Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997, study finds

January 18, 2016 bySeth Borenstein
This image provided by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory shows Pacific and Atlantic meridional sections showing upper-ocean warming for the past six decades (1955-2011). Red colors indicate a warming (positive) anomaly and blue colors indicate a cooling (negative) anomaly. The amount of global-warming triggered heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997, a new study showed. Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world's oceans instead of the ground. And they've seen ocean heat content rise in recent years. But a new study using ocean observing data that goes back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s, includes high-tech modern underwater monitors and computer models, tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years. (Timo Bremer/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory via AP)

The amount of man-made heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997, a new study says.

Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world's oceans instead of the ground. And they've seen ocean heat content rise in recent years. But the new study, using ocean-observing data that goes back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s and including high-tech modern underwater monitors and computer models, tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years.

The world's oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years, according to a study published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change.

To put that in perspective, if you exploded one atomic bomb the size of the one that was dropped on Hiroshima every second for a year, the total energy released would be 2 zettajoules. So since 1997, Earth's oceans have absorbed man-made heat energy equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for 75 straight years.

"The changes we're talking about, they are really, really big numbers," said study co-author Paul Durack, an oceanographer at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab in California. "They are nonhuman numbers."

Because there are decades when good data wasn't available and computer simulations are involved, the overall figures are rough but still are reliable, the study's authors said. Most of the added heat has been trapped in the upper 2,300 feet, but with every year the deeper oceans also are absorbing more energy, they said.

But the study's authors and outside experts say it's not the raw numbers that bother them. It's how fast those numbers are increasing.

"After 2000 in particular the rate of change is really starting to ramp up," Durack said.

This means the amount of energy being trapped in Earth's climate system as a whole is accelerating, the study's lead author Peter Gleckler, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore, said.

Because the oceans are so vast and cold, the absorbed heat raises temperatures by only a few tenths of a degree, but the importance is the energy balance, Gleckler and his colleagues said. When oceans absorb all that heat it keeps the surface from getting even warmer from the heat-trapping gases spewed by the burning of coal, oil and gas, the scientists said.

The warmer the oceans get, the less heat they can absorb and the more heat stays in the air and on land surface, the study's co-author, Chris Forest at Pennsylvania State University, said.

"These finding have potentially serious consequences for life in the oceans as well as for patterns of ocean circulation, storm tracks and storm intensity," said Oregon State University marine sciences professor Jane Lubchenco, the former chief of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

One outside scientist, Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also has been looking at ocean heat content and he said his ongoing work shows the Gleckler team "significantly underestimates" how much heat the ocean has absorbed.

Jeff Severinghaus at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography praised the study, saying it "provides real, hard evidence that humans are dramatically heating the planet."

Explore further: Scientists suggest ocean warming in Southern Hemisphere underestimated

More information: Nature Climate Change, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nclimate2915

Related Stories

Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

July 2, 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 ...

Science academies explain global warming reality

February 27, 2014

(AP)—Man-made global warming is worsening and will disrupt both the natural world and human society, warns a joint report of two of the world's leading scientific organizations.

Recommended for you

Bay Area methane emissions may be double what we thought

January 17, 2017

Emissions of methane—a potent climate-warming gas—may be roughly twice as high as officially estimated for the San Francisco Bay Area. Most of the emissions come from biological sources, such as landfills, but natural ...

93 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.1 / 5 (25) Jan 18, 2016
Are there still Deniers?

Bring them out and educate them.
NiteSkyGerl
2.7 / 5 (24) Jan 18, 2016
It's ego identity for them. The facts don't enter into it. More and more all manner of cranks think that having one's own opinion means having one's own facts.

Where's the pressure on the people that take money from denier orgs, giving them air time?
tomlaw1998
3.4 / 5 (17) Jan 18, 2016
I'm not a scientist so excuse me if I've got this wrong but if I understand correctly there is
more energy striking the earth's surface in one and a half hours of sunlight (480 EJ)67 than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)68. This seems to suggest that man made energy (or heat) is miniscule compared to natural forces. May I say that I'm not a crank or a denier, just trying to see if this story is relevant or not.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (21) Jan 18, 2016
That provides a stasis, a stable envrironment where the balance results in comfortable and favorable conditions for Human life. Any addition to that changes the stasis point. It might not be comfortable, and worse yet, it may not be amenable to our lives.
tomlaw1998
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 18, 2016
Thank you for your comment gkam, however there are 8760 hours in a year. Are you saying that our existence is threatened by just another 1.5 hours of man made energy, If I understand correctly the Suns output is subject to occasional fluctuations, volcanic eruptions can cause major changes to our atmosphere. As a layman I find it very difficult to see how our miniscule contribution is so disruptive. However as I said I am not a scientist so I bow to your greater understanding.
gkam
1.6 / 5 (19) Jan 18, 2016
Tom, read the science, and it will be explained. I am not a scientist, and have not worked in this field, but earned a Master of Science in it, and have watched in horror as the conditions changed even faster then we originally thought. We are in REAL trouble.
Solon
2.6 / 5 (20) Jan 18, 2016
"However as I said I am not a scientist..."

That's probably a good thing, it means you still posses common sense, something most scientists have had removed during their 'education'.
Sigh
5 / 5 (18) Jan 18, 2016
This seems to suggest that man made energy (or heat) is miniscule compared to natural forces.

It's not the heat production that has the big effect, but the heat balance. If you build a greenhouse, what keeps your plants warm is not the energy that went into making the glass, but that the glass traps radiation that would otherwise have gone out of the greenhouse. Same for greenhouse gases. (The analogy has some limits because the glass also reduces cooling by convection, which does not apply to greenhouse gases.)
jeffensley
1.8 / 5 (19) Jan 18, 2016
It's ego identity for them. The facts don't enter into it. More and more all manner of cranks think that having one's own opinion means having one's own facts.

