Dear mhaze,

Mate you didn't "say" anything of the sort. All you did was present an incomplete quote from NASA.

What you did in fact claim was this: "It took man 150 years to eject enough CO2 which according to the alarmists caused a c. 1c increase in temperatures. It took nature one day to achieve the same effect."

It is this which is demonstrably false yet no apologies from you.

Overblowing without contrition has become a bit of an art form for you it seems.

"It is this which is demonstrably false yet no apologies from you."

Its not demonstrably false. You saying its false doesn't demonstrate its false - in fact usually the opposite.

The fact is that there appears to be a temperature spike in the NH which may well be explained by the massive increase in water vapour. Models aren't of much value here since they aren't designed to measure changes in water vapour.

This is so typical of SR. He sees something he doesn't want to be true, runs off to try to find someone (anyone) who'll sooth his jaded demeanour, and when he sees something (anything) that sorta, kinda supports his views, determines that that is the only answer.

The fact is that no one knows what the effect of this monumental increase in super-heated water vapour will be and we won't know for several years. But somehow SR knows - no really he does!.

Meanwhile we see headlines saying scientists are baffled by the recent rapid increase in temperatures.

The point here isn't the quantum of the increase but that natural forces massively outweigh human forces as regards all things climate. eg "Scientists discover three new hydrothermal vent fields on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge" spewing out water hot enough to melt lead. This heats the ocean and then vents to the atmosphere to add to the greenhouse gases.

Yet the gullible still think its all down to our SUVs

WTF?

mhaze says: " neither the Argo website nor the AMO says anything like it indicates a constant increase in ocean heat content in the top 700m."

The ARGO data was examined by 5 different sources.

The data has been collated and graphed by the AMS.

Both ARGO and the AMS present this data in graphic form on their websites (not, mhaze, on the home page. You have to use the drop down menus).

The graphs show a constant increase in ocean heat content.

We know this because we have the ability to interpret information presented in graphs.

A grade 6 student could articulate that there was a constant increase in these graphs even if they did not know what information was actually being presented.

While both these organisations don't use the exact phrase "indicates a constant increase" mhaze wants to make this an arguing point.

The term used by ARGO to describe this constant increase is anomaly.

We know it is a constant increase because the graph shows a constant increase - that's why graphs are drawn so that we can interpret from them.

Usually mhaze wants to argue using deflection and semantics.

This latest effort is just plain denial.

Well provide a link to the graph. That's all I've been asking for.

mhaze - use the drop down menu on the ARGOS home page.

WTF?

mhaze it was you who mentioned the ARGO project back on 1 August.

If you did not get that informaton from the ARGO website where did you get it from?