Dr. Trenberth's statement about more heat deeper in the oceans is nonsense on the face of it. The JPL program has been sampling to a depth of up to 3000 metres. If the heat isn't present in the surface layers, it won't be present in the deeper ones.

you conclude man-made globe warming is fact.
your data does not support your conclusion.
You re-interpret(manipulate)the data TO support
your conclusion.
This isn't science. This is bullsh*t.

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

If you have a greenhouse and the greenhouse thermometers are not measuring an increase in temperature and you conclude that the "extra" heat is escaping beyond the greenhouse, then...

...you don't have a greenhouse, you just have a house. Right?

Kate, the links seem to be fupped up. Unless perhaps it is that nasty AGW messing with my ISP.

Has anyone else noticed that the temps have been warming over the past couple of weeks? I'm very afraid! That heat that's not going into the oceans is melting the snowpack around here at Lat 50. I'm melting.

The biggest concern amongst those who leaped, unabashed, unafraid and most telling, uninformed, onto the AGW bandwagon is how to get off said wagon without losing face. The good part is that it will prove nigh on impossible to do. As it should be.

I loved James A. Peden's comparison of AGW to Piltdown Man. If you didn't read it yesterday, do so today. It's a long read, but very good.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

This should be required reading for ALL educators, and politicians.

I wonder which part of Grade 6 Science they missed which pointed out that if you aren't adding heat, the water just won't warm up!

if you took all the oil reserves in the world and burnt them on the btm of the pacific ocean instantaneously you cannot raise the temperature of the the ocean by one degree.

the calculation is not that difficult.

Its hard put a barbecue next to a deep ocean thermometer.

cognitive dissonance

This term seems is fitting to the situation.

cognitive dissonance

This term is fitting to the situation.

Your link leads to the next post at smalldeadanimals.com Would like to read the source.

Another example of the Global Warming Cult reading what they would like to see in the data I guess.

...Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate....

Boy, if these "scientist" continues this line of thought they might eventually discover that we have a sun!

...scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys...

really, pehaps they would get warmer readings if they shoved them up their $%#

I blame the education system. They failed.

We have produced several generations of people who reject rational though. We've reversed the enlightenment in less than 50 years.

We're now dark-age peasants fearing the wrath of the gods (Gaia this time.)

Dr Fruitfly speaks - global warming deniers and global cooling advocates are likened to believers in "intelligent design or creationism, pyramid power, UFOs, the Bermuda triangle, crop circles, Atlantis, alien abductions, and so on."
"President Bush has made things more difficult by imposing a heavy hand on scientific reporting, deliberately distorting reports and censoring information."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzuki/2008/03/19/5047676-ca.html
Jim

it is not just the oceans "not behaving according to the models". The atmosphere is also "not behaving according to the models" . . it is getting cooler overall because of the drastic cooling in the upper atmosphere. The models predict upper atmosphere warming.

"Altitude (meters/feet) Trend (C/decade)
24,000/79,000 -0.84
20,000/65,500 -0.76
16,000/52,500 -0.35
14,000/46,000 -0.12
12,000/40,000 -0.01
9,100/30,000 0.10
6,500/21,500 0.05
3,000/10,000 0.06
1,500/5000 0.08
zero (surface) 0.13

(from HadCRU3)
As the data indicates, over the past two decades, temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes."

Cognitive dissonance is a polite term for science fraud. All these unknown, unloved scientists 20 years ago are now traveling the world, staying in luxurious hotels, feted by the world's socialists and treated like Eco Gods. Their Co-Conspirators are the multitude of civil servant stuffed government agencies that see the gig as a means of increasing their power and relevancy - and getting a few years closer to their taxpayer funded Golden BB pensions.

No wonder they keep the Big Lie going. Life is good as Climate Hysteria & Fear Peddlers.

Beware the Warmongers.

Apropos is it not that Dr. Fruitfly's co-author is named Moola?

And Frenchie77, you owe me a keyboard, mine's full of cola!

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/03/npr-nasa-oceans-slightly-cooling-since.html
This might help

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/FrAbout_Argo.html
And this one

And these people are paid to do this! by us!

cgh,

now now, you know that AGW can cause heating or cooling, more precipitation and less at the same time, shrinking glaciers and growing glaciers...so if it can do that why wouldnt it cause warm water to sink???

Why for the low price of 29.95 I can sell you a bottle of magic AGW. Remember, the laws of physics are only for suckers.

"..the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record"

This in itself is a boldfaced lie.

Sober2ndThought - And Frenchie77, you owe me a keyboard, mine's full of cola!

