9 thoughts on “Claim: Heat absorbed by oceans has doubled since 1997”

  1. What they don’t tell you is that the changes in ocean temperature that they are measuring are a couple of orders of magnitude less than their margin of error. And that’s just for the ARGOS measurements, which are the best available. They then ran it through a proven failure of a climate model. IOW, what we have is highly pureed bovine excrement.

  2. Heat flow in the ocean follows the laws of thermodynamics. If the idea is that a scant increase in ocean surface temperatures –due to the purported effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere– leads to deep ocean heating, I’d like to see the thermodynamics reflected in the climate models touted by the “experts.”

  3. Mark Twain
    “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

  4. “… is difficult using observations alone.” So then we’ll just make up some stuff. It’s the sciencey way ya know.

  5. so then, warm water at the surface is diving down to great depths… (??) I guess I’ll have to throw out all my thermodynamics texts then.

  6. ” the study compares the different observational datasets with simulations from climate models (CMIP5) used in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,……” As if no one has noticed how much of an epic fail these models have been in predicting climate change. Garbage in = Garbage out. The climate is a non-liner complex system that can be explained by liner methods. The attempt to simply effects on the climate has created a process of oversimplification to the point of failure. The fact that someone has put these concepts in a computer program does not give the answer any additional credibility that it does not deserve. My experience has shown me the major difference between a computer and a calculator is that I have been able to make the same mistakes but at a much faster speed. I must call my oncologist to check for colon cancer from all the second hand smoke being blown up my……….

  7. I think the statement “… is difficult using observations alone” should apply to both the arguments for and against the theory. As always, the proponent of an argument must be required do give proof against the null hypothesis.

  8. This has been claimed for a while. Goes with the claim that heating water allows it to absorb more gases. Which is claimed to be killing things like coral.

    Tomorrow we will probably hear claims that Sol absorbs light – and most of the missing heat.

Comments are closed.