Well I will leave the final word on this to John Cook from Skeptical Science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tiljander-proxy.htm

Lays out all the defense spectacularly... Does it not?

hahahahahaha...

Ocean temperature made Queensland floods worse

Abnormally high ocean temperatures off the coast of northern Australia contributed to the extreme rainfall that flooded three-quarters of Queensland over the summer of 2010-11, scientists report.

A Sydney researcher, Jason Evans, ran a series of climate models and found above average sea surface temperatures throughout December 2010 increased the amount of rainfall across the state by 25 per cent on average.

While the study did not look at the cause of ocean warming in the region, a physical oceanographer, Matthew England, said climate change could not be excluded as a possible driver of this extreme rainfall event.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environm...l#ixzz1v4WUARMv

To see climate change, watch the sea

The Earth turns white when a change in large-scale ocean circulation triggers a sudden worldwide shift toward freezing temperatures. You may remember this apocalyptic scenario as the climax of the 2004 U.S. movie "The Day After Tomorrow." But how many of us are aware that the ocean can dramatically effect our climate in reality?

In addition to well-known currents near the surface of the sea, such as the Kuroshio current, there is a massive global current that flows unseen in the deep, thousands of meters below the surface, called oceanic general circulation.

Ocean water becomes heavier when it is colder and when it contains more salt. Around the polar regions, ocean water is cooled down by air and forms ice. Because the ice does not contain salt, the salinity of the surrounding seawater rises, which results in ocean water near Antarctica or the North Atlantic sinking to join oceanic general circulation.

The oceans are said to be able to hold about 1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere can. If all the oceanic water in the world released enough heat to reduce its own temperature by 0.01 C, the temperature of the atmosphere would be 10 C higher. A small change in the sea can profoundly effect our climate.

As oceanic general circulation delivers heat around the world, a change in it could affect the climate. Thus, detailed observation of the sea is necessary to detect climate change.

But observing the sea is not easy at all. Satellites can only observe the surface of the sea. To observe conditions underwater, the surveying devices need to be in the water, making it extremely difficult to cover the entire sea.

Therefore, a worldwide observation system dubbed Argo, a global array of deep-sea probes to measure temperature and salinity, began operation in 2000. Japan is one of the many nations participating. About 3,500 automatic measuring probes-- called Argo floats--now drifting in the world's oceans dive to about 2,000 meters below the surface every 10 days to measure water temperature and salinity.

Research so far has already shown the possibility of salinity falling in northern regions--near the North Pole, off Alaska and off the Chishima (Kuril) Islands. Such salinity changes may cause changes in sinking or rising currents in the oceanic general circulation.

The research also reveals the tendency of salinity to rise in areas with little rain, including Hawaii, and of salinity to fall in areas with heavy rain, including some northern areas. Widening gaps in the amount of rainfall from one area to another, like similar gaps already observed in areas on land, may be occurring at sea, experts said.

Observations using floats equipped with oxygen density measuring instruments have started as well, to study the environment that maintains the marine ecosystem.

The level of oxygen is relatively high near the surface of the sea, where many fish live, thanks to the abundance of phytoplankton that produces oxygen. But this ecosystem could not be maintained if the phytoplankton did not get sufficient nutrients from deeper layers. The new observations attempt to find out how the nutritious water from deeper levels with little oxygen moves up to the surface.

Observations in the sea around Japan by the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) and others since last year have found that large-scale gyres measuring hundreds of kilometers in diameter sometimes occur, stirring up water and revitalizing biological activity. The Argo floats will also study this mechanism in detail.

"We've only just started the observations, and there are many mysteries. We hope to unravel oceanic climate change on a global scale," said Shigeki Hosoda, deputy team leader of JAMSTEC.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/science/T120511003369.htm

No comment needed!

Interesting interview on AM this morning..

1000 years of climate data points to a warming Australia

TONY EASTLEY: For the first time scientists have provided the most complete climate record of the last millennium and they've found that the last five decades in Australia have been the warmest.

The Australian researchers used 27 different natural indicators like tree rings and ice cores to come to their conclusion which will be a part of the next report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Matthew Carney reports.

MATTHEW CARNEY: It's the first time scientists have collected natural records like tree rings and coral cores on this scale.

