Oregon Institute vs the coalition of the warming

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has organized the OISM petition which has been signed by over 32,000 people in the US with a BSc or higher qualification. This is conceded by Skeptical Science which is a website set up by alarmists to take on the blogs of the independent climate science comentariat. The signatories agree with these statements:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

The site offered some counter-arguments. First, the signatories represent only a tiny fraction of all US science graduates.

True enough but it appears that they have done their homework and they feel obliged to make a protest against the way that the governments of the world are heading. They refute the claim that the overwhelming consensus among qualified scientists favours alarmism. There is no single climate science, there are probably a dozen or a score of disciplines involved and people who are scientifically literate in any of those disciplines are quite capable of matching scientists who carry the label of “climate scientist” because that is the bin where their funding is sourced.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors.

Great argument! (pot and kettle)

The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

To the contrary, despite the volume of publications that purport to support alarmism [sorry to frighten you on your way to bed], there is enough published evidence, even in some of the papers in the scientific reports of the IPPC, to refute the case for alarmism, certainly to demolish the claim that the science is settled.

97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. Check out the sources and laugh!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Oregon Institute vs the coalition of the warming

  1. Oh come on

    the OISM petition which has been signed by over 32,000 people in the US with a BSc or higher qualification.

    Trying to beat them at their own shoddy game? Not the way to win.

  2. Rafe Champion

    What is shoddy about sending a sensible message from scientists to challenge the alarmists. Would you prefer responsible scientists to remain silent?

  3. The Consigliere

    There is a term for the process this petition underwent. It’s called ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel.’

    When I finished my BSc in physics I had no clue about climate science or biological sciences or medicine or even physics beyond the fundamentals taught in an undergraduate course. When I went on to do postgraduate research I became an expert in a very small area of physics. I had no idea what the guys next door at the quantum lab or optics lab were talking about except for the bare essentials.

    I knew less about what my friends across the road at the medical faculty were doing.

    Petitions like this only serve to further convince people who have any knowledge of how difficult science is as to the reality of climate change. Climate change deniers really need to take off their tin foil hats and start contributing to the solution.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    The “consensus” is breaking down. This week saw a serious press release and study from the UK Met Office, which is in the forefront of the CAGW movement.

    They are predicting about half to one degree of cooling in the next 50 or so years due to the weakening of solar activity.

    UK MET Office: Fastest decline in solar activity since the last ice age

    the UK MET office has published a study which suggests solar activity is currently plummeting, the fastest rate of decline in 9300 years. The study also raises the odds of Maunder Minimum style conditions by 2050 from 8% to 15 – 20%.

    That figure of 9,300 years is quite interesting, because there is another paper around which says that 2005 was the peak of the Grand Solar Maximum in which the Sun was its most active in the last 9,400 years.

    It stands to reason that if the UK Met Office now thinks 0.5 – 1.0 of cooling will occur due to the Sun, then the ramp up to the solar max would have caused 0.5 – 1.0 of warming.

    They do not make that connection. If they did it would lower the calculated CO2 effect by about 40%.

    Now the same goes with the UK Met Office and the ocean cycles. A couple of years ago they reran their model with inclusion of the PDO, which is in its cooling phase. The result was rather than continue to rise their temperature projection out to 2018 was now fairly flat, with a peak in 2016 and a drop back in the following two years (see the blue line in the graph at the link below).

    Met Office scale back global warming forecast

    In practice we now have data to mid 2015 just before their projected peak – and there is no peak, so even then they were still over estimating.

    Again it is reasonable to ask OK if adding the cooling PDO, which is a feature of the 60 year cycle in the oceans, causes their projection to become nearly flat – ie by countering the effect of CO2, then what would it have done during the warm phase of the PDO from 1970 to 2000? It would have caused some “warming” wouldn’t it?

    They don’t acknowledge that either. It too would lower CO2’s real-world effect by another 40%. That would bring it down overall from 2.5 C/doubling in the IPCC reports to only 0.5 C/doubling – completely harmless.

