Ocean heating has doubled in the past 18 years

a reply to: Greven

Exactly my point Greven,

Since the global temperature is not outside the norm, it is far more likely that the discharge of excessive nutrients into coral habitats is the more likely culprit.

It is a doable task to control the discharge of contaminated farm water.. Far more doable then telling the whole world to stop using fossil fuels and to tax fossil fuels to the point the only ones who can afford energy to warmth are the rich.

Tired of Control Freaks

So what did they think was going to happen when you put a bunch of nuclear waste and nuclear reactor cores into the ocean?

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Exactly my point Greven,

Since the global temperature is not outside the norm, it is far more likely that the discharge of excessive nutrients into coral habitats is the more likely culprit.

It is a doable task to control the discharge of contaminated farm water.. Far more doable then telling the whole world to stop using fossil fuels and to tax fossil fuels to the point the only ones who can afford energy to warmth are the rich.

What?

Global temperatures are outside the norm. That chart has nothing to do with water temperatures. It's a chart of one spot in Greenland.

Pollution is another human-caused matter, to be sure, but it ain't responsible for everything. In fact, some forms of pollution have been artificially depressing global temperatures. It should be warmer than it is.

originally posted by: onequestion
So what did they think was going to happen when you put a bunch of nuclear waste and nuclear reactor cores into the ocean?

Not much.

Water is a pretty effective radiation shield.

a reply to: Greven

The following chart list the many research papers that have estimated past temperatures



(dark blue) Sediment core ODP 658, interpreted sea surface temperature, Eastern Tropical Atlantic: M. Zhao, N. A. S. Beveridge, N. J. Shackleton, M. Sarnthein, and G. Eglinton. "Molecular stratigraphy of cores off northwest Africa: Sea surface temperature history over the last 80 ka". Paleoceanography 10 (3): 661-675. doi:10.1029/94PA03354
(blue) Vostok ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Central Antarctica: Petit J. R., Jouzel J., Raynaud D., Barkov N. I., Barnola J. M., Basile I., Bender M., Chappellaz J., Davis J., Delaygue G., Delmotte M., Kotlyakov V. M., Legrand M., Lipenkov V., Lorius C., Pépin L., Ritz C., Saltzman E., Stievenard M.. "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica". Nature 399: 429-436. doi:10.1038/20859
(light blue) GISP2 ice core, interpreted paleotemperature, Greenland: Alley, R. B.. Quaternary Science Reviews. doi:10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00062-1
(green) Kilimanjaro ice core, δ18O, Eastern Central Africa: Thompson, L. G., E. Mosley-Thompson, M. E. Davis, K. A. Henderson, H. H. Brecher, V. S. Zagorodnov, T. A. Mashiotta, P.-N. Lin, V. N. Mikhalenko, D. R. Hardy, and J. Beer. "Kilimanjaro Ice Core Records: Evidence of Holocene Climate Change in Tropical Africa". Science 298 (5593): 589-593. doi:10.1126/science.1073198
(yellow) Sediment core PL07-39PC, interpreted sea surface temperature, North Atlantic: Lea, D. W., D. K. Pak, L. C. Peterson, and K. A. Hughen (2003). "Synchroneity of tropical and high-latitude Atlantic temperatures over the last glacial termination". Science 301 (5638): 1361-1364. doi:10.1126/science.1088470
(orange) Pollen distributions, interpreted temperature, Europe: B. A. S. Davis, S. Brewer, A. C. Stevenson, J. Guiot (2003). Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 1701-1716. doi:10.1016/S0277-3791(03)00173-2
(red) EPICA ice core, δDeuterium, Central Antarctica: EPICA community members (2004). "Eight glacial cycles from an Antarctic ice core". Nature 429 (6992): 623-628. doi:10.1038/nature02599
(dark red) Composite sediment cores, interpreted sea surface temperature, Western Tropical Pacific: L. D. Stott, K. G. Cannariato, R. Thunell, G. H. Haug, A. Koutavas, and S. Lund (2004). "Decline of surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific Ocean in the Holocene epoch". Nature 431: 56-59. doi:10.1038/nature02903
Additional data used in inset plot and for matching temperature scale to modern values. Colors match those used in Image:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png.

(orange 200-1995): P. D. Jones and M. E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
(red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D. M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N. M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
(thin black line 1856-2004): Instrumental global annual data set TaveGL2v [2]: P. D. Jones and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Exactly my point Greven,

Since the global temperature is not outside the norm, it is far more likely that the discharge of excessive nutrients into coral habitats is the more likely culprit.

It is a doable task to control the discharge of contaminated farm water.. Far more doable then telling the whole world to stop using fossil fuels and to tax fossil fuels to the point the only ones who can afford energy to warmth are the rich.

What?

