Dr. Ricky Rood's Climate Change Blog

The issues regarding stations in urban areas is well known and compensated for in the analyzes.

The issues are well known, but throwing some statistical analysis in to "compensate" the skewed data doesn't fix the bias, it just places man's opinion mixed in with what went on in history..Graphs only explain fragmented times and places in history. It doesnt represent the whole.....correlation does not imply causation, although many scientists forget that golden rule.....man-made GW is pure theory, NOT fact.

Sullivan,

No garbling going on. You were dismissive of my post on invasives and climate change in NE, so I compiled some information to test my assertion that NE climate has been warming since 1960's.

When you say things like:
Besides, using a mere two decades to try and back this claim that the climate has changed is nonsense. Especially while during this 20 year period we had one of the coldest stretches of weather ever recorded (February '94).

That compels me to do two things. First, is to think that Sullivan is a smart guy and I probably should look into my assumption that the NE is in a sustained warming trend. Second, to report what I found especially if it is counter to what you wrote.

When you make statements like above, you seem to have been minimizing the changes in winter climate and I found multiple lines of independent evidence to suggest there has been significant changes.

And yes if we inspect each of the indicators, we may find weaknesses (growing season), but combined they tell a compelling story.

I found the graph you presented of NE meteorological data a poor indicator of changes in winter climate when approaching it from the biological perspective. In New England, the winter season biologically begins in late Oct. and last until late March early April. Many of the indicators I presented integrate signals from a broader seasonal time period.

Here's two graphs to pounder regarding NE winter climate change.

Late Winter/Early Spring NE Temperature



Ice out dates for New England Lakes


(Both images are from: Historical changes in lake ice-out dates as indicators of climate change in New England, 1850-2000. Glenn A. Hodgkins et al. 2002. International Journal of Climatology Volume 22, Issue 15 , Pages 1819 - 1827)

First, the data here strongly suggest that the change in winter climate has been a century long trend. Second, note that there is an upward tick in the rate of change in the early 1960's. This corresponds to the increased rate of global change in average temperatures. While that may be a coincidence, it may also point to the link between the global changes and the local changes. In so far as you accept that the global changes are primarily due to changes in GHG's, this suggests that the local changes are also due to GHG's.

One caveat of this data set is that the data are primarily from Northern New England. I do not know how well this information would extrapolate to the rest of the NE.

Tropic, #251. You confound an unwarranted injected bias with a well founded systematic data correction. If you take out the urban stations (the one skeptics point to), that may have elevated temps because of heat island effect, you still get a very strong warming signal.

And thank you for elevating Global warming to the highest level for a scientific idea - that would be a theory.

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. (Source)

And what is this you said? "correlation does not imply causation, although many scientists forget that golden rule" Your not aware of the work that been done over the last 25 years to explain the causation? Look up forcings. That's what the climate models are, a synthesis of our knowledge of the causation of the earth's climate.

Re #249: Sull, regarding the growing season stats, do you have a link? It's curious that a period with major vulcanism (Krakatoa) would have had a much longer growing season than at present.

Re your remark about short-term warming trends or the lack therof, be aware that if a strong La Nina or El Nino changes global temps by e.g. .2C (just eyeballing 1998), that's 10 years worth of the underlying GHG warming. So, what you've just illustrated is how easy it is for someone who knows a lot about the weather to fool themselves into thinking we may not have a problem.

Regarding the PDO, note that none of the experts on it agree with you.

StreamTracker, This is what I mean about garbling...

-------

252. streamtracker 1:29 PM EST on February 18, 2008
Sullivan,

No garbling going on. You were dismissive of my post on invasives and climate change in NE, so I compiled some information to test my assertion that NE climate has been warming since 1960's.

When you say things like:
Besides, using a mere two decades to try and back this claim that the climate has changed is nonsense. Especially while during this 20 year period we had one of the coldest stretches of weather ever recorded (February '94).






211. streamtracker

This species has been moving slowly northward as winter temperatures have increased over the last two decades

212. sullivanweather

Especially while during this 20 year period we had one of the coldest stretches of weather ever recorded (February '94).


-----------

234. streamtracker 4:36 PM EST on February 17, 2008
Sullivan,

The Bradshaw lab did their own measurements at the sites they study the mosquitoes and they found a 4F rise over the 30 years they have been working at their sites.
Furthermore, if we are talking about rapid (decadal) response to climate change by plants and animals then certainly since the 1960's winters are warmer.