    In practice the ~0.3 C swing of the 60 year cycle, which also includes the AMO, caused a large amount of the temperature rise in the 1970-2000 period. Its an artefact of course, because its now coming off again as the cycle is in its cooling phase. The AMO is about a decade behind the PDO and has only commenced its cooling swing in the last two or three years.

    So now the UK Met Office, which was in the centre of the Climategate scandal and who cheerleads warmist activism, is saying that the natural cycles exist with a magnitude easily big enough to explain most if not all of the temperature rise last century.

    But they can’t quite make themselves say this. Of course if they did their budget would be massively reduced, as would all their partner agencies at NOAA, NASA GISS etc.

    We are very close to the whole CAGW circus collapsing. All that is keeping it going is sheer self interest.

  5. Rohan

    I’ve been thinking long and hard on means of reintroducing common sense into the debate. Something that the public can get thier largely scientifically illiterate heads around. When I’ve had arguments with CAGW believers I introduce them to the facts in simple understandable terms. Here’s what I mean:

    What is the concentration of CO2?
    What component of that is man made according to the IPPC?
    What is the concentration of water vapour?
    What does 400ppm/16ppm and 9,000ppm mean in terms of a 1km representation of the atmosphere?

    I then hit them with the fact that water vapour is 7.6 times a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 according to the Koyoto Proticol. I then point out that the CAGW nutters are worried about the 400ppm tipping point which we have now achieved and they’ve moved the goalposts now to 450ppm. I ask them has the sky has fallen?

    I then tell them to go verify this for themselves. It’s been very effective in at least giving them pause in the rhetoric. True this is not the case with the die-hards; they want a one world government, rainbows and warm and fuzzy Marxism.

    I guess what I am saying is that those of us “deniers” need to ask those of the public who beleive the alarmist crap fed to them by the media, a series of questions on this subject. It gets them thinking about things rather than getting their undies in a bunch over some idiot like Flannery spewing rubbish in the MSM.

    And the very last thing I do is tell them to verify my points independently. Don’t take my word at face value. That usually seals the deal.

  6. nfw

    Is 32,000 equal to or greater than 97%? If not then it doesn’t count obviously. But why the carry-on about “science” degrees”? Some of the majors you can do don’t equate to “climate science” in any way shape or form, eg IT, neurobiology. Don’t get me wrong, I’m anything but a warmist, but you have to have solid evidence, not just the same emotive use of the word “science” as the warmists do. Those of us with A in our degrees can be just as right about the climate as those with S. Although he didn’t have a science degree, didn’t the ex-head of the IPCC have an engineering degree? Pretty much like some science majors.

  7. incoherent rambler

    The Consigliere #1720728, posted on June 26, 2015 at 7:14 am provides an insight into the problem.

    . no challenge to the orthodoxy
    . and absence of arithmetic or statistical skills that would enable him to evaluate some simple assertions
    . total trust in the colleagues in white coats (they would never lie or fabricate evidence)
    . No diagnosis or analysis, yet the opinion is firmly held

    We can wonder if he will ever try to answer the questions posed by Rohan. It is unlikely he would finish reading BoN’s post (too mush detail and difficult for him to understand).

    Science is seriously wounded.

  8. gogiasl

    The Consigliere #1720728, posted on June 26, 2015 at 7:14 am provides an insight into the problem

    Even more significant, and an alarming trend for science:

    No curiosity

  9. Rafe Champion

    Great work Rohan, I have been thinking along the same lines, working out how to talk to friends and relations who follow the warming line but are prepared to have a discussion about it.

    Try this as another string for your bow: tell them about the way that scientists are supposed to TEST their ideas and to take negative evidence seriously. That does not mean you throw out a theory the moment negative evidence turns up but you accept that there may be a problem and you need to check the evidence and keep testing the theory in other ways.

    Then explain that the warming scare is based on “predictions” or projections from models. Carry around a piece of paper that shows how all the models have failed to predict the 18 year pause in warming.

