Global Warming Gets Sneaky And Changes Plans

Global warming was supposed to heat up the mid-troposphere, but after 17 years of no warming it decided that it didn’t want to do that any more – and slipped down unnoticed to the bottom of the oceans.

ScreenHunter_124 Jul. 08 12.47

Top Science Blog: Global Warming Heating Up the Deep Oceans – Technorati Lifestyle

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Global Warming Gets Sneaky And Changes Plans

  1. omanuel says:

    Thanks, Steven!

    Sixty-eight years of deception (2013 – 1045 = 68 yrs) are coming unglued. We now know beyond any reasonable doubt that a long line of frightened world leaders and leaders of the scientific community:

    _ a.) Were deceived, or
    _ b.) Paid scientists to deceive

    The public about the source of energy that vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

    See open message of July 4, 2013 posted at the top of my web page to the Space Science and Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives.

    With deep regrets,
    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for
    Apollo Moon Samples
    http://omanuel.wordpress.com

    • omanuel says:

      Correction: Sixty-eight years of government deception (2013 – 1945 = 68 yrs) are coming unglued.

      Thirty-seven years ago (2013 – 1976 = 37 yrs) the late Dr. Dwarka Das Sabu and I first presented evidence (AGU National Meeting in Washington, DC in April 1976 and later at the 1976 Gregynog Workshop on Isotopic Anomalies, Gregynog, Wales):

      The Sun exploded as a supernova and birthed the solar system five billion years (5 Gyr) ago.

      Click to access Photo1976GregynogWorkshop.pdf

      The experimental observations are as valid today as they were, when first published in 1975.

      The same cannot be said for the Nobel and Crafoord Prizes subsequently handed out to those promoting misinformation on the Sun’s origin, composition, and source of energy.

      Later today I hope to post another open message to the Space Science and Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives at the top of my web page.

      Why? The integrity of constitutional government is closely intertwined with the integrity of government science.

      With deep regrets,
      – Oliver K. Manuel
      Former NASA PI for
      Apollo Moon Samples
      http://omanuel.wordpress.com

  2. jeffk says:

    Of course! They chose a location with no track record, the deepest parts of the ocean! How brilliant. That way nobody can say it’s not happening if there’s no history.
    Same with Antarctic ice shelves underneath. No long history of placing thermometers there, either.
    It’s more of the same pattern of aversion to real facts and the need for imaginary boogeyman threatening the world after collapse of communism and manned space flight budgets, starting in the ’90s.

    • leftinbrooklyn says:

      Even when there is history, there’s no history.

    • Sean says:

      There is data and it is instructive. You don’t measure heat you measure temperature change. I think the total average temperature change since record keeping began more than 50 years ago is on the order of 0.07C. And most of those changes happened in the turn of the century when the temperature measurements were really sparse. Weather than number is accurate or not, over 50 years it is lower than the precision of the measuring devices.

    • Jimbo says:

      The deep oceans idea was dreamed up as a way to keep the con going in the face of the temperature standstill. But they can’t missing hotspot the still hide.

      • Jimbo says:

        Grrrrr.
        “The deep oceans idea was dreamed up as a way to keep the con going in the face of the temperature standstill. But they can’t hide the still missing hotspot.”

        • michael says:

          Water conducts heat, Jimbo. Is there any way a warm surface will NOT result in a warming of the deeper layers? The heat is radiated throughout the oceans. Obviously. The “hot spot” you seek is everywhere.

        • Ben says:

          RE: michael – “Is there any way a warm surface will NOT result in a warming of the deeper layers?”

          Yes.
          Abyssal layers are not well mixed. Its cold down there.
          Latitude. Significant temperature difference by latitude indicate the ocean is not well mixed.
          Halocline. Significant differences in salinity indicate the ocean is not well mixed.
          Thermocline. Significant temperature differences by ocean depth indicate the ocean is not well mixed.
          Thermohaline. Significant freshwater fluxes which drive the thermohaline circulation indicate the ocean is not well mixed.

  3. mkelly says:

    Have the laws of buoyancy been repealed?

  4. Traitor In Chief says:

    I thought the Global warming went into my fridge, but it was just a broken thermostat. So I became a Republican and sent a check to SarahPac.

