Is the World Ready for Another Ice Age? by Geoff Sharp

[LakeEffectKing]

Haven't the oceans been warming a lot though?

Not according to at least one source (SST's anyways):

[skierinvermont]

Haven't the oceans been warming a lot though?

Yes .. OHC has been rising this decade. So yeah on balance the earth has been warming even though the Lower troposphere didn't warm much. There's theoretically still some cooling effect from the reduced TSI the second half of the decade

[BethesdaWX]

Yes, "effects" for sure.....but temperature....maybe not yet, lag time has been progged between 2-8 years, & after a record Max (SC23), the lag is likely to be on the longer end for sure. We've seen the record busting blocking, the Brutal Blizzards worldwide, and the ridiculous claims for Ice Ages.....again There is significant disagreement in Lag Time, but it has been progged anywhere from 2-8 years, so No skier, with temperatre being the last effect, there is a good chance we wait another few years. More importantly, GCC continues to run low....by abot 3% in its drop, and that can cause alot of warming.

Again skier, here is my above post. Lag time has been progged between 2-8 years....the worst is obviosly yet to come when the solar begins to pick up a bit, & that bounce-back from the extreme min make it to or atmosphere.

Snowlover posted the graph I was looking for, so takea look at that. Basically we've been cooling since 2002 with the El Nino interruption.

[BethesdaWX]

Haven't the oceans been warming a lot though?

Its been a decade with no warming trend in the oceans.

[beneficii]

Maybe SSTs have been declining, but it seems that ocean heat content has been rising, a lot:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091010163910AAEidYE

[skierinvermont]

Again skier, here is my above post. Lag time has been progged between 2-8 years....the worst is obviosly yet to come when the solar begins to pick up a bit, & that bounce-back from the extreme min make it to or atmosphere.

Snowlover posted the graph I was looking for, so takea look at that. Basically we've been cooling since 2002 with the El Nino interruption.

Most studies peg the lag at around 2 years. We've had low solar for a long time now. The maximum cooling effect might not be for another year or two, but most of the cooling associated with this cycle's minimum has already taken place.

[BethesdaWX]

Most studies peg the lag at around 2 years. We've had low solar for a long time now. The maximum cooling effect might not be for another year or two, but most of the cooling associated with this cycle's minimum has already taken place.

Most are in the vcinity of 3-4 years. 2 years is the low end, 7-8 years is the high end. In the end, both sides present logical reasoning, and we'll find out.

FYI, we've been in a cooing trend from 2002-2008, with the brief interuption of the Latest El Nino. Global temps shold drop below soon....so technically, we're still cooling.....If we're at abot +0.3C, as we shold be, when the biggest solar cooling takes place sarting between 2012-2014 (the deepest min started in 2008), and cold last awhile, we're in for a cold ride...... no matter if CO2 warming is real or not.

[nzucker]

Yes .. OHC has been rising this decade. So yeah on balance the earth has been warming even though the Lower troposphere didn't warm much. There's theoretically still some cooling effect from the reduced TSI the second half of the decade

Not really, it's actually leveled off a lot at least in the 700m column after rising swiftly in the 80s and 90s...definitely makes you wonder when people talk about warming in the pipeline. Here is the NOAA chart:

Its been a decade with no warming trend in the oceans.

Exactly! Where is the warming? If the surface is barely warming and the oceans are barely warming, what are we freaking out about? Especially if we're entering a Dalton Minimum with a -PDO. Get the winter gear ready, folks, because colder times are coming fast

Most studies peg the lag at around 2 years. We've had low solar for a long time now. The maximum cooling effect might not be for another year or two, but most of the cooling associated with this cycle's minimum has already taken place.

It depends on if we're talking about the 11 year cycle, the 30 year cycle, or the 100+ year cycle. Solar cycles are intertwined and never act independently of one another...If we are indeed entering a Dalton or Maunder, then the cooling is just beginning.

[BethesdaWX]

Not really, it's actually leveled off a lot at least in the 700m column after rising swiftly in the 80s and 90s...definitely makes you wonder when people talk about warming in the pipeline. Here is the NOAA chart:

Exactly! Where is the warming? If the surface is barely warming and the oceans are barely warming, what are we freaking out about? Especially if we're entering a Dalton Minimum with a -PDO. Get the winter gear ready, folks, because colder times are coming fast

It depends on if we're talking about the 11 year cycle, the 30 year cycle, or the 100+ year cycle. Solar cycles are intertwined and never act independently of one another...If we are indeed entering a Dalton or Maunder, then the cooling is just beginning.

Great Post!

