More Bad News For The Global Warming Alarmists…

polar-bear-pawThe cause of climate alarmism has been struck another near-fatal blow by a new study from a NASA research team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
Using a combination of satellite observations and direct measurements taken by a network of 3,000 floating Argo temperature probes, the NASA team set out to calculate temperature changes and thermal expansion in the deep ocean (below 1.24 miles).

What they have found is that the deep ocean has not warmed measurably since at least 2005.

This unfortunate discovery represents a major problem for the climate alarmists because the “missing heat” supposedly hiding in the deep oceans has long been their favoured explanation as to why there has been no measured “global warming” for the last 18 years.

Read more at Breitbart

  • You beat me to it Jeff. I was going to post this
    Which is the press release from NASA.
    I actually did post it but as soon as I realized you already did, I trashed mine.

    I think this is probably one of the most significant stories to come out since the first reports of the pause because this is what they were trying to say happened to the heat, that it somehow got sucked in to the oceans. Well this, I think, really not only puts the last nail in the coffin lid. It also super glues it shut.

  • You know, there is something that always bothered me about this theory that the oceans were absorbing all of this supposed “missing heat”. And it is that CO2 is supposed to be the original captor of the heat.
    I’m not sure how to word this but, if CO2 is what is capturing the heat, why has the atmosphere not continued to warm? Even if the heat is being absorbed in to the oceans, which we now know it’s not, would not the elevated levels, over 400 ppm, of CO2 still capture heat and warm the atmosphere? I mean the process is supposedly that CO2 warms the atmosphere > atmospheric heat is then absorbed by the ocean > deep ocean heat causes sea levels to rise due to thermal expansion. Right? Well, Iv’e been wondering, where is the atmospheric heat? CO2 supposedly captures heat in the atmosphere. What is the mechanism that transports the heat from the atmosphere to the briny deep? Were the oceans supposed to be absorbing heat from the atmosphere at such a fantastic rate that the atmosphere didn’t have a chance to warm up?

    We now know that none of that happened. So, what explains the lack of warming? I think I know. It is something I’ve expressed before. CO2 absorption saturation. Remember, CO2 only absorbs 3 wavelengths of infra-red heat. I think those 3 wavelengths of heat were absorbed at around 360 ppm which is what the CO2 levels were about 18 years ago or so, and adding more CO2 has done nothing to capture more heat. That’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.

  • Fietser

    Guys, I’d hate to spoil your cherry picking party here, but in the same study…

    “Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period, warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up.”

    • Are you really this stupid? Can you not take in information and accurately process it? What the article prooves is what AGW skeptics have been saying from the start. We have never argued that the earth is not warming or the climate is not changing. We have held the belief that man or more precisely CO2 has not caused the earth to warm. This article along with the fact that the earth surface temperatures have not risen in the last 18 years prooves we were and are correct. If there is no warming in the deep ocean and the warming of the upper ocean does not account for the supposed warming that sshould have occurred because of added CO2 than CO2 is not what caused the warming and the warming was caused by some other means, Get it now Chachi?

      • Fietser

        The information about where the warming went was in plain sight. I’d just like to know if you didn’t read it or didn’t want to read it.

        • Read the article again, this time with a parent or a teacher to help you with the big words. You will see on reexamination that the article is clear that the amount of warming or supposed warming of the upper ocean is insufficient to account for all of the warming required if the CO2 models are to be believed (they aren’t by the way). These are the same models that your ministers have been preaching to you to prove that man is causing the earth to warm and if you don’t give up your taxes and make sacrifices to the CO2 Gods, life on earth will become unbearable. If the increases in CO2 levels have not caused temperatures to rise as predicted than man is not the cause of any warming regardless of degree and reductions in CO2 will not reduce or stop the earth’s warming or cooling by any significant degree. Now we can all go back and began addressing the real problems of the world. Got it now Chachi.

