July 2013 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Karen
    July 1, 2013

    Researcher predicts cooler climate in Northern Hemisphere from 2015

    http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/social_affairs/AJ201306300011

  2. #2 chek
    July 1, 2013

    Another cyclist ignoring record arctic melting this decade.

  3. #3 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    You’ve got to admit, the guy’s an optimist. And appears to be ignoring global OHC data. Yes, there are probably quasi-periodic cycles in ocean circulation but they cancel out over time. Even if this fractionally offset NH warming it would in due course *augment* it and the underlying forced trend would be the same on longer (centennial) timescales.

    There’s nothing here for deniers to crow about, as you would know if you understood the basics.

    But you don’t. Hence the noise.

  4. #4 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Who fed you this one, Karen?

  5. #5 Gingerbaker
    July 1, 2013

    Who fed you this one, Karen?

    Maybe it was the commenter in that thread that informs us that CO2 levels were higher in the 1940′s than they are now?

  6. #6 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Ha! An idiot, to be sure. Didn’t realise there were comments and I now feel slightly poorer for the fact of having read them.

    It’s the sheer confidence with which these ignorant buffoons get it all hopelessly wrong that gets to me.

  7. #7 Turboblocke
    July 1, 2013

    I guess the source was either climatdepot or junkscience: which would show a high degree of gullibility. Could you please confirm Karen?

  8. #8 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Turboblocke

    Found at Climatedepot!

    Oh, Karen. Oh dear.

  9. #9 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    And at Junkscience as well!

    Spoiled for choice, eh Karen? But chum is just chum, really. Rotting fish guts and blood, when all is said and done.

  10. #10 chek
    July 1, 2013

    either climatdepot or junkscience

    For the denier who likes others to do their thinking for them, so they don’t have to!

  11. #11 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Or because they can’t.

  12. #12 Turboblocke
    July 1, 2013

    It also appeared on WUWT, but I thought that suggesting that Karen found it there would be too offensive.

  13. #13 BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Chum! Glorious chum!

    Da-de-de-de-da-dah…

  14. #14 bill
    July 2, 2013

    Gee, another thread is inaugurated by SpamKan hoiking up a steaming gobbet of the informational equivalent of over-ripe mashed fish-heads.

    What a surprise.

    Here’s an idea, Spammer – spend the time it takes to copy/paste this stuff just a bit more wisely, say in a weensy amount of study, and you might even master the distinction beteween Fahrenheit and Celsius!

  15. #15 Karen
    July 2, 2013

    hmmm,,,,,,,,,,,a very late….erm….. unfreeze

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    I spoze the guys gals and gays in here will pray for a nice big Arctic storm, lol

  16. #16 BBD
    July 2, 2013

    Shut up about Arctic Sea ice Karen. The precipitous decline over the last decade is the signal. Deniers are the noise.

    The signal to noise ratio is very strong. You just come across as buttock-stupid and frankly, rather insane.

  17. #17 chek
    July 2, 2013

    No, KarenMcSpot the readers here are aware that the record year of 2012 occurred only five years after the previous record year of 2007 (during your much hyped and much trumpeted ‘hiatus’, you’ll recall).

    It’s unlikely any reader (as opposed to troller) here expects 2013 to be a record year – the climate system doesn’t follow a mechanical, monotonic progression. But I expect many would not be surprised by another record occurring by 2018.

    So you’ve likely got a few years left yet to crow about ‘recovery’ and all the other led-by-the-nose, brain-dead guff you spend your time idiotically spouting on behalf of the fossil fuel industry group-think organisers..

  18. #18 Betula
    July 2, 2013

    Bruchek…

    “the readers here are aware that the record year of 2012 occurred only five years after the previous record year of 2007″…..”the climate system doesn’t follow a mechanical, monotonic progression.”

    No, apparently, it follows a melodic progression to the tune of Dave Brubeck’s “Take Five”.

  19. #19 Turboblocke
    July 2, 2013

    Karen: do you realise that the DMI page that you link to is based on model data? See the bottom left corner.

  20. #20 freddy
    July 2, 2013

    agw scientologists enthusiasm about arctic sea ice discloses all climate church arselicks:

    SEA ICE SWIMS IN OCEAN: NO SEA LEVEL RISE

    FUCKWIT MORONS!!!!!!