    That means they have all been refuted by the evidence and they should be focused on what is wrong with their models.

  10. .

    When I finished my BSc in physics I had no clue about climate science or biological sciences or medicine or even physics beyond the fundamentals taught in an undergraduate course. When I went on to do postgraduate research I became an expert in a very small area of physics. I had no idea what the guys next door at the quantum lab or optics lab were talking about except for the bare essentials.

    Hey champ I remember when you reckoned you were a banking expert?

    You’re a bullshit artist. Your knowledge of statistics is appalling.

    There is no model of climate change predicting doom which is consistent with proper time series techniques.

    The models are irrevocably stuffed, and their predictions are increasingly bizzare and wrong, and the real world data is evidence to this.

  11. Le Chiffre

    I ask my warmist friends to list one anti-global warming policy in the world which is dependent (actually conditional) on a dangerous rate of warming of the globe actually occuring (4 deg+ by 2100)?
    Crickets.
    If even the policy proponents don’t believe it, why should you? and why should people around the globe spend hundreds of billions of dollars in a futile attempt to stop it?
    Crickets.

  12. Ellen of Tasmania

    Art Robinson (OISM) is an interesting guy. He is everything the leftists hate and they have been hating him for quite a while. He’s an independent researcher, Christian, Republican (libertarian leaning) and homeschooled his kids just to top it off. He & his family even have their own curriculum – here.

    This was written in 2001, but it gives you a good overview of Art, his family and his Institute.

  13. jupes

    Trying to beat them at their own shoddy game? Not the way to win.

    It is part of the way to win, combined with facts and perhaps most importantly – ridicule.

  14. mizaris

    The Consigliere
    #1720728, posted on June 26, 2015 at 7:14 am
    There is a term for the process this petition underwent. It’s called ‘scraping the bottom of the barrel.’
    When I finished my BSc in physics I had no clue about climate science ….
    I had no idea what the guys next door at the quantum lab or optics lab were talking about……
    I knew less about what my friends across the road at the medical faculty were doing……..
    Climate change deniers really need to take off their tin foil hats and start contributing to the solution.

    What a perfect example:

    The man who will not reason is a bigot: he who cannot, a fool: – but if he dare not, let him confess himself a slave. (Horace Dean 1865)

  15. Memoryvault

    When I finished my BSc in physics I had no clue about climate science or biological sciences or medicine or even physics beyond the fundamentals taught in an undergraduate course.

    I suggest you contact all the institutions responsible for your education, from primary school onwards, and demand a refund, Consigliere. When I matriculated from high school in 1968 I had already been taught more than enough physics, chemistry and maths to refute all the BS that laughingly passes as “climate science” today. Back then you didn’t even get into uni without these basics, let alone graduate. Not even with an Arts degree.

  16. Climate change deniers really need to take off their tin foil hats and start contributing to the solution.

    As soon as you present an actual problem I will be happy to contribute to a solution.

  17. Fred Lenin

    The UK Met change of heart would have nothing to do with labour being flogged in the recent election ,would it ,fear of cuts in funding usualy clear bullshit away in the interest of self preservation . Just a thought I thought I would share .

  18. Leo G

    Climate change deniers really need to take off their tin foil hats and start contributing to the solution.

    Tinfoil hats are typically part of an alarmist costume of one sort or another.
    The argument that a person who accepts there is any theoretical science of which they are ignorant should therefor accept the reality of climate change would, I suggest, go well with that same alarmist costume.
    I assume the tin foil hatters who “start contributing to the solution” do so by faithfully dissolving themselves in the consensus.

  19. Oh come on

    What is shoddy about sending a sensible message from scientists to challenge the alarmists denialists.

    I’m sure the alarmists thought exactly this when they cobbled together the basis for their “97% of scientists agree…” nonsense.

    facts and perhaps most importantly – ridicule.

    Ultimately, we need to change their minds. Offering up appeals to authority that we ourselves should be able to spot weakness in will only make this task more difficult.

