Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Keepitsimple]

is there a more renewed and concentrated focus on ocean warming? Of course. Given the reduced rate of warming shown in global surface temperatures, the obvious challenge is to "find where known warming is going". You can certainly attempt to dispute that ocean warming is occurring... you can either show your interpretations of study disputing ocean warming... or you can put forward alternatives on your interpretations of studies that may suggest other area(s) where warming is going (or also going). You could do that, put your interpreted challenges forward... or you could continue a silly charade you're now playing again, one you've thrown around in the past; i.e., "the settled science meme". Your choice.

Challenges? I don't claim to have all the answers - but it's clear that you do. I simply observe what's going on, compare it to what we've been told or what's been predicted - and see if it holds water. I was taught in Science class to do it that way. Another point that I made in my original post - a reply to Michael Harding was that Climate Science was still an "immature" science. It blends with the "missing heat" and Trenberth's "travesty" - and yes, I am aware of the lengthy Skeptical Science article that ties itself in knots trying to explain what he meant. To recap:

1) No surface warming for 17 years - completely at odds with the models and virtually all scientific predictions

2) As recently as 2009, scientists were still befuddled with where the "missing heat" was - after all, the Earth has a heat budget - it has to be somewhere. Until the thermometers stopped cooperating, they didn't think they'd have to go searching for missing heat - CO2 goes up, surface temperatures rise in step - pretty straight forward.

3) Trenberth himself thought that the deep ocean might be the culprit for some of the missing heat but at the time (2009), the ARGO data showed no warming down to 700 meters

4) Thereafter, papers start to appear that attempt to validate the deep ocean theory - but actual observed data has only been collected by ARGO since 2000 and only to a depth of 3000 meters.

5) If all the missing heat is NOT in the deep ocean - what then? If it IS, the direct "cause and effect" link of CO2 to surface temperature becomes a bit more tenuous.

6) Climate Science is immature - and that's not a knock on Climate Science - it's a fascinatingly complex field that has only been recently (relatively) recognized as a Science. It should be immature.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

is there a more renewed and concentrated focus on ocean warming? Of course. Given the reduced rate of warming shown in global surface temperatures, the obvious challenge is to "find where known warming is going". You can certainly attempt to dispute that ocean warming is occurring... you can either show your interpretations of study disputing ocean warming... or you can put forward alternatives on your interpretations of studies that may suggest other area(s) where warming is going (or also going). You could do that, put your interpreted challenges forward... or you could continue a silly charade you're now playing again, one you've thrown around in the past; i.e., "the settled science meme". Your choice.

Challenges? I don't claim to have all the answers - but it's clear that you do.

any 'answers' I have are typically interpretations I support/cite. I note you didn't bother to comment on my own 'ta da' that showed you a ~15 year old study detailing layered ocean warming... you know, the kind of study you stated wasn't occurring until the most recent last years period.

you refuse to take up the direct challenges I put to you; instead, you come back with a series of unsubstantiated statements... which certainly seems to suggest you have answers. Very, very pointedly selective answers; ones you choose not to support/substantiate.

I'm not sure how many more times one needs to even respond to that idiocy you parrot: "no warming in the last 17 years"! Again, you struggle with the same point, over and over again. A reduced rate of global surface warming is not "no warming". Should we talk about why you denier types keep latching on to that cherry-picked 17 year figure? Why didn't you blast forward and complain models didn't predict the warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006... which, at 0.3°C per decade, was almost twice as fast as expected. Amazingly, fake-skeptics have nothing to say about this! And as I've relayed several times in past MLW threads, since 2006 the earth has experienced a disproportionate number of La Nina years (years that have a cooling affect).

as I said Simple, don't hesitate to actually bring forward your interpreted challenges to ocean heat warming. I'm particularly keen to have you speak to, since you keep repeating it, Argo float measurements... along with other measurements. As for the other gem you just dropped, your "If it IS, the direct "cause and effect" link of CO2 to surface temperature becomes a bit more tenuous"... I'm very interested in what denier blog article you have to speak to "a tenuous link". But again Simple, just bring your challenges forward to dispute that ocean warming is occurring... to dispute that accelerated deep layer ocean warming is occurring... to dispute that deep ocean warming now accounts for ~30% of all ocean warming:

.