Where's the pressure on the people that take money from denier orgs, giving them air time?


And apparently the utter lack of facts (i.e historic heat content data) doesn't appear to affect your opinions either. The only simplistic narrative you are willing to see and accept is heat=bad. If we're going to start "measuring " ocean heat content we should also be measuring heat content of the Earth's crust as well. And if we could actually generate a number, it would be pretty meaningless as we have nothing to compare it to.
l_weinstein
2.4 / 5 (26) Jan 18, 2016
First, there is no such thing as a denier, only skeptic. If you are not a skeptic, you are not a scientist. Not all skeptics disagree with the alarmists, but those skeptics that do disagree have been called deniers. This is nonsense.

I am a scientist, with a Doctor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering, and 51 years experience. I and many of the worlds top scientists are skeptics on the term "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming". They do not disagree that there has been warming, or that human activity caused an increase in CO2. What they disagree on is the magnitude of the effect, and how much of the warming was caused by the CO2. Data indicates that there is no clear component of the small amount of the warming that can be shown to be due to human activity! There has been no significant (average) warming since 1998. Energy always increases during interglacials (like the last 11,000 years), and drops during glacial periods (like 100,000 years ago to 11,000 years ago).
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (22) Jan 18, 2016
And apparently the utter lack of facts (i.e historic heat content data) doesn't appear to affect your opinions either. The only simplistic narrative you are willing to see and accept is heat=bad. If we're going to start "measuring " ocean heat content we should also be measuring heat content of the Earth's crust as well. And if we could actually generate a number, it would be pretty meaningless as we have nothing to compare it to.
This is so patently wrong, it is meaningless. Heating, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad and your simplistic representations of it being so speak to your real intent.

You talk about being scientific, then ignore any science that doesn't fit with your belief. You claim to have knowledge of the subject, then make simplistic and erroneous claims that suggest a political bias guiding your reply.

You are the epitome of faux-scientific denial. Your pride in that is misplaced.
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (19) Jan 18, 2016
Among other things, note 1997 is the year when the staccato of manifestations generally associated with climate change began. The warmest years; the worst hurricane season; hundred degree heat waves from London to Siberia; accelerated melting of glaciers; the worst el Ninos; undulatus asperatus; the largest year-to-year drop in Arctic sea ice coverage and a number more.1997 is also the year chemtrails became visible in huge numbers simultaneously. Those who warn about them generally think that's when they began. In fact, they seem to have begun in the early Fifties, but 1997 is the year the air became saturated with weather modification chemical, so new contributions precipitated out.
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (22) Jan 18, 2016
So the AGW Cult's pathological science continues. Only the ignorant and hungry Chicken Littles would so easily swallow the lie that as much energy went into to the oceans in the last 18 years as the previous 133, while reality says otherwise. http://wattsupwit...22/9507/
gkam
2.1 / 5 (21) Jan 18, 2016
I suggest scientists with a Doctor of Science degree in Aerospace Engineering start reading environmental studies and reports. He is used to simple physics, not the complex interactions between physics and life.
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (22) Jan 18, 2016
Solong
something most scientists have had removed during their 'education
If you have such disrespect for scientists, why are you here commenting. Many of the commenters on this board are scientists (runrig, Antialias, MikeMassen for example). You have just dissed them all. If you disrespect scientists - I would encourage you to go away. If you want refutation for your childish statement - I would suggest you watch the Feynman lectures - see exactly how much common sense can go right along with brilliant scientists.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (21) Jan 18, 2016
I_weinstein
First, there is no such thing as a denier, only skeptic.
I am a skeptic that the earth is round. I think that the pictures 'supposedly' sent back for the space station - are photo shopped by the evil scientists at NASA (who also control all the rest of the world's space agencies) - in order to take your money - and set up a world socialist government. I hope my example shows the flaw in your comment.
indio007
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 18, 2016
"They are nonhuman numbers."

Ahhhh .... the Freudian slip
bschott
2.1 / 5 (22) Jan 18, 2016
I_weinstein
First, there is no such thing as a denier, only skeptic.
I am a skeptic that the earth is round. I think that the pictures 'supposedly' sent back for the space station - are photo shopped by the evil scientists at NASA (who also control all the rest of the world's space agencies) - in order to take your money - and set up a world socialist government. I hope my example shows the flaw in your comment.


There is a huge difference between being a skeptic that the earth is round as opposed to flat vs. saying, I don't believe the earth is round because I think it is flattened at the poles. He didn't make a black and white statement, you turned it into one.

That said, CO2 and GW are the least of our worries as far as humanities effect on the planet.
We will kill ourselves off directly before any of our thoughtless environmental practices start taking a toll.

Also, if Mike Massen is a working scientist, so is Mike Myers.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (21) Jan 18, 2016
I_weinstein
First, there is no such thing as a denier, only skeptic.
I am a skeptic that the earth is round. I think that the pictures 'supposedly' sent back for the space station - are photo shopped by the evil scientists at NASA (who also control all the rest of the world's space agencies) - in order to take your money - and set up a world socialist government. I hope my example shows the flaw in your comment.

Flaw?? Nope. It just confirms your stupidity.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (23) Jan 18, 2016
I'm not a scientist so excuse me

No problem. It is fine to be ignorant of science, as long as you are willing to learn what it actually says, or willing to stay out of the debate otherwise.

What crackpots do, is pretend as if certain questions aren't settled. In the case of AGW, it IS settled that humans are warming the planet, and it IS settled that the predictions are dire. Among the open questions are, where EXACTLY is this extra heat energy going?
if I've got this wrong but if I understand correctly there is
more energy striking the earth's surface in one and a half hours of sunlight (480 EJ)67 than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ)68.

