Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn't warmed

May 30, 2016
Observed warming over the past 50 years (in degrees Celsius per decade) shows rapid warming in the Arctic, while the Southern Ocean around Antarctica has warmed little, if at all. Credit: K. Armour / UW

The waters surrounding Antarctica may be one of the last places to experience human-driven climate change. New research from the University of Washington and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finds that ocean currents explain why the seawater has stayed at roughly the same temperature while most of the rest of the planet has warmed.

The study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of often seized on by climate deniers. Observations and climate models show that the unique currents around Antarctica continually pull deep, centuries-old up to the surface - seawater that last touched Earth's atmosphere before the machine age, and has never experienced fossil fuel-related . The paper is published May 30 in Nature Geoscience.

"With rising carbon dioxide you would expect more warming at both poles, but we only see it at one of the poles, so something else must be going on," said lead author Kyle Armour, a UW assistant professor of oceanography and of atmospheric sciences. "We show that it's for really simple reasons, and are the hero here."

Gale-force westerly winds that constantly whip around Antarctica act to push surface water north, continually drawing up water from below. The Southern Ocean's water comes from such great depths, and from sources that are so distant, that it will take centuries before the water reaching the surface has experienced modern .

Other places in the oceans, like the west coast of the Americas and the equator, draw seawater up from a few hundred meters depth, but that doesn't have the same effect.

"The Southern Ocean is unique because it's bringing water up from several thousand meters [as much as 2 miles]," Armour said. "It's really deep, old water that's coming up to the surface, all around the continent. You have a lot of water coming to the surface, and that water hasn't seen the atmosphere for hundreds of years."

The water surfacing off Antarctica last saw Earth's atmosphere centuries ago in the North Atlantic, then sank and followed circuitous paths through the world's oceans before resurfacing off Antarctica, hundreds or even a thousand years later.

Delayed warming of the Antarctic Ocean is commonly seen in global . But the culprit had been wrongly identified as churning, frigid seas mixing extra heat downward. The study used data from Argo observational floats and other instruments to trace the path of the missing heat.

"The old idea was that heat taken up at the surface would just mix downward, and that's the reason for the slow warming," Armour said. "But the observations show that heat is actually being carried away from Antarctica, northward along the surface."

In the Atlantic, the northward flow of the ocean's surface continues all the way to the Arctic. The study used dyes in model simulations to show that seawater that has experienced the most climate change tends to clump up around the North Pole. This is another reason why the Arctic's ocean and sea ice are bearing the brunt of global warming, while Antarctica is largely oblivious.

"The oceans are acting to enhance warming in the Arctic while damping warming around Antarctica," Armour said. "You can't directly compare warming at the poles, because it's occurring on top of very different ocean circulations."

Knowing where the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases goes, and identifying why the poles are warming at different rates, will help to better predict temperatures in the future.

"When we hear the term 'global warming,' we think of warming everywhere at the same rate," Armour said. "We are moving away from this idea of global warming and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents."

Explore further: 'Ice age blob' of warm ocean water discovered south of Greenland

More information: Nature Geoscience, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/ngeo2731

Related Stories

New project investigates the global warming hiatus

March 10, 2016

To investigate why the global warming trend varies from decade to decade, scientists from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) will work alongside those from nine other research organisations as part of a major new multidisciplinary ...

Recommended for you

Carbon coating gives biochar its garden-greening power

October 20, 2017

For more than 100 years, biochar, a carbon-rich, charcoal-like substance made from oxygen-deprived plant or other organic matter, has both delighted and puzzled scientists. As a soil additive, biochar can store carbon and ...

Cool roofs have water saving benefits too

October 20, 2017

The energy and climate benefits of cool roofs have been well established: By reflecting rather than absorbing the sun's energy, light-colored roofs keep buildings, cities, and even the entire planet cooler. Now a new study ...

79 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (36) May 30, 2016
We are moving away from this idea of global warming and more toward the idea of regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents.

Can the Chicken Littles say "Medieval Warm Period".
Slowly but surely the biggest fraud ever committed against humanity is being revealed. AGWism, the "settled science" of unsettling lies.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (28) May 30, 2016
Antigoracle,
How is "regional patterns of warming, which are strongly shaped by ocean currents" fundamentally any different than the phrase, "climate change"

The subsection of climate science which deals with the measurements of CO2 levels has been fundamentally consistent for decades, through all sorts of governmental changes across the entire globe, if the beans haven't been spilt yet, do you think there might be a reason?

Have fun waiting for your conspiracy to come true.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.6 / 5 (28) May 30, 2016
Also if it such a blatant fraud, how come you never mention anything wrong with the study's you question?

Specifically, what was wrong with these researchers methodology?

