Climate Change

Global Warming Heat Not “Hiding” in the Deep Ocean After All

|

Argo Floats
NOAA

One of the leading explanations for why the postulated rise in global average temperatures due to man-made warming has "paused" for nearly 18 years now is that the "missing heat" is hiding in the deep ocean. Two new papers in Nature Climate Change look at how much heat the oceans are supposed to have absorbed since the 1970s. The press release from the Jet Propulsion Lab whose researchers did much of the analysis notes:

The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

Basically, satellite measurements between 2005 and 2013 find that sea level has been increasing at rate of 2.78 millimeters per year. Some 0.9 millimeters results from expansion due to warming and 2.0 millimeters is due to additions of freshwater, e.g., melting glaciers. Since 2.9 millimeters is greater than the measured increase of 2.78 millimeters, the researchers concluded that the deep ocean is likely cooling down and thus contracting. 

By the way, at this rate of increase sea level would rise by about 11 inches over the next century—basically the amount of sea level rise experienced in the 20th century.* 

In any case, why do these findings not "throw suspicion" on man-made climate change? In a companion paper researchers cite recent data from the network of autonomous Argo floats that measure temperatures in the upper ocean. Combining those data with climate model simulations suggest that upper 700 meters of the oceans have absorbed a great deal of the extra heat resulting from anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The JPL press release continues: 

Landerer also is a coauthor of another paper in the same Nature Climate Change journal issue on ocean warming in the Southern Hemisphere from 1970 to 2005. Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best. Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought—a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates. 

It's always interesting when models find discrepancies in observational data. 

For more background, see my post, "Do Researchers Really Know Why Global Warming Is On Pause and When It Will End?"

*Addendum: One prominent estimate is that average sea level rose by 225 millimeters between 1880 and 2012, which amounts to an increase of almost 9 inches. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

131 responses to “Global Warming Heat Not “Hiding” in the Deep Ocean After All

  1. In any case, why do these findings not “throw suspicion” on man-made climate change?

    Because those grant dollars don’t grow on suspicion trees.

    1. My mindfield is heavily planted in suspicion trees, along with skepticoniferous evergreens and cynicannual wildflowers.

      1. +1 for taking your time to be deliciously witty.

  2. In any case, why do these findings not “throw suspicion” on man-made climate change?

    Because nothing does, it’s a combination of pseudoscience and religious cult.

    1. May as well argue that God doesn’t exist to a hardcore fundy.

      1. A permanent feature of the climate denial scene is the Dominionists, who think Noah’s flood evidence that God, not man , is in charge of the weather and that since we have dominion over fish and fowl we can darn well do as we please to the atmosphere.

    2. It’s funny, because they make the same pseudoscience claim against us. Science deniers!

      They almost sound like Occupy Wall Street. “We are the 97%!” “This is what Climatology looks like!”

  3. The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

    I don’t think it leaves it unsolved at all.

    1. “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.”
      “That’s specious reasoning, Dad.”
      “Thank you, dear.”
      “By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.”
      “Oh, how does it work?”
      “It doesn’t work.”
      “Uh-huh.”
      “It’s just a stupid rock.”
      “Uh-huh.”
      “But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”
      “…Lisa, I want to buy your rock.”

  4. “…these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself”

    Of course not, he wouldn’t’a got published. His other paper burnishes his credentials, but it’s “simulations” (yay! more models!) not hard data. Real scientists have to rely on subterfuge to present heterodox data.

  5. The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

    The deep oceans are racist!

    1. You know who lives in the deep ocean?

      Deniers!

      …and Hitler.

      1. You’re not supposed to answer your own question, at least not in the original post.

        The Deep Ones?

      2. And Osama bin Laden…

      3. And your mother!

  6. The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005

    Very well. The heat is hiding in the *Earth’s core*, then.

    1. We should send some of these scientists down there to check! Journey to the center of the earth anyone? Find the missing dinos!

  7. I guess the deep waters did not get the memo that the SCIENCE WAS SETTLED!

  8. Wasn’t this Tony’s favorite rationalization for the pause? He’s not going to be happy.

    1. Uhh, it’s been everybody’s favourite rationalization for the pause failed predicted warming.

    2. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about and Ron Bailey is baiting you morons with this crap and he damn well knows it even as he explains perfectly clearly why your thesis is still complete ignorant bullshit.

