<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Climate models get energy balance wrong</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/climate-models-get-energy-balance-wrong/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/climate-models-get-energy-balance-wrong/</link>
	<description>Taking the heat out of global warming</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 06:07:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard C (NZ)</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/climate-models-get-energy-balance-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-64247</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard C (NZ)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 06:00:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=10815#comment-64247</guid>
		<description>Can we characterize the net flux situation as the empirical measurements of Spencer-Braswell 2010/11 (Fig 2 2011) and Knox-Douglass 2010 (Fig 1) versus stuff that Trenberth, Fasullo and Dessler made up?

Also see:-

The Saturated Greenhouse Effect

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm

AGW Busted, basically.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can we characterize the net flux situation as the empirical measurements of Spencer-Braswell 2010/11 (Fig 2 2011) and Knox-Douglass 2010 (Fig 1) versus stuff that Trenberth, Fasullo and Dessler made up?</p>
<p>Also see:-</p>
<p>The Saturated Greenhouse Effect</p>
<p><a href="http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm</a></p>
<p>AGW Busted, basically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard C (NZ)</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/climate-models-get-energy-balance-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-64243</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard C (NZ)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Aug 2011 05:38:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=10815#comment-64243</guid>
		<description>For an alternative view of the RealClimate post by Team member Kevin Trenberth:on Spencer’s paper [and Braswell&#039;s], check out this post by the co-author:-

Rise of the 1st Law Deniers

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/rise-of-the-1st-law-deniers/

And this post by the same:-

Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For an alternative view of the RealClimate post by Team member Kevin Trenberth:on Spencer’s paper [and Braswell's], check out this post by the co-author:-</p>
<p>Rise of the 1st Law Deniers</p>
<p><a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/rise-of-the-1st-law-deniers/" rel="nofollow">http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/rise-of-the-1st-law-deniers/</a></p>
<p>And this post by the same:-</p>
<p>Fallout from Our Paper: The Empire Strikes Back</p>
<p><a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/" rel="nofollow">http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/fallout-from-our-paper-the-empire-strikes-back/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Palin</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/climate-models-get-energy-balance-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-64188</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Palin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:07:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=10815#comment-64188</guid>
		<description>In this case, your assumption would be mistaken. It is an interesting analysis.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In this case, your assumption would be mistaken. It is an interesting analysis.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/climate-models-get-energy-balance-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-64167</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 08:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=10815#comment-64167</guid>
		<description>Mike, I had a look at the RC link and on the3rd line I found this statement 

&lt;em&gt;and blogs on climate denier web sites&lt;/em&gt;

My policy is to hit the back button every time is see the word &quot;denier&quot; It indicates to me that the author is a political activist and not a scientist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, I had a look at the RC link and on the3rd line I found this statement </p>
<p><em>and blogs on climate denier web sites</em></p>
<p>My policy is to hit the back button every time is see the word &#8220;denier&#8221; It indicates to me that the author is a political activist and not a scientist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Palin</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/climate-models-get-energy-balance-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-64163</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Palin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 2011 07:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=10815#comment-64163</guid>
		<description>For an alternative view of Spencer&#039;s paper, check out this RealClimate post by our own Kevin Trenberth:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

By the way, Spencer&#039;s paper appeared in an open-access journal based in China titled &quot;Remote Sensing&quot; that started in 2009.  That journal is not listed at the ISI Web of Knowledge so there is no way to check its impact factor which is a standard for those of us in the world of academia.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For an alternative view of Spencer&#8217;s paper, check out this RealClimate post by our own Kevin Trenberth:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/" rel="nofollow">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/</a></p>
<p>By the way, Spencer&#8217;s paper appeared in an open-access journal based in China titled &#8220;Remote Sensing&#8221; that started in 2009.  That journal is not listed at the ISI Web of Knowledge so there is no way to check its impact factor which is a standard for those of us in the world of academia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard C (NZ)</title>
		<link>http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/07/climate-models-get-energy-balance-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-64004</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard C (NZ)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2011 10:43:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/?p=10815#comment-64004</guid>
		<description>Not going down too well in certain quarters oddly. I though they would have been very relieved to know what the glitch was. Now they&#039;ll be able to fix these embarrassments among others:-

Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections? 

