Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

Jul 02, 2013

From 1975 on, the global surface ocean has shown a pronounced-though wavering-warming trend. Starting in 2004, however, that warming seemed to stall. Researchers measuring the Earth's total energy budget-the balance of sunlight streaming in compared to the amount of light and heat leaving from the top of the atmosphere-saw that the planet was still holding on to more heat than it was letting out. But with that energy not going into warming the surface ocean-a traditionally important energy sink-scientists weren't sure where it went. It became known, in some circles, as a case of "missing heat."

Through a reanalysis of global ocean heat content measurements, Balmaseda et al. find the missing heat. The authors show that though the upper ocean waters, from the surface to 700 meters (2,300 feet) depth, showed no warming from 2004 to 2008, the waters from 700 to 2000 meters (2,300 to 6,500 feet) were warming at an unprecedented rate. They find that during the past decade, of the excess energy trapped by the anthropogenic that has gone into warming the ocean, 30 percent of it has contributed to warming the deep ocean.

The authors also find that throughout the observational record the warming of the surface ocean has stalled before, because of large volcanic eruptions or swings of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. They also note that changes in surface wind patterns are an important factor in driving ocean from the surface layers to the deep ocean.

Explore further: NASA balloons begin flying in Antarctica for 2014 campaign

More information: Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content, Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/grl.50382, 2013 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Century-long trend of global ocean warming identified

Oct 29, 2012

One of the largest sources of uncertainty in reconstructing the warming of the past century stems from problems with historical ocean temperature records. Inconsistencies in method or technology or gaps in observation caused ...

Recommended for you

Scientists make strides in tsunami warning since 2004

Dec 19, 2014

The 2004 tsunami led to greater global cooperation and improved techniques for detecting waves that could reach faraway shores, even though scientists still cannot predict when an earthquake will strike.

Trade winds ventilate the tropical oceans

Dec 19, 2014

Long-term observations indicate that the oxygen minimum zones in the tropical oceans have expanded in recent decades. The reason is still unknown. Now scientists at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research ...

User comments : 71

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VENDItardE
1.5 / 5 (23) Jul 02, 2013
absolute and total BS
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 02, 2013
VENDiTardE just don't like science.

It all like done Foncuses him and his sister-wife-cousin.
VendicarE
4.2 / 5 (20) Jul 02, 2013
This goes a long way in why global surface temperatures have been rising less slowly over the last decade than in decades past.

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 02, 2013
Yes it confirms what actual scientists have been saying for a while now; that is, the deep oceans are warming and the turnover of the warm surface ocean to the deep and the rise of the cooler ocean water from the deep is what is keeping SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted.

Are you paying attention Uba the Dumdum and Claudius the Misrepresenter? How many times was this exact thing suggested to both of you?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 02, 2013
Yes it confirms what actual scientists have been saying for a while now; that is, the deep oceans are warming and the turnover of the warm surface ocean to the deep and the rise of the cooler ocean water from the deep is what is keeping SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted.

Are you paying attention Uba the Dumdum and Claudius the Misrepresenter? How many times was this exact thing suggested to both of you?


Maggnus: You can't expect the deniers you mention to understand the differences between heat balance, heat transfer, surface temperatures, and weather. They seem to think that the deep ocean doesn't count and that if temperatures in their back yard don't monotonically increase that there is some conspiracy. They just need to tighten their tin-foil hats and keep their mouths shut.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (19) Jul 02, 2013
**SIGH*** No I suppose I can't. God forbid they spend a few days educating themselves. It would put the Tin Foil Hat Company (a division of Acme) out of business.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (19) Jul 02, 2013
Impossible. their Political Ideology rewards ignorance.

Just look at Sarah Palin, and Never Red a book George Bush. Jr.
'
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (29) Jul 02, 2013
absolute and total BS

A succinct evaluation of your posts.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 03, 2013
Yes it confirms what actual scientists have been saying for a while now; that is, the deep oceans are warming and the turnover of the warm surface ocean to the deep and the rise of the cooler ocean water from the deep is what is keeping SURFACE temperatures at a lower level than predicted.
This just serves to prove your gullibility. You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved.

