Ocean heat is increasing? what is this magical mechanism that allows heat into the oceans without warming the surface and why is it happening now, how can we believe 3000+ temperature readings to cover 71% of earth's surface and measure to 100th of a degree to be accurate.
I only have to walk outside my house to know, climate is pretty much the same as it always has been.
Hah climate change is just like Yahoo spell checker, it just told me all 97 words I wrote were wrong.
Funny you leave out ocean heat content.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CON...
So the largest heat reservoir on the planet has shown a rapid increase over the same time period and you claim the planet is cooling. Is it any wonder people like me think people like you have marginal analytical skills?
Also, the satellite lower troposphere temperature record, which in other cases you take to be the gold standard since it comes from UAH and Christy/Spencer, shows slight warming over the same period:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:20...
Is there some reason you picked Hadley-Crut3 perhaps?
Look, face it. You don't like climate science for emotional reasons and that makes you biased. You can't discuss this objectively or rationally. That's fine, there are scared people everywhere. But please get the hell out of the way of people with the courage to at least face the problem. It might well be hopeless, but we should at least discuss whether or not we want to try to do something. Denying things are what they are like you do is infantile. Go buy some more guns, tell the women in your life what they can and can't do, or something, and let the adults work.
edit: TC, really? That's your case? The "slowdown" in the warming of the surface ocean somehow negates the rapid warming of the deep ocean, and shows the planet as a whole is cooling (even though the deep ocean contains roughly 3 times the volume, and therefore heat capacity, of the surface (and both surface and deep are warming anyway))? Seriously, are you mental or is it that you are so severely computationally challenged that you cannot do arithmetic? I don't mean that as an insult, I just want to know if there is any point in responding to you again. I have to say, you act like Mike intellectually, which I guess I do mean as an insult.
The fact is that there is still an energy imbalance of the system. What you are looking at is surface temperatures. Global ocean heat content has continued to increase. When you claim that "The world isn't still warming" that is false as you are not looking at the entire system. If an increasing amount of energy is still being retained in the system where is it going if most of it is not being used to heat the near surface atmosphere? I think this most likely comes about because of a misunderstanding.
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.or...
The 'surface' warming has slowed or paused depending on the data set you use. the energy imbalance still exists and anthropogenic global warming is still a reality.. Your claim that they are not predicted to continue warming any time soon is sort of true. If you look at the long term temperature trends we see pauses or cooling period with an overall increasing trend. This is more than likely related to some form of natural cycle such as the PDO.
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.late...
** Notice it went into negative territory in 2005. The previous substantial positive was in 1998, the year of the super El Nino. ENSO variability is directly correlated with the strength of the PDO cycle. I suspect we will see another large jump, as what occurred after 1998, after the next positive phase of the PDO. If you will look all severely negative La Nina points after 1998 are higher than many of the strongest El Ninos prior to 1998.
Edit: Reread your reply to Pegminer. You are basically stating anthropogenic global warming is a scam because the PDO absorbs heat. What happens when that heat, which has merely been redistributed, shows itself again much as it has with every PDO change in the past? And you continue to ignore the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Why is this?
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...
Your blaming of the warming on the PDO doesn't even make sense given the data. The PDO is a natural oscillatory cycle. It has little effect on the energy balance of the planet. When the PDO cycle passes, with regards to surface temperatures, there will be another abrupt climb in surface temperatures. The last climb from roughly 1979 to 1998 increased temperatures about 0.6C then when the negative PDO struck there is a a general leveling off for about 30 years. You you are of that belief you also have to bring in conspiracy theories to explain the rapid temperature increases.
regarding your statement of peer review: ftp://kakapo.ucsd.edu/pub/sio_220/e03%20...
But of course you will ignore this as well.
Here is some of the data they used.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/WOD/pr_wod....
PS: Sure glad we lived through that ice age following the 1979-1994 slowdown in upper ocean warming eh?
It all depends on how short-sighted you are. Deniers, in addition to being outrageous liars, are notoriously short-sighted.
