The problem with Trevor's thermodynamic laws is that they seem to imply that the heat starts at the top and works down. Unfortunately, no-one seems to have been able to find any evidence of heat at the top that worked its way down. It just magically appeared there.
Also, initial analysis of the deep ocean temperatures did not show an increase in temperature. Only after the data was tortured again, technically know as re-analysis, using models and various other "corrections" did the missing thousandths of a degree appear.
Also, the missing thousandths of a degree were not found by an impartial observer but by someone with a strong interest in finding such missing heat. There is, therefore, the faint possibility of confirmation bias.
"The temperastures (sic) have been MEASURED to have increased." This is so not true. The temperatures were measured and no-one could spot any increase at all. However, after applying all kinds of corrections only then the desired results appeared.
Interestingly, we have not had a year, since records began, when every day was warmer than the same day in another year. To put it another way, if you take Jan 1 2012 and compare its temperature to all the other Jan 1's and then do the same for Jan 2, Jan 3 etc you will not find a year when every day was cooler than 2012. Some days are warmer and some not. Is what we term global warming really a warming at all?
<
And we do. But your lot keeps on rejecting it without providing a scientifically plausible alternative explanation (something otherwise quite common in 'denial science'.)
In your particular case, you are so misinformed about the subject that you write the most preposterous answers (on par with Maxx' recent stratosphere temperature trend question). Not to long ago you wrote "There is no missing heat! it is just an excuse, so the models say so much heat is being produced but we are not seeing it in the atmosphere, it must be going into the oceans. Does it not occur to them that the models might be wrong." (1)
And with that wholly uninformed answer, you admit you ignore the multiple DIRECT measurements of the heating of the world's oceans.
<<1, how the heat goes into the ocean without heating the atmosphere (what mechanism)>>
Thermodynamics. Back to school, Kano. Jeez....
<<2, when did it start going into the ocean.>>
Do you want the biblical explanation of the Scientific explanation? The latter goes back a couple of billions of years, you see.
<<3, why is it doing it now as opposed to always having done it.>>
And just what makes you assume that it is doing something fundamentally different now? Your ignorance on the subject perhaps?
<
>>http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.472737279...
And then you post a link to a graph which shows a 10 your period. Sweet. If you dislike so much being called a 'denier', how about you look at the WHOLE damn picture for a change, not cherry-picked periods which show apparent (but false) cooling? Apply the same to global surface temperature trends and you might actually learn something.
FYI, the oceans heating up is based on direct data, not models as in an earlier answer you wrongly assumed:
"We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m?2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m?2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m?2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. " World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010 – Levitus et al. (2012) (2)
"Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters Between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets – Purkey & Johnson (2010)" (3)
(Lots) more papers at: http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08...
"We skeptics are being asked can we prove how the missing heat is not going into the ocean, however it is not up to us to prove that, it is up climate alarmists to prove that it is. they should tells us"
Only anti-scientific weasels use the term "burden of proof". It is a legal term, meaningless in science. Only a ... demands that the other side has somehow a bigger obligation. And ironically, if one side did have a bigger obligation it would be you, because if it did not go into the ocean the First Law of Thermodynamics would be wrong.
And how do we know it has gone into the ocean. The temperastures have been MEASURED to have increased.
Will you now admit you were wrong?
edit
."how the heat goes into the ocean without heating the atmosphere (what mechanism)"
How is it when you turn on the heater in your house, my house does not significantly heat up?
"why is it doing it now as opposed to always having done it."
It's pretty funny that you people who keep yelling "natural variations" now assume that there could not be a natural variation at work.
"John W. the atmosphere is not warming in fact over the last ten years it has been cooling."
See the problem with people like you is that you link to these graphs that are images alone, with no indication of what they represent (it doesn't even say temperature) an no indication of how or where it was measured.
So what do I do? Curious, I type in the website written on YOUR CHART and click one link and end up here:
http://woodfortrees.org/notes
Lo and behold, I find several graphs that totally contradict your claims as well as others with all sorts of results.
The whole point, from what I can tell, of the chart you linked to was that it was part of a set of charts with differing results that were there specifically to show you could make it appear like there was cooling/warming/stasis, all if you chose the data, timeline and range strategically enough.
You are being very misleading kano. Very misleading indeed.
1. It doesn't, both the atmosphere and ocean heat up, however the ocean absorbs more energy due to it's albedo transforming it into heat, hence the mechanism is that it's darker and a liquid while air tends to be far more transparent to infrared and visible wavelengths.
2, Energy has always been going into the oceans, just leave a pot of water in the Sun and you'll see the effects.
3. It's always been doing it, however the ocean has been less able to radiate the heat away with increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere acting in much the same way that MLI, Multi-layer Insulation does.
Global warming disbelievers are only being asked to look beyond their dogma and their increasingly irrational views.
“We skeptics are being asked can we prove how the missing heat is not going into the ocean, however it is not up to us to prove that, it is up climate alarmists to prove that it is.”
? A statement has been made that the missing heat is going into the ocean. At this point the onus is upon the claimant to validate that statement.
? Evidence has been presented, the evidence validates the claim. Onus probandi fulfilled.
? If you disagree with the evidence then it’s up to you to you show why. It is now your responsibility to provide counter-evidence to support your repudiation.
Your position at the moment is basically an excuse to dodge the issue. If you want to win any argument then the most effective strategy is to go straight for the central point of the argument and explicitly refute it with reliable evidence.
The second most effective is a straightforward refutation – identify the errors and explain why they are errors. Failing that, the third best option is to counterargue the point and to back up your position with reasoning and supporting evidence.