      1. Very scientific.

        1. What is the point? Nobody here is reading what Ron Bailey wrote or the source material. They are just repeating the same bullshit conspiracy theories as if this information does anything whatsoever to confirm them. Which it doesn’t, if any of you could read.

          1. Cogent argument, well thought-out.

          2. Scientificier still.

          3. Oh, Tony, thy name is projection!

          4. Re: Tony,

            Nobody here is reading what Ron Bailey wrote or the source material.

            Check out the mind-reading capability of this guy right here! Wow!

            They are just repeating the same bullshit conspiracy theories as if this information does anything whatsoever to confirm them.

            It’s not like “I’m not fazed by the conflicting data at all(*)” means something, right?

            (*)Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

          5. Alrightee Tony! Backin the game. You had been wearing thin, but I see you have shaken off the doldrums and back up to sniff.

        2. He is angry because a pillar of his faith has fallen.

          1. I imagine it’s something like the astronomer __ was going through in these pages of Tintin and the Shooting Star.

            Page 10

            Page 11

            The idiot! He made a mistake in the calculations! The meteor passed 30,000 miles from the earth instead of colliding with it and causing the magnificent cataclysm I’d hoped for.”

            1. Tell me young man, do you like bull’s-eyes?

              Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?

      2. Sounds like a parody of Tony, except with even less substance, if that’s possible.

  9. Well no wonder it’s not capturing the hidden heat. It’s measuring deep-water temperatures during the night and transmitting them on the surface by day.

    /powerpointslideliteralist

  10. “Hooray! We’re not going to die! This is fantastic news! … Why are you glaring at me like that and calling me names?”

    1. “Consider the full meaning of this attitude. Values are that which one acts to gain and/or keep. Values are a necessity of man’s survival, and wider: of any living organism’s survival. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action, and the successful pursuit of values is a precondition of remaining alive. Since nature does not provide man with an automatic knowledge of the code of values he requires, there are differences in the codes which men accept and the goals they pursue. But consider the abstraction “value,” apart from the particular content of any given code, and ask yourself: What is the nature of a creature in which the sight of a value arouses hatred and the desire to destroy? In the most profound sense of the term, such a creature is a killer, not a physical, but a metaphysical one?it is not an enemy of your values, but of all values, it is an enemy of anything that enables men to survive, it is an enemy of life as such and of everything living.”

  11. I had an interesting argument with a warmist the other day, wherein he was arguing that the rising seas were going to swallow up most of Louisiana and Alabama’s coastlines, not to mention Florida, Manhattan, etc.

    Without arguing whether or not this was true, I asked him if he was aware of any other cities that had once been thriving seaports but were now underwater, and whether or not this was a natural phenomenon. I brought up examples such as the ruins discovered after the Tsunami in Mahabalipuram, or the discoveries around Heracleion, all cities that were once above water but the seas have now claimed, having nothing to do with AGW.

    He was not aware of this, but said it didn’t matter because that was then this is now.

    Thus endeth the conversation.

    1. having nothing to do with AGW

      Are you kidding? Those people used oil lamps, didn’t they?

      1. Dogger Land, never forget.

    2. I once stood at the spot where the “royal port” of Ur once was…. in a freaking desert, a loooong way from the current coastline. TEH GLOBAL COOLINGZ got Ur?

      1. Well, the Royal Port of Jamaica got swallowed by the sea. Poor Port Royale, wiped away by the wrath of (insertchosenforcehere)

      2. +1 traveler from an antique land

    3. Plus the fact that Lousiana, Alabama, Florida coast lines are built on sand and mud which naturaly compact over time. You build on it and your building will sink, add in pumping ground water and it will sink faster

      Manhatten is mostly rock so its not sinking but lots of coast line in the area are also sand and mud.

    4. See, you are mixing your disciplines. You are talking archaeology and he is talking the climate science. The two are unrelated.

      /derrrrp

  12. You know what else is in a “pause”? My getting super-rich.

    1. Your super-riches are hiding in the ocean.

    2. Hide the decline.

      1. Here is a trick, with a hockey stick!

  13. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

    They always make sure to say that, don’t they?

