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

Oct 31, 2013
H. balthica fossils are painstakingly separated from grains of sand and then analyzed by mass spectrometers. Credit: Rudy Diaz, Columbia University

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.

"We're experimenting by putting all this heat in the without quite knowing how it's going to come back out and affect climate," said study coauthor Braddock Linsley, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "It's not so much the magnitude of the change, but the rate of change."

In its latest report, released in September, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming. While global temperatures rose by about one-fifth of a degree Fahrenheit per decade from the 1950s through 1990s, warming slowed to just half that rate after the record hot year of 1998. The IPCC has attributed the pause to natural climate fluctuations caused by volcanic eruptions, changes in solar intensity, and the movement of heat through the ocean. Many scientists note that 1998 was an exceptionally hot year even by modern standards, and so any average rise using it as a starting point would downplay the longer-term warming trend.

The IPCC scientists agree that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere since the 1970s through greenhouse gas emissions probably has been absorbed by the ocean. However, the findings in Science put this idea into a long-term context, and suggest that the oceans may be storing even more of the effects of human emissions than scientists have so far realized. "We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy," said study lead author, Yair Rosenthal, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. "It may buy us some time – how much time, I don't really know. But it's not going to stop ."

Ocean heat is typically measured from buoys dispersed throughout the ocean, and with instruments lowered from ships, with reliable records at least in some places going back to the 1960s. To look back farther in time, scientists have developed ways to analyze the chemistry of ancient marine life to reconstruct the climates in which they lived. In a 2003 expedition to Indonesia, the researchers collected cores of sediment from the seas where water from the Pacific flows into the Indian Ocean. By measuring the levels of magnesium to calcium in the shells of Hyalinea balthica, a one-celled organism buried in those sediments, the researchers estimated the of the middle-depth waters where H. Balthica lived, from about 1,500 to 3,000 feet down. The temperature record there reflects middle-depth temperatures throughout the western Pacific, the researchers say, since the waters around Indonesia originate from the mid-depths of the North and South Pacific.

Though the climate of the last 10,000 years has been thought to be relatively stable, the researchers found that the Pacific intermediate depths have generally been cooling during that time, though with various ups and downs. From about 7,000 years ago until the start of the Medieval Warm Period in northern Europe, at about 1100, the water cooled gradually, by almost 1 degree C, or almost 2 degrees F. The rate of cooling then picked up during the so-called Little Ice Age that followed, dropping another 1 degree C, or 2 degrees F, until about 1600. The authors attribute the cooling from 7,000 years ago until the Medieval Warm Period to changes in Earth's orientation toward the sun, which affected how much sunlight fell on both poles. In 1600 or so, temperatures started gradually going back up. Then, over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F. That might seem small in the scheme of things, but it's a rate of warming 15 times faster than at any period in the last 10,000 years, said Linsley.

One explanation for the recent slowdown in global warming is that a prolonged La Niña-like cooling of eastern Pacific surface waters has helped to offset the global rise in temperatures from greenhouse gases. In a study in the journal Nature in August, climate modelers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography showed that La Niña cooling in the Pacific seemed to suppress global average temperatures during northern hemisphere winters but allowed temperatures to rise during northern hemisphere summers, explaining last year's record U.S. heat wave and the ongoing loss of Arctic sea ice.

When the La Niña cycle switches, and the Pacific reverts to a warmer than usual El Niño phase, may likely shoot up again, along with the rate of warming. "With global warming you don't see a gradual warming from one year to the next," said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who was not involved in the research. "It's more like a staircase. You trot along with nothing much happening for 10 years and then suddenly you have a jump and things never go back to the previous level again."

The study's long-term perspective suggests that the recent pause in may just reflect random variations in going between atmosphere and ocean, with little long-term importance, says Drew Shindell, a climate scientist with joint appointments at Columbia's Earth Institute and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and a lead author on the latest IPCC report. "Surface temperature is only one indicator of climate change," he said. "Looking at the total energy stored by the climate system or multiple indicators—glacier melting, water vapor in the atmosphere, snow cover, and so on—may be more useful than looking at surface temperature alone."

The study's third author, Delia Oppo, is a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Explore further: NASA's HS3 mission continues with flights over Hurricane Gonzalo

More information: "Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 Years," Science, 2013.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Understanding oceanic earthquake precursors

1 hour ago

Published on 14 September in Nature Geoscience, a study conducted by researchers from several institutes, including IFREMER (French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea), CNRS and IFSTTAR, offers the first theore ...

NASA image: Fires in the Egypt River Delta

16 hours ago

This NASA satellite image is of the Egyptian River Delta. Actively burning areas, detected by MODIS's thermal bands, are outlined in red. Each hot spot, which appears as a red mark, is an area where the thermal ...

Terra Satellite sees Tropical Storm Ana over Hawaii

16 hours ago

Tropical Storm Ana made a slow track west of the Hawaiian islands over the last couple of days, and by Oct. 20 was moving westward away from the main Hawaiian islands and heading toward the northwest Hawaiian ...

