• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Ocean Cooling

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,343
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here is a research result that crashes right into AGW climate orthodoxy. As the narrative highlights, inconvenient results have been "disappeared" before, but this time may be more difficult.

[h=2]Unsettled: Scientists Find Ocean Heat Change Rate And Earth’s Energy Imbalance In DECLINE Since 2000[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 2. January 2020
[h=4]According to a new paper, the Earth’s ocean heat content time derivative (OHCTD) has been decreasing (-0.26 W/m²/decade) since 2000, coinciding with a similar deficit in the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). The authors acknowledge such trends are “surprising” considering greenhouse gas emissions have risen.[/h]
Earths-ocean-heat-content-and-energy-imbalance-decline-since-2000-Dewitte-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Dewitte et al., 2019[/h][h=4]Earth’s energy budget imbalanced?[/h]Global warming occurs when there is more energy coming in to the climate system than leaving. This results in a positive imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget.
Most studies claim the imbalance has been about +0.6 W/m² since the 2000s (Stephens et al., 2012, Llovel et al., 2013), although the uncertainty in the surface energy imbalance estimate reaches ±17 W/m² (Stephens et al., 2012). Uncertainty in the Earth’s energy imbalance is therefore more than 100 times larger than the total accumulated forcing for CO2 over a 10-year period (+0.2 W/m², Feldman et al., 2015).
Uncertainty-surface-energy-imbalance-Stephens-2012.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Stephens et al., 2012[/h][h=4]A cooling global ocean?[/h]Per the IPCC, 93% of “global warming” is manifested by rising trends in 0-2000 m ocean heat content (OHC) (IPCC AR5, Chapter 3).
In 2006 scientists published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters asserting global OHC had rapidly declined from 2003 to 2005.
Ocean-cooling-needs-correction-Lyman-2006.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Lyman et al., 2006[/h][h=4]Cooling must be corrected to show warming[/h]Of course, a cooling ocean does not conform with climate models predicating ocean heat content should rise in tandem with CO2 emissions.
So the overseers of ocean heat content datasets set out to find a way to “correct” the data. . . . . [Read the link for details.]
New paper: Earth’s energy imbalance in deficit since 2000
A new data analysis authored by three Belgian scientists (Dewitte et al., 2019) finds not only has there been more heat energy leaving than accumulating in the Earth’s climate system this century, but ocean heat content time derivative (OHCTD) has likewise been declining since the early 2000s.
Ocean-Heat-Content-and-Earths-Energy-Imbalance-declining-since-2000-Dewitte-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Dewitte et al., 2019[/h]The authors assessed the trends in OHCTD during 1960-2015. They found that although there was a rising trend from 1982 to 2000, since 2000 the OHCTD trend has been decreasing at a rate of -0.26 W/m² per decade.
Compatibly, Dewitte and co-authors also determined there has been a deficit (-0.16 ±0.11 W/m² per decade) in the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) from 2000-2018.
The scientists acknowledge that these trends may seem “surprising” at first given the sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions in recent decades. But they find the agreement between the recent OHCTD and EEI trends “adds extra confidence” to their results.
Expect these results to be “corrected” by the data overseers in due time.
 
To me the graph seems to show a clear upward trend in the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative up until the year 2000, when it starts to dip. Of course, it has dipped before, and risen higher, as the graph shows, so it may do so again, and what would align with the warming trend.
 
To me the graph seems to show a clear upward trend in the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative up until the year 2000, when it starts to dip. Of course, it has dipped before, and risen higher, as the graph shows, so it may do so again, and what would align with the warming trend.

I had to edit the narrative to meet the length limitation, but if you go to the link you'll find the story of how previous cooling was adjusted out of existence. On the other hand, cooling starting in 2000 lines up pretty well with other data.
 
I had to edit the narrative to meet the length limitation, but if you go to the link you'll find the story of how previous cooling was adjusted out of existence. On the other hand, cooling starting in 2000 lines up pretty well with other data.

