Climate Connection Through The Ethers

The atmosphere refuses to comply with global warming theory, so climate experts have hypothesized about a mysterious connection between 0.0001 mole fraction Mann-made CO2, and imaginary deep ocean currents of warm water – which warmed without the heat being transmitted through upper layers of the ocean.

About stevengoddard

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

34 Responses to Climate Connection Through The Ethers

  1. Anthony Bremner says:

    CNN seems to the Presidents assistant promoting the climate scare . This morning, Alexandra the weather person on at 7.15 am said that the fires in CA were caused by months of hot weather and drought. There only 5 days last month where the temperature even reached normal or above according to weather.com in San Marcos. This month there have been 8 days but the other days were cool and cloudy. I hope they will get complaints about non factual news but they do not seem to care about facts when it comes to climate change. http://www.weather.com/weather/monthly/USCA1002?month=-1

  2. RMB says:

    You cannot transfer “heat” through the surface of the ocean. Surface tension blocks heat fron transferring by convection through the surface.You can not heat a gas like co2 and have the heat enter the ocean. If you have a problem with that try heating the surface of water with a heat gun. Anthropogenic global warming does not exist due surface tension.

    • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

      *Sigh*, you’ve been posting this deadpan theory for years now, confusing the heck out of laypeople, and helping skeptics become stereotyped as being crackpots. Here, I grabbed the heat gun I use often use to heat water-based coatings with, a high powered version of a hair *dryer*:

      Try not attaching so many words to a world of gray atoms in various dynamic geometric configurations that we sense as hot or red or blue or liquid or surface or water or gas or solid. Then add electromagnetic radiation bouncing around in wacky hologram patterns, diving in and out of the atomic bonds. Attach words to things quite carefully now, lest you trip yourself up and get a prediction wrong.

      • Robert of Ottawa says:

        Problem with your experiment, Nick, is that you are creating turbulence at the surface with too strong a blower, resulting in mixing and convective transfer. I think RMB was assuming a flat calm surface, so only conductive heat transfer would occur.

        Interestingly, the oceans’ surfaces are generally kept turbulent by the wind, as any SCUBA diver would know.

      • scott allen says:

        you also heated the bowl (which appears to be ceramic, which is an excellent conductor of heat).

        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          The bowl is lightweight paper. And I merely did sir RMB’s experiment for him, while only sporadically overwhelming the surface, not on average, though oceans themselves be chock full of waves caused by wind.

          You would however make a very good scientist, and your responses very much remind me of the intensity of graduate school group meetings and seminar Q&A sessions where I learned to trust nothing until it was quadruply confirmed.

          I get no brownie points for removing the thermometer itself from the heat addition step?

          I have to point out that RMB does *not* claim that the surface of water repels actual infrared light, but only that it impossibly acts as a physical matter mirror that somehow repels full molecular bombardment without itself suffering any energy transfer, since it’s a perfect trampoline.

          My main point remains that RMB’s argument is vastly oversimplified and uses a thought experiment that flies in the face of anybody who has used a hair dryer to help defrost a freezer or to help dry out some socks they want to wear again on a skiing trip.

          He’s using a gross metaphor to try to inject subtlety into a debate.

        • It’s called goalpost-shifting.

          try heating the surface of water with a heat gun

      • scott allen says:

        Also factors you left out was a 12 hour (more or less) heating and cooling cycle of Mr. Sun. Additional factors to include in your next attempt would be, output of Mr. Sun,evaporation, to have an a ratio of land mass to water mass equal to the earths, and you also might want to figure the global warming of only 5 degrees or so (their estimates not mine) as the heat gun you are using would give the earth about a 1,000 degree temperature, which long before the earth reached that temperature most people wouldn’t really care about much and certainly wouldn’t care about a 4 or 5 degree temperature rise in the ocean which you were able to obtain with your heat gun

        • scott allen says:

          Sorry son, an attorney, probably for more years than you have been alive and seen the wave of “hot topics” come and go. Your case/experiment/claim was not allowed in court do to lack of context and foundation. What is more important was that your case was lost in court and my client is now counter suing you and would, in all probability win.
          As I stated above the heat you required to heat the water a few degrees would have long incinerated life on earth.
          This is the real world you don’t did extra credit for anything.