I've got a nice french keyboard which is utterly useless to me. Keys are mixed up in all sorts of nonsensical ways. I could give it to you but it would probably be better if I sent it to the IPCC as it would help them write better reports.

Much like 1000 monkeys at 1000 typewriters, give them a random typing device and enough time then they might actually write something accurate!!

Sorry about the botched link. fixed now.

This if anything prove AL GORE and the idiots for GREENPEACE are lying and DAVID SUZUKI are lying about this whole thing but as usial the liberal left-wing news media will keep this a ssecret from the public

Where was all this critical thinking and challenging of data when the hockey stick model was presented as solid fact?

Politics and science don't mix...partisan progressives can't understand that these are two mutually exclusive disciplines ...one requiring the sale of theory with deception and graft, the other requiring the acceptance of apolitical fact through full consensus of peer scrutiny

Speaking of moolah, it may interest y'all that the Montreal Exchange is going to start trading in carbon credits.

If any of you have an inheritance you're hell bent on losing as fast as possible, that'd be a good bet for you.

This whole thing with "global warming" keeps reminding me of that old Twilight Zone episode where a woman is in a world where the earth is moving closer to the sun and it keeps getting hotter and hotter (leading to certain doom)...and then she faints, wakes up, and wonders why it is cold...they ask her if she has forgotten...that they are moving further away from the sun and the world is getting colder and colder (leading to certain doom)...the other scenario was the dream.

Stephen @ 11:24,

It's just calorimetry and there's no mystery about it. If they can't measure the heat, then it just isn't there. If it's not in the oceans then it's reradiated into space and will show up as a warmer upper troposphere. Not there either? Whatever can it mean?

Like you, I'm getting seriously irritated with their "magic" explanations of what they claim is going on with the only evidence they produce being yet another computer generated electronic hallucination.

Incidentally, it was a failure to do basic calorimetry right that caused Pons and Fleischmann to think they'd created cold fusion.

Great post Kate -- shows just how the AGW crowd is grasping at straws -- trying to save face with the acting-confused-tactic.

If one goes back two or three years into sda archives, they will see that the fraud was exposed long ago, but the MSM hid it.

Yes, Sober2ndThought, your link

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

is a very good read. Should be sent to all "Educators" and Journalists.

How the Lame Stream Media deals with anything to do with climate change:

1) Scary boldfaced 14 point headline

2) Scary boldfaced 12 point sub

3) Scary paragraphs quoting the executive summary of a scientific paper (or, in a stretch, a press release - musn't do any REAL research, you know...)

4) Scary quote from someone who may, or may not know, what she or she is talking about (cue Elizabeth May please!)

5) Scary out-of-context photo of polar bear on an ice raft

6) Not-really-scary quote (space permitting! Have to have enough space for those "reviews" of last night's "reality" shows) from the actual scientific paper that says "might...may...could"

As the old saying goes: a warmer is someone who sees something work in practice, and wonders if it should work in theory.

We shall twist the truth in the oceans, we shall twist on the surface, we shall twist it high in stratosphere! Forgot who said that...

So the troposphere has not warmed and the ocean has not warmed. Proponents must therefore be basing AGW on data from surface temperature monitoring stations. Yet these monitors are showing bad placement issues and heat island effects.

I wonder if the Kyotoists have ever played Sesame Streets game of "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong".

The following scientific bulletin has just been released by the scientists of the scientific IPCC:

Rows and flows of angel hair,
And ice cream castles in the air,
And feather canyons everywhere,
We've looked at clouds that way.

But now they only block the Sun,
They rain and snow on everyone.
So many things we would have done,
But clouds got in our way.

We've looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down, and still somehow,
It's cloud illusions we recall,
We really don't know clouds, at all.

Different day .... same story.

I've noticed on the weather channel that they still try to conflate there little interest stories with the idea that GW is a fact. The most recent a little piece on a fellow who operates a sugar bush and syrop farm. He runs tours and has been doing so for over 30 years. He has a problem this year because the late spring means less early flow light coloured sap and syrop.
The tool doing the interview tried to introduce the "looming threat" of global warming ... fortunately the guy didn't bite ... he looked more non-plussed when she asked the question.

I've found that a letter to the corporate office usually puts a stop to that kind of thing for awhile.

IMO, a large part of the Warm-Mongering Crowd's "success" was because of the Big Tobacco thing. Anyone who is against a CO2 ban, is somehow also linked to having been against a Tabacco ban.

Time and again, after having made many scientific points to others, showing that most of the Media driven fear-mongering on Kyoto/AGW is bogus, they bring up the Tobacco thing.

