We are seeing proof of this right now

[Old Rocks]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

 

[Old Rocks]

More heat means hotter and longer heat spells

NASA: Earth Is Absorbing an 'Unprecedented' Amount of Heat

Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking up a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface or in the oceans has doubled.

gizmodo.com

Did you bother to read the paper?

See the propaganda behind it?

"Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking in a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface and in the oceans has doubled.

The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are a deafening klaxon that the planet is rapidly shifting outside the boundaries that have allowed civilization to thrive."

The lies leaps from the media page.....

You fell for another misleading media narrative behind it.

Ah yes, people like you believe that liars like Carlson are so much more credible on science than the scientists that publish in peer reviewed journals like Geophysical Research Letters.

Who is Carlson?

Meanwhile it is clear YOU didn't read the abstract because you let the media manipulate you over it, thus fooled you in the process, here is the ABSTRACT you didn't read:

"Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ∼0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space. EEI is set by natural and anthropogenic climate forcings and the climate system's response to those forcings. It is also influenced by internal variations within the climate system. Most of EEI warms the ocean; the remainder heats the land, melts ice, and warms the atmosphere. We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50±0.47 W m-2 decade-1 (5%-95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures."

===

The Media LIED to you and you uncritically swallowed it whole because you can't think!

NASA: Earth Is Absorbing an 'Unprecedented' Amount of Heat​

Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking in a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface and in the oceans has doubled.

The media is full of shit as usual.

CO2 slightly slows down outgoing cooling radiation flow, that is all it does. It doesn't create heat or trap anything.

You are so freaking stupid!

Abstract​

Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ∼0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space. EEI is set by natural and anthropogenic climate forcings and the climate system's response to those forcings. It is also influenced by internal variations within the climate system. Most of EEI warms the ocean; the remainder heats the land, melts ice, and warms the atmosphere. We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50±0.47 W m-2 decade-1 (5%-95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures.

Plain Language Summary​

Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

Apparently you are incapable of understanding what you read. "We attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor." In other words, the temperature is increasing at a faster rate than it has in the past. Sorry about your lack of intellectual ability

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

Can you post ANY explanation of how CO2 starting DRIVING temperature after 1860?

 

[Old Rocks]

More heat means hotter and longer heat spells

NASA: Earth Is Absorbing an 'Unprecedented' Amount of Heat

Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking up a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface or in the oceans has doubled.

gizmodo.com

Okay, the Earth is warming up....

Now what? You think you’re going to reverse it by making Americans drive electric cars? What are you going to do about China continuing to destroy the environment? Keep paying them for their slave labor?

Are we forcing American Utilities to switch to wind and solar? No, they are building more wind and solar installations because they are less costly than any other form of generation. Americans will switch to EV's because by 2025 EV's will cost less, be more dependable, last longer, be far less costly to operate, and handle far better than ICE vehicles. That is why all the big manufactures are trying to catch up with Tesla. Tesla has over a million orders for their cybertruck, and have already sold out their model Y production for Q3 of this year. Americans will be choosing to drive EV's, no one will make them do it. As for your personal desires, some people insisted on riding their horse right up to WW2.

Bull. All those solar initiatives are subsidized with tax dollars.

I don’t have an issue with EVs in the free market. Let people buy them who want to, stop forcing it and manipulating the market.

Who is forcing EV's on the market? And why are some models of Tesla sold out through Q3? Why are there over one million pre-orders for the cyber truck? And the massive subsidies to the fossil fuel companies is not forcing the market?

 

[Slade3200]

More heat means hotter and longer heat spells

NASA: Earth Is Absorbing an 'Unprecedented' Amount of Heat

Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking up a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface or in the oceans has doubled.

gizmodo.com

Okay, the Earth is warming up....

Now what? You think you’re going to reverse it by making Americans drive electric cars? What are you going to do about China continuing to destroy the environment? Keep paying them for their slave labor?

No way, the best solution is to do nothing! Right?!

 

[Old Rocks]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

Can you post ANY explanation of how CO2 starting DRIVING temperature after 1860?

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

Can you post ANY explanation of how CO2 starting DRIVING temperature after 1860?

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

There was no explanation in the unread article. Just more squid ink defense.

Isnt this embarrassing for you?

