Has global warming stopped? The tap of incoming energy cannot be turned off

Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences

The greenhouse (GHG) effect caused by CO2 and other GHG gases acts as a "pump", feeding more and more energy into the Earth system. Most of this energy is ultimately stored in the ocean, and the warming rate of the atmosphere is affected by the air-sea energy transport. Credit: Jing Xu
The greenhouse (GHG) effect caused by CO2 and other GHG gases acts as a “pump”, feeding more and more energy into the Earth system. Most of this energy is ultimately stored in the ocean, and the warming rate of the atmosphere is affected by the air-sea energy transport. Credit: Jing Xu

As a result of industrialization, the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere has increased continuously over the past 100 years, which is considered as the main reason behind global warming. However, the observational global mean atmospheric temperature leveled off over the first decade of the 21st century, in contrast to the rapid warming during the late 20th century. This phenomenon, known as the “atmospheric warming slowdown” or “global warming hiatus”, has attracted great attention worldwide owing to its ostensible contradiction of the human-induced global warming theory.

The changes in ocean heat content might have a tight relationship with the atmospheric warming slowdown. Dr Changyu Li, Prof. Jianping Huang and their colleagues, a group of researchers from the Key Laboratory for Semi-Arid Climate Change of the Ministry of Education, College of Atmospheric Sciences, Lanzhou University, have had their findings published in Advances of Atmospheric Sciences.

In their paper, they explore the energy redistribution between the atmosphere and ocean at different latitudes and depths by using observational data as well as simulations of a coupled atmosphere-ocean box model.

“Imagine the energy transport in our climate system as a water flow”, Dr. Li says. “Let’s turn on a tap at the top of the system, the feed rate of which represents the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative imbalance caused by the greenhouse effect. A bucket below the tap can be an analogue of our atmosphere, and its water level is analogous to atmospheric warming. There is also a sinking flow at its bottom, draining into a larger bucket (i.e. the ocean). Now, here comes the key point. Generally, the water level of the atmospheric bucket rises as a result of global warming. However, if the drain rate approximately equals the feed rate of the tap, the water level of the bucket will not increase (the occurrence of the warming slowdown). That’s the basic idea of our coupled box model.”

“A rapid increase in the global ocean heat content has been detected in observations during the warming slowdown period, at a rate of about 9.8 × 1021 J yr-1. That is, from the energy point of view, there is no slowdown in global warming if we take the ocean into consideration”, he adds. “Furthermore, the increase of heat content provides a worrisome picture of the ocean. This rapid oceanic warming could lead to serious degradation of marine ecosystems, eventually becomes a great threat to the ocean biodiversity.”


From EurekAlert!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 10, 2019 10:29 pm

There’s a hole in my bucket….

What temperature change does 9.8 × 10^21 J yr-1 equate to. 2nd or 3rd decimal place of a degree?

And how is that dangerous to ocean life that evolved when ocean temperature were much warmer ?

Reply to  fred250
October 11, 2019 12:29 am

By my calculation (and I’d appreciate some checking!), according to the energy gain touted, there should have been an increase in the entire volume of seawater by 0.027°C, over a twenty year period. I imagine that would be somewhat difficult to measure.

We are told, that we have had 155 Zettajoules (1 ZJ = 10^21 Joules) in ocean energy gain over twenty years from 1997 to 2017, in a total ocean volume of 1.35 billion km3.

1.35 billion km3 = 1.35 billion x 1 billion m^3 = 1.35 x 10^18 m3.
Each m3 weighs 1000 kg, so we have 1.35 x 10^21 kg of seawater, holding this extra 155 x 10^21 Joules of energy.
155/1.35 = an extra 114.8 Joules per Kg.

It takes 4,200 joules to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1°C.
This extra 114.8 Joules of energy per kg of seawater would therefore raise the temperature of each 1 kg of water by 0.027°C.
(114.8/4200 x 1°C= 0.02733°C)

That means they claim to have measured a temperature rise of 0.027°C across the entire ocean, over a 20 year period. Using two different instruments, starting with XBTs, then moving across to Argo floats in about 2008. Only recently have some Argo floats started to measure below 2000 meters depth.

Now, they do tell us the top 700 meters of the ocean has warmed markedly, and that they’ve measured that more accurately than the rest.

But, do we really know whether the remaining depth of 3000 metres (the world’s oceans average 3,700 meters depth) has remained stable, warmed by a fraction of a degree C, or cooled by a fraction of a degree C?

Reply to  markx
October 11, 2019 12:48 am

“That means they claim to have measured a temperature rise of 0.027°C across the entire ocean…”

Misleading, why bring the entire ocean’s volume into it? Most of the ZJ have gone into the top couple of hundred metres – the volume that has by far the largest affect on land surface temperatures.

comment image

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 1:38 am




Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 1:46 am

You cannot claim the missing heat is in the oceans without taking OHC down to about 2km. Most of the data for that before early 2000s is so spare as to be meaningless for assessing OHC. They just fill in the gaps to get the results they need for their “job descriptions” as climate activists.

“Imagine the energy transport in our climate system as a water flow”, Dr. Li says.

Since there is no way for water to flow up hill that is a totally stupid analogy which before you go any further ensures you get an accumulation at the bottom. The proper use of an analogy is to use something which is analogous and try to infer similarities, not to take something fundamentally different to make false inferences.

Reply to  Greg
October 11, 2019 3:03 am

Imagine the energy transport in our climate system as a water flow

The problem is people lap up these fantasies.

Considering a lot of the warming is in the places we can least measure when we’re not seeing it in the atmosphere (ie deep oceans and poles) a better analogy might be to imagine our climate system as your bank account. Money comes in with pay and out when its spent and the money down the back of your couch accumulates.

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 2:04 am

Great to see Loy-DOH agreeing that the tiny amount of ocean warming is from solar energy.

“A bucket below the tap can be an analogue of our atmosphere”

Yeah, I guess it could…….. if you take the right hallucinogens. !!

Bob boder
Reply to  fred250
October 11, 2019 3:45 am

Again, if the atmospheres isn’t warming what is the mechanism that causes ocean heat content to rise. it cant be CO2, so if it is actually rising its a natural phenomenon not AGW.

W Frumkin
Reply to  fred250
October 11, 2019 4:02 am

The best analogy I can come up with is a giant sea monster living unseen in the ocean depths. It comes up at night and eats sailing ships that dare to sail to the edge of the world. No never mind

Bryan A
Reply to  fred250
October 11, 2019 7:04 am

Easy Bob,
the heat is traveling through the atmosphere and, although it is warming it, it is then immediately transferred from atmospheric warming into ocean warming thereby cooling the atmosphere before terrestrial thermometers can detect it. /sarc

Reply to  fred250
October 11, 2019 7:32 am

I too was annoyed by his analogies. the authors do not seem to understand how radiated energy heats things. Their analogy seems to rely on conductive heat transport. A majority of solar energy bypasses the atmosphere and directly heats the oceans, it doesn’t heat the air which then heats the oceans.

BTW I like the bank account analogy better.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  fred250
October 11, 2019 6:33 pm

“I too was annoyed by his analogies.”
Goes for me too. I won’t see a boiler in the sky until the CO2 doubles ten times. Why do they overplay the observed effects of the greenhouse so wildly?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 5:45 am

What’s misleading? Can you boil the top half of a pot of water on the stove without boiling the bottom half? Can you boil the bottom half without boiling the top half?

There will be a temperature difference as you go deeper in the ocean because the rate of heat transfer is not infinite through a substance. But the rate of heat transfer is not zero either. And as the temperature difference increases the rate of transfer goes up as well.

So you do need to consider the entire volume of the ocean in order to properly account for the thermodynamics.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 11, 2019 7:13 am

“Can you boil the top half of a pot of water ”

If your pot is hundreds of feet deep and you warm the top half quickly enough, then yes.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 11, 2019 7:39 am

Just try to boil water in a deep pot using a blow torch.

Keep in mind, that blow torch if far hotter with much higher energy levels than a very few far infrared light frequencies.

Nor should the fact that 0.0027°C over twenty years is easily less than the temperature measuring instrument’s capabilities.
i.e. the temperature increase is reached through mathematics misuse.
As is converting Celsius to Z’Joules, just to present an alarming graphic.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 11, 2019 5:37 pm

Not that old chestnut again.

IR doesn’t warm the water. Never has, never will. That has been explained to you over and over again.
It is sunlight that warms the water. Warmer air slows down how quickly the heat put in by the sun can escape.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  MarkW
October 11, 2019 6:24 pm


You need to read what I said, not what you think I said. I mentioned *NOTHING* about IR warming the ocean. What I tried to get across is that heat *does* travel through the water, it doesn’t stay on the surface and it doesn’t hide in the deep ocean.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 11, 2019 6:59 pm

Tim, meanwhile, cold water from the Arctic “on the conveyor” travels to the depths of the sea around the globe. It remains about 2°C at depth and through upwelling (la Nina, etc.) Comes to the surface in the tropics. It isnt a tank of stagnant water. Currents circulate warm water to the polar regions to complete the loop and other current systems contribute. You aint boiling anything at the bottom.

