Lord Christopher Monckton Brings Halloween A Bit Early

He’s off by a month, but, then, the UN IPCC really should release their assessments on October 31st, because they’re just like Halloween: fake scary stories and costumes designed to elicit lots of stuff

(No Carbon Tax Blog) Discussion between radio 2GB’s Alan Jones and Lord Christopher Monckton. (big snip)

Alan: Carbon dioxide is warming the planet but it won’t be evident in the temperatures, it is hiding somewhere in the bowels of the ocean.

LCM: This is the extraordinary thing. They are saying that it somehow managed to go from the atmosphere into the ocean. Not into the bit of the ocean that touches the atmosphere, no it missed that out and it’s gone down and hidden in the bottom of the ocean where we can’t measure it. And one day it’s going to come out and say boo!

Warmists desperately want to find a way to continue to Blame Mankind, hence their fantasy about the missing heat doing a Where’s Waldo? in the deep oceans, where it can’t be proven. Nor can they explain why this didn’t happen before.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

9 Responses to “Lord Christopher Monckton Brings Halloween A Bit Early”

  1. Jeffery says:

    What is this zombie lie about not being able to measure the ocean temperature? The ARGO system measures down to 2000 meters, and clearly that part of the ocean continues to warm as projected. ARGO data is available to all, even science deniers such as Monckton. You can safely ignore anything Monckton has to say.


  2. gitarcarver says:

    So Jeffery, are you really trying to say that data on the site you cite is from the Argos system?

    That would be curious as the data says it goes back to 1960 but Argos was not activated until 1978. You aren’t trying to skew perceptions are you?

    Now even given the charts, can you post the data on ocean temps for before 1800? Before the increase of fossil fuels?

    I doubt that you can which means there is no way to say whether ocean temperature change is natual or from AGW.

  3. Jeffery says:

    ARGO was actually activated around 2000, so it would be impossible for it to generate ALL the data. Before ARGO, ocean temperature data were collected by ocean ships.

    Nice try at changing the subject. Monckton and Teach are talking about the so-called “pause” in the surface temperature record. The ARGO data clearly demonstrate that the ocean temperature (down to 2000 m) continues to increase unabated. The ocean accounts for some 90% of the potential heat sink for the Earth.

  4. Ignore_My_Gumballs says:

    And one day it’s going to come out and say boo!

    BWWAHAHAHAHAA. Great mind.

    GC, don’t even bother trying to point to facts with Jeffery as he ignores all facts. Like the fact he was the one who brought up the Ocean ARGO data in the first place. Kind of hard to change subjects when he was the one who brought it up.

    Also, yes, while the ocean maps down to 2000m do show a warming (for certain parts of the globe), notice that the Y-axis is in joules. Once you put that measure in to reality of Celsius, your talking about a fraction.

    Also, the deep ocean they are referring to is deeper than 2000m. BTW, our coverage of deep ocean temps @2000m is sparse and only recent. Most of the ARGO data is near surface and recent. Ship-based data is varied and taken using a variety of methods.

    It’s like comparing a thermistor reading to sticking your finger in the air.

  5. Jeffery says:

    The change in subject was from the recent “pause” to the 1800s.

    You are either misinformed or lying about the ARGO 2000m data.

    Also, you are attempting to mislead readers with your attack on joules. Both the 0-700m and 700-2000m data show warming. Recall that the volume and potential heat content of the ocean is immense compared to the lower atmosphere. The transfer of 1 degree C of warming from the atmosphere would not increase the ocean temperature 1 degree C, but considerably less. Conversely, if you transfer 0.1 degree C of warming from the ocean to the atmosphere, one would see more than 0.1 degree C of warming in the atmosphere.

    This link explains how the deep ocean (deeper than 2000m) data are obtained.


  6. Ignore_My_Gumballs says:

    if you transfer 0.1 degree C of warming from the ocean to the atmosphere, one would see more than 0.1 degree C of warming in the atmosphere.

    and thank you for invalidating your entire argument yourself.

    if as you say, the deep oceans are warming, then we’d see much more warming at the surface\atmosphere boundary layer. That we are not, is an invalidation of your pet religious theory. And, if as you say, the ocean\atmosphere boundary layer was warming and transferring heat to the atmosphere, then we’d see the atmosphere warming at an ever increasing rate. That we are not, is a complete invalidation of your pet religious theory.

    Now, quit using electricity, you’re adding CO2 to the atmosphere.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Since all the facts fit the theory, how is AGW a religion? Unlike Christianity or Islam, AGW is falsifiable. One could show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Or show that the CO2 added to the atmosphere did not come from fossil fuels. Or show that the Earth is not continually warming. Or show that the sun is heating up. Or show that atmospheric CO2 is not absorbing infrared radiation. All you have to do is break the link between warming, human-generated CO2 and the CO2 retention of heat in the atmosphere.

    That the oceans have been warming does not falsify AGW.

    Please look at the graph of surface temperature to get a good idea about the extent of the “pause”.


  8. Ignore_My_Gumballs says:

    Ok, let’s try this one more time. For the last time.

    Association does not mean causation.

    When the sun is up and its daytime you see birds flying. Does that mean the sun causes birds to fly? No. There is an association there, but not a causation.

    Just because there is CO2 in the air does not mean the air heats up. There is a lot more CO2 in the martian air, yet its space-ly cold. There’s also a lot of CO2 on Venus, yet it is very hot. That heat is generated by pressure not the CO2 molecule.

    There isn’t enough CO2 in our atmosphere to do much of anything. The amount that we do have has already provided its absorptive warmth. Each ppm addition only provides a much smaller amount of warming than the earlier additions.

    The sun is not heating up. The sun’s heat output is fairly constant. The amount of total radiation changes however and we are currently in a “cool phase”. Some also call it a “quiet” phase.

    CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases, just not a main one. It is not even in the top 5 or so. It is a trace gas that is in the parts per MILLION.

    And, isn’t it ironic that the stock you AGW’ers put in the IPCC and yet they too have acknowledged the “pause” in warming over the last 15+ years.

    Also, you can not determine the creator of a molecule of CO2. Thus, no one can say that this CO2 molecule is bad while this molecule is good since it was created naturally. Is human-created snow worse, more evil, than naturally-created snow?

    If human-created CO2 is so evil, then are you not then saying that humans are evil and a blight upon the earth? Or, are humans part of the natural ecosystem?

    That the oceans have been warming does not falsify AGW.

    And you still claim AGW is not a religion? amazing. There are many reasons why an ocean can warm. An increasing CO2 content is FAR, FAR from a reason.

  9. Trish Mac says:

    Wow, LCM used all his scientific knowledge in this article, as well avery last bit of his brain power.

Pirate's Cove