The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming…Rules Out CO2 as the Cause

Posted: June 4, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, atmosphere, Critique, Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics

One of the points made here is that ‘cleaner air has resulted in more visible radiation warming of the oceans, not CO2’.

CO2 is Life


We have mentioned countless times on this blog that the warming oceans are evidence that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. To understand the climate you must first understand the oceans. The oceans control the global climate. As the oceans warm, they warm and alter the humidity of the atmosphere above them. The problem is, as we have pointed out countless times, CO2’s only defined mechanism by which to affect climate change is through the thermalization of LWIR between 13 and 18µ.

LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate or warm the oceans. Visible radiation, mainly from the high energy blue end of the spectrum does. CO2 is transparent to incoming visible radiation. The energy stored in the atmosphere and land is insignificant when compared to the oceans. The oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere, so small changes to the oceans can mean big changes…

View original post 742 more words

  1. tallbloke says:

  2. richard verney says:

    I have spent some 30 years examining ship’s data, and know from experience how poor and unreliable ship data is.

    The first point is that pre ARGO, we have little information and data regarding sea temperatures, and in the Southern Hemisphere between the tropics and Antarctica, Phil Jones (head of UK CRU and of HADCRUT fame) was quite candid, in the Climategate emails, saying that the data was largely made up. It is, in the sense that historically and spatially it simply does not exist

    Second when ARGO was initially rolled out, it showed that the oceans were cooling. This did not fit the meme and a priori bias. So rather than checking whether there was any problem with the buoys, they simply deleted the data from the those buoys that were showing the most cooling. Hey presto, ARGO then showed that the oceans were warming!

    There may have been genuine reason for suspecting that there was an issue with the ARGO data since if Sea Level is rising then one would expect the oceans to be warming.

    The correct approach would have been to have selected a random sample of the buoys showing the most warming and a random sample of the buoys showing the most cooling, and return these random samples to the laboratory for checking to see whether there was an instrument or calibration problem etc. After all if some buoys were faulty and showing excessive cooling, it is conceivable that similar equipment issues may be working but in the opposite direction.A proper scientist would not simply chuck out and remove observational data, without first checking to see whether the data was wrong and why it was wrong. The fact that this was not done completely undermines the reliability of the ARGO data set.

    Whilst I fully agree that the biosphere has too little CO2, and whilst I agree (and have for many years been commenting on WUWT) that DWLWIR cannot (directly) heat the oceans since it’s vertical penetration is only around 4 microns and the top microns of the ocean is cooler than the bulk below (probably due to evaporative cooling), the claim by warmists is that CO2 warms the atmosphere (ie, the atmosphere is a bit warmer than it would be with less CO2) and with a warmer atmosphere there is less heat loss from the oceans, which in turn means that the oceans gradually warm over time. warmists argue that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting a lid on a saucepan.

  3. oldbrew says:

    ‘warmists argue that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is like putting a lid on a saucepan.’

    That would be a lid which was 99.96% fresh air and 0.04% actual lid (of which maximum of 0.01% due to humans), on a ‘saucepan’ with no sides.

    They call that an argument?

  4. stpaulchuck says:

    as for the non existent “greenhouse”, if it did exist then temperatures would be higher at the ‘ceiling’ which they are not. duh.

    Nikolov and Zeller’s papers on heating properly place it at the surface and near surface with a known lapse rate as you rise. This article supports that entirely.

    Then there’s the various papers demonstrating the absorption/solution of CO2 into cold oceans and the later belching up of it as the oceans heat up thus providing most of the cycle in CO2 levels, not my backyard grill. But much more important is that heating oceans pump more water vapor into the atmosphere and water vapor is more abundant and way more crucial to the heating process of the lower atmosphere.

    The problem with that is you can’t make millions in grants studying how to “fix” the “problem” if it is a naturally driven issue. You can only adapt to the changes which CAN generate cash to study more effective and cost effective coping strategies but nobody is going to be scared of heavier winter clothing as a fix.