That’s the trouble with apriori reasoning (the kind used by teenagers in arguments with their parents because they haven’t tapped into empirical knowledge yet). It is painfully naive like the linear “model”of the paper’s authors. Shame on you Institue of Atmo Physics of the Chinese Academy of of Sciences. You don’t see your parent institution, the Russian Academy of Sciences putting out such pap.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 11, 2019 7:17 pm


Ocean currents certainly have an impact but they are *not* insulated from the rest of the ocean. Heat at the surface *will* percolate down through the depths whether there are currents below the surface or not.

Again, my example was to establish that heat does move from warm to cold. That “Arctic” water may enter the oceans at 2°C but it will not stay at that temperature if it is in contact with warmer water. The heat exchange between two different flows is basically q = AUa. A is the effective surface area in contact, U is the coefficient of heat transfer and “a” is the mean temperature difference. The effective area A is different for parallel flows and for counter flows but it is never zero if the two flows are in contact.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 12, 2019 6:36 pm

My hot water system has an offpeak element and thermostat at the bottom that heats the entire 250l every night. It also has a top-up element and thermostat in the top foot of the tank that reheats only the top foot if it cools due to heavy use during the day.
So yes you can heat only the top of a tank if you want to. It’s common practice.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  ghl
October 12, 2019 9:19 pm

And, once again, you are among those who simply don’t understand the analogy I was making. The point isn’t where the heat is applied. The point is that where ever the point is applied it doesn’t *stay* there. The heat propagates through the medium! You simply cannot heat the top of the ocean without the heat travelling into the deep ocean. Call it what you will, entropy or whatever. It’s basic thermodynamics. And ocean currents don’t prevent this from happening. Heat transfer happens between parallel flows, be they both in the same direction or in opposite directions (and even at right angles!). If you heat the water at the top of the water heater that heat will travel to the water at the bottom and vice versa.

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 7:11 am

Didn’t Trenberth declare that the missing heat was hiding in the deep oceans?
Regardless, wikipedia? Really? Do you like being made fun of?

Reply to  markx
October 11, 2019 7:10 am

They can’t measure temperatures to 0.027C. That’s less than the resolution of the probes they are using. Even worse, is the fact that even if their probes did have that kind of resolution, they don’t have enough probes to claim that kind of result.
The reality is that the error bars for ocean temperature are at least 2 to 3 C. That increases dramatically as you go into the past.

Reply to  MarkW
October 12, 2019 1:13 pm

The reality is I have reasons to believe you do not know the error bar, and the reality is warming can be detected without accurate knowledge of the temperature itself.

Now give your sciency reference on sea volumetric Tavg.

Reply to  markx
October 11, 2019 7:29 am

Bingo, MarkX.
I believe that number was reached by Willis when he researched the whole buoy joules abuse graphics.

The researchers and their model apparently ignore that infrared warming of surface waters is restricted to a very shallow depth.

Reply to  markx
October 11, 2019 12:23 pm

How do they measure the volume of the water, temperature and temperature profile of EACH of the many ocean currents? From what I have seen these are miles wide and about that thick.
How do they remove the “Floating, wandering temperature probes data when they go through these currents so that you get a true reading of the ocean and not data from a probe stuck in one of these currents?
Also the problem that since they are only measuring the top ten – twenty percent of the ocean, Where is the data for the temperature profile of the ocean?
Then there is the problem of the fact that HOT water rises! Look at the diagram of a Solar HW Heater that uses glycol as the collecting medium. The heated water goes through a coil in the bottom of the tank, transfers the heat to the cold water, then is pumped back to the collector. The water at the top of the tank can be 60 to 80 degrees hotter than the water at the top and even 50 degrees hotter than the highest daily temperature of the hot water coming from the solar collector. This happens because heat rises,

Robert of Texas
October 10, 2019 10:30 pm

So…the fact that a warmer-moister atmosphere will convect heat back up into the upper atmosphere at an ever increasing rate has no bearing on this analogy at all? Somehow this magical heat can only flow downwards into the oceans?

That assumes you believe that 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere really “traps” that much heat, as opposed to all the water molecules it sits between.

Who knew that heat just sits there on the ground like a heavy liquid!? No wonder Earth’s outer core is molten, all the heat leaked down deep into the Earth from the oceans!

(Yeah, having a “sarcastic” moment here…)

Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 11, 2019 12:00 am

Rainfall has increased by 1.5 mm pa. Close approx. to the extra cooling required.

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 11, 2019 1:25 am

No it hasn’t … My source for this claim ? Same one you cited …

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 11, 2019 9:23 am

Global rainfall data show zero change in over a century.
Data from NCDC land weather stations shows this conclusively.
Rainfall data are ignored because the global warming agenda ignores any data that does agree with their belief system.

Reply to  Robert of Texas
October 11, 2019 1:59 am

CO2 and other GHG gases acts as a “pump”, feeding more and more energy into the Earth system.

GHGs are NOT a source of energy and physically unable to pump more and more energy “into the Earth system”. They are totally inept and do not even understand the most basic physics.

What are these guys, media studies students or psychologists?

Utter garbage.

Reply to  Greg
October 11, 2019 7:35 am


Reply to  AngryScotonFraggleRock
October 11, 2019 7:41 am


Reply to  Greg
October 11, 2019 8:54 am

Love the idea of inept greenhouse gases! Depends how you read it, I suppose!

Reply to  Newminster
October 11, 2019 11:52 am

I guess our politicians get the gases they desaerve!


Reply to  Newminster
October 11, 2019 11:55 am

Too quick on the Post button. Sorry.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  auto
October 11, 2019 6:24 pm

For a minute, I thought ye were Gaelic…

Reply to  auto
October 12, 2019 6:31 am

Dang it, Pop. Now I’m going to be reading everything Auto writes in a Scottish accent.


Steve Reddish
October 10, 2019 10:34 pm

Green house gasses were warming the atmosphere during the ’90s, but have switched now to warming the oceans? By what mechanism?


Reply to  Steve Reddish
October 11, 2019 12:04 am

Maybe it hasn’t been CO2 warming atmosphere but the oceans and during first decade they stopped. Has to work both ways.

Reply to  Steve Reddish
October 11, 2019 12:28 am

If this is genuine it may just be a natural variation in the moderating effect of the ocean surface on air temperatures. There is a lot of deep cold water, if a bit more of it comes to the surface then air temperatures will drop, or fail to rise.

M Courtney
Reply to  Steve Reddish
October 11, 2019 2:16 am

This is the point about the Pause that should have ended the alarm.
If something unknown and natural can affect the climate with the same impact as AGW then there is no way to determine what the impact of AGW actually is. It could all be natural.

And good old Ockham tells us that we shouldn’t imaging more things than are needed. Whether witches aliens or AGW.

Richard M
Reply to  Steve Reddish
October 11, 2019 4:53 am

If the energy goes into the oceans then water vapor feedback would be eliminated. It would only be the direct CO2 induced energy. It wouldn’t be until that energy was released by the oceans that the atmosphere would warm.

And, if that was the case we should see that warming feedback during every El Nino event. However, from what I’ve seen El Nino warming always dissipates quite quickly when the event ends.

Reply to  Steve Reddish
October 11, 2019 6:12 am

Precisely – the models said the atmosphere must warm linearly due to increases in CO2 – it didn’t. Now they say “it’s in the ocean” but provide no mechanism whatsoever for that to suddenly happen, when it didn’t happen the previous 20 years of warming, or the previous 30 years of cooling before that .. or the previous 30 years of warming before that .. or the …..

Their models are therefore unfalsifiable, and therefore worthless for predicting anything. If the model is always right, though the projections are off at least half the time, they are not models of any actual mechanism that is in operation. No matter what the result, they claim their model was always right.


Brian R Catt
Reply to  Steve Reddish
October 11, 2019 8:57 am

No they weren’t, not according to the NASA satellite and balloon data. A small rise, way below model predictions, whatever the models predicted never happened. Because they are wrong.

The models predict the warming to come from the greenhouse effect, so it has to start in the tropical troposphere, and sink by the reverse convection effect of consensual climate science. Allegedly.

comment image?dl=0

Dennis G Sandberg
October 10, 2019 10:34 pm

Global warming, if it is actually from “fossil fuels’, is a non-issue. A hundred years from now we’ll have a nuclear economy (unless alarmists destroy our economy with the unworkable wind and solar “solution”. Fusion would be nice but future generations can make do with a few million small modular fission reactors perfected, deployed and operational. If global warming is natural, not anthropogenic, get used to it.

