Climate alarmists spent the past couple of decades telling us that the land heats much more quickly than the ocean.
But now that land temperatures have cooled for the past decade, they tell us that the oceans heat much more quickly than the land.
Only about 2 percent of the planet’s overall warming heats the atmosphere, so if we focus only on surface air temperatures, we miss 98 percent of the overall warming of the globe. About 90 percent of the warming of the planet is absorbed in heating the oceans
We haven’t hit the global warming pause button | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | guardian.co.uk
In spite of the “settled science” the story keeps changing. Suddenly all that atmospheric heat is now hiding somewhere deep in the ocean, and this new thing called “natural variability” is starting to occur that explains some of the lack of heating. In spite of all those new things, the science is still apparently settled.
How do they get away with this crap?
It’s close enough for government work. 😉
Pinroot, the story has not been changing. Way before anyone began speculating about AGW, scientists understood that the deep oceans were the heat sink for the planet, and that they regulated climate. Without them we’d be subject to totally different weather, unsuitable for the development of life.
Our store of heat does reside in the ocean. And when the greenhouse effect warms the atmosphere, a portion of that heat does enter the ocean. As does a portion of the CO2. This is not just someone’s opinion, this is a matter of actual measurement.
Second, natural variability is not a “new thing”. You won’t find one single climatologist who says that there used to be natural climate inputs but they aren’t there any more. That’s just something people have put in your brain because it’s stupid and because they tell you that’s what climatologists believe.
Finally, the science is anything but settled. It’s a work in progress. But we’re in the place where geographers were after Magellan’s ships returned. We know the earth is round now, but many of the details still have to be worked out. (Actually it’s a slightly oblate spheroid.)
Physical “heat” can not enter the ocean because it is blocked by surface tension. Radiation can of course penetrate surface tension. The ocean cannot be a store for “additional” heat over and above that which enters via radiation. Thats why Trenberth is having difficulty “finding the missing heat”. If you doubt what I say, get yourself a heat gun and try heating the surface of water.
That explains why swimming pools are just as cold in summer as in winter
That’s interesting because it takes a bajillion times more energy to heat water than it does air.
Yea, Nuccy is confused about which lie to tell each day.
Regarding Pinroot’s question.
For anyone who is familiar with Soviet history, the answer to this is very simple. When a Leninist says “The science (on this) is settled”, it is commonly understood within the party that this does not mean “The science is settled”. Instead what it means is that “The Party has arrived at a decision on what the political response will be to this issue, so further public debate about the science is prohibited because it could affect the stability of the party and by proxy that of the global socialist struggle.”
To a scientist who is a party member (and they are all required to be to have an appointment in a Communist society), this is a well-known reality, something which is learnt as a child. The needs of the party and of socialism in general are held to outweigh all other needs, and a child must explicitly make a pledge to that effect in order to get into college, and then again in order have a professional career.
There are many, many card-carrying Leninists within the ranks of professional science today. They may not have all taken an explicit pledge to the effect I just referred, but I think the vast majority have studied some of the history and have a working understanding of the philosophy. That is why their actions and words seem so nonsensical at times — because they are committed to support a semi-secret power which functions under the rules of Lenin’s Communist Party, and whose requirements of an individual member sometimes come into conflict with reality, but whose support is held to outweigh an individual’s need to recognize reality in his public dealings.
RTF
It is not communism, certainly not avowed Leninism. It is scientific incompetence, first, last and throughout the scientific community. The only thing that the incompetent climate consensus has in common with communism is that both communism and the consensus climate science are false dogmas, constituting powerful delusions among their respective adherents. The struggle of our time is not Left vs. Right, nor religion vs. science, nor one religion vs. any other or all together. It is false dogmas, both ancient and modern, now ascendant and aggressively confronting their natural enemies (both competing dogmas and competent, solid judgment of the truth in a given situation). You can tell a false dogma by its divisive nature–it causes the believer to set himself apart from others, and feel superior to them.
Was I not clearly suggesting that Leninist communism creates a learned helplessness or “incompetence” if you prefer, within science?
RTF
“You can tell a false dogma by its divisive nature–it causes the believer to set himself apart from others, and feel superior to them.”
Sort of like the tiny subset of AGW deniers? Don’t they set themselves apart from the standard current interpretation of climate change? In fact, don’t they constitute a cult, with its own set of beliefs not shared by anyone else?
Is there anyone like that here, who believes his own received wisdom (dogma) to be vastly superior to that understood by the rest of us?
Kind of hard to deny something that does not exist. But maybe you have access to a super secret proof of AGW? last I heard, it was merely an “assertion” since it was not even an hypothesis given the null hypothesis is still in effect.
Gee, I guess what you call “AGW Deniers” science calls Scientists. YMMV
Phil, the theory that there are many “causes” of climate change, both positive and negative, and that among the most important ones are those that human civilization has brought about, is amply demonstrable. But it cannot be “proven” in the same way that a mathematical theorem can be proven. The word is not appropriate to the field of study.
If you like, consider as well that the theory known as AGW cannot be disproven. There is utterly no evidence, much less proof, that whatever man does to the planet can have no effect on its climate.
I cannot be proven. You cannot be proven. Yet here we are. We are demonstrable.
I must also repeat the obvious one more time. 97% of earth scientists polled understand all this. Whereas the people who populate this tiny website don’t. To the rest of us, you look pretty much like Flat Earth believers– a tiny minority of zealots denying the obvious. I’m being very nice in trying to take your arguments seriously. So please offer me better arguments.
