JANUARY 16, 2021
By Paul Homewood
h/t MrGrimNasty
There has been a nice discussion on Twitter, regarding the GWPF’s latest bulletin inconveniently pointing out that there has been no global warming in the last 5 years:
But why does Richard Betts show a graph beginning in 1958, which implies that ocean warming suddenly started to accelerate after 1990? True, there is little reliable ocean heat content data prior to 1958, but some would argue that the data prior to ARGO buoys, rolled out in 2004, is also worthless.
Although the graph is labelled in Zettajoules, designed to make it look scary, the actual temperature changes involved are microscopic, and impossible to measure to such accuracy in pre-ARGO days.
Since 2004, for instance, ARGO data shows an increase of about one hundredth of a degree.
But we do have much longer records of sea surface temperatures, for instance the Hadley Centre’s HADSST3:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl
You will note a couple of things.
First, global sea temperatures actually fell between 1940 and 1980. (This coincided with sea level rise slowing down). Betts, of course, would like you to believe that the accelerating rate of rise since then is due to AGW, rather than a natural cyclical event.
Secondly, sea surface temperatures began rising from 1900, long before CO2 emissions could have had the slightest effect on the world’s climate.
Indeed the rate of rise from 1910 to 1940 was every bit as fast as since 1980. This also correlates with tidal gauge records of sea level rise around the world, which show a similar pattern.
Simple physics tell us that the oceans drive the world’s climate, and not the atmosphere. The heat capacity of the oceans is so much greater than the air, that the heat capacity of an atmospheric column of unit area cross section extending from the ocean surface to the outermost layers of the atmosphere is equivalent to the heat capacity of a column of seawater of 2.6-metre depth.
Put another way, rising ocean temperatures cause atmospheric temperatures to rise, and not vice versa. We can readily see that every time there is an El Nino.
So the real question is what has caused sea temperatures to steadily rise since 1900? And if you think it is greenhouse gases, then you need to explain how these also caused the pre 1940 rise.
This is further to my above comment concerning tubes in the earth and what moves the tectonic plates. Thomas Gold hypothesized that there were hundreds of thousands of tubes in the mantle that carried liquid methane and dissolved heavy metals up to the surface of the earth. Gold wrote a book that had about 50 independent specific geological evidence/formation examples any one of which proved that theory.
Thomas Gold’s theory explains why there are hydrocarbons deposits on the earth and what is the source for the water on the surface of the earth.
Same theory explains why CH4 is continually being pushed into the biosphere. This explains why human CO2 emissions are not affecting atmospheric CO2. Salby’s and others finding. For that to be physically true, there is a much larger sink and source of CO2 into the atmosphere than assumed by CAGW.
CAGW assumed that oil and gas deposits on the surface of the earth were formed from biological material. Oddly organic theory is an urban legend. There are now hundreds of observations that disprove the organic theory.
CAGW assumes the only new source of CO2 and H2O into the atmosphere is from volcanic activity. This is a small source of CO2 and H2O. It cannot explain what replace water that is dragged down into the mantle where it binds with elements at high temperature and pressure and is no longer available as liquid water.
Seismic study reveals 3 times more water dragged into Earth’s interior
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181114132013.htm
Slow-motion collisions of tectonic plates under the ocean drag about three times more water down into the deep Earth than previously estimated, according to a first-of-its-kind seismic study that spans the Mariana Trench.
The earth was struck by a Mars sized object about 100 million years after it was formed. That collision formed the moon and stripped the earth’s mantle of water and CH4. To explain the existence of water and hydrocarbons on the surface of the earth, the late veneer theory was created. This theory required a late bombment of the earth from comets or asteroids. It has now been confirmed there as no significant late bombardment of the earth
Deep earth release CH4 (This theory explains what is the new source of CO2 that replace the CO2 that is dragged down into the ocean carried by biological matter,)
This is the late astrophysics, Thomas Gold’s theory, that all of the hydrocarbons on the surface of the earth and the earth’s oceans were caused by CH4 that is released from the earth’s liquid core when it crystallizes.
Gold’s theory explains the Canadian heavy oil deposits. Canadian Alberta heavy oil deposits are three geological separate regions in the Canadian province of Alberta that contain bitious material that melts at 300C and that contains a large amount of heavy metals.
When the Canadian heavy oil deposits formed something pushed the liquid material out at 300C into a massive sand deposit which protected the hydrocarbon from sun and air.
The three Alberta heavy oil deposits are 60 to 80 meters thick and collectively cover an area about the same as the UK. These three hydrocarbon deposits could supply all of the US hydrocarbon needs for 80 years.
The organic theory of oil is not a theory, it was created by the American Association of Petroleum engineers in an API issued document entitled the Origin of Oil. The organic theory cannot explain the heavy metals, CH12/C13 ratio changes, and so on. Gold has 50 specific observations in his book of real geological formations that massive amounts of CH4 have been pushed up from the core of the planet and that CH4 carries with heavy metals.