User comments : 75

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

pepe2907
1.6 / 5 (33) Oct 31, 2013
Well, from a physics point of view it looks as a nonsense. What it even means "absorbing heat 15 times faster". It's water, it has pretty specific and well known thermal characteristics, including how fast it absorbs heat. Unless in the last 60 years it turned in something completely different from what it was before, this is... well, to be honest - complete bullshit. 15 times can't be the result of some mild change. And average temperatures didn't change with more as 10 degrees in the corresponding zone, and the other physical characteristics of the environment are more or less the same for the last at least 10 000 years. For 15 times difference in any of its thermal characteristics, it should have turned in some completely different material.
scottfos
4.2 / 5 (19) Oct 31, 2013
pepe, you should try reading the article, not just the title. specifically, the 3rd sentence and 6th paragraph will clear up your confusion.

this is actually a pretty fascinating data collection and conclusion.
John92
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2013
more frequent and violent storms are coming
Tom_Andersen
1.8 / 5 (29) Oct 31, 2013
The ocean cooled 1C in 500 years, from 1100 AD, to 1600 AD. The rate for the last 60 was 0.18. This is within noise of the same rate that it cooled in that 500 year period.

So the 10,000 year thing only holds for warming - not any temperature change.

The other thing is that temperature swings are larger as we move to the present, which demonstrates that the data may be corrupt or interpreted wrong.

Also water temperatures in the Pacific were 2C warmer thousands of years ago - during a time where no humans were there to heat up the earth. The oceans survived that warm period just fine.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (29) Oct 31, 2013
This is just another Mann's Hockey Schtick and like the original, a pure fabrication.
As the decades of deceit from the AGW Alarmist Cult are revealed for the lies they were, the cult must resort to even more preposterous fabrications.
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (24) Oct 31, 2013
Ah, this should not be happening so rapidly. There must be other things afoot, or factors missing. Or perhaps it is fabrication, or terrifying.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
"The heat has been absorbed by the ocean..." What rubbish, some has, of course, but "waste heat" goes straight to the poles where it is no longer waste heat, but warmer than the surroundings and melts ice.

Now, this water, or ice melt runoff, though cold, has more heat than normal, and could conceivably be warming the oceans dramatically, but, it seems awfully warm awfully fast.
HappyHappyHappy
1.2 / 5 (24) Nov 01, 2013
Has anyone considered 'nuclear radiation' as the cause of ocean warming?

It was about 60 years ago that atomic testing put great amounts of nuclear radiation into the ocean. This radiation is HOT. Add to this the nuclear radiation from nuclear meltdowns like Fukushima, nuclear energy plants, nuclear waste dumping of radioactive effluent, etc.... and the amount of nuclear radiation in the ocean is no longer small or harmless.

Russia has recently admitted dumping nuclear power plants and nuclear submarines into the Kara Sea, which are still highly radioactive.

Humpty
1 / 5 (24) Nov 01, 2013
My bath gets much warmer when I piss in it...

We should ban people pissing in the ocean to stop it from warming.
Wolf358
4.7 / 5 (14) Nov 01, 2013
The energy of even a few dozen abandoned reactors dumped into the ocean is tiny, compared to the increased energy in the whole biosphere. The oceans will absorb heat energy just as the polar ice absorbs it (and melts). There is probably a limit to how much thermal energy the oceans can absorb; some may show up as increases in the velocity of currents (thermal energy stored as kinetic energy). Once that system absorbs as much thermal energy as it can, some other process will kick in to absorb it's share... Personally, I think we're in for a lot of uncomfortable changes. The world is big; the part we humans can inhabit is small.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2013
"My bath gets much warmer when I piss in i" - Humpty

Is that how you Tea-Tards bathe? Draw water below body temperature and then piss in it to raise the temperature closer to body temperature?

It explains your B.O.
VendicarE
3.8 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2013
"Has anyone considered 'nuclear radiation' as the cause of ocean warming?" - HappyTard

Don't you know how to add, subtract, multiply and divide?

If you do, then why don't you estimate the temperature rise of the ocean from such an effect.

If you can't perform grade school arithmetic, then I suggest you avoid commenting on Science sites until you graduate from grade 4.

VendicarE
4.1 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2013
""waste heat" goes straight to the poles" - AlchemisTard

No, waste heat goes directly to your hips and makes you fat.

Makes about as much sense as your ignorant twaddle.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2013
"This is just another Mann's Hockey Schtick" - Anti-Gore-Tard

You are right. This is more research that shows how Mann's hockey stick is right on the money.

Poor Tard, You aren't even smart enough to understand the implication of your own statements.

moooooooooooorrrrrrrrroooooonnnnnn.
VendicarE
3.7 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2013
"my theory of geothermal (or rather "aquathermal") origin of global warming in which the heat is generated with decay of radioactive elements inside of marine water itself" - FranlinTard

If Radiation then the ocean would be observed to be heating at all depths. It isn't.