    1. Next year’s grant application is in the pipeline.

    2. Yes.

    3. Its just easier than having to give out blowjobs to get back on the cocktail party circuit.

    4. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

      It is also possible that Willis and others very much realize that this is a game-changer, yet don’t want to lose their credibility with the warmists. Those people are fanatics and It’s good to have people within that camp who can affect a course change, however slow.

      See, also, the rat-hole problem as laid out by Lord Monckton.

      1. “Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.”

        Climate change goes on, but AGW falls.

  14. “Thus endeth the conversation.”

    Don’t you mean ‘thus PAUSETH the conversation?’

    1. No. The conversation has simply gone into the deep ocean. (Where it belongs.)

    2. I’m totally using that!

      “I’m gonna put this conversation on pause.” and then walk away.

  15. Combining those data with climate model simulations suggest that upper 700 meters of the oceans have absorbed a great deal of the extra heat resulting from anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    Because when you combine any data with “climate model simulations” you get warming change. The only thing actually “suggested” is the mendacious nature of these supposed “scientists”.

    “When I throw in some numbers pulled out of my ass, the data supports my preconceived notions!”

  16. Combining those data with climate model simulations suggest that upper 700 meters of the oceans have absorbed a great deal of the extra heat resulting from anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

    If this is true, then how did we ever have warming periods in the past? It is not like the heat created by AGW is special heat. If the oceans are this efficient at absorbing heat, then it would seem we should have much fewer and less intense warming periods than we have had.

    The assertion that the ocean absorbed the heat assumes the heat existed to begin with, which of course is the entire question. All we have is the measurements of surface temperatures and the measurement ocean temperatures. Surface temps didn’t go up but ocean temps did. Nothing about those two observations says that the ocean temps went up because it absorbed heat from the surface or even if it did that surface heat was the result of AGW. All of that is just assumed. That of course is a pretty big assumption and an assumption that begs the entire question of AGW. You could just as easily postulate that the deep water cooling was the result of surface water absorbing heat from below. They only assume the heat came from the surface because their theory requires them to believe that.

    ridiculous.

    1. Lastly, no one that I have seen has ever explained how the proposed relationship between surface heat and surface ocean temperature actually is supposed to work or given an example of it working in the past. It sounds nice to say that warmer surface temperatures cause warmer shallow ocean temps but there is nothing to say that has to be true to the degree necessary to save the models.

      Every single day the entire field manages to get just that much more ridiculous.

      1. Actually, there is a proposed mechanism that does make sense:

        1) Increased tropical temps drive stronger winds.

        2) These winds tend to push surface water northward more vigorously

        3) The faster circulation of water means that water is conveyed down into the deep with less time to lose the tropical heat that it is carrying

        4) And the water that is pushed northward is replaced by colder water upwelling from the deep, increasing the speed of deepwater currents that ultimately pull northern surface water downward.

        Thus you get the ‘missing’ heat conveyed into the deep.

        Of course, the heat capacity of the oceans is so much higher than that of the air that if this hypothesis is correct, the heat transported by the oceans is the primary driver of the Earth’s climate, and the focus on a CO2 thermostat is entirely misguided.

        1. That is one possible mechanism sure. Where is the evidence that is actually what occurred? Do we know that tropical winds have been abnormally stronger in the last 30 years? Do we know there have been more northerly currents as a result?

          3) The faster circulation of water means that water is conveyed down into the deep with less time to lose the tropical heat that it is carrying

          That seems to be consistent with deep warming not the surface warming. The data shows that the deep water is cooling and the surface water is warming. That step in the proposed mechanism seems to me to preclude surface warming. How could the water being conveyed into the deep quicker cause surface water to be warmer?

          And the water that is pushed northward is replaced by colder water upwelling from the deep, increasing the speed of deepwater currents that ultimately pull northern surface water downward.

          Wouldn’t that produce colder surface temps instead of the warmer ones observed?

          1. Wouldn’t that produce colder surface temps instead of the warmer ones observed?

            Depends. It’s just like the differential equation about the pool with the leak. If you fill the pool faster than it leaks out, the pool will be full. If you fill it slower, the pool will empty out.