So what would you claim is the magical source for this suppposed heating? Do you think the sun's energy just magically passes through 700 meters of seawater, only to stop and be absorbed at this absurd depth?

AGWite = gullible.

BTW, would you like to buy a particularly majestic bridge in Brooklynn?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
Maggnus: You can't expect the deniers you mention to understand the differences between heat balance, heat transfer, surface temperatures, and weather. They seem to think that the deep ocean doesn't count and that if temperatures in their back yard don't monotonically increase that there is some conspiracy. They just need to tighten their tin-foil hats and keep their mouths shut.
LOL. Since the global surfcae temperatures aren't cooperating, AGWites desperately seek any ridiculous justification.

AGWite = desperate believer

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2013
You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved.

Really. Ok there Dumdum, please do explain the physics.
So what would you claim is the magical source for this suppposed heating?

Magical? Supposed? Oh I don't know, maybe human generated CO2? Combined with heat from the sun? Because, you know PHYSICS says CO2 traps solar radiation causing increased heating of the planet? Oh wait, right, you are going to explain the physics. Can't wait.
Do you think the sun's energy just magically passes through 700 meters of seawater, only to stop and be absorbed at this absurd depth?

Oh, you mean like facts pass magically through your brain without leaving any imprint? No, it doesn't pass through the upper 700 meters. Its a physics thing. You know, what you are going to explain. Might add ocean circulation in the things you are going to explain.
Can't wait for till your explanations magically appear. MORON!
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved.

Really. Ok there, please do explain the physics
We've already been over this, here:

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

...here:

http://phys.org/n...bal.html

...and here:

http://phys.org/n...ars.html

Had you forgotten?

Magical? Supposed? Oh I don't know, maybe human generated CO2? From the sun?
And how does this energy magically transport 700m deep into the ocean?

Because, you know PHYSICS says CO2 traps solar radiation causing increased heating of the planet?
Idiot. That would be surface heating, not deep ocean heating where sunlight cannot reach.

Oh wait, right, you are going to explain the physics. Can't wait.
You're the gullible one who believes it. Explain how it works.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
Do you think the sun's energy just magically passes through 700 meters of seawater, only to stop and be absorbed at this absurd depth?
Oh, you mean like facts pass magically through your brain without leaving any imprint?
This seems to be your problem.

No, it doesn't pass through the upper 700 meters. Its a physics thing.
Really. So how does this "physics thing" work? What's the mechanism?

You know, what you are going to explain. Might add ocean circulation in the things you are going to explain.
Do you even have any idea how long it takes the deep water to circulate to the surface, and vice versa?

Can't wait for till your explanations magically appear.
I'm still waiting for yours. You're the believer, explain it.

MORON!
Indeed you are, but you needn't make the special effort to point it out by signing your work with this title.

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2013
That's hilarious Uba Dumdum, where you provide links to all the different articles where you display your utter lack of understanding and the 1's everyone gives your usual stupid comments. Way to go. And Dumdum, this one is great:
And how does this energy magically transport 700m deep into the ocean?

I even told you, you idiot! Look up Ocean Circulation. I made it nice and big so you can copy and paste it into your browser. That's a good dummy!
Idiot. That would be surface heating, not deep ocean heating where sunlight cannot reach.

Seriously, how stupid can you be? Stupider than I first imagined, for sure. See comment above Dumdum. Still waiting for that explanation there Dumdum.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
That's hilarious Uba Dumdum, where you provide links to all the different articles where you display your utter lack of understanding and the 1's everyone gives your usual stupid comments. Way to go. And Uba, this one is great:
And how does this energy magically transport 700m deep into the ocean?
I agreee, it is great. So why don't you answer it?

I even told you, you idiot! Look up Ocean Circulation. I made it nice and big so you can copy and paste it into your browser.
As you obviously have no concept of how the oceans circulate, you're admitting you can't provide an explanation?

Idiot. That would be surface heating, not deep ocean heating where sunlight cannot reach.
Seriously, how stupid can you be? Stupider than I first imagined, for sure. See comment above. Still waiting for that explanation there.
It must be weird waiting for an explanation from yourself.