The problem is not with energy consumption. It is with anthropogenic greenhouse gases trapping heat via the greenhouse effect. See https://en.wikipe...e_effect
l_weinstein
2.9 / 5 (19) Jan 18, 2016
I looked at the comment from the story: "Because the oceans are so vast and cold, the absorbed heat raises temperatures by only a few tenths of a degree", and actually calculated the average temperature rise for the quoted energy added (which is probably a bit high, but I use the worse case for example), I obtain an average temperature rise of 0.03 degrees C or 0.054 degrees F over 18 years. This is not a few tenths of a degree, but 10 times smaller. Even if the quoted energy is absorbed, it still can't EVER heat the air above it more than it's temperature rise, regardless of the energy content. That is how heat transfer works. If you still believe the misinformation being given to try to save the position of the alarmists, please explain how they are correct.
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (20) Jan 18, 2016
I looked at the comment from the story: "Because the oceans are so vast and cold, the absorbed heat raises temperatures by only a few tenths of a degree", and actually calculated the average temperature rise for the quoted energy added (which is probably a bit high, but I use the worse case for example), I obtain an average temperature rise of 0.03 degrees C or 0.054 degrees F over 18 years. This is not a few tenths of a degree, but 10 times smaller. Even if the quoted energy is absorbed, it still can't EVER heat the air above it more than it's temperature rise, regardless of the energy content. That is how heat transfer works. If you still believe the misinformation being given to try to save the position of the alarmists, please explain how they are correct.

It's likelier you are wrong, instead of the majority of experts. Provide your calculations, and explain how you are correct.
l_weinstein
2.6 / 5 (17) Jan 18, 2016
comment to the furlong: You are quoting a totally falsified statement. If you take wikipedia as the truth you have a big shock coming in your life.
l_weinstein
2.8 / 5 (17) Jan 18, 2016
The quoted energy input over 18 years (5.67E8 seconds) heats a 1msquare area an average of 0.8 W, for a total over 18 years of 4.54E8 Joules/msquare. The average ocean depth is 3,690 m. The specific heat of water is 4.184 J/gram per degree K. This results in my quoted number with round off. I am expert in fluid mechanics and heat transfer, which is THE important background for this topic. I have also studied climatology for many years, and am fully competent in it.
jeffensley
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
You talk about being scientific, then ignore any science that doesn't fit with your belief. You claim to have knowledge of the subject, then make simplistic and erroneous claims that suggest a political bias guiding your reply.


You could have saved yourself a lot of time by simply providing a link to studies that give us a historical context for these modern heat content estimates.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (24) Jan 18, 2016
tomlaw1998 says
This seems to suggest that man made energy (or heat) is miniscule compared to natural forces. May I say that I'm not a crank or a denier, just trying to see if this story is relevant or not
Anything 'miniscule' in terms of comparative scale can & as physics shows has immense cumulative effect

ie
Earth's energy balance simply put energy in -> heat out. Sol provides a great deal of visible light as well as some heat & higher wavelengths, when visible light hits earth's surface (mainly oceans ~70%) becomes heat (Infra Red) & most radiated to space

GreenHouse Gases progressively interfere with emission, details
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

Its based on proven physics of ~100yrs, key relationships defined
https://en.wikipe...transfer

In order to understand the relative balance & how 'miniscule' amount affects temperature
https://en.wikipe...capacity

Straightforward & fully settled Physics :/
gkam
2.6 / 5 (23) Jan 18, 2016
Mike is right: It is not the amount of heat we are adding it is the amount of thermal insulation to keep it from radiating into space.
runrig
5 / 5 (17) Jan 18, 2016
The quoted energy input over 18 years (5.67E8 seconds) heats a 1msquare area an average of 0.8 W, for a total over 18 years of 4.54E8 Joules/msquare. The average ocean depth is 3,690 m. The specific heat of water is 4.184 J/gram per degree K. This results in my quoted number with round off. I am expert in fluid mechanics and heat transfer, which is THE important background for this topic. I have also studied climatology for many years, and am fully competent in it.


I note the article says.....
"Most of the added heat has been trapped in the upper 2,300 feet, but with every year the deeper oceans also are absorbing more energy"

So using 750m depth I get 0.13C temp rise.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (28) Jan 18, 2016
bschott blurts
Also, if Mike Massen is a working scientist, so is Mike Myers
Eh ? What prompted such immature outburst ?

Yes I'm a 'working scientist' as it happens in Electronic Engineering re Product Development, intensely practical as devices have to actually 'work' & do so under a variety of qualifiers in a competitive market place :P

Have noticed your weird crank ideas eg "I can't believe matter self compresses" but, you can't clarify it & can't seem to get your head around basic Newtonian gravitation, why can't you focus on Physics but, instead *have* to show yourself up as supremely, ignorant of how to converge in pertinent physics dialectic ?

Tell us please bschott just why you imagine "matter can't self compress" ?

Look at my post reply to tomlaw1998, can you imagine better form of Science communication to those having to put up with rubbish of your ignorant idiocy spouted here ?

How can bschott improve, can it learn *any* Physics at all - ever ?
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (24) Jan 18, 2016
Solon claims
"However as I said I am not a scientist..."
That's probably a good thing, it means you still posses common sense, something most scientists have had removed during their 'education'
No & very unlikely in key fields where Evidence is paramount !

Very sad, Solon & those like him are really saying "..physics is too hard to understand, as I don't have the discipline, I don't care but, I still want to look smart.." :/

A true Scientist understands discipline within the unfortunate circumstance that most, including those that make decisions about our future, are more receptive to responding to claim than understand substantiation re evidence !