Your trusting the used car salesman over your buddy who is a mechanic, not a good move
john_mathon
1.7 / 5 (34) May 30, 2016
As usual new discoveries upend one theory of global warming after another but the article like the others always makes excuses for the failure and discount that it means that we won't have catastrophic change.

I predicted a long time ago that the ocean like the air could have "weather." I'm brilliant because this never occurred to global warming scientists who assumed the ocean was static. Let me clue you in on another of my incredibly brilliant insights. The sun has weather. I've been saying it for decades. It's not static. I know they do say that it varies but they deny any patterns could exist like the PDO/AMO.

This article admits moreover that there are ocean cycles that take hundreds perhaps even a thousand years. It has been my contention that this could explain the phenomenon of the little ice age or even the roman and midieval warm period. Ultimately ocean cycles like this may have basis in weather on the sun or even weather in the core that reveals itself.
john_mathon
1.8 / 5 (33) May 30, 2016
Several years ago during a class on global warming the head of LLNL climate modeling said the MWP and LIA were regional because the south pole didn't warm at the same time. Oh it turns out the south pole isn't warming during this AGW maybe it's regional warming? Or maybe the LIA and MWP werent regional after all. Nothing is settled. It's all malarky and everyone knows it even the scientists. They have no idea.
Otto_Szucks
1.4 / 5 (33) May 30, 2016
Aha...so this "study" was written to detract from the views of global warming "deniers".

" ...and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers."

It is an inconsistent pattern simply because the Earth is a dynamo of CHANGE, healing herself and making accommodations for whatever has to be made right.
EARTH DOES NOT ADAPT - SHE CORRECTS. She has always done so - past, present and future.
AGWites still don't understand this concept - that humans and animals depend on all that CO2 that is eventually absorbed by plants that produce O2. The more plants there are, the more O2 is produced. If the WHOLE EARTH was one big forest, all of the atmospheric CO2 would be locked in that forest, and the forest would eventually die when there is no more CO2 for it to absorb/feed on.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (24) May 30, 2016
jomatty,

As usual, another Denierside troll seizes upon new findings to claim that AGW has been overturned and disproven.

And you typify the moron troll breed.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

Except, of course, for our understanding of the mechanism that keeps the Antipodes relatively colder than the Arctic.

Now get up on your straw donkey and get out of Science Town.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (24) May 30, 2016
Aha...so this "study" was written to detract from the views of global warming "deniers".

" ...and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers."

It is an inconsistent pattern simply because the Earth is a dynamo of CHANGE, healing herself and making accommodations for whatever has to be made right.
EARTH DOES NOT ADAPT - SHE CORRECTS. She has always done so - past, present and future.
AGWites still don't understand this concept - that humans and animals depend on all that CO2 that is eventually absorbed by plants that produce O2. The more plants there are, the more O2 is produced. If the WHOLE EARTH was one big forest, all of the atmospheric CO2 would be locked in that forest, and the forest would eventually die when there is no more CO2 for it to absorb/feed on.


Except for the fact that the Earth is not "one big forest"-- in fact, less so with each passing day, idiot.

And the word you are seeking is EQUILIBRIUM.

Not "correct".
Otto_Szucks
1.1 / 5 (28) May 30, 2016
Where did I say that the Earth IS one big forest, asshole? You need a new eyeglass prescription, apparently, or are you just seeing what you want to see?
No, not equilibrium....I said CORRECT...READ IT RIGHT THIS TIME.
JongDan
4.8 / 5 (19) May 30, 2016
I predicted a long time ago that the ocean like the air could have "weather."

Yes and we call some of those events "El Niño" and "NAO".
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (30) May 30, 2016
But the culprit had been wrongly identified as churning, frigid seas mixing extra heat downward.

Hey Chicken Littles, we know your minds are closed to the truth, now close your eyes.
http://phys.org/n...ves.html
Otto_Szucks
1.3 / 5 (30) May 30, 2016
"Observations and climate models show that the unique currents around Antarctica continually pull deep, centuries-old water up to the surface - seawater that last touched Earth's atmosphere before the machine age, and has never experienced fossil fuel-related climate change."

The only way that seawater of that 'nature' could be locked up tight such as described, would be in the form of ice or slurry, or is anaerobic in a solution of molecules that prevent that seawater from rising and mixing naturally.
Normal seawater readily mixes with other normal seawater, which circulates around the Earth. How did they differentiate that particular seawater from normal seawater? Did it have a sign in it saying that it is "centuries-old" virgin water?
Who do they think they're kidding?
Otto_Szucks
1.2 / 5 (25) May 30, 2016
And don't forget THIS one --

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Eddy Courant
1.5 / 5 (25) May 30, 2016
It was never CO2.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (17) May 30, 2016
The only way that seawater of that 'nature' could be locked up tight such as described, would . How did they differentiate that particular seawater from normal seawater? Did it have a sign in it saying that it is "centuries-old" virgin water?