            Same with heat. From their assumption of runaway surface warming, it would be possible that the surface waters would be warm and the deep waters would be getting warmer. However, at some point the pool is either full or empty. Either we would see massive surface warming, or massive deep water warming. Being that we see neither speaks to the validity of their premises.

            1. More importantly, I don’t see any way that we would be seeing cooler deep water. And cooler deep water is exactly what we are seeing.

              Where did the heat from the deep water go?

            2. Same with heat. From their assumption of runaway surface warming, it would be possible that the surface waters would be warm and the deep waters would be getting warmer.

              Mostly true. If surface air temperatures were increasing I would expect to see both an increased amount of energy radiating into space and increased energy into the surface water. But its really much simpler than all this.

              If surface water were storing excess energy you would expect lakes and rivers, which have significantly less water to distribute the energy across to increase in temperature at a more rapid pace. If the surface temperature in every reservoir in the temperate zones hasn’t shown a net increase, this is not the answer to the problem.

              1. That is a great point Brett. If the surface air has so much extra heat it can warm the surface waters of the deep ocean, it should have damn near boiled lakes and rivers. And maybe it did. I am, however, unaware of any observations confirming this or if they have even bothered to look.

            3. We wouldn’t be seeing massive warming of the oceans though; using a back of the envelope calculation and the constants on this page, one gets a total heat capacity of the Earth’s oceans of 5.9 E24 Joules per Kelvin. For the air in the troposphere it’s 4.1 E21 Joules per Kelvin

              The same amount of heat that would heat the lower atmosphere by a degree would only heat the oceans by a one thousandths of a degree. Thus, if CO2 induced warming entirely ended up being conveyed into the ocean by some Maxwell’s daemon, it would be undetectable with the current temperature monitoring.

              1. So tarran, AGW if it did exist could only account for a small percentage of the surface warming. That is a pretty big indictment of the theory.

                1. My anger at the CAGW cult is prompted by the massive destruction its adherents have wrought in numerous fields of human endeavor.

                  The Earth’s climate is important, and throughout most of human history, our species has been completely at the mercy of it. By seizing control of so many scientific institutions, and by diverting those institutions’ efforts into proving their superstitious hypothesis correct, they have diverted people and resources from the investigations that would actually have improved mankind’s knowledge of how the various climactic systems behave. Sadly this is among the least of their crimes. Nonetheless, it alone is sufficient to indict the entire movement.

    2. Re: John,

      It is not like the heat created by AGW is special heat.

      It’s public policy-making heat.

      1. In other words, blowing smoke?

  17. No

    fuckin

    way,

    Dude!

  18. Could the missing heat be hiding in the vacuum of space? Or maybe in lava?

    1. The Koch brothers have it locked away in a secret vault!

  19. For almost a century, my grandmother was alive. Every year, like clockwork, her age increased. Then, one sad day, her age stopped increasing. Scientists wondered where the extra age was going. They looked everywhere but could not find an explanation for her apparent “age pause” that was supported by evidence. Of course, pure adamantine logic dictates that, since we do not know for certain that her age will not someday resume its erstwhile pattern of annual increases, it must be called a “pause,” not a cessation.

    I pray for (but do not really expect) her resurrection, and I believe that, someday, average global temperatures will increase, just as global temperatures have increased in the past on numerous occasions. I am a bit confused why intelligent folks blithely accept the “pause” nomenclature. What’s not a pause?

    1. Her life was just absorbed into the void. It will return!!

  20. So, Ron, is the claim now that the heat is captured in the upper-level water and we didn’t have a way of establishing a base line in the past?
    Is that a summary of the new assertion?

    1. It is even better than that.

      Before Argo floats were deployed, temperature measurements in the Southern Ocean were spotty, at best.

      Yes, we don’t have accurate measurements of past surface ocean temperatures. Since we don’t know what they were, it would seem to be difficult to claim they have increased. Without a baseline, how do we know they have changed and if so how much? Not to worry.

      Using satellite measurements and climate simulations of sea level changes around the world, the new study found the global ocean absorbed far more heat in those 35 years than previously thought — a whopping 24 to 58 percent more than early estimates.

