Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[flacaltenn]

Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence.

Since Francis Bacon and the birth of the natural sciences.

Ya Know -- I DO read most of your posts in the science forums. But I had to take a double-take at your name to make sure this was the same Abraham who YESTERDAY WROTE:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...e-may-last-for-20-more-years.html#post8106498


I don't know about you, but their repeated use of the term "hypothesized" (and "contender" and "appear" and "traces") makes me think this idea is being thrown out for discussion and is a GREAT LONG WAYS from refuting AGW.

Did ya not know about Francis Bacon YESTERDAY?

 

[westwall]

Scientists typically underestimate future scenarios and predictions because they are cautious and, believe it or not, conservative in their estimates when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty. Surely you've heard of what they call in statistics, degrees of freedom, in physics, they have what is called sigma. The first hint of the Higgs was a sigma 3. Further data took that to sigma 4. Sigma 5 is the highest degree of certainty in physics. They use these benchmarks because NOTHING is certain in science. There is nothing unusual about this, nor is there anything unusual about climate scientists qualifying their results. That's what all scientists do.

Not climatologists. They make wild claims unsupported by fact and expect you to give them all your cash.

That's an odd accusation, as no climate scientist has ever asked me or, I suspect, anyone I know, for money. But I suspect that you say that because your denier buddies may have had grant applications denied. Perhaps your guys ought to get the science right BEFORE they apply for the grant money.

Odd acusation? In light of this?

 

[flacaltenn]

Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":

Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
Based on error analysis of the calibration data and this validation test, we show that the uncertainty of reconstructing bottom water temperature and salinity from paired Mg/Ca and δ18O measurements of H. balthica is better than ±0.7°C and ±0.69 practical salinity scale, respectively. The small uncertainties allow for the reconstruction of seawater density to better than 0.3σθ units, which is precise enough for the identification of specific water masses and reconstruction of changes in their properties. We propose that the relatively high Mg content and temperature sensitivity of H. balthica might be due to minor, biologically mediated contribution of high-Mg calcite to the primarily low Mg calcite test, which is influenced by the ambient temperature. This hypothesis, if correct, suggests that benthic species with relatively high Mg/Ca may be better suited for deepwater temperature reconstructions than species that have thus far been more commonly used.

So all we got is yet again an unproven hypothesis and the margin of error is 7 times higher than the increment "measured" with this method.

What we have here is an unattributed quote. It did NOT come from the article to which the lead posts links. Where DID it come from? No telling. So... for now, this is worthless bullshit.

Not worthless bullshit.. Not even Bearshit..

SAME Lead Author --- SAME specie used as a proxy as in the OP study..
Came from HERE..

Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica - Rosenthal - 2011 - Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems - Wiley Online Library

Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica

Yair Rosenthal1, Audrey Morley2, Christine Barras3, Miriam E. Katz4, Frans Jorissen

The OP study is ------
Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years
.
Yair Rosenthal, Braddock K. Linsley, Delia W. Oppo

Learn to research --- that took me 45 seconds.. Lessen the shitting..

 

[polarbear]

I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs...

Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...

Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":

Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
Based on error analysis of the calibration data and this validation test, we show that the uncertainty of reconstructing bottom water temperature and salinity from paired Mg/Ca and δ18O measurements of H. balthica is better than ±0.7°C and ±0.69 practical salinity scale, respectively. The small uncertainties allow for the reconstruction of seawater density to better than 0.3σθ units, which is precise enough for the identification of specific water masses and reconstruction of changes in their properties. We propose that the relatively high Mg content and temperature sensitivity of H. balthica might be due to minor, biologically mediated contribution of high-Mg calcite to the primarily low Mg calcite test, which is influenced by the ambient temperature. This hypothesis, if correct, suggests that benthic species with relatively high Mg/Ca may be better suited for deepwater temperature reconstructions than species that have thus far been more commonly used.

So all we got is yet again an unproven hypothesis and the margin of error is 7 times higher than the increment "measured" with this method.

So, did you pull that quote from thin air, your own arse, or a bona fide peer reviewed science paper? Hard to tell since you didn't provide a source.

