you seem to think the ocean is not part of the globe in 'global' warming

You still havent taken in/responded to the material I presented in my last post. It does not consider the ocean to not be a part of the globe. You do that, and then we'll talk.

----

Let me state the missing heat problem. According to the enhanced greenhouse theory, the surface must warm in order to reach radiative equillibrium given the increased energy influx that has occurred from the increase in non-removable greenhouses gases (such as CO2). It can be argued that such warming may be postponed until such time when the (presently) warmed ocean surface water sinks and hides in the bottom, and resurfaces later. If that is indeed the case, then such mechanisms must have taken place previously as well. In which case, a fraction of the warming observed during the latter half of the 20th century could certainly have been due to such a mechanism. In which case, the IPCC's atttribution of 'most' of that warming to concurrent anthropogenic factors would be wrong

In the event that the earth system doesn't follow such delayed heat sinking and resurfacing and responds more immediately, then the lack of warming for 16 years, though it doesn't prove or disprove any theory, is definetely troublesome for such an explanation.

Mind you, a categorical statement regarding such ad-hoc theories cooked up by people such as Cook *cannot* be made given the paucity of data. But still, in case the oceans swallowed all that heat but never gave it up at a later data, then the theory of anthropogenic warming would be in real trouble.

If warming did indeed resume, say tomorrow, then we know sadly enough, that it would be blamed on 'the CO2'. Would that be the CO2 of tomorrow, or would that be the heat that is being hidden today? Even if we do figure that one out, it would still be problematic. How? It would suggest, for instance, that the heat that went into the oceans in the 1940s-1970s resurfaced in the eighties and nineties. Which would mean that the globe was warming while it was cooling (!). In case the ocean buoys (Argo) and other sensors do not see any hidden heat coming up but surface temperatures still go up, that would be back to square one too, because, that would mean that the heat of the late 90s and the 00s just completely disappeared.

The longer the pause gets, the more problematic it is for this stupid AGW theory. The situation simply suggests, and would suggest it even more strongly, that a story was spun together without taking into account all relevant factors being considered.

...I can't measure day-to-day changes ...

But, during similar short stretches of time of equal duration, say 1982 to 1998, the same change occurred and could be so confidently measured. How is that?

It is as though when your hair grows you can measure it but when it doesn't, you can't.

Which one is it? Can't measure it, or not growing?

...is rather imprecise.

Dude, you haven't answered questions raised by my earlier posts. You do that and then we'll talk.

...denier pals ...

On second thought, let us not talk.

This is probably one of the most dishonest characters I've come across.

This is an important topic. Think of this: the flaws in the MBH paper/s were pointed out almost immediately after its publication (immediate, as in, ~3-4 years after their release). For years, there was no standard response. Today, I see Richard Betts telling a commenter that MBH is 'old'. No matter that the foundation for the rest of the stuff got built on that.

Tomorrow, or whenever the temperature takes an upturn, they'll blame it on CO2 without even batting an eyelid for the lost years. Disgusting.

So, in other words, the topic is important.