  21. #21 chek
    July 2, 2013

    Sea level rise isn’t the issue with declining Arctic sea ice Freddy, just as canaries in coalmines aren’t about the viability of subterranean avian habitats.

  22. #22 freddy
    July 2, 2013

    check troll: typical science denier junk from the agw scientology church faithfuls in the 5th row

    DO BETTER

  23. #23 freddy
    July 2, 2013

    attention, climate scientology warming pupils:

    clouds on the sky lead to decreases of tempersture readings at 2m above NN. satellite sensors cannot track this

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    HAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  24. #24 Turboblocke
    July 2, 2013

    … just as canaries in coalmines aren’t about the viability of subterranean avian habitats.
    Nice one chek, that was amusing.

  25. #25 BBD
    July 2, 2013

    Does freddy understand that the GIS and WAIS aren’t sea ice? Clearly he does not.

    So who’s the fuckwit moron, fred-fred?

  26. #26 BBD
    July 2, 2013

    clouds on the sky lead to decreases of tempersture readings at 2m above NN. satellite sensors cannot track this

    - reference for this shit?

    - satellite temperature reconstructions used in all graphs I have linked are for the top lower troposphere – that’s ~14,000ft altitude.

    So who’s the fuckwit moron again, fred-fred?

  27. #27 Lionel A
    July 2, 2013

    This twerp freddy brings things to a new low. Whodathunkitpossible!

    This shouty village idiot should check out Jason Box and James Balog for starters.

  28. #28 freddy
    July 2, 2013

    bbd assfuck, no reference

    EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS EXCEPT YYYYYYOOOOOOOUUUUUUU

    hahahaha tadah. hahahahaha tadah

    bbd is THE fuckwit moron full of shit

  29. #29 freddy
    July 2, 2013

    lioonny red arselick

    no!

  30. #30 BBD
    July 2, 2013

    bbd assfuck, no reference

    I think you are either mistaken or lying. Prove me wrong. With a reference.

    * * *

    Questions for our resident post-doc polymath:

    During the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e; ~130 – 115ka) global average temperature was between 1C – 2C higher than the Holocene.

    What was the mean sea level highstand and where did the water come from?

  31. #31 BBD
    July 2, 2013

    And fred-fred, you didn’t mention the other bit…

    - satellite temperature reconstructions used in all graphs I have linked are for the top lower troposphere – that’s ~14,000ft altitude.

    So who’s the fuckwit moron again, fred-fred?

  32. #32 chek
    July 2, 2013

    Here, h/t to Gareth at Hot Topic, is a presentation on arctic amplification by Jennifer Francis which covers a lot of ground and clarified a couple of things for me (why is there a jetstream, for example) in passing.

    Well worth a watch to have the link between Arctic warming and crazy weather in the more southerly latitudes explained.

  33. #33 bill
    July 2, 2013

    What sort of a fool would you have to be not to understand that a regression towards the mean is indeed likely to occur after a remarkable event like, say, the 2012 sea-ice collapse, or 2007, for that matter, but that regression is clearly back towards a mean that is itself in a steep decline?

    Plagued by the likes of Touretting Freddy, and SpamKan, this place has become little more than a creche facility for blowhard, or outrightly deranged, DK innumerates.

  34. #34 Betula
    July 3, 2013

    The Deltoid signal is becoming more clear with each passing day. The linear downward trend is turning into a spiraling descent…

  35. #35 chameleon
    July 3, 2013

    And moderators are still locking people out. . . for days.
    This is a sad little place.
    No sensible/practical/workable debate here. . . none :-( :-(

  36. #36 bill
    July 3, 2013

    Arctic sea ice is in terminal decline, Batty – get over it. And, while not as outright bonkers as some, you’re as good a symptom as any of any decline in these parts…

  37. #37 freddy
    July 3, 2013

    bill the arctic sea ice criminal

    “is in terminal decline”

    WHAT AN INCREDIBLE SHIT

    prove it, fucking moron!!!!!!!!!

  38. #38 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    bill the arctic sea ice criminal

    “is in terminal decline”

    WHAT AN INCREDIBLE SHIT

    prove it, fucking moron!!!!!!!!!

