Your link shows a huge spike in sea surface temperatures. What are you talking about?

Yes, the increased co2 in the atmosphere casues a retention of heat, 80% of which is transferred into our oceans. Or, as deniers would say, it is all a huge hoax perpetrated by Al Gore. Take your pick!

All this warm water talk seems directly at odds with the arrival of the Arctic Sea Ice Extent minimum, which was 23% larger this month than two years ago. Reportedly most of the melting of the sea ice is due to exposure to warmer water. As there is now 23% more Arctic Sea Ice in the polar region than two years ago, it would appear, at first glance, that the water temperatures in the polar region are cooler now than two years ago.

Similarly, the amount of Antarctic sea ice is greater this year, at the maximum, is greater than last year. Again, this is not an obvious indicator of ocean warming in the southern hemisphere.

Hope everyone is ready for a cold winter.

NOAA and NSIDC are wrong. These agencies rely on ice data collected by satellite sensors attached to military observation satellites launched in the early 70's. Satellite imagery improved over the next 30 years. The newer AMSR-E satellites launched in 2002 are more accurate as conceded by NSIDC. Nevertheless, they continue using the less accurate imagers.

The AMSR-E's are showing a different picture. Go to Sea-Ice Monitor, www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi. Look at the numeric data page showing monthly sea-ice extent since 2002. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html. You will see the amounts of ice in August, 2009 and in August, 2007 according to AMSR-E satellites. On August 31, 2009 the Arctic had 5,447, i88 square kilometers of ice. This is over 2.5 million square kilometers more than found by NSDIC. On August 31, 2007, the Arctic contained 4,607,031 square kilometers of ice, about 900,000 fewer square kilometers of ice than in August, 2009.

NOAA and NSDIC are the witch doctors of global warming. Repeated false predictions of doom, looking at climate through less accurate instruments ("If the NSIDC satellite sensors launched over 30 years ago were good enough then, they should be good enough for you now!"), and ignoring the data from the AMSR-E satellites which NSIDC admits are more accurate is nothing better than stirring a cauldron of entrails to find answers. (Perhaps they forgot to put in the eye of a newt.)

Sorry, but as usual for deniers you are totally misinformed! According to ARGO webpage of the U. of Cal. at San Diego....


"We are increasingly concerned about global change and its regional impacts. Sea level is rising at an accelerating rate of 3 mm/year, Arctic sea ice cover is shrinking and high latitude areas are warming rapidly. Extreme weather events cause loss of life and enormous burdens on the insurance industry. Globally, 8 of the 10 warmest years since 1860, when instrumental records began, were in the past decade."

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=argo&page=1&qsrc=2106&ab=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.argo.ucsd.edu%2F

Regarding polar bears...

""Melting ice is causing their numbers to drop dramatically," said Eric Post, associate professor of biology at Penn State University, who led the latest study, publied in the journal Science."

"Recent projections suggest polar bears could be extinct within 70 years."

""But we think this could be a very conservative estimate. The outlook is very bleak for them and other creatures such as ringed seals.”"

"He added: "The rate at which sea ice is disappearing is accelerating and these creatures rely on it for shelter, hunting and breeding. If this goes, so do they.”"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6167819/Polar-bears-face-extinction-in-less-than-70-years-because-of-global-warming.html

And how did the denying community respond? They said to count the number of "if's" in his statement. What intellectualism!

"Chosen models?" This makes you the Fox News of this thread. From the article YOU cite:

Recently, scientists specialising in reconstructing past temperatures released data showing that the current decade is the warmest in the Arctic for at least 2,000 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8261953.stm

One thing scientists and scientific­ally-savvy people know is that you can't predict global weather change by how it acts in one year. That's too little a time period to use a predictor.

Surface temps (as opposed to deeper temps) are also greatly affected by wind and rain. Wind causes surface evaporation, which then cools the water.

Hurricanes and other cyclones can be a big source of surface water cooling this time of year. Just curious, how is your hurricane season going so far?

