Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997, study finds

[Billy_Bob]

The Journal of Nature..

Peter J Glecker Et Al.

Seth Bornstien writes from a position of ignorance about the paper. The paper as I stated above is crap.. IT is a hodgepodge of SKS graphs and wild ass assumptions based on models which have shown NO PREDICTIVE POWERS.

The Journal of Nature has again shown me that it is nothing more than a dirty old rag pushing a political agenda..

 

[Two Thumbs]

"Scientist" who are never wrong, said we were going into an Ice Age.

The majority of scientific papers said the trend was to warming. That you are dumb enough to be sucked in by sensationalist journalists' pieces is no one's fault but your own.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

http://www.skepticalscience.com

​

I learned about this watching NOVA, yaknow, the science show on PBS.

 

[IanC]

So, again, does that make this information incorrect? Neither am I very happy you don't link your sources.

sauce

I havent read the paper but this graph is ludicrous. what is percentage of global ocean heat content change? and why doesnt the graph start at 1872?

here is a graph of SSTs

the range is only about 2F, or 1.2C. Rosenthal 2013 said intermediate depth waters were much warmer 5000 years ago and the MWP was 0.65C warmer than recent decades. the oceans have cooled off and lost tremendous amounts of energy. it's actually a bit scary if true.

 

[IanC]

Ian, why does your graph of OHC from Levitus 2009 look so different of every other graph I can find from Levitus 2009?

this is the first point I would like to make on OHC. the models run ridiculously hot. the graph above is wrong. the model trend line and the observation trend line do not intersect, the model is already higher in 2003 and has diverged wildly ever since.

This last one directly from the Levitus paper at Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems - Levitus - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So... why is that Ian?

I gave crick a chance to reexamine his post and he chose not to.

his first graph-

crick decided to put up a chart that ends at the same time that mine starts, and then asks me why they dont look similar. how fucking stupid is that?

his second and third charts are essentially the same but at least they contain part of the ARGO era data that makes up my graph. does it look similar? yes. is it exactly the same over the same years? no. why? because my chart is done in three month data points and his is done in yearly data points.

I told you before crick. any time you are confused about what I have presented, that is a clue to go back and reinvestigate what I have said. I am not always right but when it comes to reading graphs you are commonly wrong, due to your lack of basic understanding.

 

[Crick]

Poor crick is having another graph reading moment.

How about you give us a link to your graphic in Levitus 2009? I want to see your data to 2011 coming out of Levitus 2009. I really do Ian.

 

[IanC]

Poor crick is having another graph reading moment.

How about you give us a link to your graphic in Levitus 2009? I want to see data to 2011 coming out of Levitus 2009. I really do Ian.

you want the citation from L09 that they used ARGO data? why dont you show me that they didnt first.

 

[IanC]

hey crick- any reason why you posted up a graph with NO overlap to rebut my graph? i'd be interested to understand your thinking.

 

[Crick]

I posted the data - the actual graphics - from Levitus 2009. You put up a graph that shows a continuous line to 2011, that from my reading does NOT appear in Levitus 2009 and labeled it Levitus 2009. If you have a reasonable explanation for that, I'm ready to hear it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

you know the flat earthers believe in global warming

All the government agencies of the US, the DoD, the Pentagon, the vast majority of the governments of the world, flat earthers every one. Still, a handful of plucky scientists funded by petroleum dollars will save us.

Hallelujah, brothers.

Hey you forgot the climate scientist at the American pediatracs association and trout fishermen of America.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997, study finds

January 18, 2016 by By Seth Borenstein

The amount of man-made heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997, a new study says.

Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world's oceans instead of the ground. And they've seen ocean heat content rise in recent years. But the new study, using ocean-observing data that goes back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s and including high-tech modern underwater monitors and computer models, tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-01-man-made-oceans.html#jCp


Confirming what the warmers have been saying for the past half 2/3rds of a decade. The oceans are taking most of the energy!!!

Lets look at Seth's paper for a moment..