Also the oceans would need to be highly radioactive for them to heat like that.

They aren't.

So you have evidence against your "theory". You must reject the theory or explain why the oceans are more radioactive than observation indicates, and explain why ther is no heating at lower depths.

We await your Tardieboy reply with laughter.
VendicarE
3.5 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2013
"The ocean cooled 1C in 500 years, from 1100 AD, to 1600 AD. The rate for the last 60 was 0.18. This is within noise of the same rate that it cooled in that 500 year period." - TomTheBrainless

A natural cooling of 1'C over 500 years is not noise TommieTard. It is cooling.

And even if it was noise, the rate of warming over the last 60 years is 1.5 times the observed rate of cooling over that 500 years.

You been smoken dope boy?
ForFreeMinds
1.5 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
I wonder about all the assumptions behind the leap from measuring the magnesium to calcium ratio in H. Balthica fossils to determining middle depth ocean temperatures in the past. This wasn't covered in the article.

How is it that water temperature is correlated to the chemical ratio in these fossils?
How do they know that currents haven't changed and the sediments are representative?
How do they know the age of the fossils they examined?
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Nov 01, 2013
The supplement shows that Figure 2B adopts the most broken hockey stick of all time, Marcott 2013, which *also* appeared in Science:
http://www.scienc...res-only

Though bizarrely un-retracted, even the authors disavowed the blade of their own hockey stick, formed by proxy re-dating/drop-off:

"Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called "uptick" in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."

Input data for Marcott plotted from their own supplement:
http://postimg.or...zirjyjd/
NikFromNYC
1.6 / 5 (27) Nov 01, 2013
It is astonishing that the PR surrounding this paper fails to mention that the paper in fact re-establishes that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global in scope and not localized to Europe. Andy Revkin of the New York Times writes: "Michael Mann can't be happy about this work."
http://wattsupwit...n-scope/

That's Michael "Hide The Decline" Mann who gleefully celebrated Marcott's "not statistically significant" data re-dating drop-off pure artifact hockey stick blade, here:
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg

If the MWP was really global then precedent exists for the current warming peak.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2013
"That's Michael "Hide The Decline" Mann who gleefully celebrated Marcott's "not statistically significant" data re-dating drop-off pure artifact hockey stick blade, here:
http://s15.postim...2013.jpg"


That would be the Mann who merely hid a decline in a broken proxy (northern forest tree-rings from a period during the instrumental record. …….by replacing them with ……… REAL temperatures. You know? Like from thermometers. They do the job better than trees.

http://www.youtub...VQ2fROOg

If the MWP was really global then precedent exists for the current warming peak.

It wasn't and what's more it couldn't have been unless somehow the sun suddenly gained extra power, then lost it again. Or there was a sudden decrease in albedo - the seas didn't rise so it wasn't melting ice. Perhaps the clouds disappeared?
In short Power in must equal power out. If the global temp rose, either more came in or less went out. Maybe there were volcanic CO2 releases?. C02 would do it.
Agomemnon
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
so am I the only one that noticed that there is not one iota of emperical data used to create this so-called model?
How was this model for the last 10,000 years validated? Confidence Interval?
How well did the model do in comparison to emperically observed temperature reading of the ocean and its various layers? Oh wait...you don't have any?

Oh well then. Some craptastic, statistically worthless arbitrary guess get's published somewhere somehow and I'm supposed to act like they actually did something of value and not ony that, but the eco-tards here than act like it the unvarnished truth spoken by the goracle ex-cathedra from his private plane who's only exhaust is unicorn farts.
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Nov 01, 2013
runrig, thermometers indeed do better than trees and most of the oldest records of real thermometers show utterly no enhanced warming signal:
http://s24.postim...nous.gif

The longest record is a good proxy for the global average, and especially the nearby Arctic:
http://postimg.or...nqv4xuv/

This fact falsifies hockey sticks. It's just that simple. You and I know that if old real thermometer records really did show a CO₂ signal that they would be enthusiastically plastered all over policy maker reports and would have featured in Gore's movie.

Then you argue physics "on paper." The main Greenland ice core strongly suggests that the recent warming spike is just another in a regular series of spikes which don't conform to your hand waving argument from ignorance on a planet dominated by chaotically fluid dynamic heat engine that likely dominates land surface temperature swings:
http://postimg.or...sz7maah/

You hide these mice in ribbons.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
runrig defends Hockey Stick Team proxy manipulations and data *deletion* just as proxies proved themselves to useless as thermometers in the modern era, but physicist Richard Muller who created an innovative global average temperature record (see graph above) at Berkeley said:

"So that's what they did. And what is the result in my mind? Quite frankly as a scientist? I now have a list of people whose papers I wont read any more. You are not allowed to do this in science. I get infuriated with collegues of mine who say well you know, it's a human field, you make mistakes. And then I show them this and they say, uh, no…that's not acceptable."
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk

Public defense of scientific fraud is the best gift us skeptics receive for our online efforts. Certainly the authors of this ocean heat study were aware that Marcott 2013 had been declared to be statistically insignificant, but they used the hockey stick plot anyway.
Mr_Science
2.2 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
so am I the only one that noticed that there is not one iota of emperical data used to create this so-called model?
How was this model for the last 10,000 years validated? Confidence Interval?
How well did the model do in comparison to emperically observed temperature reading of the ocean and its various layers? Oh wait...you don't have any?

