Fortunately the article you cited has a link to the actual NASA news release. I suggest you read all of the NASA release before claiming the planet is not continuing to warm, because the NASA article citied actual says just the opposite.
Leaf, I did read it. Yet, they cite no data to support their claim for global warming- just state it as fact. However, they state the the upper layer of the ocean is warming, but not enough to account for the pause in global warming, and that scientists had posited the ‘missing’ heat must be in the deep ocean. Yet it isn’t.
That’s because the article in question was not about global warming generally. It was about a specific result about deep ocean temperatures and their possible meaning for the global warming question. It would have been totally out of place for this news release to cite the data for global warming generally when such data is not in the scope of the article.
Yet that little fact was left out of your posting as well as the Breitbart article.
The specific theory that can’t be wrong is not that there must be global warming. It is the theory of conservation of energy. Global warming is based on that plus the additional assumption that greenhouse gases keep the energy from escaping into space. If you really want to challenge the theory (and not just the empirical data) you will have to play the “where’s the energy” game too, except that your goal is to show that the additional energy did in fact escape into space.
Like I just said, showing that enough radiant energy is escaping into space. That would kill global warming definitively.
Then we keep investigating until we have a theory that explains the facts. If that theory is that there is no global warming, then so be it.
Odd that there would be sensible heat polynyas, then, of which there are not a few created by warmer water rising to the surface and melting the ice even under arctic conditions.This is something emerging in science the mechanical mixing of the oceans heat content.
Heat will rise, but if it is taken down in water to a lower depth (mixed) and perhaps kept there to some extend by some mechanical motion, it will take a lot of time for the heat to rise. Water is more sluggish than air.
“Kitchen physics” – a watched pot never boils
What that means is it takes a very long time for the heat to permeate through the pot from the bottom and eventually bring the whole thing to a boil, esp if it is a big pot full of water.
RE the oceans, with mechanical motion mixing the warm surface water downward, the resulting (mixed) surface water will not as warm as it would have been without the mechanical mixing. The atmosphere (and sea surface temps) these past 18 years have not been cooling, but remaining stable, which is what one would expect with greater mixing of ocean water thru a mechanical means (like stirring the pot).
It is not odd at all. Lynn is not saying that warm water does not tend to rise, as it would have to do to create a sensible heat polyna. It is just that after some warm water has been stirred down to a deeper depth, as it rises some of its heat is transferred to the lower depths. When it does rise again to the top, it is not as warm or as organized as was before. It is a little diluted with cooler water, and some of the cooler water below is not quite as cool as it was before. Thus warm water continues to rise, but the heat that was in that warmer water gradually spreads to deeper levels. It is not that mysterious.
The fact is the world is not warming. Why would we need a theory to explain that ?
What needs to be explained is where the energy from the sun that strikes the earth is going.
CO2 is a long known green house gas, the thing is it is such a small portion of green house gasses and the biggest of those is water vapor.
Why not the same places it was going in 1800?
Because in 1800 there was not nearly as much greenhouse gasses blocking the escape of IR radiation, unless you want to show that CO2 does not block IR. Is that your claim?
I claim that you cannot prove what the mix of green house gasses was in 1800.
To what degree of accuracy?
At least one and colleagues (Hansen, et al.) discussed the possibility of ocean heat capacity being a factor in less atmospheric warming by 2000 as far back as 1981, and actually came up with fairly accurate (a bit lower) temps in their model than what we see today from that effect if that capacity was greater.
That heat rises.
Then you wish to argue that when someone is covered with a blanket, it is the blanket causing the warmth and not the body producing the heat.
Now you are just quibbling about terminology. Everyone knows what you mean when you say “Here, cover up with this blanket. It will keep you warm.” And with CO2, everyone knows that the CO2 does not generate heat, but its presence keeps the heat we do have from radiating freely into space.
…but that was never in dispute, so it was unnecessary to prove it.
No, not completely even. There is still a lot of temperature stratification left even after the wind and waves mix some of the warm water with water below.
There is no doubt that this happens to some degree. Otherwise the top quarter inch of the oceans would contain all the heat from the sun that strikes the oceans, and the water would be very cold just an inch below that. The only question is whether the amount of mixing is sufficient to account for the pause in atmospheric warming. And that question cannot be answered by intuition or kitchen science. It takes real quantitative science to do that.
Four significant digits.
None of this precision matters for Catholics. Prudence requires that we mitigate a serious, life-threatening problem even if we are not very sure about it. (And we do buy insurance for our homes, even tho we think it a remote possibility they will burn to a crisp.)
Not to 4 significant digits. I state that because the dire predictions of AGW require 4 significant digits as they regularly predict increases to the hundredths of a degree Celsius, so that would be XX.XX degree Centigrade measurements. Never happened and isn’t in the data set you provided.