  20. Fair Dink

    If you want to put the issue to bed, check out this recent talk in London, which has been described as follows: “Probably the most interesting and revealing presentation on climate I have ever seen.”

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/co2-whether-man-made-or-not-does-not.html

  21. The Consigliere

    incoherent rambler #1720805, posted on June 26, 2015 at 9:14 am: We can wonder if he will ever try to answer the questions posed by Rohan

    That was kinda my point. I get spam emails from this fellow who constantly goes on about how the CERN scientists are perpetrating a fraud on the Government and tax payers and that there is no such thing as the Higgs Boson and that it was never found. His emails are filled with some really complex but wrong headed maths. He reckons that because I once belonged to the some institute of physics that I am culpable in all this and am aiding in this mass scientific conspiracy. Most of my mates get the same elaborate spiel.

    I know its crazy-talk and I don’t waste my time with it simply because a large majority of elementary particle physicists believe they have discovered the Higgs Boson. I believe that chemotherapy alleviates and sometimes even cures cancer because the Oncologists tell me that. I believe that cholesterol is bad for my health because my doctor tells me that. I know a basic level of knowledge to satisfy my curiosity but it’ll take me 5 years of specialist study to really understand what’s going on.

    So n0 I as a non-expert am not going to argue about the validity of climate science with other non-experts on its scientific merits other than to point out that overwhelming scientific consensus backs it up.

    This doesn’t ensure ultimate truth, but this is the only method by which to make policy decisions.

    PS just for kicks and completely beside my point: Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas, true. Rohan seems to think this somehow refutes the central point that CO2 also causes global warming. In fact is strengthens the scientific consensus:
    An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models

    But hey what do I or Rohan know about this stuff other than read the pop science stuff that comes our way?

  22. Memoryvault

    So n0 I as a non-expert am not going to argue about the validity of climate science with other non-experts on its scientific merits other than to point out that the overwhelming scientific consensus of government funded “climate scientists” with a vested financial interest backs it up.

    FIFY

    FYI – I am related to a young “climate scientist”. None of his tertiary studies were tainted by anything remotely connected to physics, chemistry, biology, maths, statistics, geography, oceanography, or even meteorology.

    Officially he is a “computer engineer”. He assists in running one of those “computer models” that form the basis of “climate science” – the ones that can’t even hindcast successfully.

    He majored in Eco-Feminism.

    Get back to me when you can find a “climate scientist” who even understands the water cycle.

  23. The Consigliere

    Memoryvault #1722107, posted on June 27, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    I am deeply sympathetic to your ”fix” of my comment.

    Often my poor well-meaning wife would send me articles on the dangers of my high levels of sugar consumption. I would counter her with exactly your arguments. I’d rail against the vested interests of the anti-sugar lobby that wants to impose socialist control over our freedoms and their waste conspiracy to perpetuate fraud on the tax payer.

    But deep down I know I don’t have a metaphorical leg to stand on, and if keep on going with my chocolate eating habits that might be literally true as well.

    I’m sure you know this as well.

  24. Memoryvault

    The Consigliere
    #1722221, posted on June 27, 2015 at 4:14 pm

    I have no idea what you’re dribbling on about Sig. But I’ll take it as confirmation that you couldn’t find a single “climate scientist” who even understands the water cycle. Or, to be more precise, hasn’t tried to pretend it doesn’t exist in order to defend the latest indefensible explanation for all the “climate change science” discrepancies.

  25. The Consigliere

    Memoryvault #1722282, posted on June 27, 2015 at 5:19 pm
    you couldn’t find a single “climate scientist” who even understands the water cycle. Or, to be more precise, hasn’t tried to pretend it doesn’t exist..

    Asking for a climate scientist who knows about the water cycle is like asking for a physicist who knows about gravity. The influence of climate change on the water cycle is a pretty broad area of research, I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it. Here is a review paper from 2006 summarising some of the research:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169405003215

    Here is an article for the layperson:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Water/page3.php

  26. Memoryvault

    Quite the drive-by troll, eh Sig. No matter, thanks for confirming my assertion that your much-vaunted “climate scientists” either don’t understand the water cycle, or are prepared to lie black and blue to defend their snouts in the trough of public money.