Global temperatures are outside the norm. That chart has nothing to do with water temperatures. It's a chart of one spot in Greenland.

Pollution is another human-caused matter, to be sure, but it ain't responsible for everything. In fact, some forms of pollution have been artificially depressing global temperatures. It should be warmer than it is.

No norm, the only constant in climate is change. If you don't like scientific research that shakes your belief on AGW perhaps you should ponder on all the woolly mammoths they find in the permafrost of Siberia with food still in their stomachs. Proving that even Siberia must have experienced a far milder climate with a longer growing season Link than today, So our current climate could be so far removed from what you consider the norm, it ain't funny,

a reply to: glend

The following chart list the many research papers that have estimated past temperatures

Good of you to post that. You don't see that large change over the last 100 years? Where do you suppose that anomaly might be now, 11 years after the one shown on your chart. Do you see anything like that change since the ending of the last glacial period?

Here is a comprehensive study which takes that sort of data and compiles global temperature changes from it. You're all about "long term variability", right?

Published reconstructions of the past millennium are largely based on tree rings and may underestimate low frequency (multicentury-to-millennial) variability because of uncertainty in detrending (9) [although progress is being made on this front (10)],whereas our lower-resolution records are well suited for reconstructing longer-term changes.

It seems that the last 100 years has sort of beaten the pants off that "long term variability." But if you can't see it in your chart yourself, maybe this will help.

Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.

content.csbs.utah.edu...

You remember that long term cooling trend for the northern hemisphere, right? You can even see it in your chart. The one in the article you linked about this paper regarding orbital forcing? The one that should be continuing but isn't?
www.st-andrews.ac.uk...

See, the thing is, we know what causes that long term cooling trend. It's orbital forcing, cycles which we know about (see your Roman article). We know what causes those bumps and dips, volcanic activity and changes in solar radiation. The thing is, that cooling trend should still be going on. The thing is, the Sun hasn't gotten hotter. The thing is CO2 levels are higher now than they have been in at least 800,000 years. The thing is, we're the reason for that.

Your source, the one about the Roman warm period, linked above:

Over recent millennia, orbital forcing has continually reduced summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere5. Peak insolation changes in Northern Hemisphere high latitudes, at65 N between JuneAugust (JJA), have been identified as the prime forcing of
climate variability over the past million years1. Together with long term CO2 variability resulting from biogeochemical feedbacks of
the marine and terrestrial ecosystems14, these insolation cycles have initiated the interplay between glacial and interglacial periods15.

Yes. Temperatures vary. For reasons. The primary reason temperatures are rising now is the CO2 we are dumping into the atmosphere. Or do you have some other reason in mind?

Proving that even Siberia must have experienced a far milder climate with a longer growing season Link than today

Nice source you've got there.

The mammoths and other animals colonised the region after the Flood during the ice age.

The ice age was caused by the climatic aftermath of the Genesis Flood.

But, once again, has anyone claimed that climate doesn't change due to natural reasons?
adsabs.harvard.edu...
Those natural reasons are not what is causing temperatures to rise.

a reply to: Phage

As you very well know and are trying so hard to avoid, the Synchronicity Chaos of Ocean Currents is a strong challenge to the global warming theory.

www.sciencedaily.com...

According to this article, once the synchronicty chaos of ocean currents is accounted for, the best that global warming theory can hope for is that the use of fossil fuels has contributed a measly 0.2 degrees of heat over the last 100 years. This has caused a beneficial effect with greening of both the land masses and the oceans. And even this 0.2 degrees of heat is questionable due to solar activity.

www.sciencedaily.com...

They find that times of high solar activity are on average 0.2º C warmer than times of low solar activity, and that there is a polar amplification of the warming. This result is the first to document a statistically significant globally coherent temperature response to the solar cycle, the authors note.

You are trying so very very hard to ignore this Phage but it simply cannot be set aside that easily.

First plank of the global warming theory:

1. That there has never been a global rise in temperature of the same magnitude as this one (although it is noted that whenever temperature records are quoted, its for the last 140 years).

This plank was obliterated when examination of ocean sediments in the Antartic and Pacific oceans established that the Medieval Warming Period was, in fact, a global event and warmer than current temperatures.

2. That nothing else could account for the rise in temperature.

Scientists did not look hard enough. The ocean currents themselves, currents that carry heat from the tropics to the artic are the answer.

Its all downhill from here as the planks fall one by one.

Tired of Control Freaks

According to this article, once the synchronicty chaos of ocean currents is accounted for, the best that global warming theory can hope for is that the use of fossil fuels has contributed a measly 0.2 degrees of heat over the last 100 years.

The paper does not say that. Anywhere, so I guess you made it up. But the paper does say this:

However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st 224 century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.

pantherfile.uwm.edu...
Bumps in a trend caused by our CO2.

