2013 was the 4th warmest year based on noaa data

[flacaltenn]

You just cant' stay clean from skepticalscience can you? with their Atom Bomb counters and Enemies Lists. Graphic is a fraud.. It's a crayon job that appears in skepticalscience and probably ORIGINATED there because it's got their kind of crayon fraud all over it...

Do you disagree that over 90% of the thermal energy accumulated by greenhouse warming ends up in the ocean?

And in case you hadn't figured it out, my big blue fonts are a response to SwimExpert (or the puerile cutesy nickname I prefer for it - "Useless-brain-fucked-pile-of-steaming-elephant-shit" - who accused me of being "dishonest" when I posted material I got from Wikipedia and, though I provided all the footnoted references, did not mention "Wikipedia". Mea culpa.

You know -- the SwimMeister has a point.. Rand Paul got pummeled in the Leftist media for weeks for quoting a MOVIE REVIEW out of the Wiki in a FILLIBUSTER, without crediting the Wiki... Even tho, BY DEFINITION, everything that appears there must be common consensus knowledge and NOT original material..

You Big Blue Font reaction is not as sophisticated as the Senator's reaction to such a picky-ass onslaught.. Is it?
Got any more scepticalscience, Nutti & CuuK crayon jobs for us this morning? That makes FIVE graphics fraudulently created or modified by those folks.. I'd wager MOST of the graphics on their site are forged.. Including their atomic bomb counters -- if anyone CARED enough to check them on it..

 

[flacaltenn]

You just cant' stay clean from skepticalscience can you? with their Atom Bomb counters and Enemies Lists. Graphic is a fraud.. It's a crayon job that appears in skepticalscience and probably ORIGINATED there because it's got their kind of crayon fraud all over it...

Do you disagree that over 90% of the thermal energy accumulated by greenhouse warming ends up in the ocean?

And in case you hadn't figured it out, my big blue fonts are a response to SwimExpert (or the puerile cutesy nickname I prefer for it - "Useless-brain-fucked-pile-of-steaming-elephant-shit" - who accused me of being "dishonest" when I posted material I got from Wikipedia and, though I provided all the footnoted references, did not mention "Wikipedia". Mea culpa.

agreed. The denialists here are especially averse to sources that don't fit their static world view.

I have no problem with that factoid in general if you count the SURFACE energy of the oceans as well. But YOU --- have a MASSIVE problem with that revelation.. Since all this GWarming science hasn't pushed Climate Science to actually figure out WHAT THAT MEANS in terms of predicting climate.. And this "discovery" comes 15 years after the "energy budget" for the earth was laid out in AGW cartoon form and NEGLECTED to account for any ocean storage. But THAT AGW "study" (after neglecting ocean storage), managed to find the tinsy tiny amount of power imbalance that GWarmists needed to find.

Hey Dottie -- Why don't YOU explain why the Ocean has been storing a CONSTANT amount of heat since the 50s ---- but the SURFACE temps have increased. And while you're at it --- please do explain how this "hiding heat" explains the lack of surface warming NOW when it's been doing the same thing for 50 years...

YOU'RE the one with all the problems.. You in particular, are too blissfully stupid about all this to know you have all the problems..

 

[Abraham3]

Do you disagree that over 90% of the thermal energy accumulated by greenhouse warming ends up in the ocean?

I have no problem with that factoid in general if you count the SURFACE energy of the oceans as well.

Of course. So you'll agree that the reduction in surface warming was easily offset by the increase in ocean heat content; that, just as the ToA imbalance CLEARLY indicates, the Earth is continuing to accumulate thermal energy.

But YOU --- have a MASSIVE problem with that revelation.

Really? A massive one? And you want to call BTK's discovery a "revelation"? Well, if you like.

Since all this GWarming science hasn't pushed Climate Science to actually figure out WHAT THAT MEANS in terms of predicting climate.

Hmm... that's an incomplete sentence but I think what you meant is that BTK's discovery is the source of our "massive problem". Imagine: a field of science that doesn't know everything there is to know about its own topic. How unusual. Certainly unlike all the other fields of science. Right?

And this "discovery" comes 15 years after the "energy budget" for the earth was laid out in AGW cartoon form and NEGLECTED to account for any ocean storage.

