She's either intentionally ignoring something or she is just plain stupid. The ocean SURFACE temperatures have warmed much more than that.
Not according to the ARGO and NOAA data. You can find links to all of the sources in her summary. Bottom Line: The oceans have warmed a mere 0.06 degrees since 1960.
So FC what are you going to do with yourself in 20 years when it is clearly demonstrated that all of this AGW stuff is a complete fraud and late night comedians regularly mock it. Will you be disappointed that you spend years defending a completely incorrect theory online? How will it feel to have wasted years of your life over what turns out to be a complete mockery of proper science?
He can always move near Area 51, and open an alien novelty stand, then educate his sheeple customers on the impending extra terrestrial invasion.
more... illogical crap... its not the messenger its the data. i know from reading this for a few years know the IPCC has been revising their projections downwards. the idea that man made co2 was causing all the warming now seems silly. they had to revise their projections down to match reality. did you say co2 causes all the warming a few years ago?
So? Models that do not consider new data are not good models. They are not static. The fact that you think there linear relationship between CO2 and atmospheric temps is just more proof of how stupid you are. No-one with more than half a brain does not understand that there is always deviation around a mean. That's exactly what this is. Once ENSO changes back this heat in the oceans will quickly return temps to longer term trends. Which is a geologically unprecedented rate of warming. And no, I NEVER said CO2 causes all the warming. But essentially all of the warming over the last 40 years is from greenhouse gasses. So once again you are being a fucking douchebag liar. No-one, least of all IPCC has said CO2 has caused all the warming. You know that. So please, just stick an icepick into your temple and rid the earth of the disease that is you. You are a clever scumbag slimey lawyer that lies. That's all you are. BTW. Have you found out what a greenhouse gas is yet?
1. I asked you a question idiot... I did not say you said it. 2. If you are constantly revising your models... it means your previous models no longer work. Which might be ok if you are making short term projections. If you are projecting years forward.... constantly revising your models means you models get trained and fit to the past data and then fail when they go real time. Therefore you models are failures. 3. Only a few years ago... agw nutters were saying co2 had a much stronger influence on warming... now you nutter buddies are saying they probably over estimated climate sensitivity. If you paid attention to what Professor Salby was saying... if you did an analysis of the models... the models were set so that the only thing influence temperature change was CO2. Which is why the models have failed. Even a nutter like you now admits the sun and the tides have influence.
I'm quite curious to see if he responds to your questions and/or mine: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?t=282010
Hey dickhead. How many times do I have tell you? Salby is an idiot. Why do you refer to idiots for your arguments all the time? Why should I pay attention to a fool like Salby? Only a deceiving lying shithead like you would continue to quote him. The models have not failed and they are always being revised. The earth has not stopped warming at all. Do you know what a greenhouse gas is yet?
Salby's carbon cycle confusion Professor Salby refers to a number of graphs in his talk, but I have been unable to track down copies of these, therefore we'll have to rely on what I'm able to glean from the podcast, and given it's length, I'll only address some of the more obvious mistakes. At the beginning of the talk Salby states: "current CO2 values are 380pmmv"(parts per million by volume) Not an encouraging start that he cites the atmospheric CO2 concentration as it was in 2005, rather than the 393 parts per million by volume (ppmv) it currently is in 2011. Not a fatal flaw of course, but not encouraging either. "Net annual emission has an average increase of about 1.5ppmv per year. We're on the right planet. That's the annual average increase you just saw. But it varies between years, dramatically by over 100%. From nearly zero in some years to 3ppmv in others. Net global emission of CO2 changes independently of of the human contribution" At this point the accentuation and drama in Salby's voice make it sound as though he has stumbled onto something momentous, something no one else has noticed before. On the face of it, it seems preposterous that the army of scientists that have worked on carbon cycling over the years could have missed something so glaringly obvious. No, of course they haven't. As discussed in the first paragraph of this post (and evident in Figure 1), the natural flux of CO2 in and out of natural systems varies from year-to-year. This flux is 20-30 times larger than the annual contribution by humans, but this balances out in the long-term. This variability is driven largely by El Nino and La Nina in the tropical Pacific, which shifts rainfall patterns over much of the world and is associated with warming and cooling of equatorial waters in the Pacific. The change in seawater temperature, and episodic upwelling of carbon-rich deep water, significantly affects the uptake and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, and of course rainfall variation greatly affects plant growth. The upshot is that land vegetation takes up more CO2 during La Nina, and expels more CO2 during El Nino. In the ocean, the opposite trend occurs - El Nino leads to more CO2 absorption, and La Nina is when the oceans give up more CO2