 

[Old Rocks]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

Can you post ANY explanation of how CO2 starting DRIVING temperature after 1860?

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

There was no explanation in the unread article. Just more squid ink defense.

Isnt this embarrassing for you?

Why should the fact that you are one dumb ass be an embarrassment for me?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

Can you post ANY explanation of how CO2 starting DRIVING temperature after 1860?

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

There was no explanation in the unread article. Just more squid ink defense.

Isnt this embarrassing for you?

Why should the fact that you are one dumb ass be an embarrassment for me?

What a complete jackass!

There is a 450,000 year dataset showing CO2 LAGGING temperature, what's different about CO2 after 1860 that makes it drive temperature?

Think, McFly! Think!

Post more irrelevant crap

 

[Slade3200]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

Can you post ANY explanation of how CO2 starting DRIVING temperature after 1860?

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

There was no explanation in the unread article. Just more squid ink defense.

Isnt this embarrassing for you?

Why should the fact that you are one dumb ass be an embarrassment for me?

What a complete jackass!

There is a 450,000 year dataset showing CO2 LAGGING temperature, what's different about CO2 after 1860 that makes it drive temperature?

Think, McFly! Think!

Post more irrelevant crap

Well there was this thing called the industrial revolution that happened. It may have added just a touch to the footprint man had on the environment. Ya think?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

Can you post ANY explanation of how CO2 starting DRIVING temperature after 1860?

CO2, the greenhouse effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and Callendar to today's Earth System Models

Climate warming during the course of the twenty-first century is projected to be between 1.0 and 3.7°C depending on future greenhouse gas emissions, b…

www.sciencedirect.com

There was no explanation in the unread article. Just more squid ink defense.

Isnt this embarrassing for you?

Why should the fact that you are one dumb ass be an embarrassment for me?

What a complete jackass!

There is a 450,000 year dataset showing CO2 LAGGING temperature, what's different about CO2 after 1860 that makes it drive temperature?

Think, McFly! Think!

Post more irrelevant crap

Well there was this thing called the industrial revolution that happened. It may have added just a touch to the footprint man had on the environment. Ya think?

So how does post 1860 CO2 differ from its predecessor?

 

[fncceo]

More heat means hotter and longer heat spells

Al Gore should never have invented hot summers or The Internet ... I fear both will bring us nothing but trouble.

 

[EMH]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas. As urban areas grow, they get warmer right there. There is no organic evidence in the data that the atmosphere or the oceans are warming. Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling, but statistical significance is not that compelling. There is absolutely no ocean rise, and the warmers have to lie about pacific islands near the pacific ring of fire that will be under the ewrth's xrust in 3 mil years. There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt. There is absolutely no breakout in canes, because there is no ocean warming. Co2 is not the cause of anything...

Every Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University has policy statement that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. And I am to give more credence to the statements of an uneducated dolt like you than people that have spent decades doing scientific research on this subject? LOL Every statement you posted says that you are either bone ignorant concerning the state of the climate, or else a liar. Considering that your are a "Conservative" probably both.

Parroting is not science

You keep insisting it is.


The only thing parroting proves is that the individual doing the parroting has a beak and a birdbrain....

Co2 did not freeze Greenland and thaw North America at the same time...

Co2 does not explain the discrepancies between the poles.

 

[Sunsettommy]

More heat means hotter and longer heat spells

NASA: Earth Is Absorbing an 'Unprecedented' Amount of Heat

Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking up a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface or in the oceans has doubled.

gizmodo.com

Did you bother to read the paper?

See the propaganda behind it?

"Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking in a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface and in the oceans has doubled.

The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters by scientists at NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, are a deafening klaxon that the planet is rapidly shifting outside the boundaries that have allowed civilization to thrive."

The lies leaps from the media page.....

You fell for another misleading media narrative behind it.

Ah yes, people like you believe that liars like Carlson are so much more credible on science than the scientists that publish in peer reviewed journals like Geophysical Research Letters.

Who is Carlson?

Meanwhile it is clear YOU didn't read the abstract because you let the media manipulate you over it, thus fooled you in the process, here is the ABSTRACT you didn't read:

"Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ∼0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space. EEI is set by natural and anthropogenic climate forcings and the climate system's response to those forcings. It is also influenced by internal variations within the climate system. Most of EEI warms the ocean; the remainder heats the land, melts ice, and warms the atmosphere. We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50±0.47 W m-2 decade-1 (5%-95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures."

