Comments on: Is OHC Accelerating (II)? http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/ The Power of Numeracy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-854 davids99us Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:23:19 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-854 Aslak, A more to the point answer to the issue of Occam's razor that you raise, is what is the reality? We know that there are cycles, we know that there might be acceleration, the question is can the correct proportion be recovered and under what conditions? The number of parameters doesn't seem like a basis for elimination of cycles, but more of a possible source of difficuly in estimating CIs. Aslak, A more to the point answer to the issue of Occam's razor that you raise, is what is the reality? We know that there are cycles, we know that there might be acceleration, the question is can the correct proportion be recovered and under what conditions? The number of parameters doesn't seem like a basis for elimination of cycles, but more of a possible source of difficuly in estimating CIs.

]]> By: cohenite http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-852 cohenite Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:29:16 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-852 The adjustment to NODC data [as usual the adjustment is up] still shows a down trend in recent OHC;<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea...</a>On top of that is the 2002-2003 'artifact' which is responsible for over 1/2 of the OHC increase in the data range has not been addressed by NODC. And speaking of temperature SST is down;<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea...</a>And [thermosteric] sea-level increase is shot to bits;<a href="http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-...</a>Where's the heat Nick? ERBE perhaps? The adjustment to NODC data [as usual the adjustment is up] still shows a down trend in recent OHC;http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea…On top of that is the 2002-2003 'artifact' which is responsible for over 1/2 of the OHC increase in the data range has not been addressed by NODC. And speaking of temperature SST is down;http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea…And [thermosteric] sea-level increase is shot to bits;http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-…Where's the heat Nick? ERBE perhaps?

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-853 davids99us Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:18:11 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-853 Nick, You are thinking of OHC I think. Temperature is a longer record, though the analysis you suggest would be worth doing. Nick, You are thinking of OHC I think. Temperature is a longer record, though the analysis you suggest would be worth doing.

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-851 davids99us Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:23:19 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-851 Aslak, A more to the point answer to the issue of Occam's razor that you raise, is what is the reality? We know that there are cycles, we know that there might be acceleration, the question is can the correct proportion be recovered and under what conditions? The number of parameters doesn't seem like a basis for elimination of cycles, but more of a possible source of difficuly in estimating CIs. Aslak, A more to the point answer to the issue of Occam's razor that you raise, is what is the reality? We know that there are cycles, we know that there might be acceleration, the question is can the correct proportion be recovered and under what conditions? The number of parameters doesn't seem like a basis for elimination of cycles, but more of a possible source of difficuly in estimating CIs.

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-11886 Anonymous Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:23:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-11886 Aslak, A more to the point answer to the issue of Occam's razor that you raise, is what is the reality? We know that there are cycles, we know that there might be acceleration, the question is can the correct proportion be recovered and under what conditions? The number of parameters doesn't seem like a basis for elimination of cycles, but more of a possible source of difficuly in estimating CIs. Aslak, A more to the point answer to the issue of Occam’s razor that you raise, is what is the reality? We know that there are cycles, we know that there might be acceleration, the question is can the correct proportion be recovered and under what conditions? The number of parameters doesn’t seem like a basis for elimination of cycles, but more of a possible source of difficuly in estimating CIs.

]]> By: cohenite http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-850 cohenite Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:29:16 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-850 The adjustment to NODC data [as usual the adjustment is up] still shows a down trend in recent OHC;<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea...</a>On top of that is the 2002-2003 'artifact' which is responsible for over 1/2 of the OHC increase in the data range has not been addressed by NODC. And speaking of temperature SST is down;<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/" rel="nofollow">http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea...</a>And [thermosteric] sea-level increase is shot to bits;<a href="http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-...</a>Where's the heat Nick? ERBE perhaps? The adjustment to NODC data [as usual the adjustment is up] still shows a down trend in recent OHC;http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea…On top of that is the 2002-2003 'artifact' which is responsible for over 1/2 of the OHC increase in the data range has not been addressed by NODC. And speaking of temperature SST is down;http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-hea…And [thermosteric] sea-level increase is shot to bits;http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-…Where's the heat Nick? ERBE perhaps?

]]> By: cohenite http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-11885 cohenite Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:29:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-11885 The adjustment to NODC data [as usual the adjustment is up] still shows a down trend in recent OHC; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/ On top of that is the 2002-2003 'artifact' which is responsible for over 1/2 of the OHC increase in the data range has not been addressed by NODC. And speaking of temperature SST is down; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/ And [thermosteric] sea-level increase is shot to bits; http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html Where's the heat Nick? ERBE perhaps? The adjustment to NODC data [as usual the adjustment is up] still shows a down trend in recent OHC;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/

On top of that is the 2002-2003 ‘artifact’ which is responsible for over 1/2 of the OHC increase in the data range has not been addressed by NODC. And speaking of temperature SST is down;

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/ocean-heat-content-cooling-gone-today-with-new-adjustment/

And [thermosteric] sea-level increase is shot to bits;

http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html

Where’s the heat Nick? ERBE perhaps?

]]> By: davids99us http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-849 davids99us Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:18:11 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-849 Nick, You are thinking of OHC I think. Temperature is a longer record,though the analysis you suggest would be worth doing. Nick, You are thinking of OHC I think. Temperature is a longer record,though the analysis you suggest would be worth doing.

]]> By: Anonymous http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-11883 Anonymous Sat, 17 Oct 2009 06:18:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-11883 Nick, You are thinking of OHC I think. Temperature is a longer record, though the analysis you suggest would be worth doing. Nick, You are thinking of OHC I think. Temperature is a longer record, though the analysis you suggest would be worth doing.

]]> By: Nick Stokes http://landshape.org/enm/is-ohc-accelerating-ii/#comment-848 Nick Stokes Sat, 17 Oct 2009 04:05:02 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=3066#comment-848 David, <i>"My analysis shows that periodic is the greatest contribution to temperature increases of the last 50 years"</i>Your analysis shows the same result for a parabolic increase plus noise. And there's nothing to indicate that would moderate. Your inference doesn't work. David, “My analysis shows that periodic is the greatest contribution to temperature increases of the last 50 years”Your analysis shows the same result for a parabolic increase plus noise. And there's nothing to indicate that would moderate. Your inference doesn't work.

]]>