Higher deuterium ratio.
MajorGeneral
2.3 / 5 (16) May 30, 2016
Never in the history of man has so much been written by those that express their opinion as fact.
tblakely1357
1.6 / 5 (28) May 30, 2016
"The study resolves a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming often seized on by climate deniers."

Yeah.... the author is one of those true believers. I get the sense that him and his ilk would love to round up all those 'deniers' and.... well I guess do the typical stuff fanatics like to do to unbelievers.
Curly4
4 / 5 (12) May 30, 2016
I just read about deep hole drilling where the depth reached to about 40,000 feet. It was reported that the drilling had to stop because the temperature exceeded 500 degrees F. Even at much shallower depths the temperature was still well in the excess of 200 degree F. What I cannot understand is how the rock formation at the depth the same depth of the bottom of the ocean at the antarctic is still very hot yet the ocean water is very cold. So why is there such a difference between the water temperature and the rock formation located at the the same depths as the water but not under the ocean.
leetennant
4.8 / 5 (20) May 30, 2016
The simplest explanation is this:

The Earth would be much colder if it wasn't surrounded by an atmospheric "blanket" that traps the sun's heat. Greenhouse gases (GHG) are responsible for trapping this heat. So, without GHG, this planet would be a cold, lifeless rock. But since GHG traps the sun's energy in the system, increasing them traps more heat and this heat builds up causing climatic changes. To predict these changes, the impact of the mechanism (the greenhouse effect) needs to be modelled to the system.

This is the fundamental that underpins climate science: the models merely map the impact of the extra energy that *must be in the system* because of the greenhouse effect. It is not possible for the levels of GHG in the system to increase without warming the Earth.

How that energy manifests will have regional variations and nobody ever said otherwise.

These are BASIC facts of physics. If your comment doesn't take this into account, it wasn't worth writing.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (28) May 30, 2016
How deep does AGW Cult lies go?
Deeper than old Antarctic water.
BartV
1.1 / 5 (29) May 30, 2016
Major says:
Never in the history of man has so much been written by those that express their opinion as fact.


Actually, AGW is small compared to the evolution fantasy that many people have subscribed to.

leetennant
4.6 / 5 (21) May 30, 2016

Actually, AGW is small compared to the evolution fantasy that many people have subscribed to.



*sigh*
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (19) May 30, 2016
Major says:
Never in the history of man has so much been written by those that express their opinion as fact.


Actually, AGW is small compared to the evolution fantasy that many people have subscribed to.

- BartV
Umm let me put it this way, ok?
Evolution is an afterthought of Creation. Without Evolution each life form that ever was, would have remained the same until things got so bad for them that there was no other way but to go extinct. That includes Homo sapiens and Neanderthalensis. Have you ever noticed how dog breeders can take two different dog types and mate them so that the resulting offspring are very different from either parent? Breeding is a form of Evolution.
You can't have a Creation event and let it go at that. You MUST allow it to evolve into something better, or it will die after a few generations. The Creator did not create life so that it could stagnate and never adapt to changing conditions. The Creator used pure Logic and Reason.
Whydening Gyre
4.8 / 5 (21) May 30, 2016
Major says:
Never in the history of man has so much been written by those that express their opinion as fact.


Actually, AGW is small compared to the evolution fantasy that many people have subscribed to.

Idiocy everywhere... (sigh)
TehDog
4.7 / 5 (12) May 30, 2016
Only one answer to the way this thread degenerated;

https://www.youtu...o49R_ZS0

Audio only, sorry about the accent :)
Caliban
4.8 / 5 (17) May 30, 2016
Where did I say that the Earth IS one big forest, asshole? You need a new eyeglass prescription, apparently, or are you just seeing what you want to see?
No, not equilibrium....I said CORRECT...READ IT RIGHT THIS TIME.


ottosocks,

The Earth is passive, and doesn't "correct" anything. The various conditions arising from its formation and instantaneous position in space, relative to the other nearby bodies that are close enough to have a measurable energetic effect upon it are the only factors contributing to its energy budget.

Excepting the effects of human activity, of course. Therefore the "A" in AGW. The ongoing state of the Earth is no more than the sum of those forces seeking EQUILIBRIUM.

So --again, MORON-- the right word is equilibrium.

"The Word for World is Forest" is the title of a science fiction novel. It didn't fly as an analogy -or whatever else you intended it to be.
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (19) May 30, 2016
"Observations and climate models show that the unique currents around Antarctica continually pull deep, centuries-old water up to the surface - seawater that last touched Earth's atmosphere before the machine age, and has never experienced fossil fuel-related climate change."

