back to article Study fingers humans for ocean heat rise

A study published last weekend on Nature Climate Change claims to give the lie to the notion that if the world is warming, it’s not our fault. With the kind of certainty that will send the Heartland Institute reaching for Plan C (“the world should focus on mitigation”), the study, The study, Human-induced global ocean warming …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I wish my thermometer were this accurate

    As I read the graph, we have one tenth of 1 degree Centigrade in 50 years. It's a long way short of the "5 degrees per decade" of the Warmist cult. And, it's not clear if a small change in solar heating levels over this period could be the cause.

    So, the debate goes on! But do we need to spend billions to solve this problem yet? I think the root cause of the debate may be oil-related, as supplies are likely to get very expensive well before we roast. Wars could be fought over the little oil that's left! Does government not think we are mature enough to face up to this and do the right thing? Or, is government not considered mature enough and and so is also a manipulatee?

    1. Jean-Luc Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: I wish my thermometer were this accurate

      If running out of oil solved the problem then we'd be on easy street. Well, aside from running out of oil, which would be a bummer.

      IF there is a problem (I think/believe there is, but do not know, but I am only addressing your oil cost argument) then we're likely to substitute coal for oil and that is much worse in terms of C02.

      Definitely awaiting the Orlowski viewpoint. My guess: the paper is either not as significant as presented (doubters running for plan C, yup, I bet) and/or Andrew will happily ignore it.

      Either way: no Orlowski expected.

      1. Jeebus

        Re: I wish my thermometer were this accurate

        Jean-Luc. I'm afraid you're mistaken.

        Orlowski is the Ayn Rand article writer, forever bemoaning that only rich companies deserve protection.

        Lewis Page is the right wing environmental crackpot.

        1. mhenriday
          Boffin

          Not quite ;

          A O is known for his ambidexterity and quite capable of playing both sides of the «Know-Nothing» (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing), Koch-brothers sponsored game....

          Henri

      2. Graham Wilson

        Re: I wish my thermometer were this accurate

        Cynic!

        ;-)

    2. Quxy
      Coffee/keyboard

      Mature enough?

      Bwahahaha!

      Or do you have mature, far-sighted politicians and a intelligent, scientifically-informed populace on _your_ side of the Atlantic?

      If anthropogenic climate change _does_ pose a real risk to Earth's population, I'm not sure what's going to save us from it, but it certainly isn't going to be Western governments!

      1. Curly4
        Boffin

        Re: Mature enough?

        If population is the problem then limit the population. Or I guess that a major war could take care of that. But the Bible tells us in Revelations that the sun will get hotter. This was written 2000 years ago before we had the scientist and before the idea of climate change had entered the head of man. I know many if not most don't believe in the Bible but maybe the warming may be proof that it is true. If it is true then there will be no long term planning to control the human influence on the climate He will take care of the problem!

        1. elderlybloke
          Happy

          Re: Mature enough?

          Curly4,

          Anyone who has an interest in Astronomy knows that the sun grows hotter as it ages.

          It is about 25% hotter that an the 4.5 Billion years ago era.

          The Sun will in the distant future evolve into a Red Giant and eventually become a White Dwarf.

          We will have become extinct or have evolved into someting unrecognisable by the time the temperature rises up enough to cause the annihilation of all life on planet .

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Strange?

      The date appears to coincide with the advent of the personal computer!

    4. NomNomNom

      Re: I wish my thermometer were this accurate

      "As I read the graph, we have one tenth of 1 degree Centigrade in 50 years. It's a long way short of the "5 degrees per decade" of the Warmist cult."

      The graph is of ocean heat content, not surface temperature.

    5. Douglas Lowe
      FAIL

      Re: I wish my thermometer were this accurate

      "As I read the graph, we have one tenth of 1 degree Centigrade in 50 years. It's a long way short of the "5 degrees per decade" of the Warmist cult. And, it's not clear if a small change in solar heating levels over this period could be the cause."

      The temperature increases shown are well short of 5 degrees per decade - but as that's the kind of temperature increase which only a Hollywood disaster movie would predict I think you're simply constructing a strawman to knock down here.

      Also, if changes in solar radiation over this period were responsible for this heating then it would be *clearly* visible in the records. There is nothing in the records of solar activity that matches this increase in heating, therefore it cannot be due to this.

      1. Jtom Bronze badge

        Re: I wish my thermometer were this accurate

        The interaction between the sun's and the earth's magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and the rays' interaction with cloud formation is poorly understood, and could well produce the ocean temp results. Broadly speaking, when the sun is active, as it was during the 1990s, it's magnetic field expands and interacts with earth's. The resultant merging of fields block cosmic rays from entering the atmosphere. It seems as though those rays provide the seeding that produces clouds. Without them, clouds don't form, and solar radiation (which may not be any greater than at other times) warms the oceans without the filtering and reflective interference of clouds.

