RealClimate: 2012 Updates to model-observation comparisons

While not closed, given that there are depths below 2000 m, one might notice that the energy gain in the depth range 0-2000 m is steady so the rate of gain in the range 700 to 2000 m must have grown in the period you point to. Thus, disregarding the lowest depths, a change in the rate of mixing between the 0 to 700 m layer and the 700 to 2000 m layer during that period might explain what you noticed in fig. 3. It might also contribute to what you noticed in fig. 1. Look at the third figure (Comparison of Global Heat Content 0-700 meters layer vs. 0-2000 meters layer) here: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

There are measurements indicating that wind strength and thus wave action are increasing globally http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6028/451 which might influence mixing as might increased evaporation which can change the vertical density profile in salt water. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3377.1

This is not an explanation, just a few guesses at what might be occurring. That the 0-2000 m level of the oceans continues to gain thermal energy at a steady rate does indicate that warming continues at a steady rate though.

This led me to look up Tsonis and Swanson (loved but misunderstood by "climate sceptics") :

It's a climate regime shift

Conventional understanding for the switch to warming in the 1970s is that warming from CO2 overcame cooling from forcings such as sulfate aerosols. Tsonis and Swanson suggest an 'alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend'. It's this final phrase, 'superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend', that Swanson and Tsonis explore further in a subsequent research.

In 2009, they continue to examine the coupling of ocean cycles, stressing 'caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing' (Swanson & Tsonis 2009). They extend their analysis further in a paper that uses climate modelling to separate man-made and natural variability (Swanson et al 2009). When internal variability is filtered from the smoothed observed temperature (solid black line), the cleaned signal (dashed line) shows nearly monotonic warming throughout the 20th Century. In fact, the cleaned signal fits a quadratic shape which indicates the warming is accelerating.

Figure 2: Observed GISS 21-year running mean global mean surface temperature (heavy solid) along with that temperature cleaned of the internal signal (dashed). The cleaned global mean temperature warms monotonically, and closely resembles a quadratic fit to the observed 20th century global mean temperature (thin solid) (Swanson 2009).

The takeaway is that we would be in a "flattening" phase similar to the mid-20th century, due to changes in ocean mixing which swamp the anthropogenic signal.

Takeaway from the takeaway : if it is alleged that the climate forcing was overestimated in the late 20th century due to oceanic phenomena which were not taken into account augmenting the apparent anthropogenic signal, then there is a danger that it will be underestimated in the current phase, if indeed oceanic changes are lowering temperatures and are not accounted for by those estimating the climate forcing.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}

I understand your argumentation - but don't agree with it.

My activity at ET has commonly been to examine aspects of the climate change debate that fly below the radar of major media or to point where media hopelessly derails. Science and media don't mix very well in general, climate science and media doubly so - because it deals with probabilities and math which frighten reporters and because of scientists who crave political action. The signal easily transmutes into noisy garbage.

asdf:

I want to see 99 postings now about low-level arguments on the models or the observations or the temperature trends or whatever that do not encourage the sceptical viewpoint.

Actually a hard request. The factual science has lessened a number of scares associated to global warming that were frequently plied in the media the past 5 years - increasing hurricanes, floods or tornadoes, a decreasing 'Gulf Stream', unstable oceanic clathrates, acceleration of permafrost thaw, the melting of glaciers on Kilimanjaro.  The pause of global temperature rise, as noted by eurogreen, has also people mystified - though there's a decent chance 2013 may break that trend.

But there still are plenty of topics in the pipeline.

your post is not based on actual scientific facts of climate change.

And even when that's not an ad hominem, it remains irrelevant. On what ground is that comment valid? I've sourced my writings.