Climate change

Can Climate Scientist Do Climate Science?

Spread the love

Here’s a recent paper dealing with the deadly and devastating hurricane Harvey which hit the Gulf last year. I haven’t looked at very much of the paper; however, their basic take on it is that the ferocious effects of Harvey can be explained by the OHC (Ocean Heat Content) of the Gulf’s surface waters. And, of course, they want to blame ‘global warming’ (oh heavens, I should have said “climate change”). You know, more CO2 in the upper atmosphere reflects escaping heat energy back onto the ocean’s surface, causing more water vapor–the real culprit in ‘global warming.’

So, I simply invite you to look at Figure 1 (p 36). You will notice that the OHC calculated for ocean depths between 0 and 2000 m (6,000 ft, plus) rises constantly from 1985 on to the present.

Next, look at the middle graph, where the OHC is calculated for the upper 160 m (500 ft). There you will see that since 1985 the OHC has remained relatively STEADY!

Now, the First Law of Thermodynamics tells you that ‘heat’ transfers from a ‘hot’ reservoir to a ‘cold’ reservoir, and not vice-versa. The graphs then tell us that something other than ‘surface waters’ is ‘heating’ the deeper ocean.

What is the most obvious reason for this: greater heat coming from the earth’s core!

Simple as that. This would also account for higher CO2 levels as warmer water dissolves less CO2 than colder water.

Just look around the world: Hawaii is blowing up now; Mt. St. Helen’s blew up in . . . 1980. Iceland eruptions cancelled trans-Atlantic flights just a few years ago.

Bottom-line: simple physics tells you that while the surface temperatures in the Gulf likely added to the ferocity of Harvey, there is no way that ‘global warming/climate change’ can account for this. Figure 1 forbids it!!

So the climate scientists fail to properly interpret their own graphs! God help us.

Here’s another paper where the method of ‘calculating’ the OHC is presented (2017). Read the highlighted areas!

Global warming is driven by Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). The EEI is likely forced to first order by a combination of greenhouse gas and aerosol
forcing, which shapes the timing and magnitude of global warming (1). It is also linked to the internal variations of the climate system and episodic volcanic eruptions; the latter may provide episodic strong radiative forcing to the Earth system (2, 3). By definition, radiative forcing is the change in the net radiative flux due to a change in an external driver of climate change, such as greenhouse gas concentrations. More than 90% of EEI is stored in the ocean, increasing ocean heat content (OHC), while the residual heat is manifest in melting of both land and sea ice, and in warming of the atmosphere and land surface (1, 4, 5). It is therefore essential to provide estimates of OHC changes over time with high confidence to improve our knowledge of EEI and its variability (4). . . .

90% of the energy imbalance is in the oceans. So why do we look up into the sky? Why don’t we try and explain why the oceans are warming. 90% in the oceans; less than 10% in the atmosphere, and yet we’re hung up on CO2 gases.

(much later in the paper)
Atlantic Ocean warming shows the largest OHC 0 to 2000 m increase
(about 3.5 times larger than the Pacific Ocean), despite having an area
only 47% as large as that of the Pacific.

This is ONLY a surprise if you believe that upper atmospheric CO2 is radiating energy back to the surface of the water; hence, a smaller surface area should mean a smaller OHC. However, if the heat is coming from the earth’s core, and since the entire mid-Atlantic trench system is one big volcano, then you would expect(!!!) the Atlantic’s OHC to be greater than the Pacific basin’s OHC.

Also, look at Figure 4 at the top of the page, which, with the ‘new’ data (left side) again shows that the deeper regions of the ocean have heated up FASTER than the surface waters. This is a complete falsification of climate change theory.

Can these scientists reason to logical results?

10 Replies to “Can Climate Scientist Do Climate Science?

  1. 1
    Bob O'H says:

    So, I simply invite you to look at Figure 1 (p 36). You will notice that the OHC calculated for ocean depths between 0 and 2000 m (6,000 ft, plus) rises constantly from 1985 on to the present.

