The title of this post is actually the title of a post I want to point you to. It is HERE.

The post is the outcome of a bit of a competition a couple of us have going to make an effective meme (in this case, the girl with the thermometer in her hair) to underscore the fact that “global warming” is different than “surface warming” (or at least, that’s how I’d put it). The former includes the oceans, sea surface, air, ice. The latter includes all that but not the deeper oceans. Since the VAST majority of the excess heat building up because of AGW is in the deeper oceans (below the SST), this should not be forgotten. But it also is. Anyway, so far this is the winning meme. I admit defeat. Temporarily.


  1. #1 Kevin
    April 7, 2014

    If the atmospheric temperature were not important, then why did all the IPCC warnings start with, in 2100, the atmospheric surface temperature will be…

  2. #2 Ryan
    April 7, 2014

    Because we live there, Kevin.

  3. #3 CelloMom
    April 7, 2014

    “Defeat”? Whoa: I didn’t know about any competition? Anyway, it was your post on the dog versus the tail that got me thinking about this in the first place: love that one. (For those who have forgotten this cool post, it’s here:
    Anyway, thanks for featuring my post!

  4. #4 catweazle666
    April 7, 2014

    Funny how you lot only started rabbiting about the energy being stored in the deep oceans (with, I note, no explanation of how it got there, or why is suddenly decided to go there instead of warming the surface) after the surface had stopped warming, isn’t it?

    Do you ever wonder why public opinion is turning against CAGW?

  5. #5 Greg Laden
    April 7, 2014

    catweazle, is it possible for you to demonstrate what you just said to be in any way at al true? Because not one thing you just said is.

  6. #6 cosmicomics
    April 8, 2014

    “Funny how you [sic] lot only started rabbiting about the energy being stored in the deep oceans (with, I note, no explanation of how it got there, or why is [sic] suddenly decided to go there instead of warming the surface) after the surface had stopped warming, isn’t it?”

    Funny how climate septics repeatedly demonstrate that they know nothing of climate research or the scientific process. Funny how their definitive assertions repeatedly display their ignorance.

    “The scientists calculated that warming of the ocean below about 700 m now accounts for about 30 per cent of the total heat entering the oceans. The new paper also suggests a reason why more heat is being transported out of the surface ocean. Trenberth tells us:
    “The cause of the change is the change in winds, especially in the Pacific Ocean where the subtropical trade winds have become noticeably stronger, thereby increasing the subtropical overturning in the ocean and providing a mechanism for heat to be carried down into the ocean.”

    “Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake. The extra uptake has come about through increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, enhancing heat convergence in the equatorial thermocline. At the same time, the accelerated trade winds have increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific, lowering sea surface temperature there, which drives further cooling in other regions. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.”

    While it may be warranted to speak of a slowdown in surface warming, there is no indication that the warming has stopped: %E2%80%9D-new-paper-says-warming-in-last-17-years-may-be-double-what-scientists- thought/

    As of yet I have never seen a septic attempt to reconcile the fact that 13 of the 14 warmest years have occurred since 2000 or the decadal warming trend – 80s warmer than 70s etc. – with the cherry picked no warming nonsense.

    Finally, it bears repeating that surface temperatures are only a part of the climate system and that all other parts show clear signs of continued warming. Had it only been a question of natural variability, we would have seen cooling.

    “It has — quite rightly — been pointed out that surface air temperature (SAT) isn’t all there is to global climate or global warming. Since 1998 we’ve witness [sic] sizeable warming of the oceans, including the deep ocean. We’ve seen a staggering decline of Arctic sea ice and the continued dwindling of most of the world’s glaciers. Sea level has continued to rise at a rate much faster than the 20th-century average (which itself was much higher than the average over the last several thousand years). It has been emphasized that a lack of “statistically significant” warming is not the same as a lack of warming. It has also been pointed out that the “pause” in SAT is not inconsistent with climate model simulations, that in fact climate models show episodes like we’ve observed “since 1998′′ even in a still-warming world. And it has been shown (as climate scientists knew all along) that greenhouse gases aren’t the only factor influencing temperature, that “since 1998′′ we’ve seen the most prominent known non-greenhouse factors (el Nino southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations) conspire to lower global temperature. It’s obvious to those whose eyes are open that without continued greenhouse-gas warming to offset these natural factors, we would have seen a notable decline in global temperature “since 1998.”

  7. #7 catweazle666
    April 9, 2014

    So, lots of flannel, no definitive reason as to the true cause of the “pause”. Offhand, I can think of around 10 theories, from Cowtan and Way through Trenberth to Mann, none of which are remotely convincing and most of which depend on computer games – sorry – climate models.

    Meanwhile, you still have no answer to my question: “Do you ever wonder why public opinion is turning against CAGW?” I note, and the exploitation of our recently discovered new fossil fuel reserves continues unabated, so it seems that no-one of any consequence shares your alarmism.

  8. #8 Greg Laden
    April 9, 2014

    It’s great to have these messages from someone living on a different planet! Someone should call SETI and let them know about catweazle666.

  9. #9 catweazle666
    April 10, 2014

    Still no answer…

  10. #10 dean
    April 10, 2014

    “Do you ever wonder why public opinion is turning against CAGW?”

    Because lies like yours are easier to fit into a sound bite than scientific explanations.

  11. #11 catweazle666
    April 10, 2014

    I suppose you appreciate that no-one of any consequence takes you seriously any more?

    Around 1,200 new coal fired power stations planned or already under construction, including around 20 in Germany – mostly lignite burners too, the dirtiest sort.

    In the UK, a £1 billion scheme to carry out in-situ gasification of North Sea coal reserves estimated in the trillions of tons is slated to commence this autumn.

    Ever-increasing international interest in shale gas and oil extraction, particularly in China.

    Successful methane hydrate – more there than all the rest of the fossil fuels put together, perhaps by an order of magnitude – extraction pilot off Japan.

    To name but a few of the burgeoning schemes to exploit the massive amount of fossil fuels that modern extraction technology has made available for our use and enjoyment.

    Do you think you’re going to turn the tide against that little lot?

    Are you hoping that the ever-increasing population of Africa, India and China are going to forgo the advantages that we in the developed West take for granted? Are you going to tell those billions of people that they can’t have electric light, air conditioning, cars, flat screen TVs, etc. etc. etc.?

    Good luck with that!

  12. #12 cosmicomics
    April 10, 2014

    “Do you ever wonder why public opinion is turning against CAGW?”

    1. The question is irrelevant and has no bearing on the validity of climate science.
    2. The premise for the (irrelevant) question is undocumented and in all probability confuses American opinion with global opinion.

    Beyond that you seem not to understand that finite resources are not without limits, that resources are not the same as reserves, and that the new wells have decline rates that are far, far steeper than those of traditional wells, so that the flow of energy cannot be maintained without more and more wells extracting energy from poorer and poorer sites. Your celebration of fossil fuels also, predictably, ignores externalities.

    The only thing you have to offer is the smart-ass ignorance that oozes from septic blogs.