[Keepitsimple]

any 'answers' I have are typically interpretations I support/cite. I note you didn't bother to comment on my own 'ta da' that showed you a ~15 year old study detailing layered ocean warming... you know, the kind of study you stated wasn't occurring until the most recent last years period.

you refuse to take up the direct challenges I put to you; instead, you come back with a series of unsubstantiated statements... which certainly seems to suggest you have answers. Very, very pointedly selective answers; ones you choose not to support/substantiate.

As I have already said - theories that pre-date data from ARGO are just that - theories....because there was no way to test and prove the theory. Even today, ARGO does not provide detailed data below 3000 meters....so your challenge is meaningless - yet another ploy to make the science seem more settled than it is. It's only been the last 8 or 9 years or so that the theory has gotten attention due to the gross failure of IPCC projections - and it will be a long time yet before it can be validated and quantified. Meanwhile, land temperatures are stagnant - against all past predictions and counter to virtually all Climate Models. As to your challenge - perhaps I am wrong, it's happened before....perhaps you can explain where that study from over 15 years ago got the data that gave credence to the study - actual measurements from the various ocean layers? Could you perhaps be wrong Waldo?

[waldo]

As I have already said - theories that pre-date data from ARGO are just that - theories....because there was no way to test and prove the theory. Even today, ARGO does not provide detailed data below 3000 meters....so your challenge is meaningless - yet another ploy to make the science seem more settled than it is. It's only been the last 8 or 9 years or so that the theory has gotten attention due to the gross failure of IPCC projections - and it will be a long time yet before it can be validated and quantified. Meanwhile, land temperatures are stagnant - against all past predictions and counter to virtually all Climate Models. As to your challenge - perhaps I am wrong, it's happened before....perhaps you can explain where that study from over 15 years ago got the data that gave credence to the study - actual measurements from the various ocean layers? Could you perhaps be wrong Waldo?

you claim a "gross failure of IPCC projections"... those projections have been shown to fair quite well against observations - prior MLW posts have shown exactly that. If you'd care to step-up and support that claim of yours, please do.

I challenged you to speak to measurements... inclusive of the ARGO reference you keep dropping. You refuse to take up that challenge... along with the challenge for you to actually provide your interpretations that ocean warming is not occurring. Apparently, rather than take up these challenges, you're content to simply repeat/provide even more unsubstantiated claims.

you ask me a question that if you had any real "skeptical" inclination, you would have pursued and answered yourself. I gave you the study abstract quote and link reference... you could have spent 5 minutes and answered your own question - and saved showcasing the fact (an oft repeated fact) that you can't be bothered to do any reading/research other than limiting yourself to denier blogs. That (now very dated) 2000 study relied upon data from within the (also now long dated) 1998 World Ocean Database... a database that hosted datasets inclusive of data related to the following measurement types: "Bottle & Low-resolution Conductivity-Temperature-Depth – CTD; High-resolution Conductivity-Temperature-Depth – CTD; Mechanical/Micro Bathythermograph – MBT; Expendable Bathythermograph – XBT; Digital Bathythermograph – DBT"

.

[TimG]

Here is a good summary of the available OHC data from:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/21/ocean-heat-content-uncertainties/

Ocean reanalyses can potentially provide new insights into global OHC variations, but ocean reanalysis is in its infancy.

The main issue of interest is to what extent can ocean heat sequestration explain the hiatus since 1998. The only data set that appears to provide support for ocean sequestration is the ocean reanalysis, with the Palmer and Domingues 0-700 m OHC climatology providing support for continued warming in the upper ocean.

IMO, this single minded effort to explain the slow down with ocean sequestration is a good example of confirmation bias. More objective scientists would have entertained the possibility that CO2 sensitivity is lower than previously thought instead of making endless "adjustments" to the OHC data in order to make it support their pet hypothesis. Edited February 6, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

Here is a good summary of the available OHC data from:

IMO, this single minded effort to explain the slow down with ocean sequestration is a good example of confirmation bias. More objective scientists would have entertained the possibility that CO2 sensitivity is lower than previously thought instead of making endless "adjustments" to the OHC data in order to make it support their pet hypothesis.

on noooooossss! Right from Mr. Uncertain T. Monster! Perhaps Crazy Aunt Judy should publish, hey? What's she waiting for?

ah yes, endless "adjustments"! Please, do you have... more?

what could be more conclusive than to have fake-skeptics challenge energy balance, thermodynamics and... effectively... satellite measurements showing warming continues. If you (and CrazyAunt Judy) have an alternate claim on where the warming exists, please... as you say, present and support your "pet hypothesis".