-------

You didn't mention anything about using a 40 year sampling until many posts later but then take my posts out of context to try and prove me as being dismissive of your posts. That is a garble, my friend.

Sully
Please don't confuse the science with the facts, lol

Re #s 246/51/54: It's funny how these articles never mention that about six months back someone audited the "auditors" by checking data from the top-rated stations identified up to that time. Here's the upshot straight from McIntyre himself:

"John V has posted some graphics recently arguing that CRN1-2 yielded pretty much the same results as major temperature indices and, in some sense, vindicated these results. As Gavin Schmidt has pointed out, the U.S. is only 2% of the world%u2019s surface; and as I%u2019ve observed on many occasions, the statistical methodologies and data quality in the U.S. are different from the ROW, as is the history."

"In some sense." *snork* He really didn't want to say it, did he?

That the existing network has all kinds of problem is news to nobody. It wasn't designed to collect climate-quality data, but fortunately the scientists working on this stuff understand how to make the necessary adjustments.

BTW, in the mid-'90s NOAA decided that it would be better to build a new climate sensor network from scratch (being completed just now) than to try to upgrade the present one. One of the important reasons for this is that while the present network is fine for the large-scale stuff, it's lousy for input to regional climate models (RCMs). So, unsurprisingly, the scientists are way ahead of the amateur "auditors."

An interesting aspect of this is that the "auditors" are using part of the siting standards for the new network as the criteria to test the existing sites. It will perhaps comne as no surprise that those standards aren't very useful for such a purpose since all they do is describe a *possible* range of error (based on entirely seat-of-the-pants estimates). That's all they can do since it turns out that microsite biases are virtually impossible to measureamd is why it never occurred to any scientist to try to apply the siting standards to the existing network. Even so, we saw what happened when that was done.

Re #257: Thanks, Sull. What's interesting is that Albany seems to have some unusual climate behavior. This statistic for 1998 (a very warm year nationally as well as globally) is strange to the point of bizarre. I think it might be better to look at a larger region.

Bloom,

That is why using growing seasons as a climate indicator is poor. Variability in weather, such as a freeze which only takes one day (very noisy), can lead to figures that point in opposite directions to a climatic signal, such as the ice-out dates that streamtracker pointed out.

2007, although one of the warmest years in history, brought the Southeast US one of their shortest growing seasons on record. They had a very late freeze in April and a very early freeze in October.

Another thing about the Albany data.

I don't know if there was a move to where they recorded temperatures, which there very well could have been.

That could explain why the growing seasons took a sharp downturn in the 1950's.

(1 plus 1 = 2, 2 plus 1 = 3, 3 plus 1 = 4) - These are undisputed facts.

* Uncontrolled placement of SS plus temps = Inaccurate data
* SST plus manipulation = Manipulated inaccurate data
* Manipulated inaccurate data plus expected outcome = Bad data molded to fit agenda.

These are NOT facts, but rather lackluster variables that support NO specific, discernable scientific conclusion other than roughly measured, tainted, bad data.


No consensus can be drawn from bad data unless it's bad consensus! The six or seven IPCC scientists credited with coming up with ACO2/Temp-related conclusions using this manipulated data simply is NOT consensus! There can be no consensus based on faulty and inaccurate collected data.

Another comment has been made that for every warmer SST reported, there is another reported cooler. And, this makes what sense? LMAO, none! It's still just simply bad data! No matter how hard the AGW advocates have tried(to date), there simply is NO conclusive, scientific fact that man is causing the planet to warm.

(edit)Maybe, if some of these advocates placed their efforts on the likely, real reason the earth is warming or cooling: the sun; they could still get all the grant money needed for research and livelihoods. That certainly seems all the more worthwhile, and puts the science back where it belongs - based in fact instead of illusion!

That's what the climate models are, a synthesis of our knowledge of the causation of the earth's climate.

causation eh....So we have thousands of scientists who dispute your Co2 theory...The fact that there is nowhere near a consensus means this science is very much still a theory. And by saying that because someone disagrees with you that they are "intentionally misunderstanding the facts" or "denying the truth" shows your intolerance to multiple other scientist's opinions. Graphs and stuff will never fully explain our earth/climate system and using faulty data to start off with means everything built off of that will be skewed/flawed...basically what JER/moon have explained to you already....