        The universe is not as simplistic as some would have you believe.

  2. asdf Silver badge
    WTF?

    wtf?

    Wow how did this reasonable peer reviewed article get any mention on this site at all (except perhaps for one caveat sentence taken out of context and a whole LP article pointing it out). Are both El Reg resident self taught (badly) climate scientists, AO and LP on vacation this week?

    1. amozillo
      Mushroom

      Re: wtf?

      Nah, this one's by Chigwrin, their in-house greenhouse freak--been crying about ye falling sky multidecadally even

    2. Evil Auditor Silver badge

      Re: wtf?

      asdf, you must be badly disappointed: clicking on a Reg article about climate change and not being able to moan about one-sided coverage of anti-global-warming stuff. Oh hang on, you still managed to moan about! Are you a miserable old fart or was that some irony?

    3. Jtom Bronze badge

      Re: wtf?

      The last peer-reviewed paper I read, released this May in the Journal of Climate, was "Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium."

      It was removed and placed on hold after being posted on-line for only three days because of some fatal flaws in it that were pointed out by "non-experts".

      A successfully peer-reviewed paper is not a stamp of approval by others that the work was done properly, only an indication that they don't see anything obviously wrong with the paper. In the case of "man-made" climate change, there are very few "experts" qualified to review the work, and most all of them have a vested interest in Man being blamed. They are NOT unbiased. This same problem was encountered in the field of US history when Michael Bellesiles published his piece of (fictional) history concerning guns in America that was given the seal of approval by historians, much to their later embarrassment.

  3. fredds
    FAIL

    memory

    As someone who was around in the 70's, I can remember scientists claiming it was getting so cold that we were heading for another ice age. So .15C in the last 40 years is just getting back to normal.

    1. Jim Birch
      Windows

      Re: memory

      I'm a little older and I can remember when scientists thought the the sun went around the earth. This is complete and irrefutable proof that scientists are wrong and the little guy is right. Anyway, they're all involved in an enormous international conspiracy to steal research grants from hard-working taxpayers then they just make stuff up and never do anything useful. If you want something you can really put faith in I'd go for a think tank funded by US billionaires, these guys obviously know which side of the bread is buttered.

    2. Voland's right hand Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: memory

      Exactly. I have the same recollections. 25+ years ago everyone was thinking we will be going into a next (small) iceage.

      Can we actually see something which goes back _BEFORE_ WW2 please (WW2 had a very clear fingerprint on temperature records too).

      1. GrantB
        Boffin

        Re: memory

        Your memory is probably wrong.

        Luckily there are books and written information, if you wanted to check the science and evidence rather than hold the same sort of views as Lewis.

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

      2. Ian Tunnacliffe
        FAIL

        Re: memory

        I was a Physics undergraduate at a decent university in the 1970s. I have no personal recollection at all of any "New Ice-Age" stories. I have no doubt that they existed because I have seen the evidence, but they certainly did not dominate the debate about human effects on climate and environment. The Club of Rome published "Limits to Growth" in 1972 and that was probably the most influential text of the period. It certainly didn't produce any kind of cooling.

        1. Captain Save-a-ho
          Facepalm

          Re: memory

          Tim, Grant, and Ian...please explain this:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

          Perhaps your memories are going quicker than you think? It's true that the press ran with it much farther than the scientific community did, but the National Science Board did issue a report in 1972 titled "Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science" which assumed that the earth was due for a cooling period. Regardless of which side of the AGW debate you may lean toward, there was definitely a "cooling" threat discussed and researched.

          Of course, I suppose we never made it to the Moon either, but I wasn't there to be sure.

        2. Jtom Bronze badge

          Re: memory

          I was obtaining a post-degree in astro-physics during that time, and we most definitely did discuss the global "cool-down". If you were not in an "astro-related" field, most university physicists were engaged in nuclear reasearch or laser theory ( and other quantum electro-dynamics) and did not pay much attention to other areas of science.

    3. Tim99 Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: memory

      Er, no. As someone who was a professional scientist in the 1970s I can remember no such thing. The basic science of the greenhouse effect was accepted at least 70 years before that. Infrared spectrophotometers capable of accurately measuring C=0 and C-H bond stretch (a primary mechanism for the greenhouse effect) were becoming inexpensive and common in the 1960s which, perhaps, allowed for the expansion of interest in this field.

      I do recall 1976 as the hottest summer for over 300 years :

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_United_Kingdom_heat_wave

      Followed by a cold winter in 1978, thought to be caused by the two preceding hot summers.

      1. Jtom Bronze badge

        Re: memory

        First the obvious question: how the &**# could "two preceding hot summers" be the cause of a cold winter?

