Latest From The Sneaky Heat Department

ScreenHunter_129 Jul. 08 18.21

July 9, 2013 at 12:12 am

Ah ha! The sneaky heat is warming the entire ocean from the surface down, but for some reason satellites flying over the ocean can’t find any warming at the ocean surface.

ScreenHunter_130 Jul. 08 18.28

Global Microwave Sea Surface Temperature Update for Feb. 2013: -0.01 deg. C « Roy Spencer, PhD

That missing heat is so darn clever.

About stevengoddard

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

36 Responses to Latest From The Sneaky Heat Department

  1. oeman50 says:

    The heat in the ocean is taking directions from the CO2. Because CO2 knows exactly when to make it hot, cold, snowy, dry or rainy and when to make superstorms, Cat 3-5 hurricanes, tornados or make them go away. CO2 is devilishly clever at hiding its intensions, that is why it is hiding the heat from the surface.

  2. I hate to think that, no matter how clean the final product, the graph above, with all the inherent errors there must be in “measuring” the “global” SST “anomaly” (should I, as a real scientist, simply take these words at face value, given what I know about the fundamental incompetence in climate science?), the public might think the climate scientists actually are masters of their “measuring” craft. Note, for example, how the variation is three time larger after 2007 than before 2007; what happened, was it due to a new (unexplained) era of larger errors of “measurement” or real, larger temperature variations (yet around the same mean temperature)? Inquiring minds–or just me–want to know.

    • F. Guimaraes says:

      Larger temperature variations due to lower solar radiations (long minimum during 2008-2009) and a strong El Nino in 2010, all this is evident in the graph. The strong low after 2010 are two sequential La Ninas at the end of 2010 and 2011. If what I’m saying makes sense, then we should have more lowering from now on, because the solar radiations have entered the waning phase of the present cycle C24. We already have an indication of the present trend in the “non-occurrence” of the predicted El Nino of last year. This may be interpreted as meaning that the local maxima (of temperature anomalies) are becoming lower and so are the local minima and many are now expecting that another weak La Nina may develop until the end of this year.
      Two words: solar radiations.

      • michael says:

        Variability in TSI is certainly a major factor… short-term. And IMO much of the evidence Steve dutifully cherry-picks to prove it’s not getting warmer is due to the exceptionally weak recent solar cycles. The most recent maximum has been virtually nonexistent.

        The way to more precisely quantify this effect would be to look over the data again, at such a time as we have a vigorous solar max. But for now, let’s assume that a low TSI is undoubtedly masking quite a lot of warming.

    • RAVerhoeckx says:

      Keep in mind that heat always moves to cold ! So what ever we say it will always get cooler.

  3. Latitude says:

    the missing heat is a math error

    Stupid idiots math didn’t work…

  4. stewart pid says:

    Whatever it is Michael is smoking he should share and pass it about. Sneaky heat … it is worse than we thought 😉

  5. That’s because it’s anthropogenic heat. It gained sentience at some point in the last 50 years and is determined to embarrass eco-worriers with increasingly erratic and implausible behaviours. 🙂

  6. Anto says:

    Well, of course it is, Steve. It works on the same principle as a microwave oven, don’t ya know? In fact, that’s how they thought it up – sitting there eating a TV dinner which was cold on the outside and piping hot on the inside. It was one of those classic science, “Ah, ha!” moments.

  7. DarrylB says:

    Please my reply to Michael in the last Sneaky Heat—-

    • David says:

      Darryl. an excellent reply, and I doubt very much you get any response. My daughter is Oxford educated in international ducation, aka a “social science”. She totally buys the CAGW meme, and is not capable of a rational discussion. The level of indoctranation is frieghtening.

      • glenncz says:

        Yesterday my unemployed 25 yr old daughter tell me the reason she doesn’t have a job is because she been taught the end of the world is coming so soon, so why bother!

      • RAVerhoeckx says:

        David- there is hope ! My daughter has a MBA and she does not does not subscribes to the AGW myth.

      • michael says:

        Michael agrees, it was a good reply. You should probably go back to read his response.

        Particularly to the question of uncertainty. Novices to any field readily believe their instructors are in possession of perfect truth. Old pros tend to be skeptics, because they’ve thought about the shakiness of the premises people rely on.

        If your daughter studied to be an educator, that does not necessarily indicate she has studied climatology in great detail. She probably read some of it, then decided she bought the premise.

        For convenience, we all do the same thing. If we’re unfamiliar with some field we read up on it in our spare moments. Then we form an off-the-cuff opinion. One we tend to all too readily share with the world.

        You have to evaluate the source. I’m not a working scientist, just someone who’d been evaluating the contradictory claims being made for the past 20 years or so (since the debate arose). And I don’t insist I’m right. I read and consider all evidence examined by experts on the field, then weigh it to determine the balance.

        • DarrylB says:

          For what it is worth: About 4 or 5 years ago, I stated to my daughter who has degrees in biology and environmental studies that AGW is taking place and I was upset that Pres. Bush did not sign the Kyoto protocol.
          She asked me how I knew that and I said, They said, I got no farther —- We looked at each other and laughed because I had taught her never to accept that and we both knew she had me. So, I went about proving her wrong. Funny what one can learn when trying to prove another wrong. That is how my quest began, and I am now writing a book regarding human nature and this part of the science world is a large part of it.

        • DarrylB says:

          Michael, I have a reply to your reply to my reply !!!! Now the ball is in your court.