Sullivan the data I present also support a warming trend over the twenty year period (comment #253).

Also the goal of my series of posts has nothing to do with proving you wrong or that you are dismissive. Rather it was to compile information about climate change in the NE.

#252 That compels me to do two things. First, is to think that Sullivan is a smart guy and I probably should look into my assumption that the NE is in a sustained warming trend. Second, to report what I found especially if it is counter to what you wrote.(the indicators show an increasing trend during both the a 20, 30, 40 and 50 period)

I think I've presented data that makes a compelling case that we have had a sustained period of change in winter and spring climate in the NE.

Why are you so focused on a perceived slight? I made it very clear that I might be misunderstanding you:

Part of our disagreement here might have to do with the extent of the area we are referring to. I am specifically talking about New England, not the northeast as whole.

I think we are also arguing about different time periods.

So back to the debate?

If changes is GHG's are not the causal mechanism, what is? The period of sustained increase started in the 1960's (yeah there are ups and downs, but it is a predominately upward trend). If there is something else that is causing this what is it? If it is cyclical it would a have a periodicity of about a century? What cycles at that rate? And if there is something that does, is it in phase with the upward trend?

If changes is GHG's are not the causal mechanism, what is? The period of sustained increase started in the 1960's (yeah there are ups and downs, but it is a predominately upward trend). If there is something else that is causing this what is it? If it is cyclical it would a have a periodicity of about a century? What cycles at that rate? And if there is something that does, is it in phase with the upward trend?

Easy answer: WE DONT KNOW! And we most likely will never know. The only Being that knows everything PERFECTLY is God.

Streamtracker,

I've read several papers (although I don't have them bookmarked, unfortunately) that goes to great length to explain how changes in PDO directly effect the climate across North America as a whole.

You cannot deny that phases of the PDO affect the climate here. Typically, warm phase of PDO brings much milder air over the North American continent than then cold phase of the PDO.

Perhaps I'll do a search later and see iof I can find these papers.

I suggest that you should do the same. You seem to know an awful lot about papers concerning human induced changes in climate due to increased GHG's but meanwhile seem very dismissive of natrual cyclical changes in oceanic oscillations. Meanwhile the oceans have a much greater effect on climate, currently speaking, than GHG's do.

Cowboy,

Maybe, if some of these advocates placed their efforts on the real reason the earth is warming or cooling: the sun; they could still get all the grant money needed for research and livelihoods. That certainly seems all the more worthwhile, and puts the science back where it belongs - based in fact instead of illusion!

There has been lots of research focused on solar forcings and it is even reported in the dreaded IPCC report. Just a quick search of one database yield 150 papers on solar forcings in last 5 years.

Bottom line - solar forcing can't account for direction and magnitude of change.

268. streamtracker 9:45 PM GMT on February 18, 2008
Bottom line - solar forcing can't account for direction and magnitude of change.

-- So, instead of saying "we don't know" let's just manipulate SST data to conform to an expected outcome in order to generate research money. Blame man, and suddenly blank checks get passed around. LOL, one can not find truth based on a lie. But, it sure is fun spending OPM isn't it? LOL. Unfortunately, tons of money is being mis-spent and without regard to truth. Ex: how it's being used in grade school curriculums to scare our young children. That's an abomination imo!

Re #266: I once heard something about Man being made in God's image. As the Hitchhiker's Guide line goes, "That explains a lot."

re #269:

"-- So, instead of saying "we don't know" let's just manipulate SST data to conform to an expected outcome in order to generate research money. Blame man, and suddenly blank checks get passed around. LOL, one can not find truth based on a lie. But, it sure is fun spending OPM isn't it? LOL. Unfortunately, tons of money is being mis-spent and without regard to truth. Ex: how it's being used in grade school curriculums to scare our young children. That's an abomination imo!"

Yawn. Does this diatribe even warrant a decent response?

271. counters 11:11 PM GMT on February 18, 2008
Yawn. Does this diatribe even warrant a decent response?

Evidently! Conscious bothering you? LOL

All of this reminds me of the statement: "Can't see the forest for the trees!" The AGW advocates and associated politics fit this statement perfectly.
When one steps away from his immediate surroundings and takes a "bigger" look around, it's easier to see things as they really are - and not through rose-colored glasses.

Re #267: The question is whether the PDO or any other climate oscillation affects the long-term global climate average. No.