Solon, demonstrate you can appreciate & learn the Scientific Method:-
https://en.wikipe...c_method

ie. Is there anything even a little to refute the Physics of Heat especially radiative transfer, in particular the essential fundamentals:-
https://en.wikipe...echanics
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (21) Jan 18, 2016
bschott
He didn't make a black and white statement, you turned it into one.
He claimed that
there is no such thing as a denier, only skeptic.
I just picked a quick example to show that there is such a thing as a denier. I will give you another example. On another thread - scoofinator claims that climate cycles are not driven by Milankovitch Cycles. This is blatant denialism - scoofinator of course offers no support for said assertion - like so many - it is just my opinion. Opinion needs to be supported with data and reason - otherwise - yes - the person is a denier. Follow Antigoracles idiocy for a few days - it is very clear.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (18) Jan 18, 2016
I_weinstein
There has been no significant (average) warming since 1998


Yes there has. http://woodfortre...16/trend

http://www.realcl...warming/
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (26) Jan 18, 2016
tomlaw1998 asks
.. you saying that our existence is threatened by just another 1.5 hours of man made energy
Jumping in for gkam ie diff time zones. The issue is not currently 'man made energy' though this can be worked out from the ~230,000 liters of petrol burnt each & every second - which is comparatively small. Its ~1.6Watts per sq meter as proven consequence of radiative forcing
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

However, don't take my word for it or anyone who accepts our Earth's energy balance is getting progressively worse, all you need to do is apprise yourself of proven fact of infra-red absorption/emission Eg
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

tomlaw1998 asks
..Suns output is subject to occasional fluctuations
Sure but, lowering
http://skepticals...sTSI.png

tomlaw1998 says
volcanic eruptions can cause major changes...
But, so far minor, see pinatubo bump 1991
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2
gkam
2.2 / 5 (20) Jan 18, 2016
Be careful, Mike. Our nuns told us some of them e-missions was mortal sin.
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (22) Jan 18, 2016
l_weinstein says
You are quoting a totally falsified statement
Beg Pardon as I see you are replying to thefurlong's offering re wikipedia link, its not "totally falsified" at all, if it were you'd have to Then believe radiative heat transfer is totally falsified, its not !
https://en.wikipe...transfer

That your position ?
If so, then you aren't well versed in fundamental Physics, so please tell me you ARE well versed & DO accept radiative forcing is well proven AND figures offered here re CO2 is correct AND if not, then WHY not please ?
https://en.wikipe..._forcing

l_weinstein states
If you take wikipedia as the truth you have a big shock coming in your life
This may be perfectly true for George Bush & other naive idle arbitrary opinion sites but, from what I see with your calculations implying a base understanding of specific heat you would have to appreciate wiki on Physics is valid ?

Please state your position ?
gkam
1.5 / 5 (17) Jan 18, 2016
Mike, my position is it is normal, and happens to everybody. It should happen more to the nuns.
Solon
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
greenonions
"If you have such disrespect for scientists, why are you here commenting."

Must be getting grumpy in my old age, and maybe I used a rather broad brush with my comment, so will change the "most" to "many". With AGW though I will not retract my statement. Computer models used to support this alarmist rhetoric should be under great suspicion, anything can be proven with such models, and the public has no way of knowing how those models were arrived at, or by whom. I realise this site unquestioningly supports AGW, (and nonsence like black holes, the snowball Earth model and other untestable 'science') so perhaps that is why I comment here, hoping to perhaps save at least one innocent from drinking such tainted offerings.

Solon
2.7 / 5 (12) Jan 18, 2016
@Mike_Massen
"Is there anything even a little to refute the Physics of Heat"

I'm not refuting the physics of heat, I'm questioning the motives and integrity of those doing the measuring and recording (I'm a Grumpy Old Instrument Engineer) and applying computer models that nobody other than the specialised scientists has any understanding of.

"...theoretical physics... probability theory..."

No room for error or bias then, right.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 18, 2016
It's always amazing to see the AGW deniers scraping up bottom of the barrel debate points trying to dispute the latest pile-on of global warming fact finds. In this article the best carry away is;
The world's oceans absorbed approximately 150 zettajoules of energy from 1865 to 1997, and then absorbed about another 150 in the next 18 years,

WOW! Imagine that! I'm so reminded of the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" by Vice President and Noble prize winning Al-Gore with his exponential hockey stick demonstrating the correlation of CO2 excess created from the combustion of fossil fuels and the heat trapping effects from CO2 in the upper atmosphere. (ie. The HOCKEY STICK)

No; lets look at who is going to deny the science demonstrating Al-Gore was correct in his efforts to bring this issue into public debate. Look at who denies the science. It's the GOP. But across the globe, it's the conservatives that deny the science or oppose doing anything about it.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (18) Jan 18, 2016
solon
that is why I comment here, hoping to perhaps save at least one innocent from drinking such tainted offerings.


A nobel gesture sir. It does not really help your cause that you start out by disparaging the profession of science. This statement shows the disdain you have for the profession -
I'm questioning the motives and integrity of those doing the measuring and recording
Pretty extreme disdain don't you think? Accusing those of measuring and recording facts like ocean levels, ocean temps, atmospheric temps, ice volume and extent etc. of being dishonest (you did use the word integrity). Of course - this would have to be a global conspiracy too - right? Else - like the Chinese, or the Russian scientists would cry foul at this dishonest manipulation of data. Do you know any scientists? Do you know what a prickly bunch they are in general - and how highly they value integrity? I do.
leetennant
4 / 5 (16) Jan 19, 2016
I'm questioning the motives and integrity of those doing the measuring and recording
Pretty extreme disdain don't you think? Accusing those of measuring and recording facts like ocean levels, ocean temps, atmospheric temps, ice volume and extent etc. of being dishonest (you did use the word integrity). Of course - this would have to be a global conspiracy too - right? Else - like the Chinese, or the Russian scientists would cry foul at this dishonest manipulation of data. Do you know any scientists? Do you know what a prickly bunch they are in general - and how highly they value integrity? I do.


