Oceanic heat debate-Why the decrease in the rate of heat going into our oceans.

[ScienceRocks]

Here is the graph for oceanic heat...Appears to be not moving upwards...

In this says that 93 percent of the heat of the imbalance goes into the ocean.

This does show some warming, but not even 1/5th as much as pre 2003. So should we take the pre-2003 data with a grain of fucking sand or not? It was wrong. So lets assume that the warming in this graph is true and that is how it has been the whole time and the pre-2003 was wrong. must take a shit load of energy to heat the ocean.

So the second graph is the one that matters and pre-2003 should be thrown in the trash. That is my opinion.

Another graph that supports warming, but how good is it?


The question that needs to be asked is this the warming that 93 percent of the energy that the imbalanced is causing by the co2 should be causing within the oceans?

 

[konradv]

Smokescreen, the question the deniers need to answer is what happens, if CO2 and other GHGs keep going up? THAT'S the bottom line. Keep increasing them and temp rise is inevitable. That's simple logic. It may be a small rise, but that would lead to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, which we all know is an even more potent GHG.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Smokescreen, the question the deniers need to answer is what happens, if CO2 and other GHGs keep going up? THAT'S the bottom line. Keep increasing them and temp rise is inevitable. That's simple logic. It may be a small rise, but that would lead to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, which we all know is an even more potent GHG.

Oh of course, it's "inevitable". That's why we need to hand over all our money to you global warming fascists because you "believe" it will happen. Keep your global warming "religion" to yourselves.

All you "geniuses" are doing is your own version of a S.W.A.G. Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

 

[konradv]

Smokescreen, the question the deniers need to answer is what happens, if CO2 and other GHGs keep going up? THAT'S the bottom line. Keep increasing them and temp rise is inevitable. That's simple logic. It may be a small rise, but that would lead to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, which we all know is an even more potent GHG.

Oh of course, it's "inevitable". That's why we need to hand over all our money to you global warming fascists because you "believe" it will happen. Keep your global warming "religion" to yourselves.

All you "geniuses" are doing is your own version of a S.W.A.G. Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

You call yourself a scientist?!?! Why does the known ability of GHGs to trap energy have to do with my "belief"? You "Mad" because no one will accept your crackpot theories?!?! Seems you're the one with the "religious" fervor!

 

[Old Rocks]

None of these deniars can give real science supporting their position. They simply want the world "the way things ought to be". So, in return for the observations of real scientists, they give the rants of politically driven op ed writers. Or accuse the people who post science from real scientists of being 'religiously' driven.

If you have no answer or valid point, obfuscate. That is their creed and motto.

 

[uscitizen]

Could the massive amounts of plastic floating in our oceans have anything to do with the issue?

 

[Old Rocks]

I think what we are seeing is that the heat is now mixing to far greater depths.

 

[Old Rocks]

More than one oddity going on with the oceans

The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat

 

[westwall]

Smokescreen, the question the deniers need to answer is what happens, if CO2 and other GHGs keep going up? THAT'S the bottom line. Keep increasing them and temp rise is inevitable. That's simple logic. It may be a small rise, but that would lead to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, which we all know is an even more potent GHG.

Wrong again konrad. If CO2 is the driver that it is claimed to be, the temperature should be another 1 degree C warmer than it is. That's a fact. That is what Hansen predicted would occur with less CO2 then there in fact is! The only thing that is inevitable is the temps are going to continue to drop for the next 20 or so years then hopefully they will rise again for the following 20 or 30 years and the cycle repeats....like it has since time on this planet began.

 

[Oddball]

Could the massive amounts of plastic floating in our oceans have anything to do with the issue?

Very likely....But not in a way the warmist kooks believe.

OSU: Plastic ocean trash amount exaggerated

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Smokescreen, the question the deniers need to answer is what happens, if CO2 and other GHGs keep going up? THAT'S the bottom line. Keep increasing them and temp rise is inevitable. That's simple logic. It may be a small rise, but that would lead to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere, which we all know is an even more potent GHG.

How much of an increase in CO2 does it take to raise temperatures say 1/2 degree? 50,000PPM? 100,000?

 

[ScienceRocks]

I think what we are seeing is that the heat is now mixing to far greater depths.