      So they took the accurate measurements they had and THEIR OWN MODELS THAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TRYING TO VERIFY and concluded that the surface waters of the ocean had warmed and thus absorbed this lost heat.

      You just have to laugh. And you really have to laugh at Ron. He apparently the Ron Burgundy of popular science reporting. If a climate scientist puts in on the teleprompter, he will read it.

    2. There are 50-something assertions now.

      1. And only 1 of them has been disproved. So by the logic of the 97%ers, the warming is still out there…hiding in the shadows….waiting to pounce.

    3. You might be on to something there!

      Somebody get this man a grant, stat!

  21. The deep ocean heat is absorbed by the hole in the bottom of the ocean where monstrous creatures known as Kaiju arrive.

    Global warming heat attracts the Kaiju

    If given a government research grant I will study the problem and also build giant robots to fight the Kaiju as long as I get Pay Per View rights to the fights.

    1. The Elder Gods ate the Kaiju.

      Delish!

    2. If given a government research grant I will study the problem and also build giant robots to fight the Kaiju as long as I get Pay Per View rights to the fights.

      You can make a killing selling the bone powder on the black market.

    3. I paid a lot of money to protect myself from Manbearpig. Do you promise you’re telling the truth this time?

      1. Well, Manbearpig didn’t get you, now did he?

        Money well spent!

        1. This rock repels tigers.

  22. How do they know the heat content of the deep oceans in the 1970s? They don’t.

    1. They know the estimates are low!

    2. They used their models to guess them and the temps of the surface waters from then.

      The problem is that they are making two separate assumptions. It would be one thing if we knew the past ocean temperatures and the model then produced the current temperatures. That would be compelling though not complete proof that the model is valid. We don’t know for sure what the past temperatures were. So what they did was took the known temperatures, fed them into their model and worked backwards to guess at the past temperatures.

      That doesn’t tell us anything because it assumes that both the model and the past temperatures the model produces are correct. It is like some kind of ideal example of confirmation bias someone invented for a textbook on the subject.

    3. Through “climate simulations of sea level changes.” It’s just technical enough for Ben Affleck or George Clooney to use in a U.S. Senate campaign.

  23. Your lunchtime derp: I found a video of Robin West, the nazgul from the homeschool article posted in the AM links.

    What a ghastly person.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yW06DYPw33Q

  24. It’s always interesting when models find discrepancies in observational data.

    Isn’t that backwards? You form a hypothesis and observe / test. If the observations don’t fit your hypothesis, the model (not the observations) goes in the trash.

    1. Mostly yes. It is possible that the model is right and your observations are wrong. That is however the exception not the rule. Moreover, it is only the exception when the model has been proven through other good observations.

      Here, the model never seems to be proven via observation. Whenever the observations don’t fit, they are just tortured to save the model.

    2. If the observations don’t fit your hypothesis, the model (not the observations) goes in the trash.

      This assumes they aren’t both garbage.

      I have a model of perpetual motion machines that I’ll probably never discard, regardless of how much data is collected.

    3. Imagine if we treated the sick this way.

      DOCTOR: You don’t have cancer, and I’ll prove it by doing a biopsy.

      (later)

      DOCTOR: The biopsy was positive, so I’m going to do another one. Please cooperate this time.

      Thank goodness it’s actually the opposite, with a perfectly healthy planet being poked and prodded to no effect whatsoever.

    4. It depends. Does the model indicate that two different sets of observations show things that should not be able to happen happening?

  25. ” the “missing heat” is hiding in the deep ocean. “

    ALONG WITH THE KAIJU

    YOUR SCIENCES ARE JUST NOT ADVANCED ENOUGH YET

  26. This is far more dangerous than ISIS + ebola. There is heat missing out there! Doesn’t anyone care?? The heat could be locked in some crazy person’s trunk and you’re all standing around doing nothing.. what the fuck is wrong with you people??

  27. The idea that heat can “hide” is a stupid idea from the get-go. If the extra heat existed, it should have caused the temperature of something else to go up by a measurable amount. If the deep oceans are just as cold as ever, then there was no extra heat.

  28. “It’s always interesting when models find discrepancies in observational data.” Do I detect tongue-in-cheek?