  5. DarrylB says:

    Remember from the climategate emails Tremberth’s comment to colleagues in 2009–‘The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t’ or something close to that. Now he has a rather sophisticated and assumption heavy study suggesting it somehow has been transported to below 700 meters. Magically transported because there is no Argo evidence of it moving down to those depths, and never mind that many laws of physics are being broken by it moving there and then remaining there for so long.
    It is a huge amount of water, with a temp change of only a fraction of a degree.
    Water is most dense at about 4 deg C. To warm (or cool) it must expand.and the pressure at those depths is in the neighborhood of 1,000 psi.
    Even if by some strange convection or conduction heat became sequestered at those depths, it should never remain there.

    • Latitude says:

      DarryB, thank you!

      “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t’”

      …it’s an excuse to cover up a math error

  6. DarrylB says:

    That was supposed to be Trenberth

  7. Justa Joe says:

    This ocean heat con is beyond incredible, but if the oceans suck up and disperse heat so-called AGW wouldn’t be anything to worry about.

  8. michael says:

    The warmer waters are not sinking beneath the colder ones, guys. What ARGOS has shown us is that the entire water column is warming. From the surface on down. Not to the bottom, but to around 6600 feet.

    Check the graph “Earth’s Total Heat Content Anomaly”:

    http://www.icsusa.org/pages/articles/2012-icsusa-articles/april-2012—earthrsquos-oceans-a-heat-sink-for-energy.php#.UdtSg6xbyxM

    “The picture emerging is that water temperatures are increasing all through the vertical water column, not just on the surface. The measurements show that increased energy, or heat from GHG, can be detected down to depths of over 6600 feet and accounts for ~90% of the extra energy.”

    • gator69 says:

      How can they tell it is “GHG” heat? Does it wear a name tag?

      How many decades have we had these deep diving buoys? And do they cover they entirety of our oceans?

      Quite a claim! Most impressive, and scary! 😆

      • miked1947 says:

        The water got its name tags at the last CAGW convention! Gator you should have known that! 😉

      • michael says:

        “How can they tell it is “GHG” heat? Does it wear a name tag?”

        What they are measuring is heat gain. If you don’t want to call it GHG, just say “unexplained warming”.

        As to your other questions, look it up. ARGOS is very well described.

        • gator69 says:

          😆 I’m not asking you questions because I do not know the answers, it is to teach YOU how to look at data. The answer is that Argo measures tiny pinpoints around the globe, and could never be able to accurately measure the entirety of the oceans.

          You are an idiot, but useful to some. 😉

        • michael says:

          “Argo measures tiny pinpoints around the globe, and could never be able to accurately measure the entirety of the oceans.”

          Please describe the method by which we can measure temps at anything other than a single point.

          Here’s the answer: you take readings along a very wide array of points. Which is exactly what ARGO has done.

        • gator69 says:

          Great, you now know the temperature of a bunch of tiny pinpoints!

          Congratulations! It’s like a flea, describing a dog. 😆

        • Traitor In Chief says:

          Gator, that’s a keeper! 🙂

        • rannxerox says:

          Just like the temp data collected from all the weather stations around the US have been “corrected” by NASA to show more colder temps before the 50s and warmer ones afterward, the Argo data also has been “corrected” because it too was showing cooling trends. How dare it!

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)#Argo_data_result_errors

    • Scott Scarborough says:

      Nop, your link does not say the entire ocean has warmed. In fact the top 700 meters has not warmed at all. 700 to 2000 meters has warmed about 0.03 C, if you believe they can measure it that accurately ( I don’t). Same problem with global warming. They say the entire surface has warmed – that’s a lie. About 1/3 of the stations went down in temperature and 2/3 went up.

    • miked1947 says:

      Michael:
      You do realize your comments are in the realm of fairy tales and CAGW myths! I am certain there are locations in the ocean where there is excess warmth at great depths. Of course most would realize the warmth is usually associated with geothermal activity in the form of vents and volcano activity under the oceans.
      Just to show what a “Nice Guy” 😉 I am here is a link where you can learn about ocean warming!
      http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

      • michael says:

        For the past four billion years or so, the world’s oceans have had seafloor spreading, undersea volcanos, vents and hot spots. Those features are in fact what kept the early oceans from freezing solid. But that just maintains the background level of warmth. You need to look for what’s new and different when you encounter anomalously warmer then normal readings.

