Deep Oceans Cooling?

[Billy_Bob]

Warming below 2,000 meter is not mine. It has been published in multiple peer reviewed studies.

Are you attempting to suggest that it's impossible to build a temperature sensor that will go below 2,000 meters?

Pal Review ... And its still bull shit.

There are plenty of devices capable but at that depth they are not reliable, at the moment. The pressures cause massive failures and they are hard to maintain. Ask any one on a deep sea drilling rig.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and then the ocean ate my global warming

The next time you find yourself to be intellectually incapable of making a pertinent comment, don't bother with the attempt.

******* scam artist and not even a good one either

Global Cooling

Global Warming

Climate Change

Climate Disruption

The Ocean ate my warming

Is no one supposed to notice how you keep changing what you call your Cult Beliefs???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Warming below 2,000 meter is not mine. It has been published in multiple peer reviewed studies.

Are you attempting to suggest that it's impossible to build a temperature sensor that will go below 2,000 meters?

Pal Review ... And its still bull shit.

There are plenty of devices capable but at that depth they are not reliable, at the moment. The pressures cause massive failures and they are hard to maintain. Ask any one on a deep sea drilling rig.

^ I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate.

Anyone who doesn't think like us is a DENIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

...and then the ocean ate my global warming

The next time you find yourself to be intellectually incapable of making a pertinent comment, don't bother with the attempt.

Still waiting for that lab experiment that show how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature 2-7 degrees

Any day now

Any day now

 

[Dot Com]

Republicans constantly looking for something to disprove something.

They look desperately for something that says vaccines are dangerous.

They desperately look for something that disproves evolution.

They desperately look for something that disproves......well......pretty much everything they don't want to believe.

Instead, they could do research themselves. Only the don't believe in research, or science, or education.

yep. They call themselves boot-strappers but are anything but IRL

 

[Billy_Bob]

Still waiting for that lab experiment that show how a 120ppm increase in CO2 will raise temperature 2-7 degrees

Any day now

Any day now

Nope..he can not produce it.. It is not scientifically possible.

At our current level of CO2 enrichment we will be lucky to see just 0.4 deg C out of that rise of 120ppm. There is a problem however, Natural variation is responsible for all warming since 1900 leaving no warming attributable to CO2. The current effective forcing can be shown to be Zero.

 

[Crick]

Natural variation is responsible for all warming since 1900 leaving no warming attributable to CO2. The current effective forcing can be shown to be Zero.

Then show us.

 

[SSDD]

Natural variation is responsible for all warming since 1900 leaving no warming attributable to CO2. The current effective forcing can be shown to be Zero.

Then show us.

You are the one claiming that humans have caused the warming...the onus is on you to prove that the warming we have seen which is well within the boundaries of natural variability are not natural at all...no human fingerprint is visible in the climate....apparently, according to climate science...human caused warming looks just like natural warming.

 

[Crick]

My comment was to Billy Bob to back up his claim that current radiative forcing could be shown to be zero. He has a habit of making claims without ever providing supporting evidence. I long ago tired of his habits though I can see why they wouldn't bother you at all.

My evidence regarding the ocean's increased absorption of thermal energy begins with BTK's "Distinctive Climate Signals" and has been supported by at least six other studies including the two to which you introduced us in your OP here.

Your demand for a human fingerprint is obviously disingenuous.

Direct satellite observations still show the Earth to be accumulating radiant energy. Where do YOU think it's going?

 

[Old Rocks]

Billy Bob is no more to be taken seriously than Frankie Boy, or SSo DDumb.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Billy Bob is no more to be taken seriously than Frankie Boy, or SSo DDumb.

You're totally busted dumbass. There's been no warming in 2 decades so NOW you're saying the ocean ate your warming.

How does that even work????? You droned on and on about warming, the planet mocks you, so NOW you say that magically the ocean ate the warming.

You're a cult and believe absolutely ANYTHING the enviromarxist feed into the hive mind

Sent from smartphone using my wits and Taptalk

 

[Crick]

It works by changes in tropical wind patterns which drive warmed, equatorial surface waters against the continental margins where they get subducted into deep water. The same process drives cooler, deep water to the surface to replace the subducted warm water. This is contended to be one of the major reasons for the hiatus in surface warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My comment was to Billy Bob to back up his claim that current radiative forcing could be shown to be zero. He has a habit of making claims without ever providing supporting evidence. I long ago tired of his habits though I can see why they wouldn't bother you at all.

My evidence regarding the ocean's increased absorption of thermal energy begins with BTK's "Distinctive Climate Signals" and has been supported by at least six other studies including the two to which you introduced us in your OP here.

Your demand for a human fingerprint is obviously disingenuous.

Direct satellite observations still show the Earth to be accumulating radiant energy. Where do YOU think it's going?

Here it is one more time for the moron...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Even the EPA acknowledges that all warming prior to 1950 is NATURAL.. Using the Null Hypothesis, while we added CO2 should have resulted in natural variation PLUS the CO2 increase within its LOG Slope and multiplied by its positive forcings. But there is none!

I want to know how you alarmists stopped natural variation. Because that means you have control of the weather and climate already.

 

[2aguy]

Bad News for the alarmists Missing Heat from Non-Existent Global Warming isn t Hiding in the Ocean After All

 

[Crick]

My comment was to Billy Bob to back up his claim that current radiative forcing could be shown to be zero. He has a habit of making claims without ever providing supporting evidence. I long ago tired of his habits though I can see why they wouldn't bother you at all.