(here is a hint):
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg

Some guy named Joe D'Aleo, a devout denier and former weatherman, says he has inside knowledge about NOAA's methodology, going so far to say that "ARGO tells us this is another example of NOAA’s inexplicable decision to corrupt data to support political agendas" and the deniers take his word as gospel. It is hilarious. Of course, The Argo system of floats is monitored by the U. of Cal. San Diego and they are far too responsible to use inflammatory language like that. But deniers eat it up!

The ARGO float system, after correcting for measurement errors, also shows the world ocean has actually been warming since 2003.

Further, D'Aleo has a history of making inane and false statements about warming. He wrote:

"12 Facts about Global Climate Change That You Won’t Read int he Popular Press"

1 Temperatures have been cooling since 2002, even as carbon dioxide has continued to rise.

2 Carbon dioxide is a trace gas and by itself will produce little warming.

3 CO2 has been totally uncorrelated with temperature over the last decade, and significantly negative since 2002.

4 CO2 is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring gas.

5 Reconstruction of paleoclimatological CO2 concentrations demonstrates that carbon dioxide concentration today is near its lowest level since the Cambrian Era some 550 million years ago, when there was almost 20 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as today ”

6 Temperature changes lead, not lag, CO2 changes on all time scales.

Need I go on!

Well, considering D'Aleo first statement....

1. Downright false. The 5 year running average is still trending upward. Depending on which temperature surface temperature record you consult, 2005 and 2007 are still among the 3 highest temperatures in the temperature record.

2. This is false. CO2 by itself will produce significant warming - about 1.2C for doubling of CO2 concentration. In addition the warming from CO2 will produce addtional water vapor concentration as a result of the heating. WV increases by 7% for each degree C of increase in temperature which further increases the global warming.

3. This is a straw man argument. Models do not show and should not be expected to show a proportional increase in temperature with an increase in CO2. THe change in energy balance over the space of a year may not show up immediately as a surface temperature, because the much of the heat is absorbed by the oceans which have high heat capacity. Fluctuations in surface temperature due to weather will sometimes overwhelm the effect of the CO2. The fact is that over time, the averaged temperature trend is up.

Further, debunking D'Aleo....

4. The EPA recently declared CO2 a pollutant and the Supreme Court said it should be regulated by the EPA. But otherwise, this is irrelevant to the fact that it is a greenhouse gas which man is adding to the atmosphere which will warm the planet over time.

5. The word "runaway" has not been used by scientists. Temperatures were higher by 8C than they are today. This is in accordance with logarithmic dependence of TEMP on CO2 conc. Paleoclimatology is much more uncertain than the physics of global warming, which is well understood and agrees with modern atmospheric temperature measurements.

6. Looking to precedents to determine the effect of unprecedented industrial emissions of CO2 is logically flawed. If CO2 did lag Temperature, because the climate change was triggered by cyclical changes in the earth's orbit and orientation in the past, and CO2 increase was a result of feedback, This does not logicallty preclude industrial CO2 from triggering global warming. The physics of climate says that this will happen.

http://climaterealists.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=44

On can see from the most basic look at his own words, D'Aleo has no idea what he is talking about! Why do naive deniers believe anything heard from a right-wing website and nothing from legitimate souces?

Thanks you, HuffPost!

congratulations rp!

and i was so hoping that one of my Keeling Windows posts would win..

There was a time when serious scientists were the ones who thoughtfully discussed all the various data about a topic, and noted the different indicators, and weighed the pros and cons of one against another, and noted the weaknesses and strengths of each one, before reaching any tentative conclusions.

This type of scientist doesn't seem to exist in the world of climate science, where talk is of "death spirals," and "the Arctic is becoming a blue ocean" and so on.

Save some room for all us "immigrants" from the parched Southwest.

See you soon!

Not likely.

What's wrong with a little change?

say rp..

as oceans warm they give up CO2..

same goes for your ginger ale!

Fumes can stay, though! We would be lost without him!

Or you could put them in a big pot, with a frog, and raise the temperature slowly. They wouldn't notice that they were being cooked to death, and wouldn't believe it even if the frog told them what was happening.

Yes, as then some call this article a "lie" just because they have no idea how to respond! They are intellectually bankrupt!