  39. #39 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    @ bill:

    What sort of a fool would you have to be not to understand that a regression towards the mean is indeed likely to occur after a remarkable event like, say, the 2012 sea-ice collapse, or 2007, for that matter, but that regression is clearly back towards a mean that is itself in a steep decline?

    It’s like talking to goldfish, isn’t it?

  40. #40 Karen
    July 3, 2013

    What it means
    The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years,” as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air’s CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/new-study-using-grace-data-shows-global-sea-levels-rising-less-than-7-inches-per-century/

    LOL

  41. #41 Karen
    July 3, 2013

    lol, I luv this one :)

    What happened to the climate refugees?

    http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/

    oh, I know, I know, it’s going to happen!
    in about 500 years, hehe

  42. #42 chek
    July 3, 2013

    What it means The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening, as Chambers et al. (2012) indicate that “sea level has been rising on average by 1.7 mm/year over the last 110 years,” as is also suggested by the analyses of Church and White (2006) and Holgate (2007). Concomitantly, the air’s CO2 concentration has risen by close to a third. And, still, it has not impacted the rate-of-rise of global sea level!

    No Karenspambot, you’ll have to own and deal with your last load of chum before dumping a new lot. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.

    Blockquote>LOL

  43. #43 chek
    July 3, 2013

    lol, I luv this one What happened to the climate refugees? http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/ oh, I know, I know, it’s going to happen! in about 500 years, hehe

    No Karenspambot, you’ll have to own and deal with your previous load of chum before dumping yet another load. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.

    LOL

  44. #44 Karen
    July 3, 2013

    “To the Editor

    The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…”

    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html

    tiz the start of the climb down :)

  45. #45 chek
    July 3, 2013

    “To the Editor The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued1, 2, 3, 4, 5 that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of…” http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.htm tiz the start of the climb downl

    No Karenspambot, you’ll have to own and deal with your previous load of chum before dumping yet another load. Your behaviour is unacceptable to civilised discourse.

    LOL

  46. #46 Rednose
    UK
    July 3, 2013

    Check#32

    Well worth a watch to have the link between Arctic warming and crazy weather in the more southerly latitudes explained.

    Might be better to say “One possible explanation for recent weather patterns”

    Others might be:

    solar variability, long-term ocean cycles, and other long-term cycles of natural variability.

    Five out of the last six UK summers have seen above average rainfall (2010 is the exception, with average rainfall) and the workshop heard new evidence from the University of Reading suggesting that long-term Atlantic currents may be playing an important role.

    These are understood to operate on cycles of a decade or more, which suggests that we may see their influence on our summers for a few more years to come.

    Another driver of colder winter weather has already been identified and is known as Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (SSWs).

    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/meeting-on-uks-run-of-unusual-seasons/

    And more explanation on the AMO
    http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/guest-blog-how-the-atlantic-may-influence-wet-summers/

    Observational records show that the surface temperature of the North Atlantic has swung slowly between warmer and cooler conditions, and the present warm phase has a similar pattern to warm conditions that persisted throughout the 1930s, 40s and 50s. During the 1960s, 70s and 80s cooler conditions prevailed.

    Computer simulations suggest that these changes in ocean temperature affect the atmosphere above. Warmth in the North Atlantic causes a trough of low pressure over western Europe in summer and steers rain-bearing weather systems into the UK.

  47. #47 chek
    July 3, 2013

    Thanks for the glimpse into la-la land.

    Solar variability – nope, no TSI increase.
    Ocean cycles – nope, cycles aren’t net creators of heat
    Other long-term cycles of natural variability. – or Jesus, perhaps.

    Keep waving those arms and you might take off. Such answers are what you find satisfactory, in that they’re total non-answers Redarse.

    And perhaps you’ll explain how the Met Office statement conflicts with anything Dr. Francis said, bearing in mind the subject of her talk?

  48. #48 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Clown continues to confuse regional weather with global average temperature.

  49. #49 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Explain the increase in ocean heat content in all major basins over the last four decades.

    How does any pattern or patterns of internal variability account for ~25 x 10^22J of *extra energy* appearing in the world ocean?

    Never mind the denialist bollocks™. I’ll save you the trouble. Such an accumulation of energy can only be explained by an increased forcing. Since we know it’s not the sun, we have to look elsewhere.