Its a conspiracy! Spanning 200 years and every climate scientist and scientific organisation in the entire world!

Scientists should apparently give conspiracy lessons. Because that shit is amazing.
Mike_Massen
2.8 / 5 (24) Jan 19, 2016
Solon claims
.. this site unquestioningly supports AGW
No, how so

A Science agglomeration site reporting on various journals, articles also question effects of climate change as some report work of Scientists suggesting it can be a good thing.

Do you deny CO2 radiative forcing?

So prove your claim of "unquestioningly supports" & note, failure to make a case relying on mere claim puts you squarely in idle denier camp, yah think ?

Solon claims
..nonsence like black holes
FFS Beg pardon ?
As an Instrument Engineer (IA) do you question Newton's gravitation ie F=Gm1m2/d^2 & the relationship with F=ma to arrive at a ? Which of course allows one to determine a graphical solution for the primary m vs d re a ?

Do you need to be shown how its done ?

Solon claims
..other untestable 'science'
Surely as an IA you can exercise inference & re Algebra, can u prove u graduated ?

Solon says
..from drinking such tainted offerings
Such as a Physics education ?
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 19, 2016
Scientists should apparently give conspiracy lessons. Because that shit is amazing.


Maybe that is what we should do. Devote half of Physics 101 to science conspiracies!

Specifically climate change and global warming. In my days in Astronomy 101 we always debunked Astrology and made clear it was a bunch of junk.

Denier's are in the same vein. The nonsense that comes from climate deniers is just rehashed verbiage from rightwing ideologs which is simply made up chest pounding fiction of the neocons.
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2016


I came across THIS new study.
unrealone1
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2016
1#All the Record heat temps have been in city's of 5 million people.
Where is the "Relativity" Of todays temp compared to a small country town with a miniscule heat island effect.
Why have the weather bureau never mentioned the heat island effect of increasing the temp 4 degrees.
2#January 23, 2015 The temperature has hit a scorching 49 degrees in the small Western Australian outback town of Marble Bar- just 0.2 of a degree below the highest temperature recorded in the town set in January 1922.
Based on these "facts" I cannot see how man made CO2 which is 3% of the 0.0400 controls the weather..
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 19, 2016
Based on these "facts" I cannot see how man made CO2 which is 3% of the 0.0400 controls the weather


Well that's a shame for you - you'll just have to read some more science my friend.
And/or you could start by asking questions here as to why CO2 most definitely is (when injected as a driver and not - as is natural - as a feedback) controlling (correction to your above) - climate - as weather rides on the back of climate.
chapprg1
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2016
150 ZJ in 18 years is 0.51 Watts/m^2. (this includes methane, water vapor feedback, your grandma's wash water, everything) If that is too much for your brain ask one of your AGW nuts how much global warming they are claiming for CO2 alone. (hint: 3.7 watts/m^2)
chapprg1
2.3 / 5 (9) Jan 19, 2016
You folks are so easy to fool and manipulate. If you want the word of a respected scientist, look up ARGO & Levitus et al. Or just read your vaunted IPCC AR-5 Scientific Summary. They hide a summary paragraph from Levitus in there (0.42 watts). (and then fail to use it in the SPM.)
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2016


I came across http://www.climat...ull+Feed new study.

Poor runrig, so desperate to satiate his beliefs. Tell us runrig, how many of these deep ARGO buoys have been deployed? How is all this heat getting to the deep while the currently deployed buoys show the surface water cooling?
greenonions
5 / 5 (11) Jan 19, 2016
chapprg1
You folks are so easy to fool and manipulate.
Who exactly are you saying is easy to fool and manipulate? I did look up your ARGO & Levitus - came up with this - http://onlinelibr...106/full What exactly is your point? You were really not at all clear.
bschott
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2016
Eh ? What prompted such immature outburst ?


The mention of your name, and scientist in the same sentence, and it was immature, sorry. That is what happens when a thought actually makes me giddy.

Yes I'm a 'working scientist' as it happens in Electronic Engineering re Product Development, intensely practical as devices have to actually 'work' & do so under a variety of qualifiers in a competitive market place


You should stick to the above, and quit wandering into areas that cause people question your understanding, you've made it clear you are clueless about magnetism.

you can't clarify it & can't seem to get your head around basic Newtonian gravitation,


Gravity is observed where mass exists. Everything else around what it does is theoretical. Calculations based on observational evidence indicate that for gravity to do what is claimed the existing mass of the universe had to be multiplied by 5, 4/5 of which is invisible.

Good luck with that.

TechnoCreed
4.8 / 5 (20) Jan 19, 2016
@bschott
You are totally off topic. Read the comments guidelines "Stay on topic: Acceptable comments include those that add to the discussion in a meaningful and thought-provoking manner or provide an intelligent counterpoint to our articles." https://sciencex....omments/
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (19) Jan 19, 2016
bschott told the truth for once
That is what happens when a thought actually makes me giddy
Happens often to idle critics faced with difficult concepts, hang in there & learn that once you have Physics education you become immune to propaganda :P

bschott claims
.. quit wandering into areas that cause people question your understanding
Specifically & Prove it ?

bschott claims
.. you've made it clear you are clueless about magnetism
Engaging a religious zealot on Physics is obviously pointless, you wrote you hate religions, then why can't you comprehend context of a reply to viko_mx ?