Oh well then. Some craptastic, statistically worthless arbitrary guess get's published somewhere somehow and I'm supposed to act like they actually did something of value and not ony that, but the eco-tards here than act like it the unvarnished truth spoken by the goracle ex-cathedra from his private plane who's only exhaust is unicorn farts.


Since you want more information and data then I would suggest looking at the initial paper.
http://www.scienc...d0c826e2
Please understand phys.org is for laymen. Therefore, provides very little data in it's articles.
Mr_Science
2.5 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
@Nik
I have yet to see you use a credible source that did not show the exact opposite of what you claim. Therefore, I am left to believe you have no real interest in science or have a mental deficiency.Due to your continued use of phys.org I am left to beleive you do have in interest in science but to no have the mental compasity to compreahend. Judging from your lack of comprehension of most comments made. The only conclusion one can only be left is you have a mental deficiency. Taking this into account I would like to say congratulations on almost getting it right.
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
You didn't actually add any content, Mr_Science. Merely adding projection tainted insults based on innuendo without specifics defines you as being a troll. Does outspoken skeptic Willie Soon of Harvard have a mental deficiency? Or top physicist and climate model skeptic Freeman Dyson? Or XPrize winner and seasoned engineer Burt "Show Me The Data!" Rutan? Or nearly every retired Apollo era moonwalker ( http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg )? What of the head of a climatology department, Judith Curry, who ridiculed the latest IPCC report? Or the above quoted NY Times reporter Andew Revkin? What about James Hansen himself whose last paper at NASA informed us that a massive carbon and nitrogen molecule fertilization effect was taking place as a negative feedback?

Was blog guest Wllis Eschenbach who faithfully plotted the Marcott input proxies (above link) from the supplementary data experiencing a "mental deficiency" when he noted no hockey stick?
NikFromNYC
1.3 / 5 (25) Nov 01, 2013
Mr_Science, anybody can see that my presence on Phys.org is motivated by staying playfully updated on the breakthroughs and foibles of materials science, minus all the Climatology cult noise which I hope to hasten the demise of:
http://phys.org/n...ces.html

But you claim that I lack "THE MENTAL COMPASITY TO COMPREAHEND."

Duly noted, doooooooooode!

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
Mr_Science
2.7 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
You didn't actually add any content, Mr_Science.

I have added more content to this site then you have. Everything you have added is information you have obtained from biased. Every link you have posted shows either no credible information or the exact opposite of what you claim. You keep referring to specific people as your authorities and yet have provided no credible data for anything you or they have claimed. Therefore, you are the troll.

Now I'm sure you will go off on another rant that has no connection to the article and no credible information. Therefore, you will be completely ignored.
Mr_Science
2.4 / 5 (19) Nov 01, 2013
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

This cannot be true, I know for a fact they require reading comprehension which you have proved you do not have.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (23) Nov 01, 2013
Mr_READING_COMPREAHENTION_Science, Marcott's *own* supplementary information proxy data is "biased"?!

Those are the temperature proxies used for the hockey stick cited in this very study.

The input data for the hockey stick cited in this study show no sign of a hockey stick:
http://oi41.tinyp...cy1l.jpg

I have here only posted direct plots of data contained in a main reference of this paper.

Marcott's supplementary information is referenced here, also on the Science web site, in spread sheet format:
http://www.scienc...uppl/DC1
Mr_Science
2.4 / 5 (20) Nov 01, 2013
You lined to an accrual paper so I will respond. However, still doesn't dispute the fact that you have post nothing else in this article but postimg.org and mobypicture.com that anyone can upload to with no reference to the data location. You have also linked to youtube which anyone can upload to. The best of all was the link to a biased blog that once again does not reference where it's data comes from.

I do however think it's rather funny the first line in the abstract contradicts your own statements.
Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time
Like I have said before. You have no reading comprehension. Therefore, there is no way I will ever believe you have a phd from anywhere.
PsycheOne
1.2 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2013
"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."

The planet has stopped warming. But the fact that the oceans have absorbed a lot of heat means that perception is wrong????

Give me a break. The Earth got warmer. We don't know why. Probably HCFCs, but who knows. Man made? Maybe. It stopped getting warmer 15 years ago. Yes, it is still warmer then it used to be. BUT IT STOPPED GETTING WARMER. The fact that the oceans got warmer WHEN the Earth was getting warmer does not imply a) the global warming is continuing OR b) the humans caused it.