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-are-ohc-observations-0-700m.html

New Paper Illustrates Another Failure Of The IPCC Mullti-Decadal Global Model Predictions – “On the Warming In The Tropical Upper Troposphere: Models Versus Observations” By Fu Et Al 2011

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/page/2/

My personal favourite is from Pielke Snr:-

2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/2011-update-of-the-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/

The observed best estimates of the  heating and the Hansen et al prediction in Joules in the upper 700m of the ocean are given below:

OBSERVED BEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].

2003 ~0 Joules
2004 ~0 Joules
2005 ~0 Joules
2006 ~0 Joules
2007 ~0 Joules
2008 ~0 Joules
2009  ~0 Joules 
2010 ~0 Joules
2011 ~0 Joules through May 2011
2012  —–   

HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002] [corrected 6/13/2011 from input from Bob Tilsdale].

2003 ~0.67* 10** 22 Joules
2004 ~1.34* 10** 22 Joules
2005 ~2.01 * 10** 22 Joules
2006 ~2.68 * 10** 22 Joules
2007 ~3.35 * 10** 22 Joules
2008 ~4.02 * 10** 22 Joules
2009 ~4.69 * 10** 22 Joules
2010 ~5.36 * 10** 22 Joules
2011 ~6.03* 10** 22 Joules
2012 ~6.70* 10** 22 Joules

Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003.

For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 6.7 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next 1  1/2 years. This requires a heating rate over the next 1 1/2 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean  corresponding to a radiative imbalance of ~4 Watts per square meter.

Youza!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not going down too well in certain quarters oddly. I though they would have been very relieved to know what the glitch was. Now they&#8217;ll be able to fix these embarrassments among others:-</p>
<p>Why Are OHC Observations (0-700m) Diverging From GISS Projections? </p>
<p><a href="http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-are-ohc-observations-0-700m.html" rel="nofollow">http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-are-ohc-observations-0-700m.html</a></p>
<p>New Paper Illustrates Another Failure Of The IPCC Mullti-Decadal Global Model Predictions – “On the Warming In The Tropical Upper Troposphere: Models Versus Observations” By Fu Et Al 2011</p>
<p><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/page/2/" rel="nofollow">http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/page/2/</a></p>
<p>My personal favourite is from Pielke Snr:-</p>
<p>2011 Update Of The Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions</p>
<p><a href="http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/2011-update-of-the-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/" rel="nofollow">http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/2011-update-of-the-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/</a></p>
<p>The observed best estimates of the  heating and the Hansen et al prediction in Joules in the upper 700m of the ocean are given below:</p>
<p>OBSERVED BEST ESTIMATE OF ACCUMULATION Of JOULES [assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002].</p>
<p>2003 ~0 Joules<br />
2004 ~0 Joules<br />
2005 ~0 Joules<br />
2006 ~0 Joules<br />
2007 ~0 Joules<br />
2008 ~0 Joules<br />
2009  ~0 Joules<br />
2010 ~0 Joules<br />
2011 ~0 Joules through May 2011<br />
2012  —–   </p>
<p>HANSEN PREDICTION OF The ACCUMULATION OF JOULES [ at a rate of 0.60 Watts per meter squared] assuming a baseline of zero at the end of 2002] [corrected 6/13/2011 from input from Bob Tilsdale].</p>
<p>2003 ~0.67* 10** 22 Joules<br />
2004 ~1.34* 10** 22 Joules<br />
2005 ~2.01 * 10** 22 Joules<br />
2006 ~2.68 * 10** 22 Joules<br />
2007 ~3.35 * 10** 22 Joules<br />
2008 ~4.02 * 10** 22 Joules<br />
2009 ~4.69 * 10** 22 Joules<br />
2010 ~5.36 * 10** 22 Joules<br />
2011 ~6.03* 10** 22 Joules<br />
2012 ~6.70* 10** 22 Joules</p>
<p>Thus, according to the GISS model predictions, there should have been approximately 5.36 * 10**22 Joules more heat in the upper 700 meters of the global ocean at the end of 2010 than were present at the beginning of 2003.</p>
<p>For the observations to come into agreement with the GISS model prediction by the end of 2012, for example, there would have to be an accumulation 6.7 * 10** 22 Joules of heat over just the next 1  1/2 years. This requires a heating rate over the next 1 1/2 years into the upper 700 meters of the ocean  corresponding to a radiative imbalance of ~4 Watts per square meter.</p>
<p>Youza!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

