Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

Record CO2, Record Cold. Emissions down, CO2 up. Wait, what?

Polar vortex disruption of the 70's. Global cooling scare. Polar vortex disruption of the recent years. Record Cold. Hmm... what could it be?

 
I really have to ask myself once again why I waste my time here.
Well I don't understand this either, I think most people in this thread have had some experience of science and technical considerations.

I don't want you to leave the forum, because I think you make a positive contribution in a variety of areas of Skeptiko, but honestly, without some awareness of technical considerations, I don't think you can here. I hope that doesn't sound patronizing, because I don't mean it that way. I want you and others to enjoy the forum.

I mean, what made me gasp when I first started to look at CC, was the extreme stability of the Earth's atmosphere over the period in question - somewhere between 0.8 and 1.0C over 140 years. I was very pleased that Ivar Giaever made exactly the same point in his physics Nobel lecture. If you measure any natural variable over time, you are bound to see some trend. Issues like population growth, and technological developments are bound to influence average global temperature, as is variations in the sun. You simply can't filter all that out with a computer algorithm and then look for a residual trend!

Please, rather than quarrel endlessly about this, why not return to the more ψ-related topics.

David
 
Well I don't understand this either, I think most people in this thread have had some experience of science and technical considerations.

I don't want you to leave the forum, because I think you make a positive contribution in a variety of areas of Skeptiko, but honestly, without some awareness of technical considerations, I don't think you can here. I hope that doesn't sound patronizing, because I don't mean it that way. I want you and others to enjoy the forum.

I see how that come across, my mistake, I did intend that perhaps I should leave this subject. It truly is like politics and religion. It is a bit of a twisted sort of enjoyment though seeing the reaction. It's a reflection of larger things, and I always learn from it. It also makes me a little sad, I thought we were better than this. We have a long way to go.

I mean, what made me gasp when I first started to look at CC, was the extreme stability of the Earth's atmosphere over the period in question - somewhere between 0.8 and 1.0C over 140 years. I was very pleased that Ivar Giaever made exactly the same point in his physics Nobel lecture. If you measure any natural variable over time, you are bound to see some trend. Issues like population growth, and technological developments are bound to influence average global temperature, as is variations in the sun. You simply can't filter all that out with a computer algorithm and then look for a residual trend!

Agreed.

Please, rather than quarrel endlessly about this, why not return to the more ψ-related topics.

Good advice. Maybe I'll just update on the coming solar minimum, or another thread. It will be what finally buries this dead horse in coming years. If I am right it will not be fun at all. It will be very ironic and some what justified for our own stupidity.
 
Last edited:
Good advice. Maybe I'll just update on the coming solar minimum, or another thread. It will be what finally buries this dead horse in coming years. If I am right it will not be fun at all. It will be very ironic and some what justified for our own stupidity
That advice was definitely not meant for you - every post you make on this topic seems crammed with new information.

I mean Skeptiko covers many areas, and I think a useful discussion about this subject should be informed by technical facts, not by the utterly crazy circus of nonsense that we are now exposed to.

David
 
That advice was definitely not meant for you - every post you make on this topic seems crammed with new information.

I mean Skeptiko covers many areas, and I think a useful discussion about this subject should be informed by technical facts, not by the utterly crazy circus of nonsense that we are now exposed to.

David

Thanks Dave,

I have a love hate relationship with science, it is a way to understand things through logic and method, or it is supposed to be. Yet it is also very broken at the same time for an entirely different reason that is not of logic.

My strength and my flaw is my obsessive behavior. I'll spend entire nights without sleep studying things most people don't give a crap about, I really don't know why. It is like I get possessed sometimes, I feel like I am being driven, synchronicity is peppered throughout my days. This subject is interesting but not a big deal to me. I don't understand why I do the things I do, like a dog with a bone I have trouble letting go. I am not done just yet. Things are getting interesting.
 