    Here’s how it is, Sig. The “theory” being pushed is most correctly known as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming – CAGW for short. Now for the “theory” to hold water, certain requisites have to be met, Sig. Not the least of them being a bit of atmospheric warming.

    Trouble is, Sig, there hasn’t been any. Not for nearly twenty years. That leaves us with two possibilities. Either the entire “theory” is a load of crock, or the anthropogenic-generated heat is somehow Missing In Action – MIA. Since your much-vaunted “climate scientists” cannot admit their pet money-making “theory” is a load of crock without derailing the gravy train, they have spent the last decade and untold billions of dollars searching for the “missing heat”.

    And their answer? It has “disappeared” into the oceans. Or, put another way, the atmosphere is now heating the oceans. Unfortunately, the known, observed, and measured flow of energy is the other way around.

    It is named “the water cycle”, and it goes like this: sun imparts energy to the oceans (radiation), oceans transfer heat energy to lower atmosphere (evaporation/phase change/water vapour), lower atmosphere transfers heat energy to upper atmosphere (condensation/phase change/water droplets), upper atmosphere radiates relesed heat energy back into space and water condensate falls to earth as precipitation (rain, hail, sleet, snow).

    Do you see the problem, Sig? The “theory” that the “missing heat” is disappearing into the oceans, requires a reversal of the water cycle. It requires that the NET transfer of energy is no longer FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere (evaporation), but rather FROM the atmosphere TO the oceans (some form of sublimation). That would mean no more clouds and no more precipitation. Not anywhere, since we are talking global. Seen any clouds recently, Sig?

  27. Memoryvault

    I must add, Sig, your two links are a bit of a lark. In order for the global warming “theory” to continue to draw oxygen, we now have to believe the water cycle has been reversed, and the atmosphere now warms the oceans. This “theory” has been publicly stated by Flannery, Chubb, Karoly, Steffen, Braganza, Schmidt, and Trenberth, amongst others in that “consensus” you hold so dear.

    But the links you provided speak of tragedies associated with an INCREASE in the rate of the water cycle: INCREASED evaporation, INCREASED precipitation and so on.

    So tell us, oh wise one. Who is BSing us the most. Those claiming the “missing heat” is disappearing into the oceans, thereby leading to a cessation of evaporation and subsequent precipitation due to CAGW, or the “scientists” in your links, claiming a whole range of adverse effects from INCREASED evaporation and precipitation, due to CAGW. You can’t have both.

  28. The Consigliere

    There’s a whole bunch of explanations for the so-called pause (which is not really pause), but temperature disappearing into the oceans via water cycle isn’t one of them. You are arguing against a position no one is pushing.

  29. Bruce of Newcastle

    Sig – There is a recent paper which shows that the AMO is caused by ocean circulation changes. The AMO and PDO cycle has caused most of the pause, if you saw the UK Met Office data in the BBC link upthread.

    The AMO and PDO vary in a ~60 year cycle – which the authors acknowledge:

    A new study, by scientists from the University of Southampton and National Oceanography Centre (NOC), implies that the global climate is on the verge of broad-scale change that could last for a number of decades. … The study, published in Nature, proves that ocean circulation is the link between weather and decadal scale climatic change. It is based on observational evidence of the link between ocean circulation and the decadal variability of sea surface temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean.

    You can see the cycle in HadCRUT quite easily. If you remove the trend you can see in this graph that the trough-to-peak swing is about 0.3 C.

    Michael Mann in Knight et at 2005 GRL showed that the AMO cycle is persistent and has been operating for at least a millenium in the historical data.

    Rise in temperature from 1970 to 2005 was about 0.4 C, so about three quarters of it was due to the cycle. Now its reversing course you can see why the pause has occurred.

  30. Memoryvault

    You are arguing against a position no one is pushing.

