What model predicted warming below 2000 meters? Ten years ago we assumed the mixing depth to be 700 meters. Scientists who looked at the difference between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation and compared that with the measured warming concluded (because they believed in conservation of energy) that there must be additional warming in locations that we have been unable to measure. One possible location is the deep ocean below 700 meters. Only in the last decade we have been able to measure that in fact the deep ocean between 700 meters and 2000 meters is warming and accounts for a great deal of the missing energy. This study only confirms that there is not likely further warming to be found below 2000 meters.

Also by MIT BTW!

Scheme? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

I think the MIT Lifelong Kindergarten Group is doing more to address this issue than MS or FB: http://scratch.mit.edu/

With Scratch, you can program your own interactive stories, games, and animations — and share your creations with others in the online community.

Scratch helps young people learn to think creatively, reason systematically, and work collaboratively — essential skills for life in the 21st century.

Scratch is a project of the Lifelong Kindergarten Group at the MIT Media Lab. It is provided free of charge.

If you have kids, you should introduce them to scratch!

New paper in PNAS: We see no evidence in the geological record from about 6000 years ago to 100-150 years that resembles the rise that we see in the last 100 years. Compared against this 'background' signal the recent rise of about 20 centimetres in 100 years recorded by tide gauges is anomalous, - http://www.pnas.org/content/ea...

Please! We want to know the real truth behind these plots! Do you think Osama collude with the owner of the building? Do you think there was a plant in the white house who is manipulating documents? This is all very fascinating and I look forward to learning the real truth that Wikipedia won't tell us!

It is the leaders of the contrarian community who are repeatedly publishing contact info of targeted climate scientists and encouraging the crazies to get in touch directly.

The same technique is used by Marc Morano to silence climate scientists:

Whether one agrees with that message or not, there’s no denying that its tone is drastically different from much of the email Hayhoe has been receiving after Limbaugh’s denunciation, Gingrich’s decision to kill her book chapter, and the repeated publication of her email address by an influential conservative blogger who ceaselessly campaigns against climate science and climate action, Mark Morano. - http://texasclimatenews.org/wp...

Morano has sicked his minions on her for the crime of publicly discussing her scientific findings. Here is an example of the vitriol she is now receiving: Nazi Bitch Whore Climatebecile [] You stupid bitch, You are a mass murderer and will be convicted at the Reality TV Grand Jury in Nuremberg, Pennsylvania. AGW has never been anything but a Rockefeller depopulationary eugenical scam. [] After the Grand Jury indicts you, I would like to see you convicted and beheaded by guillotine in the public square, to show women that if they are going to take a man’s job, they have to take the heat for mass murder, just like the men do when they get caught. If you have a child, then women in the future will be even more leery of lying to get ahead, when they see your baby crying next to the basket next to the guillotine.

Of course not. Only you know the real truth.

so who was behind the 911 attacks and who faked Obama's birth certificate? Obviously if you are right these are very important questions!

Wikipedia thinks: "When the North Tower collapsed, debris fell on the nearby 7 World Trade Center building (7 WTC), damaging it and starting fires. These fires burned for hours, compromising the building's structural integrity, and 7 WTC collapsed at 5:21 p.m."

But I'd love to hear the real truth about the 9/11 attacks and Obama's birth certificate. Please elucidate.

“What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

Jane1:

vs Jane2:

Who to believe?

Seems like a distinction without a difference. Not sure we should use you as a barometer on which way the term "denier" points.

We have had really good measurements to about 700m deep for decades. About a decade ago a discrepancy was noticed between the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere and the amount of warming measured. Some scientists (who believed in conservation of energy) suggested that there may be warming that we have been unable to measure. One possible location was the deep ocean (below 700m). The Argo network was deployed. It was able to measure to depths of 2000m. It showed that the deep ocean below 700m was indeed warming and accounted for a great deal of the discrepancy.

This study shows that ice melt and the warming measured by the Argo network account for almost all of sea level rise. So warming below 2000m cannot be significant. Does that somehow show that the ocean between 700m and 2000m didn't warm? Of course not. In fact it relies on the deep ocean warming measurements to close the sea level rise budget. So rather than contradict previous research, this study actually confirms it. Maybe you didn't read this far down:

Recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down.

As this study shows, the missing heat recently found in the deep ocean between 700m and 2000m is required to account for observed sea level rise. So not only does the increased warming in the deep ocean close the radiative imbalance budget, it also closes the sea level rise budget. So yes, the law of conservation of energy is not challenged by this new finding.