NASA Study: Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed

submitter bigwheel sends this excerpt from a NASA news release: The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years. Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself. "The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

Comments

Yesterday Oceans were warming more than predicted

[Crashmarik]

Today not at all.
Nothing like settled and well defined science.

Re:Yesterday Oceans were warming more than predict

[itzly]

Yesterday it was about the top layer, today about the deeper layers. Oceans are big and varied, you know.

Re:phase change

[durrr]

It's hard to admit that you could've been wrong isn't it?
Especially after you've been gloating over your high horse position and have insulted everyone that disagreed.

Jane/Lonny Eachus goes Sky Dragon Slayer

[khayman80]

... don't try to tell me you're calculating the TOTAL electrical power needed to both heat the source and cool the walls, because that would be a different experiment. Spencer stipulated "electrical power" to the heat source. He left power to the walls unstated, except to say that they are maintained at 0 degrees F. He did not say the power to the heat source AND to the walls was constant. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

Again, I've repeatedly explained that the power needed to cool the walls is irrelevant, and that it isn't required to be constant.

The problem with your theory is that you have failed to show that electrical power in = anything BUT power out. It isn't heat transfer, as you have several times asserted. Heat transfer to a cooler body has NO relevance to the radiated power output of a warmer body at known temperature. And since it does not affect the power out, it does not affect the power in. QED. [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

Again, why does Jane think if something doesn't affect the power out, it can't affect the power in? For example, black body "power in" depends on the chamber walls even though "power out" through that boundary doesn't depend on the chamber walls.

Since we agree that "electrical heating power" goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F, has Jane also noticed that "net heat transfer" also goes to zero when the chamber walls are also at 150F?

Isn't that a weird coincidence? So why does Jane keep using an equation that depends on "electrical heating power = radiative power out" without even writing down an energy conservation equation to try to justify that claim? Has Jane even considered the possibility that if he applied conservation of energy, he'd find that electrical heating power really is determined by net heat transfer, rather than "radiative power out" which stays constant even if the chamber walls are also at 150F?

If you draw your boundary around just the heat source itself, since there is NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN (which doesn't then just go right back OUT, yielding a net of 0)... [Jane Q. Public, 2014-10-07]

If there's no net radiative power coming in, that must mean all the "power in" from the chamber walls just goes back out. That would yield a net of zero. But as usual Jane didn't write down the power in = power out equation showing these terms before they supposedly cancel. Is this what you mean, Jane?

Draw a boundary around the heat source:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out

At steady state, Jane's power in = Jane's power out:

electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out (Jane's equation?)

Jane, is that your equation for required electrical heating power? By "NO NET RADIATIVE POWER COMING IN", are you saying "radiative power in from the chamber walls" = "radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out"?

Re:phase change

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical liberal. They're all tolerance and diversity and kumbaya and shit unless they disagree with you and then it's "I hope you die".

we get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate: (noun) - anything in the sky or seas that can be twisted to support the claims that the world will end if we do not all pay higher taxes and give governments more power over individuals.

Weather: (noun) - anything in the sky or seas that might be twisted into an argument that governments do not need more money and power in order to "save the planet"

Examples of proper usage:

1. Hurricanes: when large and devastating, like Katrina, they are climate and proof of global warming, but when absent for a record-setting period of time they become weather and anybody who cites them as evidence of non-warming is an IDIOT

2. Temperatures: when high in a place like California, they are climate and proof of global warming, but when very low in a place like the midwest and explained as a "polar vortex" they are just weather and anybody claiming temperatures matter is an IDIOT who doesn not "get" the difference between "climate" and "weather"

3. Droughts: When hitting California worse than younger citizens remember in their short lives they are climate and proof of global warming, but when people are reminded that they have happened many times before and when evidence shows that the current one too is tied to El Nino/La Nina weather patterns they are....... um...... still climate and proof the world will end if we do not abandon the free market, personal liberty, etc (when something is a disaster that can be used no matter what, it remains climate)

Re:we get it

[bunratty]

Nice strawman. It's not about "the world ending" or "higher taxes" or "world government" at all. I don't know how you people twist a bit of warming into crap like that. We're burning fossil fuels, creating carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, and it's causing warmer temperatures. Those warmer temperatures will cause economic losses, so to cut our losses we should cut carbon dioxide emissions by generating electricity from non-fossil fuel sources.

Re:we get it

[whistlingtony]

You know.....

This story is a legitimate chance for anti-GWers to crow a little bit. (sort of). We have something here, by a reputable source (NASA) that has revealed a tough question. We thought the deep ocean was warming. It turns out it isn't. We were using that as a sink for the heat to explain the recent pause in the global warming. Shit... This makes us search for some answers.

This is science working. It's also NASA saying "hey, wait a minute", which You People always seem to say never happens. It's also STILL saying that the oceans are warming, just not the deep oceans. It also says the deep oceans are REALLY hard to measure, so perhaps it's wrong. We'll see.

So, yeah, Anti-GWers, this was your moment to shine. This was your moment to crow. Instead CppDeveloper decided to make an ignorant comment about CO2 being plant food. Yes. We knew that. Thanks. You're about 20 years behind on your Stupid Anti-GWing statements. We know CO2 is plant food. We know plants absorb it. That's kind of the point of oil. It's a nicely balanced system and we have been A. releasing millions of years of Stored In Plants CO2 inside 200 years and B. cutting down rain forest for beef farms at the same time. We've hashed out your stupid statement years ago. You need to update...

Grumble.....

Re:we get it

[CppDeveloper]

Nah, I am pointing out that it IS about politics and taxes.

Re:phase change

[PhilHibbs]

Yeah, it's not a constructive attitude to take. But, if I'm convinced that global warming is going to wipe out the human race, then anyone who is arguing on the other side is directly contributing to the extermination of humanity, and that's not going to endear me to them. And in a broader sense regarding "liberals", tolerant people can't be expected to be tolerant of intolerance. Same with religion - if I'm convinced that anyone not worshipping God is helping the devil to destroy the world, then I'm not really going to be sympathetic to atheists or other religions. Of course to someone who disagrees with me on any of these positions, I'm just some nutjob. But if I'm right, well, what otherwise outrageous actions are acceptable in order to save the world?