I'm still waiting too...

Maggnus = Dumdum

Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (17) Jul 03, 2013
[This seems to be your problem.

BAHAHAHA! And once again "no I`m not, you are!" Way to argue your case Dumdum!

Really. So how does this "physics thing" work? What's the mechanism?

Typing really slow for your stupid ass. Its-called-global-warming!
Do you even have any idea how long it takes the deep water to circulate to the surface, and vice versa?
Why yes, yes I do. Why might that be important Dumdum? Go slow, and think...

I'm still waiting for yours. You're the believer, explain it.

Hahahaha believer, yea that's it Dumdum!

MORON!

Yes, in fact, you ARE a moron!
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
This seems to be your problem.
BAHAHAHA! And once again "no I`m not, you are!" Way to argue your case!
I'm only pointing out your use of ad hominems to avoid discussing the science. Why won't you simply discuss the science and drop all the baby shit?

Really. So how does this "physics thing" work? What's the mechanism?
Typing really slow for your stupid ass. Its-called-global-warming!
That's not a discussion of the mechanism, that's simply a broad and barely related title.

Do you even have any idea how long it takes the deep water to circulate to the surface, and vice versa?
Why yes, yes I do. Why might that be important Dumdum? Go slow, and think...
Another non-answer.

I'm still waiting for yours. You're the believer, explain it.
Hahahaha believer, yea that's it!
Another non-answer.

MORON!
Yes, in fact, you ARE a moron!
I know you are, but as I said above, you needn't point it out
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (27) Jul 03, 2013
UTuba lacks the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and has all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2013
Aww poor Dumdum, are you having trouble keeping up again? Global warming IS the mechanism you idiot! Your stupid ass can't understand that the ocean circulation that is transporting the warm surface water to the deep and cycling up the cooler water, thus causing a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe STILL MEANS THE SYSTEM IS WARMING!! Your idiotic defence of a denialist agenda is so obvious, nearly everyone who comes to this site and reads your comments gives you a 1! Your stupid parroting of zombie arguments does more to hurt your cause (such as it is) than ANYTHING the normal science-minded people on this site say to defend the truth of human caused global warming!

And you are too bloody STUPID to even realize it! You are a MORON!
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
Aww poor Dumdum, are you having trouble keeping up again? Global warming IS the mechanism you idiot! Your stupid ass can't understand that the ocean circulation that is transporting the warm surface water to the deep and cycling up the cooler water, thus causing a reduction in the predicted surface temperatures across the globe STILL MEANS THE SYSTEM IS WARMING!! Your idiotic defence of a denialist agenda is so obvious, nearly everyone who comes to this site and reads your comments gives you a 1! Your stupid parroting of zombie arguments does more to hurt your cause (such as it is) than ANYTHING the normal science-minded people on this site say to defend the truth of human caused global warming!
LOL. So you're admitting you don't understand how any of this supposedly works, but you believe it anyway.

Like I said before, Maggnus = gullible.

And you are too bloody STUPID to even realize it! You are a MORON!
I fully realize that you're a moron.

Maggnus
4 / 5 (16) Jul 03, 2013
Hey Dumdum, just to try to help you pull your addled head out of your behind, you said this:
You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved

to which I replied:
Really. Ok there Dumdum, please do explain the physics.

You obliquely asserted that we (or I) were not considering the physics involved. So again Dumdum, how about you take a stab at explaining these physics you assert we are not considering.
deepsand
2.7 / 5 (25) Jul 03, 2013
Hey Dumdum, just to try to help you pull your addled head out of your behind, you said this:
You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved

to which I replied:
Really. Ok there Dumdum, please do explain the physics.

You obliquely asserted that we (or I) were not considering the physics involved. So again Dumdum, how about you take a stab at explaining these physics you assert we are not considering.

All of UTuba's previous attempts at defending his position using Physics have been abject failures.

He's shot his load, and missed, and now resorts to accusing his audience of being to blame for his shortcomings.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (15) Jul 03, 2013
That's a great argument Dumdum; no I'm not, you are.