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2013
"runrig, thermometers indeed do better than trees and most of the oldest records of real thermometers show utterly no enhanced warming signal:
http://s24.postim...nous.gif"


You're doing an Uba my friend - the Denialist myth is that Mann and Jones conspired to "hide a decline" in the temperature record. In fact they didn't. It was not a temperature record - it was a proxy for temperature. From around 1960 trees in northern forests have increasing diverged from the temp record showing a proxy "decline" instead of the known rise. It is this that was replaced by real temps in the graph constructed by the said Climatologists. Funny, the truth can never spoil a good myth to those who don't want it spoiled.

And go tell Mr Muller…..http://www.youtub...uKxXUCPY
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2013
" ….but physicist Richard Muller who created an innovative global average temperature record (see graph above) at Berkeley said:
So that's what they did. And what is the result in my mind? Quite frankly as a scientist? I now have a list of people whose papers I wont read any more. You are not allowed to do this in science. I get infuriated with collegues of mine who say well you know, it's a human field, you make mistakes. And then I show them this and they say, uh, no…that's not acceptable."
http://www.youtub...pciw8suk


Then, guess what he replicated the exact same hockey-stick.
Seems he changed his mind Nik:
Now which Mr Muller was the honest one? The one before or after he did his own independent study of the data. And can you please produce your own independent data. Instead of drizzling this thread with meaningless quotes - especially from people have now changes their minds to believe in the consensus.
See the vid …
http://www.youtub...VQ2fROOg
/
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2013
Mr_Science, anybody can see that my presence on Phys.org is motivated by staying playfully updated on the breakthroughs and foibles of materials science, minus all the Climatology cult noise which I hope to hasten the demise of:


No (unless the above is sarcasm) this is why you're on here Nik.
I quote…
"runrig, *indeed*, I've used a tactic here, a simple one based on posting skeptical tidbits galore and using strong enough negative terms about climate scientists to make threads fill with activity that pops the articles onto the Google worthy front page of Phys.org for a few more hours. It's simple, relatively detached activism. I have a message I want to get out as easy and cheaply (zero cost!) as possible."

As I said in the thread that comes from. "Activism" is not the action of a skeptic but that of a person committed to a particular side. A mind made-up. A denialist in this context.
scottfos
1.8 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2013
Well, from a physics point of view it looks as a nonsense
It doesn't look so from perspective of my theory of geothermal (or rather "aquathermal") origin of global warming in which the heat is generated with decay of radioactive elements inside of marine water itself. The decay is accelerated with dark matter at the galactic plane, which the solar system passes through right now...


that you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and theory says it all.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (21) Nov 01, 2013
"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."

The planet has stopped warming. But the fact that the oceans have absorbed a lot of heat means that perception is wrong????

Give me a break. The Earth got warmer. We don't know why. Probably HCFCs, but who knows. Man made? Maybe. It stopped getting warmer 15 years ago. Yes, it is still warmer then it used to be. BUT IT STOPPED GETTING WARMER. The fact that the oceans got warmer WHEN the Earth was getting warmer does not imply a) the global warming is continuing OR b) the humans caused it.


Excellent observations.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 01, 2013
Yes, it is still warmer then it used to be. BUT IT STOPPED GETTING WARMER. The fact that the oceans got warmer WHEN the Earth was getting warmer does not imply a) the global warming is continuing OR b) the humans caused it.


The climate system is that which stores solar energy and given the oceans absorb 90%+ of that then any increase in ocean temperature certainly does not warrant the statement "It stopped getting warmer". A rise of 0.1C in the total ocean temperature is the equivalent of 100C if it were possible to transfer it to the atmosphere.

And no, CFC's aren't the answer. A little correlation and ZERO causation physics.
NikFromNYC
1.2 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2013
Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann *himself* today presents a conspiracy theory article which itself reintroduces the Medieval Warm Period:

" ...the second author is a paleoclimatologist who has shown that current global temperatures are likely unprecedented during the last 1,000 years or more."

http://www.psycho...nce.html

This is a huge change in outlook back over to the core skeptical outlook since Climategate revealed Keith Briffa nuking Mike's overly flat hockey stick handle:

"…For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>> >warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual
>> warming
>> >is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent
>> warmth
>> >was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>> >mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands
>> of
>> >years as Mike appears to"
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2013
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2013/november-2013/the-subterranean-war-on-science.html

Good article Nik:
Shows how dangerous your world-view is for the common good.
Keith Briffa nuking Mike's overly flat hockey stick handle

And what "nuking" would that be?

One paper that sheds doubt on the veracity of tree ring data reliability on times scales beyond a few centuries. That there may be a problem.
Vis: A divergence of northern trees' response to recent warming ….. because ….. "Furthermore, recent analyses of large regional-scale growth patterns and absolute tree growth changes over recent centuries strongly suggest that anthropogenic influences...."