  8. miked1947 says:

    The satellites can not see the heat because it is wearing camo! SHEEsh! Have I got to explain everything to you guys!

  9. Traitor In Chief says:

    Remarkable how the sneaky heat at first wanted to be in the Troposphere, but now it wants to be deep in the ocean. That really is sneaky…and it helps me to understand why Climate Scifi is so complicated.

  10. Stephen Richards says:

    No, no, no, this is SMART heat that passes through SMART metres and not any other measuring devices. Huh, what do you lot know? /sarc off

  11. ralphcramdo says:

    Has anyone checked if any of those pesky underwater volcanoes are in the area of the water being tested?

  12. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I cannot see how heat can sneak into the deep ocean when the surface temperature fluctuates on a ~62 year cycle by a good 0.28 C or so. (The graph is from this paper, it is simply HadCRUT 3v detrended by a quadratic of best fit).

    If the heat was slowly seeping into the deeps you would not see this rapid response. You could not have a ~62 year period, it would be much longer. The rapid rise in the last couple decades, equal to a third or more of the temperature rise last century, as the cycle hit peak and before that the rapid fall in the ’50’s and ’60’s means the heat goes in and comes out of the deep ocean in at most a decade. Probably less. Water is a low viscosity fluid.

    What we are seeing is a small response in deep ocean to the upswing of the temperature in the eighties and nineties, which was mostly due to this cycle. It is now going back down. In a decade or so we’ll see the 700-2000 m temperatures follow down as the heat discharges again.

    We are not playing hockey, we have a pogo stick. And no the climate modellers do not have this resonance in their models. Nor do they have the solar magnetic influence on cloud coverage which caused most of the rest of the temperature rise.

    • michael says:

      A pertinent find, Bruce of Newcastle. Here’s the money quote:

      “If the natural oscillations of the climate are not properly
      recognized and taken into account, important climate patterns,
      for example the global warming observed from 1970 to 2000, can
      be erroneously interpreted.”

      That is, if the decadal oscillations, the sunspot cycle, etc occur in tandem they can either mask a trend or amplify it. And you get bad results.

      Good theoretical speculation. Now find it.

      I don’t understand the conclusion you draw, though. You say “If the heat was slowly seeping into the deeps you would not see this rapid response. You could not have a ~62 year period, it would be much longer.”

      If the entire ocean is heating and cooling periodically and a new heat source is introduced, it will continue to heat and cool periodically. But the newer readings will depart from the older readings by being slightly higher on average. You find this by taking many thousands of readings. Read section 2: Data and method.

      Analysis of massive data sets is the opposite of cherry picking.

      • gator69 says:

        “We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008”

        Wow! 😆

      • Ben says:

        RE: michael – “Analysis of massive data sets is the opposite of cherry picking.”

        Adjustment of massive data sets is cherry making.

        There, fixed it for you.

  13. SMS says:

    I was thinking the Argos bouys only dropped down to about 2000′ or less during their data gathering. Where does he get the 6600′ depth from? There is no way heat can be transported to that depth in meaningful time. The best measurement of heat content is sea level rise; as our oceans are a giant thermometer. Once you take out borehole extraction and melt; there isn’t much of a warming signal.

  14. higley7 says:

    There must be some wicked turnover currents out there for over a mile of water to heat up. Any reports of boats being sucked under or old wrecks suddenly bursting to the surface? Just asking.

    • michael says:

      Water conducts heat very well. No mixing or overturning of mass is needed. If you place one ice cube very carefully in a glass of still water, it will still cool the water at the bottom to some degree by energy transference.

      And SMS: could you quantify the following?

      “There is no way heat can be transported to that depth in meaningful time.”

      Meaningful time, it would seem to me, would be exactly the time it took to observe the warming.

      • gator69 says:

        “If you place one ice cube very carefully in a glass of still water, it will still cool the water at the bottom to some degree by energy transference.”

        Cold water is denser, and sinks to the bottom.

        Find a new hobby michael, you are annoying the grownups.

  15. michael says:

    Would any of you care to comment on this?

    • gator69 says:

      Looks like a chart to me. Did it hit you on the head Chicken Little?

    • SMS says:

      Nice chart. If you heat the oceans by 25 10^22 joules you get a response. By my calculations about 8 inches of sea level rise. Bore water extraction has been estimated at 1.8 mm/yr. Or about 7 inches/ century. Not much left of the current 3 mm/yr rise. Is noaa saying that there is no melt taking place? Or are they wrong about the joules hiding in the oceans? Argo says they are lying.

      • DarrylB says:

        SMS just a little addition to your statement. Oceans rise as a result of three things.
        1) thermal expansion 2) glacial melt and 3) runoff from land.
        I read of one study that said 42% of rise was due to runoff. I find that incredible, and doubtful, but it should be worthy of greater study.. Related to that—–
        The Ogallala aquifer lies below a quite a few states and the water level is getting lower all the time. Also, because of its depletion, sea water is starting to come in outer regions.
        I do think that water: where it is, where it is not, and what is in it is a far greater concern than agw which is close to or is a non problem.
        One of the great fallouts of all this will be that the public will cease to believe anything done by credible scientists.
        Our land use may be causing a certain regional climate change.—- emphasis on may!

        Regarding the chart, Michael, I will check closely on the sources, because I have seen significantly different data.
        Also, I am waiting for your latest reply back at the first sneaky heat

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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