Does it not occur to them that the models might be wrong.
The oceans have cycles with heat going in and out, yes but they have always done that and it is no different now.
Most of the excess retained atmospheric heat goes to melt ice. Ice absorbs heat.. that's why people put it in their beer coolers. Oddly, the melting ice tends to cool sea water, so while some heat does warm sea water the melting ice tends to modify this heat increase. This 'climate change' business is a holistic system. Saying the ocean water isn't any warmer, or the atmosphere isn't much warmer leaves out the melting Artic ice pack and the various shrinking glaciers. The Antarctic ice pact also absorbs heat, but simply not enough to actually melt. Mainly because most of that area is high mountains where the atmosphere is colder and the ocean currents there are different.
No matter how many people attempt to protect the massive burning of high profit fossil fuels the data shows massive increases in atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 in turn works to retains massive amounts of solar heat. Yes, this happened many times before, but not for this particular reason... also then we were not moving toward nine billion human beings in this world. Anyone who ever took algebra knows that if you change even one variable the outcome when you get to X equals Y will change. Adding massive amounts of heat is a variable in a closed atmospheric system. I can see arguing with the data, but how can you argue with the math?
We know because the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere still exists. Energy does not just disappear. We've measured much of what you call 'missing heat' and it is most likely the consequence of a negative PDO/ENSO cycle.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Check tabs 2 and 3 in the link below.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CON...
yes it will show itself again when the PDO goes into it's positive phase. If we look at a graph of temperatures we see that the PDO has a rather large effect on them. The overall trend is still positive though.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
This affects temperature variations at the surface as the oceans are one of the major factors in regional surface temperature variation trends. The claim of "the planet has been cooling since..." and using a time frame of 15 years or less is due specifically to these ENSO conditions. The claim that it has been cooling for 15 years is mentioned above. The claim that it has been cooling for 10 years is due to the fact that the strong ENSO conditions since about 2006/07 have brought the trend during that time ot below the baseline. If you take it 1 year longer you get a positive trend. If you chop the time frame into sections you get two positive trends. The reason why the years selected are showing a pause is because the years are cherry picked to show that pause. There has not been a pause. There has been a slowdown in the rate of warming due to what is considered noise.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/...
Edit: Jeff Engr's contention that the new analysis system does not show the heat going into the deep ocean is wrong. He is most likely talking about the ORAS4 system.
http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~huardda/arti...
The outcome supports the idea that the heat is going into the deep oceans.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/we...
"Meehl et al. [2011] have demonstrated in a model study how La Ni?a events and negative PDO events could cause a hiatus in warming of the top 300 m while sequestering heat at deeper layers. This mechanism can also explain the increasing role of the depths below 700 m after 1999 in the ORAS4 OHC, consistent with La Ni?a-like conditions and a negative phase of the PDO which has dominated the last decade. The deep ocean warming, which mostly involves the depth range 700–2000 m, may also be related to the weakening of the MOC after 1995, which is present in ORAS4 [BMW13]. Possibly changes in MOC and PDO are connected through changes in the atmospheric circulation patterns"
Maxx: Pay attention to what is posted. It states that recorded temps follow the model produced by Meehl. Read more carefully. This has been measured. The linked peer reviewed journal shows this. The measurements show this. The reason for it shows this. The model follows the measurements. The reason being what I have consistently posted in here. That being the PDO and the related ENSO.
This excuse just points to the immaturity of climate science.
Science is generally used to predict things. Climate science cannot predict things. Even the IPCC models are not claimed to make predictions, they just offer possible scenarios. So when something climate scientists do not understand happens they try to think of excuses after the event. Saying that the missing heat is going into the oceans is just one example.
The problem is that this excuse invalidates what they were telling us before. They told us that ever increasing surface temperatures were spelling doom. Now they tell us that that did not matter after all! They also now need to explain why sometimes the heat goes into the atmosphere and sometimes into the oceans. What changed?
The previous time we had a problem with missing heat was when they decided that although nowhere was getting any warmer global average temperatures were increasing because the night time temperature in the Arctic was still increasing. These places are always where we do not have any temperature probes to work out if they are telling the truth or not. How convenient.
If the heat can come out in the future, how do we know that the 20th century increases were not the heat leaving the oceans then and not connected with CO2?
Perhaps the little man who wasn't there has this "imaginary missing heat" in his pocket.
Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
he wasn't there again today
Oh how I wish he'd go away
maybe the scientists have measurements? The planet as a whole is warming- consequences included melting arctic and weirder weather.
no the "earth" has not cooled off recently, unless you count 10-15 years of noise in LAND surface temperature significant.
you cannot change the laws of physics, CO2 is a greenhouse gas
Ahhh this is GREAT, Jeff M introduces more models to explain why the models have been so FANTASTICALLY WRONG, and the uber-Warmist Trenberth is involved in these models too.
I'm sure these new models will prove to be just as reliable as the old ones.
So if the missing heat is in the oceans, does that mean we need to drain the oceans?
CO2 doesn't heat the oceans, the Sun does.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/0...
-----------------------
It is "possible" that there is missingheat here. However every empirical measurement, including some new sets of deep water measurements, show no evidence of it. This missing heat while theoretically possible appears to be extremely elusive. So much so that it almost appears to be sentient in its ability to avoid measuement and/or detection.
There is more evidence supporting bigfoot...
@ Toby: The amount of energy needed to heat one gallon of water 1 degree is 1 calorie. This is the physicial scientific definition of a calorie. A single tic tac breath mint is worth 10 calories... The large amounts of energy where you do not see significant temp changes are when you are getting phase changes. i.e. From ice to water or water to steam. These phase changes do require significant amounts of energy. This is why thermal storgae systems for cooling use ice and why many heating systems use steam.
Unicorns do exist. I have an ensemble of computer models that shows this. I haven't observed any unicorns in nature so I conclude they are all in my closet ... which nobody can open.
True scientists - 1
Trevor and his expensive peer reviewed Climate Scientists - 0
The "missing heat" has gone into the oceans.
How do we know?
Has every part of the ocean received an equal share of the "missing heat" ?
Will it come out again, if so where?
If the ocean was cool before this but has now warmed, how come, no matter what the timescale, the Earth has cooled recently?
So the models were wrong.