      • Peter

        I can understand that you are upset however there is no need for calling people stupid or using other demeaning language. This kind of behavior only creates anger and does not promote the conversation.

        • Oh, so now it’s a conversation? Really? Is that what it is now? I thought the debate was over. I thought deniers should be locked up, or kicked out of the AMA, or shouted down, or put on a rocket aimed at the Sun, or just shot.
          So now that it appears there is no warming, and the AGW theory is now shot to h*ll, now it’s a conversation? Sorry, but everyone who believes in man made global warming can kiss my a*s.
          The science is rigged, and the conversation is over!

          • Fietser

            You’re capable of conversation Neilio? You never seem to answer my questions…

        • Are you also incapable of reading and comprehending as well? I never called him/her stupid; I asked a question and one that is quite important when engaging in conversation. Is he/she capable of taking in information, analyzing that information and developing valid conclusions? While the tone of my comment was intended to and did qusetion the posters intergrity and honesty to the science, my comment never called the poster stupid. If anything my post gave the poster credit for being more intelligent than he/she probably is; he/she may actually believe the bs he/she is posting whcih brings to mind the scary thousght….he/she may actually be old enough to vote.

  • Ma

    Alright, no need to be disrespectful. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion without criticism as long as it’s based on solid facts and substantial evidence. Now, to you skeptics of climate change; This article argues against you. It clearly stated that the NASA findings don’t throw suspicion on climate change itself. It only disproves ONE theory of what exactly is happening, which if you payed any attention to even the most basic form of science (High School Science classes), this is the norm for any scientific process. Theorize, test, and repeat. The facts are, Carbon Dioxide most definitely traps heat in our atmosphere. If you are unsure of this notions credibility, take a look at our sister planet, Venus. Hundreds of degrees hotter than Earth, even though it is in the “goldilocks zone” like we are, and why? Extremely high concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses like methane. Granted Venus has much, much higher concentrations than Earth, it still proves what happens when these constituents run rampant. Humans have irrefutably added nearly 25% of the CO2 and other greenhouse gasses emitted into the atmosphere over the last several years. There are several obvious signs the climate is shifting, however, it doesn’t matter what the cause is. Be it by man or natural processes, if we do not find a way to deal with this issue, we will surely regret it. Rising sea levels will displace billions. Ocean acidification, caused by absorbtion of Carbon Dioxide, will decimate seafood supply, affecting coastal community economies as well as diminishing overall food supplies for the growing population, which we are already seeing the effects of. Regardless of why these things are happening, as the only species on this planet capable of understanding this climatic “catastrophe,” we bear the responsibility of solving it or accomodating the issues we face in order to preserve our civilization, and ensure a safe, livable planet for our descendents. The argument is no longer “who what when and why,” but how can we deal with this.”

    • No their not, your wrong and we are not talking about climate change. Your opinion, belief, faith is wrong and was just proven so. CO2 can not be the cause of global warming – AGW debunked. Your opinion that the ocean will absorb too much CO2 is equally wrong and based on no observable data. Looking at Venus as anything other than another planet is due to an inabliity to comprehend why water boils when the pan is on the burner but doesn’t boil whit the pan on the table. You are throwing around a whole lot of inaccurate and false correlations and seem to believe you are making a point, you are not. Too little CO2 in the atmosphere will make all the males of all the species impotent. Not enough CO2 will cause birds to not migrate. Below 500 ppm of CO2 causes increased rates of aging in most earth species. See I can make stuff up too.

      • Fietser

        So what is the cause of global warming?

        • Hamin’ X

          When did you stop beating your wife?

          a question based on a false premise does not deserve an answer.

        • Hadronic

          The sun. A combination of chaotic variables showing a relatively stable long term cycle controls the climate. It is a very interesting topic which is absolutely no cause for alarm. The very fact that alarmists are so emotionally attached to the idea proves it’s a religion. If it weren’t, we could talk about it in a meaningful way, but it is, so we can’t. Sorry for that.