Maybe, but id say the soar cycle went negative around 2004-2005 time frame and I think it is possible that there just is not as much energy going into the oceans...Also as the grand minimum like event, we are seeing now extends for more and more years it compounds in its effects...look at the effects f 1910-1912, which was a minimum much like the one we just had and the Dalton of 1810-1840...Difference between them is one was longer and the effects added up. There effects where real and the little ice age was caused by a string of them from 1350-1800.

 

[IanC]

matthew- I find it interesting that when better technology comes on line it always seems to show less warming than is being claimed. if the ARGO buoys were reading warmer, would so much energy have been put into finding corrections for the data? same with satellites, every possible effort was put into finding ways to make the data come in line with what AGW needed. what about adjustments for UHI? the effect is obviously real but because the temps go up instead of down none of the agencies are particularly interested in fully compensating for it. Jones's 1990 paper said it was only 0.05C and they didnt even correct for it, they just added 0.05 to the error bars. do you think that is why there is such a large discrepancy between land or ocean temp trends?

the last hundred years has seen less than 1C increase. if you consider much of that was before 1950, and much of what remains seems to be directly attributable to 'adjustments', there is not much left for CO2 to account for. Natural variation, a roughly 1C rise for doubling CO2(quite easily less do to natural negative feedbacks) and there is nothing really pressing to freak out about. Arctic ice was low in the first part of last century but we didn't a daily death watch over it. Temperatures were easily as high or higher only 600 years ago. If the 'deniers' had access to research funding and media expression there would be a different meme and it would sound just as plausible, although it wouldn't be as exciting to blame every weather event on nature as it is for the AGW alarmists to blame man's sin of fossil fuel energy use for the imminent end of the world as we know it.

Spin is spin. If the climate scientist's were so capable why didnt they recognize the similar weather patterns that led to Europes deepfreeze and Australia's floods? Why didn't NASA tell the Aussies to lower that dam 'cause rain is on the way? Instead they were told the opposite. How do you think the Met Office fiasco will turn out? did they really predict a cold winter only to be rebuffed by govt wanting a warm forecast to be supportive of Cancun and the 'team'?

The longer I look into this whole mess the more it looks like a fuckup. I have been reading the Hockey Stick Illusion which lays out in gory detail the checkered history of Mann 98&99, the investigations, the OJ Simpson-like verdicts. Even to this month, the climate science bigwigs are still making misstatements and compounding it with coverup lies. Check out Trenberth's latest fiasco and then tell me if his integrity is something I or anyone else should aim for. Climate science has lost its way and the people running the show are willing to bend the facts into pretzels, stonewall when shown to be in the wrong, and let misconceptions run free even when they know them to be wrong. I especially hope that that sleazebag Mann gets outed as the disgraced evangelical that he is by having his emails prove that he lied all the way along.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Do you know exactly how many repeatable lab experiment there are showing how water temperature increase as a result of a 100-200PPM increase in atmospheric CO2?

That's right! NONE!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Whats the experimental difference between phrenology, the science of reading the bumps on your head and ManMade Global Warming Science?

That's Right! NONE!

 

[uscitizen]

Of course all those plastic particles floating around in the ocean have no effect.

 

[westwall]

Of course all those plastic particles floating around in the ocean have no effect.

OSU: Plastic ocean trash amount exaggerated | The Columbian

 

[ScienceRocks]

The plastic would of been there just as much in the 1980s-1990s as they are today...so I doubt it. I'm thinking that the build up of energy between 1995-2003 was caused by the solar max, which increased the amount of energy at a compounding rate, but once we got into the largest solar minimum in a 100 years that went down by 1/5th or .02c. Maybe .1 to .3 w/m^2 change and compounding on its self can have a effect. This is just my theory on why it changed...Could be it never raised like that in the first place. This doesn't make me went to believe in the 3-4c of warming this century very much.

 

[ScienceRocks]

very interesting works done by Levitus(2009), which I believe to be close to the truth. It is the blue thick Line. So most Likely it never raised at that rate in the first place and that was just a side effect of not enough data.

Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems
S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, T. P. Boyer, R. A. Locarnini, H. E. Garcia & A. V. Mishonov

Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems

 

[ScienceRocks]

Debate the findings of Levitus(2009)...I think it makes a lot more sense then what Lyman thrown together using incomplete data before 2003.