Now, Where has the Heat Gone??

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/03/global-microwave-sea-surface-temperature-update-for-feb-2013-0-01-deg-c/

The chicken-littles have tried to claim that the reason that the temperature has not gone up for about 10 years is that global warming IS still happening, but the heat is "hiding" in the oceans, and sooner or later it will come out and destroy us all (unless we raise taxes NOW - somehow taxes are always the cure - see a pattern here??)

But now data shows the ocean is also not warming, so when has the heat gone???

Global warming MUST be happening recuse all scientists agree (Al Gore) and the science is settled (Lord Obama), so what the heck???

I think I know. All those icebergs actually have liquid centers of BOILING WATER !! and sooner or later there will be a great Iceberg Bursting and then by golly, we are all doomed.......

 

Yes as long as we only take a three year period 2003 to 2006 (As per your linked article). Nice cherry pick but still a fail

 

You might want to look up the acronym SST and understand how that differs from OHC.

 

OK, Chicken Little, you tell me.....where is all the planetary disaster predicted by the rest in your coop?? Decades have gone by since doomsday was predicted and the world is just fine.....

(hear that roar....that is my SUV pulling my boat to the lake....

 

Yeah. Your attempt at deflection is here for all to see. Your title and article have been shown to be wrong so you attempt to derail your own thread. Typical, just typical, of the pseudo-scientists.

 

Answer the question Mannie...how much longer do you want the world to wait for doomsday....?

(Answer: as long as the liberal-socialist agenda can milk it)........

Well time is running out....seen the public opinion polls?.....Climate Change is getting epic YAWN these days........

 

And when are you going to stop beating your wife?

 

Global Warming isn't an overnight process and if you had in any way educated yourself on the subject you would know this. Currently we're supposed to be in a cooling period. Without human interference, the earth is supposed to get colder and colder over the next 5,000+ years until we eventually enter another ice age. Instead, we just experienced the hottest decade, including the years you said proved the fallacy of Global Warming, in 11,300 years. 100 years after the coldest decade in 11,300 years. Does that make sense to you? During a natural cooling period, after experiencing the coldest decade in human history, temperatures would spike until we experienced the hottest decade in human history? How can you possibly believe that this could be anything other than Global Warming?

 

So you cite an article by Dr. Spenser about satellite data on Sea Surface Temperatures. Do you understand what "surface" means?

So.....just another of your confused, muddled, extremely ignorant denier cult rants, full of the usual lies, misinformation and denier cult myths.

Global warming is still happening and the temperatures have, in fact, gone up over the last ten years. Too bad your mistaken understanding of this comes only from the rightwingnut denier cult echo chamber. If you opened your mind to some real science sometime you might possibly manage to get free of the brainwashing.

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
NOAA
July 28, 2010
(GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION - not under copyright - free to reproduce)
The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

“For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming,”


Ten Indicators of a Warming World. (Credit: NOAA)

The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state, and now a new set of climatic conditions are taking shape. These conditions are consistently warmer, and some areas are likely to see more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.

“Despite the variability caused by short-term changes, the analysis conducted for this report illustrates why we are so confident the world is warming,” said Peter Stott, Ph.D., contributor to the report and head of Climate Monitoring and Attribution of the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre. “When we look at air temperature and other indicators of climate, we see highs and lows in the data from year to year because of natural variability. Understanding climate change requires looking at the longer-term record. When we follow decade-to-decade trends using multiple data sets and independent analyses from around the world, we see clear and unmistakable signs of a warming world.”

While year-to-year changes in temperature often reflect natural climatic variations such as El Niño/La Niña events, changes in average temperature from decade-to-decade reveal long-term trends such as global warming. Each of the last three decades has been much warmer than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record. In the 1990s, every year was warmer than the average of the previous decade. The 2000s were warmer still.

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at http://www.climate.gov. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.

State of the Climate is published as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society and is edited by D.S. Arndt, M.O. Baringer, and M.R. Johnson. The full report and an online media packet with graphics is available online: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate.