Wow. So you believe that the world's climate scientists of 15 years ago had no idea that the ocean could store thermal energy? That's a pretty amazing claim. I was going to school 35 years ago and the scientists that taught me physical oceanography back then certainly knew it. Are you basing this solely on the graphic below?

I bet you are. Now this is actually a recent one and, lo and behold, it's actually from Kevin Trenberth. But there are numerous copies and versions around including some on WUWT. And does it show energy storage ANYWHERE? Hmm... no, it doesn't. What DOES it show? Why, it shows energy TRANSFERS. And the last time I checked, storage and transfer were two different processes. And, if you do the math (and I KNOW you do the math) you will find that the graphic shows more energy going IN to the ocean then it does coming OUT of the ocean. Seems to me, that pretty strongly implies some storage. But, hey, maybe you're talking about some other "cartoon" entirely. Please let us know, because I'd like to see the evidence by which you conclude that those primitive climate scientists of 15 years back were unaware that the world's oceans had any heat capacity.

But THAT AGW "study" (after neglecting ocean storage), managed to find the tinsy tiny amount of power imbalance that GWarmists needed to find.

What study are you talking about? And what power imbalance are you talking about?

Hey Dottie -- Why don't YOU explain why the Ocean has been storing a CONSTANT amount of heat since the 50s ---- but the SURFACE temps have increased. And while you're at it --- please do explain how this "hiding heat" explains the lack of surface warming NOW when it's been doing the same thing for 50 years...

Hmm... y'know, I could be wrong but...

this looks to me as if the surface has been clearly gaining heat since 1975 or so. What do you think?

YOU'RE the one with all the problems.. You in particular, are too blissfully stupid about all this to know you have all the problems..

Even if ignorance is bliss, bliss is still bliss. But, actually, you seem to be the one whose contentions are lacking support in the climate science community; at least as far as we can judge by the number of papers to which you refer. I've had VERY few problems finding studies that support my opinions, my positions and my contentions: because THAT'S WHERE I GOT THEM... stupid.

 

[mamooth]

As an aside, here are two other independent versions of the same thing as the Trenberth 2009 energy flow diagram. The point being that conspiracies specifically about Trenberth don't make any sense, since the whole world comes up with the same thing.

This one is from AR5, based on a 2012 paper by Martin Wilder and others.

And this one is from NASA, coming from Loeb 2009.

Small differences between them show up because, while we know exactly what's happening at the top and bottom of the atmosphere, and thus know the net energy balance accurately, the middle is fuzzier. We can't measure the middle of the atmosphere from the ground or from satellites.

 

[SwimExpert]

A 125 year period is insignificant on the geological scale.

We don't live on a geological scale.

So what? This isn't a discussion about things happening in a human lifetime. It's a discussion about things happening over the course of the Earth's lifetime.

 

[SwimExpert]

While you were reading the whole thing, did you happen to read the professional description of the people they actually surveyed in that study - that is, what they all actually did for a living?

Professional engineers and geoscientists.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'd also like to suggest that if you think the components of sea level rise do not support the increased OHC that Balmaseda, Trenberth & Kallen found, you show me such an opinion from someone actually qualified to form it.

And what makes you qualified to say that their conclusions are correct?

 

[SwimExpert]

They prefer the opinions of former right wing DJs and male message therapists. Weird, I know.

I think you could afford to spend some time with a message therapist. I'll PM you the number of mine.

 

[itfitzme]

A 125 year period is insignificant on the geological scale.

We don't live on a geological scale.

So what? This isn't a discussion about things happening in a human lifetime. It's a discussion about things happening over the course of the Earth's lifetime.

Because, fundamentally, geological scale is irrelevant to AWG except to establish some baselines of what "really cold" and "fairly mild" are.

125 years may be insignificant of a geological scale but 125 years is significant on a scale that is relevant to human beings.

Techtonic plates move on a geological scale.

Human societies evolve over and perish on timescales in the decades, centuries, and milleniums.

Global mean temperature history makes it clear that 5 decades is significant.

Sure, "A 125 year period is insignificant on the geological scale." is a true statement. So?

 

[itfitzme]

See how all this will end up after the real numbers are crunched.

