Ocean Heat Content vs CO2..

Where is it? Where is the warming, and how is it caused?

It’s certainly not happening, and all i hear from the CSIRO, NOAA and the IPCC is they are virtually certain that we did it, humans caused it.

Very good, but how? And where is the correlation?

The disconnect is massive.

Why did temps cool in the oceans for 30 years? And look at the increase in the 1950s, was easily the biggest and CO2 movement was minimal.

Could it not be the PDO cycle? No, surely not! That wouldn’t be it, it’s the imaginary friend of Milo, the CO2 monster!

According to Skeptical Science, 93.4% of greenhouses gases is going into the oceans, or more correctly, it’s causing 93.4% of the warming of the oceans.

I have never heard of anything so absurd, because it defies physics for this to occur.

Greenhouse gases cannot penetrate the oceans more than a few mms. This is well known, so the reason they have come up with is known as “Back Radiation.”

It’s also known as Downward Longwave radiation. Somehow, this mysterious process heats the oceans hundreds of metres deep, despite the greatest energy source known to man, the SUN, only able to warm the top 150 metres of the oceans.

So this theory is already shot, because for 30 years the oceans cooled whilst CO2 increased rapidly from 1945 to 1975.

And furthermore, it would need to be greater than the outgoing energy from the oceans, which hold 1000 times the energy of the atmosphere.

Since 2003, Ocean Heat content in the upper 300 metres has leveled off, whilst CO2 has exploded.

Kevin Trenberth, of climategate fame, says the missing heat is down in the depths of the oceans. Conveniently, there is not a lot of data to disprove it.

So any person with half a brain can see its yet another theory from the AGW crowd that has bit the dust, once the AMO goes cold in 5 or so years it will become much more apparent.

 

 

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “Ocean Heat Content vs CO2..

  1. You do a very poor job of presenting information…. What is the source of Tisdale’s data? He gives a link to a ASCII file of numbers — what do they represent? What levels of the ocean? For what region? In what units?

    It’s impossible to make sense of this without these kind of details.

  2. What is your source of ocean heat content data before 1955?

    And you continue to misunderstand that graph. (Who made it?) It does not show cooling from 1945-1975, but a decrease in the rate of warming. (I suspect whoever made this graph choose this calculation just to fool people like you.)

  3. When I calculate the slope of the 0-700 m ocean heat content data, I get (0.21 +/- 0.11) e22 J/yr, where the uncertainty is the 95% confidence level with no autocorrelation assumed.

    Clearly, that is a positive trend, i.e. warming (do the calculation for yourself), though with lag-1 autocorrelation the uncertainty is going to be about 2-3 that above — which is to say, you cannot make statistically significant statements about such short time periods in a system with large thermal inertia.

  4. You are telling me i present data poorly, or am misinformed?

    You and every other alarmist use GISS, NOAA, NCDC, USHCN etc etc which are butchered, adjusted, tortured and deleted every day, and then question the data on these graphs…

    When the world warms significantly through a database that doesnt have these issues, come talk to me then. The oceans are the main driver of the warming, we are in a warm AMO, and until 2007 a warm PDO. Even with a warm AMO we have not warmed sinced 1997.

    And what has CO2 done? Sky rocketed at record pace. Only GISS shows warming because its been tortured within an inch of its life.

  5. The source of the graph is NOAA, the link is on the side of the graph.

    Good luck with finding the data, im sure its been deleted.

    Warming trend or not, CO2 is not responsible.

  6. And you also conventiently didnt mention that the only warming i mentioned was 1945 to 1975, which works against the CO2 theory because its obvious the theory is horseshit. All the warming on Earth both in the oceans and then following in the atmosphere is in line with the PDo/AMO. Given the oceans possess 1000 times more heat than the atmosphere this is fairly easy for most people to grasp.

  7. > which works against the CO2 theory because its obvious the theory is horseshit.