        Secondly, no one is arguing that carbon dioxide is not a 'greenhouse gas'. The SCIENCE says what we have added to the atmosphere would warm it a FRACTION of a degree. The NON-SCIENCE of assumptions and models used by some climatologists theorize a positive feedback mechanism that turns that fraction of a degree into several degrees. That is what we - and ALL the actual atmospheric data for the last 15 years - disagree with.

        Thirdly, it takes only a little bit of research (one that a true scientist would undertake) to find 1970's articles of scientists predicting global cooling and imminent ice age.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: memory

        Obviously you're being a "professional scientist" is in no way helping correct for your selective memory.

        I remember them quite clearly, because at that particular point in time I was a very impressionable young lad who took whatever was written in the books and magazines my parents gave me as the gospel truth. That memory is therefore firm etched in my brain, right along side of DDT killing the California Condors. Mainly because I had no idea how much "professional scientists" might lie about something if there was a paycheck attached to it.

    4. indulis
      FAIL

      Re: memory

      "As someone who was around in the 70's, I can remember scientists claiming it was getting so cold that we were heading for another ice age."

      Memory is a good title for your post because it shows that remembered "facts" are often untrue!

      Actually what you remember is the popular press latching onto a "sound bite" (or whatever the 70s used to call those), and spruking it, while ignoring the science. Newsweek.

      What the actual science said was that the climate was showing warming trends from CO2 (yes already then!) but that the cooling from polluting the atmosphere with "aerosols" (i.e. dust, smog etc) was causing a masking cooling effect, and if we kept ramping up the "cooling pollution" then the climate could cool. This is also happening today- the "cooling factor" of smog etc from China is masking some of the warming rise from CO2. That's what makes climate science complex, the number of different factors at work, sometimes one against the other, some cyclical (naturally), some man-made.

      Anyway, the "in the 70s climate scientists all said we would be in an ice age by now" is provably false. "A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."

      1. Tom 13

        Re: memory

        You're right, it wasn't a peer reviewed journal I was reading at age 12. It was Ranger Rick magazine, put out by environmentalists to influence children into awareness so they could be good future stewards of our planet. That would be the same environmentalists who have taken control of climatology and now intentionally skew the science. Because they love quoting Bill Murray when they get into these arguments instead of doing what real scientists do: deal with the rational questions and objections being raised by their peers.

  4. heyrick Silver badge

    Easy fix...

    ...if you can all stop peeing in the sea when paddling and frolicking shamelessly with your significant other, the oceans will stop warming up. Plus they'll stop tasting so awful.

  5. fixit_f
    Stop

    As an outdoorsy kind of nerd......

    I have a particular take on global warming. In the 1990's I was young and silly and a bloody good kayaker/climber, and I knew a load of Welsh kayaking/climbing instructors well who were very matter of fact that the climate was changing. People who had worked in the industry for 40 years were suddenly getting sunburnt. This is obviously more about the UV side of it, but I think it's relevant as an indicator of change.

    20 years later I'm now a kitesurfer, and I still know lots of people who instruct in various water based disciplines. Anyone that says nothing has changed is IMHO unaware of the real world testimony of a whole army of people who have spent consistent amounts of time outdoors all of their lives. I personally don't believe the change in sea temperature is as small as this article suggests, the documented fact that certain species of sharks (whether confused or not) are suddenly turning up on our coast occasionally should be proof enough. The air is warming, and the sea is warming. Jury is still out on why, but empirical (as well as anecdotal evidence) is showing us that the increase is more than is perhaps being let on or realised by scientific groups.

    1. Elmer Phud Silver badge

      Re: As an outdoorsy kind of nerd...... jury still out

      40 years is a mere instant as far as climate and weather patterns go.

      We keep forgetting that 'since records began' usually means nothing much at all.

      We are finding evidence of all sorts of cycles but it's very hard to work out how they interact, to be honest 20 years really is a drop in the ocean.

      If it's all gone silly then why do I (of 5 decades) remember the phrase "and they call this Flaming June?" from when I was a mere stripling?

      1. Vector
        Facepalm

        Re: As an outdoorsy kind of nerd...... jury still out

        Yeah, this is the issue I always have with this kind of report. We measured the system for .0000001101 percent of its total estimated lifespan, so we know exactly what's going on!

        Just last week, there was a report indicating that sea tempuratures in the miocene era (IIRC) were significantly warmer than previously presumed.

        I'm not saying that it's not human related. I AM saying that we really do not have a significant benchmark to test against.

    2. BLAM!
      Thumb Down

      Re: As an outdoorsy kind of nerd......

      In the 1990s I was young and silly and spent a massive amount of time outdoors, in various locations across Europe, mostly wearing camouflage, eating compo rats and carrying a heavy rifle. I was mostly rained on, sleeted on, snowed on and shot at.