        • gator69 says:

          Whai is a ‘normal’ reading michael? 😆

        • miked1947 says:

          There you go! The problem is that there is nothing new or different going on as far as we can tell right now. That is mainly because we do not have sufficient Accurate evidence to say with certainty something unusual is happening regarding long term weather patterns. Most especially we do not have any reliable evidence to say anything unusual is happening in the oceans. We do not even have enough evidence to know what is happening in the oceans. The ARGO buoys are to spread out to give us the resolution needed to realize with any degree of accuracy what regional conditions are let alone global conditions. The best we have for global conditions is satellite data and that is to short and has its own problems regarding resolution for degree of accuracy.
          The best that can be said is we do not know and wait until enough evidence is acquired to gain the required knowledge. I should think about 600 years of accurate records would be a start. The anecdotal evidence we have for the last 10,000 years shows us we are currently experiencing conditions that are withing the historic bounds of natural climate variations. Even the 800,000+ years of ice core data shows us the same thing and millions of years of geological records confirm that. You may as well be looking for unicorns or ET.

        • michael says:

          “Whai is a ‘normal’ reading michael?”

          When one gathers a body of data, it’s easy to find the outliers, the departures from the norm. That’s the methodology used in the paper I cited. Additionally, some years are cooler than others, some warmer. But what tends to convince is when you are able to determine a trend. A longer-term departure from the baseline, or “normal”.

          And miked? That’s just flat out wrong. There is something new and different going on. That’s the theme of the paper I offered. Add to that one the thousands of other papers finding the same trend at the surface, in the skies and in the seas.

          It would be nice to be absolutely, finally, totally certain beyond the shadow of any doubt. And if this were some desktop experiment, I think I’d want to carry it out to 600 years too. But it’s not. What’s at stake is the nature of the planet our grandkids will be living in.

          Let’s say your smoke detector goes off. But you know so much about what it detects that you say it could just be random smoke coming from outside. Let’s wait until the inside temps increase 15 degrees, and then see if we have a problem.

          I don’t do that. If early warning signals go off, I jump up and try to do something about it right then.

        • gator69 says:

          Dipshit does not understand the difference between ‘normal’, and ‘averages over time’.

          No wonder he is so very confused.

    • DarrylB says:

      Michael, I checked on your reference, somethings in it were totally wrong, so I checked on the cited Institute of Climate Studies. It is a team of three people- all have PhD’s I think. Raymond Johnson, an organic/ analytic chem professor, (I have taught in those areas, although more in physics and math) Scott Danville, an earth science, historical science teacher formerly at Greater Amsterdam School District and Lauren Eastwood, an assistant professor of sociology.
      That is the Institute, and my understanding is that there main mission is to prepare materials for high school and that scares me.
      A few gross errors in their writing
      1) the main greenhouse gas is not CO2, it is water vapor.
      2) It was known a hundred years ago that CO2 is already saturated with the IR frequencies being emitted from the earth. H2O is a bent molecule as opposed to straight and can absorb many more frequencies because it has more internal vibrations.
      3. The whole jest of the models involves quantum mechanics and that all greenhouse gases absorb and remit radiation radially a huge number of times in a second The belief is that in this process, the earth may receive, essentially more back radiation which will in turn create more water vapor.
      4. No, in the last decade sea surface temperatures have not changed. (check Roy Spencer’s blog for information on this and monthly atmosphere temps. He developed the means for determining atmosphere temperatures worldwide via satellite UAH.
      5. No, the argo system has shown that the ocean has not warmed above 700 meters in the last 10 years.
      That is why Trenberth made that statement and that is why he has done a reanalysis which begs the question and it is being challenged on many levels.
      6. Also, just give a little thought, the graph shown is highly speculative. Do you think that we really could measure to within a hundredth of a degree temperatures two miles deep in the ocean 50 years ago.
      7. It is this kind of misinformation possibly being presented to high schools that really
      disgusts me. (The part about the currents and some other parts was correct) I would be willing to gategorically look at and consider, and debate any aspect of the AGW meme or any related observations.
      8. When you check Roy Spencer’s site, he also shows where actual temperatures have fallen and are coninuing to fall outside of the 95% confidence level. (outside of all projections)
      9 A large number of scientists at the college level are now realizing what is being called the uncertainty monster. –and, many to whom I have been in communication really do not know anything outside their area of expertise, they just parrot information. I think many being honest, assume their colleagues are also honest.
      10, However, for many it simply say climate change, go past go, and collect their research money. Imagine how hard it is to cut your own source of earnings.