Last edited:
Just off topic here. But it's been a few years since I was active in any social media. Now all of a sudden my email is filling up with things relating to what I post about. Just one word and the next day something is there. It's really quite creepy. Big brother AI is watching. Probably no surprise for most, but I have been out of the game for so long that it is a bit of a mind bender to level it's at now.
 
Can you believe these wankers? Wow! These are the very same criminals behind all this.

U.N. Cries Poor [Again]: Issues Unprecedented $29 Billion Emergency Funding Appeal

The cash-strapped United Nations has issued an unprecedented global appeal for funds, claiming Wednesday it needs an immediate injection of $29 billion of global taxpayer money as “climate change” and global conflicts pressure existing budgets

Yet there are about a billion people living on less than a dollar per day for far longer than any so called climate emergency.

And it just so happens....

His plea for cash comes just two months after a series of cutbacks began at the U.N.’s New York headquarters, starting with the heating being turned down, the diplomats’ bar shuttering early at 5pm and meetings canceled along with diminished first class global travel budgets.

Headquarters, loving donated by the Rockefeller family

It would be funny if it weren't so blatantly offensive.

the globalist organization is currently running a deficit of $230 million at the same time it has invited 25,000 delegates to fly into a two-week conference on climate in Madrid, Spain.

Lowcock said the latest appeal for more money followed a continued rise in global conflicts that “are becoming more protracted and intense” which meant more money was needed by the U.N. if it was to play its part in global peace.

We all know international law is meaningless and powerless. Otherwise this would not be happening....

The U.N. is seeking more than $3 billion to address humanitarian crises in Yemen and Syria, the countries most in need,

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...cedented-29-billion-emergency-funding-appeal/

Common folks. Just wake up and smell the stinking roses. How can anyone trust these blood sucking freaks?
 
I have a love hate relationship with science, it is a way to understand things through logic and method, or it is supposed to be. Yet it is also very broken at the same time for an entirely different reason that is not of logic.
Join the club - I mean when I discuss science here, I try to do so honestly, using some of the insight one gets by just having spent some time doing science, and a lot more time around scientists (I know some folks would disagree!). Meanwhile I see organised science totally abusing the trust which people used to have in it, and it is painful to watch.

My strength and my flaw is my obsessive behavior. I'll spend entire nights without sleep studying things most people don't give a crap about, I really don't know why. It is like I get possessed sometimes, I feel like I am being driven, synchronicity is peppered throughout my days. This subject is interesting but not a big deal to me. I don't understand why I do the things I do, like a dog with a bone I have trouble letting go.
You are doing fine here, but always bear in mind your own health and well-being - that should come first. This thread, for example, has been around for years, so if you feel the need to ease off for a day or two, you can still pick it up later.

David
 
Last edited:
Just off topic here. But it's been a few years since I was active in any social media. Now all of a sudden my email is filling up with things relating to what I post about. Just one word and the next day something is there. It's really quite creepy. Big brother AI is watching. Probably no surprise for most, but I have been out of the game for so long that it is a bit of a mind bender to level it's at now.
Are these emails from people you know, or junk?

Obviously, your email is stored here - as is everyone's - and if you have any suspicions that this has leaked out somehow, I would like to know.

Feel free to send me a PM if you are concerned.

David
 
Are these emails from people you know, or junk?

Obviously, your email is stored here - as is everyone's - and if you have any suspicions that this has leaked out somehow, I would like to know.

Feel free to send me a PM if you are concerned.

David

No nothing suspicious, just some junk and the majority from a academia subscription I have. It didn't start until I began posting again. I don't use Facebook or twitter or any other social media, so I am just not exposed to it I guess. I know it happens with peoples phones and the like. I am possibly one of the few people left that only uses their phone as a phone. :) Nothing like a leak or anything.

Thanks for taking the time though.
 
I have been fascinated by your posts, LoneShaman. Have spent hours absorbing as much as I can (understand I am limited in experience and intelligence). But I haven't been overwhelmed... its more like, you have been confirming so much that I felt intuitively was true where I had come to see the big picture precisely as you are painting.

I almost simply sent a PM to thank you but I got some courage to post it here.

