Its official 17 years of no warming in RSS data

[gwb-trading]

Here are the results of the models vs. reality. FAIL!

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Why doesn't your chart show the axis in yottajoules (YJ) (10^24 joules) which is the accepted practice rather than using 10^22 joules as the Y axis to create a big, scary chart. Especially when your projected specific heat is an estimate and not measured data. Temperature is measured data. Of course your estimate is three times the actual observed temperature result - as with everything else put out by global warming alarmists.

Why don't we plot ocean temperature over several thousand years. There are several periods (including the MWP) where the ocean temperature was at least 0.7 degrees C greater than it was today based on the work from multiple scientists.

The one degree axis is quite appropriate to show that ocean warming is insignificant and less than the instrument error.

Is earth as we know going to end because the ocean warmed 0.06 degrees C over 50 years? The answer is clearly NO - especially when the ocean temperature in the Medieval Warming Period was believed to have been 0.3 to 0.7 degrees higher than today.

What the hell are you babbling about? The Y axis should be scaled to show the data. Period. Your chart is scaled to hide the data. You are a deciever, intellectually dishonest. Hell, just like jem, you are a freakin' liar.

The heat content is not an estimate, it's a calculation.

Here's another one. Maybe you will understand this one.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

Here are the results of the models vs. reality. FAIL!

Those are not world temps.

I have exposed this lie several times now. That you continue to post this bullshit is just pathetic.

At this point you may have well a tatoo on your forehead that says "LIAR"

You are just a fucking liar.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

What the hell are you babbling about? The Y axis should be scaled to show the data. Period. Your chart is scaled to hide the data. You are a deciever, intellectually dishonest. Hell, just like jem, you are a freakin' liar.

The heat content is not an estimate, it's a calculation.

Here's another one. Maybe you will understand this one.

OK then SHOW ME THE RAW DATA where the heat content was MEASURED to provide the Y axis content of your graph.

Estimate, calculation, etc. is meaningless. Especially since the "calculation" does NOT align with the measured temperature results.

Your chart shows 3X the actual measured results - hence your graph is a fraud.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

OK then SHOW ME THE RAW DATA where the heat content was MEASURED to provide the Y axis content of your graph.

Estimate, calculation, etc. is meaningless. Especially since the "calculation" does NOT align with the measured temperature results.

Your chart shows 3X the actual measured results - hence your graph is a fraud.

Yeah OK, take it up with NOAA liar.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from gwb-trading:

You are forgetting the part about that the rate of ocean heating is so low that it is insignificant. The actual observed ocean temperature increase since 1960 is 0.06 °Celsius - which is less than the instrument error.

The climate change cabal has tried to claim that more heat was hiding in the 700m to 2000m ocean layer as an explanation why measured global temperatures have not been rising for 16 years - this has proven not to be true.

Yet all that "instrument error" still has room for the sea levels to rise significantly.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

Yet all that "instrument error" still has room for the sea levels to rise significantly.

Now you're just getting desperate.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Ricter:

Yet all that "instrument error" still has room for the sea levels to rise significantly.

Maybe he/they forgot that there is more than one instrument doing the measuring. Oooooops. That's OK, it's just an dishonest mistake.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Maybe he/they forgot that there is more than one instrument doing the measuring. Oooooops. That's OK, it's just an dishonest mistake.

Dunno.

Did you catch the part in the NASA paper, re the thermostatic property of high altitude CO2, which indicates that layer will not only reflect some energy back to space, but also reflect some energy radiating from below back towards ground? A case where we do get to have it both ways. : )

 

[jem]

that is the difference between fc and you... you read the papers and learn.

fc just touts the same the things he was indoctrinated with when he received his "degree" from Algore online college.

Quote from Ricter:

Dunno.

Did you catch the part in the NASA paper, re the thermostatic property of high altitude CO2, which indicates that layer will not only reflect some energy back to space, but also reflect some energy radiating from below back towards ground? A case where we do get to have it both ways. : )