    We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation.

    End of story.

  50. #50 Karen
    July 3, 2013

    “We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation.”

    The 100,000 Year Problem

    http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/100000-year-problem

  51. #51 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Eh? What the fuck does the old argument about which multiplier of precession or obliquity dominates orbitally triggered deglaciation have to do with what I just posted?

    Explain, please.

  52. #52 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    You clueless, lying, desperate tosser.

  53. #53 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    And don’t dodge the questions by gesticulating at orbital squirrels.

    Answer the questions:

    Explain the increase in ocean heat content in all major basins over the last four decades.

    How does any pattern or patterns of internal variability account for ~25 x 10^22J of *extra energy* appearing in the world ocean?

  54. #54 bill
    July 3, 2013

    We all knew this wasn’t SpamKan herself the moment we read the following:

    The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening

    So, let’s insist; Spammy, in your own words, what did you just regurgitate?

  55. #55 chek
    July 3, 2013

    The 100,000 Year Problem http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/100000-year-problem

    Karenspambot, you’ve got enough catching up to do without continuing to bury yourself up to the chin in more chummy chum.

    LOL

  56. #56 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Apologies to chek – should have struck out Karen’s latest attempt to dodge *earlier* questions.

  57. #57 Karen
    July 3, 2013

    “We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation.”

    Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming

    ” Abstract
    Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

  58. #58 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    No. This is not an answer to the question.

    “We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and … well, there’s the explanation.”

    Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming

    ” Abstract
    Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000–2009 by about 25% compared to that which would have occurred due only to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change.”

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1219.abstract

  59. #59 Jeff Harvey
    July 3, 2013

    From the same paper Karen cites:

    “Over the past century, global average surface temperatures have warmed by about 0.75°C. Much of the warming occurred in the past half-century, over which the average decadal rate of change was about 0.13°C, largely due to anthropogenic increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases”

    Its great that Karen is waking up to reality of AGW. Well done, Karen!

  60. #60 cRR Kampen
    July 3, 2013

    #15, http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2007.png so you see, the ice grew in that cold 2007 summer ;)

    #58 – she thinks the two thirds of papers expressing no position on CAGW have no position on CAGW and just keeps on falling into that trap. Keep astronomy out of her way for she WILL deny gravity then.

  61. #61 Karen
    July 3, 2013

    The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot 10km up in the sky over the tropics JefFeRy,

    Where it is it sweety :)

  62. #62 freddy
    July 3, 2013


    We all knew this wasn’t SpamKan herself the moment we read the following:
    The final geocenter-corrected result of Baur et al. is most heartening
    So, let’s insist; Spammy, in your own words, what did you just regurgitate?

  63. #63 Karen
    July 3, 2013

    cRR……….do you still hate jooz ?

    lol

    And what do you think about the lack of Zyclon B in the cement :)

  64. #64 Rednose
    UK
    July 3, 2013

    chek#46

    Thanks for the glimpse into la-la land.

    Yes the UK Met Office has often been likened to La la Land, due to the unreliability of its long term, warm bias, weather forecasts.

    So it is all the more peculiar, based on this past warm bias, that they trot out these alternatives, in particular emphasising the AMO and cyclic nature of the weather patterns.

    The melting Arctic is mentioned as one possible explanation.

    I suppose they cannot come straight out with it: “That they havent got a bloody clue”
    Still latch onto the explanation that suites your politics or religion.

  65. #65 chek
    July 3, 2013

    No Redarse, the la-la land refers to your careful weeding out of any mention of climate change in your bowdlerised version of the Met Office ststement. Deliberate? But of course.

  66. #66 Betula
    July 3, 2013

    ̶S̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶i̶d̶e̶a̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶ ̶i̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶t̶r̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶o̶u̶t̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶f̶o̶r̶m̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶d̶o̶n̶’̶t̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶h̶e̶a̶r̶,̶ ̶b̶e̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶i̶t̶ ̶g̶o̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶g̶a̶i̶n̶s̶t̶ ̶w̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶l̶y̶ ̶w̶a̶n̶t̶?̶ ̶T̶h̶a̶t̶’̶s̶ ̶v̶e̶r̶y̶ ̶s̶c̶i̶e̶n̶t̶i̶f̶i̶c̶k̶y̶!̶

    Note – The preceding message was pre-struck to prevent Chek and B-bot from being able to read it.