"I feel like I am being driven, synchronicity is peppered throughout my days."

Me too... and I am thankful I am retired right now as there would be no way I could be focus on the mundane (work) as I am literally consumed by this thing I can only describe as magical... impossible, yet happening and I am documenting as much of it as I can.

So, please, keep it up as long as your spiritual and all other areas of health are maintained...

...truly fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Thanks so much Sam!

The following is all my own conjecture, I am not saying this is it folks! I am just sharing these ideas so we can keep it in our back pocket, we will know soon enough.

The powers that should not be use fear as a weapon, this is how they have dragged nations into War. Even in our recent generations we have seen and realized this, attempts to use this are ongoing today. However they will not use it when threats are real and there is no benefit for them, a real threat that may cause instability to their power structure is a threat to them. It would not be talked about, it will be downplayed or even concealed. This is why I think the grand solar minimum is not in the mainstream media or it is downplayed. This is why the field of catastrophism was ended by CIA's agent Charles Hapgood with an easily debunked theory while Chan Thomas's Adam and Eve story was classified. That is another story.

Here's a list of Grand solar Minimums. There is not enough to make any solid conclusions, but we are due. It has either just begun or it will be the next solar cycle. There will be a general dip into a much colder Earth. Hopefully it will not be a drawn out super Grand Minimum.

Oort minimum - 1040 to 1080
Wolf minimum - 1280 to 1350
Sporer minimum - 1450 to 1550
Maunder Minimum - 1645 to 1715
Dalton Minimum - 1790 to 1820

Like I said you can't really make any solid conclusion from this small list. There have been other studies that look at a far longer time scale but of course it's gets more ambiguous with big discrepancies in accuracy. There are a multitude of overlapping cycles. But it does seem we are due. And the data and observations are confirming that. You can see that we are talking about a very rough 200 years between the approximated start dates

NASA projects this cycle to be the weakest in 200 years. Although they do not talk about the implications it will have for us.

On June 12, 2019 NASA announced:

Solar Activity Forecast for Next Decade Favorable for Exploration

“The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.”

A 30 to 50% lower than the last cycle, does indeed put us in the realm of a Dalton minimum type scenario. If it has begun we can expect it to last from a few to several cycles, meaning it will get even colder as it progresses. The biggest issue is that now with several billion people on the planet food shortages will be devastating. Some crops have already been affected, this may be like the canary in the coal mine. It was devastating to our ancestors in the past and they were much hardier and better equipped than we are.

I really hope it will not be so bad. I do not want to act as the AGW crowd does and be an alarmist on the flip side. But the media is not talking, so forewarning and preparation is the alternative to panic, there is nothing we can do to stem this, I see no way anyone can profit. Hence the silence.

If this is true, we can see how this fraud of AGW could in yet another way be extremely disastrous. It will be a big shock, the surprise far more abrupt because of AGW hysteria..

It is not a matter of "if" but when. It may have even already begun.

There have been several theories that propose a link between large solar cycles and the rise and fall of empires, very interesting. Maybe this will be an awakening of sorts, a big change, one not imposed by an elite but one by mother nature. We have to be observant! We should not be lead into a false belief that things are actually going the other direction as AGW theory (based on computer models) is screaming at us from all directions. Time we start thinking for ourselves. There could be more at stake than we realize.
 
I have to make an amendment.

When I say the media is not talking, that is not entirely true. Here in Australia there is a regular segment on Sky News Australia called "Outsiders Weather and Ice Ages Watch". This is at least one media outlet that most definitely does not tow the line of the popular narrative or even the stifling concepts of political correctness that are rampant.

A very sarcastic poke at climate alarmism.

 
This 9/10ths fallacy does not seem to stand up with the growing number of published papers saying otherwise. Is this something you have measured? No, you are assuming it to be true.

Even the survey paper discussed in a blog post that you linked to earlier in this thread found that as expertise increased (those climate scientists who had published the most in the field), so did agreement with the consensus view, such that nine out of ten climate scientists who have published more than ten[*] papers maintain that it is more likely than not that the majority of warming in recent years is attributable to human activity.

