Deep ocean warming responsible for surface warming respite

[Crick]

I find it amusing that you think you have some meaningful criticism of BTK 2013 because he graphs total heat content (which you seem to think is an average) rather than temperature and then repeat your utter nonsensical current obsession concerning global average temperatures. And this after I show you 47 different, peer-reviewed studies that cite BTK 2013 and come to consistent conclusions.

Where is the peer reviewed work that - did your comments have any significance AT ALL - refutes BTK 2013?

 

[IanC]

crick- before BTK did you trust the OHC figures? You seem to agree with whatever new study comes out regardless of what you thought the day before. All these new studies are attributing larger and larger amounts of control of the climate to natural factors. Is that your position now or do you still think CO2 is the prime directive?

 

[SSDD]

As noted here repeatedly...

From Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration

ABSTRACT
A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Niña–like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.

If you want to find your missing heat look to the top of the atmosphere...You will find it there in the increased LW at the ToA.

 

[SSDD]

We're back to "the ocean ate the global warming" excuse

But it's a different ocean this time...when this excuse doesn't work out, maybe it will be the china sea, or the indian ocean...or hell, maybe even the great lakes even though the ice just finished melting from last winter.

 

[Crick]

crick- before BTK did you trust the OHC figures? You seem to agree with whatever new study comes out regardless of what you thought the day before. All these new studies are attributing larger and larger amounts of control of the climate to natural factors. Is that your position now or do you still think CO2 is the prime directive?

I'm curious what you think I was thinking prior to BTK and why I should reject new data; new information. I thought that was the purpose of research and the application of the scientific method. Perhaps this is a conservative/liberal issue. Liberals like to see new data while conservatives prefer to stick with the old.

And seeing you putting out "still think CO2 is the prime directive" is disappointing. What I think is that the first and/or second order effects of AGW have caused changes in wind patterns and ocean circulation that have led to this subduction effect. I strongly suspect that this same process may be the cause of the 1941-1979 cooling, but I'm not a climate scientist. That's what I think.

I also think it's disappointing how easily you all manage to ignore the continuing and growing radiative imbalance at the ToA. To my mind, that's the elephant in the room and he's standing on your toes.

 

[flacaltenn]

I find it amusing that you think you have some meaningful criticism of BTK 2013 because he graphs total heat content (which you seem to think is an average) rather than temperature and then repeat your utter nonsensical current obsession concerning global average temperatures. And this after I show you 47 different, peer-reviewed studies that cite BTK 2013 and come to consistent conclusions.

Where is the peer reviewed work that - did your comments have any significance AT ALL - refutes BTK 2013?

NOAA had issues with BTK re-analysis and conclusions. I've cited several studies debunking the finding of volcanic signatures in the Model outputs. Which are nothing but ARTIFACTS of errors in the modeling.

But MOREOVER -- the conclusion that they find EXACTLY what is missing from the Surface heat budget to account for the hiatus is just Hoax and Conspiracy material. The ANOMALY they report that matches the surface deficit exactly --- is taken from a 1960s baseline. And there is NO AGREEMENT on how the heat was skimmed from the surface because the RATES in the data don't MATCH the temporal occurence of the hiatus. It's a poor premise. As SUBSEQUENT papers are now pointing out. AND -- BTK NEVER PUBLISHED A REAL PAPER after their "noteform" new flash.. Wonder why???

It's over Bullwinkle.. The science just got real and the charlatans are exiting stage left..

 

[flacaltenn]

crick- before BTK did you trust the OHC figures? You seem to agree with whatever new study comes out regardless of what you thought the day before. All these new studies are attributing larger and larger amounts of control of the climate to natural factors. Is that your position now or do you still think CO2 is the prime directive?

 

[IanC]

The TOA satellite figures seem to show slight trends for increasing SW and decreasing LW leaving the earth. The differenc between incoming solar and outgoing radiation is so large that an arbitrary offset was imposed, 0.85w, equal to the modellers expectations. The trends may have reasonable precision but the absolte values have little accuracy.

 

[Crick]

I repeat

Where is the peer reviewed work that - did your comments have any significance AT ALL - refutes BTK 2013?

NOAA had issues with BTK re-analysis and conclusions. I've cited several studies debunking the finding of volcanic signatures in the Model outputs. Which are nothing but ARTIFACTS of errors in the modeling.

But MOREOVER -- the conclusion that they find EXACTLY what is missing from the Surface heat budget to account for the hiatus is just Hoax and Conspiracy material. The ANOMALY they report that matches the surface deficit exactly --- is taken from a 1960s baseline. And there is NO AGREEMENT on how the heat was skimmed from the surface because the RATES in the data don't MATCH the temporal occurence of the hiatus. It's a poor premise. As SUBSEQUENT papers are now pointing out. AND -- BTK NEVER PUBLISHED A REAL PAPER after their "noteform" new flash.. Wonder why???

Let's see these "subsequent papers". Let's bounce them against the 47 papers I've already identified that concur with BTK 2013.

 

[flacaltenn]

I repeat

Where is the peer reviewed work that - did your comments have any significance AT ALL - refutes BTK 2013?

NOAA had issues with BTK re-analysis and conclusions. I've cited several studies debunking the finding of volcanic signatures in the Model outputs. Which are nothing but ARTIFACTS of errors in the modeling.

