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
Hi Your final graph is for 30N-30S, not 'Southern ocean'.
ReplyDeleteThe 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
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?
DeleteHi 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.
DeleteOh! 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!
ReplyDeleteBill Gray explains it here
ReplyDeletehttp://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
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.
DeleteClimate 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........
ReplyDeleteThe vertical axis is clearly marked in Joules times 10 to the power of 22. You results are out by a factor of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
ReplyDelete