[*] I think I'm remembering that number correctly, but it's possible I've misremembered.

So, no, I am not "assuming" it to be true, and you still haven't offered a plausible means by which Maurice Strong achieved this consensus amongst climate scientists, other than the vague suggestion of "money".

I continue to think that this is an implausible mechanism, so I'll simply offer a suggestion (which has been my position all along in response to your claims) and then leave it at that for now, because I don't have the patience to respond to your other posts:

It is possible that simultaneously the climate science is legitimate as well as that unscrupulous powers are attempting to exaggerate its implications and use it to their own ends - as unscrupulous people tend to do. It is highly unlikely that the science was manufactured whole cloth - I just don't see how that could have been done out in the open amongst an international group of experts, and nothing that I have seen of that which you have written or shared has convinced me otherwise.

The task then becomes: how do we address and solve the problem that the science identifies, without playing into the hands of those who seek to provide disempowering "solutions"? And in conjunction with that question we might want to ask: to what extent and in which ways have the implications of the science been exaggerated, and by whom? And: exactly which of the proposed solutions are manipulations, and what are those behind them trying to achieve via those manipulations? Etc.

If you are willing to accept this scenario, and discuss meaningful answers to the questions I've posed, then that might be an interesting conversation to have, although not one that I feel well-qualified to participate in - otherwise, I'll leave you to continue your usual posting in this thread.
 
LoneShaman: one quick addition on the theme of James Hansen's predictions, since you responded to me on that. In this post you linked to a video which listed several predictions specific to a time and place that he (James Hansen) had made which the narrator claimed were proven false over time. I didn't fact-check any of the data in this video, but let's say it's true that at least some of James Hansen's predictions which were specific to a time and place were proven false. Fine, but that doesn't address his global predictions, in which he presented several scenarios in which global warming occurred. These, to my mind, are the most important predictions, and the article to which I linked found that these predictions were accurate. There are other sources on the web that come to this same conclusion. So, he might have gotten some more particular predictions wrong, but the main ones he got right, which is what should concern us most.
 
Why do you want to talk about Laird? Seriously why? You are firm in your convictions, so why? I don't really care what you believe. It is not my job to convince you. I think it is very hard to reconcile that the likes of Strong, the Rockefeller family and Rothschild family and a political global organisation such as the UN are indeed at the root of this movement. I think that is what your struggling with. Maybe it isn't, maybe you have reconciled this somehow. Good for you.

The fact is the scientists you claim as being in the consensus have been wrong. The models extremely lacking and predictions upon predictions a complete failure. There is rampant data manipulation and fraud from the outset. If your theory doesn't match observations it does not matter how many believe it. Global cooling was the consensus view in the 70's (even though CO2 was rising) It was wrong. For 30 years dietary science was considered consensus, it was wrong. Consensus is a weak argument.

Strong created a political body, all you have to do is funnel all views that fit your agenda into one and minimize dissent to that view. The hypothesis was put forth, and all the investigation was driven to support that view and nothing else. It is a simple as that. I made a post on how Strong structured the IPCC to do just that. Money does control science. It is far more difficult to get dissenting views published. So naturally you get a biased position that is self feeding, papers reference other papers that reference other papers etc..

You have to really cherry pick Hansen's predictions hard to justify the claim he is right. Please be specific and we can investigate. You can't ignore his many failed predictions and even how adjusted the global mean temperature after the fact to then claim he was on track. According to him the arctic ice should have melted by now, but it has thickened since then. Greenland glaciers have gained Ice. Manhattan should be underwater by now according to him. These are all globally related, they were all wrong.

