Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[whitehall]

Winter is six weeks away and it's snowing a foot of snow in the Rockies. Let us know when palm trees start growing in Fargo.

As soon as you explain to the rest of us why you equate local seasonal weather variations with global climate.

We all live on the same freaking globe. Surfers in California still have to wear wet suits to ward off hypothermia. Where is all the freaking heat? The dirty little secret is that the warmers use selected data and ignore data that doesn't agree with their agenda. They are getting desperate now that global warming is no longer an issue so the numbers have to go up to keep their low information base happy. If a floating thermometer doesn't give the right reading they put one in a different area until they get what they want. There are stories of warming extortionists placing sensors in black top parking lots and calling the readings "typical".

 

[westwall]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

So where's the heat? If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...

 

[Abraham3]

Where's the heat? Are you kidding?

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf

or

Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

or

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521/2013/papers/balmaseda13grl_inpress.pdf



and discussed here:

="http://tcktcktck.org/2013/03/deep...e-that-climate-change-is-accelerating/49174"]

and here:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/oras4-ecmwf-ocean-reanalysis-and-derived-ocean-heat-content

and here:

Hiatus Paper # 2: Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content | Planet3.0

and here:

Climate Change Trends at MIT | The Energy Collective

and here:

New Research Confirms Global Warming Has Accelerated

and here:

How much will sea levels rise in the 21st Century?

Get out much?

 

[Abraham3]

Winter is six weeks away and it's snowing a foot of snow in the Rockies. Let us know when palm trees start growing in Fargo.

As soon as you explain to the rest of us why you equate local seasonal weather variations with global climate.

We all live on the same freaking globe. Surfers in California still have to wear wet suits to ward off hypothermia. Where is all the freaking heat? The dirty little secret is that the warmers use selected data and ignore data that doesn't agree with their agenda. They are getting desperate now that global warming is no longer an issue so the numbers have to go up to keep their low information base happy. If a floating thermometer doesn't give the right reading they put one in a different area until they get what they want. There are stories of warming extortionists placing sensors in black top parking lots and calling the readings "typical".

I hope you aren't thinking that was a meaningful response.

 

[orogenicman]

Winter is six weeks away and it's snowing a foot of snow in the Rockies. Let us know when palm trees start growing in Fargo.

As soon as you explain to the rest of us why you equate local seasonal weather variations with global climate.

We all live on the same freaking globe. Surfers in California still have to wear wet suits to ward off hypothermia. Where is all the freaking heat? The dirty little secret is that the warmers use selected data and ignore data that doesn't agree with their agenda. They are getting desperate now that global warming is no longer an issue so the numbers have to go up to keep their low information base happy. If a floating thermometer doesn't give the right reading they put one in a different area until they get what they want. There are stories of warming extortionists placing sensors in black top parking lots and calling the readings "typical".

So what you are saying is that you too cannot explain why Whitehall equates local seasonal weather variations with global climate. I know, it's a puzzle.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If it's global how can it be limited to the Pacific ocean

 

[polarbear]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

A recent slowdown in global warming has led some skeptics to renew their claims that industrial carbon emissions are not causing a century-long rise in Earth's surface temperatures. But rather than letting humans off the hook, a new study in the leading journal Science adds support to the idea that the oceans are taking up some of the excess heat, at least for the moment. In a reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures in the last 10,000 years, researchers have found that its middle depths have warmed 15 times faster in the last 60 years than they did during apparent natural warming cycles in the previous 10,000.

Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

So where's the heat? If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...

Strange what they call "evidence".
Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence. Another term that appears over and over again in these pseudo science "studies" is "may have been underestimated".
What`s the word "estimated" doing in all these so called scientific studies that claim to be based on evidence such as actual measurements ?
If the oceans warmed up 15 times faster in the past 60 years there is no way this trend could have been hidden from the probes we have been using for now almost 50 years.
They just can`t let go of the hockeystick. If there is no evidence above the surface then it must be in the ocean. If it can`t be found in the oceans then it must be in the depth beyond the reach of our probes.
And the proxy "thermometers" get sillier all the time.
Anything...no matter how absurd, what matters is to keep the dead frog`s legs twitching

 

[orogenicman]

Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000
Read more at: Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 10,000

wow, the evidence just keeps coming in.

