'Missing heat' in the Atlantic – It doesn't work like that

richardscourtney says:
“A variation of 0.8 degrees is NOT evidence that the system has changed because such variations have happened before.”
There are logic and symantic problems with this statement.
Logically, climate change doesn’t just happen. Climate changes when it’s caused to change. Energy is conserved. The climate system doesn’t warm of cool without causes.
Semantially, you use the word “variation.” That’s a synonym of “change.”
Beyond that, 0.8 C is about 1/10th the warming from a glacial to interglacial period. I think anyone would conclude that 10% of ice age is, indeed, a significant changes.

Edward Richardson
August 25, 2014 at 2:52 pm
“I’d say there’s a slight acceleration.”
Cherry picked intervals of differing lengths, different measuring systems, no link provided. There is no observable acceleration.
Edward Richardson
August 25, 2014 at 3:14 pm
“You know, that old “dy/dx” first derivative.”
No, the old least squares numerical fit, which is an FIR filtering operation with greater rejection of higher frequency variability over longer timelines. Are you trying to fool us, or yourself?

In my most recent post, please change “is the use” to “is to the use” in the second sentence.

Bart
August 25, 2014 at 4:53 pm
“in fact, at mid-century.”
…
However….in your own words…..
..
“Cherry picked intervals of differing lengths,”

SonicsGuy on August 25, 2014 at 4:27 pm
…
Logically, climate change doesn’t just happen. Climate changes when it’s caused to change. Energy is conserved. The climate system doesn’t warm of cool without causes.
Logically your statement means that you believe that Tung and Chen 2014 is wrong. This paper claims that multidecadal changes in ocean cold downwelling and other circulation processes can redistribute heat vertically in the ocean, leading to corresponding changes in global surface temperatures. Specifically they attribute the recent warming “pause” to a couple of decades of co2 warming being by coincidence exactly cancelled by equal cooling from ocean vertical mixing. Further, they show that vertical ocean mixing changes or oscillates on a multidecadal timescale, raising hopes that surface warming might resume within a decade or two.
How is it possible for you not to understand the implication of this? T&C2014 have shown correctly what has been know for decades, that varying patyerns of vertical ocean mixing can cause climate temperature variation or if you like “climate change” on decadal up to millenial timescales. Two key aspects of this ocean driven climate change are:
(1) It is NATURAL (dont you just love that word?!) not involving any human agency and
(2) It does not need any change in the total heat in the climate system (which means essentially in the ocean). That’s what redistribution means. There is enough heat in the oceans, combined with complex patterns of varying vertical mixing, to allow significant up and down swings in global temperature with ZERO CHANGE in the heat energy in the system.
(I’m not saying there is or can not be change in total energy – just that with the total amount of heat in the ocean such change would take some time. )
Now if one accepts this (i.e. accepts the discipline of oceanography), then, again, how is it possible for you not to see the implication that, under the dominant influence of ocean vertical mixing, climate can be expected to be always changing with no human influence and not requiring any change in ocean i. e. climate energy? In the light of this can you see what it looks like to say something like: “logically [sic] climate cannot change unless something forces it by changing the amount of heat in the system”. The implication being that that “something” can only be co2.
You cant have your cake and eat it.
Either accept T&C2014 that oceans can eat global warming, as the warmist media are doing who are crawling all over T&C2014, and accept the implication that continual climate change driven by vertical ocean mixing is normal, without the need for any change in total heat.
Or reject T&C2014 in order to be able to continue to make statements like the one quoted at the top that logically climate cant changed without an external thermal forcing.
Make your choice.

The statement that “there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water” is inconsistent with what is known as the meridional overturning circulation. This is driven by density differences governed by temperature AND salinity. 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140821-global-warming-hiatus-climate-change-ocean-science/
“It’s important to note that a pause in rising temperatures doesn’t mean global warming isn’t happening, writes Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at NCAR, in an email. “Global warming hasn’t stopped, it has temporarily shifted to the subsurface ocean,” says Meehl, who first proposed that the Atlantic Ocean was storing some of the missing heat.”
“The frightening part,” Tung says, is “it’s going to warm just as fast as the last three decades of the 20th century, which was the fastest warming we’ve seen.” Only now, we’ll be starting from a higher average surface temperature than before.”
The radiative imbalance is still showing that the climate system is adding more heat energy than it is losing. The ice mass at both poles are still diminishing without pause, and accelerating. When surface temperatures were adjusted for known natural processes like ENSO and volcanic activity in the last 30 years, there was no pause observed in the mean global temperature increase due to the GHG component. Now climate scientists are identifying the additional heat sinks through measurement.
It looks like the heat that did not influence the SAT in the last 15 years, went into the subsurface oceans and was expended in melting ice. There are economic consequences to melting ice. And these consequences are not based on the outcome of a semantic argument about what a ‘pause’ is. According to some, global warming ‘pauses’ every winter. It is not enough to assert that the increasing global heat (in ocean or in air) is part of a ‘natural’ cycle unless that cycle or forcing is characterized, quantified and compared to GHG forcing.
For the above reasons, I am not yet persuaded that anthropogenic global warming has ceased because its effects are still measured and there is no indication of reversal. I challenge anyone to refute any of the claims without an ad hominem, speculative or conspiracist response.

Terry Oldberg says:
“While “science” is not necessarily done via strict logical rules, it is possible to do so.”
No it is not — the proof being that no no one has ever done it. Science is done by people, who advance it any way they can — guessing, borrowing ideas, trying every angle until something works. Logic has a role, but it’s hardly a governing one. As Paul Feyerabend wrote, ” Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives.”
“When this is not done people unnecessarily starve, experience pain, die, lose their capital or suffer additional ghastly consequences.”
No, they don’t — it is, in fact, science — done imperfectly, helter skelter, scientists clawing their way forward by any possible means — that has fed the billions of people in the world for about two centuries now, and especially in the last century. And will in this one. The Green Revolution didn’t come about by applying laws of logic — it came about by enormous trial and error, accidental discoveries, hunches, tricks, and plain hard work. Some logic, once the rules were deduced, but not so much, really — and it usually comes after the discovery, not before it.
“The ethical approach, then, is to follow strict logical rules in the performance of research.”
That’s absurd. Ethics is not limited to logic — Max Planck was completely ethical when he came up with the Planck Law, but his method wasn’t logic — he guessed. Neils Bohr was ethical when he made up the Bohr model, taking a guess at the structure of the atom. (He was wrong, but it was still a very good guess, and an advancement.) Pauli made up spin, but not by logic — he just took a guess about a fourth quantum number, and only then used logic and rationality to see its consequences — and a lot of intuition, too. But certainly not the type of logic you’re trying to throw around here.