      Repeat after me fixit_f - Weather is not climate, weather is not climate.

      ps: My arse belches carbon. Deal with it pencil-necks.

  6. Local Group
    Go

    "if the world is warming, it’s not our fault."

    It's not our fault, it's our duty. We just haven't accepted that fact yet.

    Early volcanic activity can not be pinned on man, but practically everything thereafter can. It peaked when man invented the internal combustion engine and built billions of them. The automobile is THE sine qua non of our modern civilization and it kills two birds with one stone. First, it pumps CO2 into the atmosphere; and second, by depleting the planet of its most important resource, it guarantees the speedy arrival of the war which will char-broil it.

    Global warming is man's mission. It is like the quest of the Knights of Grail. From man's breathing in and breathing out, to him happily throwing more shrimps and briquettes on the barbee for unexpected guests.

    Global warming was decreed at the instant of the Bang. It is man's sacred quest and duty to the universe.

    He must not disappoint.

    1. Sirius Lee
      Facepalm

      Re: "if the world is warming, it’s not our fault."

      Didn't take long for the theologists to turn up at the party. I'm sure you enjoy wearing your hair shirt but can't you do it quietly? Please.

      1. Local Group
        Coat

        Re: "if the world is warming, it’s not our fault."

        How did the Universe get started anyway? An accident or a plan?

        Remember what Einstein said (God - dice - Universe).

        I'll get my hair shirt and go.

  7. General Pance
    Thumb Up

    Finally some bad news. Now we can get on with punishing ourselves.

    For those wondering where the "deniers" are WUWT broke this story yesterday:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/scientists-claim-greenhouse-gases-largely-to-blame-for-warming-oceans/

  8. IHateWearingATie
    Thumb Up

    Never worked out what the hardcore 'denier's were smoking...

    ... as basic chemistry would teach that as you change the chemical composition of a gas (in this case, the atmosphere) you'll change the way that it reacts to heating.

    The thing I think most 'deniers' (I hate that word - is there a better one?) don't like (and I have some sympathy for them) is when the observable data is stretched beyond the realms of sense into predictions and models that are little better than random guesses.

    I haven't got the time to read the paper at the moment, but the article certainly presents it as the kind of careful, sensible science that should be being done, rather than the crack pot doom-mongering that others indulge in.

    From my (limited) reading it would seem that increasing the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere is and will have an effect - it's just that accurate predictions (note I say predictions, not historical measurements) about the full effects are beyond our current abilities at the moment. This makes it very hard to decide on the correct policy responses, and has driven too many to one extreme ("it's all a hoax - bloody hippies) or another ("We're all doooooooooonmed").

    1. Jeebus

      Re: Never worked out what the hardcore 'denier's were smoking...

      How about "willfully ignorant" as that is exactly what they are, you need only read a study Lewis Page quotes and then see what information clearly isn't there* he uses to take a potshot at someone, probably Greenpeace, and then he'll do a bootnote to really hit the point home in a hilarious and witty fashion.

      * To be fair, he's also started using sources behind pay walls to put up another barrier, I'd say it is smart but I'm thinking more deflection as he doesn't seem to like anyone who doesn't tow the line of the people funding the site.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: IHateWearing...

      If you hate the word don't use it. That wasn't hard was it?

      I think you'll also find that people who question the basic physics of gas composition and C02 to be truly few and far between (i.e. fringe).

      Of course, there are plenty of doubters/skeptics about all sorts of other bits and pieces of "the consensus" (like the soundness of "tipping points" as scientific theory, the ability of GCMs to be even remotely useful for future predictions, that a .1C/decade increase in atmospheric temps could really drive a major change in ocean heat content, that a website run by a cartoonist is a reliable source of information, etc). I think it's fair to point out as well that there is no shortage of nuttiness on the believer side too.

      1. IHateWearingATie
        Go

        Re: IHateWearing...

        I don't like the word skeptic because that's what all good scientists should be to some degree. We need a word to describe those who have gone beyond healthy scientific skepticism but are not yet in the land of the fringe nutter (as you say, there are plenty of them on either side).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: IHateWearing...

          Well, it's a bit of a continuum isn't it? Maybe:

          Healthy/proper skepticism -> questionable skepticism -> fringe skepticism -> nutter

          I think also, just for the purpose of civility, that it's important to *try* and use these labels to describe arguments instead of people (as much as possible... when it makes sense to do so of course). Calling someone's argument fringe, or a bit nutter, is almost always more productive than describing *them* as a fringe nutter.

          Sometimes the people we're talking with have, in good faith, misinterpreted things or otherwise don't really understand what they're talking about... and sometimes, in their bumbling, they may have a valid concern, question or point in there. Taking a flamethrower to them for it might make us feel good, but all it really accomplishes is to shut down the conversation.