Your last statement hits the nail on the head, perfectly. The regular 11yr cycle, & what we talk about long term, have different lag times. This is not just an 11yr cycle we're talking about, its a long term minimum that will take longer to assert dominance, especially after the recent modern Max.

[skierinvermont]

Not really, it's actually leveled off a lot at least in the 700m column after rising swiftly in the 80s and 90s...definitely makes you wonder when people talk about warming in the pipeline. Here is the NOAA chart:

Exactly! Where is the warming? If the surface is barely warming and the oceans are barely warming, what are we freaking out about? Especially if we're entering a Dalton Minimum with a -PDO. Get the winter gear ready, folks, because colder times are coming fast

It depends on if we're talking about the 11 year cycle, the 30 year cycle, or the 100+ year cycle. Solar cycles are intertwined and never act independently of one another...If we are indeed entering a Dalton or Maunder, then the cooling is just beginning.

I have posted the 0-2000m OHC charts in response to you multiple times. Here it is again:

And here's the overall heat accumulation of the earth. We have accumulated something like 60X10^21 Joules in the first half of this decade alone.

[BethesdaWX]

I have posted the 0-2000m OHC charts in response to you multiple times. Here it is again:

And here's the overall heat accumulation of the earth. We have accumulated something like 60X10^21 Joules in the first half of this decade alone.

And your Cartoon picture (irony kills dont it) is somehow more accurate than the NOAA data & surface OBS?

[beneficii]

And your Cartoon picture (irony kills dont it) is somehow more accurate than the NOAA data & surface OBS?

The graph shows a lot more than surface obs.

[skierinvermont]

And your Cartoon picture (irony kills dont it) is somehow more accurate than the NOAA data & surface OBS?

The graphs are of different things. I suggest you read the titles and axes.

[nzucker]

The graphs are of different things. I suggest you read the titles and axes.

The 2000m OHC shows a spike around 2006 and then a cooling starting with the 2007-08 La Niña. So where is the additional, accelerating warming? Looks to me as if there's the same plateau as has been seen in global surface temperatures and 700m OHC. As Trenberth said, 'It's a travesty we can't account for the lack of warming." Obviously, for someone whose paycheck depends on continued and rapid warming. Glad it's not me!

[BethesdaWX]

The graph shows a lot more than surface obs.

Jezuz

[skierinvermont]

The 2000m OHC shows a spike around 2006 and then a cooling starting with the 2007-08 La Niña. So where is the additional, accelerating warming? Looks to me as if there's the same plateau as has been seen in global surface temperatures and 700m OHC. As Trenberth said, 'It's a travesty we can't account for the lack of warming." Obviously, for someone whose paycheck depends on continued and rapid warming. Glad it's not me!

You don't seem to be reading the graph correctly.

It shows that we have accumulated 1.5 J/m2 over the oceans over the last 5 years. That is extreme. That's 60X10^21 Joules which continues the same trend during the 90s. and early 2000s. The warming of the oceans (which is where 90%+ of the heat is going anyways) has not slowed at all.

But somehow to you every little blip in the trend means that the warming is not happening.

[BethesdaWX]

The 2000m OHC shows a spike around 2006 and then a cooling starting with the 2007-08 La Niña. So where is the additional, accelerating warming? Looks to me as if there's the same plateau as has been seen in global surface temperatures and 700m OHC. As Trenberth said, 'It's a travesty we can't account for the lack of warming." Obviously, for someone whose paycheck depends on continued and rapid warming. Glad it's not me!

"We cannot accound for the lack of warming, and its a travesty we can't".

But Objective science sure can!

[skierinvermont]

"We cannot accound for the lack of warming, and its a travesty we can't".

But Objective science sure can!

You need to read for context. If you are going to try and use climate scientists statements against them you should at least try to understand what they are saying and the context in which it was said:

http://www.skeptical...-of-warming.htm

Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small 40 years ago but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m² over the 2000 to 2005 period, as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite data indicates the energy imbalance has continued to increase from 2006 to 2008. The net result is that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural variability". But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Nina rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants answers!

So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m² means the planet is accumulating 145 x 10²⁰ joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:

• 
  Land: 2 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Ice sheets: 1.4 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Sun: 16 x 10²⁰ joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)

These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 10²⁰ joules per year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 10²⁰ joules per year (although the error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.

So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m². This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance. However, von Schuckmann's results were published after Trenberth's paper so I look forward to seeing how this plays out in future papers.

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"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."

After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.

[nzucker]

You don't seem to be reading the graph correctly.

It shows that we have accumulated 1.5 J/m2 over the oceans over the last 5 years. That is extreme. That's 60X10^21 Joules which continues the same trend during the 90s. and early 2000s.

