At the end of the twentieth century, the mild atmospheric temperature increase of the 1980s–1990s leveled off and was followed by 15 years or more of temperature stasis. Given that atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by >24 ppm over this period, this standstill poses a problem for those who argue human emissions are causing dangerous global warming. Increasingly, this problem has been finessed by the argument that the atmosphere holds only a small percentage of the world’s heat, and what really counts is the 93 percent of global heat sequestered in the oceans. Yet no sign of significant or accelerated ocean warming exists.

The problem with the Sci Am article is that the headline claims are not substantiated by the article itself. This happens very often with headlines, including those accepted unquestioningly by "true scientists." More often than not the disconnect is the fault of the copy-editor or layout person, not the author.

Don't judge a book by its cover or an article by its headline

And yes, substantiation (for example of quotes) is called for when discussing controversial subjects.

It does not mean a thing . The heat release would be evaporation and that happens anyway.

Maybe they think the water cycle changed in their warped minds .?

Yes, and you can write John Upton here; http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do...

Yes, there is enough scientific evidence.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rapidly-warming-oceans-set-to-release-heat-into-the-atmosphere/

I know this was asked before. Since the category was changed and not by me, I would like to give everyone in Global Warming a chance to answer. Also it gives me a legitimate reason to bolster the true scientist's BAs.