So where's the heat? If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...

Strange what they call "evidence".
Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence. Another term that appears over and over again in these pseudo science "studies" is "may have been underestimated".
What`s the word "estimated" doing in all these so called scientific studies that claim to be based on evidence such as actual measurements ?
If the oceans warmed up 15 times faster in the past 60 years there is no way this trend could have been hidden from the probes we have been using for now almost 50 years.
They just can`t let go of the hockeystick. If there is no evidence above the surface then it must be in the ocean. If it can`t be found in the oceans then it must be in the depth beyond the reach of our probes.
And the proxy "thermometers" get sillier all the time.
Anything...no matter how absurd, what matters is to keep the dead frog`s legs twitching

Scientists typically underestimate future scenarios and predictions because they are cautious and, believe it or not, conservative in their estimates when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty. Surely you've heard of what they call in statistics, degrees of freedom, in physics, they have what is called sigma. The first hint of the Higgs was a sigma 3. Further data took that to sigma 4. Sigma 5 is the highest degree of certainty in physics. They use these benchmarks because NOTHING is certain in science. There is nothing unusual about this, nor is there anything unusual about climate scientists qualifying their results. That's what all scientists do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So where's the heat? If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...

Strange what they call "evidence".
Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence. Another term that appears over and over again in these pseudo science "studies" is "may have been underestimated".
What`s the word "estimated" doing in all these so called scientific studies that claim to be based on evidence such as actual measurements ?
If the oceans warmed up 15 times faster in the past 60 years there is no way this trend could have been hidden from the probes we have been using for now almost 50 years.
They just can`t let go of the hockeystick. If there is no evidence above the surface then it must be in the ocean. If it can`t be found in the oceans then it must be in the depth beyond the reach of our probes.
And the proxy "thermometers" get sillier all the time.
Anything...no matter how absurd, what matters is to keep the dead frog`s legs twitching

Scientists typically underestimate future scenarios and predictions because they are cautious and, believe it or not, conservative in their estimates when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty. Surely you've heard of what they call in statistics, degrees of freedom, in physics, they have what is called sigma. The first hint of the Higgs was a sigma 3. Further data took that to sigma 4. Sigma 5 is the highest degree of certainty in physics. They use these benchmarks because NOTHING is certain in science. There is nothing unusual about this, nor is there anything unusual about climate scientists qualifying their results. That's what all scientists do.

You're confusing AGW with science

 

[westwall]

So where's the heat? If they are going to make such an absurd claim they really should be able to back it up with something...

Strange what they call "evidence".
Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence. Another term that appears over and over again in these pseudo science "studies" is "may have been underestimated".
What`s the word "estimated" doing in all these so called scientific studies that claim to be based on evidence such as actual measurements ?
If the oceans warmed up 15 times faster in the past 60 years there is no way this trend could have been hidden from the probes we have been using for now almost 50 years.
They just can`t let go of the hockeystick. If there is no evidence above the surface then it must be in the ocean. If it can`t be found in the oceans then it must be in the depth beyond the reach of our probes.
And the proxy "thermometers" get sillier all the time.
Anything...no matter how absurd, what matters is to keep the dead frog`s legs twitching

Scientists typically underestimate future scenarios and predictions because they are cautious and, believe it or not, conservative in their estimates when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty. Surely you've heard of what they call in statistics, degrees of freedom, in physics, they have what is called sigma. The first hint of the Higgs was a sigma 3. Further data took that to sigma 4. Sigma 5 is the highest degree of certainty in physics. They use these benchmarks because NOTHING is certain in science. There is nothing unusual about this, nor is there anything unusual about climate scientists qualifying their results. That's what all scientists do.

Not climatologists. They make wild claims unsupported by fact and expect you to give them all your cash.