The most recent ten year period is the warmest ten year period on record. If you want to call that "cooling," there is no law against it, but it doesn't strike me as being particularly cool, or very good evidence of cooling.
Also, saying that the ":Northern Sea Ice shows a slight decline over the same period but nothing too alarming" seems to completely miss that last year it fell to its lowest level on record.
I've given the reference to Liebmann et al "Influence of Choice of Time Period on Global Surface Temperature Trend Estimate" in here probably half a dozen times, at least. It's quite clear that you haven't read, or you choose to ignore it. Trying to draw conclusions about long-term temperature trends from 10 years worth of data is ignorant, at best, but more likely just disingenuous.
EDIT: I'm surprised you would repeat that link to ocean heat content--you do realize that hurts your case, don't you? You're like flossie, who couldn't tell the difference between a graph that was going up and one that was going down.
Another EDIT: It's amazing how you argue two directions at once and don't realize it--you use the "slowdown" as evidence against global warming, then when it's pointed out that it's showing warming, you say the warming nothing to do with AGW. You might want go get that straightened out in your head before you try using that in an argument again.
Tomcat,
What I find interesting is that you make these two statements…
1) “Southern Sea Ice shows substantial growth over the last ten years”
and…
2) “Northern Sea Ice shows a slight decline over the same period but nothing too alarming”
The reality is, and this is confirmed by the graphs you linked to, northern sea-ice has declined by more than southern sea-ice has grown. Your bias is very evident.
Another interesting observation, skeptics in general vilified the global temperature record when it showed warming claiming it was biased, doctored, fabricated etc. Why do they now accept it without question when it shows no warming?
You may already know that the growth of Antarctic sea-ice is a projected and observed consequence of global warming. Meltwater from Antarctica is entering the oceans, the less dense fresh water floats on top of the denser ocean, the ocean water has salts and minerals dissolved in it so freezes at below 0°C, unlike the meltwater which is fresh, and therefore readily freezes when it enters the oceans.
To answer your question, let’s liken it to a bathtub partly filled with warm water. You turn on the hot tap and the water in the bath warms up. Now you turn on the cold tap, the hot and cold water entering into the bath are balanced and the water temperature remains the same. Change the flow from either tap and you’re going to get warming or cooling.
The skeptics perspective appears to be that the atmosphere (bathwater) is neither warming nor cooling and therefore the hot tap (global warming) has been turned off. The reality is that the hot water is still running but now it’s mixing with cold water. The problem is that the cold water is likely to get turned off long before the warm water does and when that happens the warming will recommence.
Currently just about every climatic influence is in it’s respective cooling phase. Short term (months) we have things like ENSO which are currently negative, slightly longer (years) we have the solar cycles which are declining, medium term (decades) we have the oceanic oscillations the net effect of which is negative, longer term (centuries) we have solar variation which is positive and long term (millennia) we have orbital variations which are negative.
If there was no warming component then the average global temperature would have been plunging downward for decades, instead it’s risen in these last 30 or so years at the fastest rate in known history.
Add into the mix the unknown variable of cooling and dimming emissions from the expanding Asian economies. These sulphates and particulate emissions are reflecting and absorbing incoming solar energy before it reaches us. Figures are difficult to calculate, the emissions could be countering as little as 4% of manmade global warming or as much as 59% of it, it’s likely to be somewhere in the order of a third.
Based solely on the data for the last nine years then the average global temperature has stabilised at it’s highest level since at least the last but one ice age. This does not mean that global warming never existed, has stopped or temporarily gone away. It means that the warming is being countered by numerous cooling and dimming factors.
In addition to all of this, an as yet unquantified amount of heat energy is probably going into the oceans (we measure how much energy comes into the Earth system and how much goes out, we know how much heat Earth is retaining but don’t know exactly where it is). The more heat goes into the ocean the less the atmosphere is going to warm.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that these various cooling influences are all temporary, the exception being the orbital variations that will be negative for thousands of years. ENSO will go into it’s positive phase – as it always does, net oceanic oscillations will become positive – as they always do. The Chinese and Indian governments have announced measures to reduce emissions of the dimming pollutants, when that happens they will dissipate out of the atmosphere in as little as three years.