That said, as we appear to be seeing now with the Arctic Oscillation, increased warming will affect the behavior of those ocscillations. That might even cool off some areas for a while, but will it do much to the long-term trend? No.

Bottom line - solar forcing can't account for direction and magnitude of change.

What direction? Even giving 1998 the record as warmest year in a millennium( not true) but will say it is-the direction since then is down.

What magnitude? A 1 degC increase in over a century with a downward trend since.

On top of that you can not even specify how much of the directional magnitude is man made and how much is natural. Sad

JER

Bloom,

We don't even have reliable global records for temperature over a long enough period of time to be able to tell if these climatic oscillations affect the "the long-term global climate average".

The Arctic oscillation is a short-term climatic oscillation, but PDO, AMO are more long term (~30 years)

Up until recently we were in a warm phase of both PDO AND AMO. It now appears as if PDO is entering it's cool phase, meanwhile AMO is still in its warm phase.

The last time both were in cool phase was in 1976 when global temperatures, ironically, bottomed out for the time period of 1940-present.

Re #275: Sull, climate oscillations are not forcings like GHGs or irradiance insolation changes. They are simply internal rearrangements of the climate system. The science does not support your views on this.

Bloom,

According to your reasoning climatic oscillations such as ENSO, PDO, etc should have no effect what-so-ever on global temperatures which is false as proven by the recent downturn in global temperatures due to the current La Nina event.

The data backs my claim...if not, prove otherwise.

Sull, climate oscillations are not forcings like GHGs or irradiance insolation changes. They are simply internal rearrangements of the climate system.

Unless of course solar irradiance is responsible for PDO AMO etc. then wouldn't that show that PDO etc. are not just simply internal rearrangements of the climate systembut a product of solar irradiance. Which I believe would be considered a forcing agent.

Abstract

The effects of solar variability on regional climate time series were examined using a sequence of physical connections between total solar irradiance (TSI) modulated by galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), and ocean and atmospheric patterns that affect precipitation and streamflow. The solar energy reaching the Earth%u2019s surface and its oceans is thought to be controlled through an interaction between TSI and GCRs, which are theorized to ionize the atmosphere and increase cloud formation and its resultant albedo. High (low) GCR flux may promote cloudiness (clear skies) and higher (lower) albedo at the same time that TSI is lowest (highest) in the solar cycle which in turn creates cooler (warmer) ocean temperature anomalies. These anomalies have been shown to affect atmospheric flow patterns and ultimately affect precipitation over the Midwestern United States. This investigation identified a relation among TSI and geomagnetic index aa (GI-AA), and streamflow in the Mississippi River Basin for the period 1878%u20132004. The GI-AA was used as a proxy for GCRs. The lag time between the solar signal and streamflow in the Mississippi River at St. Louis, Missouri is approximately 34 years. The current drought (1999%u20132007) in the Mississippi River Basin appears to be caused by a period of lower solar activity that occurred between 1963 and 1977. There appears to be a solar %u201Cfingerprint%u201D that can be detected in climatic time series in other regions of the world, with each series having a unique lag time between the solar signal and the hydroclimatic response. A progression of increasing lag times can be spatially linked to the ocean conveyor belt, which may transport the solar signal over a time span of several decades. The lag times for any one region vary slightly and may be linked to the fluctuations in the velocity of the ocean conveyor belt.

Source

Of course if the science is settled there is no sense in following up on this study

276. SteveBloom 12:27 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
They are simply internal rearrangements of the climate system.

What? rotfl

Steve you are a hoot.

To give Bloom credit he is right.

Oscillation regime shifts are simply internal climatic rearrangements of the climate system.

However, to discount their influence on global climate because they are not 'a forcing' is ridiculous.

Re #280: lat, you revel in your ignorance. Have another drink.

However, to discount their influence on global climate because they are not 'a forcing' is ridiculous.

exactly, "simply" is a hoot.

I don't drink Edna.

Re #281: Progress at last. I will readily agree (as I have before) that they can and do have a short-term effect on average global surface temp, although these eventually even out. You've been speculating about a possible long-term influence, though. It's clear enough from your comments above that you have no basis for such an assertion, as in:

"I would like to read a paper published in the last two years that goes to some length to explain PDO, how it changes, why it changes and what are it's effects in detail. If anyone could find such a paper I would greatly apppreciate it. This paper will also have to contain no reference to global warming induced climate change (there is no specific reason for me to look for a paper on PDO, I just want to see a paper that isn't full of global warming rhetoric). Remember, this paper should have been published within the previous two years (one would think such a paper would be easy to find since we are in the midst of a PDO regime shift, currently)."

