Get Ready to Move.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/22/3614256/hottest-year-ocean-warming/

no question about it, this planet is finished! I suggest you pack now before a polar bear in a bathing suit shows up to tan at a beach near you

You're just wasting your time.

I was going to post that, but decided that it would just be ridiculed.

Perhaps I'm being slow, but what do the units for the vertical axis mean? The link says Heat Content (10²² Joules) which I don't understand either. (BTW it should be Joule, SI units don't have plurals)

Another statistical challange given they want to make it look like it applies to 0-2000m water. In 2000 m water depth the temperature is getting very low. This is a multi dimensional calculation over all of our oceans.

Well good luck with this one! Another computer model or four.

That's right, and taking ocean depth 2000m still comes to < 0.1K since 1978. And why express it as energy? Maybe climate scientists have a feel for the order of magnitude of heat the oceans contain, but I doubt many other people do.

But the whole thing is about heat. "If it's warming, why isn't it getting hotter?". Warming is a misnomer - the heat (energy) coming in is greater than that going out. The added energy will be partly raising the temperature, partly causing more violent weather phenomena and partly supplying the latent heat required to melt ice (and probly some other stuff I can't recall at this time of night).

yes and then they slash out studies like this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150129143040.htm

Where they already fore see their predictions might be wrong if there is not MORE violent weather. So its just a thing that it gets more violent while it gets less violent for the remainder of storms.
Its the same way they say the colder winter is part of the hotter summer.

Its just pathetic.

I got a kick out of that, don't look to see that on the evening news, maybe talk of new taxes to "save us"

But there's still a direct relation between energy input and temperature rise (certainly over a rise a few K) even if the temperature rise has other effects. Apart from latent heat, but I'd be surprised if that's a significant part. I believe some sceptics claim there has been a net increase in total ice over recent years.

As far as I can tell (from the paper by Leviticus et al.), the vertical scale shows the heat content variation (in J x 10²²), based on the (arbitrarily chosen) value in 1978. Thus the increase between 1978 and 2012 is approx. 18 x 10²²J.

Yes, I'm sure that's right. I wasn't looking at the x 10²² joule as a factor .

But I wonder why they express it in those terms. No starting point for heat content is given, so the significance isn't clear.

Doing a quick calc, using average ocean depth 3794m (from CRC Handbook), I make that a temperature rise ~ 0.03K since 1978. That's a lot easier to understand. It doesn't sound very much, maybe that's why it's not expressed like that.

What a useless graph. Is this Joule on the side axis? Or Kelvin, percent or what?

Which statistical method has been used for the 0-2000 m estimations? I don't think they even get the temperature profiles correct for most of our oceans.

Whats with all these ups and downs? I dont understand! Why is there no equilibrium that we can destroy. Why do we have to mess with a chaotic system?

I dont like this!

From Wikipedia:

"The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is the leading empirical orthogonal function (EOF) of monthly sea surface temperature anomalies (SSTA) over the North Pacific (poleward of 20° N) after the global mean SST has been removed" (my emphasis). It is effectively showing the variations from the running mean - which has an upward trend.

From NCAR Climate Guide, "The MEI [Multivariate ENSO Index] is computed separately for each of twelve sliding bi-monthly seasons (Dec/Jan, Jan/Feb,..., Nov/Dec)." So again, it is showing the (cyclic) deviations from the mean.

Having lived in "Wosta" for four years 1981-1985 and again for two years 1991-1993, that particular part of Taxachusetts is in a band called the snow belt. This last storm was certainly a doozy but only because it was one storm. As much snow as the Boston area received in 1978.

At any rate, I recall one year in early nineties that we received about 120 inches of snowfall. The snowbanks in the neighborhoods were so high that you couldn't see cross-traffic until you pulled out into the intersection. I got a lot of exercise shoveling, but fortunately my driveway was only about 25 feet long.

This storm, like other doozies before it was just the result of the perfect confluence of atmospheric conditions. These have happened plenty of times before, and will happen plenty of times again.

Let's go skiing at Wachusett. They probably have better snow than the north country.

Why is it that over the last 10 years, anything out of the ordinary, even when just a singular occurrence, becomes a part of the doomsday from global change? When storms like this start showing up in multiple occurrences, then we have something to worry about. New England gets blizzards from time to time. I live in a snow belt area and haven't noticed any big change in the last 15 years here. Actually, the winter of 1999-2000 was the worst one I've seen where I live - I was plowing 3 times per day just to get into/out of my driveway, for most of January and some of February. I had just moved to this location (from the valley to up on a hill) and seriously considered moving out if that was how winter was going to be there. Yeah Buffalo got a good one early in the year - that was an open lake and just the right wind pattern for a sustained time. Bound to happen eventually. Still wasn't as bad as 1977.

when I was a kid growing up in California the alarmists assisted by the media had millions halfway believing that California would one day slide into the oceanhttp://www.livescience.com/32140-will-california-ever-fall-into-the-ocean.html

I view the entire carbon position the same way....it will pass and the sun will still shine, grass will continue to grow, etc.

I remember the theory we were headed for another ice age, because of certain pollutants, when I was in school.

And, what has happened to mass starvation in India before the year 1980? Remember that theory?

We are still fairly ignorant of the temperature cycles of this planet, and most certainly what a change will actually produce. Everything about a warming trend is considered dangerous, but there has to be very pronounced positives as well, that we never hear about.

Newsweek, 1975---If you look at the language, the "warnings", etc mimic the disaster language almost identically, only in the opposite direction===Global cooling and loss of crops and , and , and , and …… The disaster spin- meisters succeed in alarming the populace, tell them that there is NO solution, and that Government must be given more funding to save us all.. Let's see…. Since 1975, we are funding projects to combat GLOBAL COOLING, and , VOILA, we have Global warming …what a stroke of genius for those entranched into the vested University / Government entitlement system, that leaves out private institutions, scientists, etc , that are rewarded only by production, and statistics, and cannot fall back on Govt. protection.

Because "You never want a serious crisis go to waste".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yeA_kHHLow

It seems like this single storm has precipitated a flurry of disdain from many deniers of global thermal variations who would have us believe that this disproves the current global warming trend.

Puns supplied at no extra charge.

You may not be able to fool Mother Nature but we've done a pretty good job of fouling her Earth so far. And the fat lady isn't singing yet.