  67. #67 chek
    July 3, 2013

    Karenspambot #60 & #62

    Crank magnetism in action.

  68. #68 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Rednoise @ 63

    Still latch onto the explanation that suites your politics or religion.

    That is what *you* do.

    The explanation that is supported by the laws of physics and known paleoclimate behaviour is that modern climate change is mainly the product of CO2 forcing.

    Note the absence of any other explanation for the increasing OHC in all major basins globally (see #48 and #52).

  69. #69 chek
    Well done Betty 'child deniers' Betula.
    July 3, 2013

    Well done Betty ‘child deniers’ Betula.

    If only more deniers were considerate enough to pre-delete their own garbage before posting it.

  70. #70 freddy
    July 3, 2013

    BBD: this from you had to be disqualified due to junk status:


    BBD
    July 1, 2013

    Ha! An idiot, to be sure. Didn’t realise there were comments and I now feel slightly poorer for the fact of having read them.

    It’s the sheer confidence with which these ignorant buffoons get it all hopelessly wrong that gets to me.

  71. #71 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Just no. No fucking way. No.

    cRR……….do you still hate jooz ?

    lol

    And what do you think about the lack of Zyclon B in the cement

  72. #72 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    You are an ignorant buffoon, fred-fred. I’ve “PROOFED” that over and over again in comments here.

    Were you not insane, you would acknowledge this fact. For it is a fact.

  73. #73 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Questions for our resident post-doc polymath:
    While you’re there, fred-fred, you have a number of skipped questions. Let’s pick a recent one, more or less at random:

    During the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e; ~130 – 115ka) global average temperature was between 1C – 2C higher than the Holocene.

    What was the mean sea level highstand and where did the water come from?

    Answers please. Not abusive rants. Let’s see you walk the walk for a change.

  74. #74 freddy
    July 3, 2013

    BBD asshole #67 disqualified for unappropriately false arguments and foul language:


    That is what *you* do.

    The explanation that is supported by the laws of physics and known paleoclimate behaviour is that modern climate change is mainly the product of CO2 forcing.

    Note the absence of any other explanation for the increasing OHC in all major basins globally (see #48 and #52).

  75. #75 freddy
    July 3, 2013

    @BBD fuckwit moron “During the last interglacial (Eemian; MIS5e; ~130 – 115ka) global average temperature was between 1C – 2C higher than the Holocene”

    WRONG: nobody could reliably measure this, therefore PURE SPECULATION, as always with climate scientology church acolytes

    PS: LEARN: PROXY DATA ARE NNEEVVEERR precise

  76. #76 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    fred-fred

    I gave a range of *between* 1C – 2C, not a precise measurement. And just because you are utterly ignorant of the methodology behind this estimated range doesn’t invalidate it. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy.

    What was the MSL highstand during the Eemian, and where did all the water come from?.

    Come on. Answer the questions please.

  77. #77 Betula
    July 3, 2013

    What is it about B-bot that reminds me of Barney Fife? The Deputy of Deltoid…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9HDSQJdudM

    I may have to start referring to him as BDD…. Barney “Deadeye Dickie”

    Here’s BDD being asked about the Prediction Estimation Proclamation…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTBXUaM6t58

  78. #78 Rednose
    UK
    July 3, 2013

    ~25 x 10^22J of *extra energy* appearing in the world ocean?

    References? Is this per year/century?
    What a large scary number. Why not change it to ergs, then it will be 10^7 bigger. Even more scary.

    Still by my calculation only enough to raise the temperature of the oceans by 0.004 degrees C. Can we measure the temperature of the oceans that accurately so we notice the difference?

    And how did this appear exactly? Has someone actually measured this or did it appear in a vision?

    Doesnt seem to be doing much to the sea surface temperatures
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1990/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1997/trend

    And estimates for sea level rise by 2100 are getting lower
    No jump in temperatures for the 0-300m depths
    And not much shown 0-700m for the increase in heat content
    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global oceanic heat content 0-700 m depth

    So is this massive amount of heat burrowing its way to the deep ocean without showing up on the way down.
    If so how do we measure anything below 2000m to know if its there?
    And if it really gets there, how long will it be before it comes back to haunt us, 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years?
    Is it an example of quantum linkage perhaps or the basis for some teleportation device.
    What is the Physics behind this?
    Enquiring minds need to know.

