Eclipse (apt name),
In the absence of the supportive evidence requested, I accept your acknowledgment of misrepresentation, to which you have now added.

EN: "If you don't accept his projections, why have you made such a fuss over him?"

Did I say I don't accept his projections? Did you just make this up?

EN: "I for one hope Latif is right, and if global temperatures follow his graphs as ACCURATELY AS THEY ALREADY HAVE FOLLOWED PREVIOUS CLIMATOLOGIST MODELS LIKE HANSEN'S, then will you admit you were wrong around 2015 to 2020?"

Wrong about what? You really need to start actually being clear, Eclipse. Century trends? 15 - 20 years? Six to 11 years time? Next two years? Make up your mind.

And why should I submit to some test in your black/white, right/wrong, good/evil world, when if temps drop to 2015 you will just say "see, Latif was right" or if they go up, "see, someone else was".

Hey, one of today's astrologers was absolutely right - "you will waste your time talking into a vacuum.

**Whitmus**
You're the one that raised Latif, not me. Now you're acting confused as to why you did? EG: "Did I quote Latif to disprove global warming (or at least prove how inconsistent their models are) or didn't I?"

**GrahamY**
I have already quoted papers on ocean warming. If you don't want to read them, that's your business.

You're hiding behind generalisations.

EG: In SOME places the ocean is warmer than the atmosphere, but in many places the atmosphere is warmer than the oceans.

[quote]Temperature changes vary over the globe. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade).[15] Ocean temperatures increase more slowly than land temperatures because of the larger effective heat capacity of the oceans and because the ocean loses more heat by evaporation.[16][/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

"The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for June, breaking the previous high mark set in 2005, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. Additionally, the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for June was second-warmest on record. The global records began in 1880."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090725120303.htm

"Taking the average of the five model runs, the team found that over the last decade, heat content in the top 750 meters of the ocean increased by 6.0 plus or minus 0.6 watt-years per square meter. (A watt year is the amount of energy delivered by one watt of power over one year.) What kind of energy imbalance would it take to generate that much heat? The models predicted that as of 2003, the Earth would have to be absorbing about 0.85 watts per square meter more energy than it was radiating back into space—an amount that closely matched the measurements of ocean warming that Willis had compiled in his previous work. The Earth, they conclude, has an energy imbalance.
“I describe this imbalance as the smoking gun or the innate greenhouse effect,” Hansen says. “It’s the most fundamental result that you expect from the added greenhouse gases."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/HeatBucket/heatbucket3.php

Oh dear! Hard to know what to make of Eclipse, so I'll just post this for the record, and info of others.

EN: "You're the one that raised Latif, not me."

This is incorrect. EN referred to Latif on this thread on Monday, 12 October 2009 at 7:39:48 PM, and subsequently at the following times:

Wednesday, 14 October 2009 7:23:47 PM
Sunday, 18 October 2009 6:53:26 PM
Monday, 19 October 2009 9:01:59 AM

All this before I responded on Monday, 19 October 2009 at 1:13:57 PM

EN: "Now you're acting confused as to why you did?"

No, in my subsequent post I stated that I believed Latif presented a problem for EN. Each of his responses has only confirmed this.

EN: "EG. 'Did I quote Latif to disprove global warming (or at least prove how inconsistent their models are) or didn't I?'"

I can't respond to this as it is unclear to me who EN is quoting. These things (" ") are quotation marks. They are used to indicate a quotation.

All this from a bloke who wrote, and I quote, "I admit to being cranky with dishonest bloggers that quote *real* climatologists out of context and try to force their words into something else. What part of that behaviour is OK with you?"

Whitmus, you're right, you did not raise it first but JF Aus first mentioned it by just posting this BBB article without any comment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

You then had 2 banal posts totally ignored. I explained to JF Aus the difference between the Denialist 1998-2008 myth and Latif's *future* models, you ranted so bad half your post was DELETED!

After your outburst, I calmly admitted to being cranky with dishonest bloggers that quote out of context.

Then YOU posted

"Latif is a still a problem... and shows what a proverbial dog's breakfast climate science has become."
Monday 19th October

You can't seem to distinguish between 1998-2008 and the FUTURE.

(Graham, please quote Latif if you think he stated 1998-2008).

Did 1998 to 2008 "cool" Can you at least answer that GrahamY and Witmus?

But Whitmus has to decide if the Latif model really invalidates climate science as a "dogs breakfast" or represents EXACTLY the kind of peer reviewed scientific advance that we see in genuine science which takes into account new data.

Denialist Dogma doesn't really propose testable, workable counter-theories. It just sneers from the sidelines.

Gee, wouldn't it be ironic if the real climatologists modelled a decade's cooling and a leading SCEPTIC once again proved to be inaccurate and modelled warming because he was so frightened of being stuck with the 1998 myth? But wouldn't it also be *tragic* if Latif turned out to be right about 2100. The good news for Witmus is he won't be around to see it. The bad news for my kids is someone let Witmus have the vote.

EN: "Whitmus, you're right..."

Yes, I was. I think that was an admission. Eclipse could have just stopped there, but instead of the customary apology, continued for some reason known only to him with some waffle or other that didn't alter the fact.

It did get interesting though, when he wrote:

"Then YOU posted

'Latif is a still a problem... and shows what a proverbial dog's breakfast climate science has become.'
Monday 19th October"

It seems EN is determined to prove just how dishonest and hypocritical he is, omitting the words "for you" (that is, for EN), completely altering the meaning.

Why did he do that I wonder? He gets cranky at that sort of behaviour.

Anyway, thankfully, Eclipse doesn't seem to have much confidence in Latif's short term projections, and said himself that Latif had less confidence in his models in the longer term to 2100, so I think I'll take my chances, rather than listen to EN's dishonesty.

Witmus,
I did not mean to change the meaning of your entry. I’ll try again.

"In context, Latif is a still a problem, at least for you "ol' pal", and shows what a proverbial dog's breakfast climate science has become. You have belittled anyone who has been curious about the, at most, plateauing of temps in last decade and argued against it with much sarcasm! Now that Latif is backing a decline, instead of acknowledging that it validates those who've read the graphs in this way, and you admitting you were wrong, we discover that we should not be looking at actual temperature (T1) at all, but some imaginary temp (T2) that is being masked."

1. I do not belittle curiosity, but scold Denialist myths, one of which is the "cooling since 1998" myth.
"Each of the last 12 years (1997-2008) was one of the warmest on record, although the last two years have grown cooler, not warmer (see chart below). These years could be the warmest years for the last several thousand years according to the temperature record, not just since 1880, but the most recent data is the most accurate.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_since_1880

2. Will you or GrahamY please show me where Latif states 2008 is the start of the cooling trend HE is discussing? I just don't have time to look.

3. If REAL cooling occurs according to Latif's model I would be grateful for any breaks that the natural system and peer-reviewed science gives us. But what about 2100 in this model?

4. There Latif is hardly "a problem for me ol' pal" but is instead just another model urging extreme action because the oceans have such long lead times. If they take longer to heat, they also take longer to cool. = trouble.