OTOH it's good to want to learn something about this. As I told you, though, you're unlikely to find a PDO paper that doesn't mention global warming since the period of the PDO is so long (50 to 100 years) that global warming will have a major impact on it.

In terms of the paper, you can find one in a couple of minutes with Google Scholar. Use the "advanced" window to limit the search to the last couple of years.

Re #283: Based on your comments we're talking the hard stuff here, not Edna (whatever that may be).

Re #279: jer, that paper stands as proof that *you* could probably get published somewhere. BTW, if you look hard enough you'll find a similar one on South Africa. It too disappeared without a trace (scientifically speaking, although as we can see everything acquires a certain permanence in the age of the internet). Both papers are a monument to the proposition that it's easy to find apparent correlations between solar activity and the weather. So many different cycles are going to align here and there just by random chance.

So many different cycles are going to align here and there just by random chance.

Could not agree more such as CO2 and temperature correlation. Like I said if you believe the science is settled there is no need to investigate. BTW why so anonymous Steve?

You mean like apparent correlations between temp and CO2?

285. SteveBloom 1:34 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
Re #283: Based on your comments

It was your constant personal attacks and your comments that made me think of Dame Edna. She had a certain pompous, fluffy,
yet trashy way of saying things, and you remind me of her.
Thinking it is her posting, has made your posts even funnier.

In case you don't know who I'm talking about:
Link

Re #288: That's OK, lat. Just remember that every time I see you comment I'll think of you drinking Edna. It's quite the image -- thanks for focusing it.

289. SteveBloom 2:07 AM GMT on February 19, 2008
Re #288: That's OK, lat. Just remember that every time I see you comment I'll think of tou drinking Edna. It's quite the image -- thanks for focusing it.

having a little trouble typing?

More worthless studies done since the science is settled


We are at the verge of the next sunspot cycle, solar cycle 24. How intense will this cycle be? Why is this question important? Because the sun is the major force controlling natural climate change on Earth.
Our Milky Way galaxy is awash with cosmic rays. These are high speed charged particles that originate from exploding stars. Because they are charged, their travel is strongly influenced by magnetic fields. Our sun produces a magnetic field that extends to the edges of our solar system. This magnetic field is wrapped within the solar winds. The field deflects many of these cosmic rays away from Earth. But when the sun goes quiet (minimal sunspots), this field collapses inward allowing cosmic rays to penetrate deeper into our solar system. As a result, far greater numbers collide with Earth and penetrate down into the lower atmosphere where they ionize small particles of moisture (humidity) forming them into water droplets that become clouds. Low level clouds reflect sunlight back into space. A large increase in Earth's cloud cover produces a global decline in temperature.

The Nature of the Sun’s Influence on Climate Change

LMAO - EVERTHING is worthless unless it supports AGW! Good grief! Lat, Edna is soooooo right!

Because the sun is the major force controlling natural climate change on Earth.

Spot on. I wonder why people automatically discount the sun, like it has minimal role in climate...after all, the reason why there is life on earth is because the sun gives us warmth!!!

Just because AGW scientists dont see sun activity correlating with climate change in their futile graphs doesn't mean they should automatically discount the sun.

But logic says that in the grand scheme of things, the sun is the biggest source of energy for the earth and should therefore contribute a lot to our climate.....

2001. MichaelSTL 8:05 PM GMT on February 18, 2008
Yeah, yeah, yeah... we all know how you are about improperly placed stations, and especially thinking that the IPCC only uses those (hmmm... what about the oceans, which are 70% of the globe... or the fact that obvious environmental changes linked to warming have occurred, like earlier springs, plants blooming in January, animals not hibernating/migrating/doing so later, etc - which has nothing to do with stations not properly situated, and in any case, moving a stations almost always results in a temperature change - for St. Louis, this apparantly resulted in a reduction of average temperatures).

For every station that reads too warm, there are stations that are the opposite:



Cooler stations, too! LMAO! All that simply reaffirms that the data is simply bad, faulty, wrong! As far as the oceans go, I've already commented on that one! It'd be kind of difficult to effectively measure 70 percent of the earth's ocean surface for the past, what shall we say, the last couple of hundred years anyway! LOL.

