Oceans are warming faster than previously thought and the rate of temperature rise is accelerating.

This is a big deal because the mass of water in the oceans is about 360 times the mass of the atmosphere. If warming is detectable in the ocean then there is a serious problem given the amount of ice that has melted recently which should have offset ocean warming considerably.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=101005NYHUAK

Quote:

El Ninos will get bigger and bigger! The BuMet in its State of the Climate 2016 pointed out that La Ninas are warmer now than El Ninos were in the 1960s. A fairly staggering fact!

Unforgiven wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 4:55pm:



We know the water passed through warm engine rooms, that's fine. It is those bloody buoys that measure the temperature directly that have to be adjusted for "cooling bias".

"The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this “cold bias,” researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees"

"however, ships began to automatically measure water piped through the engine room, which typically is warm. Nowadays, buoys cover much of the ocean and that data is beginning to supplant ship data. But the buoys report slightly cooler temperatures because they measure water directly from the ocean instead of after a trip through a warm engine room."

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/01/04/global-warming-hiatus-disproved-again/

" Second, we related the temperature measurements to results calculated from advanced climate computer models. "



"Climate Science"^TM

Oceans, not Bondi. Warmed over years.

15,000 years since the last glaciation. Doubt we are warming up from that still.

Besides which we are warming faster and to a higher temperature than any time in the last few million years.

I think we are warming the earth by burning fossil fuels.

I think we are warming the globe because everything, from everyday observations (the poles, the glaciers, the increasing length of the bushfire season) to scientific observation shows that we ARE warming the globe by reckless burning of fossil fuels.

And the “plant food” crap makes its umpteenth appearance.

The world is heating up, there is absolutely no doubt about that!

BuMet reports Australia has warmed by 1°C since 1910. The seas around us have also warmed. Just look at the coral bleaching.

But maybe Herbert has access to a “real” set of temperature readings???

La Ninas now are as warm as El Ninos were in the 1960s. That is from the BuMet State of the Climate 2016 too!

So you don’t have an alternative set of temperature measurements.

Here are the BuMet report highlights:

Quote:


Plenty there to give pause for thought. The warming and drying of the southern half of Australia in particular.

Ice Age—next one is due in about 85,000 years.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 8:36am:



The cooling cycle won't begin for another few thousand years
What we are discussing is the current warming cycle that is caused by increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 9:47am:


China, India, Africa, and all of South America have repeatedly told the West that they will use fossil fuels just as the West has done to fire-up its Industrial Revolution which turned us into the First World 'developed' nations that we are today.

It's got to be One-in, All-in .. or not at all.

Australia accounts for only 2% of the world's carbon emissions.

Get a life, you Marla-clone ass-monkeys.

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 1:27pm:



Hold it RIGHT THERE, Tickle!

No one's talking about deforestation and stripping our Planet Earth of its vegetation.

Coal.

That's it.

There are any number of ways of burning coal without it polluting the atmosphere.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 1:40pm:


But its all connected in the carbon cycle.  And plus its very difficult to grown something back on a used coal mine.

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:



You mean you can't rehabilitate?

Now of course they are cutting down forests for wood pellets to burn in a coal plant (DRAX). The pellets are being cut in Canada and the USA.

So we have a couple of problems -

1. wood pellets have less thermal energy than coal.

2. The  manufacture of wood pellets uses non-renewable energy as well as the fossil fuels used to transport the pellets to the UK, train to DRAX.

Not a clean, green solution.

lee wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 4:16pm:


Renewable technology have to start somewhere.  Right now, our problem is that we are messing around with the carbon cycle in many aspects. Granted we have CO2 level like this before on Earth, but this time its different.  The rate of increase is alot higher, and we are messing with deforestation.  And this is on top of natural CO2 emissions. 

The non renewable carbon based energy is dirty, its the least abundant form of energy in the entire universe (that we know of), and its never going to be able to keep up with the growing population at the rate we are going. 

We need to do the right thing.  Instead of subsidizing this outdated form of energy generation, invest and give incentives to divest into renewable.   The race is on, who ever succeed in the renewable energy sector is going to be the next superpower.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 4:28pm:


The problem with nuclear is the storage and production of biohazardous materials which have important security implications.   We are however, making breakthroughs in fusion energy.

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 2:18pm:


Stripped coal-mines offer a lucrative industry in mushrooms and bat-poo fertiliser. Maybe even birds' nest soup.

Think POSITIVE, Ticklenose!