        • try heating the surface of water with a heat gun

          QED

    • Morgan says:

      There is surface tension on calm still water. The ocean is anything but calm and still. IR can’t enter water due to surface tension? Not true. Heat by convection can’t pass surface tension? You mean conduction, and it’s also not true. There are more errors in your post than there are in the IPCC summary for policy makers.

  3. tom0mason says:

    As all who have studied the latest research on luminiferous ether and luminescent aether (aka global warming and climatology) know that CO2 is the phlogiston of our time.

    • tom0mason says:

      Join the campaign to dephlogisticated the air.

      • stpaulchuck says:

        did you buy your gyrocosmopolitor yet? I mounted mine on the furnace expecting it to generate gobs of carbon credits but the Knutennein Valve stuck and I got nothing. I wonder if Manbearpig gives refunds?

        • tom0mason says:

          Initially I had the same problem with the Knutennein Valve but the handy-man fix it with dab of his mixture of peguin, seal, and whale oil. Works a treat now.
          Manbearpig has not replied to my last telegram, probably lost in the wires. I’ll try to get him with the pigeon, or maybe spark-up the coherer.

    • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

      Do I have to grab my IR heater and my water carbonation tank of CO₂ now for you too? How about I make a clear baggie full burst? The central fact of this scam is that water vapor *positive* *feedback* is at the core of all climate alarm, not the CO₂ itself, and to the exact extent that alarmists can point to posts like yours that imply that CO₂ itself isn’t a greenhouse gas is the extent that skeptics *lose* the PR war and this lose the debate in the public eye among those still casually in the alarmist camp who might otherwise be convinced. This is the central slander against skepticism in fact, with few voters understanding at *all* the highly speculative nature of this amplification of the old school greenhouse effect. Water vapor, really meaning gaseous water, is actually not increasing much as humidity, perhaps due to greater cloud droplet formation that reflects lots of light away from the planet, so that’s as close to missing phlogiston as you can reasonably argue and expect to not help destroy the work of thousands of active skeptics to get the word out about a scam.

      • tom0mason says:

        I take it you are using your ‘IR Heater’ as the source of luminiferous ether or am I misinterpreting you? If so are you trying to argue that dephlogisticated air is a good thing or not, or are you trying to show, as these people (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/06/nasa-satellite-data-shows-a-decline-in-water-vapor/) have tried to show that it is the aqua vitalis (as I call it) or dihydrogen monoxide (in modern parlance) that has been screwing up the weather?

        Or maybe you hold with Dr. Spencer’s view that the dephlogisticated atmosphere does indeed affect the weather but not that much?http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html. And he also shows that the global humidity has dropped even as the atmosphere becomes more dephlogisticated.

        Surely luminiferous ether’s action on fossilize fuels and it release of aquified but dephlogisticated air is not in question, unless you know of a more coherent way to appraise the situation. To do so would put Arrhenius et al in the wrong.

        /ludens reduci

        Or maybe there is more surprises to come from nature than we can hope to predict.

        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          You close with wisdom.

          “Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.” – Andr Gide

          “Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” – J. B. S. Haldane (Possible Worlds, 1927)

          “Three quarks for Muster Mark!” – James Joyce (Finnegans Wake, 1939)

          “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” – William Shakespeare (Hamlet, 1601)

          “Science which appears to give us the key to power over the world in fact carries us away from the power which can be born only of total intuition, flashing between mind and reality. Rationalism, experiment are merely control elements. The irrational facilities alone open the doors of the universe to us.” – Salvador Dali (The Unspeakable Confessions of Salvador Dali, 1973)

      • tom0mason says:

        -=NikFromNYC=-
        I have used the language of a long discredited ‘settled science’ of yesteryear to highlight the similarity between the science then and the ‘settled science’ of today. And I feel it keeps with the allusion in the title at the top of the page.
        Obviously you can’t get that subtle a joke as you are too busy worrying about what the scam-artists think.