But somehow to you every little blip in the trend means that the warming is not happening.

I am talking about the 2000m global heat content graph...it shows a peak in late 2006 and then a slight decline. This doesn't seem very impressive to me.

Also, if most of the heat goes to the deep oceans, how does that constitute a catastrophe to human society? It seems to me that, so far, global warming is mostly affecting places that don't matter much....perhaps a 1C warming in winter in the high-pressure belts of Siberia and Northern Canada, where most of the people are probably grateful for it...and a few hundredths of a degree of warming in the ocean at 2000m which doesn't affect my life one iota. This doesn't exactly seem like a dangerous situation.

Finally, I am tired of hearing about warming in the pipeline. The fact that the surface isn't warming as much as expected constitutes a problem with AGW theory, and shows how important natural cycles are, which have been generally rejected by the IPCC. When drastic warming starts occurring where people live, then it'll be time to take action. But most of the world's population has been experiencing harsher than normal winters with more snowfall than average the past few winters, and very few of these "devastating" storms and hurricanes we were supposed to be getting.

[skierinvermont]

I am talking about the 2000m global heat content graph...it shows a peak in late 2006 and then a slight decline. This doesn't seem very impressive to me.

Then you do not fully comprehend the units. It is a tremendous amount of heat. The linear trend from 2003-2008 was the same as it was for 1990-2000. The earth has and continues to accumulate heat at an alarming rate.

[beneficii]

You need to read for context. If you are going to try and use climate scientists statements against them you should at least try to understand what they are saying and the context in which it was said:

http://www.skeptical...-of-warming.htm

Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing, his meaning becomes clear.

If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to track energy flow in and out of our climate system.

Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small 40 years ago but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m² over the 2000 to 2005 period, as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite data indicates the energy imbalance has continued to increase from 2006 to 2008. The net result is that the planet is continuously accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.

Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural variability". But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Nina rearrange the configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants answers!

So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m² means the planet is accumulating 145 x 10²⁰ joules per year. The following list gives the amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004 to 2008 period:

• 
  Land: 2 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Arctic sea Ice: 1 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Ice sheets: 1.4 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Total land ice: between 2 to 3 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Ocean: between 20 to 95 x 10²⁰ joules per year
• 
  Sun: 16 x 10²⁰ joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling from 2004 to 2008)

These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 10²⁰ joules per year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 10²⁰ joules per year (although the error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy. It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.

So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m². This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance. However, von Schuckmann's results were published after Trenberth's paper so I look forward to seeing how this plays out in future papers.

So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:

"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."

After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this:

"Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"

Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent. Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation than a quote-mined email.

Thank you! The denialists put out Trenberth's e-mail as though he was just making a secret admittance to his friends that he was worried he would be caught; and those heroic Russian hackers went and got it! The denialists, however, don't understand that, as you showed, he was referencing a paper he had written just earlier in the year. Will the denialists tell you that? No. Will the media that posted that Trenberth quote over and over again come back and show you the context? No. The e-mails didn't introduce much that was new; they just gave the denialists a media wave to ride.

[nzucker]

Then you do not fully comprehend the units. It is a tremendous amount of heat. The linear trend from 2003-2008 was the same as it was for 1990-2000. The earth has and continues to accumulate heat at an alarming rate.

The trend is downwards from early 2007 to late 2008, I can see that. It is still accumulating heat in the long term but it doesn't seem alarming because the oceans can store vastly more heat given that most of the deep ocean sits near 32F or so. Rapid surface warming is what poses a threat to humanity, and so far we haven't seen that with the balance of deaths and inconveniences due to extreme cold and snowfall the past couple of winters in unexpected places that aren't usually the recipient of such "wintry" conditions.

And clearly, the general public is not going to have much sympathy for "warming in the pipeline" when we were all told about the IPCC models showing .2C of surface warming per decade as well as a change towards much milder, shorter winters that everyone would notice. I doubt you're going to build a worldwide consensus based on the deep ocean warming a few thousandths of a degree, which shows that the dramatic implications of global warming suggested by the movement were exaggerated and actually hurt the cause. If we see no surface warming/lower troposphere warming again this decade, I think the IPCC can basically be discounted, and it will have been completely discredited by the vast majority of the public.

Also, if the oceans are accumulating less heat since 2007, surface temperatures haven't risen much since 1998, and December surface anomaly maps show us back down to average global temperatures...what's going to happen when the solar minimum really kicks in? What's going to happen when we start seeing normal levels of volcanic activity again along with the -PDO and Dalton-style minimum? Do you think people will be complaining about global warming if every December is a record cold one like this was?

