Humanity is causing Global Warming, for sure.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Anthropogenic Warpus Grooming?

 

[tokala]

Now that ARGO shows no OHC rise (0-2000m) since 2005,...

Could you point us to the relevant paper where this is shown?

The paper you and CavLancer are celebrating here noted:

Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000 m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise.

About another half of sea-level rise (of about 3mm/year) is attributed to glacier melt:

The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48 ± 0.26 mm −1, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources

The remainder is likely mostly explained by a coverage bias of the Argo network, as shown in another recent paper:
Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming

Spoiler :

@Peter: Apparently that "no abyssal warming" paper is a bit confusing, the press release even more so. Some level-headed and well-informed discussion can be found here:
http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/an-ohc-update/#comments

One important takeaway: deep ocean energy wasn't directly measured in that recent paper, but is the residual after subtracting other measurements, with a correspondingly large error.
Direct measurements below 2000m do appear to indicate some warming there, but sampling is quite sparse.

 

[peter grimes]

thanks, tokala.

I've just come across as ArsTechnica article that discusses all of this as well:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...-than-we-thought-but-the-heat-stayed-shallow/

The researchers used precise satellite measurements of sea level rise between 2005 and 2013 and subtracted satellite measurements of glacial shrinkage to calculate the amount of sea level rise due to ocean expansion—around 0.8 millimeters per year, plus or minus 0.3 millimeters. The Argo temperature measurements, on the other hand, indicate that the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean warmed enough to raise sea levels 0.9 millimeters per year, plus or minus 0.15 millimeters.

That means that, within the uncertainty, there’s nothing left to be accounted for by temperature change below 2,000 meters. If those depths have warmed over the short time period since 2005, it can’t have been by very much. The warming—and there has been plenty—has taken place in the upper 2,000 meters.

...The sea level rise resulting from the expansion of warming water implies that the models are right about the greater Southern Hemisphere ocean warming.

The researchers calculated the ratio of ocean expansion between the two hemispheres, which nearly matches the ratio of ocean volume (the Southern Hemisphere accounts for 60 percent of that). It follows that the ratio of heat energy absorption should be the same, yet the observational datasets showed the Southern Hemisphere accounting for only 35 to 49 percent of warming.

Increasing Southern Hemisphere heat uptake provides a simple prediction of what our measurements should have captured, had they been more complete. Depending on which dataset you use, that would increase the global heat uptake in the upper 700 meters by 24 to 58 percent for this time period, although it’s closer to 15 percent greater than the best estimate given in the latest IPCC report. That's a lot of additional energy accounted for.

The most important paragraph is the last one, which I didn't quote here

 

[CavLancer]

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?

I gave some thought to informing them of their position, I really did. However they are so serious and perhaps they would not appreciate it and...really...it takes some of the fun out of it. Kinda like debating oneself. So I settled on...

"Okay "

and figured I could look on now from the high ground of knowing what they're supposed to be talking about.

You messed all that up amigo, just want you to know.

What fun!

 

[Dale]

I love watching the side-stepping and avoidance techniques being deployed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If you notice, you guys are the first to ignore answers in posts.

But enjoy the reach-around

 

[CavLancer]

I love watching the side-stepping and avoidance techniques being deployed.

Oh yeah mate, and the 'no hurricanes being proof of AGW', was rich.

But ya know they gotta start somewhere and I'll give them an A for effort.

...to make up for the F in political science.

 

[CavLancer]

If you notice, you guys are the first to ignore answers in posts.

But enjoy the reach-around

That's the spirit Ziggy, have some fun.

 

[Truronian]

I love watching the side-stepping and avoidance techniques being deployed.

In a mirror?

 

[Dale]

So now that we know observations officially show no recent warming in the atmosphere, surface or oceans, one wonders where the supposed missing heat went.

That is...... if the missing heat even exists.