          Of course, discussions on the internet tend towards ad hom attacks and flaming, so saying that people should behave more civilly on the internet is about as profound of a statement as saying "I'm against cancer" : )

          1. IHateWearingATie
            Thumb Up

            Re: IHateWearing...

            Bravo sir - your reasoned post in favour of more civility and being careful to label the arguments 'fringe' rather than the person has restored my faith in commentards on El Reg.

            Well, until I read Ron6's comment... Where's my flamethrower, godwins law here I come :)

    3. Ron 6
      Mushroom

      Re: Never worked out what the hardcore 'denier's were smoking...

      Maybe we should call the proponents of AGW "deniers". They deny historical data and physical data (unless it's been "adjusted" like the online NCDC data not matching the printed records.)

      Plain and simple, the warming crowd uses techniques that they would crucify their opponents for using.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Never worked out what the hardcore 'denier's were smoking...

        Its another one of those irregular English verbs...

        ... I am correct, you are misinformed, he/she is an idiot

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Ron 6

        Over the last few days I watched the BBC's series on Auschwitz, and I just can't support the use of the term "denier" for anything other than the most severe of circumstances - like Holocaust denial.

        Two wrongs don't make a right and all that... for me at least.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Ron 6

          Where has this tedious "you're comparing us to Holocaust deniers" meme come from? It's simply not the case, it seems to me like the "deniers" want to loose their label and make themselves seem more considered. Just like they managed with getting people to stop using global warming, in favour of climate change.

          Well, you're not being compared to Holocaust deniers, it's rather arrogant to suggest that you're that important.

          1. Muncher23

            Re: Ron 6

            It shouldn't take you long to trace this meme -- maybe Hansen and 'coal trains as death trains' would do as a start

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Re: Ron 6

            "Where has this tedious "you're comparing us to Holocaust deniers" meme come from?"

            In your lifetime, in what other context have you heard the term "denier" used... ever other than in reference to Holocaust denial and global warming / climate change "denial"? People talk about "denial" all the time, but from what I've seen the use of the term "denier" is MUCH more rare, as such it tends to be an atomic bomb term, is used to bully people, and cannot be separated from the much more common (and only other?) use in reference to the Holocaust.

            "it seems to me like the "deniers" want to loose their label and make themselves seem more considered"

            So how about I start calling all [people who think global warming is the #1 threat to humanity and our world and that we should immediately move towards carbon neutrality, economic impact be damned] "babykillers"? After all, the economic impact of carbon neutrality would certainly impact (i.e. slow improvement of) infant mortality rates in third world countries. Then I could make statements like "it seems to me that the "babykillers" want to lose their label and make themselves seem more considered". It's childish, it's unproductive, it's ridiculous.

            Listen, this is the internet after all so if you want to scream loudly with incendiary terms while holding your fingers in your ears singing "la la la I'm not listening" you have every right to... but please do try and keep it down when the grown-ups are talking will you?

            "you're not being compared to Holocaust deniers, it's rather arrogant to suggest that you're that important"

            Emphasis mine... WTF is that supposed to mean... that Holocaust deniers are important? Hell no they're not - they're trash... they're the dregs of humanity. I can only guess that comment is meant to imply that climate change deniers are worse than Holocaust deniers, to which I can only say please... go outside, take a walk, and grow the fuck up... you probably can't even clearly articulate what 90% of the people you call "deniers" are in denial about.

            You probably have this idea (straw man) in your head about who your opponents are, how they're motivated only by base desires, how they're intellectually inferior to you and less evolved, how they have been hoodwinked by [insert boogeyman of choice], etc, etc, etc... and every day you get out of bed, put on your suit of armor and ride off on your donkey to save the internet from the deniers. Have you ever considered that maybe... just maybe the people you're flaming aren't knuckle dragging retards, or paid shills, or otherwise remotely as "evil" as you think they are? ...and that maybe you're not a white knight saving the day, but just an asshole?

        2. Tom 13

          Re: most severe of circumstances - like Holocaust denial.

          To understand why some of us skeptics react so vehemently against the word, accept that what you just wrote is philosophically true, then accept that the AWG Warmists believe "deniers" is philosophically correct, and work backwards.

          Yeah, not a pretty place. And not somewhere you want to be to hold a rational conversation. And certainly not a place where Science is likely to be able to penetrate.

  9. P Saunders

    Just stop pissing in the ocean, people

    that is all.

  10. blofse
    FAIL

    “Although we performed a series of tests to account for the impact of various uncertainties, we found no evidence that simultaneous warming of the upper layers of all seven seas can be explained by natural climate variability alone. Humans have played a dominant role,”

    But what about unknown unknowns? Surely there is a billion of those, due to human ignorance and arrogance. E.g. Sun radiation, moon cycles (i.e. 19 solar years), astoriods etc etc and they are just solar, what about earth tectonic plate movement etc?

