New Post at HotWhopper.
WattsUpWithThat post: The Tempering Effect of the Oceans on Global Warming
HotWhopper Reply from Monday, December 1, 2014 [archived]: Warmer oceans matter
The comments are open…there’s no moderation, except for comments with 3 or more links. There is a new moderation policy in place.
Please refrain from ad hominem comments. I realize that will be difficult for many people, especially if you’ve just returned from Hot Whopper. But try; ad homs hurt your arguments.
More On Miriam O'Brien's HotWhopper 
Miriam O’Brien (Sou) says: “I see that Bob Tisdale at WUWT (archived here) has written another article on ocean warming. In doing so he paid homage to SkepticalScience by borrowing the title from one of their recent articles.”
The title of the SkepticalScience/ NOAA ENSO Blog post was “The role of the ocean in tempering global warming”. The title of my post is “The Tempering Effect of the Oceans on Global Warming”.
If I had “paid homage” to the the SkepticalScience/ NOAA ENSO Blog post by “borrowing the title from one of their recent articles”, Miriam, the title of my post would have been “The role of the ocean in tempering global warming”, but it wasn’t. No borrowing means no homage paid.
LikeLike
Miriam O’Brien (Sou) says: “Bob also seems to think my recent article was ‘reality impaired’ and ‘nonsensical’ but he doesn’t say what he found unreal about it or which bits he thought were nonsense.”
Apparently Miriam didn’t comprehend my whole post…
…which clearly showed that her earlier attempt at rebuttal was “reality impaired” and “nonsensical” .
Miriam O’Brien (Sou) continued: “On the contrary, in his latest article, about the only thing new was that he added the chart of ocean heat content, and acknowledged that 90% of the extra energy is going into the oceans. Both of these ideas were a direct take from my article, which contradicts his allegations of nonsensical and unreal. You could call it his homage to HotWhopper.”
“Both of these ideas were a direct take from my article…”?
Miriam obviously overlooked Figure 1 from my post, which was provided to show that I have shown ocean heat content data in the past.
And the content of my past blog posts indicates I’ve presented the same 90%-of-the-heat-goes-into-the-ocean argument before. See the post here:
And here:
Once again, Miriam broadcasts to the world that she is reality impaired.
LikeLike
Miriam O’Brien (Sou) says in parentheses: “He also almost, but not quite, thanked me for deleting his address from one of the comments. It’s a shame he doesn’t share my respect for the privacy of other people.”
Miriam is right. By prefacing my thank you to her with (sarc on) it’s an “almost, but not quite” thank you to Miriam. The portion of the post to which she’s referring:
##############
(Sarc on.) I’d like to also thank the always-helpful William Connolley of Wikipedia fame and the blog Stoat for trying to post my full name and address on that thread at HotWhopper. A special thanks to Mariam O’Brian for leaving the U.S. Copyright Office website address for my book Who Turned on the Heat? (On sale for only U.S.$5.00.) Now global warming skeptics from all around the world can easily find my name, address, phone number and email address. When they’re in the neighborhood, they can take me out for a cup of coffee*. Or those who have always wanted to tip me for my work, but didn’t want to use PayPal, can now send me checks by mail. How convenient! (Sarc off.)
########
But let’s get back to her claims. Have I ever left a link to a webpage that includes her home address, phone number and email address? No, but Miriam left that link on her website. If she’s referring to my use of her photograph, it’s available on Google Image. If she is referring to using her actual name and pseudonym together, Miriam has them used together on a publicly accessible webpage, which is also available through Google:
http://www.yourlifemoments.ca/sitepages/obituary.asp?oId=814096
It was linked the front Google return page when I first checked weeks or months ago. Yes, I realize the link is to an obituary. I’m simply providing it as an example. There may be others.
Yet again, Miriam O’Brien shows she is reality impaired.
LikeLike
Miriam O’Brien (Sou) says: “Oh, and he managed to find a search term that will bring up all his drawings in Google, at least for him, if you’re interested. Which I doubt. Not everyone will find the same.”
Thanks for the idea for a blog post, Miriam.
LikeLike
Note also in the most recent blog post that my name no longer appears in quotes. She used to believe Bob Tisdale was a pseudonym, and on at least one occasion believed that I was more than one person.
LikeLike
Mr Tisdale, I am a Physical Oceanographer, have been for 23 years, I’ve just spent (wasted) 30 minutes reading a number of your blog posts and I must say, you have so little grasp of ocean physics its boggles my mind that people seem to pay attention to what you write! and you wrote a book on ENSO? unbelievable….
