Where's the heat? In the oceans

Where's the heat? In the oceans

There are 10 comments on the The Daily Tribune story from Apr 11, 2013, titled Where's the heat? In the oceans. In it, The Daily Tribune reports that:

The temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has been essentially the same for the past decade or so, providing ammunition for skeptics of human-caused climate change.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Daily Tribune.

PHD

Thornton, TX

#1 Apr 12, 2013
A large chunk of the warmth
"appears"
to be settling far down in the ocean about a half-mile beneath the surface, Trenbreth says. New technology over the past decade or so have allowed scientists to better measure the temperature of the deep oceans, Willis says.
So the cold water floats to the top. Another case of scientific science fiction.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#2 Apr 12, 2013
http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/usatoda...

Just as the models predicted.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#3 Apr 12, 2013
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
-Dr. Trenberth

The missing heat has been found... just as the models forecasted.
http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/usatoda...
SpaceBlues

United States

#4 Apr 12, 2013
It's heat, mass, and momentum transfer with chemical reactions.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#5 Apr 12, 2013
drink the kookaid with many dashes of denial wrote:
The missing heat has been found...
& toxic AGW deniers have no scientific affect in finding warming in the biosphere....... nor did they want to...... nor could they.......

Sorry...... one denier did help, who first became a skeptic, & now an AGW advocate.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#6 Apr 12, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
& toxic AGW deniers have no scientific affect in finding warming in the biosphere....... nor did they want to...... nor could they.......
Sorry...... one denier did help, who first became a skeptic, & now an AGW advocate.
The 2007 report from the Intergov- ernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I presents a narrow view of the state of climate science.1 At- tempts to significantly influence re- gional and local-scale climate based on controlling carbon dioxide emissions alone cannot succeed since humans are significantly altering the global climate in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of CO2. The IPCC as- sessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter re- gional and global climate. When the IPCC focuses its policy attention on CO2, it neglects other important aspects of the impact of human activities on climate.

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2...
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#7 Apr 12, 2013
"Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of CO2. Significant, societally important climate change on the regional and local scales, due to both natural and human climate forcings, can occur due to these diverse influences. The result of the more com- plex interference of humans in the cli- mate system is that attempts to signifi- cantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emis- sions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose. There is a need to minimize the human disturbance of the climate by limiting the amount of CO2 that is emit- ted into the atmosphere by human ac- tivities, but the diversity of human cli- mate forcings should not be ignored."

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2...
SpaceBlues

United States

#8 Apr 12, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
The 2007 report from the Intergov- ernmental[sic] Panel on Climate Change Working Group I presents a narrow view of the state of climate science.1 At- tempts[sic] to significantly influence re- gional and local-scale climate based on controlling carbon dioxide emissions alone cannot succeed since humans are significantly altering the global climate in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of CO2. The IPCC as- sessments[sic] have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter re- gional[sic] and global climate. When the IPCC focuses its policy attention on CO2, it neglects other important aspects of the impact of human activities on climate.
No. Nonsense!

Speaking of COMMON SENSE, please apply it here. How can it be a narrow view when all the science, the vast universe of relevant science is the source of the IPCC conclusions.

It's the man-made CO2 emissions that are changing our global climate! Read the IPCC reports for details.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#9 Apr 12, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>No. Nonsense!
Speaking of COMMON SENSE, please apply it here. How can it be a narrow view when all the science, the vast universe of relevant science is the source of the IPCC conclusions.
It's the man-made CO2 emissions that are changing our global climate! Read the IPCC reports for details.
that is the point of the post. The IPCC has grossly underestimated the impact of Man's effect on the climate (according to the expert quoted). This position is supported by Hansen of the GISS and Jones in the CRU at the University of East Anglia and numerous others.
SpaceBlues

United States

#10 Apr 12, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>that is the point of the post. The IPCC has grossly underestimated the impact of Man's effect on the climate (according to the expert quoted). This position is supported by Hansen of the GISS and Jones in the CRU at the University of East Anglia and numerous others.
Are you reality challenged?

Science is a continuum. Science has progressed since the last IPCC reports were issued. The next issue date is within the coming several months.

Do you understand that the IPCC studies what scientists have published invidually or in groups and produces conclusions? So the next IPCC reporting will surely reflect where there are new findings such as "worse than before."

IPCC updates occur due to science progress coupled to the ongoing climate change .. even for the "grossly underestimated" previously. A moving target is not a problem with the science itself or with the IPCC process. This is the way of reality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Boulder Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trashy doc 'Casting JonBenet' feeds on viewers'... 10 hr heatherk79 17
News Sundance 2017: 'Casting JonBenet' and the Age o... Fri RTIC 6
Take Back Boulder stole my underwear!!! Thu ITS HAPPENING 8
News JonBenet Ramsey grand jury dismissed after prob... Wed Latisha 7
News Five myths about the JonBenet Ramsey murder case Wed RTIC 22
To Jolamom Wed RTIC 2
News The Clue in JonBenet Ramsey's Autopsy That Make... Wed RTIC 2

Boulder Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Boulder Mortgages