The findings show that no other period in the last millennium matches the temperature rises Australia and the region has experienced in the last 50 years.

Lead author of the report is Dr Joelle Gergis.

JOELLE GERGIS: Well I think it's significant for a number of reasons - firstly that it does show that the post-1950 warming is unusual in the Australasian region. A lot of these sorts of studies have come out of the northern hemisphere and for the first time we have been able to say, well we have collected all of our natural records from our region and this is what it shows. And the warming is real and it is in the Australian region. It's not in some faraway place.

MATTHEW CARNEY: The study was led by Melbourne University and it used decades of work from 30 scientists who'd been collecting natural data to reconstruct temperatures before human records started in 1910.

JOELLE GERGIS: So really what these are are climate proxies. They are not direct temperature records but we use them as stand-ins or surrogates for temperature records.

So what we do is compare these natural records with the observed temperature records and then develop a statistical relationship and take that relationship back centuries into the past.

MATTHEW CARNEY: The other lead author of the report, professor David Karoly, explains further.

DAVID KAROLY: We've combined together climate records from lots of different indicators, more than 27 different indicators from different sites in Australia and New Zealand and the surrounding regions, as well as estimating the uncertainties in the data in the individual temperature reconstructions.

MATTHEW CARNEY: The scientists say they have minimised the variability in their model by crunching the data 3,000 different ways. Dr Gergis:

JOELLE GERGIS: What we were able to see is that in 95 per cent of the reconstructions we actually see that the post-1950 warming observed in the region is unprecedented in the context of the last millennium. So it's not dependent on a loss of records back in time or the different combination of records.

MATTHEW CARNEY: Professor Karoly says the strength of the study is that it's relied more on direct observations and measurements than climate modelling.

DAVID KAROLY: Nothing is absolutely certain in science but we say with very high confidence because we have repeated the analysis alone for the uncertainties that the warming in the last 50 years is very unusual and cannot, very likely cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3504586.htm

Pretty conclusive graph there BD, shows incontravertably that:
1. The states are statistically overdue for a major hurricane.
2. There is no real trend positive or negative in the frequency of Major hurricanes (as can be seen by barely increasing trend of questionable significance).

Trenberth’s missing heat still missing: new paper shows a near flat ocean temperature trend – 0.09°C over the past 55 years

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/tr...-past-55-years/

Interesting Paper SBT...

World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m), 1955–2010

Key Points

A strong positive linear trend in exists in world ocean heat contentsince 1955

One third of the observed warming occurs in the 700-2000 m layer of the ocean

The warming can only be explained by the increase in atmospheric GHGs

The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 1022 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. ( wow - think of the energy required to do that! )

The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.

93% of the warming goes into the ocean...



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051106.shtml

CeeBee, ocean water sinks when it is most dense. At any time in Earth's history, the densest water is always the water next to and under the sea ice, or the polar regions in the rare occassions when no ice is present.

The salt doesn't actually make much difference. As long as it is reasonably salty, the densest ocean water is that closest to -2.0C (anything from -1.4C to -1.9C seems to be close enough to make the densest ocean water there is). As long as there is sea ice, the water next to it and under it is always going to be close to -2.0C and sink.

Once the sea ice is gone, the coldest densest ocean water will then be the -1.4C water and it will sink and so on. The circulation still happens even when the coldest densest water is +5.0C.

What is the current temperature of the Antarctic Bottom Water in the Weddel Sea - the coldest part of the ocean depths on the planet? (Hint, it is warmer than -1.9C)

Other than a very, very, very, tiny affect from sinking polar water, the ocean circulation system is driven by the prevailing winds and the confinement of mid-depth continental shelves. The ocean currents are still going to work as long as the Earth is still rotating and the winds blow and the continents do not move so that a different circulation system develops (which does of course does happen in geologic time - see Antarctica 33.6 million years ago, Gulf Stream 3 million years ago when the Panama Ithmus closed.)

0.39 W/m2 (or 0.27 W/m2) is not a "wow" event. It is a "fail".

Climate theory needed it to be about 0.9 W.m2 or higher in order to make to the 3.0C per doubling proposition viable given the surface is warming much slower than the climate models/theory predicted.