        • Leopold B. Scotch

          Are you talking about the warming since the Little Ice Age?

        • I will take a shot at answering your question dear. Once upon a time the earth was cold and covered with great layers of ice. A great wizard believed the earth was too cold and conjured up heat and put this heat into the great light in the sky. For many years this heat was sufficient to cause the great ice to melt and the earth continued to warm but the wizard became too warm and decided to temper the warming by blocking the great heat from the great light in the sky and agaiin the earth became covered with great ice. The wizard again became too cold and removed the blockage and the great heat from the great light again warmed the earth. This sh*t repeated for countless eons and here we are…..any questions.

          • Wow, and here I thought it was an epic struggle between a dragon and a unicorn. Thanks! That really opened my eyes.

            On a serious note, please try to refrain from swearing in your posts. And if you absolutely have to swear, use a special character instead of one or more of the letters in the word like I did editing your cussing, or choose a less offensive word like crap for sh*t for example. Thanks. It’s not in the guidelines but it works.

            Please review this.

    • How do you figure this article argues against us? It disproves ONE theory, yes. But that ONE theory was the favored theory. What other theory has even come close to being that popular? That was it.
      And you can’t compare Earth to Venus. Venus was never habitable. There was never any life on Venus. Venus also has an atmosphere that is around 92% thicker than Earth’s, and the crust of the planet is thinner than our own which allows more heat from its core to heat the atmosphere as well. It also receives about twice the energy from the Sun than Earth, and almost none of that energy reaches the surface. Which means that almost all of the energy from the Sun that reaches Venus is absorbed by the atmosphere. The fact that there is so much CO2 actually serves to keep the planet cooler than it would be if there were a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere there.
      As far as this being the norm for the scientific process, where was that attitude 20 years ago when Al Gore said the science was settled, and the debate was over? And the UN and all of our favorite politicians, and celebrities said we have to act now?
      You true believers make me laugh! You are so frightened by the mere possibility of these things happening that you lose all sense of reason. Take ocean acidification for example. You don’t even understand what the basic pH scale says. 7 is NEUTRAL. Anything higher than 7 is alkaline, or basic. Anything lower than 7 is acidic. Right now the oceans are above 7 which make them alkaline. If the pH level falls you can’t call it “acidification” until it drops below 7, or neutral. While it is alkaline it is alkaline. If the pH drops from say 8.3 to 8.1 it is not turning acidic. It is moving towards neutral, but still alkaline. But ocean acidification sounds real ominous and more scary though doesn’t it? Never mind that the ocean pH levels vary wildly in different places, and those variations, some larger than the fear mongers claim will be catastrophic, can take place on times scales as small as a few hours, to days, weeks, months, and years. And the kicker is the ocean life seems to adapt to it with ease.
      My point is that nothing you true believers think is real! No warming, no oceanic heat magnet, no catastrophe, no nothing. It’s all made up fairy tales! And you have eagerly lapped it up!

      • Fietser

        You’ve said your self it was warming. Trying to deny this now? Plz make up your mind.

    • Leopold B. Scotch

      What’s to conclude from this news is that another dire prediction has fallen flat.

      You, unlike many alarmists, properly call this prediction a “theory” — but the fact that it and most models assuring us of dire outcomes have fallen flat or have been exposed for horrendous input bias in recent years has not stopped the alarmist crowd intent on bull-rushing legislation from re-evaluating their assumptions. These folks demand governments redirect and restructure $ trillions of dollars in the global economy, and were they heeded 10-15 year ago as many (Al Gore, etc.) wanted, we’d find ourselves knee deep in an economic fiasco based on disproved “closed-case” science. Taxpayers and voters have fallen into that trap countless times, lured in by political special interest on the other side of the gravy train from outlawing this or that, and mandating B.S. to save us all from disaster.

