************************************EXCERPT**************************************
geo says:
Now if the *red* line dips below 0.0 anomaly, then I’ll be moderately impressed.
For now, eh, better than not, I guess.
It more or less looks to me like this last el nino/la nina cycle are going to average out to back around the .2C we’ve been dancing around for quite some time now.
Which is still a problem for the AGWers, because it’s supposed to be going up .2C every decade in the relentless fashion they insist on.
****************************EXCERPT**********************************
Geoff Sherrington says:
Jeff Norman says:
February 2, 2011 at 2:31 pm
Assuming this temperature trend is correct and taking into account that temperature is only a proxy for the heat energy in the Earth fluidsphere, where did the heat energy go? As my thermodynamics professor always proclaimed, “The heat goes to Mars!”
And assuming the temperature spikes back up again, where was the heat hiding?
…………………………………………
My question also. Last time I asked it I got a few short messages saying “Look at that bright object in the sky and think”. However, it is more complicated than that. AGW suggests that a warming change should be irreversible in the sort term, with reduction in GHG the main way to lower the temp. Here, we have temperatures lowering with increasing GHG. The mechanism, by elimination, must be that the fluctuations we have been measuring are transient weather noise and noise goes up and down in the sort term, much as seasons do.
So, do we have a conservative system of constant total global heat content, with weather noise wiggles, or are we seeing systematic changes such as those that would result from insolation variability? (I’me leaving out geometric effects such as orbital cycles here).
One can’t simply say “It’s wet because of La Nina”, because that might mean it is less wet somewhere else. That is, ocean oscillations are not the end of the story; they are but a step among several steps when viewed globally.