 

[CavLancer]

Earth's core is my guess. They don't have a lot of other choices left.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So let me get this straight

CavLancer posts an article in which the answer to Dale's question can be found.
Ziggy quotes the part of the article that CavLancer posted that answers Dale's question. Even emphasising the answer to Dale's question.
Dale responds to that quote which has the emphasised answer to Dale's question, with his question.
Ziggy responds to Dale with the suggestion to reread the quote and pay special attention to the emphasised part.

Dale and CavLancer merrily have an all out fellatio episode over how now one is able to answer Dale's question and how everyone is avoiding it because it's such a superplus good question, which was answered before he asked it.

edit: Special mention to tokala, where you both really went out of your way to avoid addressing his post (I think the technical term is: side-stepping and avoidance techniques being deployed)

By all means, continue Hitting rock bottom is no reason to stop digging.

 

[brennan]

So now that we know observations officially show no recent warming in the atmosphere, surface or oceans, one wonders where the supposed missing heat went.

That is...... if the missing heat even exists.

Ok you two are just outright living in fantasy land now.

Different depths reveal ocean warming trends

Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming

There's a notable second avoidance tactic here, having been called on the BS of referring to the 'deep oceans' you are talking about old figures instead which are now known to show an underestimate of the oceanic warming.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No! Don't spell it out for them!

I was enjoying their love affair.

 

[brennan]

I just can't get my head around someone who can read an article entitled "The oceans got hotter than we thought, but the heat stayed shallow", which cites that Argo results show the upper ocean is warming and expanding, that this fits with the excess heat needed in the models and which repeatedly and clearly repeats that the oceans are definitely warming, and yet turn straight around and state that "we know observations officially show no recent warming in the atmosphere, surface or oceans".

It just leaves me thinking w..t...f...?

Dale, CavLancer, can you please explain how the following quotes allow you to circle jerk about the 'official' lack of warming?

The Argo temperature measurements, on the other hand, indicate that the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean warmed enough to raise sea levels 0.9 millimeters per year, plus or minus 0.15 millimeters.

That means that, within the uncertainty, there’s nothing left to be accounted for by temperature change below 2,000 meters. If those depths have warmed over the short time period since 2005, it can’t have been by very much. The warming—and there has been plenty—has taken place in the upper 2,000 meters.

The sea level rise resulting from the expansion of warming water implies that the models are right about the greater Southern Hemisphere ocean warming.

Srsly. How can you guys take yourselves seriously here? Are you just trolling?

 

[classical_hero]

Oh yeah mate, and the 'no hurricanes being proof of AGW', was rich.

You should be thanking them for being honest and putting all weather, both the good and the bad as caused by us. The problem is we are supposed to be destroying the planet, not making it better. Remember CO² is plant food.

 

[El_Machinae]

The 2 is supposed to be subscript.

People should be more careful about the ocean article. There's deep ocean, there's middle ocean, and there's surface ocean. It's the deep ocean that didn't seem to expand with the heat, the other two did.

 

[classical_hero]

Quite frankly it is a bit of a bluff. http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/missing-heat-not-in-deep-oceans-but-found-in-missing-data-in-upper-ocean/ I don't have access to the full thing and I am not paying those outrageous costs for some paper.
But some of the climate talk is quite fascinating, such that the temperature are "biased low", so they can be adjusted to suit their means. Why is there so much adjusting done to temperatures? In any other field it would be a crime to change the raw data. "If models are correct in their hemispheric partitioning of OHC changes, we can use them to guide observational adjustment over the data-sparse SH." That is classic fit the data to theory an not fit the theory to the data.

@El_Mach, but the missing heat was meant to be found in the deep ocean. http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/

 

[Truronian]

The entire point of that paper is to justify the 'biased low' observation. It's also worth noting that their argument is that the available data is insufficient, not the readings are wrong.

If anything said paper demonstrates how much climate science has moved on. Their is no debate in academic circles about the existence of anthropogenic climate change, which is why papers like this that use such climate models exist.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, there's def missing heat. Only a portion ( though it's "most") of the lack of temp rise can be explained. IOW, the earth heated for sure, but the is a def lack of complete accounting for a portion of the theoretical heat.