    So you believe that you’re a better judge of the science than the tens of thousands of highly educated people who study all this for a living, who collect the data and analyze it, who publish their work (and their links) in peer-reviewed journals, and defend it at lectures, symposia, and conferences? That’s your claim?

  8. No, of those “tens of thousands”, there is also the same against the idea of CO2 induced warming. Those people receive no funding, either they get with the program to receive grants or have no career. Also, of those “tens of thousands”, some are corrupt and deliberately adjust the data to create a falsified warming trend.

    It is as plain as the nose on your face that warming halted after 1998, temps are tied with ENSO and SST, and partly solar, far more than CO2. As you well know, the oceans hold 1000 more times energy than the atmosphere.

    And because these “tens of thousands” of scientists cannot replicate the atmosphere or oceans in a science lab, there can never be any proof of CO2 having anything other than a miniscule influence on temperatures.

    Look at reality, climate models are way off the mark, another planet in fact. And about to continue to get further away. Temps in the next 3 decades will plummet when the AMO turns cold and solar drops off, and then we can look back at the AR4 and laugh hysterically at it, and the scientists used in it. We are not anywhere near Scenario C let alone Scenario A which is where we should be.

  9. Melting Ice in the arctic is from the warm AMO and Negative NAO, this is not something new. Sea level rise has nothing to do with the Arctic. Oceans are slowly losing heat, now that the PDo has turned cold, but as you know this is a process that takes decades not days.

    The LT has not warmed since the 1998, even Hadcrut shows this. trenberth says itrs a travesty and Mann says he will use his nature trick to show it has.

    Speaking of Mann, i notice he thinks that sea levels will rise due to the arctic sea ice melt….obviously he got his degree out of the cornflakes packet? Or is he just another alarmist spreading mistruths.

  10. Where is the proof that oceans are losing heat – i.e getting colder? I haven’t seen any such data. Levitus 2012 indicate continued warming.

    And I asked you already — where is the link to your data? It is hidden in the side of your graph, too small to read. What is the link? Who made your graph?

  11. I keep telling you the data does not exist, its been deleted from NOAA website. Luckily people keep this info to use at times like this, try using the link on the graph or go to C3 and ask them.

  12. Can you at least provide the link that’s supposed to be in this figure, that is too small for mortals to read?

    Can you tell us who made the graph?
    When?
    And when was the NOAA data supposedly deleted?
    Can you provide proof of the deletion?

    Do you understand yet that this graph does not show a cooling ocean, but one whose rate of heat increase has been positive for nearly forever?

  13. Did you calculate yet the trend of Tisdale’s data?
    I have — as I wrote above — and found statistically significant warming.
    Do you even know how to do such statistics? I’ve seen no evidence of such understanding, only that you know how to cut-and-paste.

  14. Im not avoiding any issue, the real issue is that global temps have flat lined since 1998, whilst CO2 has absolutely skyrocketed.

    I.e. There is a massive disconnect. If you dont want to believe that this data has been deleted or altered thats your choice.

    Anyway, lets assume upper 700 has increased, why are we flatlining in LT temps then? We can play these games all day, and i keep blogging like the tens thousands of other bloggers, nothing will change that we should be at Scenario A and we are nowhere near Scenario C, which implies we stay at 1999 levels of CO2.

  15. You can cut-and-paste, but you can’t do the work yourself. You can’t interpret or reproduce the graphs you find. You have no idea about the details — in fact, you can’t even point me to the original data, or who made your graph.

    You’re clearly don’t know any science, which makes your opinion worthless. You don’t get a say.

    Go to university, do the hard work of earning a degree, and then come back after you have earned an opinion.

  16. Do you think you also get a say about medical problems of a sick old man? About monetary policy that your government should follow? Whether CERN found the Higgs boson or not?

    No, you don’t get an opinion about any of these kinds of questions. Nor about climate science. You haven’t earned an opinion, because clearly you can’t even do the most basic of calculations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s