My advice to the skeptics is to enjoy the pause whilst it lasts, make the most of it and start planning your excuses for when the warming trend resumes in the future.
Yes believers in agw have now decided that the Jewish holocaust didn't really happen, which as we all know was the true implication behind their denier slur.
00000 They are gonna get you!
Your gonna be roasted!
How dare you attempt to utilize empirical data to review scientific matters.
The models are truth. The models are real. The models know and see all! Trust the models!
lol
Good info. Thanks.
Yes the people of Al Gore's Church of Climatology are the deniers.
Global Warmers are forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'Deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million people is far from appropriate.
Do Skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question:
Who denies natural climate change?
Who denies the importance of variable solar irradiance and the possible importance of solar modulation of galactic cosmic rays?
Who denies that our Sun is a variable star?
Who denies that our oceans contain the vast majority of mobile heat on this planet and therefore
dominate our climate, year to year and decade to decade?
Who denies the importance of natural ocean cycles like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), discovered by researchers studying salmon?
Who denies clear cyclical variations in our climate, easily traceable to ocean cycles?
Who denies that our recent warming commenced about 1830, long before significant burning of
fossil fuels?
Who denies that ice core data clearly show that recent warming is consistent with previous
warm periods, like the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan?
Who denies that CO2 lags temperature in the ice core data by as much as 800 years and hence is
a product of climate change not a cause?
Who denies 150 years of chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 that suggest that ice core
reconstructions of past CO2 concentrations are low by 60 ppm?
Who denies that the global temperature went down for three decades after World War II, despite
significant increases in human emissions of CO2 due to industrialization?
Who denies that water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas and by far the dominant climate gas,
not CO2?
Who denies that increasing CO2 is a substantial benefit to plants and therefore helps us feed the
seven billion people on this planet?
Who denies that our oceans are alkaline not acidic and can never turn acidic because of
buffering?
Who denies that the EPA's three "Lines of Evidence" supporting their Endangerment Finding on
CO2 are all fatally flawed?
Who denies the leveling off of the Global Temperature for the past 15 years?
Who denies that the 'Hotspot' (required by Global Warming theory) does not exist in the tropical
troposphere?
Who denies that all 73 computerized climate models are epic failures?
Who denies that theories which fail validation tests are dead?
Who denies the supremacy of evidence over theory?
Who denies the supremacy of logic and evidence over authority and consensus?
Who denies that Extreme Weather has always been with us and cannot be traced to CO2?
Who denies that the Climategate e-mails showed fundamental cheating by those scientists promoting Global Warming?
Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?
In short, who denies both the science and the scientific method?
Your claims are at variance with the facts. So it is you who is in denial
The last ten+ years of data indicates that average global temperatures show a decline
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/trend
Global Sea Surface temperatures show a decline over the same period
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2002/trend
Southern Sea Ice shows substantial growth over the last ten years
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2002/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:2002/trend
Northern Sea Ice shows a slight decline over the same period but nothing too alarming
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2002/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/from:2002/trend
3 out of 4 commonly used climate metrics indicate that over the last ten years the world has cooled. This isn't cherry picking, the cooling trend may be natural variability, but it darn sure isn't warming, so to claim that the world is still warming after reviewing this evidence is one either lying or just in complete denial about the current state of Earths climate or is there some legitimate evidence collected that is commonly used as a metric to gauge earths climate that I haven't seen. And if you continue to chant the tired statement, that "the last decade saw more record temps than any decade before", I repeat, is their some legitimate evidence collected that is commonly used as a metric to gauge earths climate that I haven't seen? A least Square Fit of most data over the last ten years shows cooling? Temperatures are not just flat they are cooling, they might reverse or they might flatten out but they are declining and they were predicted to cool and not stop anytime soon. How many years of declining global temperatures must you see to at least admit that the warming paused?
