Mathematics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Ocean Heat

35 Comments

Where is it?

I have previously written about the fact that the heat in the ocean isn’t there. A Facebook commentator produced some excellent graphs based on the ARGO data which showed NO heat accumulation at any level in the world’s oceans. This lack of warming contradicts completely (Anthropogenic Global Warming) AGW theory as put forward by such AGW stalwarts as Trenberth and England. It also has Hansen scrambling for weird and whacky explanations.

So it is plain in the ARGO era that the oceans are not warming and this contradicts AGW.

Denier.

35 thoughts on “Ocean Heat”

  1. Better not try to present this ‘blasphemy’ on any government run station in England.

    They have completely understood the problem with AGW and it MUST be human’s fault. Nothing else is tolerated.

  2. I never bought the argument that the “missing heat” had somehow sunk into the oceans without affecting surface temperature. It’s mathematically impossible for a continuous function, and would require a decrease in entropy.

  3. I think Judith Curry has commented on this before. There is just not enough data available on the deep ocean to draw serious conclusions. Especially because the enormous heat capacity of the ocean means that we are talking about differences of hundredths or thousandths of a degree. It is currently nothing more than an interesting idea on the part of Trenberth and others, not really tested. The only reason it is being declared as fact is that the alternative is to say that the added CO2 in the atmosphere isn’t doing anything at all for more than a decade.

  4. The heat went from the atmosphere, to the ocean, to the bottom of the ocean, to the Earth’s core. Let’s see you deniers debunk that one!

    1. OMG! So AGW doesn’t just raise our planet’s atmospheric temperatures, it raises our planet’s core temperature as well? Time to invest big in geothermal, baby!

      1. I think you guys need to publish this stuff right away!

        It’s just not enough to be laughed at on the blogs.

          1. The truth is that I would be embarrassed to use my real name here, considering both the crackpot nonsense you posit and the crank comments that then result.

          3. Given the total absence of anything that even resembles an argument coming from him, his need to remain anonymous would seem obvious. Basically he’s got nothing and he knows it. That’s why we are getting snark instead of reasoned debate. Cowardly trolls gotta be cowards.

          4. Well, perhaps he would posit that the heat isn’t missing, it just escapes measurement because CO2 induced molecular motion always occurs parallel to the surface of any measurement instrument, so that it can’t be detected. It’s even plausible that the missing heat manifests as dark matter.

          6. The missing heat is not an argument, it’s an established fact that climate scientists talk about. That’s why you can’t debate it with “Internet cranks.”

        3. It’s just not enough to be laughed at on the blogs.

          I lose track. Is inappropriate laughter still taken to be a sign of mental dysfunction?

    2. I think the answer is clear; the missing heat issue is a misnomer, it’s just misplaced. The enigma will soon be solved; they’ll find that missing heat in the trunk of somebody’s car, just like they’ve oft done with ballot boxes.

        1. Ah, yes, Repo Man… and the alien corpse in the trunk of a car. Not a bad documentary, that, and certainly a more factual documentary than Al Gore has ever managed.

          🙂

      1. No, I just thought of something ridiculous that could never be verified so that it would have to be an article of faith. We went from the Ocean sucked up the missing heat to the deep ocean to the deep deep ocean. Might as well just claim something that can’t be investigated so that the argument can never be proven right or wrong and moral arguments can be used in place of science.

  5. That guy’s an idiot. From the article: “In my articles I noted that NODC graphs were shown in joules which allowed a steeper slope compared to a temperature trend. Mischievously I suggested an ulterior motive for this. Alarmism.”

    My bold.

    Or maybe, just maybe, the slope of the graph has something to do with how spread out the units used are on the x axis, rather than which units are used.

      1. Or maybe, just maybe, the slope of the graph has something to do with how spread out the units used are on the y axis, rather than which units are used. (corrected to account for your self-correction)

        The spread is, in and of itself, a function of the unit that is being used.

        On the Temp graph, the Y-axis is labeled in increments of 0.1, which is reasonable for as narrow as the data set is within that unit of measurement. For the Joules graph, it’s in increments of 5, which is also reasonable for THAT unit.

        The only way to make the graphs look the same would be to use rather unique-looking increments on the Y-axes, which carries the same risk of alarmist interpretation/conspiracy theories.

        Granted, I don’t know that I read as much of a conspiracy in the graphing as that author does, but I think it’s healthy to question why someone would use the Joule graph instead of the Temperature graph, all other things being equal, when they have the same data but look so much different.

        1. The only way to make the graphs look the same would be to use rather unique-looking increments on the Y-axes,

          or to change the spacing between the units.

  7. The truth is that I would be embarrassed to use my real name here, considering both the crackpot nonsense you posit and the crank comments that then result.

    You should honor us with the valid truth of your wisdom. Please give us your name so we can then bow before you.

      1. We don’t really care what your name is. We’re just pointing out that the real reason you don’t use it is because your comments are so idiotic. It’s a lot easier to be an anonymous troll than to come up with something intelligent to add to the conversation. And the notion that we are “anti-science” is the most hilariously stupid thing you’ve written yet.

      2. Funny, it’s the anti-gun folks with the legacy of rounding people up. Look at Germany, for example. In the US, it was Wilson and Roosevelt who put people in camps.

        As far as anti-science, how do you prove that? Can you? Please elaborate.

        These are tough questions for someone who gets their history from Jon Stewart.

      3. It is the AGW community that uses violence to achieve political goals. If you fear violence might happen, you might want to tell your fellow travelers to chill out instead of freaking out.

  8. The most remarkable thing about the ocean heat storage hypothesis is that a bunch of climate “scientists” appeared to allege that you could make a major, sweeping change to a climate model without bothering to rerun simulations, verify against data, or anything of the sort. Now, of course, this makes perfect sense so long as you understand climate models as computational SWAGs and little more. This is not the way science is supposed to work. Even more so when there are real-world consequences for getting the science wrong.

    1. ” there are real-world consequences for getting the science wrong.’

      which means you are depending upon economic models and projections
      which are not well grounded at all.

      3. Unfortunately, all of us have absolutely no choice about that. Economists, unlike climate scientists, disagree 180 degrees on virtually every macro- issue of importance. Impossible to get a consensus on almost anything. Which doesn’t stop politicians from trumpeting the ones who agree with them.

Comments are closed.