    Yeah, right. From the first page of a Bing search “missing heat oceans” from 316,000 hits
    (posted in type rather than links to avoid spam filter – copy and paste)

    “Missing” global heat may hide in deep oceans
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-climate-oceans-idUSTRE78H1TF20110918

    Missing heat ‘is in the oceans’
    http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/missing-heat-is-in-the-oceans/

    Climate change: The case of the missing heat
    http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    “Missing” heat may affect future climate change
    http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/2013/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-change

    You want me to move on to page 2 of the search? As I wrote before, this nonsense has been offered up as “science” by the likes of Flannery, Chubb, Karoly, Steffen, Braganza, Schmidt, Trenberth, and others. I know, because in each case when they made the claim, I emailed them and asked how heat energy managed to flow backwards FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans, and you know what, Sig, I never got a single reply.

    Multi-billion dollar CAGW “climate science” refuted by kiddies’ drawings of the water cycle – no degree required.

  31. Memoryvault

    Bum – spam policeman got it. Let’s try again:

    You are arguing against a position no one is pushing.

    Yeah, right. From the first page of a Bing search “missing heat oceans” from 316,000 hits
    (posted in type rather than links to avoid spam filter – copy and paste & remove XXX)

    “Missing” global heat may hide in deep oceans
    http://wwwXXX.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/us-climate-oceans-idUSTRE78H1TF20110918

    Missing heat ‘is in the oceans’
    http://wwwXXX.climatenewsnetwork.net/missing-heat-is-in-the-oceans/

    Climate change: The case of the missing heat
    http://wwwXXX.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

    “Missing” heat may affect future climate change
    http://www2XXX.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/2013/missing-heat-may-affect-future-climate-change

    You want me to move on to page 2 of the search? As I wrote before, this nonsense has been offered up as “science” by the likes of Flannery, Chubb, Karoly, Steffen, Braganza, Schmidt, Trenberth, and others. I know, because in each case when they made the claim, I emailed them and asked how heat energy managed to flow backwards FROM the atmosphere, TO the oceans, and you know what, Sig, I never got a single reply.

    Multi-billion dollar CAGW “climate science” refuted by kiddies’ drawings of the water cycle – no degree required.

  32. The Consigliere

    Thanks Bruce, but isn’t the AMO caused by ocean currents moving heat northwards?

    I was arguing against Memoryvault’s suggestion that the water cycle is the only avenue of heat flow between the atmosphere and the oceans.

  33. Bruce of Newcastle

    Thanks Bruce, but isn’t the AMO caused by ocean currents moving heat northwards?

    And cool. On a 60ish year cycle, as Mike Mann and coworkers showed.

    Arctic ice extent is related to the AMO. The recent low point is because the AMO peaked in temperature in about 2013 and has now entered its down phase. Which will continue for another thirty years or so.

    The point, as I made up thread, is the 60 year cycle explains about 40% of the temperature rise from 1906-2005, which the IPCC erroneously assumed all to be due to CO2. Since 40% is not due to CO2 the calculated ECS falls by about 40%.

    Of course the UK Met Office paper on solar influence confirms that another 40% of the temperature rise during the 20thC was due to the Sun and it too has reversed in its cycle. So we’re in for some cold for half a century or more. CO2 just doesn’t have the empirical effect they say it does. The primary reason is the cloud cover dynamics: during low solar activity there is more cloud and larger diffraction of solar energy to space. So the energy is never there for CO2 to hold in.

  34. Memoryvault

    I was arguing against Memoryvault’s suggestion that the water cycle is the only avenue of heat flow between the atmosphere and the oceans.

    It really is sad, Sig, that you “Defenders of the Faith” have to rely on shoit pulled out of your arses, rather than actual facts.