Yeah, I see a pattern - really lame paranoid conspiracy theory thinking coupled with a wacko belief that this is about politics and economics rather than scientific facts.

But that is NOT what the data shows. The oceans are miles deep in places so the "Sea Surface" temperatures that Dr. Spenser's article talks about would only tell a small part of the story, even if the time period covered by his chart didn't make the resultant trend line pretty meaningless anyway. Spenser chose to use a period of only 10 years, from 2002 to present, which is too short to demonstrate a trend to begin with, and then there is the fact the it is the ENSO cycle that drives short term variations in the SST, with El Nino's raising SST's and La Nina's lowering SST's, so considering that we had a moderately strong El Nino episode in 2002 and then weak El Nino's in 2004 and 2006 followed by a moderately strong La Nina in 2007 and then a really strong La Nina in 2010 followed immediately by a weak La Nina in 2011, it is hardly surprising that you can't see a trend on Spenser's graph. Basically, he did a little cherry-picking there. Over longer time frames, the fact that even the SST is rising is a lot more obvious.

This graph shows how the average surface temperature of the world's oceans has changed since 1880. This graph uses the 1971 to 2000 average as a baseline for depicting change. Choosing a different baseline period would not change the shape of the data over time. The shaded band shows the range of uncertainty in the data, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.
Source: EPA - Sea Surface Temperature. Data source: NOAA, 2012

But the really important thing is that a portion of the extra heat energy that the Earth is retaining due to increased CO2 is going into the ocean, into the deeper layers below the surface. This chart from NOAA shows pretty clearly the increase in ocean temperatures going down to 2000 meters below the surface.




Your whole thread is, once again, just more ignorant denier cult drivel and BS.

 

HUH? supposed to be in a cooling period? Who exactly decided that and how did they come to this conclusion?

 

Scientists from Harvard and Oregon State published it in a journal article recently.
"What that history shows, the researchers say, is that over the past 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) – until the past 100 years, when it warmed ̴ 1.3 degrees (F). The largest changes were in the northern hemisphere, where there are more land masses and greater human populations."

Its based on Milankovitch cycles. The shape of the earth's orbit, its tilt, and its precession move it a closer to then away from the sun. Based on the part of the cycle we're in now, we should continue cooling as we move farther from the sun. the abrupt change from cooling to fast warming in the past 100+ years is the problem.

 

Currently we're supposed to be in a cooling period. Without human interference, the earth is supposed to get colder and colder over the next 5,000+ years until we eventually enter another ice age.

Who says so? You are assuming the current interglacial ended in 1990. How can you claim the natural flip should have happened this decade?? Interglacials have varied by thousands of years...?????

You do not know what you are talking about......

- - - Updated - - -

LOL...I just posted the exact same OBVIOUS question.....

 

Livefree:

So you cite an article by Dr. Spenser about satellite data on Sea Surface Temperatures. Do you understand what "surface" means?

Yes, what is your point? Do you now claim that the lower depths are warming but the surface is cooling??. You remind me of the Bigfoot zealots that claim he is trans dimension so as to explain away contrary facts....

 

The scientists who study the Earth's climate cycles and orbital dynamics.

Well, first off they had to be really intelligent.
Then they had to spend 8 or 10 years at a university studying science.
Then they had to specialize in a field of science and do research for years.
And then they were able "to come to this conclusion" about the natural direction the Earth's climate patterns would have been going if humans had not raised atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, by about 40% over the pre-industrial levels that had prevailed for hundreds of thousands of years.

Arctic Warming Overtakes 2,000 Years of Natural Cooling
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
September 03, 2009
(Use. The user is granted the right to use the Site for non-commercial, non-profit research, or educational purposes only, without any fee or cost.)
BOULDER—Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns. The international study, led by Northern Arizona University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published in the September 4 edition of Science. It was primarily funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.