Have stated already, I've same view as Feynman - no-one actually knows but, math can describe & make predictions ie Obvious

bschott says
.. observational evidence indicate that for gravity to do what is claimed the existing mass of the universe had to be multiplied by 5, 4/5 of which is invisible. Good luck...
Called Algebra, whats your Physics/Math position ?
TehDog
5 / 5 (19) Jan 19, 2016
"how many of these deep ARGO buoys have been deployed?"
According to http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
3918 as of today. Took me <1 minute to find...
Solon
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2016
This would seem to be a fairly realistic assessment of the situation:
From Greenhouse to Icehouse
"What they get out of their models is a much higher SST gradient than we find in our data," he explains. "That means there are some mechanisms that are missing in the models."
Given this mismatch, Bijl says it's frightening that scientists rely so heavily on computer models to predict future climate patterns.
http://www.astrob...cehouse/
antigoracle
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 19, 2016
"how many of these deep ARGO buoys have been deployed?"
According to http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
3918 as of today. Took me <1 minute to find...

How long would it take you to grow a brain, then find someone with intelligence to explain what an idiot you are. Get someone to read you runrig's link. It claims that a NEW set of deep diving buoys are being deployed, idiot.
Wullum
2.5 / 5 (8) Jan 19, 2016
I don't deny that the existence of humans has added to ocean heat absorption, as that is a logical conclusion of societal growth. However, the study cited above says nothing about the impact of naturally-occurring (e.g., volcanic) heat sources, and how it contributes to the aggregate measurement.

It is also logical to conclude that the earth will continue to warm due to both man-made and naturally-occurring events. The result of this reality is undeniably important, but there is a limit to how much we can effectively change the course of action. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (17) Jan 19, 2016
"How long would it take you to grow a brain, then find someone with intelligence to explain what an idiot you are"
-----------------------------------------

Why do you have to be so offensive? Does it somehow compensate for poor quality of thought, of ideas, of concepts?

No.
TehDog
5 / 5 (18) Jan 19, 2016
"It claims that a NEW set of deep diving buoys are being deployed, idiot."
It does? Please show me where.
Oh, btw
"How is all this heat getting to the deep while the currently deployed buoys show the surface water cooling?"
I don't think you're reading the graph in runrigs link correctly, try looking at the numbers on the left, and the slope on the eggshell blue...(meh, who am I kidding, can't troll a troll :)
Anti, hope you get paid for this and don't do it for fun.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 19, 2016
Wullum offers
.. study cited above says nothing about the impact of naturally-occurring (e.g., volcanic) heat sources, and how it contributes to the aggregate measurement
Any singular paper would be very long & very difficult to get published if it tried to cover the whole gamut of issues, unless heavily summarised which opens it up to many levels of criticism. More appropriate & simpler for many to ompartmentalize, in any case up to author's expertise/sentiment etc.

All geothermal sources of heat over last several decades comparatively Very small relation to CO2's increasing radiative forcing ~1.6W/m^2

Wullum added
.... there is a limit to how much we can effectively change the course of action. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try
Indeed, though should be noted chemistry/chem-eng research advancing very well coalescing advanced tech

Eg Aware of local design able to be cost-effectively retro-fitted to coal/gas power stations processing CO2 -> Methanol
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 19, 2016
Wullum
It is also logical to conclude that the earth will continue to warm due to both man-made and naturally-occurring events.
Have you studied this Wullum? Are you aware of Milankovitch cycles - and how they have caused the earth to go through cycles of warming and cooling over the past several million years? Are you familiar with the feedback cycles of the carbon cycle, the albedo effect etc? http://climate.na...science/ If you are educated on all of these issues - what exactly is your point - it was not clear to me.
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 19, 2016
Solon - if you have such disdain for the 'integrity' of scientists - what are you doing quoting articles written by research scientists? It sounds to me from the way you quoted this article - like you feel that you have just dealt the death blow to climate science - and models in particular. Let me share a quote from the author
The kinds of models we're using today are more sophisticated than 10 years ago," Schmidt says. "We're hopeful they might provide answers that were elusive in the past. But they haven't provided (those answers) yet.
Do you assert that anyone has said that we know EVERYTHING about the climate? The scientists are clear that there are lots of holes in our knowledge - and this does not negate what we do know.
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (19) Jan 20, 2016
@Wullum
Following up greenonions sentiment, Solon is a prime example, posters make odd claims & some attempt subtlety leaving tangential implications hanging, if we don't address them head on sooner rather than later they give false impressions...

As consequence of perception re plain political bias of some with agenda to obfuscate Science & claim they are mere skeptics, our heckles get raised, so when you offer a mostly innocent comment it can appear the pattern starts Again wheedling falsehoods !

To avoid being put squarely in AGW denier camp, best to get apprised re cyclical nature of driving factors & not leave typical clanger "earth will continue to warm ...naturally occurring events".

To be genuine hope you appreciate there isn't any confusion between natural (cyclic) cooling & un-natural heating as you might imply...

NB Major issue re nature, insolation Down while temps Up !
http://www.skepti...1024.jpg

Over to you Wullum
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 20, 2016
"It claims that a NEW set of deep diving buoys are being deployed, idiot."
It does? Please show me where.
...blah..blah....(meh, who am I kidding, can't troll a troll :)
Anti, hope you get paid for this and don't do it for fun.

Technological advances have allowed a small fleet of deeper-diving floats to be deployed more recently. Some of those have been built to dive as deep as 20,000 feet.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ocean-depths-are-trapping-heat-19922?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climatecentral%2FdjOO+Climate+Central+-+Full+Feed
Please find someone with a brain to read and explain it to you..meh, who am I kidding, can't educate an idiot.
I hope you grow a brain, then perhaps someone would pay you for this.
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 20, 2016
goracle
can't educate an idiot.
Amen brother goracle. Now show us where the article being discussed claims that the surface waters are cooling. Here is your claim.
while the currently deployed buoys show the surface water cooling?


COOLING - means that temperatures are reducing.
bschott
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 20, 2016
Called Algebra, whats your Physics/Math position ?


