All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Saturday, 21 June 2014

Ocean Heat Content -Another simple evidence based rebuttal of AGW

By Anthony Cox

See also Part 2 - HERE

The latest funny bit of science from the AGW world has been the assertion that the missing heat is being carried down to the bottom of the ocean. Leading lights of AGW science like England and Trenberth have both suggested the mechanism for this heat transfer to the bottom is wind. The absurdity of those positions are dealt with here and here.

But such obvious rebuttals of the science of AGW does not stop the alarmists from peddling their beliefs and mischief. In a recent online debate this graph was posted:



The source of course is Cook’s (UN)Skeptical Science site and is highly misleading. How misleading it is revealed by a commenter on the same thread who has made some excellent points and posted some cogent graphs of Ocean Heat Content [OHC]. The commenter noted this well-known NOAA graph was in Joules and not temperature:


The vertical axis is clearly marked in Joules. His comment was: 
For the sake of discussion let's accept the graph and all data as accurate. The lowest end of the graph is -10 Joules, the highest is +15 Joules. That gives us a 25 Joule delta. I see that they have scaled it at a factor of 10. 25 Joules converts to 0.01316412691165. We have to factor in the scale so we multiply by 10 and we come up with 0.1316412691165 - one tenth of a degree C between 1955 and 2014. Fabulous 1/10 of a degree over 50 years. Stunning amount of warming there.

This is an excellent point and was noted by other astute commentators including Lucia at The Blackboard. Lucia also converted the Joule graph into temperature:



That is astounding. Temperature at 2000 meters where England’s and Trenberth’s missing heat is supposed to be has gone up 0.09C since before 1960. Some missing heat. This is why the alarmists always post OHC graphs in Joules which have such bigger and scarier numbers. And that’s assuming the measurements are correct. The Commenter’s other valid point was that accurate measurements of OHC have really only been around since the ARGO measurements began in 2004.

Using 2004 as a base Commenter has been busy producing graphs of the OHC in different areas of the world at different levels based on the official ARGO data. The graphs of the ARGO data are simply another complete rebuttal of AGW science. They speak for themselves.










And this one showing so much heat [sic] at the Arctic; note the seasonal variation in temperature near the surface in the top graph:




And the Southern ocean shows a slight surface warming but no warming at depth:

 


 Another simple evidence based rebuttal of AGW.

H/t David Friedman

7 comments:

  1. Hi Your final graph is for 30N-30S, not 'Southern ocean'.

    The high latitude southern ocean SST (a reasonable proxy for OHC) has been cooling since the mid 80's.

    The Sun increased the OHC globally all the way from 1934 to 2003. This post I put up in 2010 explains:
    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/nailing-the-solar-activity-global-temperature-divergence-lie/

    Cheers - TB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks TB, that's my mistake. I note the Southern oceans SST has been trending up according to HadCrut 3 since 2004: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2004/trend What do you make of that?

      Delete
    2. Hi Anthony, it depends whose data you trust. After the climategate whitewash, I trust CRU about as far as I can throw them.I think they are so convinced by their own theory, they calibrate to that instead of the ARGO dataset. I suspect they've convinced themselves that buoys that show strong cooling are faulty, and dropped them from the calcs. Roger Pielke Sr appeared to say as much a while back.

      Delete
  2. Oh! John Abraham just posted an article at the guardian yesterday about a new study that found ANOTHER bias in the OHC data. In the abstract, the authors give the amount of cold and warm biases in Celsius and I had no idea how to translate zeta joules into C to see if their newly discovered bias would cancel out the supposed changes or not. Now that I have the calc formula, I can! They may have just destroyed the ocean-ate-my-warming argument and John Abraham was excited about it! rofl!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bill Gray explains it here
    http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Joe; I have seen Professor Gray's splendid rebuttal of AGW before. If I can occasionally present an aspect of that treatise in an accessible manner like the above article then I will be content.

      Delete
  4. Climate change is very simple.....King Odama has decided the crime, paid for the evidence, declared everyone guilty and decreed the punishment. That's what community organizers who claim kingship do........

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!