October 10, 2019 10:36 pm

“Has global warming stopped?”

Has global emissions of CO2 stopped?
Has the noise of short term climate fluctuations stopped?
Has there been a below average month in 30 years?

comment image

Reply to  Loydo
October 10, 2019 11:54 pm

“Has global warming stopped?”

Of course not. Its been warming .6 deg C per century since the Little Ice Age, 400 years ago.

Has global emissions of CO2 stopped?

Of course not. If they had a few billion people would be starving to death and hundreds of millions of climate refugees would be pouring out of cold countries into warm countries.

Has the noise of short term climate fluctuations stopped?

Of course not. Warming or no warming why would short term fluctuations stop?

Has there been a below average month in 30 years?

I don’t know. What’s average? In any event, since it has been warming for the last 400 years, it would be rather abnormal if the last 30 were not the warmest in that time period.

comment image

Dang, a graph showing about .6 deg C per century. Thanks for that. A few more centuries would put it in better perspective though. Here, try this one:

comment image

BTW, the article quotes 9.8*10^21 joules per year going into the oceans. At that rate, it will take a few hundred years to raise the oceans 1 degree. Ooooooh. I’m SCARED.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 11, 2019 12:03 am

Yep. As David Middleton said, the scary bit is people who legislate but can’t add up.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
October 11, 2019 2:51 am

I spent 10 years working at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire. I worked/liaised with scientists designing instruments togo on board satellites, scientists designing the UK verison of CERN, etc., they were brilliant at mathematices clearly, trouble was, some of them couldn’t add up a column of figures that well!!!! Ditto when working for a well known UK Water Company who looked after the Thames & its tributaries, the “gangers” who did all the physical work on the barges on river, when playing them at darts in the Social Club, the engineers took twice as long to add, subtract, multiply, & divide, in their heads, than the gangers did, (presumably because they played darts regularly)! That is why when as a school governor, I recommended to the school investing in a couple of darts boards & a couple of sets of darts, to help the children with their “arithmatic” as the local authority like many, were following scary stories from Guvment about alleged deficiencies in “maths”!!!! Arithmatic is NOT mathematics!!!! Try telling an illiterate & innumerate politician that one! Ah, “The Hunt for Red October”, “your the military man, I’m the politician, that means I kiss babies at election time, the rest of the time I lie, & cheat, & steal!” I’m not biased against politicians you know, honestly! Woops, I think my nose just grew a tad!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 11, 2019 4:32 am

Alan the Brit
October 11, 2019 at 2:51 am

Yes, you make a good point.

Automatic tills at supermarkets and elsewhere make the use of mental calculation a thing of the past for today’s youth. I’m 97% sure 97% of them could not work out how to calculate the correct change when paid cash these days.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 11, 2019 5:02 am

There used to be a guy called Charles Ledger teaching elementary school math in Toronto. His students routinely won national math awards. They easily gained admission to a competitive advanced math program in high school.

The foundation of Ledger’s technique was strong arithmetic skills. Once the students had strong arithmetic skills, they had a much easier time with algebra. That, in turn, gave them a much easier time with calculus in high school.

An example would be finding the roots of an equation. Students with strong arithmetic skills can, by factoring, solve the roots in their head. Those without strong arithmetic skills are reduced to using the quadratic formula and thus taking about ten times as long.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 12, 2019 4:44 pm

When shopping for groceries with my father he knew the exact total of the groceries when we got to the checkout. Every time he told me the amount he was always correct. Once the amount did not agree with his total and he asked them to check the total again. After running them through again the total agreed with his. Keep in mind this was back when the clerk read the price and punched the keys for that amount.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 11, 2019 12:38 am

That graph is misleading, meant to be I suppose. The magnitude and slope of the “instrument record” have just been made up.

“.6 deg C per century”
What, can’t add up?

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 1:31 am


You rightly say,
” The magnitude and slope of the “instrument record” have just been made up.”
YES! At last you have understood.
The problem is that
Global temperature anomaly has no agreed definition and if it were an agreed parameter then there is no possibility of an independent calibration standard for it.

These problems enable the teams who compile global temperature data sets to alter the definitions they use to obtain whatever values of global temperature they want to create, and they each vary their unique definition almost every month. The affect of this can be seen instantly by clicking this link
(When shown these graphs, representatives of NASA GISS say the graphs “show different things” – which is true, they do – but those “different things” were published by NASA GI|SS as being the same thing; viz. global temperature anomaly time series.)

More detail of this matter together with a report of its ‘cover up’ can be obtained by reading this document especially its Appendices
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we02.htm ;
(Incidentally, I would have been jailed for perjury of Parliament if this item were untrue.)

Anyway, Loydo, it is good that you have at last understood the global temperature instrument records “have just been made up.”


Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 4:54 am

“The magnitude and slope of the “instrument record” have just been made up.”

That’s pretty much the reason we all come here.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 11, 2019 3:23 pm

Are you that biased? Made up by the dishonest person who intentionally faked the graphs.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 11, 2019 5:40 pm

Says the guy who’s always giving links to homemade graphs.

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
October 11, 2019 8:27 pm

Care to post an example of one of my “homemade graphs”?

Reply to  davidmhoffer
October 11, 2019 7:19 am

Prior to measuring with satellites, we didn’t know the average temperature of the Earth within 1C. Claiming that this month is 0.01C warmer than some month in the past is an exercise in scientific illiteracy.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  MarkW
October 11, 2019 10:57 am

Also, consider that the average temperature is not of “the Earth”, but of an arbitrary sliver of the Earth’s air approximately 2 meters above a land surface that varies in height by huge amounts over the entire surface of the Earth, while continually intermixing with air from higher altitudes which for some reason, isn’t part of the equation. The “Earth’s global average temperature” is an arbitrary and subjective construction. It’s like calculating an average color for the rainbow if you don’t count green or yellow. Meaningless.

Reply to  MarkW
October 11, 2019 12:08 pm

Further to Hoyt C’s comment, I suggest that we do not have any exemplary meteorological records.
We have some – variable – temperatures and, perhaps, wind and humidity readings.
Sea surface temperatures – yes, but measured by several different methods, with likely, but not determined, errors; and from depths up to twenty [or more] metres for the largest ships’ Engine Room Intakes.
These readings are scattered about the globe, not randomly, but with very large areas without readings.
Old records have been queried – and, sometimes, ‘adjusted’.
And the ‘data’ we do have gets homogenised.
Homogenisation – ‘adjusting to make a point’.

And, based on this, a bunch of criminals have developed a scare which is intended to completely wreck our economies, and hand power to a handful of Marxists and billionaires – killing most of us [no fuel – no heating, or electricity; deaths by cold, starvation and disease [can’t have vaccines stored, can we?]].


Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 5:44 am

Every single month in the last 30 years has had below-average temperature – way way below average. Just look at the temperature graphs in, for example, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/26/some-notes-on-coral-and-the-great-barrier-reef/

Reply to  Mike Jonas
October 11, 2019 8:30 pm

Nothing at your link shows anything of the sort.

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 6:10 am

Loydo, please watch Anthony’s video on his CO2 jar experiment and tell us why it is wrong in showing that when CO2 is increased the temperature does not increase.


Further please explain why when using specific heat equation to calculate energy needed to raise temperature of 1 kg of CO2 1 degree C the forcing equation is not mentioned. Is thermodynamics wrong?

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 7:17 am

Since the planet is still recovering from the chill of the little ice age, so what if temperatures are rising.

Noting that temperatures are rising is not the same as proving that CO2 caused the warming.
We still have more than 1C to go until we get back to the level of the Medieval warm period, and more than 3C to go till we get back to the warmth of the Holocene optimum.

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 7:22 am

Every month in the last 30 years has been at least 3C below the average for the last 10,000 years.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 1:41 pm

If the temperature is up a degree or so from a century or so, the average would reflect this.

Red herring. Standard Loydo. Working backward from a conclusion always gets you to the same starting point.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 11, 2019 1:54 pm

There’s also the fact that apparently everybody that enters the field seems to be an activist, hell-bent on proving, not just any possible fractional warming they can rationalize onto a graph, but that this fraction will destroy the planet, and only the human contribution is responsible.

October 10, 2019 10:42 pm

Dream on. There is no AGW.
Click on my name to read the report.

October 10, 2019 10:50 pm

Greenhouse gases momentarily trap UV and then reradiate it in random directions. Some is radiated back to the oceans but can not penetrate more than a millimetre and can only heat this top sliver of water.