That it must be wrong if it claims that we can't see 4/5 of the matter in the universe. Regardless of the complexity of the equations that are behind the claim.

@bschott
You are totally off topic. Read the comments guidelines "Stay on topic: Acceptable comments include those that add to the discussion in a meaningful and thought-provoking manner or provide an intelligent counterpoint to our articles." https://sciencex....omments/


My first comment is well within the comment guidelines as they pertain to the article and other comments. My second comment is a response to a comment someone else made that was directed at me. In short, I had to go "off topic" to respond.

How you missed that is anyone's guess....
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 20, 2016
bschott claims
That it must be wrong if it claims that we can't see 4/5 of the matter in the universe
1 Other than daunted by mere scale what "must be wrong" please ?
Eg By way of illustrative example, read this, mostly invisible, rarely interact
https://en.wikipe...Neutrino
& consider
https://en.wikipe...articles
search continues...

bschott claims
Regardless of the complexity of the equations that are behind the claim
Sad, a claim only by those missing key Calculus education :-(

2 You consider it appropriate making arbitrary Physics claims minus Calculus, yah think ?

3 Given immense weight of evidence re Newton/Einstein's gravitation in very many space sciences endeavors, is it sensible to make immature claims its wrong & only because of arbitrary unfounded beliefs see 1. ?

4 Isn't it far more sensible to investigate, like neutrinos, great deal of mass exists but, not in ordinary perception, yah think ?
TehDog
5 / 5 (19) Jan 20, 2016
Anti, those new buoys are part of the Argo program.
http://www.argo.u...port.pdf section 3.5, page 11
"In this session, the presenters were asked to report on the Deep Argo float model,
number of Deep floats to deploy in 2015-2019, and plans of pilot arrays."
Honestly, you would do a lot better if you'd bother to check this stuff before posting.
philstacy9
1.8 / 5 (10) Jan 23, 2016
Global wussiness. Research has proven that climate scientists are 97% chicken.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2016
"Global wussiness. Research has proven that climate scientists are 97% chicken."
---------------------------------------

That is the level of argument of the Deniers.

Estevan57
4.5 / 5 (16) Jan 23, 2016
Gkam. You talk like a child.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (17) Jan 23, 2016
I am talking TO one.
Estevan57
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 23, 2016
Gotcha.
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 23, 2016
All this heat going into the oceans in the last 18 years, yet there is no reflection of it in sea level rise. https://sealevel....azenave/
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (19) Jan 23, 2016
All this heat going into the oceans in the last 18 years, yet there is no reflection of it in sea level rise.
I took the liberty to present an updated chart. I hope you don't mind; it is still from NASA after all ;-) http://climate.na...a-level/
antigoracle
2.1 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2016
Perhaps you could take the liberty and tell us what your link provides differently from mine?
Hint: Sea level rise from heat
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (18) Jan 24, 2016
I see Solon still hasnt answered my questions, just like bschott, l_weinstein & a few others, they make idle arbitrary claims with nothing to support their claims, why bother posting then ?

If you guys are going to make a post, any post, that is even a little tangential & other than "good work" etc re the article then please have the presence of mind to back claims with a bit of Physics, connected Maths or link to a peer reviewed paper etc.

Especially personal attacks, and that means being able to have a clear understanding of the difference between Claim vs Evidence, there is too much rubbish where some get their nose out of joint and jump on the bandwagon of immature prejudice ?

ie. Any idiot at any time can make mere claims it takes maturity & gravitas to:-

1. Recognize Claim is NOT the same as Evidence
2. Locate & be honest re Evidence

Is this NOT a higher ideal & might clean up the forums from the many cranks who bark inane comments at the drop of a hat ?
HeloMenelo
2.6 / 5 (15) Jan 24, 2016
aaahhh so here he is, looks like his troll superiors can't find a better job for him other than to type monkey thoughts, (can't blame them though) ..... ;-) .....the antisciencegorilla in his full glory furr... looks like the furr is still growing inwards at the skull area eh...

@ greenonions quote:
"COOLING - means that temperatures are reducing, "

can't teach a gorilla who's failed his mental school exam for the past five years the definition of normal words.... but hey... makes for a hilarious comedy, his sockpuppets always there to make him look even more stupid.....oooppp....going to grab some munchies, this is going to be a fun night :D
antigoracle
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 24, 2016
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast blabbers.
Is this NOT a higher ideal & might clean up the forums from the many cranks who bark inane comments at the drop of a hat ?

And then promptly gives the next inane bark, a 5.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 24, 2016
The @antigorepickle says;
And then promptly gives the next inane bark, a 5.
as his final answer after his looney full spread delirium induced rant. Some people; mainly the rightwing weirdos and deniers just can't handle the truth. In fact, they don't have an answer, not even a good guess. Just more BS and the same old BS that they've spewed for the last 20 year!
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (19) Jan 24, 2016
antigoracle incomprehensibly claims
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast blabbers
Unlike so many others I already apologised as you know full well for mixing apes with monkeys re bonobos, why can't you apologise for hounding ?

antigoracle only focused on votes
And then promptly gives the next inane bark, a 5.
Please be smarter & focus on the Physics, try to refute Eg radiative transfer.

Try & learn to enter into mature dialectic, your snipes get you what you deserve and can you at least maybe have more courage like me :-) to offer your real name ?

LOL !
antigoracle
2.5 / 5 (11) Jan 24, 2016
ROTFLMAO.
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast blabbers again. Mutterin' Mike, please focus on your inability to read, far less comprehend and then you may actually become smart. Mutterin' Mike please focus on your hypocrisy, lies and fraud. Mutterin' Mike claims he is brave because he ignorantly uses his name on the forum. Mutterin' Mike luckily I'm not as stupid as you, because I've had retarded morons of your ilk threaten me on this forum. Mutterin' Mike accuses me of only focusing on votes, when he's the moron focused on down voting his opposition and blindly up voting the most retarded comments from his Chicken Little club.
gkam
2 / 5 (16) Jan 25, 2016
anti, please go away. I do not know why so many from from Britain have such little character, . . . but there you are. Why do you have to hide behind a pseudonym?