And, STL, I've only referred to specific surface stations a few times. However, I have said several times that the IPPC's conclusions are not consensus, not based in fact and have political agendas. Still, I'm not the only "skeptic" on WU or otherwise that has frequently discounted the SST data! I'm just one of many! btw, I didn't opine with the article you commented on in Fish's blog, but rather only just submitted the piece. But, it is funny how more and more of these AGW-refuting stories just keep coming up almost daily now! Truth surfaces.

... and, yeah, yeah, yeah(yourself)! I see you've still got a childish, immature, disrespectful attitude towards any opinion that doesn't agree with yours! Why don't you just drop the child-like behavior and just state your opinions without antagony? It would sure make your opinions appear more believable! Not to mention, it is the "civil" way to carry on mature, responsible discussion! It's better than going out in the school yard like little boys! Michael, you're too smart to be carrying on in such a manner! We can disagree and still respect each other. If you don't like what I post, just put me on "ignore" please, and you won't even see them! Thanks.

Feb 18, 2008
180,000 Stranded in Southern China as Cold Weather Returns

AFX News Limited, Forbes.com

Icy temperatures have swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts, just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in mountainous but usually temperate Yunnan province, struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster release office told Agence France-Presse.

In Yunnan, 12 people have died, the official Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday. The snowfalls over the past few days have cut off 14,000 kilometres of roads in Yunnan, stranding large numbers of people, the newspaper said, citing provincial transport authorities.’As the bad weather continues, the rescue work is becoming much harder,’ said the official from the provincial disaster release office, referring to helping stranded passengers, clearing roads and getting power back up.

‘Among all the cities affected by the snow disaster, Qujing city suffered from the greatest economic losses,’ the official added. Some 180,000 people were stranded in south China due to the latest weather troubles, the government and state media reported. Usually warm and sunny Yunnan was one of the areas hard hit by the frigid weather in January and early February, which pummelled China’s south, southwest and east, in the worst winter weather seen in five decades. The three weeks of severe weather left millions stranded, as the nation’s power and transport networks were unable to cope with the blizzards and sub-zero temperatures.
Read more here.

I saw this happening again.

I was mentioning in MichaelSTL's blog that the same pattern that had developed in mid January was renewing itself.

This confirms that assertion.

Hey, Sully! AGW or not, China is taking a beating! Not a fan of our China/US trade, but I do have compassion for the people there! They've been hit really hard.

Also, looks like you're going to be right again for more winter up in the neUS, too!

Let's hope so...

The latest GFS/ECMWF model runs leaves our potential storm unphased and weak.

Meanwhile the GGEM (Canadian) model blows this system up into a whopper with an inland track that would bring a changeover for many and leave a lot of folks unhappy. This model also has another BIG storm coming by this time next week for a 1-2 punch. If this model comes to fruition someone could be in for a whole lot of snow.

Bloom

As sully has pointed many times throughout, the ocean is a major player in the climate system and little has been done to understand its role.

You have dismissed it and counterargumented with false or unsubstantiated facts as well as with statments of personal beliefs.

The heat content of the oceans is 10x that of ATM and cryosphere combined. In the past 50yrs the oceans have been heating. Especially in the N-ATL ocean all this heaing was explained by natural variability of the NAO. The effects of anthropogenic warming due to gases is so small that its signal is lost in the natural noise.
Note that in the high latitudes the surface waters of the N-ATL are cooling while the tropics are warming in the past 50 yrs.

The top 6 feet of the ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere.

But no, the oceans have no effect...

(sarcasam)

It makes sense that the oceans would play a HUGE part in climate since they cover the most area on earth(~70%). But what makes things difficult is the fact that the oceans have the LEAST amount of data obs. So in summary, 70% of the earth's surface have the LEAST amount of obs. Now we know why it is impossible to prove man-made GW. Because you first have to prove Co2 induced GW. Then you have to break it up into "man-made" and "natural" constituents....Something entirely out of our abilities.....And when you have a MASSIVE part of the puzzle missing to start with, its almost impossible to prove the first point! And the number of data obs only decreases rapidly as we go up in the atmosphere too!

This is why the only conclusion I can come up with in regards to global warming is that AGW is not possible to prove, but that the sun and our oceans hold the ultimate key to what the climate has done in the past and what it will do in the future! The problem arises that our data records are so flawed that this "key" will never be found.