HE provides no evidence for his mathematical models output. NO verification was done. The model has not been tested by others and his work can not be replicated.

HE changes the spatial resolution in his graphing just like Mann did where the end of the graph is in 5 year incremental averages while the majority of the graph is in 1,000 year averages. The old Michale Mann parlor trick to CREATE A HOCKEY STICK where NONE IS PRESENT....

This paper has the horse shit smell... I am going to dig deeper but just a cursory look tells me its crap.. And he used the ADJUSTED data from NOAA...

What has happened to real scientists, using real data,producing their work-data-math and being accountable for their work? And of course the lame stream media sucks up the crap and spreads it like the dutiful morons they are.. No ethics or integrity anywhere to be seen...

They used the "Because we say so" Method" I first noticed it in the Scarfetta paper assigning only 30% of the credit for the warming to that Big Yellow thing in the Sky. What was their methodology? Right! Because we say so!

 

[Crick]

Why don't you two go find a quite room so you can commune together without bothering the grownups? There's some good boys...

 

[jon_berzerk]

you know the flat earthers believe in global warming

All the government agencies of the US, the DoD, the Pentagon, the vast majority of the governments of the world, flat earthers every one. Still, a handful of plucky scientists funded by petroleum dollars will save us.

Hallelujah, brothers.

what are you talking about the same folks who get the "petro dollars" are gunna get the "alternative dollars " as well

check it out some time

 

[Wyatt earp]

Why don't you two go find a quite room so you can commune together without bothering the grownups? There's some good boys...

Ahhh upset crick your dumb ass NASA list is full of holes?

 

[skookerasbil]

Dang.....these AGW people tend to be bomb throwers but the OP.......this guy has to lob a Fat Man every week in here!!!

"Man made" heat in oceans!!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Man-made heat put in oceans has doubled since 1997, study finds

January 18, 2016 by By Seth Borenstein

The amount of man-made heat energy absorbed by the seas has doubled since 1997, a new study says.

Scientists have long known that more than 90 percent of the heat energy from man-made global warming goes into the world's oceans instead of the ground. And they've seen ocean heat content rise in recent years. But the new study, using ocean-observing data that goes back to the British research ship Challenger in the 1870s and including high-tech modern underwater monitors and computer models, tracked how much man-made heat has been buried in the oceans in the past 150 years.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-01-man-made-oceans.html#jCp


Confirming what the warmers have been saying for the past half 2/3rds of a decade. The oceans are taking most of the energy!!!

Lets look at Seth's paper for a moment..

HE provides no evidence for his mathematical models output. NO verification was done. The model has not been tested by others and his work can not be replicated.

HE changes the spatial resolution in his graphing just like Mann did where the end of the graph is in 5 year incremental averages while the majority of the graph is in 1,000 year averages. The old Michale Mann parlor trick to CREATE A HOCKEY STICK where NONE IS PRESENT....

This paper has the horse shit smell... I am going to dig deeper but just a cursory look tells me its crap.. And he used the ADJUSTED data from NOAA...

What has happened to real scientists, using real data,producing their work-data-math and being accountable for their work? And of course the lame stream media sucks up the crap and spreads it like the dutiful morons they are.. No ethics or integrity anywhere to be seen...

They used the "Because we say so" Method" I first noticed it in the Scarfetta paper assigning only 30% of the credit for the warming to that Big Yellow thing in the Sky. What was their methodology? Right! Because we say so!

for those in the religion of man made global warming

the "because we said so " doctrine is acceptable

mainly because that is all they have

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How else can they make it the Pause disappear?

They could say the Sun, Moon or Mars absorbed it and the 2+2=5 AGWCult would readily believe it

But but But Frank I thought the science was settled?

Oh, it's settled. They settled on hiding the decline, fudging the data, getting caught with their thumb on the scale. Can you imagine if Bernie Madoff told his investors, sure you have hockey stick returns! I put all your money in the deep ocean

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian, why does your graph of OHC from Levitus 2009 look so different of every other graph I can find from Levitus 2009?

this is the first point I would like to make on OHC. the models run ridiculously hot. the graph above is wrong. the model trend line and the observation trend line do not intersect, the model is already higher in 2003 and has diverged wildly ever since.

