New Paper: Recent Energy Balance of Earth (Knox and Douglass)

[ORH_wxman]

Yes.. it is too bad that the general public is too stupid to understand science. Agree strongly there. What does that have to do with the actual science itself?

I thought we were debating the science, not whether the public will be persuaded by it.

The fact is.. there is no good evidence of "missing heat" this decade.

There was a time just a few years ago that people laughed at ocean cycles affecting global temperatures. The arrogance surrounding "the science" is ridiculous IMHO. Thinking outside the box and welcoming opposing view rather than shunning them with condescending arrogance is a better way to go.

It is very important to calculate whether there are "short term feedbacks" or cycles. The ocean can store a tremendous amount of heat and energy and could do so for thousands of years...so its not really a question of accumulating energy, its a question of how much it matters at the sfc. Its something we need to learn more about because if the earth can just put energy away, then that throws a lot doubt around what we are trying to do.

[Kelvin Wave]

The problem is that people live in the "here and now" and AGW is about the past and future, which covers time periods longer than most people experience. I would imagine that most people will not notice huge changes in weather because they will happen so subtly and slowly over the next few decades. I don't think I have to mention, on a science board, how bad anecdotal evidence actually is.

Once again, stop with the condescending tone.

The majority of the American public doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming seriously...they may be dumb but the Climategate scandal, lack of recent warming, and very cold/snowy winters have all had their impact.

For example, when you see this, are you going to worry more about incorrect measurements in 2000m OHC or heating your home and staying safe?:

This is intended as a bit of a joke but it's relevant in the fact that the weather hasn't changed much in the eyes of the public, and winters have become progressively harsher since 2007 in the United States and Europe. This isn't what Bill McKibben and David Parker told us, my friend.

[Kelvin Wave]

Also of interest is that what you hear in the media and what real scientists think are two different things. The few scientists that talk to the media have made many crazy claims, as we all know. But the reality is that most scientists, and most of the peer-reviewed literature on the topic, is not calling for our oceans to start boiling in 10 years. They actually have a more moderate view. The public understands science through how it is reported by the media, but scientists should understand it though peer-reviews journals. It is unfortunate that the two are often at odds with each other, but such is the way our society works.

Edit: The fact that a "big named" scientist is wrong about an AGW claim does not mean that AGW theory is BS. Remember, most of the "big names" in AGW are the people we see in the media - the actual "big names", in the science community, are quite different.

[nzucker]

I thought we were debating the science, not what public opinion will or will not be. It's like you are lording it over the scientists that the general public doesn't believe them, even though the science is strong.

This thread went from you claiming there is "missing heat" to giving up on that given all the evidence to the contrary, to simply claiming that the general public will be tricked by short term studies which lack significance and are not comprehensive.

I didn't give up...you just continued your moronic and arrogant rants so I continued. Trenberth acknowledges missing heat and he is certainly a fan of anthropogenic warming. The Knox/Douglass study also finds missing heat...some studies agree with it, some studies don't. So there's lots of uncertainty left there, meaning the science isn't that strong. How can the science for AGW be strong when we haven't warmed in 12 years despite natural factors indicating warming, when we don't know if OHC is rising or falling, when most of the projections for global warming and related areas like arctic sea ice have been terrible? How can the science be strong when we have conspiratorial e-mails being passed around about "inconveniently high SSTs in the 1940s?" How can the science be strong when the UN thinks all Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, despite 30k elevations in the area? How can the science be strong when a dramatic solar minimum threatens to cool us quickly?

Please..

[skierinvermont]

There was a time just a few years ago that people laughed at ocean cycles affecting global temperatures. The arrogance surrounding "the science" is ridiculous IMHO. Thinking outside the box and welcoming opposing view rather than shunning them with condescending arrogance is a better way to go.

It is very important to calculate whether there are "short term feedbacks" or cycles. The ocean can store a tremendous amount of heat and energy and could do so for thousands of years...so its not really a question of accumulating energy, its a question of how much it matters at the sfc. Its something we need to learn more about because if the earth can just put energy away, then that throws a lot doubt around what we are trying to do.

I agree in theory. But using statistically insignificant short-term trends is not the way to go about doing it.

One thing to keep in mind is that if the surface doesn't warm and the oceans just put the heat away, then the earth will accumulate heat much faster. Surface warming is the earth's natural rebalancing mechanism because it allows the earth to re-radiate the heat to space.

[skierinvermont]

I didn't give up...you just continued your moronic and arrogant rants so I continued. Trenberth acknowledges missing heat and he is certainly a fan of anthropogenic warming. The Knox/Douglass study also finds missing heat...some studies agree with it, some studies don't. So there's lots of uncertainty left there, meaning the science isn't that strong. How can the science for AGW be strong when we haven't warmed in 12 years despite natural factors indicating warming, when we don't know if OHC is rising or falling, when most of the projections for global warming and related areas like arctic sea ice have been terrible? How can the science be strong when we have conspiratorial e-mails being passed around about "inconveniently high SSTs in the 1940s?" How can the science be strong when the UN thinks all Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, despite 30k elevations in the area? How can the science be strong when a dramatic solar minimum threatens to cool us quickly?

Please..

LOL you misinterpret the quote again.. he made that comment BEFORE some of these steric SLR and deep OHC analyses.

The science is NOT based on 5 year trends in OHC.. it is based on 50+ year trends in OHC.

The 5 year trend is not even statistically significant. And it is contradicted by steric sea level rise. And it is only of 0-700m and ignores 700-2000m. And it is contradicted by other analyses of 0-700m OHC.

It is not a basis for calling AGW into question.

We don't know whether OHC is rising or falling the last 5 years because we don't have the tools to measure it so precisely on such short timescales. That doesn't mean OHC is not rising. It doesn't mean it is. It just means we DONT KNOW. We dont need to know whether OHC has been rising the last 5 years for AGW theory. Use a 10 or 15 year trend and OHC is rising the expected amount.

[VAwxman]

There was a time just a few years ago that people laughed at ocean cycles affecting global temperatures. The arrogance surrounding "the science" is ridiculous IMHO. Thinking outside the box and welcoming opposing view rather than shunning them with condescending arrogance is a better way to go.

Bingo.

I'm sure some scientists somewhere did consider it, but you are dead on when you say many were scoffed at for talking about ocean cycles being a big key in global temperature trends. Heck I got into debates with folks myself who laughed at me for saying such things. They behaved the same way regarding solar influences, and, imagine that, have changed their tune there as well.

[stellarfun]

This paper is not published in a peer-reviewed journal, and the journal is not associated with any professional society or association.

This journal is a newly-minted publication (still in volume I), in which the author(s) basically self-publish stuff that would not be accepted or published elsewhere.

The paper immediately following Knox and Douglass' paper in this journal has this conclusion:

The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed.

Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes

Paulo Cesar Soares

Earth Sciences, Federal University of Parana (UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil

http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijg/

Even John Christy wouldn't lend his name as a co-author to the Knox and Douglass paper..

[skierinvermont]

I knew something was fishy with this article. Its conclusions were not supported by the data.. which is a HUGE no-no in peer-reviewed journals. It also does not address or even mention studies which contradict it. Also a big no-no. Good find stellarfun.

The paper wouldn't have been published if it was as simple as you make it out to be. That is your opinion, not fact.

Sure it would have. It's not peer-reviewed. The fact that it was published in this journal implies it didn't even meet the basic standards of a journal like Geophysical Research Letters which will publish nearly anything.

[Kelvin Wave]

Regarding the importance of ocean cycles: who was it that didn't believe they weren't important? Was it the scientists doing the actual research or was it the rest of the AGW community?

Bingo.

I'm sure some scientists somewhere did consider it, but you are dead on when you say many were scoffed at for talking about ocean cycles being a big key in global temperature trends. Heck I got into debates with folks myself who laughed at me for saying such things. They behaved the same way regarding solar influences, and, imagine that, have changed their tune there as well.

[ORH_wxman]

Bingo.

I'm sure some scientists somewhere did consider it, but you are dead on when you say many were scoffed at for talking about ocean cycles being a big key in global temperature trends. Heck I got into debates with folks myself who laughed at me for saying such things. They behaved the same way regarding solar influences, and, imagine that, have changed their tune there as well.

Yeah its laughable how the arrogance has taken on almost a snowball effect. Anyone who dares question what they say gets blackballed. The ocean cycles and the solar stuff are just a couple of examples and I'm sure the examples will continue to grow.

[stellarfun]

I knew something was fishy with this article. Its conclusions were not supported by the data.. which is a HUGE no-no in peer-reviewed journals. It also does not address or even mention studies which contradict it. Also a big no-no. Good find stellarfun.

Sure it would have. It's not peer-reviewed. The fact that it was published in this journal implies it didn't even meet the basic standards of a journal like Geophysical Research Letters which will publish nearly anything.

The first clue was going to the paper as published on the University of Rochester website: the dates from submission to acceptance to publication were far too short for a peer-reviewed article.

The second clue was to then go to journal source itself; where one quickly discovers that the journal has had three issues, all volume I, so instantly clear this is a spanking new start-up journal.

The third clue was to look at the contents for Volume I, issue 3.. There is Knox's paper, followed by the CO2 paper which looked interesting, just from the title. (Though one should be immediately suspicious of any single author papers in any journal.) Third paper authored by an Iraqi scientist who investigates silica content of termite mounds in Iraq; not likely to be at the forefront of scientific inquiry and interest. So rather eclectic company for Knox and Douglass.

The fourth clue was to glance through the paper on CO2 and global warming, with zero original science, but full of the author's opinions and findings.

The jig was up. Why strain synapses on a paper that, by virtue of where and how it was published, has zero scientific credibility?

[WeatherRusty]

The first clue was going to the paper as published on the University of Rochester website: the dates from submission to acceptance to publication were far too short for a peer-reviewed article.

The second clue was to then go to journal source itself; where one quickly discovers that the journal has had three issues, all volume I, so instantly clear this is a spanking new start-up journal.

The third clue was to look at the contents for Volume I, issue 3.. There is Knox's paper, followed by the CO2 paper which looked interesting, just from the title. (Though one should be immediately suspicious of any single author papers in any journal.) Third paper authored by an Iraqi scientist who investigates silica content of termite mounds in Iraq; not likely to be at the forefront of scientific inquiry and interest. So rather eclectic company for Knox and Douglass.

The fourth clue was to glance through the paper on CO2 and global warming, with zero original science, but full of the author's opinions and findings.

The jig was up. Why strain synapses on a paper that, by virtue of where and how it was published, has zero scientific credibility?

And I heard someone say there is no such thing as the "manufactured doubt machine"...

[tacoman25]

And I heard someone say there is no such thing as the "manufactured doubt machine"...

Yes, I'm sure that paper was funded by Big Oil.

Anyone who questions anything about AGW theory is part of the conspiracy, after all.

[BethesdaWX]

There was a time just a few years ago that people laughed at ocean cycles affecting global temperatures. The arrogance surrounding "the science" is ridiculous IMHO. Thinking outside the box and welcoming opposing view rather than shunning them with condescending arrogance is a better way to go.

It is very important to calculate whether there are "short term feedbacks" or cycles. The ocean can store a tremendous amount of heat and energy and could do so for thousands of years...so its not really a question of accumulating energy, its a question of how much it matters at the sfc. Its something we need to learn more about because if the earth can just put energy away, then that throws a lot doubt around what we are trying to do.

Bingo! Although its still unknown exactly how it works, this statement is recieving growing amounts of evidence. Heat energy at 1000-2000m down may not have any effect on the surface for a LONG time, on the order of several thousand years.....if it even makes it. We have maybe 100yrs of Fossil fuels left, so really its not that important IMO. In that amont of time, what the Earth will do with it.......we don't know.

The earth recycles everything, all matter, that exists in its realm, its own gases too.

Lets not forget one of the main laws of the GHE effect in terms of Intake & Release!

[BethesdaWX]

And I heard someone say there is no such thing as the "manufactured doubt machine"...

Because I don't pay attention to crap like a "manufactured doubt machine", and whatever it says, I, and lest everyone else but you, "doubt" that it is in anyway worthwhile, so there.

[stellarfun]

Bingo! Although its still unknown exactly how it works, this statement is recieving growing amounts of evidence. Heat energy at 1000-2000m down may not have any effect on the surface for a LONG time, on the order of several thousand years.....if it even makes it. We have maybe 100yrs of Fossil fuels left, so really its not that important IMO. In that amont of time, what the Earth will do with it.......we don't know.

The earth recycles everything, all matter, that exists in its realm, its own gases too.

Lets not forget one of the main laws of the GHE effect in terms of Intake & Release!

Your predicate ignores the methane hydrates which are generally stored on the seabed at 1000 meters or less.

I'll leave it to you to calculate the temperature/pressure phase diagram for however much you think the subsurface ocean can readily store heat energy without releasing the methane hydrates.

[WeatherRusty]

Because I don't pay attention to crap like a "manufactured doubt machine", and whatever it says, I, and lest everyone else but you, "doubt" that it is in anyway worthwhile, so there.

Don't make me laugh. Greater than 90% of your "crap" comes from the manufactured doubt machine.

[BethesdaWX]

Don't make me laugh. Greater than 90% of your "crap" comes from the manufactured doubt machine.

Well, you just made me laugh, seriously, you're emberassing yourself drumming up a "manufactured doubt machine" to support your Ideas & Trash mine....

Stop

[BethesdaWX]

Your predicate ignores the methane hydrates which are generally stored on the seabed at 1000 meters or less.

I'll leave it to you to calculate the temperature/pressure phase diagram for however much you think the subsurface ocean can readily store heat energy without releasing the methane hydrates.

I said 1000-2000, where the huge majority of this "heat energy" is supposedly being stored. In 100yrs left of fossil fuels, theres not much more we can do to stop the oceans from absorbing this (if its even happening)....they can do so for several thousand years. So far, little has propogated to the surface...hence the use "Deep" ocean

Either way, you missed alot of my post.

[stellarfun]

I said 1000-2000, where the huge majority of this "heat energy" is supposedly being stored. In 100yrs left of fossil fuels, theres not much more we can do to stop the oceans from absorbing this (if its even happening)....they can do so for several thousand years. So far, little has propogated to the surface...hence the use "Deep" ocean

Either way, you missed alot of my post.

I didn't miss anything in your post.

Your presumption is that the ocean, shallow or deep, can benignly act as a heat sink and offset increases in atmospheric warming.

I asked you to construct a temperature/pressure phase diagram to demonstrate that temperature increases in the heat sink of the ocean would have little or no effect on methane hydrates. I'll spare you the labor of trying to figure out what such a diagram might look like.

As long as the hydrate is ice, everything's fine; however, once it sublimates,.................

[BethesdaWX]

I didn't miss anything in your post.

Your presumption is that the ocean, shallow or deep, can benignly act as a heat sink and offset increases in atmospheric warming.

I asked you to construct a temperature/pressure phase diagram to demonstrate that temperature increases in the heat sink of the ocean would have little or no effect on methane hydrates. I'll spare you the labor of trying to figure out what such a diagram might look like.

As long as the hydrate is ice, everything's fine; however, once it sublimates,.................

Methane Hydrate released from ice? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I was speaking of. Are you really arguing that the oceans are not a gaint heat sink? Look for yourself, even on alarmist blogs/sites.... its all there, even your little phase diagram that you were looking for.

You think you know what my assumption is? Aparrently not. What part of "heat energy" do you not understand? I never brought up anything ulterior. The Large Majority of this "heat energy" is between 1000-2000m. According to super consensus-dig NOAA, the reason warming has stopped (I mean, "slowed slightly )is due to energy being stored is in the "deep oceans", and its said to be doing so in earnest. Do you know how long the oceans can cold that heat? try 5000 years.

You know Earth recycles everything, all energy, material, everything in its realm........so Why wouldn't it recycle this? It will, and we have yet to speak contrary.

Go look up Methane trends in the atmosphere and tell me what you find.

[salbers]

Second, isn't the surface temperature the most important, followed by the 0-700m OHC? Who really cares what the temperature is at 2000m in the ocean? We can trap heat in the oceans for a long time with a -PDO/-ENSO cycle, especially if it's being pushed really deep beyond 1000m. This would probably mitigate most of the effects of AGW besides sea level rise, which is likely to be on the order of 1 foot/century, not 20'/century as Hansen claims.

The sea level rise in the 20th century was mostly due to ocean warming and does confirm the heat imbalance, and that long term AGW is upon us. In the 21st century this will become more dominated by ice melt. I think we'll get about 1 meter of sea level rise in the 21st century. More after that. Enough to displace tens of millions of people.

I think the main environmental effect of GW will be to displace the ranges of wildlife, and cause some extinctions, especially when combined with habitat fragmentation and loss.

[beneficii]

Methane Hydrate released from ice? That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I was speaking of. Are you really arguing that the oceans are not a gaint heat sink? Look for yourself, even on alarmist blogs/sites.... its all there, even your little phase diagram that you were looking for.

You think you know what my assumption is? Aparrently not. What part of "heat energy" do you not understand? I never brought up anything ulterior. The Large Majority of this "heat energy" is between 1000-2000m. According to super consensus-dig NOAA, the reason warming has stopped (I mean, "slowed slightly )is due to energy being stored is in the "deep oceans", and its said to be doing so in earnest. Do you know how long the oceans can cold that heat? try 5000 years.

You know Earth recycles everything, all energy, material, everything in its realm........so Why wouldn't it recycle this? It will, and we have yet to speak contrary.

Go look up Methane trends in the atmosphere and tell me what you find.

Wow. Complete utter argument from ignorance and waiting for that deus ex machina.

[BethesdaWX]

Wow. Complete utter argument from ignorance and waiting for that deus ex machina.

Seriously, stop with these Stupid Swing & miss posts with no basis, ok? If you're going to contribute something to the debate, then do so.

If you do not understand something, don't cover it up with useless banter.

[beneficii]

Seriously, stop with these Stupid Swing & miss posts with no basis, ok? If you're going to contribute something to the debate, then do so.

If you do not understand something, don't cover it up with useless banter.

Those words have meaning behind them. I say argument from ignorance because you say we don't know how the earth will handle heat, and follow with the fallacy that because of that statement the earth's energy transfer system will prevent surface temperatures from rising. I say deus ex machina because you are talking about something like the energy transfer removing the heat from the surface so that surface temperatures won't be as high will come and prevent the global warming, even though there's no evidence of that. So it was not useless banter, but rather a useful description of your pattern of posting.

[nzucker]

Those words have meaning behind them. I say argument from ignorance because you say we don't know how the earth will handle heat, and follow with the fallacy that because of that statement the earth's energy transfer system will prevent surface temperatures from rising. I say deus ex machina because you are talking about something like the energy transfer removing the heat from the surface so that surface temperatures won't be as high will come and prevent the global warming, even though there's no evidence of that. So it was not useless banter, but rather a useful description of your pattern of posting.

There certainly is evidence of the oceans removing heat from the surface and causing global temperatures to go down...look at what's happening now. If you follow the satellite temperatures on AMSU, the GFS 2m global anomalies, and global SSTs from NOAA, you can tell that we're losing a lot of heat from the surface. This is consistent with what we know about La Niña events. Considering we're in the -PDO decadal cycle, we are expecting more La Niña events than El Niños in the next 30 years; this means that, while the oceans may continue to accumulate some heat, surface warming will be limited by the ENSO/PDO cycle. Remember how much global temperatures dropped in the 1950s: we had moderate/strong La Niña events in 48-49, 49-50, 50-51, 54-55, and 55-56. This tendency towards a cold Pacific may be exaggerated by the solar minimum, although only time will tell for sure what effect that has. Bethesda does have a point that it's not unreasonable to expect the oceans to sequester more heat than expected by the IPCC/Hansen crowd, and this may be the reason that global surface temperatures have risen less than modeled by IPCC since 1998.

I find your posting style to be based excessively in one-liners and sarcastic comments. Try to explain the science that you're discussing...link us to some journal studies, some media articles, some graphs and charts. No one should be allowed to make sarcastic one-liners in a serious meteorology forum discussion, especially without presenting much evidence to back them up.

[beneficii]

There certainly is evidence of the oceans removing heat from the surface and causing global temperatures to go down...look at what's happening now. If you follow the satellite temperatures on AMSU, the GFS 2m global anomalies, and global SSTs from NOAA, you can tell that we're losing a lot of heat from the surface. This is consistent with what we know about La Niña events. Considering we're in the -PDO decadal cycle, we are expecting more La Niña events than El Niños in the next 30 years; this means that, while the oceans may continue to accumulate some heat, surface warming will be limited by the ENSO/PDO cycle. Remember how much global temperatures dropped in the 1950s: we had moderate/strong La Niña events in 48-49, 49-50, 50-51, 54-55, and 55-56. This tendency towards a cold Pacific may be exaggerated by the solar minimum, although only time will tell for sure what effect that has. Bethesda does have a point that it's not unreasonable to expect the oceans to sequester more heat than expected by the IPCC/Hansen crowd, and this may be the reason that global surface temperatures have risen less than modeled by IPCC since 1998.

I find your posting style to be based excessively in one-liners and sarcastic comments. Try to explain the science that you're discussing...link us to some journal studies, some media articles, some graphs and charts. No one should be allowed to make sarcastic one-liners in a serious meteorology forum discussion, especially without presenting much evidence to back them up.

I choose not to waste my time for 3 reasons:

My knowledge of the science is not that in-depth.

I always think I could have other stuff I could be doing.

We already have good defenders of AGW theory here.

[skierinvermont]

There certainly is evidence of the oceans removing heat from the surface and causing global temperatures to go down...look at what's happening now. If you follow the satellite temperatures on AMSU, the GFS 2m global anomalies, and global SSTs from NOAA, you can tell that we're losing a lot of heat from the surface. This is consistent with what we know about La Niña events. Considering we're in the -PDO decadal cycle, we are expecting more La Niña events than El Niños in the next 30 years; this means that, while the oceans may continue to accumulate some heat, surface warming will be limited by the ENSO/PDO cycle. Remember how much global temperatures dropped in the 1950s: we had moderate/strong La Niña events in 48-49, 49-50, 50-51, 54-55, and 55-56. This tendency towards a cold Pacific may be exaggerated by the solar minimum, although only time will tell for sure what effect that has. Bethesda does have a point that it's not unreasonable to expect the oceans to sequester more heat than expected by the IPCC/Hansen crowd, and this may be the reason that global surface temperatures have risen less than modeled by IPCC since 1998.

I find your posting style to be based excessively in one-liners and sarcastic comments. Try to explain the science that you're discussing...link us to some journal studies, some media articles, some graphs and charts. No one should be allowed to make sarcastic one-liners in a serious meteorology forum discussion, especially without presenting much evidence to back them up.

Beneficl said there's no evidence that the oceans can stop global warming which anybody with the slightest awareness of the actual science knows to be true. He didn't say that short-term perturbations in surface temperatures are never linked to the oceans. Big difference... stop jumping on posters because you didn't read them correctly. Yes the oceans can cause cooling for a few years even a decade or two, but they can't "stop global warming." Well known facts like this don't need to have a whole dissertation to back them up every time some dumbass comes along and claims AGW is a fraud.

[nzucker]

Beneficl said there's no evidence that the oceans can stop global warming which anybody with the slightest awareness of the actual science knows to be true. He didn't say that short-term perturbations in surface temperatures are never linked to the oceans. Big difference... stop jumping on posters because you didn't read them correctly. Yes the oceans can cause cooling for a few years even a decade or two, but they can't "stop global warming." Well known facts like this don't need to have a whole dissertation to back them up every time some dumbass comes along and claims AGW is a fraud.

The only reason some scientists don't believe in the power of the oceans is because the IPCC 2007 report essentially disregarded the PDO/ENSO factors in order to harp on anthropogenic signals. Will Schwartz, one of the best meteorologists on this forum, just told you that one of the biggest uncertainties in climate modeling is how the Earth will react to the ocean cycles being in a cold phase for the next 20-30 years, allowing us to store more heat in the deep ocean. He also pointed out that the IPCC had taken a careless approach in disregarding the potential signs of a colder regime via the -PDO. So you think you know more than a skilled met?

When Bethesda talks about the oceans preventing global warming, I think it's safe to assume he means they will mitigate the warming to a point that it's not nearly as threatening to our society. Having 30 years of -PDO/-ENSO will probably mean that warming at the surface occurs much more slowly than modeled, which allows more time for ecosystems and human civilization to adapt to a gradually milder climate. This is especially true if the solar minimum also contributes to the -PDO and La Niña. If we are only accumulating heat in the 700-2000m level of the ocean and not 0-700m or the surface, we have less to be concerned about. Also, if the warming at the surface is reduced, this can allow for more arctic sea ice and snow cover, changing the Earth's albedo in a fashion that allows for more radiation to the atmosphere of incoming solar energy, which there will be less of due to the solar minimum anyway. I think Bethesda's point stands.

In the 1950s, we saw quite significant drops in global surface temperatures despite CO2 rapidly rising....remember, that was the error of Levittown and the move to the suburbs, the interstate highway system, increasing availability of consumer goods...so there was a lot more pollution entering the atmosphere. With a -PDO and moderate/strong La Niñas in 48-49, 49-50, 50-51, 54-55, and 55-56, we manged to cool despite the increasing anthropogenic interference. There's no reason to believe this can't happen again especially when you throw a dramatic solar minimum into the mix. We're already seeing very impressive drops in global SSTs and surface temperatures with much colder winter conditions prevailing in the Eastern US, central Siberia, and Europe.

You can't just make demeaning remarks about people's posts without offering substantial evidence, Andrew. The lack of warming since 1998, which flies in the face of UN computer modeling and constant suggestions of "accelerating warming", suggests that ocean cycles are a very important part of our climate that the models haven't accounted for properly. We also have an incredibly cold Pacific regime right now...take a look at the SSTA maps, it's quite impressive with nearly all the Pacific being below average in temperature. So it's quite reasonable to question how much heat the oceans can store, especially when only 700-2000m OHC seems to be rising, and that's what Bethesda is doing. His commentary is very reasonable and should not be approached in a condescending manner with demeaning one-liners. I'm on his side on this one, sorry.