NASA Admits that 1934, Not 1998, was the Warmest Year on Record - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Wierd, here is the trail of links where the supposed statement resides.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/news-releases-list/cgi-bin/stories.pl?EDATE=&ACCT=104&STORY=%2Fwww%2Fstory%2F08-14-2007%2F0004645546

It is a dead link.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you disagree that over 90% of the thermal energy accumulated by greenhouse warming ends up in the ocean?

I have no problem with that factoid in general if you count the SURFACE energy of the oceans as well.

Of course. So you'll agree that the reduction in surface warming was easily offset by the increase in ocean heat content; that, just as the ToA imbalance CLEARLY indicates, the Earth is continuing to accumulate thermal energy.



Really? A massive one? And you want to call BTK's discovery a "revelation"? Well, if you like.



Hmm... that's an incomplete sentence but I think what you meant is that BTK's discovery is the source of our "massive problem". Imagine: a field of science that doesn't know everything there is to know about its own topic. How unusual. Certainly unlike all the other fields of science. Right?



Wow. So you believe that the world's climate scientists of 15 years ago had no idea that the ocean could store thermal energy? That's a pretty amazing claim. I was going to school 35 years ago and the scientists that taught me physical oceanography back then certainly knew it. Are you basing this solely on the graphic below?

I bet you are. Now this is actually a recent one and, lo and behold, it's actually from Kevin Trenberth. But there are numerous copies and versions around including some on WUWT. And does it show energy storage ANYWHERE? Hmm... no, it doesn't. What DOES it show? Why, it shows energy TRANSFERS. And the last time I checked, storage and transfer were two different processes. And, if you do the math (and I KNOW you do the math) you will find that the graphic shows more energy going IN to the ocean then it does coming OUT of the ocean. Seems to me, that pretty strongly implies some storage. But, hey, maybe you're talking about some other "cartoon" entirely. Please let us know, because I'd like to see the evidence by which you conclude that those primitive climate scientists of 15 years back were unaware that the world's oceans had any heat capacity.



What study are you talking about? And what power imbalance are you talking about?

Hey Dottie -- Why don't YOU explain why the Ocean has been storing a CONSTANT amount of heat since the 50s ---- but the SURFACE temps have increased. And while you're at it --- please do explain how this "hiding heat" explains the lack of surface warming NOW when it's been doing the same thing for 50 years...

Hmm... y'know, I could be wrong but...

this looks to me as if the surface has been clearly gaining heat since 1975 or so. What do you think?

YOU'RE the one with all the problems.. You in particular, are too blissfully stupid about all this to know you have all the problems..

Even if ignorance is bliss, bliss is still bliss. But, actually, you seem to be the one whose contentions are lacking support in the climate science community; at least as far as we can judge by the number of papers to which you refer. I've had VERY few problems finding studies that support my opinions, my positions and my contentions: because THAT'S WHERE I GOT THEM... stupid.

First off --- you use the BTK study to make a comment on SURFACE WARMING?? You're not even understanding the point. That BTK curve is approx linear.. That means the deep oceans have been ACCUMULATING energy at the same RATE since the curve began..
Principall DRIVER of that uptake is UNKNOWN --- but has to be related to the surface interface.. So if the the SURFACE has WARMED --- why hasn't the uptake rate INCREASED of the period of that BTK graph. ((Please THINK before responding)) Just one of SEVERAL problems with BTK..

The Trenberth cartoon and derivatives all deal with SURFACE EXCHANGES..

1) Trenberth MISLABELED it because ENERGY is not in W/m2.. Which is important in this discussion --- because being in a unit of power is INCAPABLE of relating to Heat ENERGY stored in the ocean or elsewhere.

2) What falls on the surface (ocean in particular) is both DIRECT solar insolation and LW IR in the DOWN (back prop) stream.. As far as LW IR -- it's NET skyward. Meaning that in order to not violate Thermo laws, it's COOLING to the atmosphere. Now the RATE of cooling affects the HEAT RETENTION of the surfaces for LW IR and can make them hotter in equilibrium --- but it can not TRANSFER any heat to the ocean deep.. The ocean SURFACE is the only absorber of heat in that diagram. So that any LW heating is due to sheer CONDUCTION from the surface --- NOT FROM THE GHGas radiation stream directly.. And as WW and others have pointed out -- Any LW coming down wouldn't have the ability to heat more than 1st couple MM of surface depth.

