10 blog reactions to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/ocean-cooling-not/

Anyway, I was mulling over this problemette when I noticed it discussed by PacificGatePost and deconvoluter in the comments on Prins’ Guardian piece.  Phew! It turns out there was a problem with the measurements.  deconvoluter refers to a Realclimate piece that gives chapter and verse. So let’s give blogs (Commentisfree) 6/10 and specialist blogs (Realclimate) 9/10.  Now we’re getting somewhere. But there’s more.  The Prins piece was in response to

account for some of the oceanic heat loss). Ocean circulation changes may also play a role. While the study is still under review, short-term inconsistency in warming, perhaps including a contribution from “mixing”, wouldn’t be very surprising. Update: Lyman study seems to have data problem, cooling has disappeared in latest analysis.

said this before, and Gavin corrected him before , but can't find a ref to that. Can anyone point it out? Oh, and one of RPs refs is his earlier post, which features the rather unfortunate "Assuming the Lyman et al data is accurate..." which of course it wasn't. RP really ought to correct the earlier post. [Update: Hank found a and b(!) -W] [Update: RP Sr replies here. At some point I'll reply to the reply... -W] Read the comments on this post...

said this before, and Gavin corrected him before , but can't find a ref to that. Can anyone point it out? Oh, and one of RPs refs is his earlier post, which features the rather unfortunate "Assuming the Lyman et al data is accurate..." which of course it wasn't. RP really ought to correct the earlier post. [Update: Hank found a and b(!) -W] [Update: RP Sr replies here. At some point I'll reply to the reply... -W]

has been made of a paper that appeared last year claiming that the oceans had, contrary to expectation, cooled over the period 2003-2005. But now it seems as if there is a problem in the data and in the latest analysis, the cooling has disappeared. read more

depth) introduced a spurious cooling trend when compared to earlier data. This error may be fixable in some cases, but for the time being the suspect data has simply been removed from the analysis. The new results don't show any cooling at all.(from RealClimate) It is not time for anthropogenic global warming adherents to say 'I told you so.' It is an indication that much more work needs to be done to understand what is going on with ocean temperatures and other areas. It is a reminder that high technology

American Spectator. The froofaraw stems from a 2006 paper by John Lyman and colleagues in Geophysical Research Letters claiming that sea surface waters grew cooler between 2003 and 2006. Gavin Schmidt noted in April that the authors corrected their paper to account for the probability that a large-scale change in the sampling method could entirely explain the anomalous cooling, and this week’s paper confirms that. In a commentary on the Lyman work

American Spectator. The froofaraw stems from a 2006 paper by John Lyman and colleagues in Geophysical Research Letters claiming that sea surface waters grew cooler between 2003 and 2006. Gavin Schmidt noted in April that the authors corrected their paper to account for the probability that a large-scale change in the sampling method could entirely explain the anomalous cooling, and this week's paper confirms that. In a commentary on the Lyman work

American Spectator. The froofaraw stems from a 2006 paper by John Lyman and colleagues in Geophysical Research Letters claiming that sea surface waters grew cooler between 2003 and 2006. Gavin Schmidt noted in April that the authors corrected their paper to account for the probability that a large-scale change in the sampling method could entirely explain the anomalous cooling, and this week’s paper confirms that. In a commentary on the Lyman work

The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.) If Richard Lindzen shows up at your door, slam it. Denialism.com What is denialism? Who are the Denialists? The Denialists' Deck of Cards Ocean Cooling. Not.