The only way that seawater of that 'nature' could be locked up tight such as described, would be in the form of ice or slurry, or is anaerobic in a solution of molecules that prevent that seawater from rising and mixing naturally.


The laws of physics are no more miscible than scientific illiteracy and commenting on a science forum.

Why don't you look up terms like "Density", Thermohaline", "Thermocline", and "Thermal/
Salinity/Density Stratification" --and get back to us.

The rest of your post is not only wrong, but doubly so, since it follows entirely incorrect assumptions.

As soon as you post something factually correct, you may be given a fair hearing.

But not until then.
philstacy9
1.5 / 5 (22) May 30, 2016
This is settled politics so deniers should shut up.
BackBurner
1.4 / 5 (20) May 31, 2016
I'm brilliant because this never occurred to global warming scientists who assumed the ocean was static.


Well, "brilliant" might be a stretch but above average wouldn't be :)

Yeah. Well done.
BackBurner
1.5 / 5 (22) May 31, 2016
The laws of physics are no more miscible than scientific illiteracy and commenting on a science forum..


Are you seriously proposing there's no mixing of gasses/liquids across a dynamic thermocline? The troposphere doesn't exchange gas with the stratosphere? Can we have some further discussion on this?
BackBurner
1.7 / 5 (23) May 31, 2016
"The old idea was that heat taken up at the surface would just mix downward"

Sure. because all physicists know before birth that heat goes down.
Phys1
4.1 / 5 (22) May 31, 2016
Major says:
Never in the history of man has so much been written by those that express their opinion as fact.


Actually, AGW is small compared to the evolution fantasy that many people have subscribed to.


And you are the worst kind: the delusional denialist.
Jayded
4.8 / 5 (18) May 31, 2016
This is no longer in the realms of complex scientific debate. Facts on the ground are starting to speak for themselves, this article and other fairly advanced articles are merely galvanising the science behind man mind climate change. To deny what you are reading, or to latch on to your last flailing straws of counter argument indicate the level of desperation that is common with the death throws of failed theory and injured ego.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (21) May 31, 2016
Facts on the ground are starting to speak...

Yet, the Chicken Littles, in their willful ignorance, refuse to listen to the truth, preferring the lies that sustain their doom and gloom.

Imagine, 66 peer reviewed (debunked) explanations for the pause and when they ran out of excuses, they cooked up one claiming the pause did not exist. http://hockeyscht...-26.html

This paper directly debunks the dozens before it that claimed man made CO2 was responsible for melting the Antarctic. Yet, the fact on the ground, is that continent sits atop very active geothermal activity, as is Greenland.
jonnyrox
1.5 / 5 (24) May 31, 2016
just more alarmist BS, give it another ten years and they will all be looking for new careers
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (16) May 31, 2016
"The old idea was that heat taken up at the surface would just mix downward"

Sure. because all physicists know before birth that heat goes down.

Ah, I thought maybe you were a bit off - now you prove it. Another Ï don't know anything but I feel I should comment" troll.
KBK
3.9 / 5 (11) May 31, 2016
Regardless of all the arugments blowing off here in the comments section,let's get back down to it.

The reveal in the report is that we are in serious fucking trouble.

For, as the water temperature increases around the ultra cold water, the unthinkable will finally happen.

That water will finally be affected, it will shift, and it will mix, and the burp will likely cause a catastrophically fast onset of antarctic melt, with a high level of currently unpredictable messiness elsewhere.

That's probably the least we can expect.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (17) May 31, 2016
Facts on the ground are starting to speak...

Yet, the Chicken Littles, in their willful ignorance, refuse to listen to the truth, preferring the lies that sustain their doom and gloom.

Imagine, 66 peer reviewed (debunked) explanations for the pause and when they ran out of excuses, they cooked up one claiming the pause did not exist. http://hockeyscht...-26.html

This paper directly debunks the dozens before it that claimed man made CO2 was responsible for melting the Antarctic. Yet, the fact on the ground, is that continent sits atop very active geothermal activity, as is Greenland.


More horseshit from goatTOOL.

It is a very good thing, indeed, that your delusion is so noticeable.

So noticeable, in fact, that no one of normal intelligence could ever mistake it for fact.

Hell --even a three-year-old would instantly recognize you for a moron troll.
leetennant
4.7 / 5 (15) May 31, 2016
Apparently blog posts are "papers" now.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2016
Apparently blog posts are "papers" now.

Apparently..er..excuse me, obviously you enjoy confirming what a jackass you are. Please grow a brain and learn to read and comprehend.
The paper is published May 30 in Nature Geoscience.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2016
a scientific conundrum, and an inconsistent pattern of warming

Oh no, a conundrum, the bane of cults everywhere. You know that other infamous cult; the church, from which the AGW Cult takes their lead, has the best answer to conundrums -- "God works in mysterious ways". Well, since the AGW Cult is too stupid to realize it, let me suggest that, instead of fabricating preposterous lies that contradict the ones you spewed before, just proclaim -- "CO2 works in mysterious ways"
thefurlong
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
Yet, the Chicken Littles, in their willful ignorance, refuse to listen to the truth, preferring the lies that sustain their doom and gloom.