This extra heat would be immediately lost by evaporation or reradiation so I find it hard to understand how the atmosphere can heat the oceans.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Peter
October 11, 2019 12:18 am

IR, not UV. At least get that bit right.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Peter
October 11, 2019 7:13 am

It can actually only penetrate a few MICRONS, not even close to a millimeter. Try 3 one thousandths of one millimeter.

Reply to  AGW is not Science
October 12, 2019 1:24 pm

You know, virtally nobody claims it does and so it doesn’t matter. The GHG warming does not mean the atmosphere is supposed to warm the ocean top. The Sun does. GHGs slow down diurnal cooling to outer space. That’s the supposed mechanism.

IR penetration is what we call a non sequitur. It is a misconception. Doesn’t have any effect on validity of climate models, they fail for other reasons than this.

Reply to  Peter
October 11, 2019 7:24 am

The atmosphere doesn’t heat the oceans. The sun does.
The atmosphere can however slow down the rate at which the heat from the sun escapes from the oceans.

John Q Public
Reply to  MarkW
October 11, 2019 8:41 am

…and give the heat time to make its way to the oceans. The oceans are the ultimate sink delaying extreme effects of any global warming that does occur. Of course, we will be told the methane ices are on the borderline and will begin erupting and accelerating the warming through GHG release. Of course the methane gases being on the borderline is also acting as a temperature regulator through the mechanism of latent heat energy storage.

October 10, 2019 10:55 pm

This article seems to have a bit of backward reasoning, I thought incoming solar radiation goes through the atmosphere ( a bit also bounces back out to space) and warms the surface and the oceans. Energy is then lost from the surface and the oceans through evaporation, convection, radiation and maybe a bit of conduction. All ghg’s do is slow down the net rate of radiative heat loss.

I do like the buckets and water analogy but the buckets seem to be a bit out of order in this article.

Mayor of Venus
Reply to  Willem69
October 11, 2019 12:26 am

Exactly. In the classic greenhouse effect the increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases causes an increase of the earth’s SURFACE temperature (including ocean surface). But the earth’s EFFECTIVE temperature is unchanged. The effective temperature is the equivalent black-body temperature that emits the total infrared radiation back to space as the solar short-wavelength radiation the earth absorbed.

Chris Hanley
October 10, 2019 11:01 pm

As I understand it (I’m not a scientist) if the oceans are accumulating heat it’s because either they are receiving more solar radiation and/or the atmosphere above is warming, for instance due to increased GHGs.
In either case the oceans would be accumulating heat from the surface down but Argo observations indicate the opposite, which is puzzling:
comment image
Observations also indicate that warming is in oceans at lower latitudes rather than higher latitudes:

shortus cynicus
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 11, 2019 3:57 am

I hate that “I’m not a scientist” excuse.

What does it mean? That someone belives more in magic than experiments?

Mark Gilbert
Reply to  Chris Hanley
October 11, 2019 8:51 am

It would seem far more likely that lower level heat would be from volcanism. The audacity of these climastrologists never ceases to amaze.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Mark Gilbert
October 12, 2019 4:45 am

The esteemed Earth and Climate Scientist Al Gore has pronounced that the interior of the Earth is several million degrees. Wouldn’t that heat up the oceans from below? I can’t believe that there is a very large insulator keeping all that heat inside the earth.

Paul Redacted
October 10, 2019 11:07 pm

“Imagine the energy transport in our climate system as a water flow”

Paraphasing and in translation: “Let’s the return to the phlogiston theory of heat to get the result desired.”

Brent Hargreaves
October 10, 2019 11:32 pm

“Tell me, Professor, what is the ratio of heat capacity of the oceans to that of the atmosphere?”
I wonder if these academics learned simple physics at school; I wonder if in their brilliant bucket analogy they can comprehend that a few tenths of a degree variation in the air must equate to a tiny and therefore trivial variation in water temps.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Brent Hargreaves
October 11, 2019 7:51 am

Yup. A buckshot heating a cannonball.
Yet a true believer relative of mine told me that was obviously happening, so get used to the idea.

October 10, 2019 11:58 pm

Energy from nothing?
It’s a miracle!

October 11, 2019 12:00 am

From the post quoted below on WUWT the heat content of the oceans is 5.6×10^24 J/K. Don’t know if that’s right, but an energy input of 9.8×10^21 J in one year gives a temperature rise of 0.0017C/year.


Reply to  Observer
October 11, 2019 12:54 am

If it were distributed throughout the entire volume of the ocean – it isn’t.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 2:48 am


Assume it is distributed through a tenth of the ocean and the temperature rise in that tenth is still only a trivial 0.017C/year.

It seems you have a problem with the things called ‘numbers’.


October 11, 2019 12:17 am

On what basis was the rise in ocean heat content attributed to AGW other than the warming anomaly it is supposed to explain? And if that basis is complete planetary heat balance, were the ocean’s own internal heat sources taken into account in the heat balance?

Two links below



Reply to  Chaamjamal
October 11, 2019 12:58 am

How much heat is coming up via the under sea hydrothermal vents, presumably from the core of the earth.
The temperature of the sea around the vents is 2 degrees C, and the water coming from the vents has been measured as anything from 60C to 460C.
The remarkable thing is the amount of life around these vents.

Ken Irwin
October 11, 2019 12:31 am

Total Atmospheric & Ocean Energy

It has been calculated that the total energy contained in the oceans and atmosphere is :-

Atmosphere = 5.0 x 1021J/K° (based on 1005 J/kg/K°)
Oceans = 5.6 x 1024J/K° (based on 3993 J/kg/K°)

( Note: 3993 J/kg/K° is for salt water, fresh water is 4186 J/kg/K° )


The world ocean contains 99.9% of the surface thermal energy on the Earth, the dry atmosphere contains 0.07% of the energy. Thus, while atmospheric processes often dominate the weather over short periods of time (2 weeks or so), the climate is dominated by the oceans. While oceans drive our climate, what drives changes in the oceans? They have no interior energy source. They collect most of the solar energy that makes its way to the Earth’s surface, as well as most of the thermal energy radiated toward the Earth by atmospheric greenhouse gases. Except for cosmic rays, a little thermal energy supplied by submarine volcanos and the occasional bolide (meteor) impact, that’s it. – Andy May “Climate Catastrophe! Science or Science Fiction?”

Dividing one by the other we find that the oceans contain 1120 times the heat in the atmosphere per degree of change.

You can model away any loss of warming into that number.

If you are an alarmist you could counter that a 1°C change in ocean temperatures could heat up the atmosphere 1120°C ! (ignoring its moisture content and a couple of laws of thermodynamics) Why that wouldn’t be so doesn’t need explaining – but by sneaking in even the tiniest (insignificant even) bit of extra ocean heat transfer to the atmosphere in your modelling you can get the atmosphere to whatever temperature your little alarmist heart desires that your model should conjure up.

What should be obvious is that the oceans drive global temperatures, nothing else is significant.

The temperature of the atmosphere is just “noise”.

If you consider man’s total energy output of ± 3.5 x 1020 J per year and we dumped all of this energy into the oceans (1.35 Billion cubic kilometres), it would raise their temperatures by ±0.00006°C an immeasurably small amount. Even if we magically dumped the thermal output of the world’s remaining fossil fuels (i.e. the next 450 year’s worth of fossil fuel use at current consumption) into the oceans overnight it would raise its temperature a barely detectable 0.028°C

The oceans are heated by the sun and very little else (some small volcanic and even smaller tidal & IR values) and it is impossible for CO2 to influence the irradiation heating of the oceans as well as various laws of physics that prevent a warmer atmosphere from heating the oceans (surface tension & boundary effects).

Building arguments about the puny energy in the (dry) atmosphere is nonsense – many scientists are now stating that ocean temperatures are the only bellwether of Climate Change – but acceptance of this point of view means that you must accept that the Sun not CO2 is the cause of warming.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Ken Irwin
October 11, 2019 5:16 am

Thanks Ken for that clear and straightforward overview.
I suspect you won’t be getting a Christmas Card from Gore or the Micky Mann.

Reply to  Ken Irwin
October 11, 2019 12:40 pm

You are right that the atmosphere gives weather while the ocean is entirely responsible for climate.

The CAGW narrative is atmosphere centered to the extent of almost ignoring the ocean. The ocean was only discovered when a pause in atmospheric warming made the ocean necessary as a partner in crime, storing up warming for the future.

Ocean 4d circulation does not dominate climate – it is climate. Natural warming and cooling cycles are ocean drive and include changes in upper ocean temperature. Thus measured changes in both atmospheric and ocean temperature in the last two centuries mean very little until mechanisms of natural climate oscillation are understood. They are not.

