Thank you for posting the link Laura. Very informative, and I don't mean just for the ocean temps. ;-)

How Ironic! Probably was threatened with loss of revenue and credibility if they didn't remove it.

It would be fantastic if scientists reporting exaggerated rises in land temperatures would be as diligent as this group.

It really is getting to me to hear all of the bantering about of the causes of global climate change being the fault of the bad old United States of America. The whole reality of the subject seems so obvious to me. If these people who tout our guiltiness in being the only bad guy were really in earnest, they themselves would be more serious in the ways of stopping the things that they claim are responsible.
One of the major claims is that we produce CO2 and that is the primary cause of greenhouse gasses. Then, why haven't they propounded the elimination of such things as carbonated drinks, (or does this touch one of their favorite idols). Another point is that plant life uses CO2 to make carbohydrates, (plant energy) so therefore why not plant things in every conceivable spot on the globe to reduce these offensive gasses. Oh yes! and by the way (remember in high school) plants give off life giving (to animals) oxygen. Do I remember correctly that this is a cooling gas? as well as a n important gas to the oceans for the greater production of water oxygen, plankton and microbial
life?
Another thing that I would like to hear about is the scientific data (if there is any) of the increase or decrease in sub-marine volcanic activity and how it is affecting the ocean water temperatures.
Just wondering...

LP -- here is an interesting link concerning just one sub-marine volcano that may be contributing to the ice melt on the Antarctic Peninsula.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/05/040527235943.htm

Here is one on thermal vents in the artic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050819123850.htm

and this site has a collection of articles on ocean heating sources. This site may not pass "peer review" but is a nice relief from the noise and clatter of the the globalbalonist.

www.iceagenow.com

Follow the link, go to comment #16 and follow the links to USHCN stuff. Real interesting, especially with the adjusments. It seems there are several changes from the raw data based on various factors. Net effect is a steady trend of increasing variance from the 1950s to 2000, all in a "warming" trend. IOW, the "adjusted" data reads hotter than the actual collected data. It also reads "cooler" prior to 1915, which would make the "rise" in temperature show a more extreme slope on a graph.

I don't see anything to back up the justification given. Whether this is my lack of common knowledge in the field (entirely possible, I can read papers, do math and follow graphs, but I'm not a meterologist) or something adhoc, I have no idea.

Pielke's linked papers provide interesting reading also (posted in response to a troll claiming that Pielke hadn't published and was just carping) on how certain changes in methodology have created similar "warming" trends.

Laura, you wrote "it will be shown that the warming of the 1990s-2002 has not persisted." While that is certainly Roger's spin, it's not what the authors say (although it's a possibility). You can confirm that for yourself via the link to the correction that's now on Roger's blog. So, please correct your post.

Kamatu,
The orginal paper published in June 2006 claimed that since 2003 the Worlds Oceans lost 3.2 x 10^23 Joules, or about the 15 years of stored heat energy. Most of the world yawned, a few at Real Climate said it meant nothing. I thought it was a major find since no one believed that the oceans could expel so much heat without some major oscillation in one of our teleconnections.

The writers seemed to have a) found a problem with the Argos data they collected from the buoys, and b)recalcuated exactly how much heat energy was lost. Since they haven't republished thier data, it is too early to tell what exactly prompted them to redo thier study.

One observation, though. There does seem to be a trend in which the raw data is statistically manipulated in order to achieve certain results. This is illustrated in how from year to year the historical surface temps seem to be jumping from one spot to the next. I am not claiming this was done in this case, but there seems to be plenty of revisions that revise the raw data fit certain model prejudices.

Steve - It's our policy not to edit posts once they're up. I'd recommend people follow the link and read the study for themselves. The full study is available at the link with no subscription required.

Laura,

Here's a link to the Lyman's corrections:

http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf

Figure 1 shows the correction vs the orginal calculations. I think Roger Pielke's assessment was correct. While the amount of global ocean cooling was overstated in 2006, it does appear that the 15 year trend of increased upper ocean warming has ended. I think the authors should be complmented.

What is it about denialism that renders one unable to read? While Lyman et al do plot the remaining data, they state that it can't be used in the way that JP hopes:

"The rapid decrease in globally integrated upper (0-750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully estimated sampling errors, potential biases between different instrument types were not investigated. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles that can be easily excluded from the OHCA estimates. The other bias, however, appears to be caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data that are systematically warm [Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007] compared to other instruments. Characterization and removal of this bias will be required before the historical record of ocean heat content can be reevaluated."

Note in particular the last sentence.

Steve,
I'm not hoping for anything. This problem that Lyman sees has been a problem since oceanographers stopped using the bucket method to obtain SSTs. At least these guys are serious about correcting thier findings; in any event, the MEIs across the Pacific region have been rather low for several seasons - a reflection of this is the rather weak ENSO period we saw last year. Since the last major ENSO event 9 years ago, the Central and East Pacific have seen a slow but steadying decrease in the rate of oceanic warming.

Lyman's orignal study reflected an oceanic state that was not in line with what most meterologists observed the last 7 -8 years - Pacific Warming that we've seen since 1974 has all but stopped.