If anthropogenic climate change were shown to be false, I would be the first one to throw a party. By the baleful laments of climate scientists actually studying this stuff, my guess is that they would all join me, at least in spirit.
Imagine, 66 peer reviewed (debunked) explanations for the pause and when they ran out of excuses, they cooked up one claiming the pause did not exist.

What I find incredible is how you can continue to be so desperate, and not feel any shame for it.

The pause hypothesis is DEAD. The last nail in its coffin was the paper by Karl et. al. At least find something else that hasn't been so thoroughly debunked.

It's time to stop living in denial. Come to terms with reality, and start being proactive.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (20) Jun 01, 2016
If anthropogenic climate change were shown to be false, I would be the first one to throw a party. By the baleful laments of climate scientists actually studying this stuff, my guess is that they would all join me...

LOL.
Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
'Bottom line: the 'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.'
There it is, the High Priest of the AGW Cult WORRIED that there is no warming.

The pause hypothesis is DEAD. The last nail in its coffin was the paper by Karl et. al.

66 peer reviewed explanations from the cult for the pause and then one from Karl, who ignored the GOLD standard ARGO data which showed the oceans cooling, and instead COOKED the faulty ship data to get rid of the pause, like they did the MWP.
What I don't find incredible is that you can remain ignorant and feel happy about it.
ChaosExplorer
1.2 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2016
If Man is responsible for climate change, do we get credit for stopping hurricanes making landfall in Florida for the past 3000 days? (All during dire forecasts) Climate Change is great!
Regional Patterns of warming??? So how does one know what the Earth's temp is? Taking an average? Average of what? Which weather stations does one choose? At what time of day? How does one establish a baseline from so many separate stations? How many YEARS of data are required by Mathematics to establish a surface temperature baseline? Which one of you determines the "correct" temperature anyway?
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (13) Jun 01, 2016

Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
'Bottom line: the 'no upward trend' has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.'

Yes, worried that our science is wrong.

There is absolutely no room for nuance in your thought process. One can be worried the science is wrong and still be happy that what they predicted through the science is wrong.

66 peer reviewed explanations..

Imma stop you right there at 66. Think about that number for a second. 66 peer reviewed papers vs....TENS OF THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers arguing that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity. If you are so concerned about peer review, I wonder why you so readily dismiss the overwhelming other body of knowledge that says AGW is a fact. Why trust the peer review process for these 66 papers, but dismiss it for everything else?

Why, it's almost as if you're indulging in confirmation bias, or something...
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 01, 2016
Why trust the peer review process for these 66 papers, but dismiss it for everything else?

LOL.
Is there a competition between you Chicken Littles to prove you are the dumbest in the flock?

"..... we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Phil Jones, AGW Cult High Priest
Yep, why trust peer review.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
"..... we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Phil Jones, AGW Cult High Priest
Yep, why trust peer review.

So, let me get this straight. You trust 66 papers confirming your bias because they are peer reviewed, but you don't trust the other 19000+ because they are peer reviewed.

Also, every climate scientist to ever publish is just Phil Jones in a human face mask.

Makes sense--I mean, not to me--but if I snort copious amounts of cocaine, it would make sense.

Also, even though Jones wrote this, the two papers he was referring to actually made it to the IPCC report, and so were not censored by peer review.

But, sure, climate scientists making rude comments about research they disagree with definitely is persuasive evidence that peer review is wrong. Absolutely nothing wrong with that line of reasoning. No siree.

Your life must be delightfully uncomplicated.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 01, 2016
So, let me get this straight. You trust 66 papers confirming your bias because they are peer reviewed, but you don't trust the other 19000+ because they are peer reviewed.

Ok. Let me give it to you straight...hey...hey.. standup and pull your pants back on.
What you so, in your willful ignorance, fail to realize, is that it's the same "scientists" who peer reviewed the 19000+ and the 66. Now they got it wrong 66 out of 66, so imagine how many of the 19000+ they got wrong also.

Your life must be delightfully uncomplicated.

Just imagine if you could grow a brain, yours could be too.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
...hey...hey.. standup and pull your pants back on.

Who said I was wearing pants, in the first place?
What you so, in your willful ignorance, fail to realize, is that it's the same "scientists" who peer reviewed the 19000+ and the 66.

uhhh...no...different scientists peer review different research articles. Do you even know how peer review works? I once coauthored a paper, and simply for doing that, received invitations to review other papers in that field.