Plotting an equation for the data is not the same thing as "correcting" it, they didn't change the points they just drew an average, all of those graphs do that to try and show a trend, because if you just throw all the data points on the chart then it doesn't make any sense.

Regardless, even with the ocean cooling fully accounted for, the climate is still on a warming trend, overall.
 
Plotting an equation for the data is not the same thing as "correcting" it, they didn't change the points they just drew an average, all of those graphs do that to try and show a trend, because if you just throw all the data points on the chart then it doesn't make any sense.

Regardless, even with the ocean cooling fully accounted for, the climate is still on a warming trend, overall.

We shall see.
 
Pardon me while I wait for actual scientists who know what the **** they are talking about to call off the alarm.

Aren't Belgians "actual scientists?"

[h=4]New paper: Earth’s energy imbalance in deficit since 2000[/h]
A new data analysis authored by three Belgian scientists (Dewitte et al., 2019) finds not only has there been more heat energy leaving than accumulating in the Earth’s climate system this century, but ocean heat content time derivative (OHCTD) has likewise been declining since the early 2000s.
Ocean-Heat-Content-and-Earths-Energy-Imbalance-declining-since-2000-Dewitte-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Dewitte et al., 2019[/h]The authors assessed the trends in OHCTD during 1960-2015. They found that although there was a rising trend from 1982 to 2000, since 2000 the OHCTD trend has been decreasing at a rate of -0.26 W/m² per decade.
Compatibly, Dewitte and co-authors also determined there has been a deficit (-0.16 ±0.11 W/m² per decade) in the Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) from 2000-2018.
The scientists acknowledge that these trends may seem “surprising” at first given the sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions in recent decades. But they find the agreement between the recent OHCTD and EEI trends “adds extra confidence” to their results.


 
Kinda figured when I saw none of your graphs included temp.

"A new data analysis authored by three Belgian scientists (Dewitte et al., 2019) finds not only has there been more heat energy leaving than accumulating in the Earth’s climate system this century, but ocean heat content time derivative (OHCTD) has likewise been declining since the early 2000s."
 
"A new data analysis authored by three Belgian scientists (Dewitte et al., 2019) finds not only has there been more heat energy leaving than accumulating in the Earth’s climate system this century, but ocean heat content time derivative (OHCTD) has likewise been declining since the early 2000s."

So, not temperature. Your "ocean cooling" is something other than temp.

Got it.
 
It is the energy balance that drives temperature.

So it's not temperature and not technically "cooling". It's theoretical cooling. And you're putting graphs up intended to deceive and pretend it's real. I posted ocean temps by year. Ocean temperature is a fact. Can't be disputed. Not part of a model, a proxy or a coefficient. It's a measurement.

It's a measurement that you pretended was represented in your graphs under the heading "global ocean cooling". But we know, now, that those are not temp graphs... Don't we.

You intended to deceive.
 
Last edited:
So it's not temperature and not technically "cooling". It's theoretical cooling. And you're putting graphs up intended to deceive and pretend it's real. I posted ocean temps by year. Ocean temperature is a fact. Can't be disputed. Not part of a model, a proxy or a coefficient. It's a measurement.

It's a measurement that you pretended was represented in your graphs under the heading "global ocean cooling". But we know, now, that those are not temp graphs... Don't we.

You intended to deceive.

The graphs and text are from the journal Remote Sensing. Are you unaware of their work?
 
The graphs and text are from the journal Remote Sensing. Are you unaware of their work?

Those graphs do not illustrate temperature. Temperature, the word, appears no where on any of your graphs. But that's what you're pretending they represent.
 
Those graphs do not illustrate temperature. Temperature, the word, appears no where on any of your graphs. But that's what you're pretending they represent.

Don't play dumb. "Temperature" is in the paper's text.
 
The graphs are clearly and accurately labeled. You have no point.

Your title is "cooling" and none of your graphs have temperature. That's deceit.
 
If the material is too difficult for you, I suggest you take some time to study and come back better prepared.

Remember, I'm the one with an education not you. MSc International Environmental Science. All you have are blogs and lies.
 
Back
Top Bottom