    This is global.

    Next, look at the middle graph, where the OHC is calculated for the upper 160 m (500 ft). There you will see that since 1985 the OHC has remained relatively STEADY!

    And this is only for the Gulf of Mexico.

    So perhaps the Gulf of Mexico is not heating up as much as (say) the Arctic. Why might that be, you ask. Well, as the authors state in their plain language summary:

    Hurricanes keep tropical oceans cooler as a consequence of their strong winds that increase evaporation. Here we show for the first time that the rainfall likely matches the evaporation and the corresponding ocean heat loss.

    (I don’t know if this is the whole reason for the difference: there could easily be other factors too).

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    The cynic in me thinks Bob O’H is chiming in to defend the Climate Change/Global Warming Narrative his tribe is devoted to, not because he knows anything about climate science or meteorology or ocean science or atmospheric science or solar science or squiggology, but because that’s what flaming progs are supposed to do.

    Andrew

  3. 3
    Allan Keith says:

    Bob O’H, there is also the issue that ocean circulation operate in a conveyor belt fashion. Cool water sinks in high latitudes due to its higher density and resurfaces in the tropics. But increased melting of the ice caps results in the surface water in high latitudes being cooler because fresh water is less dense that salt water. This disrupts the conveyor system, which can have a significant affect on climate.

  4. 4
    PaV says:

    Bob O’H:

    So perhaps the Gulf of Mexico is not heating up as much as (say) the Arctic. Why might that be, you ask. Well, as the authors state in their plain language summary:

    Hurricanes keep tropical oceans cooler as a consequence of their strong winds that increase evaporation. Here we show for the first time that the rainfall likely matches the evaporation and the corresponding ocean heat loss.

    Bob, the Gulf of Mexico is famous for it warm waters such as are found in CanCun and all of the Yucaton Peninsula. Meanwhile, the artic is home of the polar bear.

    I believe what the authors were pointing to was a simple conservation of energy scenario wherein the ‘heat’ (energy) of the gulf’s waters got translated into water vapor, which came down as rainfall.

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    asauber @ 2

    The cynic in me thinks Bob O’H is chiming in to defend the Climate Change/Global Warming Narrative his tribe is devoted to, not because he knows anything about climate science or meteorology or ocean science or atmospheric science or solar science or squiggology, but because that’s what flaming progs are supposed to do

    I suspect most of us here are guilty of talking about topics in which we lack any expertise. Which gives me the opportunity to deploy a new addition to my vocabulary by suggesting this blog be renamed Ultracrepidarian Descent. (Hat tip to Australian philosopher of science John S Wilkins for unearthing this wonderful new – to me – word)

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    I suspect most of us here are guilty of talking about topics in which we lack any expertise.

    Seversky,

    Is there any scientist in particular you would recommend we listen to about climate science? And please explain why you chose that particular scientist, if you would.

    Andrew

  7. 7
    aarceng says:

    In addition to above comments the middle graph might be “relatively steady” but it has still increased by about 2°C.

    And why did we have to go to the article to see the graphs?

  8. 8
    eddified says:

    @asauber (#6). Glad you asked. I recommend Judith Curry.

    https://judithcurry.com

  9. 9
    Bob O'H says:

    PaV – Err, yes, the Gulf of Mexico’s waters are warmer than the Arctic’s. But the difference is getting less, apparently.

  10. 10
    Origenes says:

    Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

    Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

    My point is that statistical cooling outliers garner no media attention. The global average temperature numbers come out monthly. If they show a new hottest year on record, that’s a big story. If they show a big increase over the previous month, or the same month in the previous year, that’s a story. If they represent a sequence of warming months or years, that’s a story. When they show cooling of any sort—and there have been more cooling months than warming months since anthropogenic warming began—there’s no story.

    source

Leave a Reply