Though, again, you seem to think that every single climate scientist is Phil Jones in disguise, so, it makes sense that you would think that the same set of scientists peer reviewed every single paper.

Also, that's just a bad argument. I can't believe I need to explain this to you.

What is 66/19000? 0.3%?

You are saying that since peer review was wrong about 0.3% (actually probably less), we should be suspicious of the other 99.7%?

No, you aren't desperate at all...
Phys1
4.5 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
Yet, the Chicken Littles, in their willful ignorance, refuse to listen to the truth, preferring the lies that sustain their doom and gloom.

If anthropogenic climate change were shown to be false, I would be the first one to throw a party. By the baleful laments of climate scientists actually studying this stuff, my guess is that they would all join me, at least in spirit.
Imagine, 66 peer reviewed (debunked) explanations for the pause and when they ran out of excuses, they cooked up one claiming the pause did not exist.

What I find incredible is how you can continue to be so desperate, and not feel any shame for it.

The pause hypothesis is DEAD. The last nail in its coffin was the paper by Karl et. al. At least find something else that hasn't been so thoroughly debunked.

It's time to stop living in denial. Come to terms with reality, and start being proactive.

He is a moron. Nothing can be done.
leetennant
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2016
I've got him on mute. I only have the misfortune to read his inane comments if somebody else quotes him
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 01, 2016
I once coauthored a paper, and simply for doing that, received invitations to review other papers in that field.

Well, thanks for clearing that up. It certainly explains the failure of peer review.

Also, that's just a bad argument. I can't believe I need to explain this to you.

What is 66/19000? 0.3%?

LOL. You win the prize for that one.
It's 19000 trying to explain the global warming and 66 attempting to explain the PAUSE and being 100% wrong. And, talking about bad argument, if you are going to lump them together then learn arithmetic. It's 66/19066.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Jun 01, 2016
If Man is responsible for climate change, do we get credit for stopping hurricanes making landfall in Florida for the past 3000 days? (All during dire forecasts) Climate Change is great!
Regional Patterns of warming??? So how does one know what the Earth's temp is? Taking an average? Average of what? Which weather stations does one choose? At what time of day? How does one establish a baseline from so many separate stations? How many YEARS of data are required by Mathematics to establish a surface temperature baseline? Which one of you determines the "correct" temperature anyway?

ANOTHER poster with a complete lack of knowledge who feels the need to spout nonsense on a science site! The list of the ignored grows longer by the day!
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
It certainly explains the failure of peer review.

Or the background that allowed me to co-author a paper accepted in a journal was the same background that made me eligible to peer review a paper in that same field.

But, when you are a crackpot, any possibilities that challenge your argument are immediately false.

It's 66/19066.

Haha. You are so cute.
1) Don't know what the denominator is. It's an estimate. It could be 19066. It's probably larger.
2) I'm estimating. Learn about it. 19000 is several orders of magnitude larger than 66. Given that I don't know the exact number, and it is likely larger than that, anyway, a conservative denominator STRENGTHENS my point. The extra 66 is negligible.

Of course, if your level of math training is high school, of course you're going to think it makes you look superior, if you "correct" a negligible term. It's a bit like trying to look superior debating an literature scholar by nitpicking grammatical errors.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2016
He is a moron. Nothing can be done.


You're right. Actually, people like him factor largely into why I simply don't comment as much here, anymore, especially when I am immersed in much more interesting research. Every so often, though, he/she just says something so stupid/ignorant, I feel compelled to say something.

It's like the balance between smart and stupid has been shattered and must be restored.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 01, 2016
It's a bit like trying to look superior debating an literature scholar by nitpicking grammatical errors.

LOL. That analogy sure makes you sound like a "scientist"...no wait...idiot..that's the word.
It's no wonder you couldn't get that it's not about peer review but the fact that 66 out of 66 attempts to explain away the global warming pause got it wrong.
The fact that this paper shows the climate models got it wrong
Thanks for the humour at least you idiots are good for a laugh.

It's like the balance between smart and stupid has been shattered and must be restored.

Well, you know what they say "You can't spell stupid without U"
thefurlong
4.3 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2016
It's no wonder you couldn't get that it's not about peer review but the fact that 66 out of 66 attempts to explain away the global warming pause got it wrong.

No, all that demonstrates is that 66 people had a hypothesis, offered plausible enough reasons for it to be published in a journal, and then had it disproven later on by the peer review process.

You really don't understand how peer review works.

When something passes editors and is published in a journal, that doesn't make it correct. It makes it worthy of scrutiny by scientific peers--at least in the expert opinion of the editors. Once that has happened, it is examined by said peers. If it is controversial, like the pause hypothesis, it is not resolved for years. Over time, the weight of scientific results then converge on its veracity. Sometimes, the hypothesis is amended. Other times, like this one, it simply does not hold up to extended scrutiny, and passes into the realm of defunct theories.
leetennant
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2016
He is a moron. Nothing can be done.