    Exhibit A – “You are arguing against a position no one is pushing”.
    That was your response to my statement about various of your Tribal Elders claiming the “missing heat” was “in the oceans”. I did a Bing search on “missing heat oceans” and got 316,000 hits. I did a post listing just some from the first page, but is currently languishing in moderation. For your edification, here are just some of the titles:
    – “Missing” global heat may hide in deep oceans
    – Missing heat ‘is in the oceans’
    – Climate change: The case of the missing heat
    – “Missing” heat may affect future climate change

    It’s quite possible, Sig, that you are the only person alive today who is not aware that the current explanation du jour for the “missing heat”, is that it is in the oceans. Alternatively, maybe you are just full of BS.

    Exhibit B – nobody ever claimed that the water cycle “is the only heat flow between the atmosphere and the oceans”. What was presented was the scientific fact that the water cycle clearly demonstrates a NET transfer of heat energy” FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere. Ergo, the atmosphere is not “heating the ocean”, and the “missing heat” is not IN the oceans.

    But that doesn’t fit your attempts to defend the indefensible, so you had to misquote it as something else (only avenue of heat flow”), so you could then proceed to attempt to discredit a strawman of your own construction.

    Enough games, Sig. Tell us where the “missing heat” is, and if the answer is “in the oceans”, tell us how it got there.

  35. The Consigliere

    Memoryvault #1725269, posted on June 30, 2015 at 3:50 pm

    nobody ever claimed that the water cycle “is the only heat flow between the atmosphere and the oceans”. What was presented was the scientific fact that the water cycle clearly demonstrates a NET transfer of heat energy” FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere. Ergo, the atmosphere is not “heating the ocean”, and the “missing heat” is not IN the oceans.

    But that doesn’t fit your attempts to defend the indefensible, so you had to misquote it as something else (“only avenue of heat flow”), so you could then proceed to attempt to discredit a strawman of your own construction.

    Ok fair enough. I’m sure you don’t think you are claiming these things.

    What I was trying to say is that net heat transfer via water cycle isn’t the only thing to consider:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-Heats-The-Ocean.html

  36. Memoryvault

    Yet another strawman of your own construction, instead of valid argument, Sig.

    All your linked article does is claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 hinders release of accumulated heat energy from the ocean, to the atmosphere. How the oceans get heat energy from the sun, and various processes that aid, or hinder, the transfer of that heat energy flow from the oceans, to the atmosphere, are not in question here.

    CAGW rests on the claim that increased atmospheric CO2 heats the atmosphere. Trouble is, there hasn’t been any such atmospheric heating for nearly twenty years now, despite the fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased 20% in the same period.

    Two choices, Sig. Either the “missing heat” is still being generated in the atmosphere but is going “somewhere” rather than hanging around to cause an increase in atmospheric temperatures, or CAGW “theory” is a load of crock, and there isn’t any “missing heat” to find. The current answer on offer from the climate gurus, is that the “missing heat”, aka “the pause”, has the missing atmospheric heat finding its way into the oceans.

    Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to explain “how”. NOT how the oceans accumulate radiated energy from the sun. NOT to offer quasi-scientific explanations of how CO2 might hinder the subsequent transfer of that energy from the oceans, to the atmosphere.

    Your mission is to explain where your missing CO2-generated, atmospheric heat has gone, and if the answer is the current standard one – “into the oceans”, then explain how, in defiance of the water cycle direction of energy transfer FROM the oceans, TO the atmosphere.

  37. Memoryvault

    PS – You’re offering John Crooks Cook’s Septic Science blog as an “informed source”. John so discredited himself with his co-authorship of Lewandowsky’s follow-up paper on fake moon landings, that even the mainstream climate community no longer cite him.

  38. JC

    Con

    You’re trying to scare people.

    There are two charts, one showing climbing co2 levels. There’s another which shows a concerted drop over the decades in climate related deaths.

    It’s here.

    What do you reckon.

  39. JC

    Con

    You’re not a fucking scientist. You don’t the debate over these issues. STFU.

  40. Memoryvault

    You’re not a fucking scientist.

    Marvelous how much we agree on, JC, despite outward appearances.
    I’m guessing some low-level, make-work, paper-shuffling clerk.
    Probably in the public service.
    Hospital cleaning products requisition clerk or some such.
    Almost certainly a fully paid-up member of the Greens.

