Look, you can talk all you like about numbers of citations etc etc. Knox and Douglas are, after all, just bringing together the results of other studies, so you can always check the originals. This is not a numbers game.
It most certainly is a numbers game. Measurements are numbers, statistics are numbers, and the determination of probable truth is based on numbers.
Just look at the NASA sea surface data - you can compare the daily mean for the last 12 months with that for the 12 months of 2003 and it's getting cooler at sea surface.
You can just look at a lot of things and believe you see a trend. The key is being able to use the statistics to prove there is a trend to an acceptable level of confidence. You can look at the long term temperature records from many sources and point to what appears to be a change in warming or cooling, which is not statistically significant. The trends which are statistically significant are the important onesbecause they are the real ones.
There's no two ways about it: absolutely no ambiguity. A simple sighting of these plots http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg
makes it clear. You can do the plots yourself on the NASA site as I did to get this. (There's a link on my site.) For further details read what I have written on this page: http://earth-climate.com/CaseAgainst.html
Yes, there are more than two ways about it. A statistically insignificant trend cannot be shown to be anything with confidence. As for reading what you write, I do that here so I do not need to read your page.
However you look at it, Trenberth's estimates of ocean warming every year since 2003 have to be wrong.
No, if you are talking the period showing a statistically significant trend, it does not have to be wrong.
I don't blame him - there was bad data.
And only a few really know what good data is?
The sea surface figures would have to show it if it really happened. And we should be weighting mean world temperatures by about 90% on "over the ocean" temperatures, based on the heat stored, not the surface area of about 70%.
Really? You have the evidence to support the weighting of that data where?
Land measurements are also prone to urban crawl and other problems. Just keep watching those NASA sea surface figures.
Including the satellite data which seems to track the surface measurments preety well?
What I expect (based on planetary orbits) is a slight rise (say 0.1 deg) by 2013, then decline (~0.2 deg) from 2014 till 2027-2028 then rise (~0.4 deg) till 2058-2059 after which a long term decline till about the year 2500. I have archived these predictions - see archive link on my home page http://earth-climate.com
I knew of a guy who made similar claims concerning the Jupiter System of Force who seemed to be as clueless about real physics as some of your work.
The main point is that the period 2003 to 2011 provides a good potential testing ground for the models - fairly stable temperatures (as could have been predicted from natural cycles) and a fairly linear trend in increasing levels of CO2. Models show a lot of net radiation which should have added to temperatures, but it hasn't. Absolutely none of the CO2 has had any effect whatsoever.
None of the CO2 has had any effect whatsoever? The record temperatures since temperature records were sufficiently worldwide just happened to correlate to the period during which the CO2 levels were being increased by human action? What about the unusually low period of solar activity?
Hence the models are wrong.
So you wish to say, but the evidence seems to be lacking.
There are solid reasons based on physics on my home page as to why CO2 does not have a net warming effect.
Actually, no, there are no "solid reasons" to why CO2 does not have a net warming effect.
Here is a young scientist who can show you there is a net warming effect.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4
And for good measure here is Mythbusters doing a similar experiment with similar results. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0 ... re=related
It can also act as a scavenger, removing heat from O2 and N2 molecules and then emitting photons much more easily than those air molecules can do - thatis, CO2 can also (indirectly) cause cooling.
Right ..... that is why so many scientists agree with your conclusions?
It doesn't matter if GHG molecules get warmer - they will just emit more. And even the models say at least 99.7% of all emitted heat energy gets to space eventually. I say that the models cannot have such a high degree of accuracy, anyway, so it's not surprising that their 99.7 figure can easily be 100% or even greater when the world is cooling.
Or if the models are wrong, as you claim, they could also be wrong in the other direction .....