LikeLike
Tadpole, using a pseudonym doesn’t help your claim that you’re a Physical Oceanographer. The internet is full of anonymous cranksters. You may not like my descriptions, Tadpole, but everything I’ve written about ENSO is supported by data.
Have a good day.
LikeLike
Tadpole, if you’re not aware of a few things, I’ll explain. My posts at WUWT have been aided by oceanographers, physicists, solar physicists and the like who blog there for almost 6 years.
Further, my framing ENSO as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled recharge-discharge oscillator is simply a rewording of Trenberth et al (2002). And for over a year, Trenberth has been supporting my portrayal of ENSO residuals with his description of El Nino-caused global surface warming looking like a staircase.
I suggest you, Tadpole, reconsider your understanding of ENSO.
Have a good day.
LikeLike
Mr Tisdale, what have I gathered from your blog posts is that you attribute warming of SSTs since the mid-1970s to ENSO and you often cite Trenberth’s work as supporting this view, yet, in paragraph [22] of Trenberth et al. (2002), the authors show that over the period 1950-1998, ENSO accounts for just 13.6% of the linear trend in global mean temperature, that is, over this nearly 50 year period, 86.4% of the linear trend is NOT explained by ENSO. The Trenberth et al. 2002 paper shows interannual to decadal fluctuations in ENSO are superimposed on a background warming signal that is not related to ENSO.
LikeLike
Tadpole, you didn’t read far enough in Trenberth et al (2002). You missed the caveat at the end of the paper. It reads:
“[52] The main tool used in this study is correlation and regression analysis that, through least squares fitting, tends to emphasize the larger events. This seems appropriate as it is in those events that the signal is clearly larger than the noise. Moreover, the method properly weights each event (unlike many composite analyses). Although it is possible to use regression to eliminate the linear portion of the global mean temperature signal associated with ENSO, the processes that contribute regionally to the global mean differ considerably, and the linear approach likely leaves an ENSO residual.”
Oddly, in that same paragraph, after explaining why using linear regression analysis is flawed, they then go on to describe their findings using linear regression analysis.
On the other hand, my work has shown just how important it is to account for those ENSO residuals, because (1) the ENSO residuals are blatantly obvious outside of the East Pacific and (2) the ENSO residuals can and do contribute to global warming.
A tremendous volume of warm water can be discharged from the West Pacific Warm Pool during an El Nino and relocated into the eastern tropical Pacific. An extreme example occurred in 1997:
You fail to ask yourself something, Tadpole. Where does all of that warm water go after the El Nino?
After the peak of the El Nino, much of the residual warm water is returned to the West Pacific:
It is then transported to the poles and into the East Indian Ocean. But you know that, Tadpole.
I’m not sure why you’re trying to argue, Tadpole. This is old news. Those residuals exist. I’ve been presenting this in numerous ways for almost 6 years.
Bottom line: To properly account for the contribution of ENSO to global surface and subsurface ocean warming, each ENSO event has to be addressed separately.
Regards
LikeLike
Tadpole, in your first comment, you wrote, “Mr Tisdale, I am a Physical Oceanographer, have been for 23 years, I’ve just spent (wasted) 30 minutes reading a number of your blog posts…”
And I’ve just spent 2 minutes of my time checking to see if you visited my other blog where ENSO, sea surface temperature data and ocean heat content data are discussed. You weren’t there yesterday. Then again, you could’ve wandered over from WattsUpWithThat. The only problem: the only post at WUWT that would lead you here is yesterday’s “The Tempering Effect of the Oceans on Global Warming”:
Curiously, you didn’t comment there. And there was nothing in that post that would cause you to write “…I must say, you have so little grasp of ocean physics its boggles my mind that people seem to pay attention to what you write! and you wrote a book on ENSO? unbelievable….” That post was a simple comparison of two NODC datasets for the same ocean depths.
Over the past 6 years, I’ve responded to every question you could possibly imagine, and that’s assuming you are an oceanographer, as you claim. Further, if you were looking for answers, this is the wrong blog. Try my other website:
https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/
This all leads me to believe (1) that you’re masquerading as a “Physical Oceanographer, have been for 23 years”, (2) that you have little to no understanding of coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, and (3) that you’re nothing more than a troll looking to vent some frustrations.
That said, go vent somewhere else. You’re wasting your time, and more importantly, you’re wasting mine.
Adios.
LikeLike