[Keepitsimple]

you claim a "gross failure of IPCC projections"... those projections have been shown to fair quite well against observations - prior MLW posts have shown exactly that. If you'd care to step-up and support that claim of yours, please do.

I challenged you to speak to measurements... inclusive of the ARGO reference you keep dropping. You refuse to take up that challenge... along with the challenge for you to actually provide your interpretations that ocean warming is not occurring. Apparently, rather than take up these challenges, you're content to simply repeat/provide even more unsubstantiated claims.

I have not and do not discount the theory that the oceans can and do hold heat. I've simply said that observations and historical data are not plentiful enough nor precise enough to definitively say that the "missing heat" is all in the deep ocean - and by extension - that all this heat has a direct correlation to CO2 and accelerated warming of the planet. As to the pre-ARGO use of MBTs and XBTs - XBTs were very shallow measurements dating from the 50's that only measured to 250 meters by being dragged from any convenient vessel that happened to be available. MBTs were somewhat better but still only measured to 700 meters. They were freefall instruments that weren't strategically deployed like ARGO. ARGO is now suggesting little or no warming - perhaps cooling in the upper layer. Can you not agree that there is still a lot of work to do to PROVE the theory with precision? Here's an excerpt from your go-to Skeptical Science Website:

The bottom line is there is still uncertainty over the reconstruction of ocean heat. Generally, the various reconstructions show the same long term trends but don't always agree when it comes to inter-decadal variability. The uncertainty means one cannot conclude with confidence that the ocean is cooling. Independent analysis seem to indicate that over last half dozen years, the ocean has shown less warming than the long term trend but nevertheless, a statistically significant warming trend.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

As to the pre-ARGO use of MBTs and XBTs

- XBTs were very shallow measurements dating from the 50's that only measured to 250 meters by being dragged from any convenient vessel that happened to be available.

- MBTs were somewhat better but still only measured to 700 meters. They were freefall instruments that weren't strategically deployed like

not sure why you've latched onto SkS as, as you state, "my go-to website"... please explain. However, as I said, it is heartening to read any fake-skeptic, as yourself, referencing that site.

for a guy who seemed to have never heard of a bathythermograph (BT), you sure come back with such resounding confidence. Of course, since that dated 2000 study includes references to 300-to-1000-meter layers and depths greater than 1000 meters, that study just doesn't jive with your confidence level! Wait, it appears that not only have you assigned your descriptions to the wrong BT type, you're also most incomplete in one of those descriptions. And... you incorrectly state/imply BT's are no longer used since ARGO floats were deployed. Here, try these definitions from NOAA:

- File: MECHANICAL BATHYTHERMOGRAPH (MBT) DATA

This file format is used for temperature-depth profile data obtained using the mechanical bathythermograph (MBT) instrument. The maximum depth of MBT observations is approximately 285 m. Therefore, MBT data are useful only in studying the thermal structure of the upper layers of the ocean.

- File: EXPENDABLE BATHYTHERMOGRAPH (XBT) DATA

This file format is used for temperature-depth profile data obtained using expendable bathythermograph (XBT) instrument. Standard XBTs can obtain profiles at depths of about 450 or 760 m. With special instruments, measurements can be obtained to 1830 m.

[waldo]

I have not and do not discount the theory that the oceans can and do hold heat. I've simply said that observations and historical data are not plentiful enough nor precise enough to definitively say that the "missing heat" is all in the deep ocean - and by extension - that all this heat has a direct correlation to CO2 and accelerated warming of the planet.

let's recap:

- in line with your past position statements/claims, not only do you not accept CO2 as the principal causal tie for today's relatively recent warming, you have (when challenged) been unable to provide your interpretation of an alternate principal causal tie.