    Does this guy think he has studied everything (in the universe) and he has enough evidence over billions of years (to get a fair stat)? I don't think so IMO!

    “a dozen different models used to project climate change”, making it “the most comprehensive study of changes in ocean heat content to date.”

    But what if they are all wrong? :-)

    What proof do we have that they are accurate for so a period of a million years?

    Sorry, I don't like all of these conflicting reports coming out - they are just conflicting global warming pandering and propaganda. Believe what YOU want to believe,,,

    1. Some Beggar
      Facepalm

      [facepalm]

      [massive deep-sighing catastrophe-level facepalm]

    2. indulis
      WTF?

      Unknown unknowns = faith (not science)

      "But what about unknown unknowns? Surely there is a billion of those, due to human ignorance and arrogance. E.g. Sun radiation, moon cycles (i.e. 19 solar years), astoriods etc etc and they are just solar, what about earth tectonic plate movement etc?"

      Until the cause is a known- or at least hypothesised with some good data and analysis to back it up- it is faith not science. All of the other factors which you mention have *already* been used by climate scientists, working with paleo-geologists, astronomers, oceanologists etc in order to understand and remove the natural cycles in the climate from the observed temperature rises. What is left is the change caused by CO2. Or alternatively by "magic pixies" or "the hand of god" or "natural variability" if you want a faith based answer that has no connection to facts or observations or science. I'd advise listening to the Richard Alley A23A lecture which will in 1 hour give you a great grounding in how the earth's cycles and climate interact, mediated by CO2 and other factors.

      An example of a short term natural cycle is the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon, can mask the underlying trend in surface temperatures for more than a decade (see "going down the up escalator" in your favourite search engine).

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Unknown unknowns = faith (not science)

        If you don't have a deterministic mechanism which matches the data without the use of extraneous epi-cycles, the CO2 claim is just as much faith and not science as the accusation you make.

        Particularly when some of your subsequent "facts" are wrong. The Warmists specifically and explicitly exclude possible solar affects from their models, assuming solar output is constant.

  11. Fading Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Oh look a God of Gaps argument.

    "found that natural variability in ocean temperatures could only account for ten percent of the observed rise – at most"

    So it must be Man huh? Not omitted variable fraud at all then? Another conculsion I'll take with a pinch of salt (water) .

    1. Some Beggar
      Happy

      Re: Oh look a God of Gaps argument.

      Yay! I've got "omitted variable fraud" on my Denialist Bingo Card and nobody has used it for ages.

      Thanks.

      1. Fading Silver badge
        WTF?

        Re: Oh look a God of Gaps argument.

        So no comment on the fact it is a God of Gaps argument then? Just iterating a "denialist" meme? Thanks for your time, don't let door catch you on your way out (so many comments to make so liitle time huh)?

        1. Some Beggar
          FAIL

          Re: Oh look a God of Gaps argument.

          It isn't a God of the Gaps argument. Few scientific models include every known parameter, and none include unknown parameters. Derp derp.

          Your post was a facile attempt to undermine a perfectly good piece of research by referring to a thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory. The only contribution it made to the internet was crossing off a box on my bingo card of trite denialist clichés.

  12. Intractable Potsherd Silver badge

    Hydrothermal vents

    Hydrothermal vents are being discovered all over the ocean beds. Since we don't know what their level of activity was in the past, how do we know that they are not becoming more active for some reason, and putting lots of energy into the water?

    There are other explanations than "nasty humans done it".

    1. Some Beggar
      Thumb Down

      Re: Hydrothermal vents

      And what about the inherent inefficiency of anguilliform locomotion? Or the resonance of Inuit throat singing? Or mermaid farts? Have you smelled a mermaid fart? They're like cows cubed.

      Human activity is by far and away the most likely cause. Scratching around for alternatives is nothing more than obfuscation.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hydrothermal vents AND POOR PEOPLE.

        Everyone knows that poor people drive wasteful cars, burn scrap paper and wood for heat, and also smell bad (which harms the ozone layer).

        If we could ban the POOR the world would be a far more pleasant place to live.

        PS. not MY poor people though, I need them to make all my food and things. It's YOUR poor people that are causing all the problems.

  13. Aronimo
    WTF?

    Ok...Lets see...

    I'm 100% absolutely sure the sun has nothing to do with the rise in climate and ocean temps rising... Especially with the Sun in it's most Volatile 12 Year Cycle... Anyone attribute solar flares to Climate change? At all?...... You guys can trust the people that tell you we are over populated and we are causing global temperatures to rise, we need to pay for breathing and limit our child birth to one per person. That is a crock pot full of Bull Sh!t....