      • michael says:

        Thanks for the lengthy critique, Darryl. Most people posting here don’t have your command of content. In fact IMO they tend to be an unimpressive lot.

        The Institute publishing this information is a popularizing body. The two principals are not researchers but science writers. Therefore you are quite right in going behind them to check their work. And you’ve come up with a pretty good outline.

        1) True. But the water vapor content of the whole atmosphere, much less its change over the years, is nebulous and hard to quantify on a global scale. So until we can do that, it must be discarded as a factor. Among quantifiable atm constituents, we have to look at things like CO2, methane, CFCs etc. Otherwise we can’t study the whole system.

        2) This is a good synopsis of the argument you are making:

        http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100331113713AA0M81J

        Not really my field, I’ll admit. But there’s something wrong with this argument on the face of it, because in past periods the atm CO2 has been much higher and so have temps. And when it’s much lower, so are temps. So the link is there. Really. It’s blatantly obvious.

        3) You make no argument.

        4) Roy Spencer has made it his profession to disparage everyone else’s science. And here he has apparently found a method that will show no change in ocean temps.

        Again, abundant evidence shows this is wrong. Ocean warming increases pH, bleaches corals and is measurably distinct from other signals, such as periodic oscillations.

        5) Look at Figure 1:

        ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf

        6) Now you’re just pulling my leg. Anyone with your level of expertise would instantly be aware that readings to the third or fourth decimal represent averages taken from many hundreds or thousands of bits of data. What this represents is a desire to find broadly based evidence, not mere local data.

        7) Not really a comment.

        8) I will take a closer look, as you’ve raised the question. But I’ve read a lot of RS over the years, and come away with the impression that he’s something of an illusionist.

        9) Actually, a very good point. Virtually everyone new to a field readily believes that whatever he’s been taught is 100% certain and beyond dispute. Then the more they study it in detail, the more uncertainty creeps in.

        10) Another thought-provoking point. Science blogs are not monitored for accuracy (which is a very good thing for Steve, his being among the sloppiest) and it’s very much a case of let the buyer beware. But I would propose a project for you:

        People have gone to the trouble to determine the gfunding source for the denialist blogs, and have found in nearly every case smoking guns that emanate from the fossil fuel industry. They fund the disinformation for the most obvious of reasons.

        So by way of a response, the denialists point to the pro-agw blogs and accuse them of mysterious funding sources that want to destroy our planet. How about finding some actual evidence for me? That’s how a scientist would approach the issue.

        All in all, though, good tennis volley.

        • DarrylB says:

          OK Michael, I am putting the ball in your court.
          First, I do not think there has been adhominem attacks which no serve no purpose.
          However, the use of the word denialist is not just taking a position of perceived superior knowledge in a situation, it originated with msm comparing skeptics to those who would deny the holocaust, making trivial a terrible historic event. Why say that when skeptic or skeptical would do? This of course goes both ways, but I have seen worse among those who believe there is a strong AGW signal.

          Not in any order.NODC, Hadley, PMEL/JPL/JIMAR interpret slightly differently but all conclude that there has been little or no warming in the top 700m of the ocean over the last 10 years.

