and meaningless denier cult phrase: "CO2 cul-de-sac". The fact that you deny the scientifically established physics of greenhouse gases shows you to be just another anti-science righwingnut clueless denier dupe.
I am more interested in what the data say than in the exaggerated and distorted thoughts and conclusions of some of the 'professional climate scientists'.
I don't really care if you are "interested" or not, you poor deluded fool. Those phrases are valid descriptions of you and your absurd anti-science positions on this topic so I will continue to use them to point out the truth about your pretensions about 'arguing the science'.
No, Iamnuts, I know you are duped and deluded. I, on the other hand, accept the testimony of the world's science community and the experts in the fields of climate science which overwhelmingly supports the reality of AGW. I understand and accept the enormous body of evidence collected by the world scientific community over the last half century that indicates the reality and dangers of anthropogenic global warming/climate changes. It is you denier cult nutjobs who "credulously believe" the biased anti-science drivel spewed by propagandists like Watts, while simultaneously rejecting the testimony of the vast majority of the real climate scientists.
What an absolutely idiotic question. The graph used scientific measurements of the increase in the heat content of the atmosphere and oceans measured in Joules. It is your fervent beliefs in your denier cult fantasies that are "emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions".
ie- is this graph reasonable or is it emotionally affecting you to come to erroneous conclusions?
Rather than making really stupid claims, dufus, how about presenting some evidence that the heat content of the oceans hasn't increased by the amounts shown in that graph. Oh, that's right, you can't, 'cause you're just blowing smoke out your ass.
Ocean heat content increases update
Your link to ocean temps is a bit dated.
in the minds of anybody except the fringe nut environmental radicals..........who are a small percentage of our population. THATS the reality.