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Ok...Lets see...

      The Sun is in the coldest period it's been in for over 100 years.

  14. Norman123

    We have burned fossil fuel in addition to regular fuel for the past 100 years in massive quantities, plus the destructive energy of the wars and atomic testing. Energy just transforms from one type to another but does not vanish. It is stored in the atmosphere and oceans, some escapes to the outer space. We see progressive heat waves and warming, leading to/bordering destruction of many species/plants and ecosystems. Yet we still have people who deny human cause of global warming because change would reduce their cash flow. For cash flow, the oilmen/coal-men would rather destroy the planet than to use most of the cash to develop alternative energy, engines, and storage systems. Money can be incentive to change but can also be the root of all evil.

    1. Tom 13

      @Norman123: The problem with your flavor of denialists

      is that you are still in denial about the most fundamentally basic fact of carbon emission: when they erupt volcanoes erupt they emit vastly greater amounts of CO2 in a single day than mankind has in his accumulated history by a factor of about 100. IF the changes you claim are driven by CO2 were in fact driven by CO2 to the extent you claim, we should see huge temperature spikes in the weather patterns. We don't. Full Stop.

      1. Tim99 Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: @Norman123: The problem with your flavor of denialists

        "when they erupt volcanoes erupt they emit vastly greater amounts of CO2 in a single day than mankind has in his accumulated history by a factor of about 100"

        No. This is WRONG. For some real numbers read: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

        Over treasonable time periods human activity produces >two orders of magnitude more CO2 than volcanoes.

        Or: http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-basic.htm

        (If you want pretty graphs. click on 'What the science says... Select a level... Intermediate'

        "The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach et al 1996). Compare this to human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CDIAC). The strongest eruption over the last half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year. "

  15. Sirius Lee

    Care with reporting

    The challenge for reports like the one reviewed in this article is being extremely clear about terminology, transparent about limitations and precise about the measurements involved. Scrupulous care with facts and claim is a general requirement for all scientists but to often not ones that are allowed to get in the way of a good story.

    This article appears to describes a situation across all the oceans. Since most of the billions of humans live in the northern hemisphere presumably this is where most of the errant heat is generated. So for me it raises a question about how this heat can be spread over the oceans so widely. Especially into the southern oceans because there seems to few ocean or atmospheric flows that cross the equator.

    The ‘all oceans’ aspect raises another question, one that is likely to illuminate my misunderstanding and other errors. According to stats on Wikipedia the world’s oceans cover an area of approximately 3.6x10^8 Km2. Because the number is from Wikipedia it may be questionable but presumably not by many, if any, orders of magnitude. 3.6x10^8 Km2 is also 3.6x10^14 m2. The article refers to the heating of the top of the ocean so let’s be generous and assume that’s just the top 1 metre so it’s about the change in temp of 3.6x10^14 m3 or 3.6x10^23 cm3 (you’ll see why cm3 in a moment).

    The volume heat capacity of water at 25dC is 4.1796 = J/cm3.K while at -10dC is 1.9 = J/cm3.K. (now you see why the ocean volume is in cm3). The oceans are not 25dC nor are they -10dC so I’ll pick a number in the middle: 3 J/cm3.K. You can pick another number in this range. The small difference doesn’t matter.

    The article suggests that over the last 50 years the temp has increased by 0.1dC so now I’m in a position to compute the energy required to effect this change:

    4.1796 x 3.6x10^23 x 0.10 = 1.5x10^23 Joules.

    From Wikipedia (your source may vary) in 2008, total worldwide energy consumption was 474 exajoules. That’s 4.74×10^20 J or 132,000 TWh. This is approximately *300 times smaller* than the energy needed to effect the warming claimed. Or, another way, if the entire world energy output could be dumped directly into the top 1 m of the oceans for all 50 years (which didn’t happen because most was radiated into space) it would not come close. If the ‘top of the ocean’ is not 1m but 10m or more then the effect is even smaller in proportion. So it’s clear the report cannot have made a claim with the sort of generality that I inferred from the article, an inference other readers may also have made, which illustrates why reporting accuracy is required. Of course my little back of an envelope calculation may be crap and, if so, please point out the flaws.

    I don’t subscribe to Nature. If you do, may be you can help with some of the detail behind this article.

    1. IHateWearingATie
      Stop

      Re: Care with reporting

      I haven't checked the detail of your calcs, but I think they are based on an incorrect premise. The human action they are referring to is increasing the co2 and othe green house gases in the atmosphere, which presumably traps more of the heat from the sun, which in turn causes ocean warming.