This is ridiculous Laird. I have to ask again, why? I don't care what you believe, global warming? Sure, OK. Whatever. Move along. Or just provide some actual evidence to support your view and I will engage and we can investigate to see if it is actually true. Then we could have some meaningful exchange instead of this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Here is the thing. This is a central underlying thing that science has forgotten. It is not about proof. Al these IPCC scientist are out to prove but none are about to falsify. A thousand proofs can be undone by a single falsification. Proofs can stand for many decades and even longer but that single black swan immediate dispatches the proof that all swans are white even if that theory was the standard for hundreds of years. All science is tentative and provisional. So how do you falsify it? They cannot even prove it! No, just shut up and pay your taxes or you are all going to die!


Observational uncertainty, errors, biases, and estimation discrepancies in longwave radiation may be 100 times larger than the entire accumulated influence of CO2 increases over 10 years. This effectively rules out clear detection of a potential human influence on climate.

Kim and Lee, 2019 Measurement errors of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) reach 11 W/m², more than 50 times larger than total CO2 forcing over 10 years. Cloud optical thickness (COT) and water vapor have “the greatest effect” on OLR – an influence of 2.7 W/m². CO2 must rise to 800 ppm to impute an influence of 1 W/m².

Kato et al., 2018 Downward longwave radiation (DLR) responds to variability in water vapor and cloud. (CO2 isn’t mentioned in the paper as a factor influencing DLR.) CO2 rose by 20 ppm during 2005-2014, but total DLR was negative (-0.2 W/m²) during this decade, insinuating rising CO2 had no net warming climate impact. Uncertainty in DLR is 6 W/m² per year, whereas CO2 forcing is just 0.02 W/m² per year300 times smaller.

Wild et al., 2019 Observations vs. model bias/discrepancy ranges in downward longwave radiation span between 22 W/m² to 26 W/m², which is 120 times larger than CO2’s total influence over 10 years.

Stephens et al., 2019 Gross assumptions” must be made about cloud physics due to a lack of observations. Sources of error in models yield an uncertainty of ~80%. Models of cloud processes are 3-5 times discrepant from observations.

Frank, 2019An AGW signal … will never emerge from climate noise.” Cloud forcing “error is ±114 times larger than the annual average increase in GHG [greenhouse gas] forcing.” “A temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot … be evidenced in climate observables.”

Munich Climate Conference 2019


“Not Worthy Of Any Consensus” …4 Renowned Scientists Expose Major IPCC Shortcomings: “Models Clearly Erroneous”
1. Alps glaciers smaller than today during much of the Holocene

Prof. em. Christian Schlüchter is a leading Swiss geologist. His findings show that for long periods of time in the last 12,000 years, temperatures were higher than in 2005. Early on, from 10,000 to 8,800 BC, and again in the last few hundred years, temperatures were significantly lower.

The key message is that the alpine glacier extent was often smaller than in 2005. The timberline was at least 300 meters higher, which indicates a minimum of 1.8° C higher temperatures than today. An example of this is Hannibal, who managed to cross the Alps with elephants during the Roman times.

2. IPCC models have substantial shortcomings

Italian physicist and climate modeler Nicola Scafetta, a well-known critic of IPCC climate models. Scafetta discussed several areas where the climate models constantly fail. A key case is the Medieval Warm Period, which he showed together with the Roman Warm Period and the Modern Warm Period:

According to Scafetta, the models the IPCC uses are not capable of reproducing climate variations, which follow periodic solar activity.

scafettamediavalwarmperiod.jpg

scafettafazit-1.jpg

3. Nir Shaviv: CO2 climate sensitivity largely overestimated

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv continued where Scafetta left off, presenting the IPCC world and its errors. Shaviv emphasized that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is unknown and largely overestimated by the IPCC:

The Israeli astrophysicist judged the IPCC leaving out the sun as a driver “a severe shortcoming”, saying that the IPCC overestimates climate sensitivity of CO2 at the expense of solar influences.

While IPCC modelers managed to hide this for 20th century data, it will lead to a serious overestimate of temperatures in the 21st when solar influences will be cooling, according to the the Israeli scientist. Shaviv therefore expects a much lower temperature rise than that predicted by the IPCC.

shavivfazit.jpg

4. Sun, clouds have huge impact on climate, IPCC ignores

Danish physicist and climate researcher Henrik Svensmark talked how he found it more and more difficult to raise funding for his research because the results contradict the IPCC.