Your strategy is what’s known as Responding To Tone, it’s the third lowest form of disagreement, only an ad-hominem or name-calling ranks lower.
<< 1, how the heat goes into the ocean without heating the atmosphere (what mechanism) >>
The laws of thermodynamics. Heat will always flow from the warmer medium to the cooler one. Across every part of the planet where the atmosphere is warmer than the ocean then heat will flow into the ocean. The atmosphere can be at 1°C and heat will still flow into the ocean if it’s at 0°C. you seem to be arguing that the second law of thermodynamics can only work when the atmosphere is in a warming phase.
<< 2, when did it start going into the ocean. >>
It first started about 3.8 billion years ago when the mass of radioactive material within Earth’s core diminished, this allowed the climate to cool and the first solid rocks formed. This led to a cooling of the atmosphere and allowed water vapour to liquefy, this fell to Earth as rain and in time this formed rivers, lakes, oceans etc. Excess heat from the atmosphere flowed into the water.
<< 3, why is it doing it now as opposed to always having done it. >>
There has always been a two-way exchange of heat between the oceans and atmosphere. The rate of exchange is influenced by the thermohaline circulation, oceanic oscillations, periods of upwelling etc. Changes to any of these factors affect the rate at which the oceans gain/lose heat.
So you see, all of your questions can be answered. Whether you accept the answers or not is of no consequence. What is of consequence is why you reject the answers, and for that you are required to present sound reasoning and a rational counterargument. Simply saying you don’t agree isn’t enough.
- - - - - - - -
RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS
Can you point out where I stated “nothing is different now than it has ever been”? I can’t seem to find it.
TO: OTTAWA MIKE: Short on space. If a skeptic did oceanic heat calculations and presented them as evidence and I disagreed I wouldn’t do what the skeptics mainly do and say “no, you’re wrong, it’s rubbish”, I’d say why I thought it was wrong and present the evidence to support my position. The case has been presented for the ‘missing heat’, if the skeptics don’t agree then they need to say why; not keep saying “I don’t believe you, it’s up to you to prove it”.
Global average SST is 17°C, AGT is 15°C. But area with SST>AGT is less than SST
TO GRAPHIC CONCEPTION: Water is densest at 4°C, less dense water forms the uppermost layer but currents, upwellings, overturnings, oscillations mix the water. Warm water can be cooled and sink to be replaced by cooler water from below. Because the SHC of water is much greater than air and the mass of the oceans far exceeds that of the atmosphere and the total missing heat is relatively small, it will only be a very small signal and hard to find – we may not have found it yet, more research is needed. However, the laws of thermodynamics still mean that heat has to be transferred to the oceans.
TO JIM: In my answer I pointed out the lowest forms of argumentative technique, so well done for giving a practical demonstration on the uses of the lowest forms.
@Trevor: ---"Evidence has been presented, the evidence validates the claim. Onus probandi fulfilled."
You use the word "evidence" very loosely. Only since the 2003 deployment of the ARGO float system has there been any type of real world observations of the ocean heat content (temperature) that have been more global and more reliable. Prior to that, there was very sparse data. The "evidence" you are referring to for global ocean heat content before the previous 10 years is actually estimation and calculation and analysis. If a skeptic did an analysis and presented it as "evidence" and claimed "Onus probandi fulfilled." you'd be all over it like stink on a goose.
---"If you disagree with the evidence then it’s up to you to you show why. It is now your responsibility to provide counter-evidence to support your repudiation."
That's been in several spots. Here is one of the better skeptics. Go ahead and read through several posts here: http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/category...
---"The laws of thermodynamics. Heat will always flow from the warmer medium to the cooler one."
Right. So what's the average global surface air temperature and the average global sea surface temperature? How does your argument stand up when it can be shown that average SST is higher?
---"What is of consequence is why you reject the answers, and for that you are required to present sound reasoning and a rational counterargument. Simply saying you don’t agree isn’t enough."
Onus probandi fulfilled.
Trevor answer is laughable as Mike so capably pointed out IMO. If the same data was used to point out the opposite, and there is zero doubt that it could, Trevor and his type would be the first to discount it. Alarmists only accept data and studies that confirm alarmism. It isn't about science. It is about protecting their cause.
It is an old con game. Prove me wrong, then when you do they come up with something else. Jeff M is a master at this. The heat isn't missing, it was never there.
The burden of proof is ALWAYS on whoever introduces the hypothesis and of course this idea was introduced by the Alarmists, so it's theirs to prove. And the idea should be given no weight whatsoever until they do so. Heh, good luck with that.
But it's a common tactic with Warmists/Alarmists to try and shift the burden of proof onto anyone else. Don't play that game with them... it's their problem not ours.
We all know that warm water rises and cold water sinks. If the oceans have swallowed up their 'missing heat' it would be measurable at the surface. But Warmists always want an exception from common sense, that's the only way their crazy theories survive.
-----------------------
Captain Obvious links a graph that's a concoction from the BEST study, then has the gall to call you misleading. Funny.
-----------------------
We skeptics are being asked can we prove how the missing heat is not going into the ocean, however it is not up to us to prove that, it is up climate alarmists to prove that it is. they should tells us.
1, how the heat goes into the ocean without heating the atmosphere (what mechanism)
2, when did it start going into the ocean.
3, why is it doing it now as opposed to always having done it.
Here is your proof.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_a...
Ten years is weather. Not even a complete Sunspot Cycle.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/fr...
The Earth is constantly trying to stay warm. The warming always has a place to go.
It went into the ocean when they couldn't keep track of it.
You have to love the monkeys who keep trying to put that cork back in the bottle.
:-)
