Here is a discussion of some of the above.

Revisiting the Earth's sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008 - Church - 2011 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

And here is the scariest thing:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389220318.jpg

Interesting chart, shows the oceans taking the brunt of the gain.

Ha!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1389295360.jpg

I'd really like to know how they calculated the total heat of the earth and measured its changes.

I'd also like to know how much heat migrates from the interior of the earth to the surface. It is often assumed that the only source of temperature gain at the surface is related to solar activity but on a theoretical level, that cannot be true.

Things like that cannot be directly measured, only estimated, and I often wonder about the accuracy of the measurements.

JR

How dare you question the great Oz....:D

Seriously, was it Sagan who said science is about always questioning? Well, anyway, there are those in the "science is settled" crowd - they're done questioning. They have charts and graphs! (pay no attention to the recent "climate scientist" trapped by summer ice in the antarctic.)

Are you a scientist, Mr. island911?

if you can trust the data, the guys 12 million years ago had a serious global warming problem on their hands.

"only 1% of the earth is solid rock..."
<iframe width="853" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/_Qzm2rqrQvY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Not all of our heat comes fro the sun. (who knew)

IOW, our continents are thin rafts of solid rock floating on a giant ball O melted rock. ...rafts floating a spices (with some) so damn arrogant to believe that putting a percent of a percent of a percent of plant-food into the air will ruin everything.

idiocracy ensues...

It's ok if you don't understand.

...so guess how I know this story is pure BS. You couldn't get 97% of the scientists in the world to agree on anything, much less something this controversial. In fact 100% of the scientists in my family disagree with the above.

97%? Really?! Yes, I did reference the studies. Problem is the sample was biased. It's like saying 97% of plastic surgeons agree that plastic surgery is good for you. Despite RWebb's claim that really only he is qualified to think about this for us, there are many people here that are *actually* smart and can ready this stuff and make accurate conclusions too.

Sorry, once the entire lot of research is consistently filled with lies, half-truths, and outright fraud, the critical thinkers among us assume there is a reason for the false information.

HAhahahahaha :D

I see that you haven't offed yourself, so I guess you're going with the Gore Reduction Plan. How's the planning going?

JR

You have to admit it's funny to apply a liberal arts term to a scientific issue.

Biased?

Take your beef up with NASA, those numbers and chart were taken directly from their website.

It's not the first time I've read numbers like this, could have gotten them from any number of sites and just about any year in the last two decades.