Is the 1930-2000 period of the 7SS spreadsheet still about 0.9°C/century?

Carbon Heat Trapping: Merely a Bit Player in Global Warming
Richard J. Petschauer, Senior Member IEEE

of which “CO2 is a bit player in Global Warming” is a commentary:-

Recommendations
With such dire predictions about global warming due to carbon “heat trapping” and the drastic actions being proposed to reduce it, it seems only prudent to question and more fully verify what if any additional man-made carbon dioxide has to do with the recent warming trends. The results of this paper indicate the future temperature increases from CO2 will be minor and are not a cause for concern. It is recommended that we enlist besides climate specialists, practical engineers and people experienced in applied physics and chemistry to evaluate the work done here and pursue further practical evaluations of only increased CO2. Workers that managed the United Nations IPCC project should not be included in this project. Their minds, or at least their spokepersons, are already made up. Very large parts of the IPCC reports are excellent, and many competent scientists contributed to it. However it appears that only a few people put together quantitative numbers that estimated past CO2 and temperature trends and possible future changes from increases in CO2. These models predict such widely varying amounts of changes one must question their validity. The IPCC should publish for each of the models used the resulting average values of the radiation from the atmosphere to the earth in watts per square meters for both the present level of CO2 and that estimated when CO2 is doubled. This would allow atmosphere measurements as proposed in the appendix to see if they are reasonable and would
be one way to test some of these models’ features before putting any faith in them.

IPCC Studies And Reports Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27867

“The IPCC approach is the antithesis of science. They have predetermined a cause and set about proving it by narrowly defining climate change, limited selection of variables, manipulation of data, and working to prove rather than falsify the hypothesis. It is unquestionably the biggest scam in history because it has been deliberate.”

From Knox and Douglas 2010 Discussion and Summary (easier read at THE HOCKEY SCHTICK link below because the important parts are in bold type)

” As many authors have noted, knowing FOHC [ocean heat content] is important because of its close relationship to FTOA, the net inward radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere. Wetherald et al. [13] and Hansen et al. [14] believe that this radiative imbalance in Earth’s climate system is positive, amounting recently [14] to approximately 0.9 W/m2. Pielke [15] has pointed out that at least 90% of the variable heat content of Earth resides in the upper ocean. Thus, to a good approximation, FOHC may be employed to infer the magnitude of FTOA, and the positive radiation imbalance should be directly reflected in FOHC (when adjusted for geothermal flux [9]; see Table 1 caption). The principal approximations involved in using this equality, which include the neglect of heat transfers to land masses and those associated with the melting and freezing of ice, estimated to be of the order of 0.04 W/m2 [14], have been discussed by the present authors [9].
In steady state, the state of radiative balance, both quantities FTOA and FOHC should be zero. If FTOA > FOHC, “missing energy” is being produced if no sink other than the ocean can be identified. We note that one recent deep-ocean analysis [16], based on a variety of time periods generally in the 1990s and 2000s, suggests that the deeper ocean contributes on the order of 0.09 W/m2. This is not sufficient to explain the discrepancy.
Trenberth and Fasullo (TF) [2] believe that missing energy has been accumulating at a considerable rate since 2005. According to their rough graph, as of 2010 the missing energy production rate is about 1.0 W/m2, which represents the difference between FTOA ~ 1.4 and FOHC ~ 0.4 W/m2. It is clear that the TF [Trenberth & Fasullo] missing-energy problem is made much more severe if FOHC is negative or even zero. In our opinion, the missing energy problem is probably caused by a serious overestimate by TF of FTOA, which, they state, is most accurately determined by modeling.
In summary, we find that estimates of the recent (2003–2008) OHC rates of change are preponderantly negative. This does not support the existence of either a large positive radiative imbalance or a “missing energy.” ”

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/paper-global-cooling-began-in-2003.html

From Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/new-paper-recent-energy-balance-of-earth-by-knox-and-douglas-2010/

New Paper “Recent Energy Balance Of Earth” By Knox and Douglas 2010

Another commentary on the same paper at THE HOCKEY SCHICK:

Paper: Global Cooling began in 2003

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/paper-global-cooling-began-in-2003.html

Excerpt
“Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr has posted today an in-press paper which demonstrates that ocean temperatures flattened in 2001-2002 and have been on a negative trend since. The ocean temperature trend is far more important than the hopelessly adjusted & flawed land temperature record to assess global warming, as noted by Dr. Pielke. During this period, CO2 levels have steadily climbed, which according to the IPCC should have caused a positive radiative imbalance resulting in about .16C warming. The fact that ocean temperatures have instead been cooling falsifies the entire anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.”