John of Cairns
October 11, 2019 12:47 am

Are the oceans really warming ? Or is the perceived increase the result of the data being corrupted by the addition of ships surface readings. Bob Tisdale has disclosed that argo data shows that the southern ocean is cooling. Could this be because there is limited shipping down there to jack it up ? I am certain that ships temps. were not added for at least the first five years, nor were planned for . Perhaps they were included when the results didn’t match the narrative. The ships readings will obviously cause an upward bias. The data is now overdue for an audit minus the extraneous rubbish.

October 11, 2019 12:55 am

The authors are not stupid.

They will have taken the precaution of getting approval in advance of publication. Or maybe they wrote as a result of a suggestion. After all, they want to be able to keep on flying, staying in hotels, booking trains…. etc. They would not want to lower their social credit scores.

So this paper must be one way or the other regime-approved.

Once we have settled that, ask what purpose it serves? And the answer is that it pays lip service to the concept of AGW, without offering any argument strong enough to arouse alarm locally, or to motivate any change of local policy.

Its purpose is to establish that open-minded ongoing research is happening, but also to show that its not reaching any particular conclusions.

The reality is that there will be no permitted form of agitation to reduce Chinese emissions, nor will there be any publications which suggest that to reduce them is necessary at all, let alone urgent. The nice thing about the paper in this respect is that it has obvious flaws of reasoning in reaching a warmist conclusion. So its very useful, very well calculated, very nicely done.

Like I say, the authors are not stupid. They will go far.

Reply to  michel
October 11, 2019 1:17 pm

Very nicely reasoned and written.

The authors’ lay description seems to say merely that warming was redistributed from the atmosphere to the oceans during the “pause.” This is a couple steps removed from accepting responsibility for alleged AGW, so perhaps that is why it received the imprimatur of the CCP.

October 11, 2019 1:05 am

For those of you who just have to know…..

Volume of the world’s oceans: 1.4 billion cu. km. (don’t ask me.)
Equals: 1.4×10**9 cu km. = 1.4×10**18 cu. m. = 1.4×10**21 liters.

The heat figure they give: 9.8×10**21 Joules.
(Kewl, the x10**21 exponents cancel out, easy)

Child’s play: 1.4 liters, and 9.8 Joules. Heat capacity water = 4.2 J/degree./gram
And the answer is…..
0.0017 degrees.

Somebody can start whining about “the upper 100 meters” all they want, it is still too small to measure.

Reply to  TonyL
October 11, 2019 1:23 am

Other than to hide something, why use the entire volume?

“too small to measure”

Sigh, really? No its not.
comment image

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 2:10 am

Oh dear. They didn’t have even ARGO before 2003 (or whenever)

Do you really think they can measure it back in 1900…..

loy- DOH !!

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 2:12 am

Barely a tiny squiggle .

comment image

Reply to  fred250
October 11, 2019 4:32 am

“Do you really think they can measure it back in 1900”

Then you post something going back thousands of years?

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 2:24 pm

loy-DOH never heard of proxies.. DOH

And note that the temperature change is in whole degrees, which can be measured,
not in 3rd decimal place nonsense, which cant be measured.

Maths is not your friend, is it DOH !!

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 2:16 am

You are looking at a fantasy there, Loydo.
Did you notice that it looks *exactly* like the NASA-GISS surface temperature plots?
Just a coincidence, I am sure. Of course it must be right, the EPA is our Go-To source for all things climate. Sure.

But really, Loydo. Look at that chart, look at the error band. For the year 1900, the error band is 0.5 deg. Fahrenheit, that is only 0.28 deg. Celsius. You know, and I know, the world’s ocean temperatures were not known to any level which makes that chart even remotely possible.
You may think you have smart rebuttals with “facts”, but you just make yourself look bad.
Do not forget, some of us have spent a long time studying these issues and have seen this stuff before.

Reply to  TonyL
October 11, 2019 4:34 am

So post you alternative sst anomaly data.

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 7:28 am

Loydo’s only mental skill is logical fallacies.
Here he demonstrates the fallacy of false dichotomy.

One doesn’t have to present better data in order to show that your data is garbage.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyL
October 11, 2019 4:55 am

“Do not forget, some of us have spent a long time studying these issues and have seen this stuff before.”

Good advice! 🙂

Reply to  TonyL
October 11, 2019 7:30 am

The idea that a few thousand readings taken almost entirely from a handful of shipping corridors can accurately measure the total temperature of the oceans is something so ludicrous that only a climate scientist could say it with a straight face.
(And that’s before we get into all of the known problems with how temperature measurements were being taken in 1900.)

October 11, 2019 1:15 am

Can ocean warming lead to climate cooling. ?
That maybe is not as daft as it sounds. Because am now thinking that in order to get the large amounts of snowfall needed to build up the ice sheets during a ice age. There needs to be warmer oceans to start the process off. lf its the oceans that are doing most of the warming rather then the atmosphere there would be more certainty of this been able to happen.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  taxed
October 11, 2019 1:50 am

I think you will find that the First Law of Thermodynamics has something to say about that. If the ocean warms, the atmosphere warms, cetera paribus. The only way to make the ocean warm and the atmosphere cool is to have an additional heat barrier at the ocean/atmosphere interface reducing the heat transfer between the two. As there is no such thing the answer to the question is: no.

Your point about the buildup of ice sheets: If it snows only 1cm per day in polar regions you build an ice cap 2 miles thick in 10000 years.

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 11, 2019 4:53 am

Am not so sure about that. Because if warmer oceans cause a large movement of air moving in and out of the Arctic circle. Then l can see that causing increased heat loss through the atmosphere combined with a increased snow extent across the NH. The increasing winter snow extent along with warming oceans over the last 50 years l think supports this idea.
Your comment about the buildup of ice sheets may be true in the Arctic. But remember during the last ice age the sheet sheets moved well to the south of the Arctic circle. Where likely melting of the ice sheets would have been far greater. So far greater falls of snow would have needed to happen in order for them to push so far south.

Reply to  taxed
October 11, 2019 5:44 pm

Once the snows get thick enough that they don’t melt over the summer, then positive feedback kicks in.

October 11, 2019 1:40 am

Are they trying to tell us they found the heat that was hiding in the oceans?

Olof R
October 11, 2019 2:02 am

The global warming has not stopped in the 21st century. It has increased, compared to that of the 20th century, at all atmospheric levels, and is now on par with the models:


And the heat is accumulating on earth, at an increasing rate according to CERES EBAF 4.1, and the imbalance has the recent years been above 1 W/m2.


So there is a lot of actual warming plus a lot of committed warming in the pipeline..

The oceans are currently storing more than 90% of the energy imbalance, but the oceans are warming faster in the upper layers. This means the oceans become more and more stratified, which in the long run will impede vertical mixing and thus decrease the uptake of heat and CO2

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Olof R
October 11, 2019 2:36 am

Apply Occam’s razor: The more simple explanation is that there is no heat accumulating because there is no excess heat trapped somewhere.

You will find that the idea that ‘the ocean eat my missing heat’ is utter nonsense.

Olof R
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
October 11, 2019 4:22 am

So you are a denier of ocean heat accumulation?

comment image

or the RG Argo-only 0-2000 dbar global ocean temperature


There are several other estimates, all very consistent, at least since the Argo array reached target deployment in late 2007

I believe that the major part of the TOA imbalance that CERES EBAF registers can be accounted for nowadays, thanks to Argo which covers more than 80% of the total global “heat sink”

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Olof R
October 11, 2019 3:16 am

Olof R,

Thankyou for those links. They show the ERA5 data has been subjected to “reanalysis” which makes the altered data for thermal contents of the atmosphere match what modellers want to be true. And you say this ‘reanalysis’ is achieved by alterations to unmeasured heat contents in ocean layers.

I like this method which you commend, so perhaps we can apply it to our bank accounts?
I want to subject my bank account to reanalysis which makes its altered data for money contents match what I want it to be. And we can achieve this ‘reanalysis’ by alterations to the money content in your bank account.

When can we start the reanalysis, please?


Olof R
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 11, 2019 4:30 am

OK, you suggest tampering with data. Is conspiracy ideation the only defense of you have?

Can you point at a specific level of the atmosphere were ERA5 temperatures doesn’t agree with raw temperature data?

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Olof R
October 11, 2019 5:55 am

Olof R,

YOU linked to a claim that the climate data had been altered, not me.

I made no conspiracy but I did suggest a similar alteration of data to that which you had linked.

Assuming we do the suggested “reanalysis” of our bank accounts, can you point to a specific level of monetary value of my bank account where monetary input to my account doesn’t agree with the input data?

You raised the subject of “reanalysed” data and now you try to change the subject when I suggest similar “reanalysis”. How very dare you!


Olof R
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 11, 2019 8:23 am

You ar truly weird.. Should I have linked to a claim that the climate data had been altered???
I have shown a graph which I have made using reanalysis and model data available at KNMI climate explorer.