But MOREOVER -- the conclusion that they find EXACTLY what is missing from the Surface heat budget to account for the hiatus is just Hoax and Conspiracy material. The ANOMALY they report that matches the surface deficit exactly --- is taken from a 1960s baseline. And there is NO AGREEMENT on how the heat was skimmed from the surface because the RATES in the data don't MATCH the temporal occurence of the hiatus. It's a poor premise. As SUBSEQUENT papers are now pointing out. AND -- BTK NEVER PUBLISHED A REAL PAPER after their "noteform" new flash.. Wonder why???

Let's see these "subsequent papers". Let's bounce them against the 47 papers I've already identified that concur with BTK 2013.

We are discussing one of them RIGHT HERE dumbass. And I would never trust your judgement on the details of ONE paper, nevermind 47 of them. Aint no way I am goin into support of things that have been posted here multiple times with you. You have the memory of a marmot. You dont listen, you generally dont get it --- and you dont WANT to debate, so of course you have no motivativation to remember crap that conflicts with your Marmot level of comprehension.

 

[IanC]

I think you nailed it flac. Crickham is second only to Old Rocks in disremembering evidence against his talking points.

 

[Crick]

Let's see the fucking papers.

 

[skookerasbil]

I repeat

Where is the peer reviewed work that - did your comments have any significance AT ALL - refutes BTK 2013?

NOAA had issues with BTK re-analysis and conclusions. I've cited several studies debunking the finding of volcanic signatures in the Model outputs. Which are nothing but ARTIFACTS of errors in the modeling.

But MOREOVER -- the conclusion that they find EXACTLY what is missing from the Surface heat budget to account for the hiatus is just Hoax and Conspiracy material. The ANOMALY they report that matches the surface deficit exactly --- is taken from a 1960s baseline. And there is NO AGREEMENT on how the heat was skimmed from the surface because the RATES in the data don't MATCH the temporal occurence of the hiatus. It's a poor premise. As SUBSEQUENT papers are now pointing out. AND -- BTK NEVER PUBLISHED A REAL PAPER after their "noteform" new flash.. Wonder why???

Let's see these "subsequent papers". Let's bounce them against the 47 papers I've already identified that concur with BTK 2013.

Nobody cares s0n.........Judith Curry would laugh at you!!! Climate alarmism is largely responsible for putting AGW science DECADES behind >>>

The Kardashians And Climate Change Interview With Judith Curry Zero Hedge

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[flacaltenn]

I repeat

Where is the peer reviewed work that - did your comments have any significance AT ALL - refutes BTK 2013?

NOAA had issues with BTK re-analysis and conclusions. I've cited several studies debunking the finding of volcanic signatures in the Model outputs. Which are nothing but ARTIFACTS of errors in the modeling.

But MOREOVER -- the conclusion that they find EXACTLY what is missing from the Surface heat budget to account for the hiatus is just Hoax and Conspiracy material. The ANOMALY they report that matches the surface deficit exactly --- is taken from a 1960s baseline. And there is NO AGREEMENT on how the heat was skimmed from the surface because the RATES in the data don't MATCH the temporal occurence of the hiatus. It's a poor premise. As SUBSEQUENT papers are now pointing out. AND -- BTK NEVER PUBLISHED A REAL PAPER after their "noteform" new flash.. Wonder why???

Let's see these "subsequent papers". Let's bounce them against the 47 papers I've already identified that concur with BTK 2013.

We are discussing one of them RIGHT HERE dumbass. And I would never trust your judgement on the details of ONE paper, nevermind 47 of them. Aint no way I am goin into support of things that have been posted here multiple times with you. You have the memory of a marmot.

I think you nailed it flac. Crickham is second only to Old Rocks in disremembering evidence against his talking points.

Thanks for that apt description.. "... dismembering evidence against his talking points". All I could come up with was "selective amnesia"..

And here he is DEMANDING to be fed the same stuff that has been discussed about BTK in AT LEAST 8 freakin' threads.. As THO, he is suddenly gonna be a trusted debater and not just an agitator.. As THO -- suddenly NOW -- he'll have an opinion and a retort that matters.

 

[Crick]

As though you actually had something significant in opposition to BTK 2013.

 

[Dot Com]

Except for the Church faithful that doesn't know the party is over... That is..
Like the socially inept party guest that doesn't understand why you are yawning and
in your pajamas....

Is that type of remark expected in this sub-forum???

 

[Rehmani]

As noted here repeatedly...

From Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration

ABSTRACT
A vacillating global heat sink at intermediate ocean depths is associated with different climate regimes of surface warming under anthropogenic forcing: The latter part of the 20th century saw rapid global warming as more heat stayed near the surface. In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Niña–like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. Cooling periods associated with the latter deeper heat-sequestration mechanism historically lasted 20 to 35 years.

As the world already working to plan more trees and reduce gases and treat water before released it, which is good but we have to do more than that 7 billion mankind should buried their dead bodies,pets dead bodies and green wast as well. AS A MANKIND ONE IDENTICAL ACTION BY THE 7 BILLION TO SHOW OUR UNITY AND CARE OF MOTHER NATURE EARTH.

 

[Crick]

Still waiting for the peer reviewed studies refuting BTK and the many concurring follow-on studies.

 

[Old Rocks]

Still waiting for the peer reviewed studies refuting BTK and the many concurring follow-on studies.

You are not going to get even one. These silly assholes cannot do anything other than flap yap. Even the one claiming a Phd in Geology will not give you a peer reviewed study. When called on repeatedly, he gives you something from Anthony Watts.