This last one directly from the Levitus paper at Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems - Levitus - 2009 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

So... why is that Ian?

I gave crick a chance to reexamine his post and he chose not to.

his first graph-

crick decided to put up a chart that ends at the same time that mine starts, and then asks me why they dont look similar. how fucking stupid is that?

his second and third charts are essentially the same but at least they contain part of the ARGO era data that makes up my graph. does it look similar? yes. is it exactly the same over the same years? no. why? because my chart is done in three month data points and his is done in yearly data points.

I told you before crick. any time you are confused about what I have presented, that is a clue to go back and reinvestigate what I have said. I am not always right but when it comes to reading graphs you are commonly wrong, due to your lack of basic understanding.

I give Crick (carbon) credit for finally posting a chart with a temperature axis. To date, they've still never shown exactly how a deminimus increase in an atmospheric trace element raises temperature. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[IanC]

I posted the data - the actual graphics - from Levitus 2009. You put up a graph that shows a continuous line to 2011, that from my reading does NOT appear in Levitus 2009 and labeled it Levitus 2009. If you have a reasonable explanation for that, I'm ready to hear it.

thanks for sending me on an interesting excursion. first off, my apologies for letting you confuse me in the first place. you said my graph was from L09 and I reacted as if it was. my only excuse...no, forget about excuses. It was my fault, I should have just read the caption on the graph. it says ARGO era NODC OHC anomalies - Lev09. the graph is based on NODC ARGO data with the L09 corrections in place.

the differences.

I hope the poo flinging monkey doesnt see this, as the ARGO data was definitely shifted down. I dont have a feel for the x axis units but it is still cooler than before. of course that also means the OHC is farther away from the climate model mean. give some, get some. at least I learned something today.

edit-

DATASET INTRODUCTION
The NODC OHC dataset is based on the Levitus et al (2009) paper “Global ocean heat content(1955-2008) in light of recent instrumentation problems”, Geophysical Research Letters. Refer to Manuscript. It was revised in 2010 as noted in the October 18, 2010 postUpdate And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data. As described in the NODC’sexplanation of ocean heat content (OHC) data changes, the changes result from “data additions and data quality control,” from a switch in base climatology, and from revised Expendable Bathythermograph (XBT) bias calculations.

 

[Wyatt earp]

How else can they make it the Pause disappear?

They could say the Sun, Moon or Mars absorbed it and the 2+2=5 AGWCult would readily believe it

But but But Frank I thought the science was settled?

Oh, it's settled. They settled on hiding the decline, fudging the data, getting caught with their thumb on the scale. Can you imagine if Bernie Madoff told his investors, sure you have hockey stick returns! I put all your money in the deep ocean

Don't forget the breaking news from the AGW cult


Breaking news: From the AGW cult church!!!!


Also, the satellite data does not stretch back as far as 1880

 

[80zephyr]

"Scientist" who are never wrong, said we were going into an Ice Age.

The majority of scientific papers said the trend was to warming. That you are dumb enough to be sucked in by sensationalist journalists' pieces is no one's fault but your own.

What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?

http://www.skepticalscience.com

​

You posted:

That you are dumb enough to be sucked in by sensationalist journalists' pieces is no one's fault but your own.

Hmmm. Do you know what the National Science Board is?

Here, let me help:

National Science Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you know what they were saying in the 1970's?

Global cooling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, it wasn't journalist's pieces that were sensationalist. It was the governments own science board.

Mark

What is it with rightards?

1972 and 1974 National Science Board

wiki/Global_cooling

The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."[34] But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[34]​

What is your point? The question was whether science was predicting global cooling in the 1970's. Anyone that says they weren't is LYING.
That they said it "might" change is irrelevant to the point being made.

Mark