You also suggest that the best way to follow a persons economy is to scan only one bank account at certain times of the day, certain days of the month etc., and then calculate monthly averages of the balance of that account.

I think it is better to continuously monitor all accounts, credit cards, cash in the pocket, loans, pension funds, real estates, cars, capital goods, lottery wins, expenses, everything of economic value (including gradual changes in the value, cash flows, etc) and then reconcile all this economic information using the most advanced economic model around + supercomputers.
The model produces the most likely state of your economy, in all aspects.
How much money you have in your purse, on your check account, the value of your car, etc, hour by hour.
That is reanalysis. The output data can be validated against other data ( more raw and direct sources).

Again, are there any specific data from ERA5 that are wrong, and compared to what? Please answer or keep quiet…

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 11, 2019 8:54 am

Olof R,

Please be sensible.

You linked to data that is labelled as having been “reanalysed”.
I suggested a way I could benefit from similar reanalysis of data and you accused me of being “weird”.

Now you talk about the data being “wrong”. That is weird.

If the data can validly
(a) be analysed to not agree with the model projections
(b) reanalysed to agree with the model projections
the data are worthless as comparison to the model projections.

If you disagree that the data are worthless then do as I have suggested and “reanalyse” our bank accounts in similar fashion.


Olof R
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 12, 2019 9:35 am

Richard S Courtney
Stop trolling/being stupid/pretending to be stupid..
Discussion is pointless…

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 12, 2019 11:34 pm

Olof R,

I am not trolling. And I am not pretending to be stupid: on the contrary.

YOU made a stupid assertion so I accepted it as true and demonstrated it is stupid.

As I said to you.

“If the data can validly
(a) be analysed to not agree with the model projections
(b) reanalysed to agree with the model projections
the data are worthless as comparison to the model projections.

If you disagree that the data are worthless then do as I have suggested and “reanalyse” our bank accounts in similar fashion.

Your response has been to call me a stupid troll. I am content to let onlookers make their own judgement of that silly accusation.


October 11, 2019 2:05 am

Just imagine that you’ve got this ebony bath, and it’s conical.
You fill it with fine white sand right? Or sugar, or anything like that.
And when it’s full, you pull the plug out and it all just twirls down out of the plug hole.
You get a movie camera from somewhere and actually film it.
But then you thread the film in the projector backwards.
So what happens is you sit and you watch it and then everything appears to swirl upwards,
out of the plug hole and fill the bath… amazing.

October 11, 2019 3:05 am

When I saw “That’s the basic idea of our coupled box model.” Another Model

Bair Polaire
October 11, 2019 3:33 am

“This rapid oceanic warming could lead to serious degradation of marine ecosystems, eventually becomes a great threat to the ocean biodiversity.”

Is this true?

Isn’t biodiversity increasing with temperature, on land and also in the oceans?

From the abstract: “Spatial regression analyses revealed sea surface temperature as the only environmental predictor highly related to diversity across all 13 taxa.”

Global patterns and predictors of marine biodiversity across taxa, Derek P. Tittensor et al., Nature, 2010.

Dr Deanster
October 11, 2019 4:19 am

If you ever wanted to know what drives atmospheric temperature … all one need do is look at the perfect correlation between global ocean temp and atmospheric temp.


So much in this graph ….. you can even see the monkeying around with the temperature record, the cooling of the past or inflating of the present. And of note, given the disparity in specific heat and heat capacity between air and water, the equation only goes one way. If the atmosphere was warming the water, there would be a huge lag between air temp and ocean temp. But alas, they move perfectly in step, indicating the water is heating the air, which changes very rapidly.

October 11, 2019 4:28 am

No Richard, look at the graphs. The slope doesn’t change even though the scale does. The so-called “instrument record” part of those graphs has obviously been faked to fool people like you and David. All too easy isn’t it.

Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 5:39 am

When there is more than one fool, usually the loudest is the biggest.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Loydo
October 11, 2019 6:07 am


For benefit of those who don’t have a clue what you are talking about, in a post above in this thread, I wrote,
Global temperature anomaly has no agreed definition and if it were an agreed parameter then there is no possibility of an independent calibration standard for it.

These problems enable the teams who compile global temperature data sets to alter the definitions they use to obtain whatever values of global temperature they want to create, and they each vary their unique definition almost every month. The affect of this can be seen instantly by clicking this link
(When shown these graphs, representatives of NASA GISS say the graphs “show different things” – which is true, they do – but those “different things” were published by NASA GI|SS as being the same thing; viz. global temperature anomaly time series.)”

Your reply denies reality.
Nothing was faked. Those graphs are photocopies from NASAGISS publications.
You have been fooled to even think such a thing.

As I also said in my post you purport to be answering,
“More detail of this matter together with a report of its ‘cover up’ can be obtained by reading this document especially its Appendices
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we02.htm ;
(Incidentally, I would have been jailed for perjury of Parliament if this item were untrue.)”
Clearly, you have not read it.


Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 11, 2019 8:45 pm

I was referring to the fake graphs posted davidmhoffer above. It compares apples with oranges: a single site to global average but worse; the slope of the “instrument record” portion should change as the scale changes, it doesn’t. Its fake, but no one questioned it and this site
was happy to publish it – so called skeptics, lol.

comment image

Brian R Catt
Reply to  Loydo
October 12, 2019 5:04 am

Did you mean unemployable? This is a brilliant qualitative summary of the energy and climate change topic from someone who clearly knows the facts. But it has mistakes that need correcting to be attributable w/o the distractions…. I would love the copy edited… brian.catt@deconfused.com

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 12, 2019 2:42 am


Your post I answered said in full,
“No Richard, look at the graphs. The slope doesn’t change even though the scale does. The so-called “instrument record” part of those graphs has obviously been faked to fool people like you and David. All too easy isn’t it.”

I understood you writing, “No Richard, look at the graphs.” to be you disputing the three graphs I presented to you in this thrread.

Following my pointing out that you were wrong in every way you have written, “I was referring to the fake graphs posted davidmhoffer above.”

It is hard to imagine a more clear example of pointless trolling that wastes space in a thread than your ridiculous attempt to dispute the informative graphs provided for you in this thread by both David Hoffer and myself.


Bruce Cobb
October 11, 2019 4:48 am

The magic of CarbonHeat™ is truly amazing.

Bruce Cobb
October 11, 2019 5:20 am

The “heat is going into the oceans” climatespanation is a dead parrot, and has been for quite some time. But the warmists keep trying to tell us it’s not dead, just sleeping.

Rob JM
October 11, 2019 5:34 am

The heat hiding in the oceans falsifies CAGW.
If the hear isn’t the upper troposphere then it isn’t causing the massive non existent water vapour positive feedback that the theory is dependant on.

Gerry, England
October 11, 2019 5:53 am

I thought this might have worth but is basically ‘the oceans are hiding the heat’ myth rehashed. Still, filled their days and they got paid.

October 11, 2019 5:56 am

I stopped reading when I saw ‘From Eurekalert!”.
But that was too late 😉

Well, I know, the relevance of a document should be judged on its contents only.
But sometimes knowing what is the news outlet is an helpful shortcut…

Richard M
October 11, 2019 5:57 am

This closely matches the findings of the Finnish scientists. They found a reduction in low clouds. This would allow the sun to heat the oceans which then share some of that energy with the atmosphere. Nothing else is required.


Coach Springer
October 11, 2019 6:10 am

I can see this as useful propaganda for the Chinese government and its windmill manufacturing business made profitable, in part, by coal.

Kelvin Vaughan
October 11, 2019 6:33 am

Have you noticed that on the black body curve of the atmosphere CO2 centred at 15 micron is just an inverted smaller black body curve. When you think about it, it is just a black body curve for something at 193K. If you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere the centre frequency remains the same but the band width increases. Weins Displacement Law states that the peak frequency is directly proportional to the temperature. Therefore I would conclude that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere doesn’t increase the temperature of CO2 and therefore doesn’t increase the temperature of the atmosphere.

Kevin Kilty
October 11, 2019 7:35 am

It is true that the atmosphere transfers heat into the ocean in places, but I believe the predominant direction of transfer is oceans to atmosphere. I suppose that it is possible for a 0.6C temperature rise to have reversed the dominant direction of heat transfer in the past 40 years or so, but I suppose it’s possible that this is all just grasping at straws.

Nick Werner
October 11, 2019 8:12 am

The most remarkable property of missing heat is its skill at finding places to hide where it can’t be observed or measured with sufficient accuracy to be quantified.

October 11, 2019 12:45 pm

Huge upward adjustment of global temperatures is going on to conceal cooling since 2016.




Such interventions are needed more and more frequently to keep the alarmist show on the road.