  79. #79 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Clown wants references.

    I’ve given the key reference DOZENS of times in comments here. It is Levitus et al. (2012). Try reading it, this time.

    [1] We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 10^22 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2(per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.

    SSTs are not an indicator of OHC at depth. Stupid, basic error.

    And not much shown 0-700m for the increase in heat content

    More bloody ignorance. Rate of diffusion downwards has increased. Windspeed. Ekman pumping. All written up in the published scientific literature. See Balmaseda et al. (2013).

    Also stop ignoring the full data set. Look at OHC all the way down to 2000m.

    OHC 0 – 2000m

    FFS get a clue.

  80. #80 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    All your stupid noise to avoid answering/facing up to one simple fact:

    The increase in OHC cannot be explained except by an increase in forcing. And only one known forcing has increased sufficiently to provide an explanation that fits the observations – CO2.

    Deny, deny, deny…

  81. #81 Rednose
    UK
    July 3, 2013

    chek#64

    the la-la land refers to your careful weeding out of any mention of climate change in your bowdlerised version of the Met Office ststement.

    Very little weeding was needed as references to climate change in the Met Office statement were very limited.
    Surprising from a previouslly staunch advocate of AGW.
    Perhaps they have woken up and now smell the coffee.

  82. #82 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Oh look. Clown suddenly loses all interest in OHC and starts wittering about something else.

    What a fucking joke you people are.

  83. #83 cRR Kampen
    July 3, 2013

    #62, asylums should restrict internet access. Word salad is pathological. Asylums should protect sick people’s privacy better.

    #74, therefore ice ages never existed (for how could we know). What’s next, the earth was created day before yesterday?

  84. #84 Rednose
    UK
    July 3, 2013

    #78
    Your windspeed Ekman pumping is discussed at RC

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming-went-into-the-deep-end/

    Someone asks a simple basic question and gets very unconvincing answers supposedly from the brightest and best They dont seem entirely sure themselves.

    Levitus and Balmaseda both rely heavily on pre Argo data pre 2005 where 0-700m measurements were limited and 700-2000m measurements sporadic.
    Hardly solid convincing stuff.

    Are we talking real accurate measurement here or wishful thinking and visions.

  85. #85 Rednose
    UK
    July 3, 2013

    And only one known forcing has increased sufficiently to provide an explanation that fits the observations – CO2.

    Estimates of climate sensitivity continue to fall
    No “hot spot”
    Hiatus in surface temperaures

    Deny Deny Deny.

  86. #86 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Are we talking real accurate measurement here or wishful thinking and visions.

    Off you go with the data denial… It’s all you’ve got left.

  87. #87 Rednose
    UK
    July 3, 2013

    And all you have got to support your CO2 religion is some dodgey measurements made by some old sea dogs with a bucket.

  88. #88 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Estimates of climate sensitivity continue to fall
    No “hot spot”
    Hiatus in surface temperaures

    No they don’t. Incomplete and speculative attempts based on the brief observational record – which you people deny anyway, remember – continue to produce lower estimates than those derived from millennial-scale paleoclimate behaviour. The most likely value remains stubbornly close to 3C/2xCO2. Sorry!

    The “no hot-spot” lie is a Jo Nova stalwart, but not science. Sorry!

    The slow down in the rate of surface warming because of increased ocean heat uptake has already been discussed.

    ARGO data post-2005 show very substantial increases in OHC down to 2000m. Only people who don’t understand that this is about energy accumulating in the climate system – not just decadal rates of surface warming – think this matters. Scientists and other climate literates just point to OHC.

  89. #89 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    And all you have got to support your CO2 religion is some dodgey measurements made by some old sea dogs with a bucket.

    No, data-denying fuckwit. Decades of XBT data. You are muddling up SST measurements with OHC measurements because you haven’t got the remotest clue what you are talking about. As I said, you are a joke.