Wow. Way to state the case for the idiocy of most of those who continue to deny the truth of global warming. You're a poster child for conspiracist denialism. The Heartland foundation is probably having heart palpitations as they read your claptrap.

Thanks Dumdum, while you are too stupid to realize it, you actually make my case.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2013
Hey Dumdum, just to try to help you pull your addled head out of your behind, you said this:
You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved
to which I replied:
Really. Ok there Dumdum, please do explain the physics.
You obliquely asserted that we (or I) were not considering the physics involved. So again Dumdum, how about you take a stab at explaining these physics you assert we are not considering.
I provided multiple links to previous discussions on this topic. Are you having trouble accessing them?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2013
All of UTuba's previous attempts at defending his position using Physics have been abject failures.
LOL. You wish.

He's shot his load, and missed, and now resorts to accusing his audience of being to blame for his shortcomings.
LOL. I see it still hurts.

I'm sorry I publicly proved you wrong so many times, but you really shouldn't play the authority when you haven't the skills.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2013
That's a great argument Dumdum; no I'm not, you are.
I'm pleased to see that it is at a level you can understand.

Wow. Way to state the case for the idiocy of most of those who continue to deny the truth of global warming. You're a poster child for conspiracist denialism. The Heartland foundation is probably having heart palpitations as they read your claptrap.
Really? You think they read me? That's cool.

Thanks Dumdum, while you are too stupid to realize it, you actually make my case.
You are a case, alright.

geokstr
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 03, 2013
UTuba lacks the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and has all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

I am reporting all these comments of yours that constitute nothing but personal insults and slurs, which is pretty much 100% of them. Eventually I will contact the moderators directly. I hope they suspend you and the other main vitriol spreader here as well.

Don't worry. You can just change your sig slightly like your twin does and post as usual. Maybe "deepersand" or "ampersand" or "quicksand".

But we'll know the moderators have admonished you for your reprehensible comments if we see your name change.

JohnGee
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013
I hope they suspend you and the other main vitriol spreader here as well.
You're speaking about yourself, right? I think I'll be contacting the moderators directly as well.
Gmr
1.7 / 5 (19) Jul 04, 2013
"How does hot water get where cold water is at?"

Really, such incredulity when old Ben Franklin himself studied the Gulf Stream. Ocean water circulates through surface currents (rather well known) and sub-surface currents (less well known). An upwelling of cold water is one of the reasons the ocean around the Galapagos is so productive. And since nature abhors a vacuum, when cold water wells up, warmer water circulates down at some point. That's how you put energy in the deep ocean - increase the heat of the water that hits these circulation points.
deepsand
3 / 5 (26) Jul 04, 2013
All of UTuba's previous attempts at defending his position using Physics have been abject failures.
LOL. You wish.

He's shot his load, and missed, and now resorts to accusing his audience of being to blame for his shortcomings.
LOL. I see it still hurts.

I'm sorry I publicly proved you wrong so many times, but you really shouldn't play the authority when you haven't the skills.

ROTFLMAO.

Anyone who cares to make the effort can read your posts in other threads here and see that your claims of victory are naught but lies.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (25) Jul 04, 2013
UTuba lacks the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and has all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

I am reporting all these comments of yours that constitute nothing but personal insults and slurs, which is pretty much 100% of them. Eventually I will contact the moderators directly. I hope they suspend you and the other main vitriol spreader here as well.

Don't worry. You can just change your sig slightly like your twin does and post as usual. Maybe "deepersand" or "ampersand" or "quicksand".

But we'll know the moderators have admonished you for your reprehensible comments if we see your name change.

No doubt you've diligently reported your potty-mouthed confederate, antigoracle, and are disappointed to see that he continues to spew his foul venom.
Neinsense99
3.6 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
Hey Dumdum, just to try to help you pull your addled head out of your behind, you said this:
You'll believe any ridiculous assertion regarding global warming, without any consideration to the physics involved

to which I replied:
Really. Ok there Dumdum, please do explain the physics.

You obliquely asserted that we (or I) were not considering the physics involved. So again Dumdum, how about you take a stab at explaining these physics you assert we are not considering.

