Humanity is causing Global Warming, for sure.

[CavLancer]

If you look at that graph all the little warming there is occurred 10-20 years ago. In the last 10 there has been a tiny drop in temps. I look at it as the top of an arc. We are at the top of temps and now trending down slightly. Solar cycle 25 is the cliff we'll fall off.

 

[classical_hero]

It must be hard for Americans to know what a major hurricane feels like with such a big pause in them affecting the US. There hasn't been a major hurricane (cat 3 or higher) to hit for the longest time period in the recorded history of hurricanes, which started about 1900. See, global warming has it's upside.

 

[peter grimes]

It would really help if you could remember to post a source for such claims. Unless, of course, you're afraid your source is not up to snuff..

 

[CavLancer]

Follow Dale's link and peruse the graph.

 

[Bootstoots]

An interesting analysis of the hiatus from RSS lead scientist Dr Carl Mears. Probably one of the most sensible responses to the hiatus I've read.

The pause is real in the observations. It's the "why" that's important.

http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures

That's a good link - very interesting material there. I don't have time to post more ATM because I'm behind on just about everything I'm supposed to be doing, but I think it's worth a read by everyone here.

@CavLancer - don't just look at the graph, but read the post as well. It doesn't fit your narrative: he absolutely does think that anthropogenic global warming is real and substantial, and there's nothing in there about impending glaciations. But nearly all the models missed the recent large slowdown (not a cooling trend, but a substantial slowdown in the warming trend, outside the range of model variability) that has occurred recently, for a variety of reasons he explains.

 

[CavLancer]

Its okay Boots, I'm also perusing the graph and what he thinks... I read it and we disagree. The graph is the graph, it shows what it shows.

 

[CavLancer]

It must be hard for Americans to know what a major hurricane feels like with such a big pause in them affecting the US. There hasn't been a major hurricane (cat 3 or higher) to hit for the longest time period in the recorded history of hurricanes, which started about 1900. See, global warming has it's upside.

Sure, but the gloom and doom predictions of AGW scientists were just the opposite. We had 4 hurricanes hit all those years ago and it was predicted that this was to be the new norm, and getting worse and worse.

 

[Dale]

It would really help if you could remember to post a source for such claims. Unless, of course, you're afraid your source is not up to snuff..

Last Cat3+ hurricane to landfall the US was Wilma, Oct 2005.

I assume NOAA is an acceptable warmist source for you? http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E23.html

 

[CavLancer]

This is timely...

NASA doesn't believe in deep ocean warming anymore. I guess claiming its there is a lot easier than actually finding it. However it was a fabrication that kept the ball rolling for a few more billions in AGW funding so...

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/octo...th-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VDS9G_ldV48

Spoiler :

October 6, 2014
RELEASE 14-272
NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed
image shows heat radiating from the Pacific Ocean as imaged by the NASA’s Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System
While the upper part of the world’s oceans continue to absorb heat from global warming, ocean depths have not warmed measurably in the last decade. This image shows heat radiating from the Pacific Ocean as imaged by the NASA’s Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System instrument on the Terra satellite. (Blue regions indicate thick cloud cover.)
Image Credit: NASA
Deep sea creatures, like these anemones at a hydrothermal vent
Deep sea creatures, like these anemones at a hydrothermal vent, are not yet feeling the heat from global climate change. Although the top half of the ocean continues to warm, the bottom half has not increased measurably in temperature in the last decade.
Image Credit: NERC
The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.
Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.
"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."
In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans -- above the 1.24-mile mark -- is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.
Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.
"The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure," said JPL's William Llovel, lead author of the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. "The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is -- not much."
The study took advantage of the fact that water expands as it gets warmer. The sea level is rising because of this expansion and the water added by glacier and ice sheet melt.
To arrive at their conclusion, the JPL scientists did a straightforward subtraction calculation, using data for 2005-2013 from the Argo buoys, NASA's Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites, and the agency’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites. From the total amount of sea level rise, they subtracted the amount of rise from the expansion in the upper ocean, and the amount of rise that came from added meltwater. The remainder represented the amount of sea level rise caused by warming in the deep ocean.
The remainder was essentially zero. Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period.
Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.
Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same journal issue on 1970-2005 ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought -- a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.
Both papers result from the work of the newly formed NASA Sea Level Change Team, an interdisciplinary group tasked with using NASA satellite data to improve the accuracy and scale of current and future estimates of sea level change. The Southern Hemisphere paper was led by three scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California.
NASA monitors Earth's vital signs from land, air and space with a fleet of satellites and ambitious airborne and ground-based observation campaigns. NASA develops new ways to observe and study Earth's interconnected natural systems with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. The agency shares this unique knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.

They say that oceans are still rising (More billions please) but just as they can't explain why the Earth isn't warming (Because they're wrong about a great many things) they'll be speechless (I hope) when temps fall further and a lot faster and with them ocean levels because why? Natural, normal, every day cycles which have been going on since forever, that's why.

 

[brennan]

Missing heat in the deep oceans?

Who said anything about the 'deep' oceans? Obvious false equivalence at work. You cannot rebut the fact that the oceans have warmed by repeatedly pointing out that part of the oceans haven't warmed. Please do not repeat this obvious canard. Warming has occurred in the surface waters.

"results estimate the heat content of the ocean in the upper 700 meters has increased significantly from 1955-2010. " - wiki.

"50 million climate refuges by 2010"

According to what climate scientists and research? You have a rather silly looking quote here from a politician.