      That Goldman Sach’s — the giant economic bloodsucking squid — is knee deep in the carbon trading scheme should warn you off enough. And should we forget “Ethanol to the Rescue”?

      Lastly, you go on to say “regardless of the cause… if we do not find a way to deal with it we will regret it”.

      Surely the climate changes and has continued to evolve since time immortal and very much so long before the industrial revolution. Humans must adapt either way, and the question should be – do we we want to do it consensually or do we instead wish to hand off $ trillions of wealth and lots of individual liberty to massive political self interests which can, without question, be correctly referred to as the Environmental Industrial Complex?

      I choose freedom over corporatism even of the green variety.

    • Mike S.

      CO2 doesn’t “trap heat” in the atmosphere. If that were true, then the planet wouldn’t show 18 straight years without temperature increases. Green plants also need CO2, which then feed animals, so both rely on CO2. Moreover, elevated amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere better enable plants to withstand environmental stresses, such as soil-/air-borne plant pathogens.

      Regarding the trumped up fear-mongering on Climate Change, climate IS SUPPOSED TO CHANGE, by literal definition. Climate changes NATURALLY, and does so in various cycles (e.g. ocean currents, Jet Stream, El Nino, La Nina, etc.). That’s why the fear-mongering types no longer use the “Global Warming” narrative (due to aforementioned 18 yrs of no temperature increases, but also the fact that MANY parts of the world are seeing record cold/cooling periods), so now they’re saying crazy things like “Stop Climate Change!” etc.

      There’s a difference between being good stewards of the environment (e.g. dumping industrial chemical waste into rivers, etc.) and surmising that there is “man-made” climate change, when there is no scientific consensus to back up that claim.

    • Gavin

      Mia I have to disagree. Venus is not hotter related to CO2 but its proximity to the sun. In fact it is thought that if the Earth was just a few miles closer to the sun it would be way to hot for humans regardless of CO2. Imagine that just a few miles off of the 91 million miles we live at would bake us. At that point perhaps you can also see that solar activity and fluctuations are dramatically more important to climate than things like greenhouse gasses. Especially when you consider that CO2 is by far the weakest of all the greenhouse gasses.

      The ire from the “deniers” is that we were bullied and told we were stupid for not accepting that the debate is over and yet we find new holes in the so called accepted science of AGW. We have the pause that was explained away by deep ocean temperatures that did not occur. We have been told that climate change would cause more powerful hurricanes and yet we have had a decade of lower hurricane activity and no change in tornado activity.

      We were told the arctic would melt and the polar bears would die. The bears are fine and sea ice is increasing. The temperature predictions were wrong. The sea level predictions were wrong. The sea ice predictions were wrong. And yet the “debate is over”?

      Perhaps the debate was never held as anyone with a different opinion was censured, had their careers ruined, their motives and integrity questioned, and their grants not approved. When science becomes political, as evidenced by a political body like the UN being in charge of the science, It is no longer science.

      Like the past “scientific” debate on evolution, astronomy, and biology being held back and perverted by religion and politics AGW has also been perverted. It is currently a cottage industry giving billions of dollars to its proponents and destroying the careers of opponents making the science secondary at best as the conclusions of any study if against AGW will kill your career and ruin your life. The only way to get at the truth is to disband the IPCC, make grants blind to preconceived ideas, and stop the ridiculous demonization of contrary opinions.

      Can’t we just let scientists run science and not politicians????