Yes – that does say anthroprogenic – ie GHG's and other aerosol pollutants. All of which are unnatural in the quantity/duration the world has recently experienced. We know of this because of ice cores.

http://www.ncbi.n...3_65.pdf
Forestgnome
1.2 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2013
They don't know how much heat will be absorbed, or for how long, but they DO know it won't stop climate change (anthro global warming, just say what you mean). Really? If you don't know the first two questions you don't know the last one!
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2013
I would encourage everyone to read Nik's article referenced above. It is strange to me that the king of denial - would reference such a prescient article. Here is a quote - that I think seems to many of us to refer directly to Nik.

"The conspiratorial element of denial explains why contrarians often perceive themselves as heroic dissenters"

Here is the link - http://www.psycho...nce.html

Fascinating stuff.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2013
Really? If you don't know the first two questions you don't know the last one!


Yes you do because any heat going into the oceans is an excess beyond that needed by the Earth to stabilise it's outgoing IR with incoming solar SW.
The Ocean is part of the climate system, a thermodynamic system. Just because we don't live in it doesn't mean we get to ignore its influence. Any object absorbing heat in a system will seek to shed it unless it is receiving more than it can emit. That's what is happening with the atmosphere and so to with oceans. Oceans have heated beyond what is required to keep the Earth at the same temperature as before AGW. Even if we can magically scrub away anthro CO2 the Earth's atmosphere cannot return to the cooler condition as that heat will prevent it until exhausted, and the previous equilibrium is reached. And of course there is a delay – so 390ppm has yet to feed through and of course we're pumping in more.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2013
I would encourage everyone to read Nik's article referenced above. It is strange to me that the king of denial - would reference such a prescient article. Here is a quote - that I think seems to many of us to refer directly to Nik.

Here is the link - http://www.psycho...nce.html

Fascinating stuff.

Also:
"A common current attribute of denial is that it side-steps the peer-reviewed literature and relies on platforms such as internet blogs or tabloid newspapers to disseminate its dissent from the scientific mainstream. In contrast, the publication of dissenting views in the peer-reviewed literature does not constitute denial."
And..
"This conspiratorial element provides a breeding ground for the personal and professional attacks on scientists that seemingly inevitably accompany science denial."

Remember the link was posted by said described denialist.
plaasjaapie
1 / 5 (18) Nov 02, 2013
The warmists are really scrambling to account for the failure of their predictive models. They've stopped grasping at straws and are into full hallucination mode these days. :-/
The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2013
Heat and temperature people, there is a difference even if both deniers and AGW-ers refuse to understand it.
You can dump nukes worth of energy into the Earth and not change its temperature, ice melts, water changes density, these both require energy. And water gradients may widen, currents change, all of these will "disguise" what you're complaining does/doesn't exist.

Can anyone understand that? That increasing CO2 or increasing heat: A reultant increase in temperature is a secondary effect.

Which is why for so many years OF global "warming" the warming part of the arguement has been so weak. The name has been a joke from the start. The phenomenon has been very real, mankind changing the world by burning fossil fuels. The result is polar melting, and now, if this story is to be believed, changes in the ocean. Though this seems so large as to be incredible.

My kingdom for a critical thinker.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2013
"The warmists are really scrambling to account for the failure of their predictive models. They've stopped grasping at straws and are into full hallucination mode these days. :-/"

This past Wednesday - the weather forecasters here were predicting flooding rain, high winds, and possible hail storms in the evening. I worked feverishly all day in the yard to prepare for the coming calamity. We got a few sprinkles in the morning - and nothing more. I will still be watching the weather - understanding the limitations of the system. I am glad that scientists are realistic about the limitations of their future predictions - it does not invalidate the process of trying to understand the system.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2013
The warmists are really scrambling to account for the failure of their predictive models. They've stopped grasping at straws and are into full hallucination mode these days. :-/


It's called science my friend.
Try reading up on it having put aside you preconceptions for a few years. It will take you that long to get a grasp - not just a few minutes Googling "skeptical" Blogs.
Ducklet
1 / 5 (15) Nov 02, 2013
With all previously accepted models refuted and disproven by empirical observation, scientists are frantically searching for new models. Meanwhile, may we please remind everyone to remain alarmed and carry on as normal. Our best minds are on the problem. Thank you.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2013
With all previously accepted models refuted and disproven by empirical observation, scientists are frantically searching for new models. Meanwhile, may we please remind everyone to remain alarmed and carry on as normal. Our best minds are on the problem. Thank you.

Ah you needn't have bothered. But thanks anyway.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2013
Our best minds are on the problem. Thank you.

I concur - and of course our worst minds are manning the bloggosphere - and trying to spread fear and deception. Fortunately - reality is reality - and we are slowly coming around to address the issue. We live in interesting times. Here is a cool article with just one example of what is happening - despite your best efforts to derail progress. http://cleantechn...gw-wind/
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
"With all previously accepted models refuted and disproven by empirical observation" - DuckTard

And what models and observations are you talking about? There are certainly none of those coming from the scientific community.

