Comments on: Garnaut Report Due http://landshape.org/enm/garnaut-report-due/ The Power of Numeracy Wed, 16 May 2012 18:37:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Niche Modeling » Possible Error in OHC? http://landshape.org/enm/garnaut-report-due/#comment-4289 Niche Modeling » Possible Error in OHC? Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:09:38 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/garnaut-report-due/#comment-4289 [...] trajectory of OHC over a short run since 2000. This is reminiscent of the missplaced importance the Garnaut commission placed on the now discredited ‘worse than we thought’ finding of Rahmstorf and others, [...] [...] trajectory of OHC over a short run since 2000. This is reminiscent of the missplaced importance the Garnaut commission placed on the now discredited ‘worse than we thought’ finding of Rahmstorf and others, [...]

]]> By: Andrew http://landshape.org/enm/garnaut-report-due/#comment-4288 Andrew Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:52:15 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/garnaut-report-due/#comment-4288 They seem to have rephrased the question in such a way as to make the answer more favorable. Late 90's could mean since 95 or 99 or whatever. However, accounting or El Ninos and La Ninas, as well as the solar cycle probably does restore the trend-but to exactly the same rate as the previous two decades or so showed-a constant, not accelerating, trend. Rahmstorf appears to be misleading, as (1) 2005, was an El Nino year, an is the second to last year in the record, and (2) that same year fell almost ~exactly~ on the linear tredn line! http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/31/hot-tip-post-misses-the-point/ There is ~no~ evidence for either acclerating warming, or for the rate being greater than expected. I think that an objective analysis, of the most rcent data would find no trend from January 1998 to now, but also agree that the trend is not significant (at least not yet) because(1) the time period is to short and (2)the end points have at least one significant internal oscillation at opposite signs on each end of the trend line. However, much more interesting is Ocean Heat Content, which has been flat or a while: http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/figure-2-rev.jpg They seem to have rephrased the question in such a way as to make the answer more favorable. Late 90′s could mean since 95 or 99 or whatever. However, accounting or El Ninos and La Ninas, as well as the solar cycle probably does restore the trend-but to exactly the same rate as the previous two decades or so showed-a constant, not accelerating, trend. Rahmstorf appears to be misleading, as (1) 2005, was an El Nino year, an is the second to last year in the record, and (2) that same year fell almost ~exactly~ on the linear tredn line!
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/31/hot-tip-post-misses-the-point/
There is ~no~ evidence for either acclerating warming, or for the rate being greater than expected. I think that an objective analysis, of the most rcent data would find no trend from January 1998 to now, but also agree that the trend is not significant (at least not yet) because(1) the time period is to short and (2)the end points have at least one significant internal oscillation at opposite signs on each end of the trend line.

However, much more interesting is Ocean Heat Content, which has been flat or a while:
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/figure-2-rev.jpg

]]> By: Andrew http://landshape.org/enm/garnaut-report-due/#comment-7298 Andrew Sat, 05 Jul 2008 15:52:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/garnaut-report-due/#comment-7298 They seem to have rephrased the question in such a way as to make the answer more favorable. Late 90's could mean since 95 or 99 or whatever. However, accounting or El Ninos and La Ninas, as well as the solar cycle probably does restore the trend-but to exactly the same rate as the previous two decades or so showed-a constant, not accelerating, trend. Rahmstorf appears to be misleading, as (1) 2005, was an El Nino year, an is the second to last year in the record, and (2) that same year fell almost ~exactly~ on the linear tredn line! http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/31/hot-tip-post-misses-the-point/ There is ~no~ evidence for either acclerating warming, or for the rate being greater than expected. I think that an objective analysis, of the most rcent data would find no trend from January 1998 to now, but also agree that the trend is not significant (at least not yet) because(1) the time period is to short and (2)the end points have at least one significant internal oscillation at opposite signs on each end of the trend line. However, much more interesting is Ocean Heat Content, which has been flat or a while: http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/figure-2-rev.jpg They seem to have rephrased the question in such a way as to make the answer more favorable. Late 90′s could mean since 95 or 99 or whatever. However, accounting or El Ninos and La Ninas, as well as the solar cycle probably does restore the trend-but to exactly the same rate as the previous two decades or so showed-a constant, not accelerating, trend. Rahmstorf appears to be misleading, as (1) 2005, was an El Nino year, an is the second to last year in the record, and (2) that same year fell almost ~exactly~ on the linear tredn line!
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/01/31/hot-tip-post-misses-the-point/
There is ~no~ evidence for either acclerating warming, or for the rate being greater than expected. I think that an objective analysis, of the most rcent data would find no trend from January 1998 to now, but also agree that the trend is not significant (at least not yet) because(1) the time period is to short and (2)the end points have at least one significant internal oscillation at opposite signs on each end of the trend line.

However, much more interesting is Ocean Heat Content, which has been flat or a while:
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/figure-2-rev.jpg

]]>