It is known that the core contains up to around 10% CH4 (Sloan Deep Earth Conference which has held to discuss observations that support the assertion that there is a massive amount of CH4 in the core of the earth and that CH4 is the explanation for hydrocarbons and water on the surface of the planet, comment of one of the presenters based on the analysis wave speed).
There must be a light element in the earth’s liquid core to explain wave speed. And the discovery of the tubes in the mantel requires a physical explanation as to what could create tubes in the mantel.
At the time of the Sloan Deep Earth conference the discovery of the tubes in the mantel had not been made.
It has been known for a long time that there is a massive structure in the earth that is causing unexplained reflections of waves are produced from seismic events. The reflected waves from any one seismic event does not have sufficient information to determine the complex structure.
About 5 years ago, using a AI technique where the information of all of the seismic waves observed is analyzed at once to provide sufficient info to determine the structure. The structure has tubes that run down to the core of the earth and that are connected in a complex lattice in the mantel below the earth’s crust.
CH4 is bond in the liquid core as the CH4 molecule at extremely high pressures bonds with metals. When the core crystallizations the liquid methane is pushed out of the core at super high pressure.
Because the liquid CH4 binds with metals, a sheath forms about the liquid methane. This sheath keeps the methane in the tube and transmits the core force up the tube to push what every is at the top.
The liquid CH4 in the tubes brings with it heavy metals that were in the earth’s core. This explains why oil deposits have heavy metals in them and the amount of heavy metals increases with crude viscosity. This physical explanation for oil and gas deposits also explains why there Helium gas in every oil and gas deposit.
The CH4 caries heavy metals up to the surface. As the pressure reduces or do to other physical reasons the heavy metals including uranium and thorium dropout, below the oil or gas deposits. The CH4 is continually pushed in the tubes so it keeps a path from the solid uranium and thorium open which allows the helium that is produced when the radioactive elements decay. The only commercial source of helium is from oil and gas reserves.
The abiotic explanation is the earth’s liquid core is gradually solidifying which causes super high pressure CH4 to be extrude from the core of the earth. There is therefore a large continual source of CH4 moving into mantel, a portion of which continually moves into the atmosphere.
There are hundreds of observations that support the deep earth CH4 theory.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bermuda-triangle-mystery-solved-by-enormous-gas-blowouts-ocean-floor-1549223
Scientists may have discovered the secret behind the notorious Bermuda Triangle: methane bubble explosions. Giant craters on the seabed around Norway’s coast have been discovered by scientists, marking areas where massive bubbles of methane may have exploded.
The large chasms on the ocean floor are around half a mile wide and 150ft deep. They could have been caused by gas leaking from deposits of oil and gas buried deeper in the sea floor. The gases are thought to accumulate in sea-floor sediments before bursting through the sea bed and into the surrounding waters.
Scientists have recently developed radar that can show detailed images of the sea bed, according to a Sunday Times report. The graphics vividly depict areas of methane seepage around the globe. The discoveries may offer scientific explanations for reports from sailors of water starting to bubble and foam with no apparent cause.
“Multiple giant craters exist on the sea floor in an area in the west-central Barents sea… and are probably a cause of enormous blowouts of gas,” said researchers at the Arctic University of Norway. “The crater area is likely to represent one of the largest hotspots for shallow marine methane release in the Arctic.”
A 165-year-old mystery
The area, also known as the “Devil’s Triangle”, is a western area of the North Atlantic Ocean bounded by Bermuda, Puerto Rico and a point near Melbourne, Florida, where numerous ships and aircraft have mysteriously disappeared throughout the ages. Since records began in 1851, it is estimated that around 8,127 people have been lost in the Bermuda Triangle.
The bedrock of these seas has many magnetic anomalies that can produce misleading compass readings. The deposits of frozen methane gas can explode in violent outbursts – methane blowouts, – capable of sinking even large vessels
The same CH4 release caused the Mississippi, New Madrid earthquake.
http://www.new-madrid.mo.us/index.aspx?nid=132
In the known history of the world, no other earthquakes have lasted so long or produced so much evidence of damage as the New Madrid earthquakes. Three of the earthquakes are on the list of America’s top earthquakes: the first one on December 16, 1811, a magnitude of 8.1 on the Richter scale; the second on January 23, 1812, at 7.8; and the third on February 7, 1812, at as much as 8.8 magnitude.
Sand Boils
The world’s largest sand boil was created by the New Madrid earthquake. It is 1.4 miles long and 136 acres in extent, located in the Bootheel of Missouri, about eight miles west of Hayti, Missouri. Locals call it “The Beach.” Other, much smaller, sand boils are found throughout the area. (William: Sand boils occur when there is a sudden release of CH4.)
Seismic Tar Balls
Small pellets up to golf ball sized tar balls are found in sand boils and fissures. They are petroleum that has been solidified, or “petroliferous nodules.”