- you "don't discount" oceans "can and do hold heat"... however, you couch your "not discounting" with word play emphasizing "deep ocean" and "all". You then proceed to ramp that up by questioning whether "all" the heat even correlates to CO2/warming. You know, CO2 that you don't accept as the principal causal tie to warming in the first place! Of course, once again, you offer no alternative as to where the so-called "missing heat" exists. At least you're not discounting that there is "missing heat". Oh, that's right... for you to do that you'd have to trash satellite temperature data/datasets. Quite an inconvenience for you - yes?

in any case, here's a token piece of waldo advice: if you're going to refer to any blog, you should pay attention to the datedness of particular articles you might be referencing... along with, of course, attempting to verify the completeness of whatever articles you might presume to reference. Are there uncertainties? Of course... and, as with all climate science, are those uncertainties typically acknowledged and stated by legitimate sources? Let's try the latest IPCC AR5 report:

Observations Ocean - Temperature and Heat Content Changes

- It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (above 700 m) has warmed from 1971 to 2010, and likely that it has warmed from the 1870s to 1971

- It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010.

- Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.

- Warming of the ocean between 700 and 2000 m likely contributed about 30% of the total increase in global ocean heat content (0 to 2000 m) between 1957 and 2009.

- It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean

(note: per IPCC report definitions => Virtually certain 99–100% probability, - Very likely 90–100%, - Likely 66–100%.....)

.

.

[Keepitsimple]

let's recap:

- in line with your past position statements/claims, not only do you not accept CO2 as the principal causal tie for today's relatively recent warming, you have (when challenged) been unable to provide your interpretation of an alternate principal causal tie.

- you "don't discount" oceans "can and do hold heat"... however, you couch your "not discounting" with word play emphasizing "deep ocean" and "all". You then proceed to ramp that up by questioning whether "all" the heat even correlates to CO2/warming. You know, CO2 that you don't accept as the principal causal tie to warming in the first place! Of course, once again, you offer no alternative as to where the so-called "missing heat" exists. At least you're not discounting that there is "missing heat". Oh, that's right... for you to do that you'd have to trash satellite temperature data/datasets. Quite an inconvenience for you - yes?

in any case, here's a token piece of waldo advice: if you're going to refer to any blog, you should pay attention to the datedness of particular articles you might be referencing... along with, of course, attempting to verify the completeness of whatever articles you might presume to reference. Are there uncertainties? Of course... and, as with all climate science, are those uncertainties typically acknowledged and stated by legitimate sources? Let's try the latest IPCC AR5 report:

(note: per IPCC report definitions => Virtually certain 99–100% probability, - Very likely 90–100%, - Likely 66–100%.....)

Waldo - of course the oceans have warmed over an extended period - just like the surface has warmed since 1850 - warm, cool, warm, cool, warm always sawtoothing it's way upward so far. It makes sense that the oceans would follow suit in some manner - yet to be precisely pinned down. And yes, I am not anywhere near being convinced that CO2 is the PRIMARY driver behind what is showing to be the not-so-extraordinary recent warming - just another tooth on the saw. I agree that CO2 has the capacity to contribute to warming (that's a scientifically proven fact) but I'm not convinced it provides anything other than a minor contribution. I am open to continued findings - but like most laymen, I can best be swayed by real data and observation - which to date has been lacking.

Please don't try to describe my position on Climate Change to suit your own insecurities. I stand by my recent posts - there is still lots of work to do to understand how the oceans play a role in Climate Change.

And one final point - your reference to XBT's having a depth capability of 1830 meters when specially equipped is just another of your mis-directions from the substance of the argument - a common Waldo ploy. You know full well that the World Ocean temperature data was collected only to a standard depth of 700 meters as shown by this bias adjustment chart:

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/WOD05/XBT_BIAS/wod09_xbtcorrection.txt

And further, for interested readers, here's a short synopsis of where we stand on the accuracy of data that's being accumulated from ocean measurements:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/XBT_BIAS/xbt_bias.html

So with that Waldo, I'll end our little scuffle and agree to disagree. Your position is that CO2 is the major driver of warming since 1850 and any "missing heat" can be found in the oceans. I'm on the side of CO2 being a minor contributor with natural factors being the major driver.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Keepitsimple]

in line with your past position statements/claims, not only do you not accept CO2 as the principal causal tie for today's relatively recent warming, you have (when challenged) been unable to provide your interpretation of an alternate principal causal tie.