Svensmark investigated the mechanism of how cosmic rays impact the creation of climate-crucial clouds. This happens through creation of ions which serve as clouding seeds in the atmosphere:

By experiments and by correlation measurements, Svensmark investigated the mechanism of cloud creation by cosmic rays. IPCC researchers already cite a reduction of cloud creation as a possible positive feedback mechanism, which could escalate global warming to catastrophic levels, and so Svensmark’s research needs to be addressed seriously.

The importance of cloud creation as a cooling climate factor is regarded as undisputed.

https://hintermbusch.wordpress.com/2019/12/01/climate-conference-munich-2019/

Intimidation, Relocation, Police protection
When this conference was scheduled in its usual location, a Munich hotel, a media campaign smeared it as anti-scientific, right-wing and even for ‚killing people‘ by denying climate change. The most prominent newspaper pushing that campaign was the Berlin based newspaper Tagesspiegel, which published several articles smearing the conference. Shortly before its start, the Munich based Umweltinstitut published an open letter calling the hotel to cancel the conference which it did after a group of activists entered its lobby and smeared the conference and upset guests. The hotel management declared that

„Denying climate change is not compatible with NH group values“

The conference, however, took place in a different location and under police protection, but in an orderly way and without any serious troubles.
 
Last edited:
Why do you want to talk about Laird?

Just trying to offer a sane perspective which could anchor a meaningful discussion, but if you want to stick with "It's all a giant hoax to enslave us all" then there's nothing I can do to stop you. By the way, are you still of the opinion that the moon landing was a hoax?

Also, I just want to point out for other readers before leaving you to continue your stream of posting that the Skeptical Science website is a great resource for countering myths of the type that you often recur to. For example, on your recent claim that we can't trust consensus because in the 70s the consensus was the opposite, they have a nice little breakdown of the facts around this myth. Any time anybody is curious about any such claims in this thread, I recommend checking with that site to see whether the claim is covered.

Returning you now to your scheduled programming...
 
Here is the thing. This is a central underlying thing that science has forgotten. It is not about proof. Al these IPCC scientist are out to prove but none are about to falsify. A thousand proofs can be undone by a single falsification. Proofs can stand for many decades and even longer but that single black swan immediate dispatches the proof that all swans are white even if that theory was the standard for hundreds of years. All science is tentative and provisional. So how do you falsify it? They cannot even prove it! No, just shut up and pay your taxes or you are all going to die!


Observational uncertainty, errors, biases, and estimation discrepancies in longwave radiation may be 100 times larger than the entire accumulated influence of CO2 increases over 10 years. This effectively rules out clear detection of a potential human influence on climate.

Kim and Lee, 2019 Measurement errors of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) reach 11 W/m², more than 50 times larger than total CO2 forcing over 10 years. Cloud optical thickness (COT) and water vapor have “the greatest effect” on OLR – an influence of 2.7 W/m². CO2 must rise to 800 ppm to impute an influence of 1 W/m².

Kato et al., 2018 Downward longwave radiation (DLR) responds to variability in water vapor and cloud. (CO2 isn’t mentioned in the paper as a factor influencing DLR.) CO2 rose by 20 ppm during 2005-2014, but total DLR was negative (-0.2 W/m²) during this decade, insinuating rising CO2 had no net warming climate impact. Uncertainty in DLR is 6 W/m² per year, whereas CO2 forcing is just 0.02 W/m² per year300 times smaller.

Wild et al., 2019 Observations vs. model bias/discrepancy ranges in downward longwave radiation span between 22 W/m² to 26 W/m², which is 120 times larger than CO2’s total influence over 10 years.

Stephens et al., 2019 Gross assumptions” must be made about cloud physics due to a lack of observations. Sources of error in models yield an uncertainty of ~80%. Models of cloud processes are 3-5 times discrepant from observations.