===

The Media LIED to you and you uncritically swallowed it whole because you can't think!

NASA: Earth Is Absorbing an 'Unprecedented' Amount of Heat​

Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking in a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface and in the oceans has doubled.

The media is full of shit as usual.

CO2 slightly slows down outgoing cooling radiation flow, that is all it does. It doesn't create heat or trap anything.

You are so freaking stupid!

Abstract​

Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) is a relatively small (presently ∼0.3%) difference between global mean solar radiation absorbed and thermal infrared radiation emitted to space. EEI is set by natural and anthropogenic climate forcings and the climate system's response to those forcings. It is also influenced by internal variations within the climate system. Most of EEI warms the ocean; the remainder heats the land, melts ice, and warms the atmosphere. We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50±0.47 W m-2 decade-1 (5%-95% confidence interval). This trend is primarily due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation associated with decreased reflection by clouds and sea-ice and a decrease in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) due to increases in trace gases and water vapor. These changes combined exceed a positive trend in OLR due to increasing global mean temperatures.

Plain Language Summary​

Climate is determined by how much of the sun's energy the Earth absorbs and how much energy Earth sheds through emission of thermal infrared radiation. Their sum determines whether Earth heats up or cools down. Continued increases in concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and the long time-scales time required for the ocean, cryosphere, and land to come to thermal equilibrium with those increases result in a net gain of energy, hence warming, on Earth. Most of this excess energy (about 90%) warms the ocean, with the remainder heating the land, melting snow and ice, and warming the atmosphere. Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice. We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

Apparently you are incapable of understanding what you read. "We attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor." In other words, the temperature is increasing at a faster rate than it has in the past. Sorry about your lack of intellectual ability

I already posted the abstract in the hope you can read it but instead you show that you a freaking moron!

Digest this!

We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50±0.47 W m-2 decade-1 (5%-95% confidence interval).

Hint: error range......

You didn't even notice it

Man you are pathetic!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Willis Eschenbauch writes this comment that shows what a bad science paper it is:

LINK

The claims of accuracy, both in the paper and in some of the comments here, are overblown. Here’s the real data, from Loeb et al. 2018 (emphasis mine).

However, the absolute accuracy requirement necessary to quantify Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) is daunting. The EEI is a small residual of TOA flux terms on the order of 340 W m−2. EEI ranges between 0.5 and 1 W m−2 (von Schuckmann et al. 2016), roughly 0.15% of the total incoming and outgoing radiation at the TOA.

Given that the absolute uncertainty in solar irradiance alone is 0.13 W m−2(Kopp and Lean 2011), constraining EEI to 50% of its mean (~0.25 W m−2) requires that the observed total outgoing radiation is known to be 0.2 W m−2, or 0.06%. The actual uncertainty for CERES resulting from calibration alone is 1% SW and 0.75% LW radiation [one standard deviation (1σ)], which corresponds to 2 W m−2, or 0.6% of the total TOA outgoing radiation. In addition, there are uncertainties resulting from radiance-to-flux conversion and time interpolation.

With the most recent CERES edition-4 instrument calibration improvements, the net imbalance from the standard CERES data products is approximately 4.3 W m−2, much larger than the expected EEI.

This imbalance is problematic in applications that use ERB data for climate model evaluation, estimations of Earth’s annual global mean energy budget, and studies that infer meridional heat transports. CERES EBAF addresses this issue by applying an objective constrainment algorithm to adjust SW and LW TOA fluxes within their ranges of uncertainty to remove the inconsistency between average global net TOA flux and heat storage in the earth–atmosphere system (Loeb et al. 2009).

So there are two sources of error. First, random errors are the ± 2 W/m2 uncertainty from the calibration, plus the uncertainties from the radiance-to-flux conversion and time interpolation. In addition, we have the bias of the 4.3 W/m2 difference from the calculations based on the standard CERES data products.