Knox and Douglas 2010
ABSTRACT: A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993–2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003–2008) warming/cooling rate because of a “flattening” that occurred around 2001–2002. Using only 2003–2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from –0.010 to –0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.

CO2 is a bit player in Global Warming

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/09/co2-is-bit-player-in-global-warming.html

“Since clouds operate as both powerful heat-trapping agents, overriding others, and a reflector of the sun’s energy, they may be the key factor in the regulation of the average global temperature. At the present time, they are one of the least measured parameters in the computer models predicting future climate changes.”

http://climate4you.com/

Scroll down to:

Temperature change above Equator

View the divergence of modeled vs measured tropospheric temperature change on:

“Diagram showing observed decadal temperature change at surface, 300 hPa and 200 hPa, between 20oN and 20oS, since 1979″

The simulations differed from the AR4 submissions in this way:

“These model runs differ from those that were run for the IPCC in that the models were simplified to isolate the effects of CO2 forcing and climate feedbacks (Lindzen 2007). Also the models were run until equilibrium was established rather than run in a transient mode in order to simulate the past. Thus, they tend to isolate greenhouse warming from other things that might be going on.”

Not a good look for CO2.

Earth’s Albedo Tells an Interesting Story
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/17/earths-albedo-tells-a-interesting-story/

The 19 natural forcings only “simulations” that were submitted to IPCC AR4 were unable to replicate 1930′s and 1990′s warming.

From 9.4.1.2 Simulations of the 20th Century, AR4, WGl:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-4-1-2.html

“The fact that climate models are only able to reproduce observed global mean temperature changes over the 20th century when they include anthropogenic forcings, and that they fail to do so when they exclude anthropogenic forcings, is evidence for the influence of humans on global climate. Further evidence is provided by spatial patterns of temperature change. Figure 9.6 compares observed near-surface temperature trends over the globe (top row) with those simulated by climate models when they include anthropogenic and natural forcing (second row) and the same trends simulated by climate models when only natural forcings are included (third row)”

“fact” ? – Bollox !

See the IPCC sleight-of-hand here
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/HansenModel.htm

The reason the “natural forcings only simulations” failed was the inept, selective and deceptive use of said forcings (the only IPCC natural RF is solar).

From “Have Changes In Ocean Heat Falsified The Global Warming Hypothesis? – A Guest Weblog by William DiPuccio”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/

“Most scientists who oppose the conclusions of the IPCC have been outspoken in their advocacy of cyclical heating and cooling caused primarily by natural processes, and modified by long-term human climate forcings such as land use change and aerosols. These natural forcings include ocean cycles (PDO, AMO), solar cycles (sunspots, total irradiance), and more speculative causes such as orbital oscillations, and cosmic rays.”

The Earthshine project shows how variations in cloudiness change the Earth’s albedo. For example, a reduction in albedo 1994-1997 let in more TSI to heat the oceans resulting in subsequent atmospheric warming. The implications are analyzed here:

Earth’s Albedo Tells an Interesting Story
file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/User1/Desktop/Models/Earth%E2%80%99s%20Albedo%20Tells%20an%20Interesting%20Story%20_%20Watts%20Up%20With%20That.htm

But TSI was also reducing 1994-1997 so the IPCC solar RF will not produce the requisite warming for the next period.

http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

Climate dynamics, IPCC shortcomings and the importance of natural forcing variation are the subject of this paper by Dr Theodor Landscheidt:

SOLAR ACTIVITY: A DOMINANT FACTOR IN CLIMATE DYNAMICS
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

More solar and natural forcing analysis here by Alan Cheetham (note the correlation of Arctic temperatures with TSI as opposed to CO2):

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence.htm

The IPCC’s natural forcings inadequacies are documented here:

Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26850