Frank, 2019An AGW signal … will never emerge from climate noise.” Cloud forcing “error is ±114 times larger than the annual average increase in GHG [greenhouse gas] forcing.” “A temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot … be evidenced in climate observables.”

Over the years I have developed a preference for deductive study and inference, as preferable over inductive or affirming study. Even though I am a climate change proponent, there are some issues which bother me greatly and I feel we just ignore them in favor of linear affirmation study by 2 year out of school PhD's. What you cite here LoneShaman are deductive studies. Thanks. They are white crow studies (as you contend), or at least studies which stand to countermand the lazy form of consensus which our social overlords foist on us in the name of science.

I run the carbon ppm, temperature and sea level graphs each year from the NOAA data, and have for years. So I am convinced that the planet is warming, the oceans are rising, and that the levels of carbon and methane in the atmosphere are increasing. The question is 'What is the majority contributor to this set of changes?' I still think that the answer to this question is highly in doubt. And it is the science which is showing us this.

I am still not comfortable with the assumption, that man is the 90+% contributor to this issue. Below is another graph I run each year and update, but in various forms and from various data sources, so as to not have any particular bias imbue the results. This year I have used the sources below. This is the fifth different way I have examined this data and the answer always comes out the same:

- Deep oceans are heating faster than surface ocean​
- Deep oceans are heating faster than mid-level ocean​
- Ocean surface is heating faster than mid-level ocean​
- Heat temperature deltas in deep oceans precede mirror image temp delta changes in surface oceans by 3 years.​

This implies conveyance and a heat source which is near the deep ocean and not the surface. The surface is heated by deep ocean conveyance currents being warmer than they used to be (not cooling surface areas and the atmosphere as well as they once did). There are two ways to heat a system in equilibrium - 1. Add kinetic energy, and 2. Remove its kinetic energy sump. I am concerned that we are not examining option #2.

This concerns me a great deal
1. Because it is happening.
2. Because we are ignoring it.

Deep Oceans are Heating Faster.png
 
Last edited:
Also, I just want to point out for other readers before leaving you to continue your stream of posting that the Skeptical Science website is a great resource for countering myths of the type that you often recur to.

Thanks Laird, that is an OK resource. The primary author rebuts 197 alternative research pathways (most of which are misframed and overlapping logically with other 'contentions'), as all being invalid. See here The 197 Things. However, this also constitutes a pseudo-scientific process called panduction. There is no possible way that all 197 of these ideas are either comprehensively nor individually completely incorrect. Only the dogmatic believe that verity works in this manner.

The primary author also does not actually understand over half of the arguments he or she pretends to debunk/dismiss - he or she is in way over their head both on the topic and in terms of understanding how science, skepticism and inference work - and what their opponents are actually even saying. He/she simply counters each entire categorical subject with a one-liner. That really lights off my alarms of concern...

For instance - debunking #70 'It's the ocean' - they contend "The oceans are warming and moreover are becoming more acidic, threatening the food chain." It begins with an ambiguous straw man of what is being contended by NOAA scientists who study this, and then throws a non-sequitur, canned one liner at the idea - which they do not even understand. It just sounds good and fills a very important issue slot by means of a wave of the hand of ineptitude.

I felt better about climate change arguments BEFORE I read that site years ago.

Finally - where are the proposed solutions? If they are so clued in to science, smart and concerned about this issue - over half the site should be dedicated to detailed solutions and the implementation strategy for each - where is the mention of even one single real world solution.??????? Where are these people at the Agricultural conferences on carbon binding and manure-gas injection? Where are these people at the Zero Landfill Waste Handling and Energy from Waste conferences????? Where are these people at the Conferences on capture-blending and anti-flare activism regarding methane and alkanes for the Oil & Gas industry??????

ohhhh... here is where they were - in the latest 2019 'update' and Editor's Pick: "gluing themselves to the gates of London’s Buckingham Palace and interrupting a summit at the Colorado Governor’s Mansion." Hmmmm, I have seen this farce before, and it did not turn out so well.

These people ARE the problem. They make the job of those of us developing solutions - much harder.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top