Maybe those observations you are referring to are coming from your bowling team or your proctologist.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
"The warmists are really scrambling to account for the failure of their predictive models. " - PlanetTard

Earth to Planet Tard... Earth to Planet Tard.. Come in Planet Tard.

Do you know what error bars are tardie boy?

Apparently not.

So this means that you have zero years of university training, and probably didn't even graduate from high school.

Your ignorance brings shame upon you.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
"A common current attribute of denial is that it side-steps the peer-reviewed literature and relies on platforms such as internet blogs or tabloid newspapers to disseminate its dissent from the scientific mainstream." - NikkieTard's links.

Perhaps NikkieTard has developed a very rare split personality disorder.

Might explain his criminal past.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
"We still don't understand the actual origin of global warming at its robust, scientific level" - Teeh2

The scientific community does. You don't.

That is your failure, not theirs.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
"This cannot be true, I know for a fact they require reading comprehension which you have proved you do not have." - Mr Science

I am convinced that NikkieTard did have a PHD in chemistry, then developed a mental disorder which has caused him to become unable to control his aggressive and sexual proclivities. Hence the violence commented on by the police, the disturbing behaviour and the sexual assault on that 11 year old girl at JC-Penny.

This mental disorder caused the university to drop him, and the record of his criminal past is keeping him from his desired career in chemistry.

So Nikkie spends his days trying to make a living by making and selling desk lamps.

He is a tragic figure, and an example of how mental disease can ruin a person's life.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
"I the only one that noticed that there is not one iota of emperical data used to create this so-called model?" - ArgomemTard

That is an amazing observation. Particularly when one considers that Denialists are regularly seen insisting that the models are invalid for the exact opposite reason - parameterization.

Don't you know what that is TardieBoy?

Let me give you a little hint.

It is that which makes you look like an ignorant fool.

VendicarE
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2013
-the decrease of kilogram prototype mass

Explanation: Aliens.

-the dilatation of meter prototype length

Explanation: BigFoot

-the increasing of eccentricity of Earth-Moon and Earth-Sun orbital paths

Explanation: Angels

-the increasing uncertainty of gravitational constant

Explanation: Gophers

-the decreasing tendency of speed of light

Explanation: Tendenosity

-the increase of geovolcanic and seismic activity

Explanation: Hollow Earth

-the global warming at Earth

Explanation: Earth is getting closer to hell.

-the climatic changes on another bodies of solar system

Explanation: Martian heat rays

-the increasing frequency of cometary impacts at Sun & Jupiter

Explanation: Dunning Kruger.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (15) Nov 02, 2013
Looks like there is a false prophet in our midst: One that is covering up excellent prophesy with nonsense.

Get thee behind me, VendicarE.
eric_in_chicago
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 03, 2013
So many libertarian-tard, oil-whores on here it's sick!!!
orti
1.5 / 5 (16) Nov 03, 2013
Been doing my own research. I find that the certainty of AGM is inversely proportional to the number of phys.org articles and comments supporting it.
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (13) Nov 04, 2013
No need to wait a few months.
Lets take a break from the model making Left Brain and get into Right Brain gestalt.

http://www.youtub...0tge5Fto
Egleton
1 / 5 (13) Nov 04, 2013
Or if you prefer a good belly laugh, you might prefer Professor Emeritus Guy McPherson.
He lays it on the line in a most amusing way.
And then again-maybe you havent the stomach for a belly laugh.
http://www.youtub...lYXumguI
triplehelix
1 / 5 (13) Nov 04, 2013
Well, from a physics point of view it looks as a nonsense. What it even means "absorbing heat 15 times faster". It's water, it has pretty specific and well known thermal characteristics, including how fast it absorbs heat. Unless in the last 60 years it turned in something completely different from what it was before, this is... well, to be honest - complete bullshit. 15 times can't be the result of some mild change. And average temperatures didn't change with more as 10 degrees in the corresponding zone, and the other physical characteristics of the environment are more or less the same for the last at least 10 000 years. For 15 times difference in any of its thermal characteristics, it should have turned in some completely different material.


Specific heat capacity. Yes. Agreed. Also, oceans are huge, this warming is probably something that happened centuries ago and is just being seen now. Oceans have a massive lag in cause variables and symptom measurement.
triplehelix
1 / 5 (13) Nov 04, 2013
" Many scientists note that 1998 was an exceptionally hot year even by modern standards, and so any average rise using it as a starting point would downplay the longer-term warming trend."

Well this just proves bias. The whole point of seeing a trend on a stochastic dataset is to see it increase every year. Basically, because 1998 is hot, it makes all the years after not hot. This doesn't fit with models, so now they want to compare 2013 with say, 1983, and say "look! its warming!"

