Warmists seeing what they want to see
There is a post at the Warmist "Real Climate" site in which they compare predicted warming with actual temperatures so far. There is some match between the two so the post and the comments on it ooze self-satisfaction.
A comment by Doug Proctor rather pricks that balloon, however. He points out that the absolute degree of warming shown in the 30 years of data that they use is quite small and just what you would expect of the long term warming that was going on long before the period usually pointed to by Warmists. So there has been some warming in recent years but no sign of an anthropogenic signal.
Proctor's comment is reproduced below. Gavin Schmidt added a reply to it but did not address the low magnitude of the warming. "CAGW" means "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming"
"In your graph of temperature measurements vs model projections, you discuss Scenario B, while it appears that Scenario C is almost identical to HadCrut3 and GisTemp. All three are about 0.185K/decade. Is this not the general trend from 1900, and considered a reflection of natural warming coming out of the LIA?
The CAGW worry I have is based on 3K/century. I expected that we would be in the acccelerating >2.0K/century by now, 22 years after the 1988 initiation of the concerns. At any rate, while global warming is certainly still occurring, doesn’t your graph here suggest that there is only a “background” type of warming going on, the non-feedback type that we thought would be such a problem?
I’m also confused by the comparison between the temperature graphs and the ocean warming graphs, certainly by the Lyman portion of the ocean heating graph. If the oceans take up and hold the heat so much more than the atmosphere, and then warm the atmosphere because the oceans are warmer, why do the two trends of ocean heat and atmospheric temperature not follow each other? Up to 2002 the Lyman measurements match, as if the ocean and atmosphere were in equilibrium. Then they diverge, and do so from the other data compliers’. Did Lyman’s methodology change in 2002?
Rather than support the CAGW, this post seems to support global warming of a moderate level, but not of a disastrous level. The Lyman divergence is very odd. It is possible that Lyman is measuring a transfer of oceanic heat from warm waters to cool waters through circulation changes than increased retention of solar energies?"