[skierinvermont]

The trend is downwards from early 2007 to late 2008, I can see that. It is still accumulating heat in the long term but it doesn't seem alarming because the oceans can store vastly more heat given that most of the deep ocean sits near 32F or so. Rapid surface warming is what poses a threat to humanity, and so far we haven't seen that with the balance of deaths and inconveniences due to extreme cold and snowfall the past couple of winters in unexpected places that aren't usually the recipient of such "wintry" conditions.

And clearly, the general public is not going to have much sympathy for "warming in the pipeline" when we were all told about the IPCC models showing .2C of surface warming per decade as well as a change towards much milder, shorter winters that everyone would notice. I doubt you're going to build a worldwide consensus based on the deep ocean warming a few thousandths of a degree, which shows that the dramatic implications of global warming suggested by the movement were exaggerated and actually hurt the cause. If we see no surface warming/lower troposphere warming again this decade, I think the IPCC can basically be discounted, and it will have been completely discredited by the vast majority of the public.

Also, if the oceans are accumulating less heat since 2007, surface temperatures haven't risen much since 1998, and December surface anomaly maps show us back down to average global temperatures...what's going to happen when the solar minimum really kicks in? What's going to happen when we start seeing normal levels of volcanic activity again along with the -PDO and Dalton-style minimum? Do you think people will be complaining about global warming if every December is a record cold one like this was?

A 2 year cooling period is irrelevant compared to 100 years of warming, especially since it could be attributed to measurement error. The surface will continue to warm over the next few decades. The last decade was simply a blip, and the earth continues to accumulate heat at an alarming rate.

[beneficii]

The trend is downwards from early 2007 to late 2008, I can see that. It is still accumulating heat in the long term but it doesn't seem alarming because the oceans can store vastly more heat given that most of the deep ocean sits near 32F or so. Rapid surface warming is what poses a threat to humanity, and so far we haven't seen that with the balance of deaths and inconveniences due to extreme cold and snowfall the past couple of winters in unexpected places that aren't usually the recipient of such "wintry" conditions.

And clearly, the general public is not going to have much sympathy for "warming in the pipeline" when we were all told about the IPCC models showing .2C of surface warming per decade as well as a change towards much milder, shorter winters that everyone would notice. I doubt you're going to build a worldwide consensus based on the deep ocean warming a few thousandths of a degree, which shows that the dramatic implications of global warming suggested by the movement were exaggerated and actually hurt the cause. If we see no surface warming/lower troposphere warming again this decade, I think the IPCC can basically be discounted, and it will have been completely discredited by the vast majority of the public.

Also, if the oceans are accumulating less heat since 2007, surface temperatures haven't risen much since 1998, and December surface anomaly maps show us back down to average global temperatures...what's going to happen when the solar minimum really kicks in? What's going to happen when we start seeing normal levels of volcanic activity again along with the -PDO and Dalton-style minimum? Do you think people will be complaining about global warming if every December is a record cold one like this was?

1998 was a spike in surface temperatures due to El Nino. It was a short term variation. I cannot believe that you are again using 1998 actual temperature as a base. Didn't we just go over this?

The surface temperature has increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1950, which is very extreme when you consider climate in the past. That makes for about 0.1 degrees per decade. Since 1980, the increase has been about 0.5 degrees Celsius, for about 0.17 degrees per decade. This past decade was the warmest on record for surface temperatures.

I think that you continue to get hung up on short term changes and forget to look at the long term.

[beneficii]

The last decade was simply a blip, and the earth continues to accumulate heat at an alarming rate.

???

This last decade was the warmest on record.

[skierinvermont]

1998 was a spike in surface temperatures due to El Nino. It was a short term variation. I cannot believe that you are again using 1998 actual temperature as a base. Didn't we just go over this?

The surface temperature has increased about 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1950, which is very extreme when you consider climate in the past. That makes for about 0.1 degrees per decade. Since 1980, the increase has been about 0.5 degrees Celsius, for about 0.17 degrees per decade. This past decade was the warmest on record for surface temperatures.

I think that you continue to get hung up on short term changes and forget to look at the long term.

He tends to be a bit premature in that regard. It astounds me that we are using 2 year trends which have no statistical significance and ignoring 100+ year trends. This is faulty science.

[skierinvermont]

???

This last decade was the warmest on record.

I am speaking solely of the surface temperature record and ignoring the oceans which continue to accumulate heat.