You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it was from ..and no it was not from "skeptical science" where all your quotes are from.
Besides I`m not the one who posted this wild ass guess mud bug temperature crap that you defended without even knowing how the so called "calibration" was done...
Had I added the URL, then you would have never admitted that you had no clue how this so called calibration was done, but would have kept pretending that you knew !
The first thing anybody else but dimwits like you would have done is to investigate how the author of this mud bug hypothesis came up with these numbers.
Not you!....
All you had to go on was this sensational media release article:
Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000
With a picture of somebody in front of a microscope hand picking a sample and that was enough to impress you..
Seeing how ridiculous the error margin of this "calibration" is it`s no wonder this article does not want to discuss it.
And you would not want to know anyway, because you can`t handle the truth. Without fail you & the rest of the doomsday occult act as if somebody butchered your Easter bunny every time garbage such as this gets debunked....and all the while pretend that you understood the "science"....
Again and again it can be shown that without Google and Wiki you haven`t got a snowball`s chance in hell.
Now that your ignorance has been established I`ll show you how easy it was to find the details where the devil is as always and that they pulled these numbers out of their ass and stuck them up your`s...it`s easy because you assume the position every time "skeptical science" gets a hard-on.
Let me google that for you

How long have you been using Google?...by now you should have known how it`s done..unless of course your "science literature" is confined to "skepticalscience".com and the bullshit links you keep feeding us over and over again.

 

[Abraham3]

You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it was from

Would that have been an appropriate response when you folks rejected the BTK ocean heat content graph I posted for perhaps the tenth time but failed to include a link to its source?

It did not come from the article linked to by the lead post in this thread. If it came from somewhere else, you need to tell us where. Otherwise, it's just useless bullshit.

You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it Had I added the URL, then you would have never admitted that you had no clue how this so called calibration was done, but would have kept pretending that you knew !

Wow! You can predict the future! And you actually think that means SOMETHING!

Tell you what Mr Bear. **** you and the weasel you rode in on. You haven't refuted jack shit except the unsupportable contention that you have some idea what you're talking about.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why just the Pacific Ocean?

 

[westwall]

You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it was from

Would that have been an appropriate response when you folks rejected the BTK ocean heat content graph I posted for perhaps the tenth time but failed to include a link to its source?

It did not come from the article linked to by the lead post in this thread. If it came from somewhere else, you need to tell us where. Otherwise, it's just useless bullshit.

You can`t be all that smart if you have no clue where it Had I added the URL, then you would have never admitted that you had no clue how this so called calibration was done, but would have kept pretending that you knew !

Wow! You can predict the future! And you actually think that means SOMETHING!

Tell you what Mr Bear. **** you and the weasel you rode in on. You haven't refuted jack shit except the unsupportable contention that you have some idea what you're talking about.

\



You post a graph that has no possibility of being taken seriously. The ERROR bars are greater than the instruments can measure, or did that FACT escape your pointy little head?

 

[Abraham3]

Odd acusation? In light of this?

Your second graph there makes an interesting claim: "Almost all show Earth hotter than it is... some by as much as 1C". However, the last observation value reads about 14.2C (unidentified reference) yet no datum in the assembly of model predictions exceeds 14.9 at that point. Someone seems to have a problem with basic math.

As to the value of your CO2 vs temperature graph, a discussion of climate trends would be better served by a longer view. Something like:

As an added bonus, note that the dip in CO2 level about 1940 PRECEDES the drop in global temperature.

When you choose a narrow period over which to make claims, you'd best be ready for a charge of "CHERRY-PICKING". Before you can even think about making claims based on the last 15 years, you need to provide a working explanation for the last 150. You have not done so. The current hiatus has not exceeded the natural variability demonstrated in the climatic record. The world is still getting warmer and the primary cause is human GHG emissions. That's accepted science. And attempting to use tabloid articles to counter that accepted science is simply and truly pathetic.

You post a graph that has no possibility of being taken seriously. The ERROR bars are greater than the instruments can measure, or did that FACT escape your pointy little head?

What graph are you talking about? The BTK 2013 OHC graph has been taken quite seriously and I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding what you mean when you say "The error bars are greater than the instruments can measure". I was unaware that bathythermographs in common usage were troubled by restrictive upper limits. Would you care to explain? For that matter, would you care to show us what graph you're actually talking about?

 

[flacaltenn]

So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?

And Abe wants to go back and rehash the BTK study because somehow -- the historical data they present is somehow BETTER and STRONGER than THIS study?