      • I have read some things about Venus’ atmosphere and surprisingly being closer to the Sun has less of an effect than one would think. Very little heat from the Sun even makes it to the surface there because the atmosphere is so thick, and its composition is much different than ours. I’m not disagreeing with the thrust of your point, but it’s so much hotter on Venus than it would be if it had no atmosphere. The high amount of CO2 has very little to do with it as well. It is mostly from the enormous pressure exerted by the mass of atmosphere than anything else. Look up the temperature/pressure relationship.
        I’m only mentioning this because I used to think Venus was a lot hotter because of its closer proximity to the Sun, but it is all about the atmosphere.
        The loonies who use Venus as an example of a runaway greenhouse effect are even more mistaken however. They seem to be under the delusion that Venus was once habitable, and something went wrong. I have news for them. If Venus had an atmosphere the same mass and molecular make up as our own atmosphere it would be cooler than it is now, sure, but it would still be too hot for life to evolve. It is still too close to the Sun for that.

  • Fietser

    Of course there can’t be much heat in the worlds oceans from 0-700 meters, or can there? Just a tiny 93% of the warming goes into these oceans. And confirmed here:

    Getting bored debunking you lot.

    • From your link: “Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low.”

      A large suite of climate models?!?!?! That has been the problem from the start. Reliance on models is not science! Sorry, but you have not debunked anything. The NASA study is not model based. It is all actual measurements of real data from the real world. If you want to believe in cartoons that give “likely” scenarios over recorded actual real data then that is your folly. But don’t come here with it and say it debunks anything because it is pure speculation and has been rendered meaningless by observation.

  • Fietser

    Both studies use real data and are very clear there is increased warming in the top layers of the southern oceans. What is it about that you don’t understand?

  • John

    Of course the planet is warming. It has been as a broad trend since the end of the last ice age ~10,000 years ago. We’re in an interglacial (Holocene) period, so of course the trend is rising temperatures. You have to view these things on geological timescales, not a matter of 10, 20, or even 100 years.

    The trick CAGW proponents have pulled from the beginning is to count on the general public not knowing this simple fact and thinking our activities are more impactful than they are. If humans didn’t exist, guess what? The planet would still be warming. That’s what happens after ice ages… until the next one. We get spikes of heating, then cooling, then really cold.

    • Fietser

      Completely wrong, the trend started with the beginning of the industrial age. Before that temperature levels were slightly declining.

      • Hmm. The industrial revolution began around 1760, and really started getting rolling between 1800 and 1850. Temperatures before 1760 were actually on the rise from the lowest point of the LIA. So it is you who are completely wrong. You should really check your facts before saying things.
        Then again, I do get a big FAT LAUGH from some of the things you say so by all means don’t change!!!

        • Fietser

          So to you that’s close to 10.000 years? Neilio, you shouldn’t have skipped those maths lessons at school.

          • Umm, you know that a (.) is a decimal point? I think you meant to use a (,) for 10,000. Because 10.000 = 10. I learned that in math class.

            Now that we’ve figured out what you meant to say, who said anything about a 10,000 year timescale? You said:

            “Completely wrong, the trend started with the beginning of the industrial age. Before that temperature levels were slightly declining.”

            That is to what I responded. Before the industrial age was the LIA, or Little Ice Age. If you want to go back 10,000 you could say that temps were declining, sure, but now who’s cherry picking? If you go back 14,000-12,000 years temps spiked to temperatures higher than today’s during that time, and if you go back in time 15,000 years before that, there’s a similar spike in temps.

  • Fietser

    We use the point as a separator. So get used to it.

    By the way, your graph shows that natural climate change is no where fast enough then what we experience now. So John is still wrong.

    • The graph only shows temperature, not climate. How do you get?…….. Never mind. I’m not going to waste anymore time on mental midgets like you. Have a nice life.

      • Fietser

        So temperature has nothing to do with climate . . . huh???

  • Fietser

    I’m wondering what your responses are to this?

    Durack and Lawrence Livermore colleagues worked with a Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist to compare ocean observations with ocean models. They concluded that the upper levels of the planet’s oceans — those of the northern and southern hemispheres combined — had been warming during several decades prior to 2005 at rates that were 24 to 58 percent faster than had previously been realized.