    BTW, thank you for the ongoing info re Greece and the EU.
    I do really appreciate it. International finance is definitely not my strong suit.

  41. The Consigliere

    Memoryvault #1725336, posted on June 30, 2015 at 5:32 pm Your mission is to explain where your missing CO2-generated, atmospheric heat has gone, and if the answer is the current standard one – “into the oceans”, then explain how

    Transfer of heat from the Oceans to the atmosphere is blocked. This mean the heat the from the Sun is absorbed to a greater degree by the Oceans. This mean less net heat transfer to the atmosphere.

    I’m guessing some low-level, make-work, paper-shuffling clerk.
    Probably in the public service.
    Hospital cleaning products requisition clerk or some such.
    Almost certainly a fully paid-up member of the Greens.

    Got nothing against anyone in a clerical role but I am fortunate enough to do hands-on science most of the time, which is what I happen to love. Also don’t know what you mean by low-level… all the make work paper shuffling people are in management at way above my pay-grade.

  42. Memoryvault

    Transfer of heat from the Oceans to the atmosphere is blocked. This mean the heat the from the Sun is absorbed to a greater degree by the Oceans. This mean less net heat transfer to the atmosphere.

    You continue to slither around, avoiding the issue, Sig. How much the SUN is, or isn’t heating the OCEAN, is not the issue. The rate at which OCEAN is, or isn’t losing heat to the ATMOSPHERE, is not the issue. The issue is what happened to the alleged MAN-MADE heating of the atmosphere. I’ll try and make it even simpler for you:

    CLAIM:
    CAGW “theory” alleges that Man’s activities are causing the atmosphere to heat up.

    OBSERVATION:
    Atmosphere is not heating up.

    SOLUTION 1:
    CAGW “theory” is a load of crock.

    SOLUTION 2:
    Man’s activities are indeed continuing to heat the atmosphere, but that additional heat is “disappearing” somewhere. Current peer-reviewed, published, consensus opinion amongst the so-called “climate scientists”, is that the “missing heat” is finding its way into the ocean deeps. This happens by some as yet unknown and unexplained mechanism which somehow causes heat energy to flow in the opposite direction to the known and observed flow, as evidenced by the water cycle.

    Since you reject the admirably simple, sane answer offered by Solution 1, it is up to you to substantiate Solution 2, and explain how it works. Off you go.

  43. Ivan Denisovich

    This mean the heat the from the Sun is absorbed to a greater degree by the Oceans.

    Apparently not:

    The currently-favored excuse du jour for no statistically-significant global warming over the past 20 years is that the oceans “ate the man-made global warming.” However, a 2012 paper published in Nature Climate Change torpedoes this notion, finding the global oceans started warming at least 135 years ago just after the Little Ice Age, on or before the historic voyage of the HMS Challenger in the 1870’s. More importantly, the study finds that ocean warming has decelerated 50% over the past 50 years.

    If, as claimed, man-made greenhouse gases are causing the oceans to warm, the opposite would have been expected, namely an acceleration of ocean warming over the past 60 years, beginning in the ~1950’s. The fact that the oceans were warming long before CO2 levels significantly increased, and at a higher rate before 50 years ago, clearly demonstrates ocean warming is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, and not due to man-made CO2.

    The paper is corroborated by a recent paper finding the oceans have warmed only 0.09C over the past 55 years, a rate of 0.016C per decade, and a 34% deceleration from the rate of 0.024C per decade over the past 135 years found by this study.

    Further, climate alarmists claim that the “missing heat” is hiding below 1,500 meters deep, but this paper finds the oceans have instead cooled below 1,500 meters over the past 135 years [see third figure below].

    In addition, if man-made CO2 was warming the oceans, there should have been an acceleration of steric sea level rise over the past 50 years due to thermal expansion, but no acceleration of sea level rise has been found over the past 203 years.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/study-finds-global-ocean-warming-has.html

Comments are closed.