 

[orogenicman]

Strange what they call "evidence".
Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence. Another term that appears over and over again in these pseudo science "studies" is "may have been underestimated".
What`s the word "estimated" doing in all these so called scientific studies that claim to be based on evidence such as actual measurements ?
If the oceans warmed up 15 times faster in the past 60 years there is no way this trend could have been hidden from the probes we have been using for now almost 50 years.
They just can`t let go of the hockeystick. If there is no evidence above the surface then it must be in the ocean. If it can`t be found in the oceans then it must be in the depth beyond the reach of our probes.
And the proxy "thermometers" get sillier all the time.
Anything...no matter how absurd, what matters is to keep the dead frog`s legs twitching

Scientists typically underestimate future scenarios and predictions because they are cautious and, believe it or not, conservative in their estimates when there is a relatively high degree of uncertainty. Surely you've heard of what they call in statistics, degrees of freedom, in physics, they have what is called sigma. The first hint of the Higgs was a sigma 3. Further data took that to sigma 4. Sigma 5 is the highest degree of certainty in physics. They use these benchmarks because NOTHING is certain in science. There is nothing unusual about this, nor is there anything unusual about climate scientists qualifying their results. That's what all scientists do.

Not climatologists. They make wild claims unsupported by fact and expect you to give them all your cash.

That's an odd accusation, as no climate scientist has ever asked me or, I suspect, anyone I know, for money. But I suspect that you say that because your denier buddies may have had grant applications denied. Perhaps your guys ought to get the science right BEFORE they apply for the grant money.

 

[polarbear]

Well, if those 10,000 yr mud samples from the Pacific can FIND 0.18degC and do THAT with 60 years of TIME RESOLUTION ---- I'll eat the sediment core sample..

Let's see --- did they survey the ENTIRE OCEAN VOLUME?
--- do they have a proxy as accurate as THOUSANDS of autonomous buoy recorders at all depths?

C'mon.. Let's get a REAL PAPER on the NEW data from BTK before we launch into all this mudbug stuff..

Do you want relish with that?

I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs...

Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...

Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":

Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
Based on error analysis of the calibration data and this validation test, we show that the uncertainty of reconstructing bottom water temperature and salinity from paired Mg/Ca and δ18O measurements of H. balthica is better than ±0.7°C and ±0.69 practical salinity scale, respectively. The small uncertainties allow for the reconstruction of seawater density to better than 0.3σθ units, which is precise enough for the identification of specific water masses and reconstruction of changes in their properties. We propose that the relatively high Mg content and temperature sensitivity of H. balthica might be due to minor, biologically mediated contribution of high-Mg calcite to the primarily low Mg calcite test, which is influenced by the ambient temperature. This hypothesis, if correct, suggests that benthic species with relatively high Mg/Ca may be better suited for deepwater temperature reconstructions than species that have thus far been more commonly used.

So all we got is yet again an unproven hypothesis and the margin of error is 7 times higher than the increment "measured" with this method.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you want relish with that?

I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs...

Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...

Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":

Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
Based on error analysis of the calibration data and this validation test, we show that the uncertainty of reconstructing bottom water temperature and salinity from paired Mg/Ca and δ18O measurements of H. balthica is better than ±0.7°C and ±0.69 practical salinity scale, respectively. The small uncertainties allow for the reconstruction of seawater density to better than 0.3σθ units, which is precise enough for the identification of specific water masses and reconstruction of changes in their properties. We propose that the relatively high Mg content and temperature sensitivity of H. balthica might be due to minor, biologically mediated contribution of high-Mg calcite to the primarily low Mg calcite test, which is influenced by the ambient temperature. This hypothesis, if correct, suggests that benthic species with relatively high Mg/Ca may be better suited for deepwater temperature reconstructions than species that have thus far been more commonly used.

So all we got is yet again an unproven hypothesis and the margin of error is 7 times higher than the increment "measured" with this method.

That is what's on the menu here. It kinda stretches the credulity of "empirical evidence".

You would THINK that any proxy like that can only be validated against ONE TRUE observation. Which is the modern temperature record.. If the mudbug's shells predict the last 100 yrs of VERIFIED temperatures ---- you have ONE empirical observation.

HOWEVER -- you can get MANY OTHER empirical looks at the truth data if you can find that mudbug shell somewhere else in either warmer or colder waters AND you have a valid truth table of OBSERVED temps for that different area.

