Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997, study finds

[ScienceRocks]

Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997, study finds

January 18, 2016 by By Seth Borenstein

The amount of man-made heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997, a new study says.

Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world's oceans instead of the ground. And they've seen ocean heat content rise in recent years. But the new study, using ocean-observing data that goes back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s and including high-tech modern underwater monitors and computer models, tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-01-man-made-oceans.html#jCp


Confirming what the warmers have been saying for the past half 2/3rds of a decade. The oceans are taking most of the energy!!!

 

[Muhammed]

There is absolutely no proof of that.

You global warming nutters are foolish.

 

[ScienceRocks]

There is absolutely no proof of that.

You global warming nutters are foolish.

Based on sst(ocean temperature) from buoies, ships and satellite you're very wrong. What do you get the idea that we don't have teh data since the late 1990's to make this study???

You anti-science nutters are far more foolish.

 

[Muhammed]

There is absolutely no proof of that.

You global warming nutters are foolish.

Based on sst(ocean temperature) from buoies, ships and satellite you're very wrong. What do you get the idea that we don't have teh data since the late 1990's to make this study???

You anti-science nutters are far more foolish.

You are anti-science, but you're not intelligent enough to know it.

You're also naive.

 

[Two Thumbs]

are we finally doomed?

b/c we were doomed back in the 70's
then doomed in the 90's by the 00's

I mean really, if 3rd times a charm, you guys are on your 3rd, 3rd, 3rd charm.

Ice is still there, cat-5 hurricanes are not normal, more polar bears, NYC is not under water, etc, etc.

 

[IanC]

this is the first point I would like to make on OHC. the models run ridiculously hot. the graph above is wrong. the model trend line and the observation trend line do not intersect, the model is already higher in 2003 and has diverged wildly ever since.

 

[Missourian]

Another "The Ocean Ate My Global Warming" thread???

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is absolutely no proof of that.

You global warming nutters are foolish.

Based on sst(ocean temperature) from buoies, ships and satellite you're very wrong. What do you get the idea that we don't have teh data since the late 1990's to make this study???

You anti-science nutters are far more foolish.

You are anti-science, but you're not intelligent enough to know it.

You're also naive.

The thing is, I've seen your two posts so far, and you haven't made any claims at all. All you've done is try and put down an argument by making some snide remarks.

Is this right wing "science", just say whatever you think will put people down?

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is absolutely no proof of that.

You global warming nutters are foolish.

Based on sst(ocean temperature) from buoies, ships and satellite you're very wrong. What do you get the idea that we don't have teh data since the late 1990's to make this study???

You anti-science nutters are far more foolish.

Lmao so the ocean now is only 18 years old and that represents a trend?

 

[cnm]

the graph above is wrong.

So, what, because that model is wrong this [information] doesn't exist?

sauce

All models are wrong, some are useful.

 

[IanC]

there are so many points to make about OHC that it is hard to choose one.

OK, let's go with this. Rosenthal 2013 study on OHC made a splash two years ago because it claimed OHC was increasing at a faster rate than anytime in the last 10,000 years. Ohhhh Noooooes, we are doomed, right? that got publicity but what was the paper really saying?

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global
warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment
cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record.
We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer
by 2.1 +/- 0.4°C and 1.5 +/- 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum
than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm
period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although
documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are
relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large.

got that? North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer
by 2.1 +/- 0.4°C and 1.5 +/- 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum
than over the past century. intermediate water temps are not surface temps but they are not 0-2000 meters either.

ocean heat is measured in thousandths of a degree at 2000m, hundredths at 700m, tenths at the surface, and this guy is talking WHOLE degrees at 'intermediate depths'.

how many 'Hiroshima bombs' worth of energy are needed to drop the ocean temp by a full degree at, say 50m? a gazillion?

 

[cnm]

So, again, does that make this information incorrect? Neither am I very happy you don't link your sources.

sauce

 

[IanC]

the graph above is wrong.

So, what, because that model is wrong this data doesn't exist?

sauce

All models are wrong, some are useful.

you do realize that most of that is just computer modelling, right?

I dont have the subscription so I dont really know about the challenger data. one data point in 1872, ARGO this millenium, and 'reanalysis' in the middle.

hahaha, at least the models are a tight fit! /sarc off

 

[IanC]

So, again, does that make this information incorrect? Neither am I very happy you don't link your sources.

sauce

ummm....you didnt link either. you cannot find Rosenthal 2013? or simply google the quote?

 

[Crick]

Ian, why does your graph of OHC from Levitus 2009 look so different of every other graph I can find from Levitus 2009?

this is the first point I would like to make on OHC. the models run ridiculously hot. the graph above is wrong. the model trend line and the observation trend line do not intersect, the model is already higher in 2003 and has diverged wildly ever since.

This last one directly from the Levitus paper at Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems - Levitus - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So... why is that Ian?

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is absolutely no proof of that.

You global warming nutters are foolish.

Based on sst(ocean temperature) from buoies, ships and satellite you're very wrong. What do you get the idea that we don't have teh data since the late 1990's to make this study???

You anti-science nutters are far more foolish.

Lmao so the ocean now is only 18 years old and that represents a trend?

The OP says that man made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997. That would be a trend, yes.

 

[Crick]

1) SST stands for Sea Surface Temperature. The data being discussed here is not SST.
2) A trend of 18 years is a trend of 18 years. That the ocean is older than that is irrelevant to the point being made.
3) I think we have more than sufficient proof that discussing anything with poster Muhammed is a complete waste of time.

 

[PredFan]

This just in:

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS FIND EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING, GET TO KEEP JOBS!

Details after these messages.....

 

[Old Rocks]

There is absolutely no proof of that.

You global warming nutters are foolish.

Mathew gave you an article from a peer reviewed scientific journal. You gave us flap yap with zero to back it up. Given prior posts, less than nothing to back it up.

 

[Old Rocks]

are we finally doomed?

b/c we were doomed back in the 70's
then doomed in the 90's by the 00's

I mean really, if 3rd times a charm, you guys are on your 3rd, 3rd, 3rd charm.

Ice is still there, cat-5 hurricanes are not normal, more polar bears, NYC is not under water, etc, etc.

Quite the dumb fuck, aren't you. Get all your science from the National Enquirer. Instead of posting shit, why don't you actually read what the scientists are saying. It is in peer reviewed journals, not yellow rags. And start giving specifics, instead of generalities. Like how were we doomed in the '70's.