Warmist admits original global warming theory kaput: Surface temp change out, ‘overall heat accumulation’ in

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…

Climate Progress reports:

he key take-home point is that we now have better measurements of ocean and global heat accumulation. We no longer have to settle for focusing on the 2% of global warming represented by surface air temperatures. Consider the analogy offered by Greg Laden, that the planet is a dog and surface temperatures are his tail. In the past we only had a GPS locator on his tail. It wags around a lot, sometimes accurately representing the movement of the dog, sometimes not. Now we’ve got a second GPS locator on his body – should we continue focusing on the movement of the tail for old times’ sake, or should we shift our focus to the more representative measurements?

Ideally people will begin using the term “global warming” to refer to the planet’s overall heat accumulation. Or use the term “global heating” or “climate change” or “global disruption.” Whatever term is chosen, we need to stop misleading people by saying that global warming has “paused.” The overall warming of the planet has not and will not pause until we stop increasing the greenhouse effect through our reliance on fossil fuels. The warming will only continue to grow.

Read more…

20 thoughts on “Warmist admits original global warming theory kaput: Surface temp change out, ‘overall heat accumulation’ in”

  1. Global Warming v. 3.2.

    V.3.1 was the deep ocean heating.

    Now, instead of measuring air and water, they have to measure *everything*. That’s a tall order, but they’re running out of options.

  2. This idea will last as long as they can hide the results from ARGO which have remained unpublicized because they are not showing ocean heating – even after ‘adjustments’ were made to bring the results closer to their expectations.

  3. Does this mean that tree ring chronologies of the past aren’t enough? That was Roger Pielke Sr.’s view long ago and he was labeled a denier for suggesting it and now it turns out he was right and we wasted all that time and money on tree rings? I guess the 97% were wrong after all.

  4. Refuse to publish any reports contrary to AGW, then discredit those researchers. Create scientific sounding theory and ‘prove’ by anecdotes or simplistic examples. The MO of the Left. There is no science in any of their methods.

  5. Call it what you want. Stick your collective heads in the sand; wish the truth away, hope the facts are wrong and pray that your senses are deceiving you. The glacier are melting, the oceans are rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic due to too much CO2 in the air. And Mr. Czeranko, when did you become the arbiter of the scientific method? What is a “simplistic example”? Good luck to you my boy, you’re going to need it in the not too distant future.

  6. Do you have any facts behind your assertions? Or are you like all the others proclaiming normal events are global warming?

  7. “the oceans are becoming more acidic due to too much CO2 in the air.”

    More acidic than what, dingbat?

  8. The sea level has been rising for millenia. The “native Americans” are believed to have gotten here by crossing a land bridge before the seas rose. The glaciers have been melting for millenia. If you don’t believe that, take a vacation in Michigan. Grand Traverse Bay, a remnant of glacial melt, is lovely this time of year.

    All the doomsayers would have us deny our ability to adapt to almost any condition or change.

    The idea of now going to heat content is to make the AGW argument even murkier and less verifiable. They discovered that surface temps could be checked in terms that people could relate to. This is like the missing heat supposedly burying itself in the deep ocean without disturbing the surface or being found by increasing temperatures.

  9. Of COURSE the glaciers are melting – that’s what they do in an interglacial period. They MELT. And when all the water goes into the oceans they RISE. This is not an “independent” variable, but a dependent one. So that is not TWO arguments, but ONE. “Too Much” CO2 is a judgement call – terrestrial plants actually prefer about TWICE what we currently have, not the anemic levels that CO2 stood at less than 2 centuries ago. So far nothing you have said points to the disasters promised by the Warmists.

  10. No, you misinterpret. In science, if the data does not support your hypothesis, you revise the hypothesis. Instead, they are moving goalposts. No atmospheric hotspot, the hotspot’s not important. No significant temperature rise, it’s deep-ocean heat that’s important.

    There has still been no revision that would explain the lack of the hot-spot, and the claim that the heat is “hidden” isn’t an explaination or a revision. It’s an excuse for why their failed theory doesn’t work. Simlar to epicycles, it’s a tack-on correction to the theory to compensate for a fundamental flaw.

  11. “The key take-home point is that we now have better measurements of ocean and global heat accumulation. We no longer have to settle for focusing on the 2% of global warming represented by surface air temperatures. ” – An utter and complete crock. You can’t measure heat content as easily as you can measure temperature, and we do a damn imprecise job of that. The silliness goes downhill for this….

  12. Adam, hint, don’t put three significant digits on a number that varies in the largest significant digit. It undermines your point and makes engineers laugh at you behind your back. Ocean pH can vary by as much as a full point in a single location in shallow water over the course of a day. Going to two points after the decimal is meaningless.

  13. Adam, thats where you scientists and we engineers differ. Yes, statistically, there’s a change. On average, there’s a trend, however slight. However, the variation on a meaningful level is so great that it doesn’t matter one whit. That’s the problem. Overly specific statistics are meaningless and show your ignorance or apathy about meaningful matters. It’s similar to a meteorologist giving predictions to sub-degree levels, it shows an amount of knowledge not supported by understanding of importance.

    In fact, that’s the problem with the whole climate change movement in general. Anyone who gives a minute’s thought to the matter can see that a 2C average increase in the world’s temperature is within daily variation. Heck in Texas, that’s an hourly variation. It defies sense and logic that such a small change will have significant effects.

  14. You can’t so easily divorce the actual mechanism of greenhouse gas warming from the result. The hot spot isn’t just some abstract side-effect. It is the cause of the surface warming. The hot spot is the mechanism of warming. Without the hot spot in the absorbance and re-emittance zone, there is no increased absorbance and re-emittance. Meaning that there is no greenhouse gas warming

    This isn’t even moving goalposts, it’s having a failed experiment and pretending that it didn’t matter. It’s doublethink

Comments are closed.