Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[gslack]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

LOL, 2 rep clone, do you have anything we can verify the claim with first?

With a rep like yours, taking your word for anything you write here is not likely to happen...

 

[gslack]

There is only one real source of heat on earth.

According to warmers there is two sources.. The sun and GH gases... You guys have spent pages telling us that CO2 warms the planet further than it already warms from the sun...

If you want to change your story now, be my guest...

 

[PMZ]

Nobody claims that GHGs initiate energy. What they do is restrict the planet's ability to unwarm (cool) until it gets warmer.

 

[orogenicman]

The high level, "spent" fuel waste can.

The low level stuff cannot.

The vast bulk of nuclear waste is low level waste. That's the problem.

And that "vast bulk" has nothing to do with commercial nuclear power. The LL maintenance waste from 50 nuke plants PALLS in comparision to 2600 Nuclear Medicine hospital wings and related industries.

Whatcha wanna do? Close the Nuclear Med Centers??
Best call you new girl at the EPA and tell her to get her ass over to Yucca Mtn and pay off whoever needs to get paid off...

My point is only that most radioactive waste is low level waste, and that most of the low level waste cannot be recycled, which is true. Man, what have you been smoking?

 

[westwall]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

 

[PMZ]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

How come you never offer any evidence for that which you want to be true?

 

[IanC]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

Peilke Sr put up a lot of info on this a couple of years ago. While heat content is the correct units to measure ocean warming people do not realize how small the actual temperature changes are, or how uncertain past measurements are. When trends are smaller than the error bars it is unlikely that the results are valid, especially when the mechanism of energy transport is contrary to past explanations. Trenberth is trying to change the Null Hypotheses on very flimsy evidence. Again.

 

[IanC]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

How come you never offer any evidence for that which you want to be true?

Because Google brings up links that are publicly broadcast and follow the consensus view. I have often found it difficult to find information that I know exists, let alone find new evidence.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

I left my SUV running idle when I was waiting for my son to arrive at the train station.

 

[Abraham3]

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. From the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

"The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced."

The Argo data shows greater deep warming than the non-Argo data.

I find it funny as all get-out that you think you know "how science works" better than the three PhDs who wrote this paper and the several more PhDs that reviewed it for publication. When was the last time you were in the field, dude? And how far offshore was that?

 

[Abraham3]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

Peilke Sr put up a lot of info on this a couple of years ago. While heat content is the correct units to measure ocean warming people do not realize how small the actual temperature changes are, or how uncertain past measurements are. When trends are smaller than the error bars it is unlikely that the results are valid, especially when the mechanism of energy transport is contrary to past explanations. Trenberth is trying to change the Null Hypotheses on very flimsy evidence. Again.

If we're only looking at noise, how do you explain the very clear indications from volcanic eruptions Agung, El Chichon and Pinatubo and the 1997-98 El Nino?

 

[Abraham3]

IanC, have you read this paper? It's not particularly long or difficult. I think you will find all of your concerns addressed there. Give it a shot.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521/2013/papers/balmaseda13grl_inpress.pdf

In particular, take note of discussion of the effect of the Argo data on the final results. A No Argo run was conducted and plots of that data are displayed in the appendices. If Pielke was suggesting that Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's results were counter to the Argo data, he has erred.

 

[PMZ]

What increase? There is a paper that CLAIMS there is an increase...however the ARGO floats don't confirm that at all. The supposed "increase" falls within the normal error factor of the instruments themselves so how the claim could be made that there is an increase is beyond anyone with even a passing knowledge of how science works...

You seem to have a reading comprehension issue. From the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

"The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced."

The Argo data shows greater deep warming than the non-Argo data.

I find it funny as all get-out that you think you know "how science works" better than the three PhDs who wrote this paper and the several more PhDs that reviewed it for publication. When was the last time you were in the field, dude? And how far offshore was that?

It is really bizarre how non-scientists believe that they can guess at things that are more likely to be true than those who have the most sophisticated modeling capability in the world.

 

[IanC]

A question for AGW deniers:

what is causing the recent increase in the warming rate of the deep (>700m) ocean?

Peilke Sr put up a lot of info on this a couple of years ago. While heat content is the correct units to measure ocean warming people do not realize how small the actual temperature changes are, or how uncertain past measurements are. When trends are smaller than the error bars it is unlikely that the results are valid, especially when the mechanism of energy transport is contrary to past explanations. Trenberth is trying to change the Null Hypotheses on very flimsy evidence. Again.

If we're only looking at noise, how do you explain the very clear indications from volcanic eruptions Agung, El Chichon and Pinatubo and the 1997-98 la Nina?

That is a good question. I'm not getting your graphic on my phone but I have seen quite a few of them anyways. The volcanic dips often start before the eruption or are quite weak. In some cases this could be caused by averagingbut when anyal data only are used this confounding effect is still present. Of course if your graphic is showing obvious deep eater effects with little to no time lag that should also be questioned.

 

[orogenicman]

The volcanic dips often start before the eruption or are quite weak.

That is, of course, nonsense. Effect before the cause? In what alternate universe? Pinatubo had a strong measurable effect.

 

[Abraham3]

How come you never offer any evidence for that which you want to be true?

Because Google brings up links that are publicly broadcast and follow the consensus view. I have often found it difficult to find information that I know exists, let alone find new evidence.

I could opine that's a pretty weak excuse... Google is not the only search engine on the planet. Might I suggest www.Ixquick.com.

 

[PMZ]

People who are guessing at science wish it to be intuitive which it sometimes is. But those who know science know when it is and when it isn't.

What Einstein and others have taught us is the most significant discoveries are those that are the least intuitive.

Considering the earth as one system, and simple energy conservation, AGW is intuitive and compelling. The more detail one considers though the less intuitive it becomes, and the more one has to rely on pure and complex science to understand.

 

[Abraham3]

The volcanic dips often start before the eruption or are quite weak.

That is, of course, nonsense. Effect before the cause? In what alternate universe? Pinatubo had a strong measurable effect.

Ian, Ian, Ian... Oro is right of course. The deep ocean cools before the eruption takes place? Come on, man. When you can, look at the graphic on a good display. AND READ THE PAPER.

 

[Abraham3]

People who are guessing at science wish it to be intuitive which it sometimes is. But those who know science know when it is and when it isn't.

What Einstein and others have taught us is the most significant discoveries are those that are the least intuitive.

Considering the earth as one system, and simple energy conservation, AGW is intuitive and compelling. The more detail one considers though the less intuitive it becomes, and the more one has to rely on pure and complex science to understand.

Yes. "The devil is in the details".

 

[orogenicman]

In fact, several years ago I took satellite photos of the Pinatubo eruption and created a short animation of the eruption as seen from space:

The ash cloud punched through an incoming hurricane, spread out into the stratosphere and circled the Earth for two years. It was a massive eruption, the largest in the 20th century, in fact.