{"id":261124,"date":"2023-06-07T19:30:32","date_gmt":"2023-06-07T17:30:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=261124"},"modified":"2023-06-07T19:30:35","modified_gmt":"2023-06-07T17:30:35","slug":"countering-noaas-one-sided-reporting-on-ocean-warming","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=261124","title":{"rendered":"Countering NOAA\u2019s one-sided reporting on ocean warming"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From\u00a0CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Joe Bastardi<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Look at this, an astounding tweet from NOAA with no support for people that wish to challenge it to look at, or even reference the supporting evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

NOAA Climate.gov<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

@NOAAClimate<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than 90%of the warming from human-caused climate change has occurred in the ocean. Increasing ocean heat content is contributing to sea level rise, ocean heat waves, coral bleaching, and melting of ocean-terminating glaciers and ice sheets.\u00a0https:\/\/climate.gov\/news-features\/understanding-climate\/climate-change-ocean-heat-content\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

First of all let\u2019s be intuitive about this,\u00a0 \u00a0If you had an ice cube next to a pan of water, could the ice cube with a lower heat capacity warm the pan of water?\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So right off the bat how is the atmosphere with less than .01 of the total energy of the ocean atmospheric system going to warm the ocean?\u00a0 \u00a0Second how is the increase of 1.8 ppm a year of an essential element for life on the planet, that is only .00042 of the atmosphere, no matter what radiative properties for warming you wish to assign, and already have those bands saturated and RELYING ON WARMING OF THE EARTH AND OCEANS,\u00a0 going to then influence the ocean?\u00a0 And given if you want to play the back radiation game, the idea it only penetrates the top MM or 2 of the ocean makes it an even bigger stretch.\u00a0 \u00a0And that man is responsible for only a small part of the co2 in the atmosphere, and the OCEAN IS THE BIGGEST SOURCE, how do you come up with 90s% of that warming being from man-made emissions?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But as if that is not enough, does it not stand to reason, a key word here is reason, that direct influences on the ocean would directly impact it more?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So let us\u00a0take the NOAA graphic and overlay the increase in geothermal activity which would be a. DIRECT INFLUENCE on the ocean<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The information is from Dr. Arthur Viterito. He writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201d As you can see, the \u201cgoodness of fit\u201d is excellent. Expressed numerically, the correlation between the mid-ocean seismic activity and heat content is 0.89 and the coefficient of determination (i.e., the correlation squared) is .794. What that means is that mid-ocean seismic activity, our proxy for geothermal heat release, is explaining 79.4% of the variation in the oceanic heat content!!! That is remarkably high, and, according to the regression model, the odds that this high of a correlation is occurring by \u201cchance\u201d is .00000000000000104%.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the very least, there is a question that is raised here. Again it stands to reason a direct influence would have a direct result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But let\u2019s look at the sun. Dr. Willie Soon\u2019s work and others show the linkage in no uncertain terms to the increase in Water Vapor which actually correlates and explains the warming given the relationship of water vapor to temperature ( the colder and drier it is, the more the impact of WV, which is an excellent finger to point at the distorted warming we see in the coldest driest areas)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

How do we know this is correct<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, look at\u00a0 Outgoing longwave radiation, which co2 bands can absorb, from 1948-1988 where there was essentially little increase in the ocean temps before the onset of the increase of geothermal activity. First of all co2 was on the rise the ENTIRE PERIOD and the geothermal spreading started in the 90s<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

most of the tropical areas had. LESS OLR than the 30-year mean of 1991-2010. This has to mean there are MORE CLOUDS    So much of the tropical areas have had more incoming radiation making it thru and hence more outgoing longwave radiation in the last. 30 years,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I showed in previous blogs from the late 40s thru the 1980s virtually no increase in SST.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Look for instance at the last 10 and compare it to the chart above<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

OLR radiation has increased meaning more evaporation and increased WV input into the atmosphere over a large area of the Atlantic and Indian Ocean as well as the central Pacific.  It indicates increased SINKING air over a large part of the tropical oceans, which is another can of worms having implications for the Hadley cell and the entire global circulation. And btw runs counter to the CAGW missive about trapping heat over the tropics. The decreases are around land masses indicating enhanced convergence of air in these areas, ( so the global wind oscillation is changing as air is flowing more strongly from the oceans toward land, again meaning more sinking and DRYING OUT over the oceans) The oceans have much more bang for the buck. Given this is only 10 years, it still makes the point that there is an increase in OLR over the oceans and so more evaporation. And with fewer clouds, which the climate models can not model for anyway, it would mean that the incoming radiation to set this off has a lot to do with it.  Given TSI is on the increase and has a direct effect, the combination of increased underwater input of heat and increased solar effects leaves very little room for NOAA\u2019s assertion that over 90% is from man.  More like 90% ( likely more) IS NOT FROM MAN!!! And where does that leave the US with 10% of less than 10%?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Finally, no one is looking at the price of postage stamps.\u00a0 That\u2019s right, we can play this game too if we want.\u00a0 IT HAS A BETTER CORRELATION THAN CO2!!!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Obviously, I am having some fun here ( The chart is from Dr. Willie Soon, who believe me is a  joy to listen to and watch). But do you see what I am saying?  You can play all sorts of games with indirect figures. I figured out for instance, Penn State should get  at least 11 wins this season and has a 1 in 3 chance of being unbeaten and playing for a national title, looking at El Nino years and Penn State football since the mid-1960s.  Why not? There is a big el nino coming on.  In fact, I should get on Sports Center and calculate this stuff for all the teams.   Maybe we can hindcast the season and say that if we knew PSU was going to do that well, it was a sign that the El Nino was going to develop.   The games we can play  WITH INDIRECT CAUSES. that avoid the total pictures<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heh, Weather Channel here is what you do.  Get every team and make a prediction on their football season based on the 15 El ninos since the 1960s. Would be a great bit. Call me, we can have some real fun.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You can do it for any sport if you want to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Obviously Stat class was one class I did pay attention in.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

You have to be willing to smile you know, but now back to the serious part. You have the government bullhorn making a statement with no reference to challenges. Again use common sense. We are talking about man\u2019s input to the air of co2, and then people telling you the warming of a much greater energy and co2 source is being caused by that.  In addition, when you then factor in the US part, it borders on the absurd to push this in the face of questions that can be raised about influences that are natural and can be demonstrated as with a better correlation and arguably a much stronger case for cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unless there is a different motive<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Again Perhaps I do not have the answers. But I darn sure have the questions. Questions that are ignored for\u00a0a rush to judgment missive meant to destroy the foundations of freedom and prosperity that have made our nation the envy of the world. And we should get it through our heads this is not about climate or science and understand that is what it is.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author<\/h2>\n\n\n\n