Those would be magic physics, the kind that make the tides come in and the tides go out, which neither he nor O'Reilly can explain.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (16) Jul 07, 2013
"I publicly proved you wrong so many times, " - UbVonTard

Not in this universe. But perhaps in the fantasy universe you live in.
VendicarE
4.3 / 5 (17) Jul 07, 2013
O'REILLY: I'll tell you why [religion's] not a scam, in my opinion: tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

SILVERMAN: Tide goes in, tide goes out?

O'REILLY: See, the water, the tide comes in and it goes out, Mr. Silverman. It always comes in, and always goes out. You can't explain that.

Faux news at it's best
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 07, 2013
Pure conjecture disguised as AGW "science".
Let's play hide.
First it was hide the cooling.
Now, it's where is the non-existent warming hiding.
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (19) Jul 07, 2013
"I publicly proved you wrong so many times, " - UbVonTard

Not in this universe. But perhaps in the fantasy universe you live in.

Last week he was bound in a nutshell and crowned King of Infinite Space. (mandatory Shakespeare reference for the month accomplished!)
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
"Pure conjecture" - Anti-Gore-Tard

Anti-Gore-Tard don't do science. It hurts his brain cell.
deepsand
3 / 5 (25) Jul 07, 2013
Pure conjecture disguised as AGW "science".
Let's play hide.
First it was hide the cooling.
Now, it's where is the non-existent warming hiding.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2013
Through a reanalysis of global ocean heat content measurements

So, from 2004 the oceans conspired to move all its hot surface water to below 700 meters. Now that is some AGW Alarmist magic...er...excuse me "science".

AGW Alarmist Dictionary:
reanalysis - to doctor and/or fabricate data to propagate the AGW Alarmist agenda.
Gmr
3.2 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2013
Not magic. Really, open a fridge and it doesn't all warm instantly. There are already patterns of circulation.

Oh wait - sorry, I was trying to make a rational analogy. My mistake.

This would be the line for vitriol laced invective spewing to AVOID rational measured conversation.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 09, 2013
Not magic. Really, open a fridge and it doesn't all warm instantly. There are already patterns of circulation.

Oh wait - sorry, I was trying to make a rational analogy. My mistake.

This would be the line for vitriol laced invective spewing to AVOID rational measured conversation.

Errmmm... you been standing with your head in that open fridge door, too long.
deepsand
2.9 / 5 (23) Jul 09, 2013
Through a reanalysis of global ocean heat content measurements

So, from 2004 the oceans conspired to move all its hot surface water to below 700 meters. Now that is some AGW Alarmist magic...er...excuse me "science".

AGW Alarmist Dictionary:
reanalysis - to doctor and/or fabricate data to propagate the AGW Alarmist agenda.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

Errmmm... you been standing with your head in that open fridge door, too long

You've been without a head for far too long.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 09, 2013
"So, from 2004 the oceans conspired to move all its hot surface water to below 700 meters. " - Anti-Gore-Tard

That is what Science tells us.

Damn those Liberal oceans.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2013
Through a reanalysis of global ocean heat content measurements

So, from 2004 the oceans conspired to move all its hot surface water to below 700 meters. Now that is some AGW Alarmist magic...er...excuse me "science".

AGW Alarmist Dictionary:
reanalysis - to doctor and/or fabricate data to propagate the AGW Alarmist agenda.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

Errmmm... you been standing with your head in that open fridge door, too long

You've been without a head for far too long.

Yet I'm more intelligent than an ignorant turd like you.
VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2013
"Yet I'm more intelligent than an ignorant turd like you." - Anti-Gore-Tard

We understand that you think yourself to be a member of some master race.

How typically Conservative of you.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 10, 2013
Through a reanalysis of global ocean heat content measurements

So, from 2004 the oceans conspired to move all its hot surface water to below 700 meters. Now that is some AGW Alarmist magic...er...excuse me "science".

AGW Alarmist Dictionary:
reanalysis - to doctor and/or fabricate data to propagate the AGW Alarmist agenda.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

Errmmm... you been standing with your head in that open fridge door, too long

You've been without a head for far too long.

Yet I'm more intelligent than an ignorant turd like you.

