Quote:

Rosenthal et al have put out quite a humdinger of a paper. They’ve reconstructed the temperature of the water flowing out of the Pacific to the Indian Ocean over the last 10,000 years and as deep as 900m. The Indonesian Throughflow  is pretty significant in global ocean currents. There’s narrow routes for Pacific upper waters to squeeze through to the Indian Ocean through the Makassar and Lombok Straits, and via the Lifamatola Passage through the Banda Sea, and water comes in from both the North and South Pacific. Points to note (assuming the study is right): 1.Temperatures started rising around 1700AD –  long before our carbon emissions. 2.That temperatures were much warmer (0.65C)  in 1100AD than they were in 1950. 3.8,000 years ago water was 1.5 to 2 degrees warmer — isn’t that meant to be a global catastrophe? Apparently coral reefs, fish, and turtles survived. http://joannenova.com.au/

Quote:

Observed increases in ocean heat content (OHC) and temperature are robust indicators of global warming during the past several decades. We used high-resolution proxy records from sediment cores to extend these observations in the Pacific 10,000 years beyond the instrumental record. We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades. Although documented changes in global surface temperatures during the Holocene and Common era are relatively small, the concomitant changes in OHC are large. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

I love teasing my tryhard mates with crack  :D

Ajax wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 12:32pm:

Quote: Rosenthal et al ... http://joannenova.com.au/ [quote] Observed increases in ocean heat content ... http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

[/quote]Yes, the paper was published in the journal Science. That lends it credibility. Unfortunately, that also puts the paper behind a paywall, where neither of us can access it.

Even if we could read the paper, neither of us is any more qualified to interpret it than is Jo Nova:
Quote:

Joanne Nova aka JoNova (real name Joanne Codling), born circa 1967, is an Australian right wing communicator who mainly writes to promote anti-science views of climate in books and a denialist weblog, joannenova.com.au. She has no evident academic background in climate science; her degree (B.Sc.) is in molecular biology.

As far as I can tell, it seems nobody outside the denyosphere is treating the paper as anything controversial. Let's wait for trustworthy interpretations.

# wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

Yes, the paper was published in the journal Science. That lends it credibility. Unfortunately, that also puts the paper behind a paywall, where neither of us can access it. Even if we could read the paper, neither of us is any more qualified to interpret it than is Jo Nova: As far as I can tell, it seems nobody outside the denyosphere is treating the paper as anything controversial. Let's wait for trustworthy interpretations.

Don't hold your breath on that fraudster John Cook and his algorians over at sceptical science....LOL....????

Ajax wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

# wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 3:29pm: Yes, the paper was published in the journal Science. That lends it credibility. Unfortunately, that also puts the paper behind a paywall, where neither of us can access it. Even if we could read the paper, neither of us is any more qualified to interpret it than is Jo Nova: As far as I can tell, it seems nobody outside the denyosphere is treating the paper as anything controversial. Let's wait for trustworthy interpretations. Don't hold your breath on that fraudster John Cook and his algorians over at sceptical science....LOL....????

I listen to the best. You put faith in the rest.

Ajax wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:57pm:

# wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 3:29pm: Yes, the paper was published in the journal Science. That lends it credibility. Unfortunately, that also puts the paper behind a paywall, where neither of us can access it. Even if we could read the paper, neither of us is any more qualified to interpret it than is Jo Nova: As far as I can tell, it seems nobody outside the denyosphere is treating the paper as anything controversial. Let's wait for trustworthy interpretations. Don't hold your breath on that fraudster John Cook and his algorians over at sceptical science....LOL....????

You've got to be kidding. Are you Monckton's man servant in this account or just one of Monckton's regular monkeys?

http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-the-case-of-the-missing-curry/


Quote:

Monckton’s eruptive bellow was still echoing round the halls of Tannochbrae Manor when old Scrotum, the wrinkled retainer, shuffled quietly into the laird’s library. “You called, Sir?”, he queried in his soft Highland brogues. The last few weeks had been hectic at Tannochbrae — the master had been unusually busy with his scientific interests — and the comfortable rhythm of Scrotum’s life had been jolted from a gentle 4/4 joggling (with pipes) to a jaunty 6/8 contra-bounce (with accordion). Jimmy Shand would have approved.