Total direct forcing is about 2.1 W/m2 in 2010 according to the IPCC. The fact that 0.27 W/m2 is being bled off into ocean warming (and onother 0.1 W.m2 into ice melt and land below surface warming) means much of the energy is missing.

Remember the chart which showed this ocean content rise as very thin lines but a massive rise in OLR and "missing energy".

A line going up means absolutely nothing. It is the math behind that chart that is the meaningful perspective.

Oh yeah, here is the original source showing "93% of stored energy is going into the oceans" which are the dark blue and red areas.

Everything else is either volcanic "energy storage - lack of I guess" and "missing energy".

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl1118/2011GL048794/2011gl048794-op03.jpg



Don't post that misleading chart again without posting this one from the orginal paper as well.

I won't be dictated to by you as to what I can and cannot post Bill.

That chart is not misleading. It simply shows the change in Earth's total heat content. There's no disputing that 93% of the warming goes into the ocean. The rest goes into Land, Atmosphere and Ice Heating. The chart shows that to be true.

Comments removed

[rom The Hockey Schtick blog;

The warmists are getting desperate and are resorting to a number of very nasty and nefarious stratagems to try and recover the initiative and to put skeptics, skeptical blogs and skeptical organisations like Heartland out of business.

And here is why!
Their message of despair, fear and doom about an onrushing climate catastrophe of which, for most people, any evidence for this supposed catastrophe in the making cannot be seen at all in their everyday lives, is no longer having the required effect on the populace and even the sympathetic media are choosing to publish other more interesting news nowadays.

The article below errs in calling Gore's movie, "an inconvient truth", a "science fiction movie". They should have said a "fictional science movie".

World newspaper coverage of climate change or global warming on decline;

According to a study from the Center for Science & Technology Policy Research, world newspaper coverage of 'climate change' or 'global warming' has been on a declining trend since 2007 to some of the lowest levels since the study began in 2004. Coverage spiked shortly after the premier of Gore's science fiction movie An Inconvenient Truth and following Climategate I, but the biggest threat to mankind appears to no longer be as newsworthy.

And there is a simple reason for that ROM.

Most of the predictions from the AGW camp have been destroyed by the weather.

When one talks of permanent droughts, it automatically becomes clear to the public who arent savvy on climate that perhaps we are ok, particularly after 2 records years of deluges. Then The Arctic Sea Ice, which is also good to go for another 120 years at least.

And of course the temps, which have flatlined or slightly dropped for the last 14 or so years. Or the big drop off in hurricanes. Etc etc...the list goes on.

The fact that we are well under all of the 23 IPCC 1997 Ar4 models predicitions is damning in itself. And apparently some lunatic is saying the oceans are going to boil. Maybe it would be best if he just let it go because both sides know he is completely insane.

Even the media are starting to realise its cyclical and times are now changing. Brutal winters are returning, not everywhere but its coming. I have always maintained we need another 200 years and you will see these cycles are just that, and Co2 is a tiny tiny minute factor in temps rising.

As these things go wrong, they just start new ones, like the lack of warming is caused by Pinatubo!

Just correcting a few errors in your post.

Weather is not climate.

2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record. The last decade was the warmest on record.

Arctic is predicted to be ice free in summer by 2030.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cli...l#ixzz1vBMA1Ml7

IPCC is generally conservative in their predictions. Recent data and observations shows things are much worse than their earlier predictions.

Personal attack removed

Weather IS climate whenever you post an article that way inclined though CB.... But thats the hypocrisy of the natural climate change deniers though I guess!!!!

That chart is so fake it is ridiculous.

First of all, what climate models were predicting sea ice extent minimum at 8 million km2 when it was already well below 7 million km2 (at the time the climate models started up operations dealing with sea ice extent - 1985 or so).

Secondly, the minimum sea ice extent was never well over 8 million km2 in the 1960s, 1940s etc.

It is just made up by the NSIDC (which seems to be convincing to some but is clearly not based on factual information - which also seems to be common in the NSIDC).

I dispute your claim that the chart is fake.

These links support the charts veracity.

http://www.damocles-eu.org/artman/uploads/2007-record-low_sea-ice-event.pdf

Arctic melts faster than IPCC's forecasts

Here's another version of the chart by UCAR.

http://www.newswise.com/images/uploads/2007/04/30/fullsize/arctic_sea_ice_extent5.jpg