  90. #90 Rednose
    UK
    July 3, 2013

    gotogo.
    Catchulater

  91. #91 Turboblocke
    July 3, 2013

    I don’t really want to indulge Karen, but feel that I should point out that her sea level link from , gosh WUWT,( who would have thought it) compares the mass loss from the GRACE data over the period 2002-2011to the 110 year rate>. Clearly to see it in context, it should be compared to the average over the same time period which is about 3.3 mm/year.

  92. #92 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Notice that the above exchange did not result in an admission from Rednoise that he has no counter-argument to the *facts*.

    Which I will re-state once more:

    The increase in OHC cannot be explained except by an increase in forcing. And only one known forcing has increased sufficiently to provide an explanation that fits the observations – CO2.

    What we got was what we always get when there are facts on the table and nowhere else to go: evasions and denial.

    How do these sorry excuses for human beings actually live with themselves?

  93. #93 chek
    July 3, 2013

    Redarse @ #80

    Very little weeding was needed

    Then why do it … oh … because it would dilute your ‘message’.
    And that’s the problem with you and your fellow deniers – you treat science like a shyster lawyer treats a case, as if you actually believe you can win against reality with slick editing and disregard for the inconvenient.

    Rove and his boys have really done a number on you idiots, haven’t they.

  94. #94 Lionel A
    July 3, 2013

    Rudolf:

    And all you have got to support your CO2 religion is some dodgey measurements made by some old sea dogs with a bucket.

    You really are a sillyarse repeating that bilge, clearly that is what you collect in your bucket.

    And I suspect your like will soon be throwing this at us by way of evidence for continued warming being a hoax:

    “For longer periods (two decades or longer) we found a robust and a statistically significant warming trend,” he said. For shorter periods – a decade or less – there is no longer a significant temperature trend of either sign, consistent with the reports of a recent ‘plateauing’ of global temperatures.”

    for this is the source Climate extremes are ‘unprecedented’, for full context rather than the honey-trap for the perennially confused that is Milloy’s ‘junkscience’ currently echoing this in its usual very selective manner.

    I refuse to link to there but freddy should feel at home except that he cannot string many words together without using foul language and whilst shouting his verbal diarrhea.

  95. #95 Lionel A
    July 3, 2013

    Oh, Redarse, here is another little torpedo, to add to the salvo already fired, for your moth-eaten hull of ocean warming understanding: WUWT: Ocean Misunderstanding and Confusion.

    As BBD correctly points out OHC. Now repeat that till you fall asleep, ‘OHC, OHC, OHC, OHC, OH…’.

  96. #96 chek
    July 3, 2013

    I can’t recall now which of the comedy duo of Mosher or Fuller (I can’t distinguish any single bacterium) a few years ago claimed a US Navy career (which became more and more fake the more closely it was examined) and pushed this story about professional seamen treating temperature sampling as a joke. As if they wouldn’t know that thousands of such measurements combined to make their lives safer through more accurate weather forecasting. I expect that’s what Redarse is parroting here. There’s nothing deniers will not try to damage or destroy given the slimmest chance of a momentary advantage.

    Loss of Arctic ice and extreme weather are normal. Return to your homes and conduct business as usual is the underlying message, with the emphasis on ‘lying’..

  97. #97 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    It was Fuller, who is by some distance the thicker of the two, and the more easily caught in mendacity. I had months of fun with our Tom on Collide-a-scape last year. Months.

  98. #98 Jeff Harvey
    July 3, 2013

    Just as James Hansen said recently:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23154073

    Watch the deniers try and worm their way out of this one. They always do. If they were driving a car that plunged over a cliff, in mid flight they would scream aloud how fine the ride was. The WMOs report should – that being the operative word – drive a nail through the AGW denial brigade. But no amount of empirical evidence will convince these buffoons. Not when there are political agendas to promote.

  99. #99 johnl
    July 3, 2013

    But ,THE HEADLINE AT WTFUWT reads:

    “U.N. World Meteorological Organization report pans the idea that severe weather and severe weather deaths can be linked to climate change”

    Looks like Willard A. just can’t help telling porkies.

    Sou at HotWhopper takes his post apart here:
    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/a-decade-of-extremes-from-wmo-and-wuwt_430.html

  100. #100 BBD
    July 3, 2013

    Oh dear. Betty-John isn’t going to like this at all.

1 2 3 18