Ocean Temperature And Heat Content

[snip]
• The temperature was roughly flat from 1993-1998. Then it increased by about one tenth of a degree in the next five years to 2003, and has been about flat since then.

Originally Posted by aggrotologist

Here is a nice easy piece about ocean warming and the report.

Try something less "easy" for a change.

The kind of mythical garbage skeptical seance likes to print:

Ocean-Heat-Content-Based Model By German Scientists Shows Continued Global Cooling Ahead

A Look At Global Mean Temperatures in 2013: Cooling Ahead!
By Fritz Vahrenholt, Frank Bosse
(Translated with permission by P Gosselin)
“Global Warming Is Taking A Break“ – that was the title of an article at the online Hamburger Abendblatt on 4 January 2013. And that’s hard to miss when you look at the latest global temperature chart:

Red and green: temperature; blue: CO2.

This of course demands an explanation, which is provided by Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg: It’s because of ocean currents, and this is indeed included in IPCC models. But something is wrong, and also Marotzke can’t get around it when he tried to explain the temperature stagnation in the interview with the Abendblatt:

“In such periods, the heat is taken in more strongly by the deep oceans. We still cannot explain why this is so.” Scientists have reason to suspect that heat is taken from the surface to the bottom in the southern oceans.“

The circulation in the world’s oceans is ...

Originally Posted by Steve Case

The IPCC's AR4 told us in Chapter five that the oceans warmed 0.1°C
over a forty year stretch. Oh my! And after Dr. Josh Willis "Corrected"
the ARGO float data the oceans are now showing warming.

OK, let's say the oceans are a tenth of a degree warmer than they were
in 1960. How much is that tenth of a degree going to warm things up?
No more than a tenth of a degree, that's how much.

In the end, Steve, temperature is just an indicator of the energy distribution of the constituent molecules of matter. It is the energy that counts, and a 0.1C+ rise in the vast, cool, liquid oceans represents a hell of a lot of energy absorbed .. energy that will come back to haunt us.



But you are not the only one who can make Excel charts.



BTW, your iteration of "They're lying!" every time you are refuted is quite pathetic. Not a very scientific rebuttal, don't you think? But science is not your strong suit, given you think they are all plotting against the American Way of Life.

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_A...h_seasonal.csv

Originally Posted by Earthling

Try something less "easy" for a change.

Sorry, earthworm. Nowhere in the scientific literature are things dumbed down enough for you. You just might find something at Watts or Climateaudit - if you can sort out fact from fiction.

Originally Posted by Earthling

Ocean-Heat-Content-Based Model By German Scientists Shows Continued Global Cooling Ahead

A Look At Global Mean Temperatures in 2013: Cooling Ahead!
By Fritz Vahrenholt, Frank Bosse
(Translated with permission by P Gosselin)
“Global Warming Is Taking A Break“ – that was the title of an article at the online Hamburger Abendblatt on 4 January 2013. And that’s hard to miss when you look at the latest global temperature chart:

Red and green: temperature; blue: CO2.

This of course demands an explanation, which is provided by Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg: It’s because of ocean currents, and this is indeed included in IPCC models. But something is wrong, and also Marotzke can’t get around it when he tried to explain the temperature stagnation in the interview with the Abendblatt:

“In such periods, the heat is taken in more strongly by the deep oceans. We still cannot explain why this is so.” Scientists have reason to suspect that heat is taken from the surface to the bottom in the southern oceans.“

The circulation in the world’s oceans is ...

Have you forgotten already, earthworm, that they are not scientists? You have been shown that a couple of times. And dredging something from Gosselin is getting almost as low in the barrel as it is possible to reach.

Their lying about Marotzky does not help their paper thin case.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

In the end, Steve, temperature is just an indicator of the energy distribution of the constituent molecules of matter. It is the energy that counts, and a 0.1C+ rise in the vast, cool, liquid oceans represents a hell of a lot of energy absorbed .. energy that will come back to haunt us.



But you are not the only one who can make Excel charts.



BTW, your iteration of "They're lying!" every time you are refuted is quite pathetic. Not a very scientific rebuttal, don't you think? But science is not your strong suit, given you think they are all plotting against the American Way of Life.

http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_A...h_seasonal.csv

"Water has many interesting and unique properties. One of these is a very high specific heat. The only known substance with a higher specific heat is ammonia. This is largely the result of strong attractive forces between molecules, known as hydrogen bonding. At room temperature the specific heat of water is 4.1813 JgK, and air is 1.012 JgK. This about 4.13 higher. Since we saw that specific heat is multiplied by mass, and the mass is also much higher for the same volume, we can look at the combined specific heat times mass of water vs air. This combined product is about 3366 times higher for water than for air." [*]

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

Have you forgotten already, earthworm, that they are not scientists? You have been shown that a couple of times. And dredging something from Gosselin is getting almost as low in the barrel as it is possible to reach.

Their lying about Marotzky does not help their paper thin case.

My god, it is wierd to see deniers still pushing that ould shyte by Vahrenholt and his buddy.

A tired Australian journalist, just tired of the pure BS he was being sent by deniers sent a reply to one of them who had sent him a lengthy report. It is worth keeping to use again and again.

In considering your request that I identify errors in the report you sent to me – CSIROh! Climate of Deception? Or First Step to Freedom? – I find myself confronting an unusual problem: how does one critically analyse a pile of horse ************************?

You can find it in full here: Climate change, the New World Order and spam-weary journalists « Graham Readfearn

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

Have you forgotten already, earthworm, that they are not scientists? You have been shown that a couple of times. And dredging something from Gosselin is getting almost as low in the barrel as it is possible to reach.

Their lying about Marotzky does not help their paper thin case.

And the Hamburger Abendblatt seems to be their scientific journal with peer-review...