    Measured average global temperature trend since 2001 has been flat (average of the 5 reporting agencies) and is 0.3 K less than average of global climate model predictions. That 0.3 K that didn’t happen is 40% of the total rise in the 20th century. Meanwhile, since 2001, the CO2 level has increased by 30% of the total increase 1800-2001. Do you suppose this is another case of models finding discrepancies in observational data?

    Search “AGWunveiled” for a physics-based equation, with only two drivers (both natural) as independent variables, explains measured average global temperatures since before 1900 with 95% correlation, calculates credible values back to 1610, and predicts through 2037. The current trend is down.

    The analysis provides the drivers, method, equation, data sources, history (hind cast to 1610), predictions (to 2037) and an explanation of why CO2 is NOT a driver.

    1. Considering the ways in which the IPCC cheated to show higher temperatures (e.g. placing thermometers near hot asphalt), I’d take the flat numbers as evidence that the globe is cooling.

    2. e: Yes. Obviously my feeble attempts at sarcasm fail some readers. Thank you.

    3. AGWunveiled is Dan Pangburn’s work. I’ve linked to it many times on these boards. I don’t think he has published it formally yet.

  29. I am now convinced Greenpeace is just a giant practical joke. NSFW:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1We4WW3fvfQ

    1. Basically, a whole bunch of white people posed naked on a Swiss glacier to “raise awareness”.

      They described this event as “courageous and spectacular”.

      1. They should do this near Polar Bear hunting grounds… you know, to raise awareness about the plight of the polar bear.

        1. “These hairless seals taste like tofu.”

          1. I’ll provide the address where you can send my new keyboard.

            Warn a person, would you?

  30. The headlines at Reason are always good for a laugh. That’s right, global warming is not hiding in the DEEP ocean. No, but it is hiding in the ocean.

    “…that upper 700 meters of the oceans have absorbed a great deal of the extra heat resulting from anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”

    1. you left out the “according to the models” qualifier. the same models that don’t match observable data.

      1. That is correct…they use models…as does a large proportion of all science disciplines. Yes indeed.

        1. Scientists routinely use unvalidated ones whose predictions consistently fail to match empirical observations?

          Really?!?

          That’s your argument: an ilii quoque that is utterly wrong?!?

          1. Jack’s a lefty thug and proud to defend any and all lefty lies.

          2. Ah, I see…they are invalidated because Tarran and Reason say they are. Keep trying.

        2. I was not using those models! They were using me!

    2. Impressive use of ellipses.

    3. Oh. You should let NASA know. They seem to think it’s still a mystery where it went.

  31. “missing heat” is hiding in the deep ocean.

    According to this “theory” I can drink my hot tea with ice and the ice won’t melt.
    Also let’s not forget the new climate change “theory” that hot weather causes cold weather, so next time you need ice for a party just stick your ice trays into the stove and turn up the heat. You’ll Have ice in no time.

    1. Heat wave? AGW.

      Cold snap? AGW.

      Drought? AGW.

      Flood? AGW.

      Active hurricane season? AGW.

      Dormant hurricane season? AGW.

      Whatever the question is, AGW is the answer.

    2. According to this “theory” I can drink my hot tea with ice and the ice won’t melt.

      Actually, this might explain the ‘lost heat’. There is a device called a zeer pot or pot-in-pot refrigerator. You can remove heat from a mass through increased evaporation. If you suddenly increased the evaporation on the surface of the oceans and in nearby lands, you would/could effectively generate a cooler deep ocean while warming the surface.

      Now all I have to do is crunch the numbers, throw out the ones I don’t like, make a powerpoint presentation, and collect my Ph.D.

  32. What would disprove AGW?

    1. Literally nothing. If we were to start entering a new ice age in the next 30 years, it still wouldn’t disprove AGW. They’d just say we would have entered it 50 years earlier without AGW.

  33. Awaits evasion….expect question to be ‘answered’ with question…

  34. Did they check under the couch cushions? How about that drawer in the kitchen where everybody throws their miscellaneous crap? It COULD actually be in the car, come to think of it.

  35. Climate “science” is more voodoo than it is science. It take the form of science in just the same way that the “social sciences” do, but is ultimately a charade.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.