Waldo - I simply don't accept the premise of your "challenge". My position has always been that the principal causal ties to any recent warming - or lack of warming - are Natural Factors....those natural factors that led to warming periods in the Roman times - those natural factors that led to the Mideivel Warming Period - those natural factors that brought us warming in the 30's and 40's and cooling in the 50's through the 70's (in spite of a huge post-war addition of CO2).....and yes the spike in the late 90's and levelling out over the past 17 years. This is Mother Nature at work - there's nothing to prove - no need for "alternate causal ties". It is you and the alarmist community that need to continually prove that deviations from historically repeated patterns must be caused by elevated levels of CO2. As each year passes - and warming continues to "stall", the link to elevated CO2 - which seemed so clear in 2000 - becomes more and more tenuous......and the deviation from historically repeated patterns begins to vanish - in spite of cleverly formulated graphs.

Edited February 7, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Mighty AC]

I'm curious about how you managed to arrive at the conclusion that warming has ceased since the late 90's. Are you ignoring ocean heat content despite the fact that they are the largest thermal mass on the planet?

[cybercoma]

Uh, we don't live on the oceans, so the temperature there obviously doesn't matter, stupid. [/sarcasm]

[Mighty AC]

My position has always been that the principal causal ties to any recent warming - or lack of warming - are Natural Factors....

If you believe natural factors are driving the increased heat content then why is it that the troposphere (lowest level of atmosphere) is warming but the levels above (Stratosphere and above) are cooling?

Edited February 7, 2014 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

If you believe natural factors are driving the increased heat content then why is it that the troposphere (lowest level of atmosphere) is warming but the levels above (Stratosphere and above) are cooling?

Have you actually looked at the trends in stratospheric temps? The trend was entirely a result of a step change around the time Pinatubo erupted. Since then they have been basically flat. IOW - the trends in stratospheric temps are not consistent with what one would expect given a continuous increase in CO2 if CO2 is the primary driver of temperature changes.

http://www.acd.ucar.edu/Research/Highlight/stratosphere.shtml

Edited February 7, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

for a guy who seemed to have never heard of a bathythermograph (BT), you sure come back with such resounding confidence. Of course, since that dated 2000 study includes references to 300-to-1000-meter layers and depths greater than 1000 meters, that study just doesn't jive with your confidence level! Wait, it appears that not only have you assigned your descriptions to the wrong BT type, you're also most incomplete in one of those descriptions. And... you incorrectly state/imply BT's are no longer used since ARGO floats were deployed. Here, try these definitions from NOAA:

- File: MECHANICAL BATHYTHERMOGRAPH (MBT) DATA

This file format is used for temperature-depth profile data obtained using the mechanical bathythermograph (MBT) instrument. The maximum depth of MBT observations is approximately 285 m. Therefore, MBT data are useful only in studying the thermal structure of the upper layers of the ocean.

- File: EXPENDABLE BATHYTHERMOGRAPH (XBT) DATA

This file format is used for temperature-depth profile data obtained using expendable bathythermograph (XBT) instrument. Standard XBTs can obtain profiles at depths of about 450 or 760 m. With special instruments, measurements can be obtained to 1830 m.

And one final point - your reference to XBT's having a depth capability of 1830 meters when specially equipped is just another of your mis-directions from the substance of the argument - a common Waldo ploy. You know full well that the World Ocean temperature data was collected only to a standard depth of 700 meters as shown by this bias adjustment chart:

ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/WOD05/XBT_BIAS/wod09_xbtcorrection.txt

And further, for interested readers, here's a short synopsis of where we stand on the accuracy of data that's being accumulated from ocean measurements:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/XBT_BIAS/xbt_bias.html

again, for a guy who didn't know what a bathythermograph (BT) was, for a guy who thought BT's were no longer being used, for a guy who thought ocean measurements didn't exist outside of those provided by ARGO floats... you're sure a rather cocky guy, hey! The waldo gave you a chance to simply 'go quiet' on your failures. Apparently, you want more!

again, let's recap:

- because you believed ocean research/study temperature measuring didn't exist until "the last few years", because you implied this "ocean thingee" was simply a convenient ruse for scientists to deal with the recent slower rate of surface temperature warming... because of that, I threw you a dated 2000 study that provided temperature measurements in the 300-to-1000 m and >1000 m ranges... presuming to give you a reality check in terms of an ~ 15 year old study indicating this line of research isn't your "convenient recent years ruse".