John Tillman
Reply to  Phil Salmon
October 17, 2019 4:41 pm

Which is why they now need to get rid of UAH satellite observations, the last bastion of science in Marxism-replacement climate ideology.

October 11, 2019 3:38 pm

Albert Einstein, in his 1917 paper:


says this about radiative heating of a gas:

During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule
per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation eld of temperature T be

kT / 2

this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.

“Regardless if the nature of the molecules and independent of the frequencies at which molecules absorb and emit.”

It’s clear why Arrhenius’ CO2 warning nonsense hid in the shadows while Einstein was alive.

Reply to  Phil Salmon
October 12, 2019 3:18 pm

Where has this paper been hiding all this time? It’s not looking like a good future for anyone who quotes Arrhenius at me, although to be fair, It’s usually me who sends the Arrhenius paper to the strident and confident know-nothings, for them to pretend to read (for the first time).

October 11, 2019 3:56 pm

The “researchers” claim the Ocean Heat Content increases (by warming from the air no less, but that’s a different, but equally fatal flaw in their “research”) 9.8 x 10²¹ J/year. If that amount of heat takes 20 years to raise the temperature of the ocean by 0.027° C that’s an amount too small to be measured, by any instrument yet developed. So how do they know the OHC increases by that amount each year? I fear these “researchers” have, like so many other “researchers”, taken model output and called it data. So their conclusion, “… there is no slowdown in global warming…” is a merely wishful thinking.

William Astley
October 11, 2019 4:41 pm

CO2 did not cause the increase in planetary temperature as it can be shown unequivocally that humans did cause the majority to the increase in atmospheric CO2 …

Anyway …

In reply to the physical cause of the thermal heating of the oceans ….

…. it is an amazing observational fact that there was a sudden and unexplained (300% to 400%) increase in in mid-ocean ridge earthquake frequency (earthquake magnitude 4 to 6, the earthquakes are not larger they just happen more often) that correlates with the planetary temperature changes …

There is a massive amount of thermal heat from magma that comes out at the mid-ocean ridges when the ocean ridge is pushed apart…

The mid-ocean ridge earthquake frequency over the entire planet, increased by 300% in 1994 and continued at that unexplainably high rate for the entire warming period…

Using the change in frequency of mid-ocean earthquakes as a proxy for the amount of magma that is flowing at the ridges …

It was shown in this paper that regional deep heating of ocean affects surface temperatures (small temperature changes are amplified) with a two year lag ….


Namely, increased seismic activity in the HGFA (i.e., the mid-ocean’s spreading zones) serves as a proxy indicator of higher geothermal flux in these regions. The HGFA include the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, the East Pacific Rise, the West Chile Rise, the Ridges of the Indian Ocean, and the Ridges of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean. This additional mid-ocean heating causes an acceleration of oceanic overturning and thermobaric convection, resulting in higher ocean temperatures and greater heat transport into the Arctic [2,3]. This manifests itself as an anomaly known as the “Arctic Amplification,” where the Arctic warms to a much greater degree than the rest of the globe (Table 1) [4,5].

Also interesting is planetary cloud cover also abruptly changed in 1994, where previously cloud cover closely tracked GCR in the high latitude regions and after the change in 1994 which physically caused the increase in mid-ocean earthquakes…..

…Temperature no longer tracked GCR ….

This makes sense … something physically happened to cause the change in earthquake frequency and weirdly the North geomagnetic pole drift velocity also at the same time increased by a factor of five ….

This is almost like we are watching something live happening ….

You would almost think what we are observing has happened before…


The possible connection between ionization in the atmosphere by cosmic rays and low level clouds

Fig. 2 shows the global annual averages of GCR induced ionization in the atmosphere and low cloud amounts for the period July 1983–June 2000 (ionization data is only updated to December 2000). A quick look at the data reveals the good agreement between those two quantities from 1983 to 1994, however, from 1995 to 2000 the correspondence b

October 11, 2019 6:34 pm

Mark of 1st October sums it up. When we pass the maximum temperature of the MWP, then we can say that the temperature is increasing.

Now what about the logarithmic effect on the CO2. As stated in numerous books I have read as the amount of CO2 in ppm increasing, the amount of heat energy re-radiated decreases. If that us so, then we will see a slow decrease in any increase in the atmospheric temperature.


Mickey Reno
October 11, 2019 7:25 pm

And speaking of measurement errors, did anyone ever pull the ARGO floats that produced the results that Josh Willis deleted, to determine if they were malfunctioning? I think not. And if not, then who cares what temperatures are actually deemed true based on his “careful” calculations? Seriously, who cares? If the side that wants to PROVE WARMING just deletes adverse data, as Willis did, as Mann and the hockey team did with Keith Briffa’s tree ring data, then the correct lesson of following science of these men (and women, don’t want to appear sexist, I’m looking at YOU, Camille Parmisan) is that we can’t trust the results of activists and liars. We are fools for listening to them, and even bigger fools for giving them more money with which to lie to us. How many times do I have to pay the grants of Mann, the salaries of people like Trenberth and the infernal economists who say that changing from high quality, dense, reliable energy, to intermittent, sparse and highly dispersed, “renewable” energy will provide millions of net new jobs? You should be disqualified from every working as an economist, if you believe that crap.

I’m begging you CAGW climate alarmists to please go and find a new career right now. Get out, before your climate “science” credentials thoroughly stain your resumes and makes you permanently employable. Get out, like that portal from hell told the priest with his face covered in flies in the Amityville Horror movie.

Björn Eriksson
October 12, 2019 8:29 am

No need to worry about Global Warming then. The seas will buffer us for many centuries until oiö has run out.

Brian R Catt
October 13, 2019 6:23 am

I will try again re ocean heating above. Atmospheric warming is minimal compared to the 100W/m^2 direct solar radiative warming of the surface that is kinda important and varies with the known solar cycles – BUT that misses what drives serious climate change over ice ages, versus the interglacial noise people are so worried about, equally obviously and natural on the empirical evidence . And the reality of climate change causes we can detect versus modellers guesses we cannot is also important.

1. A better more empirically based climate model based on Fourier analysis of the actual variability has determined three solar cycles as causal with no CO2 effect, and backcasts very accurately, also predicts that the current warming, normal within an interglacial ups and downs, and steep through positive reinforcement of two strong solar cycles.

Importantly, this suggests the current warming should reverse and cool towards 2050 on its next downwards cycle. Hence the end of warming is about now. What will the warmist climate “scientists” do when the evidence proves their models so wrong, their science false, reality is right and delivered by solar variability, unaffected by CO2, and their multi trillion $$$$ remedies for climate change are wholly false and comprehensively regressive on the science and electrical engineering facts? As eminent retired meteorologist Prof Weiss explains here, the reality of the observations is clear. No evidence of CO2, “All we see is cycles”.. Paper is easy to find, but this explains it faster


2. FACTS? As readers may recall the record of NASA data from the UHA already shows the real, measured, greenhouse effect, versus the wildly over amplified guesses of climate “scientists” models for their easy UN IPCC and taxpayers money. Not happening in measured fact. but must still be believed

comment image?dl=0

3. ITS UNDERNEATH YOU!:Another short term regional variable is ocean warming from below. This is at more localised extremes of actual eruptions, not averages as below, from large scale SUBMARINE volcano building , such as the Mayotte volcano which grew from nothing to 5Km^3 in 6 months and pushed enough heat into the ocean to change the local climate = extreme weather in East Africa and Mozambique in early 2019, the scan of the mass and its plume in the link below is worth a look, BTW.

The heat liberated from the mantle in the 6 months of 5Km^3 of crystallising magma would be 20 ExaJoules, or 5.5PWh, about the whole US electricity consumption for a year, or 5,000 Megatonnes of nuclear weapons liberated in the ocean surface. From one volcano. We believe around 100,000 of these exist on the ocean floors with AVERAGE outputs of 28Km^3 x 10^6 pa. The rest is maths and physics 101. Where 25,000 Pacific atolls have come from, 3Km high on average, etc.

comment image?dl=0

AS far as short term climate perturbations this is enough to raise a large area of surface water a few degrees, and which probably altered the Indian Ocean temperature balance and caused unusual weather around Australian coasts. Do your own sums with 20 Exajoules in 6 months. Assuming your own depth and area.

I further suggest the El Nino is caused by such events on a roughly cyclic basis TBD. As with the combinations of different Milankovitch and solar emissive cycles, the combined effect can vary with time, but is overtly cyclic on a multi annual basis. The details of the actual volcanic formation and the associated unusual weather are in a short paper by Prof Wyss Yim.


