Its official 17 years of no warming in RSS data

[gwb-trading]

Quote from Ricter:

Your problem is, it's not even true. Gwb and I had this discussion. The heating is in the ocean. The rate is low, but it is steady; it has not paused during this 17 years.

You are forgetting the part about that the rate of ocean heating is so low that it is insignificant. The actual observed ocean temperature increase since 1960 is 0.06 °Celsius - which is less than the instrument error.

The climate change cabal has tried to claim that more heat was hiding in the 700m to 2000m ocean layer as an explanation why measured global temperatures have not been rising for 16 years - this has proven not to be true.

 

[futurecurrents]

Jem is the shop owner in this sketch.....

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/4vuW6tQ0218" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

You are forgetting the part about that the rate of ocean heating is so low that it is insignificant. The actual observed ocean temperature increase since 1960 is 0.06 °Celsius - which is less than the instrument error.

The climate change cabal has tried to claim that more heat was hiding in the 700m to 2000m ocean layer as an explanation why measured global temperatures have not been rising for 16 years - this has proven not to be true.

Of course the ocean warming is significant. What a stupid thing to say.

It's especially significant because it represents 94% of the earth's heat.

I suggest you start looking at authoritative sites for your information, like NOAA.

This is from NOAA. Maybe you have heard of it?

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Of course the ocean warming is significant. What a stupid thing to say.

It's especially significant because it represents 94% of the earth's heat.

I suggest you start looking at authoritative sites for your information, like NOAA.

This is from NOAA. Maybe you have heard of it?

I have already educated you on this. It is shameful that I need to do it again.

Generating a big scary chart in yottajoules is meaningless. The proper way to evaluate the heat in the ocean is temperature.

Let's provide the background again, the yottajoule (YJ) is equal to one septillion (10^24) joules. This is approximately the amount of energy required to heat the entire volume of water on Earth by 1 °Celsius.

The axis scale of your chart is in 10^22 joules. The chart demonstrates an increase of under 0.17 yottajoules - worst case over time. This would represent a temperature incease of 0.17 °Celsius. (which has not happened - so your chart is a fabrication and false projection).

The actual observed ocean temperature increase since 1960 is 0.06 °Celsius - which is less than the instrument error, and much less than the proposed models or your chart.

The climate change cabal has tried to claim that more heat was hiding in the 700m to 2000m ocean layer as an explanation why measured global temperatures have not been rising for 16 years - this has proven not to be true.

Why don't you plot your chart using temperature as a scale on the axis. Looks far less scary and alarmist. You can go to the ARGO website to generate graphs of actual data.

 

[jem]

1. the models have failed. They predicted that when co2 doubles the earth air temps go up a significant amount... varying a bit with each model.

2. co2 doubled... temperatures did not rise.

3. therefore the models have failed.
in fact they are now falling outside the 95% confidence levels.

4. My point to ricter is that the models made no predictions about ocean warming or cooling and co2.

If you want to bring ocean warming into the picture... develop the model. Of course its very hard...

All the studies and the science are currently pointing to the fact the sun and volcanoes warm the oceans and then co2 gets released. And that at some ghcs actually cool the planet... like most aerosols.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Now you are just babbling. Stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

The models are still valid. They need to be improved to include oceanic influence. A difficult thing.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

I have already educated you on this. It is shameful that I need to do it again.

Generating a big scary chart in yottajoules is meaningless. The proper way to evaluate the heat in the ocean is temperature.

Let's provide the background again, the yottajoule (YJ) is equal to one septillion (10^24) joules. This is approximately the amount of energy required to heat the entire volume of water on Earth by 1 °Celsius.

The axis scale of your chart is in 10^22 joules. The chart demonstrates an increase of under 0.17 yottajoules - worst case over time. This would represent a temperature incease of 0.17 °Celsius. (which has not happened - so your chart is a fabrication and false projection).

The actual observed ocean temperature increase since 1960 is 0.06 °Celsius - which is less than the instrument error, and much less than the proposed models or your chart.

The climate change cabal has tried to claim that more heat was hiding in the 700m to 2000m ocean layer as an explanation why measured global temperatures have not been rising for 16 years - this has proven not to be true.

Why don't you plot your chart using temperature as a scale on the axis. Looks far less scary and alarmist. You can go to the ARGO website to generate graphs of actual data.

Yes you were wrong then and you're wrong now. Of course joules are meaningful. They are more meaningful than temperature only because it includes the larger mass of rising seas along with the rising temp. It measure specific heat. This is baby stuff.

Your pathetic attempt to "educate" is just that. Pathetic.

The Y axis should be sized to show the data. That's just good practice. Why don't you use a larger scale Y axis so the heat rise becomes totally invisible? That would suit your deceptive agenda better.

 

[jem]

http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

Storch: So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.

SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?

Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from gwb-trading:

You are forgetting the part about that the rate of ocean heating is so low that it is insignificant. The actual observed ocean temperature increase since 1960 is 0.06 °Celsius - which is less than the instrument error.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Yes you were wrong then and you're wrong now. Of course joules are meaningful. They are more meaningful than temperature only because it includes the larger mass of rising seas along with the rising temp. It measure specific heat. This is baby stuff.

Your pathetic attempt to "educate" is just that. Pathetic.

The Y axis should be sized to show the data. That's just good practice. Why don't you use a larger scale Y axis so the heat rise becomes totally invisible? That would suit your deceptive agenda better.

Why doesn't your chart show the axis in yottajoules (YJ) (10^24 joules) which is the accepted practice rather than using 10^22 joules as the Y axis to create a big, scary chart. Especially when your projected specific heat is an estimate and not measured data. Temperature is measured data. Of course your estimate is three times the actual observed temperature result - as with everything else put out by global warming alarmists.

Why don't we plot ocean temperature over several thousand years. There are several periods (including the MWP) where the ocean temperature was at least 0.7 degrees C greater than it was today based on the work from multiple scientists.

The one degree axis is quite appropriate to show that ocean warming is insignificant and less than the instrument error.

Is earth as we know going to end because the ocean warmed 0.06 degrees C over 50 years? The answer is clearly NO - especially when the ocean temperature in the Medieval Warming Period was believed to have been 0.3 to 0.7 degrees higher than today.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

1. the models have failed. They predicted that when co2 doubles the earth air temps go up a significant amount... varying a bit with each model.

2. co2 doubled... temperatures did not rise.

3. therefore the models have failed.
in fact they are now falling outside the 95% confidence levels.

4. My point to ricter is that the models made no predictions about ocean warming or cooling and co2.

If you want to bring ocean warming into the picture... develop the model. Of course its very hard...

All the studies and the science are currently pointing to the fact the sun and volcanoes warm the oceans and then co2 gets released. And that at some ghcs actually cool the planet... like most aerosols.

1. The models have not failed.

2. CO2 has gone up and so has temperature, giving empirical evidence that CO2 raises temps.

3 The models have not failed. The term "fail" is fairly meaningless.

4. Yes. The sun warms the earth and as the earth warms it releases CO2. Unless the CO2 suddenly increases from external sources like fossil fuels. Then the oceans absorb CO2 even as temps continue to rise. Yes aerosols can cool the planet.

So what?

I think you need to look at this chart again.....here's more of that science that you can't see for some reason.