This means that the uncertainty in the CERES EEI must be at least ~ 4 W/m2, not ~ half a W/m2 as the authors of the recent study most optimistically claim …

In addition, I’m most suspicious of their “in situ data”. They say:

Here we compare satellite observations of the net radiant energy absorbed by Earth with a global array of measurements used to determine heating within the ocean, land and atmosphere, and melting of snow and ice.

However, their accuracy claims are … well … let me call them “unlikely”. For example, they claim that:

The net heat uptake rate is estimated to be 0.77±0.06 W m-2 from mid-2005 to mid-2019. This rate is the sum of energy uptake rates of

0.62±0.05 W m-2 from the estimates in the ocean from 0-2000 m at 6-monthly intervals centered from mid-2005 through mid-2019,

0.062±0.038 W m-2 from May 1992 to June 2011 in the deeper ocean (Johnson et al., 2019),

0.037±0.004 W m from mid-2005 to mid-2018 in the land,

0.031±0.006 W m-2 from mid-2005 to mid-2016 by melting ice, and

0.014±0.009 W m-2 from mid-2005 to mid-2018 by a warmer and moister atmosphere (von Schuckmann et al., 2020).

Seriously? They actually believe they can measure the 13-year change in heat uptake from a “warmer and moister atmosphere” to the nearest 0.009 W/m2? Or the corresponding change in land heat uptake to the nearest 0.004 W/m2?

Sorry, not buying that for one minute. We simply do not have adequate global data to measure heat uptake to that level of uncertainty.

Finally, consider this claim that over 14 years the heat uptake rate is

0.62±0.05 W m-2 from the estimates in the ocean from 0-2000 m at 6-monthly intervals centered from mid-2005 through mid-2019,

Now, 0.62 W/m2 is 19.5 megajoules per year, times 14 years is 274 MJ. 2000 cubic metres of seawater is 2047 tonnes. Specific heat of seawater is 3.85 MJ/tonne/°C. So the temperature rise from the heat uptake is 0.035° ± 0.002°C … again, I don’t think we’ve measured the temperature changes of the top 2000m of the ocean to the nearest 0.002°C.

TL;DR version?

No way we can measure the earth’s energy imbalance to that degree of uncertainty, either from satellites or from the ground.

Regards to all,

w.

 

[mamooth]

The only real warming in the organic unfudged data is in growing urban areas.

As is usual for you, the exact opposite of what you claim it true. Urban areas have been warming more slowly than rural areas.

Oceans appear to be microscopically cooling,

Flat-out deliusional. We have these devices called "thermometers" that measure ocean temperatuers. They're going up. Fast.

There is absolutely no ocean rise,

Again, flat-out delusional.

There is no ocean rise because there is no ongoing net ice melt.

Do you understand that your refusal to accept reality does not change reality?

 

[mamooth]

Hint: error range......

0.50 +- 0.47 is not "statistically insignifiant". The fact that you think it is shows just how ignorant of statistics you are.

Then, not understsanding how clueless you are, you go full Dunning-Kruger on us and get belligerent with your ignorance.

Almost all deniers are clueless about statistics. They've never had any training in the topic, leaving them too stupid to understand how stupid they are. In order to understand any sceince, you really have to know statistics cold.

 

[mamooth]

So how does post 1860 CO2 differ from its predecessor?

It doesn't, and you're a very special kind of cult stupid for constantly saying it does.

"You're being a piss-gargling cult fuktard again" is generally the answer to all of your wildly dishonest trolling. We've answered all of your questions many times before, and you know it. You choose to lie about that because you're a pathologically dishonest troll.

 

[mamooth]

No way we can measure the earth’s energy imbalance to that degree of uncertainty, either from satellites or from the ground.

So one big Argument from Incredulity fallacy. Yeah, that's convincing.

 

[otto105]

More heat means hotter and longer heat spells

NASA: Earth Is Absorbing an 'Unprecedented' Amount of Heat

Ominous new research shows that the Earth is taking up a shocking amount of heat. In the past 15 years, the amount of incoming solar radiation trapped on the surface or in the oceans has doubled.

gizmodo.com

Okay, the Earth is warming up....

Now what? You think you’re going to reverse it by making Americans drive electric cars? What are you going to do about China continuing to destroy the environment? Keep paying them for their slave labor?

I was hoping for a more coherent response.