Michael, coincidence is not causation. You have nothing to point a finger at Man as the cause. Period. You have data, but no correlation. That you would be so stupid as then to describe a skeptic as a ‘denier” merely shows your own ignorance of both the data, and science.
There is a scientific process. You disprove the null hypothesis, offer an alternative hypothesis, and then test it. Which means your alternate has to be testable. If there is no contra-indication, it moves to theory. rarely does anything move to a fact.
AGW is not even at the disprove null hypothesis stage. You are trying to change the debate to your own straw man. No one called it a math theory. It is not even a theory.
And you are an idiot. I do not use that as a pejorative. It is descriptive. What do you call someone who is totally ignorant of both the data and the science but who must pontificate on it? An idiot. Your village wants you back.
As for your argumentum ad auctoritatem, I direct you to this: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Next time, do some research. idiot.
It’s worse than we thought Phil! I showed Michael how over 99% of those polled were ignored to arrive at their bogus 97%, so michael is a liar as well as an idiot.
Sadly, the 2 traits usually go hand in hand.
Phil, I’d place myself in the company of honest skeptics. The reason I call you and the other folks here deniers is that I provide refs and no one even looks at them. They all just dismiss them ad hominem. Is that how science is supposed to work?
The hallmark of the argumentation on this site is the fixed idea. It requires no proof, but is in the minds of the followers self-evident. Because all commonly believe in it.
Let me address your specific argument, though. “You have nothing to point a finger at Man as the cause. Period. You have data, but no correlation.”
There is certainly correlation– or in your terms, the tremendous coincidence that global climate in recent decades has changed abruptly from the confines of its normal cycles… while at the same moment in time a new actor has appeared: modern, technologically advanced mankind, who has cleared land worldwide, altered the land surface, the skies and the seas well outside the parameters of the past 800,000 years of natural change Our influence sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb. It’s quite a coincidence, isn’t it?
But it would still demonstrate only correlation, not causation, were it not for the body of theory predicting it. And as there are still gaps between theory and observation, gaps that keep everyone busy, I look over sites like this to see whether there’s anything major out there that would throw the current state of our knowledge into a tailspin.
There isn’t. Not on this site.
As Gator said, you are a liar. I gave you the source of your bogus 97% claim (it is .7%, not 97%), and you ignored it. You provided no links. Instead creating a straw man so you could best it. You contested none of my points. And you are easy with the insults when you do not get your way (denier being your favorite).
You are not a skeptic, and you certainly are not honest. You are a dishonest alarmist, and a liar. And you have been had. How? By my simple recitation of the way science works.
You claim facts that do not exist (correlation is not causation, but then I do not expect you to know that). A honest skeptic would say “man COULD be responsible for some of the global warming, but we just do not know”. Instead, you said we knew! When challenged to provide said proof, you created your straw man and continued with insults.
This site is mostly skeptics. They are also honest. As in the most frequent statement about the cause of global warming is “we do not know”. You think you know, but as I proved, you do not know anything.
You are a liar, deceptive, and an idiot. Only you can change any of that. if you want an honest debate, you should start out by being honest.
instead of being a lying idiot.
“…global climate in recent decades has changed abruptly from the confines of its normal cycles…”
BULLSHIT!!! Provably false all the way around you jackass.
Dumbass, enough is enough. Provide papers that prove these assertions, or admit you are an activist. Making broad sweeping claims with no proof is for the religious.
Get a grip you fool. 😆
But for years we’re told that global warming is caused by CO2 and it’s a really bad GHG, so most of the warming must be in the atmosphere. Now all the heat transfered to the oceans and CO2 does that too.
CO2 is darn amazing stuff and the way GHGs operates is nothing short of miraculous.
I just filled my oven with GHG to make ice. Now I’ll just light this match to see how it’s going…..
You just have to have faith in GHG’s and they’ll perform miracles.
Don’t be so hard on Nutticelli and Cookoo. They’ve lucked onto an idea that makes them famous and earns lots of money. You might as well slam an actor for playing an evil character in the soaps.
Except that I am not forced to watch soaps (anymore thank God), or PAY for them.
If 90% goes to oceans and 2% goes to heating atmosphere where is the other 8% go?
The rest of the hot air resides at the SkS website.
Gore’s Bank account.
Look at this explanation of the greenhouse effect from a University lecturer :-
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
It says that you can add 239.7 W/sq m solar radiation to 239.7 W/sq m backradiation and get a temperature of 30 degrees C.
So 2 ice blocks at minus 18 degrees C radiating at a third object will heat it to 30 degrees C – this is what that says ! My freezer is truly a magical piece of engineering !!
If adding radiative fluxes in this manner is wrong – and it is – then so is Trenberth’s Energy Budget and probably most of IPCC “science”.
Or is it these climate “experts” forgot to even check if their stupid pronouncements make even basic sense at all.
You can prove this is wrong for yourself by a simple experiment.
Billions of dollars of climate science debunked for less than $30.
Their children just wont know icebergs. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/20/iceberg_cluster_off_labrador_largest_in_five_years.html
TIf the science was truly settled theywould have predicted this. Instead they can’t predict shit.
Dana used to spend his days trolling Yahoo Answers on the subject – but you’re allowed to respond, and that didn’t work out so well for him.