        By the way I feel that your blow-tourch idea has as much merit as our long lost friend’s Reggie had in explaining the climate.

        • -=NikFromNYC=- says:

          I don’t have a blow torch idea. Some wacky crackpot above said a heat gun wouldn’t heat water in a bucket, so after realizing that all my buckets were full of valuable plasters and Japanese import dry centrifugal finishing media, and bronze powder, I grabbed my Yuppie solution to avoiding doing dishes, big paper bowls, which I pointed a heat gun at, after filling one with water.

          Is this now not only the Iron Sun and Ancient Gods blog, but now the Polywater blog too?!

          I command no scientific authority here. There *is* no such thing.

          But I know this: just because charlatans now command a piece of the pie, doesn’t mint you a sword of reason, any more than it turns you into a Navy Seal or a professional violinist.

          If you utterly *fail* to properly discount crackpots then you’re just another New Age hippie.

          Life is too short to take you seriously.

  4. bobmaginnis says:

    Steve, please show us a link from Mann or NOAA or NASA for your “….. imaginary deep ocean currents of warm water.” I see that the Antarctic ice is being melted from underneath by warmer than surface water, but that is water coming from lower latitudes and about 200 or 300 meters deep and warmer than the surface.

    • Morgan says:

      Right Bob. You see the deep warm water that isn’t melting the sea ice because warm salt water is heavier than cold and much saltier water. You see that. Do you see the big E on the eye chart?

      • Morgan says:

        Before you argue, the surface water is very salty because it contains the salt left behind by the ice when it froze. Explain to us why the warm water stays 200 or 300 meters deep, below the colder and saltier water.

        • bobmaginnis says:

          Morgan,
          A mass of warm water moves from the equator to the poles. It is 100s of meters ‘thick.’ The top water cools by convection and evaporation, but the lower part of the warm water hasn’t completely mixed yet, thus is still warmer, even if it is just a few C. above freezing.

        • Morgan says:

          If it were warmer, it would upwell. Water does not compress like air, so there will be no lower layer of warm water, like there is in the atmosphere, where compression increases the density of the lower warm air and allow it to stay below the cold air. That is not possible in the ocean. Lower water, if it is warmer, will ALWAYS upwell. How is it possible for it not to? (Ok, maybe if it’s saltier, but it’s not)

        • bobmaginnis says:

          Morgan said “If it were warmer, it would upwell…” and I don’t disagree, it must, but there can still be warmer water, even if only a few Degrees C., that makes its way from lower latitudes towards the poles, and underneath the ice to melt it.

        • Morgan says:

          Why, then, is the sea ice increasing? An increase in deep warm water would upwell and melt the sea ice.

        • “Warm water can’t melt ice.” (O’Donnell 2002)

  5. stpaulchuck says:

    awww come on, everyone knows about quantum tunneling, the heat just moved into the deep ocean without having to move THROUGH the upper layers. Scientists say so. It’s true. I read it on the interwebs. Has to be true.

    • tom0mason says:

      Surely that is just the standard remote heating through submolecular telekinesis, the Russians have been doing it for years.

      • stpaulchuck says:

        there’s ‘sensible heat’, ‘latent heat’, and ‘unsensible heat’. Obviously AGW falls into the latter type.

  6. Robert of Ottawa says:

    If we all just simply wore polished conical aluminum hats, we could cool the planet by reflecting back those evil heat rays.

    Wait a minute … who in their right mind would want a colder planet?

  7. Send Al to the Pole says:

    The imagined signature of heat in the deep oceans is either an artifact of error in measurement, of volcanic origin, or it’s more magic heat, added after measurements are taken.

  8. kk7xo@yahoo.com says:

    Is it possible that the ocean is being heated from below, by increased nuclear activity in the core?

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