As I understand it these would be ‘surface’ temperatures we are looking at.
The wiki page I was studying halted at 2016; a convenient place to halt if you want to impress the warmest year on record. I merely went to NOAA and asked for the 2023 version.
I pasted this as a link to NOAA, but it looks like it got downloaded to CFI through their system, which isn’t quite good as it does obscure the source; though it does freeze and cache the data doesn’t it?
It’s straight from NOAA, sir. The 2016 hiatus is a bit of a joke, isn’t it? If we could just time travel; and had decent data, we would be watching one hiatus after another since 1900, and arguably earlier than that, right? We’re getting close to a decade now of not breaking the record. This isn’t exactly a nail-bighter. Still, how many of these peaks have a decade until the next? I could do this analysis, but I accept that these hiatus events are statistical in nature. The record isn’t terribly deep on this dataset, either…
As WAW points out, there is cause to even doubt the elderly data. Still, maybe it is better than nothing.
It really would be something if we peaked in 2016, and now the clouds are coming in. Thermal mass alone has to delay things, right? That’s where I was going with the oceans warming; drawing moisture out of the air actually; inverse evaporation; known as condensation.
As I gain an understanding of the saturation claim, the way to falsify it is not as is done by your favorite site. It is not going to be done by acting like it isn’t there, either.
The original notch, and I’ll leave out the whipping boy and just use WAW, shows an extremely powerful effect of CO2 notching the blackbody spectrum of the Earths radiation dramatically. What if they took away too much immediately here? In effect, by claiming all of that as reabsorbed heat and not losing any of it, which I believe is clearly stated in their model, then there is that much less heat to account for later. Their method is blatantly oversimplified. They state as much themselves. At least as I understand it at this moment, there is not an analysis of cooling taking place, which is heat loss essentially. They simply have taken an even more conservative approach of calling it all absorbed; thus in a sense making a fool of those who insist on heating, since they’ve certainly done that generously with the initial notch. In effect their model would have to be criticized as too hot in order to arrive with the falsification.
Why? Because they took all the heat the OCO could absorb away already. Simply put, we ask where did this heat go? It is a study of hot air; of challenging an adiabatic assumption. Sadly this lands us in the sea of climate models which is the route that they managed to short-circuit. As a moth beats its wings next to a grape leaf, setting off a small rectified air current which decreases the time of lift of a warm air mass by two seconds upward toward the troposphere, thereby wrecking the GISS12.3u1.6 data… consuming one years computation at the NOAA server farm, not to mention a gigawatt hour of heat piped into the very study space, and we’re back at square one.
Wasn’t it Lorenz who nailed this down back in the 1800’s? No. I’m too far back in time here…
" In 1963, Edward Lorenz, with the help of Ellen Fetter who was responsible for the numerical simulations and figures,[1] and Margaret Hamilton who helped in the initial, numerical computations leading up to the findings of the Lorenz model,[2] developed a simplified mathematical model for atmospheric convection.[1] The model is a system of three ordinary differential equations now known as the Lorenz equations:"; Lorenz system - Wikipedia
None of this analysis is going to take place by blanking out the source. The WAW spectroscopic analysis obviously is not being falsified; thus the saturation effect in this simplified form is accurate. What is, or could be inaccurate, is the simplifying, which somewhat does take on the falsification claim in the infamous video with the Earth blanketed in atmosphere at twice its diameter, and little OCO’s zapping each other. I have seen the keyword ‘amplification’ used several places, but it doesn’t turn up much for me in conjunction with saturation. So I’d call this analysis here a bit too hot; too fresh; because I’m only part way through. I’m open to falsification; certainly. The more direct the better.