- you insisted this 2000 study's depth wasn't possible "pre-ARGO". I schooled you on BT's and ranges associated with BT's... even providing you XBT definitions from NOAA distinguishing between 'standard' XBT and 'scientific focused' XBT (that goes to depths of 1830 m). Of course, I also highlighted that study relied upon the 1998 World Ocean Database. Apparently, all this simply fueled your emboldenment... and your cockiness... over something that just a few posts back you knew nothing about!

again, you are most incorrect:

now, if you actually knew anything, you'd realize that the NOAA link you provided and reference as your counter to my, as you state, "misdirection", isn't telling you what you think it is. T-4, T-6 & T-7 type BTs are known to have an 'error bias' - a so-called drop rate correction factor (about 5% of systematic error with depth that is associated with an incorrect drop rate equation for the instruments associated with T-4/T-6/T-7 BTs). That's what your reference link is showing you. Which, of course, has nothing to do with T-5 BTs and the, as I stated, 1830 m maximum depth that they afford. Is that enough misdirection for you?

now, of course, you double triple-down your nonsense by claiming XBT's aren't accurate... again, referring to your reference to only the T-4/T-6/T-7 BTs. Knowing there's a systematic bias and applying appropriate correction to the measurements is not inaccuracy... if the corrective bias measurements were not being applied to the data, then it would be inaccurate data. Is this your type of misdirection, hey?

.

[waldo]

Waldo - of course the oceans have warmed over an extended period - just like the surface has warmed since 1850 - warm, cool, warm, cool, warm always sawtoothing it's way upward so far. It makes sense that the oceans would follow suit in some manner - yet to be precisely pinned down.

Please don't try to describe my position on Climate Change to suit your own insecurities. I stand by my recent posts - there is still lots of work to do to understand how the oceans play a role in Climate Change.

Your position is that CO2 is the major driver of warming since 1850 and any "missing heat" can be found in the oceans. I'm on the side of CO2 being a minor contributor with natural factors being the major driver.

Waldo - I simply don't accept the premise of your "challenge". My position has always been that the principal causal ties to any recent warming - or lack of warming - are Natural Factors....those natural factors that led to warming periods in the Roman times - those natural factors that led to the Mideivel Warming Period - those natural factors that brought us warming in the 30's and 40's and cooling in the 50's through the 70's (in spite of a huge post-war addition of CO2).....and yes the spike in the late 90's and levelling out over the past 17 years. This is Mother Nature at work - there's nothing to prove - no need for "alternate causal ties". It is you and the alarmist community that need to continually prove that deviations from historically repeated patterns must be caused by elevated levels of CO2. As each year passes - and warming continues to "stall", the link to elevated CO2 - which seemed so clear in 2000 - becomes more and more tenuous......and the deviation from historically repeated patterns begins to vanish - in spite of cleverly formulated graphs.

your bafflegab continues! And, of course, you revert to your nothingness... your standard fall-back "cyclical natural factors". At least this time you didn't specifically mention your 30-year cycle nonsense - you know, the/your thing that's been punted several times now through an assortment of past MLW threads. Will you be bringing Easterbrook back for another tour?

what natural factors? Name them... name those natural factors? Specifically name them... and provide the forcing factor they contribute to warming. Climate change does not "just happen". Internal variability does not cause climate change... but natural forcings do. Again, come out from behind your cop-out "natural factors". Specifically name what natural factors you attribute the relatively recent warming to. Name them. Name your alternative to CO2 as the principal causal tie to warming. Just name it/them. Don't just cop-out with your "natural factors". Name them... and be prepared to state exactly how they have warmed the earth in the relatively recent period of warming. Don't cop-out, Simple.

being a genuine skeptic is one thing... being a denier for denier sake... is another.

.

Edited February 7, 2014 by waldo

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey, this is exciting. Who knew that NOAA stuff from the 'denier nation' and the XBTs we took for granted during ASW operations would figure so prominently in gnarly climate change arguments years later. Makes me feel kinda..special.

[waldo]

Hey, this is exciting. Who knew that NOAA stuff from the 'denier nation' and the XBTs we took for granted during ASW operations would figure so prominently in gnarly climate change arguments years later. Makes me feel kinda..special.

oh, that's right... I almost forgot your 'war tales' where you were a swabbie dropping your mop to occasionally measure temps... in between the times you held the world in your hand's nu-cu-lar controls!