If you have a temperature vs time graph, you cant just pick and choose what years to compare, when they're disjointed, and then exclaim to have found a "trend". You can pick cold points and trend upwards and you can pick hot points and trend downwards, depending what year you start, and what year you end. You cant do this with a stochastic graph. You have to work from absolute beginning to absolute end. And using those ends, we see a decline in warming.
runrig
5 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2013
The commenters apparently don't realize, the anthropogenic model of global warming doesn't explain, why concentrations of CO2 receded the periods of warming in the past instead of advanced it (as the anthropogenic model of global warming considers), why we are facing the pause in global warming of atmosphere during last ten years, etc... The people are producing the greenhouse gases with increasing rate, so that the speed of global warming should increase monotonously.


You can't have been looking then as there are numerous articles in the archives on here that certainly do explain CO2 both as a follower of warming and as a leader. Look up the carbon cycle.

There is no mystery. Except in the minds of deniers.

As to the pause then again look for the answer. But in a nutshell it is because of a cool ENSO cycle, low solar and increased aerosol production (China). + excess heat entering the Oceans.
Increasing CO2 may be monotonous but is exceedingly small in absolute terms.
runrig
5 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2013
If you have a temperature vs time graph, you cant just pick and choose what years to compare, when they're disjointed, and then exclaim to have found a "trend". You can pick cold points and trend upwards and you can pick hot points and trend downwards, depending what year you start, and what year you end. You cant do this with a stochastic graph. You have to work from absolute beginning to absolute end. And using those ends, we see a decline in warming.


No the honest thing to do is ALWAYS choose the same time period over which to judge any trend. The accepted time period in order to average out climate cycles ( solar ENSO, AMO etc) is 30 years. Try putting that in woodfortrees at any point when CO2 became dominant.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend
triplehelix
1 / 5 (12) Nov 04, 2013
If you have a temperature vs time graph, you cant just pick and choose what years to compare, when they're disjointed, and then exclaim to have found a "trend". You can pick cold points and trend upwards and you can pick hot points and trend downwards, depending what year you start, and what year you end. You cant do this with a stochastic graph. You have to work from absolute beginning to absolute end. And using those ends, we see a decline in warming.


No the honest thing to do is ALWAYS choose the same time period over which to judge any trend. The accepted time period in order to average out climate cycles ( solar ENSO, AMO etc) is 30 years. Try putting that in woodfortrees at any point when CO2 became dominant.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend


And why 30 years? I agree though to always use the same start point, thats what I initially said.
Ducklet
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 05, 2013
I'm not a denier, I'm perfectly clear with the fact that CO2 partial pressure and the amount of carbon in the cycle is increasing, and AGW and climate change follows. What's broken is the model used to make predictions - the how and what part. There is no functioning theory to explain empirial observation. Hence, it's disingenuous to make statements about what the effects will be - because nobody has a sound theory. A sound theory is one which can make accurate predictions. This leads to the conclusion that alarmism motivated by good intentions is now undermining credibility, and if those who make grandiose claims about an ice-free antarctic "as soon as 2013" etc don't get with the program and tone down the scare mongering, they could find themselves kicked to the curb. To be replaced with populist denial. Because populism works BOTH ways. Don't think you're immune to it just because you're convinced you're right. We need evidence-based policy, not populist dross.
runrig
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2013
What's broken is the model used to make predictions - the how and what part. There is no functioning theory to explain empirial observation. Hence, it's disingenuous to make statements about what the effects will be - because nobody has a sound theory. A sound theory is one which can make accurate predictions.


Ducklet
You need to look at the error bars in any forecast. It's probability of success banding. These should take into account uncertainties.
The major one is in predicting the duration of the overlying climate cycles. ENSO, Solar to name 2 important ones. On top of that there are aerosol emissions ( chiefly China at the moment). These cycles cannot be explicitly incorporated into GCM's, their effects are averaged out. So the persistent cool ENSO cycle (greatest global effect) has driven the GCM forecasts to the bottom of their prob bands.
see...
http://iopscience.../article

In short don't expect any forecast to follow a steady curve.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2013
@Ducklet
I invented this model long before ice cap and glacial melting were popular.
Despite its simplicity, it predicts climate change, and "macro-weather" change perfectly.
https://www. facebook.com/#!/groups/454689344557455/
The model is falling out of perfection, granted, but the world has changed considerably since it was created.
Even if you don't agree with it, I think it may provide you with enjoyable perspective.
Of course everyone is invited... The most powerful objection is that it is 10000 times too weak. However, consider the difference in the amount of annual sunlight required to change "climate" seasonally.
V/R
T A
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (16) Nov 05, 2013
Only the AGW Chicken Littles would buy this lie.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (2) Nov 05, 2013
As the Anti-Gore-Tard shows, those who are anti-Gore certainly are anti-science.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (12) Nov 06, 2013
-the decrease of kilogram prototype mass

Explanation: Aliens......

-the increasing frequency of cometary impacts at Sun & Jupiter

Explanation: Dunning Kruger.
--- VendicarEturd

- the stupidity of VendicarEturd

Explanation: Dropped as a baby. Then again, the more plausible reason is that he was just born stupid.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (14) Nov 08, 2013
Sorry@Ducklet
You'll need to remove a space...