Climategate

Not even worth mentioning, there was no academic wrongdoing and the entire case for the allegations of academic fraud was based upon a biased layman's reading of a couple of sentences in a huge body of communication.

There hasn't been a major hurricane (cat 3 or higher) to hit for the longest time period in the recorded history of hurricanes

...a below average hurricane system was predicted by NOAA. This hardly rebuts the 'alarmists'.

 

[Kyriakos]

"The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is -- not much."

Uh-huh. "Not much" is of great help there.

 

[brennan]

...and notice there's that reference to the deep ocean again, when it is not the deep ocean that is known to be warming.

Dishonest denialism ftl.

In the last 10 there has been a tiny drop in temps.

Can we see your working please?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.

 

[peter grimes]

It must be hard for Americans to know what a major hurricane feels like with such a big pause in them affecting the US. There hasn't been a major hurricane (cat 3 or higher) to hit for the longest time period in the recorded history of hurricanes, which started about 1900. See, global warming has it's upside.

Hey you're right!

This year’s North American lull can be partially attributed to weak El Niño conditions, which tend to suppress storm activity in the Atlantic. Overall, global tropical cyclone activity is not down as drastically, only about 93 percent of average, driven primarily by a string of especially strong storms between Hawaii and Mexico.

Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...2014_has_produced_very_few_storms_so_far.html

 

[CavLancer]

Okay

 

[Dale]

...and notice there's that reference to the deep ocean again, when it is not the deep ocean that is known to be warming.

Dishonest denialism ftl.

Interesting. For a few years now, whenever a "denialist" says Global Warming Pause FTW! an "alarmist" has come along such as Dr Kevin Trenberth and said It's in the deep ocean.

Now that ARGO shows no OHC rise (0-2000m) since 2005, and this new paper shows no OHC rise (2000m+) for the same period, it joins the atmospheric records showing no change in air temps since 2005.

So basically, since 2005 neither the air nor the ocean nor the surface shows warming as predicted, if any at all. So where the hell is all this missing heat? Until it's found, one must continue to ask.....

Did we get the theory of AGW wrong somewhere?

 

[Truronian]

Did we get the theory of AGW wrong somewhere?

Periods of limited temperature change do not conflict with the theory behind AGW in any way.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Interesting. For a few years now, whenever a "denialist" says Global Warming Pause FTW! an "alarmist" has come along such as Dr Kevin Trenberth and said It's in the deep ocean.

Now that ARGO shows no OHC rise (0-2000m) since 2005, and this new paper shows no OHC rise (2000m+) for the same period, it joins the atmospheric records showing no change in air temps since 2005.

So basically, since 2005 neither the air nor the ocean nor the surface shows warming as predicted, if any at all. So where the hell is all this missing heat? Until it's found, one must continue to ask.....

Did we get the theory of AGW wrong somewhere?

Did you missread the bolded part in the quote?

A quote which I took from an article which I did not post but was used as a gotcha. So for reliability of the source you may address others.

 

[warpus]

There is no "Theory of AWG AGW" as far as I know.

Is there?

 

[peter grimes]

Interesting. For a few years now, whenever a "denialist" says Global Warming Pause FTW! an "alarmist" has come along such as Dr Kevin Trenberth and said It's in the deep ocean.

Now that ARGO shows no OHC rise (0-2000m) since 2005, and this new paper shows no OHC rise (2000m+) for the same period, it joins the atmospheric records showing no change in air temps since 2005.

So basically, since 2005 neither the air nor the ocean nor the surface shows warming as predicted, if any at all. So where the hell is all this missing heat? Until it's found, one must continue to ask.....

Did we get the theory of AGW wrong somewhere?

Now I'm confused again:

The 6-year [2005-2011] trend is calculated using a weighted least square fit and accounts for 0.54±0.1 Wm-2 for the ocean surface, i.e. 0.38±0.1 Wm-2 for the Earth’s surface. However, observed changes of GOHC have significant interannual to decadal variability associated with them, and this could mean that this variability may prevent detection of long-term trends. When time series of oceanic parameters are considered, linear trends are often computed to quantify the observed long-term changes. However, this does not imply that the original signal is best represented by a linear increase in time. To analyze the temporal evolution of GOHC time series is hence an important target to quantify significant interannual to decadal variability to in turn deliver reliable interpretation of global ocean changes.

...For an accurate estimation of GOHC, it is important to include its contributions from the deep ocean which are significant (Purkey and Johnson, 2010; Kouketsu et al., 2011), even if not dominant, and expected to grow with time as the abyssal ocean shifts (Wunsch et al., 2007). Analyses of observational surveys have shown significant deep ocean warming (Fahrbach et al. 2004; Johnson et al., 2007, 2008a, 2008b; Meredith et al., 2008; Böning et al., 2008; Leuliette and Miller, 2009; Jacobs and Giulivi, 2010; Masuda et al., 2010; Sutton and Roemmich, 2011), which are accompanied by changes of the general circulation system (Gille, 2008; Song and Colberg, 2011). In particular, Purkey and Johnson (2010) first quantify observed deep ocean temperature trends between the 1990s and 2000s. Warming in large areas of the global ocean accounts for a statistically significant fraction of the present global energy and sea level budgets, i.e. up to one third of those in the upper layer (Kouketsu et al., 2011; Song and Colberg, 2011).

Source: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ocean-heat-content-10-1500m-depth-based-argo

So what's going on? JPL says the deep oceans haven't warmed, these papers say they have; you say the upper ocean hasn't warmed, this snippet says it has