Actually, people like him factor largely into why I simply don't comment as much here, anymore


I have noticed a dearth of comments on a range of very interesting articles on this topic and was wondering if that was the reason. The mods refuse to shut down off topic and irrelevant comments I guess because they like the 'controversy'. But I think it's affecting their readership.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 01, 2016
No, all that demonstrates is that 66 people had a hypothesis, offered plausible enough reasons for it to be published in a journal, and then had it disproven later on by the peer review process.

You really don't understand how peer review works.

LOL. Clap...clap...clap...the "scientist" who knows how peer review works. REALLY?? You publish and then get peer review? Well, I really shouldn't be laughing at the idiot, but offer him my pity instead, for that's truly the way that AGW Cult "science" works. Except it's the heretics that debunk their lies after it's pal reviewed.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 01, 2016
Actually, people like him factor largely into why I simply don't comment as much here, anymore

LOL. I'm sure you were hoping I had forgotten when last we shared words. It must have been over 6 months ago when you left to try and prove your claim that the warming oceans were absorbing more CO2. Well, I had a good chuckle because even back then I knew you were incapable of simple arithmetic. So, I really expected that you would remain at the bottom of your cesspool of ignorance. Just goes to show, you can't keep a "good" turd down.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (17) Jun 01, 2016
He is a moron. Nothing can be done.


You're right. Actually, people like him factor largely into why I simply don't comment as much here, anymore, especially when I am immersed in much more interesting research. Every so often, though, he/she just says something so stupid/ignorant, I feel compelled to say something.

It's like the balance between smart and stupid has been shattered and must be restored.

lol!
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (16) Jun 01, 2016
He is a moron. Nothing can be done.


Actually, people like him factor largely into why I simply don't comment as much here, anymore


I have noticed a dearth of comments on a range of very interesting articles on this topic and was wondering if that was the reason. The mods refuse to shut down off topic and irrelevant comments I guess because they like the 'controversy'. But I think it's affecting their readership.

Agreed, and in the same place. There's little reward in arguing with imbeciles and it seems like every conversation gets overwhelmed by the stupefying banality of those like oracle or szucs.
thefurlong
4.7 / 5 (15) Jun 01, 2016
It must have been over 6 months ago when you left to try and prove your claim that the warming oceans were absorbing more CO2.


I told you I was going to analyze data, then get back to you with the results. I would not have "left to prove the warming oceans were absorbing more CO2". That would have been crazy.

I did not realize it at the time, but the analysis I was planning on doing was a little more involved than I realized, especially in view of the fact that my life has been very, very, busy lately. I got married, bought a house, discovered a very interesting automorphism--typical life stuff. Thus, I deferred it--perhaps indefinitely. And I am comfortable with that decision, and comfortable also with what you might think of me for it--be it sham, or idiot, or whatever. I don't need or want to prove myself to you.

Also, let's be honest. Should I perform the analysis, you'll simply tell me to grow a brain or something equally puerile. What would be the point?
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 02, 2016
I did not realize it at the time, but the analysis I was planning on doing was a little more involved than I realized, especially in view of the fact that my life has been very, very, busy....

Also, let's be honest. Should I perform the analysis, you'll simply tell me to grow a brain or something equally puerile. What would be the point?

LOL.
The classic dodgy response of the liar, caught in their deceit.
Yes, let's be honest.
You got yourself a degree and in your delusions imagine yourself better than you are. So you find a Wikipedia link to partial pressure and make your ignorant boast and challenge. But, guess what, you lack common sense and so could not realize that it was impossible to do with the available data. So, instead of admitting that, you choose to be the "perfect" Chicken Little and make up excuses and lies. I don't need you to prove yourself, because I knew exactly, from your posts.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (15) Jun 02, 2016
@antigoracle, which article are you referring to? I don't remember this exchange.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (14) Jun 02, 2016
@antigoracle
I have one other thing to add.
http://imgur.com/yABJ4MC
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 02, 2016
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (17) Jun 05, 2016
I just read about deep hole drilling where the depth reached to about 40,000 feet. It was reported that the drilling had to stop because the temperature exceeded 500 degrees F... What I cannot understand is how the rock formation at the depth the same depth
The reason is because rock is a very good insulator of heat, and sea water is not.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 05, 2016
I have noticed a dearth of comments on a range of very interesting articles on this topic and was wondering if that was the reason. The mods refuse to shut down off topic and irrelevant comments I guess because they like the 'controversy'. But I think it's affecting their readership.
@leetennant
there are no mods

so most of the science posters have moved off

when one poster can be deleted for making one angry comment saying what everyone else thinks anyway while the blatant trolls can continually promote and state anything they want... often times far worse than the angry comment, ranging from sexist and racist to homophobic and blatant solicitation of sex
well...
that means, by definition, PO is supporting and pandering to the trolls / pseudoscience crowd now, right?

