New Paper States That The Oceans Did Not Eat All The Warming

As the Great Pause continues to lengthen, 18+ years and counting, members of the Cult of Climastrology have come up with all sorts of excuses, many of them very inventive. One of their big ones was that all the warming is suddenly hiding in the deep oceans. Why is it hiding? Why now, and not during the spike in warming from 1980-1996? What mechanism caused it to hide? Stop asking inconvenient questions, you darned dirty denier!!!!! It’s science!!!!! I bet you hate science and worship the Koch brothers!!!!!

(The Hockey Schtick) A new paper published in Ocean Science Discussions directly contradicts the claim that “90%” of the alleged “missing heat” from anthropogenic global warming has disappeared into the deep oceans below 2000 meters. This was, according to the authors, the favored excuse (out of more than 70 ‘excuses’ at this point) for the “pause” or “hiatus” of global warming over the past 18+ years.

Warming of the deep oceans, however, would cause thermal expansion of the deep oceans and add to sea level rise [called steric sea level rise]. The authors examined several datasets including satellite altimetry, ARGO floats, and the GRACE gravitometer satellites, and find that the thermal expansion of the deep oceans and contribution to sea level rise is “negligible,” and thus, there is no evidence that the alleged “missing heat” “trapped” by greenhouse gases has somehow sunken to the deep oceans. In addition, the “missing heat” is also nowhere to be found in the upper oceans, nor the atmosphere (because in reality it was lost to space as increased outgoing IR radiation over the past 62 years).

The authors find the sea level budget of total sea level rise is “closed” with “negligible” contribution from the deep ocean, thus no warming or thermal expansion from the “missing heat” in the deep ocean can be accounted for:

The full paper can be found here, for those who want to read the science.

Of course, the information contained in the paper will be of no consequence to Warmists (and, note, as the authors point out, much more research needs to be done), as “climate change” is a belief system, with its roots in far left politics, not a science system. To the members of the CoC, nothing will change their belief that all changes in the climate and weather during the Modern Warm Period are caused mostly/solely by Mankind. If the global climate switched to a typical Holocene cool period, or even a new glacial age, CoC members would still blame this on Mankind and demand some sort of tax, along with more rules, regulations, and laws that restrict freedom.

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

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “New Paper States That The Oceans Did Not Eat All The Warming”

  1. Liam Thomas says:

    AS the Egyptian General exclaims on Egyptian Television….

    “Obama says the greatest threat to World Security is Global warming…..IS HE INSANE!!!””

  2. Jeffery says:

    ,… the Great Pause continues to lengthen, 18+ years and counting…

    Not according to the evidence.

    Anyway, an old paper (2014) concluded the same thing as the new paper… the deep ocean may not be contributing to the overall sea level rise. See figure 2 in the paper showing that all the sea level rise appears to be from 0-2000 meters.

    Deep-ocean Contribution to Sea Level and Energy Budget not Detectable Over the Past Decade

    The Hockey Schmuck (and Teach, who insults you inadvertently) also insults your intelligence stating: (because in reality it (heat) was lost to space as increased outgoing IR radiation over the past 62 years).

    Contained in The Schmuck’s own reporting:

    “Our results do not change our overall expectation that the planet will continue to warm due to the burning of fossil fuels, but they do change our fundamental understanding of how that warming comes about,” said co-author David Battisti, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.

    Regarding the “deep ocean”, the Schmuck is fooling you with semantics, changing the meaning of “deep ocean”. It used to be the ocean deeper than 700 meters. Clearly the ocean from 700 to 2000 meters is warming and expanding. There is no evidence that the ocean below 2000 meters is expanding. Note: The average ocean depth is 4300 meters.

  3. Liam Thomas says:

    Jeffery You just continue to amaze me. Im not sure you understand what your even quoting.

    Yes its all well and good to quote something and then talk about it with little to no understanding of the ramifications of what you just said.

    To Wit. Its always been modeled that ocean warming would incite a rather hefty sea level rise. Its not happening. They conclude its not happening and basically tell us they do not understand why.

    The reason they do not understand why is because oceanography as a driver of climate is a very new science. The people who first seriously studied the oceans and reported on them are still alive today.

    The ocean and the sun are the main drivers of climate. Adding co2 to the atmosphere even at faster then normal venting has not produced the results the AGW crowd is praying for.

    In the end the real problem is that Climate and the oceans and the sun all interacting along with mankinds involvement is still rudimentary at best in our understanding.

    The AGW scientists are basically telling you…CO2 retains heat….Theres lots of co2 around…..ergo any warming HAS to be the result of CO2 while ignoring for the most party the 1000 other parts of the equation………..

    You continually talk about Planck’s law of Black Body Radiation but Im not really sure you understand the ramifications of what it actually means in a modeling scenario.

    And because you don’t understand thats perfectly fine. Neither do the rest of us. We all have our suspicions and theories but they have yet to be proven over and over and over again to become scientific law.

    The best of classical physics suggests that all modes of radiation had an equal chance of being produced, and that the number of modes went up proportional to the square of the frequency.

    However he predicted continual increase in radiated energy with frequency (dubbed the “ultraviolet catastrophe”) did not happen. Nature knew better.

    Meaning the measured amount of reradiated UV energy is a constant in that it is constantly changing as the earth changes…IE…less ice to re-radiate, more basalt which has a higher density of Plancks then does limestone. Granite exposed by melting glaciers actually emits a differ proportion of uv then does the ice covering the granite.

    In other words as a geologist I study this stuff…..Im not sure what your bonafides are and dont care…..

    but the point I make is that the earth is not a constant and the Blackbody radiation you guys keep throwing out as if your some wise wizards has been proven time and again to be about as unpredictable as the weather because of the ever changing modality of the event on any given day.

  4. Liam Thomas says:

    Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: a critical re-examination to identify the true and the false

    Another interesting Article from the same journal your linking.

    Here you will find the serious discussion of mitigating Co2 based upon soil management….but of course in your world its only fossil fuels that release co2 into the air and nothing else.

    There is little debate that between 25 and 40-50 percent of all co2 entering the atmoshpere each year is the result of soil mismanagement. There have been many papers supporting this and its a position taken by the Sierra club as well.

    Some of the greatest offenders of this SOC program is the Middle America corn farmers who do not rotate their crops or rotate their fields but turn over every year and expunge mega tonnes of co2 back into the air each year.

    Simply rotating crops and rotating land would aleviate 25-50 percent of the co2 reinterning the atmosphere each year.

    If the AGW crowd wants to really mitigate Co2 they would be on the Soil Management bandwagon every bit as much as the fossil fuel bandwagon.

  5. Phil Taylor says:

    Dear Liam:

    That is an interesting post. I will check this article out. I have a friend who is very knowledgable about this. I will pass it along to them.
    Thank you for posting it.

Pirate's Cove