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:



Renewable technology has been around since the 19th century.

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:



Perhaps you can show a graph where it was similar to now, but the current rate is a lot higher.

tickleandrose wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 4:24pm:



So we should subsidise renewables that don't have the same thermal efficiency as coal, because it might be harmful, or not.

"Yet moves by governments around the world to designate wood as a carbon-neutral fuel—making it eligible for beneficial treatment under tax, trade, and environmental regulations—have spurred fierce debate. Critics argue that accounting for carbon recycling is far more complex than it seems. They say favoring wood could actually boost carbon emissions, not curb them, for many decades, and that wind and solar energy—emissions-free from the start—are a better bet for the climate. Some scientists also worry that policies promoting wood fuels could unleash a global logging boom that trashes forest biodiversity in the name of climate protection.


"It basically tells the Congo and Indonesia and every other forested country in the world: ‘If you cut down your forests and use them for energy, not only is that not bad, it's good,’" says Tim Searchinger, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute in Washington, D.C., who has studied the carbon impacts of wood energy."

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/wood-green-source-energy-scientists-are-d...

Gordon wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 6:34pm:


Was this "egg head" hard boiled?

Gordon wrote on Mar 20^th, 2017 at 6:43pm:


Gordon's hard-boiled egg head is scrambled and waffling.

Not one skerrick of hard-boiled facts.

Australia did not get a competitive edge from brown coal which is the cheapest energy source except for the fact it destroyed the health of residents in the vicinity.

Give it a couple days, and the results of warmer oceans are going to culminate in the appearance of Cyclone Debbie. Much needed rain is forecast for the inland of Qld if and when the cyclone turns into a depression moving inland over northern CQld.

Setanta wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 12:53am:


Denizen Gordon has evidently taken more head shots from kettlebells than he has admitted.

Yup, both poles melting. The sun has been quiescent since the 1970s.

But AGW is not happening 

You know of other sources of warming?

I mentioned the sun has been quiescent for decades yet AGW powered along.

Did you miss me saying that? I will say it again:

I mentioned the sun has been quiescent for decades yet AGW powered along. There, see it now? Or do I need to use bigger type?

I mentioned the sun has been quiescent for decades yet AGW powered along.

See that now?

Your comment about oceans absorbing light reminds me of something.

As polar sea ice melts, which it is, sunlight hits dark ocean which absorbs the light and converts it to heat, to IR. Before AGW started melting the poles the Arctic and Southern Oceans were covered with snow and ice which reflected the sunlight. This is known as a positive feedback. The poles are the sites of fastest warming.

That the sort of thing you were blithering about Lees?

CO2 is the driver of AGW.

The sun supplies nearly 100% of the earths energy budget. Said budget is reduced yet AGW is powering along.

Food for thought for those capable of thinking. That does not include many here.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 3:17pm:



When was the last time the Southern Ocean was covered in ice?

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 3:15pm:





Surface Imbalance 0.6 +/-17 W/m2? Data from Stephens 2012.

Not much in the way of error there.

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 3:53pm:



Wow. just shows you know a lot about uncertainties in climate data. /sarc

lee wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 4:45pm:


So it doesn’t mean anything.

With the CO2 concentration getting higher, the temperatures rising, the poles shrinking. more and more water vapor in the air etc etc a figure like that means nothing. As does saying “early 20th century ice loss.”

The oceans are also warming faster—13% faster, apparently.

Agnes wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 6:19pm:


Well that is the headline. Of course it is all to do with the Karlisation of ocean temperature.


lee wrote on Mar 19^th, 2017 at 5:53pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 6:37pm:



You have to wonder what happened in the past to reverse the runaway AGW that you espouse.  Was the variation of CO2 in the past unicorn farts, running carts with 6 or 8 horses in hand rather than 4?

Agnes wrote on Mar 25^th, 2017 at 6:19pm:


Not I.

All fabricated nonsense, designed to keep people in work.

Good luck to them, though.

We know that GHGs absorb IR photons.

Point a spectrometer at the sky—CO2, methane etc are overrepresented in the IR spectrum.

Point a spectrometer in a satellite at the globe—CO2, methane etc are UNDER represented in the spectrum.

This shows IR is being blocked from heading to space by GHGs. Simple, no theories, no models just measurement.

Deniers just gloss over this, pretend the evidence does not exist.

Hey Unforskin, you're 100% correct.

Last week I swam at Bond and the water was 20.5deg.
Today it was 23.16

Well done you!