4. SERIOUS CLIMATE CHANGE: But that’s the short term solar cycle “solar noise” of actual single volcanic eruptions we observe over few lifetimes of a short few hundred years periodicity.. This is superimposed upon the more planetary scale climate cycles volcanoes erupt over, and oceans mix well in over a few hundred years, through their Coriolis and convection currents (not the reverse convection of climate science, but the one where hot water and hot air rises due to density difference under gravity, respecting old style provable physics)).

Milankovitch cycles are mostly represented in Earthly climate record by first the effects of the 41Ka and then the ten less intense but more prolonged 100Ka ice ages. I explain below how these cycles can cause the necessary ocean warming by their gravitational effects on the Earth’s thin and mobile oceanic crust.

To address the calculations regarding heat entering the oceans from volcanoes and its variability w.r.t ice ages I have written a paper quantifying this very real effect, massively underestimated and highly variable over time, from the combined output of 100,000 submarine volcanoes. These are known to produce ten times then output of surface volcanoes through the 7Km thin basalt ocean floor, directly heating the ocean with 1,200 degree molten rock, roughly 1W/m^2 in average effect today, over 10 times more power than the internal conducted heat of the 50TW that is considered as the volcanic effect and disregarded as small and invariable in climate models.

Wrong again, on both the easy to check science facts.

All this is real, measured empirically and highly variable in Milankovitch time scales. Numbers?

The heat entering the oceans from submarine volcanoes currently is 1×10^22 Joules pa from c.2,800 cubic kilometres pa of emissions. Yes, like the supposed effect from CO2, 1W/m^2 is tiny. But, unlike atmospheric effects, it cannot be offset by the response of evaporation and clouds changing solar insolation to balance the SST effect, and just keeps coming over millennia, so must cause an eventual higher equilibrium SST to be established in our 0 deg K environment. How? Eventually, enough reduction of insolation caused by the natural SST response of evaporation and insolation and radiation increasing at T^4 that finally flat lines the interglacial warming at the new stable interglacial peak, set by the total enregy delivery of each overall cyclic volcanic effect, balanced by the natural feedback control of the ocean/atmosphere insolation control. Why was the last one was hotter? More intense combination of the three MIlankovitch cycle’s effect.

The varying combinations of the three MIlankovitch cycles determine the magnitude and duration of each different interglacial, and the temperature profile between peaks, also well demonstrated by real physics based climate science in deconvolution from the observed record by Fourier analysis.

I calculate that will warm the entire ocean mass by 0.001deg pa. Wow! See attached table from my paper. It may be small, but its relentless and the world doesn’t work on human time scales. If this sustainably doubles over a short 7Ka period of a Milankovitch maximum and the oceans and atmosphere do the job of maintaining SST stability, as they have against all perturbations since there were oceans, that is enough additional heat entering the Earths largest surface heat sink, that controls its climate, to deliver 7 degrees K average interglacial warming of the entire ocean mass, not just a layer.. Easy sum to do. So I did. 6×10^25 Joules more energy into the oceans in 7Ka to deliver one interglacial.

The necessary doubling of current magma emissions is more than delivered at 100Ka Milankovitch maximums in the measured fact of the Fourier power spectrum analysis of their record, but is no longer enough at the 41Ka Milankovitch maximums (when temperatures only dipped by about half as much from roughly the same interglacial plateau/peak. That said, all three Milankovitch cycles are proven to contribute to the level of variability of individual ice ages by their varying combinations.

To really get a feeling for this, look at the Younger Dryas event in the last interglacial warming. While SSTs return to glacial levels in the middle of the interglacial warming event itself, the oceans keep rising, without a reversal at any time throughout, barely affected by what the low thermal content of the atmosphere or solar heating of the surface was doing. So what was relentlessly heating the oceans then? Smoking volcano time! (submarine type). Younger Dryas was no problem for the warming oceans, atmosphere had a bit of a wobbler, but the oceans controlled that wobble eventually, as usual. (Younger Dryas might be from major cyclic increase in surface volcano activity having the opposite effect on the atmosphere by reducing insolation, perhaps? Whatever, oceans not bothered))

I submit the empirical evidence of volcanic emissions, and their variability, synchronous with MIlankovitch cycles, and the physically unavoidable seismic activity increase that must arise from the gravitational solid tide effects of these cycles , PLUS the slam dunk of the minimal Younger Dryas effect on interglacial ocean warming, is fairly conclusive.

However small the annual effect, this is how planetary size objects change, slowly and relentlessly. Unless you’re a rock, that is.

SUMMARY: Nowhere else is there a plausible cause and effect explanation for the ice age cycle linkage to the Milankovitch cycles. I suggest a large increase in submarine volcanicity is the primary and dominant cause of interglacials, caused by the gravitational variability induced by the combination of all three MIlankovitch cycles , hence inducing increased solid tides hence seismicity, and a periodic maxima in emissions . It’s not the MIlankovitch insolation effects, which are anyway wholly inadequate and desperately seeking amplification of the modeller kind in dust, etc. Nah. Not real.

It’s underneath you! All the heat you need, and at the time you need it. Planetary clockwork.

SHORT TERM NOTES FOR INSIGNIFICANT CARBON BASED LIFE FORMS: You only existed as super animals for a tiny 10,000 years because of a short friendly warm interglcial climate. Warm is good. Soon be back in the next hunter gatherer ice age, coming soon now. 10,000 years is at the Indian Summer of an interglacial, from the record.

Something we can observe in a short lifetime? Significant random and cyclic submarine volcanic effects, not average output but once every few thousand years or whatever, heating the oceans locally, are more than enough to be a cause of regionalised extreme weather events around oceans that are significantly active volcanically. Like Mayotte. Some may be cyclical controlled by the many smaller gravitational variations of the planetary system that vary solid tides in the crust, etc. Here is the Table of data from my paper. Rational physical law and evidence based comment welcome. This isn’t climate science. Its real. Mistakes of fact will be corrected with thanks. E&OE

comment image?dl=0

The paper is here: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259379

Brian R Catt
October 14, 2019 4:13 am

The short answer, if you prefer the predictions arising from Fourier analysis of the actual temperature record, and its conclusions as to accurately identifiable solar variability cause, is YES.

I posted a long fact based answer elsewhere, as to actual physical factors, evidence based physics, versus the guessed effects of preselected causes making partial or inadequate allowance for many other interactions with variable cases, the IPCC atmospheric models that have none of these difficulties of experimental validation to overcome, through preferring proof by consensus that requires no observational proof, and rejects it when it shows them to be wrong..

As far as our current interglacial noise on the longer ice age cycle, the answer on the analysis of the recent few thousand years of ups and downs , temperature is now declining to 2050.

Global temperature is probably its past the peak it reached after rising from the little ice age, is now on its way down. Per the fact based physics of Ludecke & Weiss, a more credible empirical model of reality than hopelessly partial and presumptive guesses of UN IPCC models designed to frame CO2 for their grant money and political beliefs.

In the real world of provable physics, reality is observed to be driven by 3 main solar cycles. Temperatures are now declining from a very clear and mutually reinforcing cyclic peak, perhaps to the next “little ice age”, 300 yrs or so ahead? Simples!


PS If this forecast is correct, I may yet live to see these liars for their grants, and the creators and operators of the massively wasteful and pointless renewable protection racket exposed, for what it is, and what they are.

Cynical liars, scaring the ignorant with wholly fake “science”, for which there was never any proof, just a theory proven wrong by the hard evidence of measurements, for their own profit at our expense. I hope they can be made to suffer in disgrace, with regular public disclosures of the deliberate way their carefully constructed fraud on the people they supposedly served was imposed by law. The UN has lost its way as a protector of human rights and world peace and development, this delivers all the opposites, extortion, corruption, avoidable enrgy poverty – and distracts its posing politicians from their real job.

Johann Wundersamer
October 21, 2019 2:31 pm

Has global warming stopped?

The tap of incoming energy cannot be turned off.

No, charles the moderator –

Since the begin of project “Planet Earth” that began with installing solar system some 4.571 billion years ago


global warming neither began nor stopped.

While the tap of incoming energy cannot be turned off. And needs in no way “to be turned off”.

Suns and Planets obviously found other ways to cope with that nasty “energy problem”.


There’s an old scientists saying:

– religious, moral or justice laws start with “Thou shalt not”.

– Laws of Nature start with “you can not”.

You can not win against the laws of nature.

– While you, charles the moderator, can fiddle around with terms like “thou shalt not” “warm global” or “income turned on energy”

– the real world says you, charles the moderator, can’t win against the reliability of our solar system that operates on the 4 Laws of Nature:

– The Gravitation, Matter, & Light. All interactions in the Universe are governed by four fundamental forces.

On the large scale, the forces of Gravitation and Electromagetism rule, while the Strong and Weak Forces dominate the microscopic realm of the atomic nucleus.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights