What hiatus?

[SSDD]

Every one of your (admittedly old) "World Ocean" plots show that the ocean's heat content is increasing. If the Earth as a whole is not warming, from where do you suggest that energy comes?

First, learn to read a graph. I am embarrassed for you. Second, the heat is coming from the same place it has been coming from for the past 14K years.

 

[Abraham3]

You say I can't read a graph, but you haven't corrected anything I've said.

Explain how it warms the deep ocean without warming the planet's surface. Really clear water?

 

[IanC]

Every one of your (admittedly old) "World Ocean" plots show that the ocean's heat content is increasing. If the Earth as a whole is not warming, from where do you suggest that energy comes?

This question seems different than it was an hour ago. oh well

please do not take my posting of these graphs as unconditional acceptance of them. I put them up to show how malleable data seems to be in climate science. especially after it has been 'reanalyzed'.

your question about energy is a good one. the skeptic's raison d'être is to make sure things make sense. the ups and downs of OHC in our data record imply vast gains and losses from the oceans. these gains and losses would have been very noticable, especially if they went through the surface. we did not detect them therefore I fear they are spurious. gains may be misplaced by some understudied variation in solar activity but losses must show up somewhere, doncha think?

 

[Darkwind]

The rate of heat content buildup increased dramatically in 1998, just when surface heating slowed. The contention here is that as warmed surface waters were subducted they were replaced by colder water from below that lowered the Earth's average surface temperature.

And why would you characterize Reviews of Geophysics as not a "grownup full journal"?

I just realized I had not posted a link to that abstract. While I was at it, I posted a link to the Reviews of Geophysics issue where it was published. Have a look so you can better detail to us the journal's failings.

So, you are saying that the oceans play a much more significant role in the climate than CO2, something I have said for a decade.

Thanks for playing.

 

[flacaltenn]

You say I can't read a graph, but you haven't corrected anything I've said.

Explain how it warms the deep ocean without warming the planet's surface. Really clear water?

Ive tried multiple times to PATIENTLY explain this to you.. Over MULTIPLE threads. The problem with the ocean ate my warming argument is that the current rate of heat addition during the hiatus is no different than it was in the 70s and 80s.. And it the top 700 meters it is less than it was in the 70s and 80s.. You cannot steal enough heat from the surface to block surface temps for 15 years without seeing HIGHER SLOPES in those graphs. UNLESS YOU presume a multi decade delay in the transfers.. (or the additions are moved by relatively short events related to ocean cycles and are relatively static most of the time)

The mere Height of the OHC graphs has NO bearing on stealing surface heat. Its the derivative or changes in those variables that tell us how much energy is going into storage.. Thats why we know you have a chronic graph reading problem.. Because you continue to ignore what the graphs are telling us and repeating the same orphaned questions.

One moe effort .. Its heat IN STORAGE. Think water level in a bucket. You steal some water to store in the bucket. You measure just the height of the water.. If youre stealing a rate thats high enough for your neighbor to see it on his monthly bill,, its not the total volume you steal over 10 or 20 years.. Whats gonna alert him is a faster rate of stealing it...

 

[SSDD]

You say I can't read a graph, but you haven't corrected anything I've said.

Explain how it warms the deep ocean without warming the planet's surface. Really clear water?

How many more people need to correct you?

 

[SSDD]

So, you are saying that the oceans play a much more significant role in the climate than CO2, something I have said for a decade.

Thanks for playing.

Anyone with an ounce of brains would realize that the oceans warm the atmosphere...not the other way around...but then no one has accused our local crop of warmers of having an ounce of brains.

 

[Abraham3]

You say I can't read a graph, but you haven't corrected anything I've said.

Explain how it warms the deep ocean without warming the planet's surface. Really clear water?

How many more people need to correct you?

One would be a good start.

 

[Abraham3]

The rate of heat content buildup increased dramatically in 1998, just when surface heating slowed. The contention here is that as warmed surface waters were subducted they were replaced by colder water from below that lowered the Earth's average surface temperature.

And why would you characterize Reviews of Geophysics as not a "grownup full journal"?

I just realized I had not posted a link to that abstract. While I was at it, I posted a link to the Reviews of Geophysics issue where it was published. Have a look so you can better detail to us the journal's failings.

So, you are saying that the oceans play a much more significant role in the climate than CO2, something I have said for a decade.

Thanks for playing.

So, you are saying that once they get the least bit complex, you haven't a clue how things work. Something I've said since I first met you.

Thanks for playing.

Whether or not CO2 levels change, the oceans have been the repository of ~90% of incoming solar energy. The current contention is that either as a natural, chaotic variation or as a result of several decades of rapid, systemic heating, the ENSO circulation has begun taking large amounts of heated surface waters below 700 meters. That warm surface water is being replaced by cooler deep water and thus slowing the surface warming we had been experiencing. The amount of heat energy being trapped in the Earth system is still controlled predominantly by the IR trapping GHGs in the atmosphere. Cooling the surface by taking that heat deep will actually make things worse: the cooler surface will radiate less energy to space. The drop in outgoing LW radiation over time observed by satellites is due primarily to that cooling and, only to a lesser extent, to the increased level of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere.

 

[skookerasbil]

The pause is confirmed s0n.

 

[skookerasbil]

Articles: IPCC 's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming

 

[ScienceRocks]

The pause is confirmed s0n.

Dude,

I honestly don't know how long this pause will last. There's a lot to learn is all I will say.

 

[Abraham3]

The pause is confirmed s0n.

Dude,

I honestly don't know how long this pause will last. There's a lot to learn is all I will say.

Matthew, you need some perspective.

Do these data look as if the Earth has stopped warming?

Satellites in orbit have taken direct observations of the amount of solar radiation coming TO the Earth and the amount of heat energy being radiated AWAY from the Earth. The Former is greater than the latter. The Earth is OBSERVED to be accumulating solar energy. The Earth is STILL getting warmer and not by a trivial amount.

And, to be honest, there has never been a need to respond to Skooker in any way, shape or form. He doesn't need it and he most certainly doesn't deserve it.

 

[skookerasbil]

The pause is confirmed s0n.

Dude,

I honestly don't know how long this pause will last. There's a lot to learn is all I will say.

I concur......100%. And that's the point......no conclusions can be drawn at this point given the ridiculously dismal record of the model predictions these scientists are going by.
The pause might pause......and might start again. None of these scientists knows.......thus, it isn't "science". The models are very useful for learning.......which we need more of. ALOT more.

 

[Abraham3]

The pause is confirmed s0n.

Dude,

I honestly don't know how long this pause will last. There's a lot to learn is all I will say.

I concur......100%. And that's the point......no conclusions can be drawn at this point given the ridiculously dismal record of the model predictions these scientists are going by.
The pause might pause......and might start again. None of these scientists knows.......thus, it isn't "science". The models are very useful for learning.......which we need more of. ALOT more.

The data I put up there Skooker, was NOT model predictions but direct temperature measurements. The radiative imbalance that NASA's satellites have seen, are NOT model predictions but direct measurements. So what have you got to say that has any value in this discussion dude? You ought to take Matthew's closing comment - that there's a lot to learn - personally.

 

[SSDD]

Dude,

I honestly don't know how long this pause will last. There's a lot to learn is all I will say.

I concur......100%. And that's the point......no conclusions can be drawn at this point given the ridiculously dismal record of the model predictions these scientists are going by.
The pause might pause......and might start again. None of these scientists knows.......thus, it isn't "science". The models are very useful for learning.......which we need more of. ALOT more.

The data I put up there Skooker, was NOT model predictions but direct temperature measurements. The radiative imbalance that NASA's satellites have seen, are NOT model predictions but direct measurements. So what have you got to say that has any value in this discussion dude? You ought to take Matthew's closing comment - that there's a lot to learn - personally.

Adjusted data of course. UHI + whatever it takes to give the appearance of warming.

 

[Abraham3]

Your constant claim that every adjustment was made to falsify the data lacks one important feature: evidence.

And while you're searching for evidence that those adjustments were unjustified and made to falsify the results, explain how you will convince us that the conspiracy to falsify these data spreads across the UEA's Climate Research Unit, NASA's National Climate Data Center and Goddard's Institute of Space Studies, whose current, independent temperature records agree exceedingly well. Is that just the result of more conspiracy in your world?

 

[jillian]

If all this heat has been going into oceans at a fairly CONSTANT rate since the 60s ---- what does that have to do with the temperature stalling circa 2000? We've seen this movie before MULTIPLE TIMES and none of the questions get answered, BTK still doesnt have a MECHANISM for long wave absorption to suddenly show up at depth, and theres STILL no sign of a grownup full journal article on their "findings".

YAWN.......... Zzzzzz-Zzzzzzzzz

in other words you have zero understanding of what he said or the science behind it.

 

[Abraham3]

If all this heat has been going into oceans at a fairly CONSTANT rate since the 60s ---- what does that have to do with the temperature stalling circa 2000? We've seen this movie before MULTIPLE TIMES and none of the questions get answered, BTK still doesnt have a MECHANISM for long wave absorption to suddenly show up at depth, and theres STILL no sign of a grownup full journal article on their "findings".

Last time I checked, you aren't required to provide a mechanism before reporting an observation.

The suggested mechanism - and one that has garnered growing support among climate scientists - is a change in ENSO circulation in which tropical winds are driving the subducton of warm surface waters at the continental margins. BTK is not the only paper to have reported the increasing rate at which water is warming below 700 meters.

 

[SSDD]

Your constant claim that every adjustment was made to falsify the data lacks one important feature: evidence.

And while you're searching for evidence that those adjustments were unjustified and made to falsify the results, explain how you will convince us that the conspiracy to falsify these data spreads across the UEA's Climate Research Unit, NASA's National Climate Data Center and Goddard's Institute of Space Studies, whose current, independent temperature records agree exceedingly well. Is that just the result of more conspiracy in your world?

Care to offer a rational scientific reason for adjusting pre 1960 temperatures?

Didn't think so.