90% of global warming is in the oceans, and most of that cannot be measured. The best way therefore to track whether the environment is continuing to warm is to track sea level rise. The temperature of the troposphere and the ocean surface is highly dependent on the ENSO, but determines how much of the icy cold water from the deep Pacific is churned to the surface.
The sea level cannot rise without global warming. Not possible. But it continues to rise, and at a sligthly accelerated rate. U of Colorado Boulder now calculates the sea level rise at 3.2 mm per year, up from 3.1 just a few months ago. That's the trend since 1993. I don't know what level that would be statistical significant, but in any case we know it isn't declining.
I can't believe that somebody with an engineering degree could actually believe that sea water would expand without increasing temperature. In some way here, you are not a sincere person.
At least be honest and note that the increasing temperatures of the troposphere (which is 10% of the warming and which is affected by the surface of the ocean) appears to have stalled while the warming of the oceans (where 90% of global warming happens) appears to have accelerated.
As you point out. For those who put agenda above truth its really easy. It's one reason why I always wonder why the rew climatological data so often disagrees with the "adjusted" climatological data.
Every wonder why some scientists refuse to release their data even when they put them up for "peer" review? I have not seen a study in the past several years claiming global warming that provided the raw data, analytical methodology etc along with their reports.
You are correct that data manipulation can hide or highlight the information you are seeking.
In peer-reviewed articles, the statistical methods, and the data on which they used, are stated clearly so that data-manipulation to hide facts or change results is made obvious.
You have shown us how a person without the need to be honest can make up crap. We will not be relying him for anything in which accuracy is important.
Maybe this "question" explains why Canadian baseball teams have not made it to the World Series for twenty years. Every time one of their top .300 hitters has a "pause" of a couple of 0 for 4 games in a row, he is fired as nasty trickster for not disowning his batting average.
Or perhaps this just enables a confident forecast that O-Mike will be skipping the baseball season this year and thereby have lots of time here for copy pasting anti-science deceptions from Wattsup.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/03/a-...
According to Inconvenience Truth -- the world only had until 2008 to stop global warming.
Now it is TOO Late = and we are ALL going to DIE!
If there was one, you couldn't. But if there was one, not every year would make the top ten warmest years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
I'll stick with skepticalscience.com and Dana1981 today since I've been on a roll there.
In 2007, Dana1981 shows us how to mask the pause by graphing a 5 year running average: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/temp_smooth.gif
By 2013, I guess the 5 year mean didn't quite show the right stuff so Dana1981 switched to an 11 year running mean: http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/fawcett_11yr_avg.gif
Perfect, no nasty down ticks there to be seen. But I found a new one. Dana1981 has been working hard and now has a brand new graph hiding the pause: http://skepticalscience.com/graphics/ENSO_Temps_500.gif
You might wonder how he managed to pull that one off. Well it wasn't easy but the key was to change the NOAA definition of a La Nina year which he politely calls "certainly one reasonable definition". I guess that was necessary since the NOAA definition just wasn't working for him so he had to come up with one of his own: http://www.skepticalscience.com/was-2012-hottest-la-nina-on-record.html
What other "techniques" have you come across which successfully hide the global temperature pause?