Another interesting tidbit. In one of their model runs, they remove the warming trend caused by CO2 in order to study their theory without that pesky annoyance:

In Figure 4 the dominant trend of 2º C/century caused by the radiative forcing is removed to better delineate the shifts in temperature regimes, which are superimposed onto it.

That's 2º not 0.2º.

a reply to: Phage

2009 paper by Swanso and

www.skepticalscience.com...

In 2009, they continue to examine the coupling of ocean cycles, stressing 'caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing' (Swanson & Tsonis 2009). They extend their analysis further in a paper that uses climate modelling to separate man-made and natural variability (Swanson et al 2009). When internal variability is filtered from the smoothed observed temperature (solid black line), the cleaned signal (dashed line) shows nearly monotonic warming throughout the 20th Century. In fact, the cleaned signal fits a quadratic shape which indicates the warming is accelerating.

I don't make things up (More than I can say for global warming theorists - I am referring here to Micheal Mann's hockey stick graph with which he completely wiped out the MWP).

Tired of Control Freaks

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TheBulk
If those of you who are doomsayers believe what you're spewing, why are you still posting on the internet? Shouldn't you be living a technology free life?

If our information is wrong, you're free to show how it is.

As for your remark. Wouldn't it not be a logical thing to spread the information to prevent the continuation of it on such a large scale, rather than to just seclude ourselves from everyone?

Im sure you have all kinds of rationalizations for why its ok for you not to practice what you preach.

a reply to: Phage

"Where do you suppose that anomaly might be now, 11 years after the one shown on your chart."

You live in the northern hemisphere and believe the climate warming and I live in the southern hemisphere (Australia) and believe the climate is cooling. Why is that!

Oceans in the southern hemisphere have cooled which explains why Antartica ice extent was the largest on record.
Oceans in northern hemisphere have warmed which is why Arctic ice has declined in recent decades.
That is what the atlantic multidecadal oscillation does, its similar to el-nino but has a north south bias with a cycle of ~70 years.

Unfortunately the weight of historic temperature data exist for the northern hemisphere because the northern hemisphere has more land mass (68%) than the southern hemisphere. That weighting would clearly show the world is warming regardless if it was or not.

If the temperature of climate is really rising we should witness sea level rise. IPCC tells us sea levels are rising but are they telling the truth....

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
link

Why does the former chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change say that the sea level is not rising, that it hasn’t risen in 50 years and if there is any rise this century it will not be more than 10cm (four inches) with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm. Why didn't Bangkok and Maldives disappear under the sea's as the alarmist predicted would happen by the turn of last century.

There is overwhelming evidence (including Climategate etc) to show that science is being hijacked by governments to introduce new taxes that the people can no longer afford.

Fall in ocean levels between 2010 and 2011
Sea level has been rising and falling over the last 2,500 years

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I don't make things up

Then where did this claim come from?

According to this article, once the synchronicty chaos of ocean currents is accounted for, the best that global warming theory can hope for is that the use of fossil fuels has contributed a measly 0.2 degrees of heat over the last 100 years.

Because it is neither in the article you linked or the paper that the article is about.

2009 paper by Swanso and

Nothing there that supports your claim either.

a reply to: Phage

You live in the northern hemisphere and believe the climate warming and I live in the southern hemisphere (Australia) and believe the climate is cooling. Why is that!

I have no idea why you believe that. Because it isn't. It's warming, though not as fast as the northern hemisphere.
static.guim.co.uk...
data.giss.nasa.gov...

Oceans in the southern hemisphere have cooled which explains why Antartica ice extent was the largest on record.

Is that why Antarctic ice shelves are being undermined?
phys.org...

Why does the former chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change say that the sea level is not rising,

I have no idea why he said that. Or why he says any of the wacky stuff he says. He's quite a piece of work. On a par with your creationist source.
www.theguardian.com...

Why didn't Bangkok and Maldives disappear under the sea's as the alarmist predicted would happen by the turn of last century.

Please show that prediction.

Fall in ocean levels between 2010 and 2011

Yes. Because, as the article shows, a lot of water ended up on Australia. It's now back in the ocean.

Sea level has been rising and falling over the last 2,500 years

Do you even read your sources?

Seeing as Israel is not close to former ice caps and the tectonic activity along the Mediterranean coast is negligible over these periods, it can be concluded that drastic changes in Israel's sea levels are mainly related to changes in the volume of water.

phys.org...

Remember when I asked you about that "long term trend" in sea level change? Got anything on that yet? I think not.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

oceanservice.noaa.gov...

There is overwhelming evidence (including Climategate etc) to show that science is being hijacked by governments to introduce new taxes that the people can no longer afford.

What evidence would that be?
What exactly do you see as evidence in "climategate?"