That's funny, coming from one who does nothing but wallow in fecal matter.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 10, 2013
Through a reanalysis of global ocean heat content measurements

So, from 2004 the oceans conspired to move all its hot surface water to below 700 meters. Now that is some AGW Alarmist magic...er...excuse me "science".

AGW Alarmist Dictionary:
reanalysis - to doctor and/or fabricate data to propagate the AGW Alarmist agenda.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

Errmmm... you been standing with your head in that open fridge door, too long

You've been without a head for far too long.

Yet I'm more intelligent than an ignorant turd like you.

That's funny, coming from one who does nothing but wallow in fecal matter.

Only, because I see you need a friend.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2013
"Only, because I see you need a friend." - Anti-Gore-Tard

It is amusing to see the Anti-Gore-Tard admit that he eats dung.

Brain Cancer can be funny at times.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2013
Not magic. Really, open a fridge and it doesn't all warm instantly. There are already patterns of circulation.

Oh wait - sorry, I was trying to make a rational analogy. My mistake.

This would be the line for vitriol laced invective spewing to AVOID rational measured conversation.

Errmmm... you been standing with your head in that open fridge door, too long.


Antigorical: You seem to think that the analogy GMR used was wrong. He did go to the trouble of pointing out that we can see convection in something as familiar as a refrigerator and he pointed out that there are convection currents and eddies of all sizes and extents in the oceans that are constantly mixing them. Can you please explain why you think the heat transfer concept of convection is wrong and does not mix the energy in the oceans? Thank you in advance for your explanation. I am always interested in learning more.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2013
Antigorical: You seem to think that the analogy GMR used was wrong. He did go to the trouble of pointing out that we can see convection in something as familiar as a refrigerator and he pointed out that there are convection currents and eddies of all sizes and extents in the oceans that are constantly mixing them. Can you please explain why you think the heat transfer concept of convection is wrong and does not mix the energy in the oceans? Thank you in advance for your explanation. I am always interested in learning more.

The authors show that though the upper ocean waters, from the surface to 700 meters (2,300 feet) depth, showed no warming from 2004 to 2008, the waters from 700 to 2000 meters (2,300 to 6,500 feet) were warming at an unprecedented rate.

Then perhaps you can explain how this convection mechanism could transfer all this heat to the deep ocean while leaving none in the top 700 meters.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2013
"Only, because I see you need a friend." - Anti-Gore-Tard

It is amusing to see the Anti-Gore-Tard admit that he eats dung.

Brain Cancer can be funny at times.

Hmmmm... it's good to see that the AGW Alarmist cult is not running low on stupid.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 11, 2013
Antigorical: You asked: "Then perhaps you can explain how this convection mechanism could transfer all this heat to the deep ocean while leaving none in the top 700 meters."

First, let me be clear that it is difficult to measure a null result because one can only say that the results are indistinguishable from zero to a specified certainty. To be able to say "none" would imply infinite resolution (which we can't measure). That is why we use statistics to assign confidence to a measurement. However, that was not the crux of your question, I just wanted to be sure you understood that it is probable the top 700 m changed by some amount in some places but was not distinguishable from the null hypothesis during their analysis.

Now the question you asked is how can the deeper water get warmer when the top water was not. Not having analyzed the data that was used, I will go back to elementary convection theory to give you an answer (not far off from the refrigerator example). Cont