My head is spinning because EVERY THREAD starts looking the same after 2 pages. This happens because nobody wants to discuss ALL the science and assertions.. Just what they've been TOLD is important..

 

[orogenicman]

So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?

And Abe wants to go back and rehash the BTK study because somehow -- the historical data they present is somehow BETTER and STRONGER than THIS study?

My head is spinning because EVERY THREAD starts looking the same after 2 pages. This happens because nobody wants to discuss ALL the science and assertions.. Just what they've been TOLD is important..

Blather one if you must, but Abe HAS been discussing the science all along. In fact, he has consistently discussed the science even while the rest of you wallow in your ad hominem.

 

[westwall]

So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?

And Abe wants to go back and rehash the BTK study because somehow -- the historical data they present is somehow BETTER and STRONGER than THIS study?

My head is spinning because EVERY THREAD starts looking the same after 2 pages. This happens because nobody wants to discuss ALL the science and assertions.. Just what they've been TOLD is important..

Blather one if you must, but Abe HAS been discussing the science all along. In fact, he has consistently discussed the science even while the rest of you wallow in your ad hominem.

"Science" ..........that has been proven faulty you mean, don't you....

 

[Abraham3]

So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?

How about providing a reference somewhere for your pronouns. When you say "THIS proxy study", I cannot tell to which study you refer.

And Abe wants to go back and rehash the BTK study because somehow -- the historical data they present is somehow BETTER and STRONGER than THIS study?

Again, what study is "THIS study"? I mention the BTK data because it clearly supports a conclusion that ocean heat content has accelerated in recent decades.

My head is spinning because EVERY THREAD starts looking the same after 2 pages. This happens because nobody wants to discuss ALL the science and assertions.. Just what they've been TOLD is important..

You want to discuss ALL science and ALL assertions in each and every thread? Let us know how that works out for you.

And Orogenicman, I appreciate your support, but if you're going to characterize me as being pure science all the time, you're going to have to ignore several harsh epithets I've thrown out now and then.

 

[Abraham3]

"Science" ..........that has been proven faulty you mean, don't you....

What science do you believe has "been proven faulty"?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Science" ..........that has been proven faulty you mean, don't you....

What science do you believe has "been proven faulty"?

How is it only in the Pacific Ocean?

 

[Abraham3]

It's not, Frank. It's global.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

 

[orogenicman]

So we're done discussing THIS proxy study that shows SEVERE ISSUES with the BTK assumptions?

How about providing a reference somewhere for your pronouns. When you say "THIS proxy study", I cannot tell to which study you refer.

And Abe wants to go back and rehash the BTK study because somehow -- the historical data they present is somehow BETTER and STRONGER than THIS study?

Again, what study is "THIS study"? I mention the BTK data because it clearly supports a conclusion that ocean heat content has accelerated in recent decades.

My head is spinning because EVERY THREAD starts looking the same after 2 pages. This happens because nobody wants to discuss ALL the science and assertions.. Just what they've been TOLD is important..

You want to discuss ALL science and ALL assertions in each and every thread? Let us know how that works out for you.

And Orogenicman, I appreciate your support, but if you're going to characterize me as being pure science all the time, you're going to have to ignore several harsh epithets I've thrown out now and then.

I don't think I suggested that you aren't human.

 

[daveman]

I chuckle everytime I see that paper summarized as BTK 2013...

Heeeee'sss BACK !!!!! The Bind, Torture, Kill serial killer. And he's coming to a Journal near you soon.

Betcha Trenberth took second billing just to get that acronym...

Bind, Torture, Kill is what they want to do to the economies of the entire Western world..."for our own good", of course.

 

[daveman]

I don't give a rat's ass what happened during the MWP or the LIA or any other pre-human period. WE are the cause of the current temperature rise. All this MWP crap is 100% worthless distraction.

When dealing with a cyclical system, it helps to know what happened during previous cycles.

But thanks for proving yet again you're simply not serious about science.

 

[daveman]

Do you want relish with that?

I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs...

Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...

Fine by me. Have at it.

You found a picture of a sediment core. You DIDN'T prove how it fits Fla's condition: "if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ".

 

[daveman]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

So where's the heat? If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...

The heat in the oceans is hiding as humidity.