i predict that i'll get at least temp banned for this, but given the evidence, how can anyone state it's false?

especially considering i've shared an option to fix the problem
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
Where did I say that the Earth IS one big forest, asshole?
No, not equilibrium....I said CORRECT...READ IT RIGHT THIS TIME.


ottosocks,

The Earth is passive, and doesn't "correct" anything. The various conditions arising from its formation and instantaneous position in space, relative to the other nearby bodies ...only factors contributing to its energy budget.

(..)The ongoing state of the Earth is no more than the sum of those forces seeking EQUILIBRIUM
- Caliban
Again, you are wrong. The Earth is NOT passive. She seeks to correct anything that is out of place. As I said before: "It is an inconsistent pattern simply because the Earth is a dynamo of CHANGE, healing herself and making accommodations for whatever has to be made right."
The Earth can never attain equilibrium as long as she is in flux with constant movement and motion and upheaval. As long as there are fissures, chasms, and rifts or faults, the Earth will always seek to CORRECT that geology.
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
I have noticed a dearth of comments on a range of very interesting articles on this topic and was wondering if that was the reason. The mods refuse to shut down off topic and irrelevant comments I guess because they like the 'controversy'.
@leetennant
there are no mods

when one poster can be deleted for making one stupid angry comment saying what I think everyone else thinks anyway while the blatant trolls can continually promote and state anything they want... often times better than the angry comment, ranging from sexist and racist to homophobicbicbic and blatant imaginary solicitation of sex
well...
that means, by definition, PO is supporting, by definition, and pandering, by definition, to the trolls / pseudoscience crowd now, by definition, right?

i pray that i'll get at least temp banned for this, but given the evidence, by definition, how can anyone state it's false?

especially considering i've shared an option to fix the plumbing
- CaptainStumpy
chileastro
4.1 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2016
jonnyrox 1.9 /5 (14) May 31, 2016
just more alarmist BS, give it another ten years and they will all be looking for new careers


Who knows what they'll be doing, but you'll still be squatting in your mother's basement.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2016
LOL
Me too.
http://imgur.com/M0XV9AZ

So...have you figured out when this exchange you mentioned was, yet, or are you talking out of your ass as usual?
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
I told you I was going to analyze data, then get back to you with the results. I would not have "left to prove the warming oceans were absorbing more CO2". That would have been crazy.

I did not realize it at the time, but the analysis I was planning on doing was a little more involved than I realized, especially in view of .....lie...lie..lie

Uh huh. Talking about blowing things out of your rear. Have you figured out what you were referring to, above.
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (13) Jun 06, 2016
LOL
Me too.
http://imgur.com/M0XV9AZ

So...have you figured out when this exchange you mentioned was, yet, or are you talking out of your ass as usual?
- the furlong
Are you relating to your "talking out of your ass" question in a literal sense, and are you using it euphemistically to describe your attraction to your imagery of the nether portion of the male human body? Ass or arse, do you find a certain "thrill" in mentioning an "ass" and the purported ability to talk through it?
You should really get together with CapnStrumpy, if you haven't already. She/he talks out of her ass on a regular basis. But be prepared to provide substantiation for all of your allegations so that she can check your accuracy in Wikipedia. Oh wait...Rumpy never asks for substantiation when the claim is pro-Standard Einsteinian Model. So you're safe.
Otto_Szucks
1 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2016
jonnyrox 1.9 /5 (14) May 31, 2016
just more alarmist BS, give it another ten years and they will all be looking for new careers


Who knows what they'll be doing, but I'll still be squatting over my mother in her basement.

- chileastro
Caliban
5 / 5 (11) Jun 06, 2016

Again, you are wrong. The Earth is NOT passive. She seeks to correct anything that is out of place. As I said before: "It is an inconsistent pattern simply because the Earth is a dynamo of CHANGE, healing herself and making accommodations for whatever has to be made right."
The Earth can never attain equilibrium as long as she is in flux with constant movement and motion and upheaval. As long as there are fissures, chasms, and rifts or faults, the Earth will always seek to CORRECT that geology.


Otiose_Squawk,

Just WTF are you on about? Are you claiming that the Earth is alive and sentient?

Or are you just too illiterate to make yourself clearly understood?

My money's on the latter, but --in either case-- don't quit your day job greetin' at Walmart, because there is a less than zero possibility that you can make a career out of your pseudoscience blogging efforts.
KaFaraqGatri
Jul 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
KaFaraqGatri
Jul 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

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.