Cowardice?

Let's get back to the discussion of what we are dong to the planet, to our own detriment.
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (14) Jan 25, 2016
mmm...gorilacle monkey is finally starting to admit his role, creating an audience/enthusiasts that points out his foolishness.. lol.... here monkey monkey... ;)

Mike's been showing his in depth understanding on this topic providing utmost credibility as to utmost credible evidence he provided throughout the years and it shows every time... now we can't say the same for the monkey business antisciencegorilla's been preaching the last 5 years now can we.... he just can't seem to stop stumbling over his feet to cross that final year mental school barrier. It's a circle jerk over and over and over for him... and he continues to click on those monkey pictures keeping him in the jerk.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 25, 2016
ROTFLMAO.
Mutterin' Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast blabbers again. Mutterin' Mike, please focus on your inability to read, far less comprehend and then you may actually become smart. Mutterin' Mike please focus on your hypocrisy, lies and fraud. Mutterin' Mike claims he is brave because he ignorantly uses his name on the forum. Mutterin' Mike luckily I'm not as stupid as you, because I've had retarded morons of your ilk threaten me on this forum. Mutterin' Mike accuses me of only focusing on votes, when he's the moron focused on down voting his opposition and blindly up voting the most retarded comments from his Chicken Little club.


Boring.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (11) Jan 25, 2016
So the AGW Cult's pathological science continues. Only the ignorant and hungry Chicken Littles would so easily swallow the lie that as much energy went into to the oceans in the last 18 years as the previous 133, while reality says otherwise. http://wattsupwit...22/9507/

Your reference supports the claim made in the article above. Just combine total ocean water volume with the 150 zettaJ and the expansion coefficient. The result is of the order of the thermosteric contribution to the sea level rise reported in your links.
Your qualification "ignorant and hungry Chicken Littles would so easily swallow the lie" backfires.
Phys1
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 25, 2016

How long would it take you to grow a brain, then find someone with intelligence to explain what an idiot you are. Get someone to read you runrig's link. It claims that a NEW set of deep diving buoys are being deployed, idiot.

I bet I could make this post backfire as well.
Phys1
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 25, 2016
I conclude that antigoracle is a clueless loudmouthed clown turned sour.
Nothing new.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 25, 2016
So the AGW Cult's pathological science continues. Only the ignorant and hungry Chicken Littles would so easily swallow the lie that as much energy went into to the oceans in the last 18 years as the previous 133, while reality says otherwise. http://wattsupwit...22/9507/

Your reference supports the claim made in the article above. Just combine total ocean water volume with the 150 zettaJ and the expansion coefficient. The result is of the order of the thermosteric contribution to the sea level rise reported in your links.
Your qualification "ignorant and hungry Chicken Littles would so easily swallow the lie" backfires.

REALLY!!!
Were you born this stupid, or dropped as a baby?
In which way does a decrease in the rate of thermosteric sea level indicate increasing heat?
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2016
antigoracle with his usual shallow attempt to obfuscate by moving goal posts yet again
In which way does a decrease in the rate of thermosteric sea level indicate increasing heat?
Why can't you answer your question or offer link to study that develops hypothesis based upon paradigm offered

Its clear antigoracle, Phys1 stated "Your reference supports the claim made in the article above. Just combine total ocean water volume with the 150 zettaJ and the expansion coefficient. The result is of the order of the thermosteric contribution to the sea level rise reported in your links"

How, antigoracle, in straightforward terms, is your "question" above & all it implies founded upon Phys1's observation ?

antigoracle, you've been at this long enough to; delve into detail, explore underlying Physics, offer thoughtful rationale, hypothesise a position & craft a management plan to pursue design of an experiment

But no, you utterly Fail in ALL of these, yuck !

Physics
Mike_Massen
2.4 / 5 (14) Jan 26, 2016
@antigoracle specifically, who so far shows Nil ability to learn basics, your first need a clear understanding of the various terms of reference, so tell us if its possible you can drop your "..goracle" politically motivated nickname carry over from some compulsive disorder to focus like a mature member of this place ???

Oceanography
http://encycloped...+anomaly

From Colorado University
http://sealevel.c...-mass-co

NOAA Paper
ftp://ftp.nodc.no...3112.pdf

Even though the last paper only leads up to 2003 which is some time approaching middle of the so called pause period relied upon by deniers, the key issue is the rate of change (RoC), do you know what it means ? ie RoC re power contribution, same as re an engine & its delta power output !

This is telling RoC has accelerated !

Physics
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 26, 2016
Mutterin' Moron Mike, Wikipedia (2 links) scholar, science charlatan and Bonobo "monkey" enthusiast blabbers again. Mutterin' Mike, when you are incapable of reading, far less comprehension, why do you persist in reaffirming your stupidity? Mutterin' Mike why don't you get someone with a brain to follow and explain the conversation, instead of blabbering like a moron?
https://sealevel....azenave/
Only an idiot like you could accept an unsubstantiated statement from a fellow Chicken Little, while criticizing one that is clearly supported by the link above. Grow a brain moron.
HeloMenelo
2 / 5 (12) Jan 26, 2016
now now gorilla monkey, where's the super dumb comments we're used to from you...yaaaawwwnnn, you got enthusiasts to entertain remember, 1 out of 5 for all your comments so far is a start, but the audience wants something different now, remember...no shiny nose for the same no brainer's we need to hear new no brainer's from you... ;)

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.