[bush_cheney2004]

oh, that's right... I almost forgot your 'war tales' where you were a swabbie dropping your mop to occasionally measure temps... in between the times you held the world in your hand's nu-cu-lar controls!

Well if I had known then that hunting Commies under the high seas would ultimately help to save the planet from climate change doom, I would have autographed them for you: "To my greatest fan....BC2004".

[waldo]

thank you for your (climate change) service! Hooyah!

[Keepitsimple]

thank you for your (climate change) service! Hooyah!

One last question before you go Waldo. In citing all your precision measurements and longer term "proof" of Ocean warming, lets go back to one of my original points. Why did Kevin Trenberth - in 2009 - say that it was a travesty that the extra heat could not be accounted for? Only 5 years ago Waldo - buttressing my point that there's still much to learn......but you seem so very positive about everything - no room for any doubt....no room for...can I say it....skepticism? From your own go-to Skeptical Science website - in their own words:

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

Edited February 8, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[waldo]

your bafflegab continues! And, of course, you revert to your nothingness... your standard fall-back "cyclical natural factors". At least this time you didn't specifically mention your 30-year cycle nonsense - you know, the/your thing that's been punted several times now through an assortment of past MLW threads. Will you be bringing Easterbrook back for another tour?

what natural factors? Name them... name those natural factors? Specifically name them... and provide the forcing factor they contribute to warming. Climate change does not "just happen". Internal variability does not cause climate change... but natural forcings do. Again, come out from behind your cop-out "natural factors". Specifically name what natural factors you attribute the relatively recent warming to. Name them. Name your alternative to CO2 as the principal causal tie to warming. Just name it/them. Don't just cop-out with your "natural factors". Name them... and be prepared to state exactly how they have warmed the earth in the relatively recent period of warming. Don't cop-out, Simple.

being a genuine skeptic is one thing... being a denier for denier sake... is another.

One last question before you go Waldo.

Simple, why would you quote what you did and reply to that? I've re-quoted the post you're avoiding... the post you should be responding to. As I said, your bafflegab continues! What's it like to be a denier... for denier's sake?

.

[waldo]

why did Kevin Trenberth - in 2009 - say that it was a travesty that the extra heat could not be accounted for? Only 5 years ago Waldo - buttressing my point that there's still much to learn......but you seem so very positive about everything - no room for any doubt....no room for...can I say it....skepticism? From your own go-to Skeptical Science website - in their own words:

that hackergate email has been discussed at length in earlier MLW threads... aside from the line-by-line anal parsing of that email... aside from the varying interpretations of that email, you're now going to hold that ~5 year old email up as some absolute determiner on certainty. I quoted you the most recent IPCC AR5 Ocean observation related claims/statements. I can most certainly bring you current with what Trenberth's most recent publications are bringing forward... would you like to be spoon fed, Simple? And, of course, he is but just one of the many scientists working in ocean studies... but don't let that get in the way of your ~5 year old email!

[Keepitsimple]

Here's an interesting primer on Ocean Heat for simple people like me. Some interesting facts are presented that let us cut through some of the scientific jargon, theories and formulas and let the average person understand the magnitude of the ocean's capacity to store heat - and why ocean temperatures might not show much response to any warming that might occur:

Because roughly two-thirds of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, we can make a first guess that the main effect of solar energy is to warm the oceans.

The mass of water in the oceans is 280 times larger than the mass of air in the atmosphere and so we can guess that the temperature of the atmosphere is then determined by exchange of heat with the oceans.

However records of ocean temperature are much much poorer. In fact until the turn of the 21st Century – the measurements were really inadequate to detect changes in ocean temperature. The reason is that in order to detect changes one needs to measure the temperature of the entire column of water in the oceans. In lots of places. Over a long period. And one needs to make measurements very accurately.

The reason one needs to measure the ocean temperature accurately is because of the contrasting properties of water and air.

» Water is nearly a thousand times denser than air.

» If you give equal amounts of energy to equal volumes of water and air, then if the air warms by one degree, then the water will warm by the less than one thousandth of a degree.

Link: http://protonsforbreakfast.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/ocean-heat-content-how-do-you-measure-that/

Edited February 22, 2014 by Keepitsimple