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (13) Jul 11, 2013
Continued for Anti: There are three mechanisms that take place in the oceans to mix them. We all know there are thermoclines that tend to keep areas of warm water on top of cold. There are also haloclines that are made up of differences in salt content with less salty water riding over more salty water. Less salty water can come from rain and melt while more salty brine can come from the expulsion from freezing. What happens is that warm water from the equator moves toward both the poles moving heat from the equator north and south. At the same time, winds tend to mix the top layers. The motion of water through the oceans are made up of huge rivers, larger than any river on land. These rivers mix at their fringes due to entrainment. They also mix upon upwelling and downwelling. Some of them move across deep sections of the oceans. Continued
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2013
Continued for Anti: You seem to lack an understanding of the three modes of heat transfer. They include radiant, convective, and conductive. Conduction relies on diffusion to move heat through a material. Diffusion can be effective or not depending on electron mobility. For ocean water, conduction is a very slow process. Radiant is what allows heat from the sun to be absorbed by the surface and you are correct that the absorption takes place in the upper few meters. However, it is then rapidly mixed and heats the upper layers of the ocean surface. A few years ago that was what they thought the mechanisms would be. Then they started looking more closely at ENSO and found that upwelling and downwelling were much more common than thought (how do you think El Nino works)? So, as they started finding the surface to be gaining temperature slower than expected they checked the results against the increase in volume of water in the ocean. Continued
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2013
Continued for Anti: The volume of the oceans was increasing faster than fresh water was running into it, so that means that the change in volume due to heating was significant. In fact, when they started looking at the deeper waters they found that the heat was being convected into those waters and they were heating. Now many teams are studying the phenomena to determine how this will affect the future heating of the oceans.

Along with this it should be clear that a significant amount of heat that they couldn't find was hidden in the depths of the ocean and was sending a strong signal by raising ocean surfaces.

I hope that answers your questions and if not, just let me know what else you would like. There is a very good book on convection called: Convective Heat Transfer" By Louis Burmeister that can give you a good background in convection. Just ask if you need more explanation.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2013
@thermodynamics
Thank you. That was a good regurgitation of the physics of heat transfer from your textbooks.
Perhaps if you read the published paper and took a gander at the link below, you'll realize why this is pure conjecture.
http://www.cato.o...vel-rise
VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) Jul 11, 2013
Well TardieBoy, if all the heat in the upper 700 m of ocean were transported below, the upper 700 m would immediately freeze solid.

"Then perhaps you can explain how this convection mechanism could transfer all this heat to the deep ocean while leaving none in the top 700 meters." - Anti-Gore-Tard

So we know your supposition is just pure scientific illiteracy.

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 11, 2013
Well TardieBoy, if all the heat in the upper 700 m of ocean were transported below, the upper 700 m would immediately freeze solid.

"Then perhaps you can explain how this convection mechanism could transfer all this heat to the deep ocean while leaving none in the top 700 meters." - Anti-Gore-Tard

So we know your supposition is just pure scientific illiteracy.

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.


Wow, there is no limit to your stupidity. I know it's difficult for you, but first try reading, then comprehending and then remember:
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt
VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) Jul 11, 2013
"Perhaps if you read the published paper and took a gander at the link below" - Anti-Gore-Tard

Sorry TardieBoy, but Michaels stopped being a scientist when he started writing political mumbo-jumbo for the Corporate Propaganda outlet called the CATO Institute - you link to their nonsense.

In addition Michaels has been so wrong, so many times, that no one takes him seriously anymore, and haven't for the last 2 decades.

Here is a great video of Ben Santer beating the crap out of Pat Michaels in front of congress.

http://www.youtub...nz3AJ0qQ

Michaels is such a pathetic clown.
VendicarE
4 / 5 (16) Jul 11, 2013
"Wow, there is no limit to your stupidity." - Anti-Gore-Tard

Well TardieBoy, if all the heat in the upper 700 m of ocean were transported below, the upper 700 m would immediately freeze solid.

So we know your supposition is just pure scientific illiteracy...

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2013
"Wow, there is no limit to your stupidity." - Anti-Gore-Tard

Well TardieBoy, if all the heat in the upper 700 m of ocean were transported below, the upper 700 m would immediately freeze solid.

So we know your supposition is just pure scientific illiteracy...

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.

Are you a child or just plain stupid.
There is a difference between my statement - all THIS heat, and yours - all THE heat.
I repeat, try to read, then comprehend and then do the impossible, not look like the ignorant turd you are.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2013
Which heat are you referring to Anti-Gore-Tard? Are you referring to the heat that reaches the ocean from the sun or the heat which reaches the ocean from the sun.

It occurrs to me that you are going to have some difficulty differentiating between the two.

antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2013
Which heat are you referring to Anti-Gore-Tard? Are you referring to the heat that reaches the ocean from the sun or the heat which reaches the ocean from the sun.

It occurrs to me that you are going to have some difficulty differentiating between the two.