Earthquake Smog
The skies turned dark during the earthquakes, so dark that lighted lamps didn’t help. The air smelled bad, and it was hard to breathe. It is speculated that it was smog containing dust particles caused by the eruption of warm water into cold air. (William: The fog is caused by the CH4 that cools when it expands. The bad smell is sulfur that is contained in the CH4. )
In the spirit of “out of the abundance of caution” and advocacy groups gone wild we will drain the global economy and push all other priorities and ills aside. Then when the true climate CYCLES are revealed in sustained global cooling a token politician from a secure district will casually make the remark “who could have known?” ala Edward Markey. And there you have the news out to 2030. Good day.
I had thought that changes in wind currents and ocean currents played a role in ocean temperature. Then there is the North Pole slowly increasing its angle in relation to the sun while decreasing the suns angle along the equatorial belt. Where ocean temp is already warmest, making oceans warmer. Or do I have this all wrong?
The first question that needs to be asked is if CO2 and 15µ LWIR can warm water. 15µ LWIR is consistent with a black body of temperature -80C°. Ice emits higher energy 10.5µ LWIR. The radiation associated with CO2 won’t even melt ice, let alone warm water. Fewer clouds is why the oceans are warming, it has nothing to do with CO2. High energy radiation warms the oceans, not IR back radiation from CO2. One sunny day contributes 100x ore more of the W/M^2 contribution than CO2.
The sheer mass and varied circulation of the oceans complicates the accurate measurement of the average temperature of the water. It would be much simpler to measure the average temperature of confined waters such as seas and lakes. The question to be answered is:- has the average temperature of inland bodies of water risen since 1950 as a result of increasing CO2?
Intuition prompts one to posit that the elevation (and therefore atmospheric pressure) of the body of water is the primary factor in the determination of average water temperature and that ppm of CO2 has little (if any) influence.
The Great Lakes of Africa are ideally suited for this type of study.
SSTs follow perfectly PDO 30-year warm cycles:
1880~1915 PDO cool cycle: SSTs fell
1915~1945 PDO warm cycle: SSTs rose
1945~1978 PDO cool cycle: SSTs fell
1978~to present PDO warm cycle: SSTs rose
When the next PDO cool cycle starts, global SSTs will fall again as they always have…
SST flux are driven by PDO cycles, not CO2..
(Edited to include correction) SUNMOD
Sorry, meant to write SSTs ARE driven by PDO cycles.
“Since 2004, for instance, ARGO data shows an increase of about one hundredth of a degree.”
Well, the adjusted ARGO data. The raw data shows cooling but it was adjusted to show warming.
Take it from the horse’s mouth: Correcting ocean’s cooling:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCooling
Motto: The data is wrong, we need to fix it, always adjust it to the one showing more warming
The sun heats up land and oceans upper layers.
The added energy also has to be transfered to space else our living environment will be too hot.
Long wave radiation from both oceans and land, is hindered from radiating in their full black body spectrum directly to the space by the absorbing/emitting components in the atmosphere, which although colder than the surfaces, being much warmer than the space at 3 K.
Kind regards
Anders Rasmusson
It sure is neat that we can measure so much stuff, now if only it had some value.
“So what” is the first question to ask in response to any and all alarmist reports of OMG warming in the air, sea or on land.
Have such warming episodes happened before, including before the industrial period or even before there were humans?
Alarmist narrative about increasing ocean temperatures never asks this question, implying the assumption – as always – of Edenic stasis and constant unchanging temperature before the “industrial era”. It is obvious that this is not true.
The literature is full of studies that show substantial variation in ocean temperatures over the Holocene including several periods with much warmer oceans than now, especially 6000 years ago. Recent temperature changes without context are meaningless.
Ocean temperatures are changing all the time.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2006PA001339
http://bora.uib.no/bitstream/handle/1956/9432/Andersson%20et%20al_Clim%20Past_2010.pdf?sequence=1
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2011PA002117
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005PA001145
In this paper by Bianchi et al, take a look at figure 2. Not only deep Atlantic temperatures both in the north and the equatorial region, but also the deep flow rates at a sea floor location to measure “ISOW” – Iceland-Scotland overflow water, showing the deep flow rate of the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional overturning circulation.) This data shows continual oscillation of Atlantic temperatures at all depths over the whole Holocene. It nicely shows both in the North Atlantic and also the Sargasso sea (tropical) the LIA, the MWP, the dark ages cold and the Roman-Minoan warm periods.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/200032692_Holocene_periodicity_in_North_Atlantic_climate_and_deep-ocean_flow_south_of_Iceland
So the Atlantic was much warmer in the early Holocene than now, both at the surface and at depth; both near the Arctic and in the tropics.
Oceans are warming and cooling all the time, with or without humans.
Current fluctuation is completely normal and recent ocean warming means less than nothing.
lol OHC is a wild guess anyway
by mass, most of the ocean has never been measured to anything like the precision that would be needed to spot a five year trend in the entire ocean
might as well claim you can tell the haystack has an additional straw just by looking at it