Could this be why Warren Kinsella advised (spiteful) PM Chretien to sign Kyoto ? costing us $Billion$ !!

After all, his 'Smoking-Mad' rant today (which I do not disagree with) calls for a boycott of the Toronto Star over Tobacco ads.

Could this whole Kyoto thing been a case of Mistaken Identity ?? An expensive one !!

One tactic the Justice system uses -- a guilty plea that somehow allows the perpetrator to 'save-face'. As Kate's post shows, the AGWers may now try the 'confusion' ploy. Might have worked, but Maurice Strong, Hansen, Gore, Suzuki et al, did not see the Blog/Internet thing coming :)

Richard Ball !! Those lyrics say it all !!!!

Could even hear the tune in my head -- Joni Mitchell ?

There was a far side cartoon which two scientists were speaking and the caption was "sure it works in practice, but does it work in theory?"

We can ammend that to "We didn't find any evidence of warming in practice, but we found lots of warming in theory!"

Be prepared for the hype to begin. Hurrican season starts in May. From what I can see the oceans off of Africa are warmer than last year, which were very very cool, relatively speaking.

That and that you cant count on one year being the same as the last, so there is a good chance there will be more hurricanes making landfall this year versus last. Of course that isnt hard to do since last year was abnormally low.

But when they do....look out because the hype machine will start, it isnt dead its only resting.

Now on another note, the northern ice is significantly greater than at this time last year. We will see how the summer melt goes, it starts around now give or take a week. Minimum is Sept 21st....start writing news stations in early September and ask them to compare 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. My prediction is you will see growth this year, after last years low.

I dont ask for converts I only ask that the media show some skepticism of this stuff, you know like there supposed to do.

Southern ice however I predict might even reach a new maximum this year, since it is significantly larger at this time of year versus previous years. By the way, the global part of global warming is just a marketing term, safe to ignore.

All of this is to say things are normal and varying within the band of earths normal climate....meanwhile CO2 continues to build up, well lets track that one a little more over the next couple of years. If the oceans cool more they will increase their capacities as carbon sinks, so if we get drops in CO2 what will the say then?

All that being said, adding more carbon than is produced in the normal course of things cant be a good thing, not saying its a bad thing but it is hard to say that there is some amazing good that comes from it. I think the work they are doing to try to perfect carbon sequestration is probably worth doing, if only as a relatively low cost insurance policy in the event that they are able to clearly show a link between significant CO2 increase and climate warming....an as yet unproven hypothesis.

My final point is, that post just goes to show what many of us have been saying all along, we (humanity)really dont know enough about the climate to draw hard conclusions. So engaging in expensive and major society altering schemes is not worth the time and effort...because we dont know what problem we are trying to solve....better to spend the money figuring out the area so the problem, if there is one, can be appropriately stated.

But this kind of skepticism is what would have prevented Al Gore from becoming 100 million + man. Gosh I hope he stays out of the democratic race, he could win the nomination and the presidency....that is chilling

So is it safe yet to take the corks out of the cows yet?
Heh.

I know one thing, I have learned more about the climate following this blog site and the people that contribute links than I have learned from "MSM" and all their tripe. Thanks. Merle Underwood.

Richard Ball, I am seriously pi**ed that you came up with that before I did. Well done sir!

Stephen, Levels of CO2 have previously been much hggher than now and everything survived. In fact, if you go to CO2science.org, you will see countless studies showing that plantlife will prosper with double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The warmongers are in the pay of big government, to the tune of $5 billion per year in the US alone. Al Gore owns a company selling carbon indulgances.

It is they who are in the pay of big money.

cgh @1203 ...computer generated ... hallucination..

Very good

Well who you gonna believe, scientists, or those lying POS thermometers!!!!!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ruuux4AuHfQ

And the earth is flat, Disney rigged the moon landing, the sun revolves around the earth and Iraqis will greet us as liberators.

" ”Many advocates for action on climate change, including the IPCC assessments and recent documentaries have promoted a view that global warming will continue through the 21st century, with global warming defined as a steady increase in global average temperatures. This prediction of warming is based on the output of multi-decadal general circulation models and is primarily due to the radiative forcing effect of anthropogenic emissions of CO2. In such models only relatively minor year-to-year variations in global average temperatures are forecast in the upward trend, except when major volcanic eruptions cause short-term (up to a few years) of global cooling. For example, see these projections of the most recent IPCC — none of the models has an obvious multi-year (i.e., >2) decrease in global average temperatures over the next century.

Such predictions represent a huge gamble with public and policymaker opinion. If more-or-less steady global warming does not occur as forecast by these models, not only will professional reputations be at risk, but the need to reduce threats to the wide spectrum of serious and legitimate environmental concerns (including the human release of greenhouse gases) will be questioned by some as having been oversold. For better or worse, a failure to accurately predict the changes in the global average surface temperature, global average tropospheric temperature, ocean average heat content change, or Arctic sea ice coverage would raise questions on the reliance of global climate models for accurate prediction on multi-decadal time scales. Surprises or experience that evolve outside the bounds of model output would likely raise questions even among some of those who have so far accepted the IPCC reports as a balanced presentation of climate science."

rtr @ http://tinyurl.com/ywxnrs

can one even make an intelligent comment on this shit?

So let's just do a little summing up of the evidence:

1. The theory claims 80 per cent of the heat should be warming the oceans.

They're cooling.

2. The rest of the heat should show as a warming troposphere.

It's not.

3. We are asked to believe that the only measure of carbon dioxide concentrations is the Vostok ice cores, even though we know of huge measurement problems with gas bubbles in ice, and we are asked to ignore all of the direct chemical measurements of carbon dioxide in atmosphere over the past two centuries that show a very different pattern.

4. We are asked to believe the world is warming despite the host of flaws documented by the work of Anthony Watt in characterizing the monitoring stations in North America, discovering along the way that Hansen and the Merry Men at GISS have been adjusting all the temperature measurements and neither telling anyone or disclosing their methodology. If you let me make up whatever numbers I want, I can prove to you that Rolik the troll is an arch-conservative.

5. The principal public piece of evidence, the Hockey Stick, has been shown to be an artifact created by a statistical machine that preferentially selects for hockey stick shapes from any data whatsoever provided for it. This statistical falsehood was foisted on us despite the fact that a) it was contrary to everything that centuries of archaeology and paleontology had told us about living conditions over the past two millenia, and b) that we were asked to accept this even though it was known that the authors themselves suppressed their own data showing the falsity of their claims.

6. We are asked to believe the world's oceans are rising because of a single tide gauge (Hong Kong) by the IPCC and disregard the evidence of all the rest. We are asked, for example, to accept Tuvalu's claim they're sinking, even though we know their problems are the result of soil salination from bad waterfront environmental practices.

7. We are asked to believe that carbon dioxide from humans is the principal driver behind climate change even though a) the IPCC itself claims to have little knowledge about the effect of either the principal heat source, the sun, or the principal greenhouse gas, water vapour; and b) that human annual emissions constitute about 0.01 per cent of total natural annual emissions from the biosphere and less than 0.0003 per cent of total annual carbon dioxide exchange between ocean and atmosphere.

In short, modern climate propaganda is a clear demonstration of the principle: repeat a lie often enough and it becomes accepted as truth.

The sun is remaining quiet. NASA scientist boldly predicted it would kick into Cycle 24 this month; this month is almost over, and the sun is Spotless. Now NASA scientists are saying things will begin in May. Any bets the goalposts will keep shifting?

We're in for some COLD years.

btw, anyone seen johnny cross? He off writing an already-reviewed-by-his-peers paper for the IPCC on wavelengths of CO2 somewhere?

cgh:

Nice summary, I will be quoting this.

Water vapour latency is short, and CO2 latency is long, so un-natural sources of CO2 have longer term effects. However, the large scale unknowns that lurk in the math of the models surrounding the role of water-vapour as a feedback mechanism invalidate the models as far as I am concerned. The sign is unknown, let alone the magnitude, of that feedback.

What is your source for the ocean/atmosphere exchange? I have yet to run that number down.

Notice the qualifiers that pop out as soon as person has to state opinions on AGW. It underlines how wishy-washy all of this is, for me.

"Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."That statement from NASA scientist Josh Willis.
Gosh Josh, you must be joshing.
A period of "less rapid warming." Are you afraid to say "a period of cooling."
Great work Josh, and don't forget to apply for more funding.

William,

There is a range of estimates, because this exchange is not thoroughly understood. One estimate is found here http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Bi-Ca/Carbon-Dioxide-in-the-Ocean-and-Atmosphere.html

in about the sixth paragraph where they quote 90-100 petagrams. I have in the past seen estimates much higher, as much as 3600 pg.

With respect to the sign, that's the most damning thing of all about the theory. It all depends upon a posited positive feedback effect of the increased CO2 for which no physical evidence exists, at least not that I have seen, nor does IPCC demonstrate it. But they have to have such a positive feedback, because the incremental impact of more CO2 is marginal at best because of the saturation of the absorption bands. Otherwise, there's nothing to the theory.

What we do know is that the repository of any excess CO2 is the oceans. There may be some concern about increased ocean acidification, but neither the NOAA nor the Royal Society articles I looked at address the question of changes in CaCo3 formation rate and consequent removal of CO2 into limestone formation. We know that the vast bulk of our planet's carbon dioxide inventory was transformed into limestone, but I have not run across any research which suggests how the rate of formation is altered by increased atmospheric CO2. It's an important question for AGW. What we do know from the fossil record is that the same oceanic species such as coral reefs today that are claimed to be at risk from acidification thrived in much earlier geologic periods in which ocean acidity was much higher than at present.

Yes, nice summary cgh.

If it does continue to get colder, or not heat, over the next year or so, Otter, you realise that the warmerers will, with a straight face, say that global warming is happening but it is being masked by the Sun, all the time maintaining that the Sun's effects are negligable.

What is warming to me is that these two are scientists at institutions working with Scripp's and they are scratching their heads. I expect the tone of their responses were guarded as they aren't so much puzzled by the data but are puzzled about how to talk themselves out of the global warming corner. After all, even they can read the data.

This is really simple. The probes were built by Diebold as a subcontractor for Halliburton. Of course they were programmed to show what the oil companies want you to see.

So says my Toyota "Pious" driving neighbor.

Treg

This from MSM is alarming found poetry.
...-

Global warming rushes timing of spring
[...]
"sneezes are coming earlier in Philadelphia."
"Pollen is bursting. Critters are stirring. Buds are swelling. Biologists are worrying."
"Blame global warming."

This is a beaut! LOL.

"In much of Florida and southern Texas and Louisiana, the satellites show spring coming a tad later, and bizarrely, in a complicated way, global warming can explain that too, the scientists said."
http://tinyurl.com/2kvhds (asspress)

Oh, MAz2, that link is evil. CTV's science editor is a moron, a joke, a nincumpoop, un cornichon, a fool, a typist, a non-thinker.

This is the worst piece of "science editorship" that I have ever seen, and I told CTV so.

I hope the CTV science editor becomes an "ex-science editor".

Personally, I think a five year old wrote that piece, after he had been indoctrinated by a showing of the Gorical's movie at school.

More eco-fraud from Robert Bateman/MSM/envirofascists.
It's on YouTube.
...-

"Bateman afterward rushed into the shower with the print to wash the paint off so as not to compromise the print, which is the reference copy in the studio."

Headline: "Robert Bateman defaces painting — on purpose"

"In a video now seen on YouTube, Bateman takes black poster paint and, in bold strokes, covers one of his pieces called Orca Procession, valued at $1,950 (U.S.) to show what an oil spill will do to the west coast"

"Bateman was approached by an environmental group"
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/349121

Video here:
http://www.notankers.ca/

Tim Ball was interviewed on CTV news today. He took the opportunity to say he did not believe CO2 was causing changes. The main topic, of course, was the heavy snow in the COTU.

William Hughes at 4:52 PM said "Water vapour latency is short, and CO2 latency is long, so un-natural sources of CO2 have longer term effects."

Please, THINK about that statement, will you?

"Tim Ball was interviewed on CTV news today." -- Wow surely this is the BIG NEWS on this topic -- a "denier" actually being interviewed by MSM. Though if he spoke out of turn in suggesting that CO2 is not causing warming, well, he probably will not be invited back.

Don't worry about the media letting details like no cooling in the ocean get in the way of a good story.

In today's National post there was this article:

"What snow? This year could be one of the warmest on record

Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent, Reuters
Published: Wednesday, March 19, 2008"

"Bucking the trend of global warming, the start of 2008 saw icy weather around the world from China to Greece. But despite its chilly start, 2008 is expected to end up among the top 10 warmest years since records began in the 1860s."

You can also find this story if you Google the words Alister Doyle 2008 warmest.

So...even though there has been record snow and cold this winter

...we are just 2.5 months into the year

...everyone is still waiting for the next solar cycle to start

...we just KNOW that this will be one of the 10 warmest years in the last 150 years?

Riiiiiiight!

The irony is that half of the article focuses on how cold and how much snow has fallen in many places that don't see harsh winters (like China).

This will be interesting to watch.

So the missing heat is not in the oceans and it is not in the atmosphere either. So where did it go? It can't be that there never was any heat because those global warming computer models predicted it would be there and they are never wrong. So it has to be somewhere.

Did they check behind the cushions on the couch? In our house when things like the TV remotes go missing, that's where we often find them. Maybe the missing heat got jammed down there. Just a suggestion.

JMD, I think it's with the socks that go missing from the washing machine. We know they're there, but we just can't find them.