I see. The Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres is biased. Well yes, I suppose that they are. They are scientists, so they tend to be biased in letting the evidence speak for itself, rather than trying to present things as they think 'they ought to be'.
Whatever the bias of the source, when evidence is presented, best address the evidence.
Skeptical Science is a geered toward attacking anything that does not fanatically support AGW. It is what it is.
The data that they use to show that the cooling ocean is actually warming is only useful to support their goal when that data is changed. They do so with a complex and scientific method that turns actual data into actual doo-doo.
Here is another site that just looks at the actual data . The first link is the article and the second link is a graph that shows what the actual data reveals:
Jennifer Marohasy » Ocean Cooling Falsifies Global Warming Hypothesis
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dipuccio-2.jpg
Well, well, a blog, quoting a Mr. Dipuccio. It would seem to me that if one wanted to debate the many scientists whose work I posted, most of whom have Dr. before their name, that one would find some of those abundant scientists with Phd.s that you claim are out there disputing the warming.
The scientists whose work you posted used data from Argo which showed cooling since the full deployment in 2003 and produced a conclusion that shows warming. This blog merely re-states what the data said.
Have I claimed that there are "abundant scientists" disputing warming? I think what i've been doing is simply producing reasonable doubt into a discussion that should be based on data.
Here is the whole article by Mr. DiPuccio. It staes some very compelling facts and seems to be quite well researched and based on the work of people who have "Dr." before their names.
The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat « Watts Up With That?
From the article:
<snip>
Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCCs AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earths climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.
<snip>
See what's been done here? They examine a set of data and draw a conclusion. By applying their conclusion to succeeding sets of data, we find that the conclusion was false, the data was wrong or the examination was faulty.
Are these jokers scientists or snake oil salesmen? That is the question that is repeatedly presented. When the work of the AGW crowd stops begging that question, their work will be less suspect.