My evidence regarding the ocean's increased absorption of thermal energy begins with BTK's "Distinctive Climate Signals" and has been supported by at least six other studies including the two to which you introduced us in your OP here.

Your demand for a human fingerprint is obviously disingenuous.

Direct satellite observations still show the Earth to be accumulating radiant energy. Where do YOU think it's going?

Here it is one more time for the moron...

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000. Below each is the rate of warming.

The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variational rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now wait... this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..

So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

Even the EPA acknowledges that all warming prior to 1950 is NATURAL.. Using the Null Hypothesis, while we added CO2 should have resulted in natural variation PLUS the CO2 increase within its LOG Slope and multiplied by its positive forcings. But there is none!

I want to know how you alarmists stopped natural variation. Because that means you have control of the weather and climate already.

The lower troposphere is less than 10% of the matter being heated by solar radiation and the lower troposphere is below the altitude where the greatest atmospheric greenhouse warming takes place. You've ignored the stratosphere and, most consequentially, you've ignored the world's oceans. Spencer's claims that lower tropospheric temperatures are representative of global conditions are accepted by no one but Spencer.

Here is NOAA GISS GLOBAL temperature graph. I know you've seen it before.

By breaking your data at 1951, an obvious local minimum in the 20th century, you and your sources are quite obviously cherry picking. Your claim that even your minimized values are statistically insignificant is blatantly false.

I'm slightly curious how your second graph arrives at the same temperature anomaly in the late 1930s as we experienced in 2000 when the actual temperatures as shown in your HadCRUT data as well as the GISS data show a 0.5 to 0.6C difference.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Outside of a small portion of the ocean...There hasn't been any warming in nearly a decade.

The cold hard facts.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The lower troposphere is less than 10% of the matter being heated by solar radiation and the lower troposphere is below the altitude where the greatest atmospheric greenhouse warming takes place. You've ignored the stratosphere and, most consequentially, you've ignored the world's oceans. Spencer's claims that lower tropospheric temperatures are representative of global conditions are accepted by no one but Spencer.

Here is NOAA GISS GLOBAL temperature graph. I know you've seen it before.

By breaking your data at 1951, an obvious local minimum in the 20th century, you and your sources are quite obviously cherry picking. Your claim that even your minimized values are statistically insignificant is blatantly false.

I'm slightly curious how your second graph arrives at the same temperature anomaly in the late 1930s as we experienced in 2000 when the actual temperatures as shown in your HadCRUT data as well as the GISS data show a 0.5 to 0.6C difference.

Love that adjusted data set... Why dont you try using REAL OBSERVATIONS instead of MODEL OUTPUTS...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Outside of a small portion of the ocean...There hasn't been any warming in nearly a decade.

The cold hard facts.

Speaking of Cold Hard Facts... The Great Lakes advisory folks have issued a warning to all nonessential boats. With the first major cold wave about to hit the area they are warning people to remove their water craft as they will not be ice-breaking them out.

It seems that a 9 degree lower average water temp this year has got them worried about total ice coverage.

 

[Crick]

Polar vortex.

 

[RollingThunder]

Billy Bob is no more to be taken seriously than Frankie Boy, or SSo DDumb.

You're totally busted dumbass. There's been no warming in 2 decades so NOW you're saying the ocean ate your warming.

You're such a gullible retard, CrazyFruitcake! Your puppetmasters in the fossil fuel industry tell you that "there's been no warming in two decades" and you fall for that self-serving malarkey like it was free beer.

In the real world your crackpot denier cult myths about 'no warming' or even 'global cooling' are totally bogus. The world is still rapidly warming, as the top climate scientists affirm. 2014 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record', followed, in turn, by 2010, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013, and then 1998. Every year since 1998 has been warmer than every year before 1998. Even the coldest years after 1998 have been warmer than every year before 1998.

13 of the 14 hottest years on record have occurred in this century.

The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center released this information on their website recently.

NOAA - Global Analysis - August 2014
With records dating back to 1880, the global temperature across the world's land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was 0.75°C (1.35°F) higher than the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F). This makes August 2014 the warmest August on record for the globe since records began in 1880, beating the previous record set in 1998. Nine of the 10 warmest Augusts on record have occurred during the 21st century. Additionally, August 2014 marked the 38th consecutive August and the 354th consecutive month with a temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average global temperature for August occurred in 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985. With the exception of February, each month during 2014 to date has ranked among the four warmest on record compared to its respective month. For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20thcentury average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F)."

This August record followed a string of new 'warmest months on record' over the last year (with records going back to 1880). Last November, 2013, was the warmest November on record out of all the Novembers in at least the last 133 years. April of this year, 2014, is tied with April of 2010 as the warmest April on record. Both May and June ranked as the warmest May and June on record. From the same NOAA 'state of the climate' website....

"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2014 tied with 2010 as the highest on record for the month, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F)."

"The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was record highest for this month. The global land surface temperature was 1.13°C (2.03°F) above the 20th century average of 11.1°C (52.0°F), the fourth highest for May on record. For the ocean, the May global sea surface temperature was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 16.3°C (61.3°F), making it the record highest for May and tying with June 1998, October 2003, and July 2009 as the highest departure from average for any month on record."

"The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average. This surpasses the previous record, set in June 1998, by 0.03°C (0.05°F). Nine of the ten warmest Junes on record have occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years. June 2014 also marks the second consecutive month with record high global temperatures."