I have no difficulty differentiating a turd from you. A turd has intelligence.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2013
Which heat are you referring to Anti-Gore-Tard? Are you referring to the heat that reaches the ocean from the sun or the heat which reaches the ocean from the sun.

It occurrs to me that you are going to have some difficulty differentiating between the two.

I have no difficulty differentiating a turd from you. A turd has intelligence.

Be that as it may, wallowing in them as you do is not going to increase your intelligence.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2013
@thermodynamics
Thank you. That was a good regurgitation of the physics of heat transfer from your textbooks.
Perhaps if you read the published paper and took a gander at the link below, you'll realize why this is pure conjecture.
http://www.cato.o...vel-rise

That you cite a paper that is wholly unrelated to the issue of ocean temperatures simply serves to further demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the subjects here under discussion, or that you are deliberately obfuscating.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (15) Jul 23, 2013
Well TardieBoy, if all the heat in the upper 700 m of ocean were transported below, the upper 700 m would immediately freeze solid.

"Then perhaps you can explain how this convection mechanism could transfer all this heat to the deep ocean while leaving none in the top 700 meters." - Anti-Gore-Tard

So we know your supposition is just pure scientific illiteracy.

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.


Wow, there is no limit to your stupidity. I know it's difficult for you, but first try reading, then comprehending and then remember:
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt

Advice that you would do well to heed.
Paulw789
1.3 / 5 (12) Jul 23, 2013
I know most people do not understand the numbers in this particular part of the debate, but the Oceans are NOT absorbing a great amount of heat.

It is just a tiny, tiny amount and it is only one-third of that which has been predicted and it cannot explain where all the GHG forcing is going (and up to 80% of the expected energy from that is missing).

I understand this latest explanation of the warming hiatus is popular now, but it actually indicates the Earth is just not going to warm up as the forecasts predicted.
deepsand
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 25, 2013
I know most people do not understand the numbers in this particular part of the debate, but the Oceans are NOT absorbing a great amount of heat.

It is just a tiny, tiny amount and it is only one-third of that which has been predicted and it cannot explain where all the GHG forcing is going (and up to 80% of the expected energy from that is missing).

I understand this latest explanation of the warming hiatus is popular now, but it actually indicates the Earth is just not going to warm up as the forecasts predicted.

We look forward to your substantiating these naked assertions.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2013
I know most people do not understand the numbers in this particular part of the debate, but the Oceans are NOT absorbing a great amount of heat.

It is just a tiny, tiny amount and it is only one-third of that which has been predicted and it cannot explain where all the GHG forcing is going (and up to 80% of the expected energy from that is missing).

I understand this latest explanation of the warming hiatus is popular now, but it actually indicates the Earth is just not going to warm up as the forecasts predicted.


I will also be looking forward to your links to sources of this information.

Just as a rhetorical question: Do you know the difference between heat and temperature?

OK, one more question: Do you know what the heat capacity of water is and how it compares with other materials?

Please hurry up with the links to this information you are going to share with us. I love to learn new things...
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 25, 2013
Well TardieBoy, if all the heat in the upper 700 m of ocean were transported below, the upper 700 m would immediately freeze solid.

"Then perhaps you can explain how this convection mechanism could transfer all this heat to the deep ocean while leaving none in the top 700 meters." - Anti-Gore-Tard

So we know your supposition is just pure scientific illiteracy.

Tarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.


Wow, there is no limit to your stupidity. I know it's difficult for you, but first try reading, then comprehending and then remember:
Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt

Advice that you would do well to heed.

From your retort that consists entirely of personal attack and copied platitude, I see you are very intimately acquainted with the Dunning-Kruger effect. http://rationalwi...r_effect
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 26, 2013
I presume, someone already knows about my theory of global warming induced with decay (and possibly the fusion) of radioactive elements (potassium) inside of Earth crust and marine water, acellerated with low energy neutrinos from cloud of dark matter penetrating the solar system at the galactic plane.

Given that the average adult human body contains 160 grams of potassium, of which 0.0187 grams are 40K, do doubt your "theory" also accounts for fluctuations in body temperatures in general, and extreme ones (fevers) in particular.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.