IMPORTANT --- ALL these diagrams show the SAME VALUE for land as ocean in terms of absorptions.. That's a bad way to start out if you want to claim that the "ocean ate my global warming".. Meaning that AT BEST -- any storage might be INFERRED --- but CERTAINLY NOT QUANITTIZED..

OTH --- the SOLAR insolation impinging on the surface is a NET positive stream to the surface. And THAT WIDEBAND radiation can penetrate more than the surface and contribute directly to heating at depth (as well as conduction).

3) Sorry guys -- no STORAGE is calculated in ANY of those diagrams. It is all balanced at the surfaces like a RADIATION diagram should be. If you're gonna leak some of that surface flux into "storage" -- it should be shown as a separate path. Because then that "energy" (actually power) is not available for convection or conduction or any other return path to the atmos..

4) Realize that this silly exercise has no day or night, no winter or summer, no cloudy versus clear, no tropics versus poles.. It's all built on homogenized "averages".. The assumption is --- all of the effects have been adequately MEASURED at every location on the planet under all conceivable circumstances. And YET -- Trenberth finds the 0.9W/m2 that he needed to find in the "imbalance".. That's one lucky SOB aint he?

 

[SwimExpert]

Because, fundamentally, geological scale is irrelevant to AWG except to establish some baselines of what "really cold" and "fairly mild" are.

And with that amazing display of stupidity, you have become as relevant as a traveling salesman selling a cocaine elixir as a miracle cure for just about everything.

 

[Politico]

Not warm enough.

 

[itfitzme]

"1) Trenberth MISLABELED it because ENERGY is not in W/m2.. Which is important in this discussion --- because being in a unit of power is INCAPABLE of relating to Heat ENERGY stored in the ocean or elsewhere."

The surface area of the Earth is constant. The surface area of the oceans and land masses is constant, for all practical purposes. W/m^2 is irradiance.

Because the surface area is constant, it doesn't matter if the calculations are done in units of irradiance first then multiplied by the surface area or multiplied by surface area before doing the calculations.

Addition is distributed. It is that simple

 

[itfitzme]

Because, fundamentally, geological scale is irrelevant to AWG except to establish some baselines of what "really cold" and "fairly mild" are.

And with that amazing display of stupidity, you have become as relevant as a traveling salesman selling a cocaine elixir as a miracle cure for just about everything.

Again, so? What words are causing you trouble?

Because, so far, you've presented nothing that suggests any capacity for intelligent and independent thought. Your comments are either simple cut and pastes or just simple emotional bullshit.

 

[SwimExpert]

Because, fundamentally, geological scale is irrelevant to AWG except to establish some baselines of what "really cold" and "fairly mild" are.

And with that amazing display of stupidity, you have become as relevant as a traveling salesman selling a cocaine elixir as a miracle cure for just about everything.

Again, so? What words are causing you trouble?

Trouble? No. Pain? Yes. My sides are aching from all this laughter!

 

[itfitzme]

And with that amazing display of stupidity, you have become as relevant as a traveling salesman selling a cocaine elixir as a miracle cure for just about everything.

Again, so? What words are causing you trouble?

Trouble? No. Pain? Yes. My sides are aching from all this laughter!

So, again, you have no actual thoughts come to mind, just emotional bullshit.

 

[SwimExpert]

Again, so? What words are causing you trouble?

Trouble? No. Pain? Yes. My sides are aching from all this laughter!

So, again, you have no actual thoughts come to mind, just emotional bullshit.

I'm afraid I just can't bring thoughts to mind after hearing the kind of mental drivel you're peddling.

 

[itfitzme]

Trouble? No. Pain? Yes. My sides are aching from all this laughter!

So, again, you have no actual thoughts come to mind, just emotional bullshit.

I'm afraid I just can't bring thoughts to mind after hearing the kind of mental drivel you're peddling.

You are just a troll.

 

[SwimExpert]

So, again, you have no actual thoughts come to mind, just emotional bullshit.

I'm afraid I just can't bring thoughts to mind after hearing the kind of mental drivel you're peddling.

You are just a troll.

Impossible. Trolls live under bridges. There is no room under any bridges anymore, because global warming has caused the sea level to rise too high.