          About Roy Spencer. The largest debate has centered on mistaking cause and effect.
          I strongly disagree with you when he tries to prove others wrong. I believe the opposite is true. That which comes from the team, Trenberth et al.
          It was Roy Spencer that developed a means of sensing temperature by satellite , to which he still remain leader of the advanced microwave scanning radiometer on NASA’s Aqua Satellite. UAH There were, not surprisingly, some early adjustments of equipment which needed to made and upon adjusting those, measurements have been quite consistent with others. But Trenberth et al instead of appreciating the new means of measurement jumped all over this and still uses it to talk about past errors.
          Figuring he couldn’t be correct a remote sensing system was developed RSS and now the two measurements are quite similar.
          He has given many accurate explanations which are not in disagreement with greenhouse effect understanding, dispelling a group who would call themselves sky dragon slayers.
          The one that really angered me was when R S published in Remote Sensing, which went through the peer review process. The usual members of the team, Trenberth in particular, as well as Dessler and Abraham (from my state-ug) really dissed him and the article, so much so that the editor of R S, Wolfgang Wagner,
          removed the article, apologized to Trenberth and resigned. That is unheard of. If people disagreed with the article, (and many agreed) they should simply reply through the normal means.
          WELL, guess what, it seems Wagner is apparently the director of a group that wants to start a soil moisture network.. For this they have asked the help of Global Energy and Watery Cycle Experiment GEWEX—which in 2010 announced the appointment by acclamation of guess who as its new chairperson. Yes Kevin, Trenberth.
          Just for another reference to Trenberth, remember another email in a unrelated situation that said ‘I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out even if it means changing the whole peer review process’. I have a great deal of respect for Roy Spencer, and for Kevin
          Trenberth, well I said no ad hominem attacks.
          Oh yeah, On measurements at depths of 2 miles 50 years ago around the entirely of the ocean. Just how do you think they could make temperature measurements to a precision of a hundredth or less of a degree so that they could calculate the heat content of the entire ocean?

        • Ben says:

          RE: michael – “True. But the water vapor content of the whole atmosphere, much less its change over the years, is nebulous and hard to quantify on a global scale. So until we can do that, it must be discarded as a factor.”

          Turnabout is fair play.

          But the temperature of the of the whole deep ocean, much less its change over the years, is nebulous and hard to quantify on a global scale. So until we can do that, it must be discarded as a factor.

          That, my friends, is how you “michael” the discussion. If its ocean temps, pinpoints are enough, but if its water vapor, its too nebulous.

        • Chewer says:

          Understanding the multitude of interactions between particles & EMF (all wavelengths) within the spheres surrounding a “Hot Core” are not only tough, they are not possible, with what we have at our resources and what we can model through physics; ask someone you know about our capabilities in the Aeronomy and upper atmospheric Chemistry realms.
          The upper atmospheric tides that transport, filter and allow or decline interactions between organic, inorganic and maggnetically susceptible particle matter within the zones encompassed by our magnetosphere are imagined, not measured. The stimuli and conditions that drive planetary changes in the MEI, magnetospheric reversal and seeding events with the upper zones are also imagined, not measured. The upper atmospheric transient luminous events such as sprites, blue jets and elves are not even close to being understood, but their characteristics may reveal the chemistry and EMF involved and may some day lead to seeding and lower level phenomenal activity, but again are not understood or measured.
          Climatology being the infant that it is has been hijacked by morons with an agenda and the need to chase C02 only, without pursuing the geo-realm of nature & physics, leaves many of us with a definitive conclusion about their agenda.
          Does that help for you to understand why you are perceived as a denier of science/loyal sheep?

    • Sundance says:

      How did you find that faux science site?

    • Idiotboy says:

      Michael, once I reached the section in your link which claimed that “….carbon dioxide….is the primary GHG and comes from the consumption of fossil fuels”, it became clear that this was a tract written by someone with not even the most tenuous grasp of the science of atmospheric physics, and therefore of no particular relevance. The bad grammar in the title should have given me the clue. A damning indictment of our education system.

  9. omanuel says:

    Sixty-eight years of government deception is now coming apart:

    http://omanuel.wordpress.com/

    Although we usually cannot see the cosmic rays and gamma rays emitted by the Sun’s pulsar core – they are absorbed and re-emitted thousands of times as lower energy radiation before finally appearing as visible light at the top of the photosphere – solar images taken with different energy filters reveal evidence of an energetic substructure, the “Father of Sunlight”, lurking beneath the Sun’s photosphere.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/multimedia/Solar-Events.html

    – Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA PI for
    Apollo Moon Samples

  10. joe from Australia says:

    Wonder how many have fallen for the “heat rises into the ocean”Dam i should get a refund when i was taught that heat rises not falls lolololololololol

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s