And I am referring to the trend this decade, which was only slightly positive. They increased rapidly in the 90s and then basically plateaued in the 2000s. Look at trend lines for this decade on UAH/RSS/HadCRUT.. all close to zero with GISS being somewhat higher. Most representative is probably an average of HadCRUT and GISS in my opinion.

[nzucker]

He tends to be a bit premature in that regard. It astounds me that we are using 2 year trends which have no statistical significance and ignoring 100+ year trends.

I'm saying there hasn't been much surface warming since 1998, which concurs with the idea that having a -PDO cools the climate as that's when we began the transition towards a cold Pacific cycle. We are supposed to be warming at .2C/decade. If we haven't warmed at all in 12 years, this is a problem. I'm also comparing a strong El Niño (1998) with another strong El Niño (2010) and there's no significant warming at all...this is not an apples to oranges comparison, it's looking at the same ENSO state 12 years later and asking why we haven't seen an acceleration in global temperatures as predicted by the models. That's why 1998 is a good year to use, since it was the beginning of -/neutral PDO and also the only strong El Niño year recently we can compare 2010 with.

I am just saying regarding the 2000m OHC that I don't see a reason for alarm...it looks to me as if the trend is about the same as the 700m chart, namely a bigger increase early in the 2000s followed by a plateau after 2006 which mirrors the plateau in global surface temperatures. This suggests that temperatures everywhere are basically staying the same, and heat is not accumulating at an alarming rate as some claim but at a relatively stable rate. This means we do not have a lot of warming in the pipeline. In any case, as Will says, the oceans could take away all the accumulated heat energy until procession dictates another ice age. It is warming in our cities and wildernesses that we're worried about, not warming 3000m under the Pacific. You are also saying it's measurement error possibly...well, maybe the whole thing is measurement error. What type of argument is that? Maybe the satellite analysis of the Earth accumulating heat is measurement error.

And much of the 100 year trend was natural, anyway. We were recovering from the Little Ice Age, a time of severe cold and conditions we don't have to deal with today, to the benefit of our society...so of course the Earth is going to contain more heat than in 1900. That's not exactly news my friend.

[skierinvermont]

I'm saying there hasn't been much surface warming since 1998, which concurs with the idea that having a -PDO cools the climate as that's when we began the transition towards a cold Pacific cycle. We are supposed to be warming at .2C/decade. If we haven't warmed at all in 12 years, this is a problem. I'm also comparing a strong El Niño (1998) with another strong El Niño (2010) and there's no significant warming at all...this is not an apples to oranges comparison, it's looking at the same ENSO state 12 years later and asking why we haven't seen an acceleration in global temperatures as predicted by the models. That's why 1998 is a good year to use, since it was the beginning of -/neutral PDO and also the only strong El Niño year recently we can compare 2010 with.

I am just saying regarding the 2000m OHC that I don't see a reason for alarm...it looks to me as if the trend is about the same as the 700m chart, namely a bigger increase early in the 2000s followed by a plateau after 2006 which mirrors the plateau in global surface temperatures. This suggests that temperatures everywhere are basically staying the same, and heat is not accumulating at an alarming rate as some claim but at a relatively stable rate. This means we do not have a lot of warming in the pipeline. In any case, as Will says, the oceans could take away all the accumulated heat energy until procession dictates another ice age. It is warming in our cities and wildernesses that we're worried about, not warming 3000m under the Pacific. You are also saying it's measurement error possibly...well, maybe the whole thing is measurement error. What type of argument is that? Maybe the satellite analysis of the Earth accumulating heat is measurement error.

And much of the 100 year trend was natural, anyway. We were recovering from the Little Ice Age, a time of severe cold and conditions we don't have to deal with today, to the benefit of our society...so of course the Earth is going to contain more heat than in 1900. That's not exactly news my friend.

Measurement error for a single year or two is much larger than for long term trends. The long term trend in OHC show steady dramatic warming. So does the surface temperature record.

If you are interested in measurement error for OHC or for satellite measurements I suggest you read the relevant primary literature.

[nzucker]

Measurement error for a single year or two is much larger than for long term trends. The long term trend in OHC show steady dramatic warming. So does the surface temperature record.

If you are interested in measurement error for OHC or for satellite measurements I suggest you read the relevant primary literature.

I'm not interested in measurement error as I don't really care if the Pacific Ocean at 2000m is 32.15F or 32.17F, pretty irrelevant. The point is we're not warming as much as expected by IPCC, and many meteorologists are beginning to consider seriously the prospect of global cooling, or at the very least colder winters for the heavily populated mid-latitudes, due to solar and ocean cycle factors. We are entering a historic solar minimum with widespread implications as well as a hefty Niña/-PDO regime. We'll just have to see what happens. May the best man win.