      To redo your calc you'd need to compare the heat required with the energy received from the sun by the earth, and work out whether the extra energy retained is plausible. I think.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: Care with reporting

        The increase in greenhouse gases reduces the flow of infrared heat leaving the Earth into space. This results in an imbalance and energy builds up within the Earth system. The built up energy primarily goes into heating the oceans, although some goes into warming the land surface, atmosphere and melting ice. As the atmosphere and surface warm the Earth emits more infrared into space, reducing the imbalance. This feedback (and others) makes it difficult to calculate the expected heat build-up in the oceans without a computer, ie climate model.

      2. This post has been deleted by its author

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Care with reporting

          Agreeing with IHateWearingATie here... direct anthropogenic (man-made) heating of the system from anthropogenic sources is not a significant factor - there is an effect there, no doubt, but it is orders of magnitude too small to drive ocean heat content. Anthropogenic heating isn't even big enough to be a major factor (maybe 1-3% IIRC) for changes in atmospheric heat content either - which, heat capacity wise, is a much lower bar than warming the ocean.

          Also, in case it needs to be mentioned, CO2 is relatively well mixed in the atmosphere so - according to the theory - the heat content increase should be expected to be global and not regional.

          That's not to say that these guy's are right - this appears to be a purely statistical exercise. The abstract appears to make no mention of the mechanisms or feedbacks by which a ~90PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 can drive this magnitude of change in the ocean heat content. Even perfect correlation can be spurious : /

  16. _dilbert

    So a 1% significance of human causation implies a 99% significance of NOT being the cause!

  17. Gord
    Thumb Down

    more data = better beliefs?

    who ever has the most recent study wins, until there's another study.

    arguing about global ocean temperature changes proves one thing only - you've got too much time on your hands.

    Get Back to Work!

    (and quit reading the newsertainment, it's bad for your mental health)

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Plan C?

    "Mitigation" is Plan E or F except insofar as the kleptocrats can use it as an excuse to steal more wealth (see "Carbon Tax").

    Plan A - "It isn't happening"

    Plan B - "It isn't anthropogenic"

    Plan C - "It isn't enough to matter"

    Plan D - "There's nothing we can do about it anyways"

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Plan C?

      My bad. Apparently Plan C is "Warmer is Better". (http://inthesetimes.com/article/13362/trouble_in_the_heartland)

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Plan E

    The problem isn't just carbon dioxide, its methane.

    From what I understand, most of the world's methane is from farm animals and a small amount from permafrost gas release and rice paddies, organic waste decomposition etc.

    This isn't rocket science people, taxing petrol and diesel to the hilt simply punishes small businesses and encourages outsourcing which costs jobs.

    Whereas targeting the main cause of the problem rather than silly things like using CFLs instead of bulbs will achieve the needed reductions in carbon emissions.

    So the Government should offer a 75% tax break to vegetarians.

    Also, the Government should offer financial incentives to people growing food at home, and abolish the unnecessary waste carried out by Big Food such as throwing away items because they are *about* to expire yet are safe to eat for another few days.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Plan E

      No... The problem is both, Methane degrades into CO2 pretty quickly. Although I am of the opinion that a "less meat" diet is generally a good thing. It's only really since the late 70s that we have had people in the UK who thought it was required to have meat at every meal.

  20. John A Blackley

    Wow!

    The oceans warmed up a teeny touch in the last fifty years. That must mean we did it.

    No data for the previous 12 million or so years?

  21. Fluffy Bunny
    Thumb Down

    I don't see anything in this article that means it is actually human caused. Humans put 5% of the CO2 into the atmosphere, Earth the remaining 95%. When the same government is paying for this study that introduced the ill-conceived carbon tax, I would be surprised if it came up with any other result.

    The sun's output is always excluded by climate alarmists, who conveniently ignore the fact that Mars experienced global warming at the same time as Earth did.

    1. NomNomNom

      yawn

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

    2. indulis
      WTF?

      Martian alert! Please don tinfoil hats immediately!

      "The sun's output is always excluded by climate alarmists, who conveniently ignore the fact that Mars experienced global warming at the same time as Earth did."

      So you would prefer to trust the Martian Weather Service rather than lots data of earth-based and satellite observation stations that all show the Earth receiving LESS solar radiation at the same time as global temperatures are rising? You'd prefer to infer that there are definitely NO other causes which could be leading to a warming on Mars than solar radiation, and therefore deduce that the myriad of solar observations on/around the Earth are wrong? From that one fact?

      Actually the sun's output is always INCLUDED by climate realists, as it shows an increasing gap between reality (suns incident radiation on the earth is decreasing while global temperatures rise) and deluded denier fiction (** insert pretty much any AGW denier bunkum here, including the Mars myth ***).

  22. Wombling_Free
    Holmes

    Humans responsible for global warming?

    Who woulda thunk that?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019