  • Dan

    Okay, so lets say the Earth was warming up. Now what? China and India are now full steam ahead with curbing zero carbon emissions. They are not stupid enough to fall for guilt science. Don’t we all share the same planet? So if China, India, Russia and other industrialized countries refuse to curb carbon emissions (even increase it) what are we to do? Go to war? Should we militarily force these countries to stop emitting carbon? Or is the carbon tax the real solution to stopping the warming? What if we tax everyone and then we find out years later the tax didn’t help and the planet didn’t warm up regardless of the tax? Now what? So now all of the pain and suffering poor people went through to pay for their incredibly expensive energy was now over a lie?

  • I’m a bit of an outlier here, I know. I’m a retired middle school teacherLanguage Arts, for heaven’s sake!– with a curiosity about this subject that has kept me coming back to sites like this over the years. (Cut my teeth on ClimateGate.)

    I can’t parse the various ‘scientifical’ arguments pro and con, I can’t even pretend to. My deep skepticism about global warming notions rests on the inverse of the old ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’ adage, namely, the ‘friend of my enemy is my enemy’.

    Climatologists have an alliance with so many anti-Capitalist, left wing haters of America that I can hardly attribute their scientifical findings with any degree of objectivity. The denizens of climatology have prostituted themselves to Democrat operatives and I simply don’t trust the scientists because of this affiliation. I KNOW politics. I know our leftist politicians and what they plan for America.

    Sorry. Won’t listen to the left’s scientifical allies . . . and based on what I see here and other places where the AGW arguments roil, I’m not taking much of a chance.

    • You know, thank you by the way, I think I can describe my distrust of the climate science in the same manner. I understand some of the science but I am not a scientist, so there is a lot that I don’t understand because of that. The main reason I distrust the “science” is because it comes mostly from the UN, and the environmentalist loony left. Also, the solutions to “global warming” all seem to center around bringing down Capitalism, and destroying western civilization. Though I think I like the way you say it better.

  • Amber

    We need to hope the earth is continuing to warm .One thing is for sure it has a long long history of not staying the same humans or no humans . I’ll take a bit of warming any day .
    Unfortunately the scary global warming promoters are frauds with no support to their hypothesis .

    They have been making great money out of the scam in any event .

  • bigerny

    On a personal note,I’m still waiting for global cooling to take place.First predicted in the ’70s,half the worlds population was to be dead by the mid ’90s.Great science ‘backed it up’.The only difference between then and now is that today we heve the internet to disseminate crap science to a wider more gullible mass market.The propaganda machine can really crank up the volume on the cheap.
    All hail the machine.Believe the machine.
    When the machine is wrong change from ‘co2’ to ‘warming up the water’.
    Confirmation bias is a wonderful thing.
    We NEED to keep people scared.Scared people are easy to control.The news media sells more commercials when people are in fear and the people scream for more controls to ‘keep up safe from the latest boogy man.

    We deserve what we get.

    • I disagree. We don’t deserve what we get. The average person gets their news from TV for about 20 minutes a day and they believe what they hear. They are busy living their lives, getting things done, and taking care of their families. They trust the news implicitly, and have no idea they are being bombarded with propaganda and agitprop disguised as news. I don’t think it’s fair to say “we deserve what we get” because the average person has no idea what we get until we get it, and if it’s bad the Left will just blame the Right! People need to wake up.

  • BoboCo

    for me, it is indeed ground for concern that such nonsense as propagated by Gore et al has snowballed to such an extent, I would have thought the ‘Millenium Bug’- fiasco alone would at least have helped moderate the growth of this absurd fairytale.
    However, many people I know in my circle are critical indeed of ‘GW thro CO2’ etc., maybe it is erronous to suppose that all, or even most, believe in all of it in spite of the enormous propoganda driven.

    If, then, avid GW proponents and their disciples only think to have more weight because they scream louder, the scientific qualities thus propounded by them can be judged from that.

A project of Minnesota Majority, hosted and maintained by Minnesotans for Global Warming.