The scientists reconstructed summer temperatures across the Arctic over the last 2,000 years by decade, extending a view of climate far beyond the 400 years of Arctic-wide records previously available at that level of detail. They found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author and head of the synthesis project, says the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented. "Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," says Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before." The new study is the first to quantify a pervasive cooling across the Arctic on a decade-by-decade basis that is related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun. Over the last 7,000 years, the timing of Earth's closest pass by the Sun has shifted from September to January. This has gradually reduced the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in summertime, when Earth is farther from the Sun.

 

Why do you set up these idiotic straw man arguments? I don't "claim that the lower depths are warming but the surface is cooling" because the sea surface temperatures ARE NOT cooling. The chart from the EPA that I just posted shows the long term warming trend of the SST.

You remind me of those anti-science 'Flat Earth Society' members who have to come up with increasingly absurd conspiracy theories to explain away NASA, satellites and the moon landings.

 

It is when it's real and genuinely problematic, as at the end of the last Ice Age when sea level rose dozens of meters in a matter of centuries, not 100x slower than that, as it is now.

If you had in any way educated yourself, you would know that current temperatures are far below the predicted increases tracking CO2.

Which would be a real problem.

That is a blatant fabrication. There is no credible evidence that global temperatures have recently been higher than during the Holocene Optimum, and plenty of good evidence that they are lower.

Another fabrication. The coldest decades since the last Ice Age were almost certainly recorded during the depth of the Little Ice Age, more than 300 years ago, during the Maunder sunspot minimum.

No, and it didn't happen.

How can you possibly believe it happened at all?

 

Interglacials do last thousands of years, but the typical (not invariable) pattern of past interglacials has been that peak temperature is reached quite quickly (corresponding to the Holocene Optimum, when temperatures were significantly higher than they are now), and then decline slowly and unsteadily for about 10Ky until the next full-blown glaciation hits.

 

So human CO2 emissions are preventing a true global cataclysm: the next Ice Age.

Get down on your knees and give thanks for China's soaring coal-powered electrical consumption!

 

http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archi...ry-shows-significance-recent-temperature-rise

This was released last week by Harvard and Oregon State scientists.
they talk about the dramatic increase in rate of heating in the last hundred years.
They talk about how we're in the section of the Milankovitch cycle that we should still be cooling off.

We are supposed to be cooling because we're farther from the sun and tilted less towards it. Instead we are at the temperatures we were when we were closer to the sun and tilted more towards. It has become much more exaggerated in the past 100 years.

 

hey newbie welcome...you have no idea how futile a debate you're getting into, your adversaries dwell in a alternate scientific universe, where the laws of physics, chemistry, geology, climatology etc are all an elaborate scheme of the great Al Gore...

 

Just more blind, ignorant denial of reality. Roy makes statements but there is no backing, no citations, no evidence, just a gullible belief in the anti-science propaganda being pushed by the fossil fuel industry.

 

It sounds to me like more of the same dribble from the warmer crowd desperately trying to shore up the AGW theory. We could go back and forth all day with I'll show you one graph and you show me another contradictory graph.There are obvious flaws withth the study even at first glace one of which is the flawed data about recent temp gains from weather stations that started out in a remote rural area that is now in a heat island. The study does confirm old news though in a way, when I was a kid all the buzz was we were heading into an ice age because of fossil fuel then when it theoretically at least started getting warmer instead of colder the alarmist crowd flipped and changed over to the global warming theory. When that started falling apart they threw up their hands and went with climate change, too hot it's climate change, too cold it's climate change. Round and round we go.

 

And yet more clueless nonsense from another dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign. There is no real disagreement among actual climate scientists on the reality and dangers of AGW. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

And yet more clueless nonsense from another dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign.
The insults

There is no real disagreement among actual climate scientists on the reality and dangers of AGW. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The blind adherence to dogma, despite factshttp://edberry.com/SiteDocs/PDF/Climate/cato_climate.pdfclearly presented

= religious zealot (all hail Al Gore)

 

Inevitably, the item you reference neither supports your statements nor refutes mine.