The MAJOR problem you run into with ANY EMPIRICAL VALIDATION is the temporal resolution.. The modern TRUTH data in temperatures for mid or deep oceans is WAY shorter than the real time resolution of proxy. You will NEVER KNOW exactly how accurate the proxy really is if it came from a few looks at sediment cores..

I'm sure you COULD validate that way.. At least thru the natural habitat range of that one specie. So why isn't that DONE BEFORE we launch into sweeping generalizations about finding "hidden heat" in the mid-oceans? Or making news with wild ass pronouncements of how "unprecendented" this false crisis really is?

 

[flacaltenn]

I assumed it came from the paper we are discussing in this thread's OP..

Why don't you check there ---BEFORE you try to accuse?

 

[orogenicman]

Do you want relish with that?

I stipulate that I get to decide on how to prepare it and the rate of consumption.. I'm thinking lemon, garlic, butter with some herbs...

Probably pretty healthy dietary supplement... But this is not gonna happen...

Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":

Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
Based on error analysis of the calibration data and this validation test, we show that the uncertainty of reconstructing bottom water temperature and salinity from paired Mg/Ca and δ18O measurements of H. balthica is better than ±0.7°C and ±0.69 practical salinity scale, respectively. The small uncertainties allow for the reconstruction of seawater density to better than 0.3σθ units, which is precise enough for the identification of specific water masses and reconstruction of changes in their properties. We propose that the relatively high Mg content and temperature sensitivity of H. balthica might be due to minor, biologically mediated contribution of high-Mg calcite to the primarily low Mg calcite test, which is influenced by the ambient temperature. This hypothesis, if correct, suggests that benthic species with relatively high Mg/Ca may be better suited for deepwater temperature reconstructions than species that have thus far been more commonly used.

So all we got is yet again an unproven hypothesis and the margin of error is 7 times higher than the increment "measured" with this method.

So, did you pull that quote from thin air, your own arse, or a bona fide peer reviewed science paper? Hard to tell since you didn't provide a source.

 

[orogenicman]

I assumed it came from the paper we are discussing in this thread's OP..

Why don't you check there ---BEFORE you try to accuse?

I have a better idea. Ursa the dick can cite his source(s) like everyone else instead of insisting that others go searching to them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Big chunks of Hawaii have slid off into the ocean in the past. I watched part of a documentary that showed huge part of the main island that looks like giant stairs. Its where big sections are moving toward the ocean at 4" every year. They were explaining that global climate change is a causative factor in the movement speeding up.

Worst case scenario isn't just that sections of the islands would disappear. Its that these sections are as large as Connecticut and would cause a tsunami that would pretty much wipe out much of the west coast. One scientist said it could be 300' feet high or higher.

 

[Abraham3]

Since when does "may have", "most agree ...that probably has been.." etc qualify as evidence.

Since Francis Bacon and the birth of the natural sciences.

 

[Abraham3]

Not climatologists. They make wild claims unsupported by fact and expect you to give them all your cash.

Funny that you and P Bear have diametrically opposed observations of the exact same document.

 

[Abraham3]

Here is the deal we are supposed to "eat":

Temperature calibration of Mg/Ca ratios in the intermediate water benthic foraminifer Hyalinea balthica
Based on error analysis of the calibration data and this validation test, we show that the uncertainty of reconstructing bottom water temperature and salinity from paired Mg/Ca and δ18O measurements of H. balthica is better than ±0.7°C and ±0.69 practical salinity scale, respectively. The small uncertainties allow for the reconstruction of seawater density to better than 0.3σθ units, which is precise enough for the identification of specific water masses and reconstruction of changes in their properties. We propose that the relatively high Mg content and temperature sensitivity of H. balthica might be due to minor, biologically mediated contribution of high-Mg calcite to the primarily low Mg calcite test, which is influenced by the ambient temperature. This hypothesis, if correct, suggests that benthic species with relatively high Mg/Ca may be better suited for deepwater temperature reconstructions than species that have thus far been more commonly used.

So all we got is yet again an unproven hypothesis and the margin of error is 7 times higher than the increment "measured" with this method.

What we have here is an unattributed quote. It did NOT come from the article to which the lead posts links. Where DID it come from? No telling. So... for now, this is worthless bullshit.