  5. JB says:

    My first thought reading this article concerned the type of sensor(s) being used to measure temperature, their calibration, and traceability. In all this fuss about temperature rise, it is confined to a very narrow window of ±½º. This is absurd in the context of climate. My protected finches experience a climate differential on a daily basis more than 100X this differential. Most professional instruments I have had occasion to use have CALIBRATED errors worse than 0.1ºC. They were instruments which, if they had a NIST calibration, were in the $1K class and higher. When working on the Space Shuttle project, the use of thermocouples on solid rocket engines could not produce a calibrated accuracy better than ±½ºC. Thiokol operated their own calibration lab with NIST traceability. If accurate readings of 0.1ºC are expected, the instrument to be of any use, must have 3 orders of magnitude resolution just to flatten out the uncertainty. Do any of these self-proclaimed climatologists understand measurement issues?

    Back in college days it was impressed on us students the importance of citing what instruments were used in our lab reports, along with their calibration certs. Collected data was useless without that trail. I am highly skeptical of any temperature measurement accuracy prior to the 1960s just as a matter of technological advancement. To date I’ve seen very little discussion on the types of instruments being used to collect this thermal history of the planet’s biosphere. What kind are they? Who made them? What is their certification history? What is (was) their resolution? How many are there and their locations? In a valid scientific procedure, all these things are cited, but in these inflammatory pulp articles all that information is truncated.

    Judging by the location and calibration problems I have read about with land-based sensors, the data from them has been so unreliable that in college work we would be forced to start the experiment over. This is much ado over nothing useful.

  6. pochas94 says:

    This paper makes a big deal out of the fact that longwave does not penetrate more than a few mm into the surface, while shortwave does. True. But rest assured that all heat received by the ocean is re-radiated, only that the heat generated by the shortwave arrives at the surface by convection and mixes with the surface layer and after mixing, heat is heat.

  7. p.g.sharrow says:

    pochas94 says:
    June 4, 2018 at 8:37 pm

    A point of personal observation while diving in California Sierra Nevada rivers. Enough Solar energy penetrates the water from 10:am to 3:pm to make diving tolerable in a wet suit. We are talking 2-3 meters.
    It is no doubt that all the solar radiation energy that penetrates the surface leaves by way of evaporation sooner or later…pg

  8. pochas94 says:


    I’m a diver as well. I’ll bet you’ve noticed that at depths below about 50 feet you hit the thermocline, suddenly the temperature decreases more rapidly with depth. I’ve always thought that this is a sort of tropopause of the sea, the depth at which normal convection is replaced with advection

  9. tom0mason says:

    There is also a relevant piece on notrickzone ( ) where a Russian physicists …

    Dr. Boris M. Smirnov, a prominent atomic physicist, has authored 20 physics textbooks during the last two decades. His latest scientific paper suggests that the traditional “absorption band” model for calculating the effect of atmospheric CO2 during the radiative transfer process is flawed. New calculations reveal that the climate’s sensitivity to a doubling of the CO2 concentration is just 0.4 K, and the human contribution to that value is a negligible 0.02 K.

    Human contribution to the value of 0.02 K (IMO) puts it deep into the noise of natural variation!

  10. oldbrew says:

    Tom – that’s just replacing one misleading number with another one.

    Where is the evidence (not models or theories) that the so-called ‘climate sensitivity’ exists at all? Historically CO2 changes lag temperature changes, so are an effect not a cause.

    Al Gore tried to hide this in his propaganda film but got rumbled in the UK court.

  11. oldbrew says:

    Date: 05/06/18 Steven F Hayward, The Wall Street Journal

    Its descent into social-justice identity politics is the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality.
    . . .
    I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers.

  12. richard verney says:

    pochas94 (June 4, 2018 at 8:37 pm) says:
    This paper makes a big deal out of the fact that longwave does not penetrate more than a few mm into the surface, while shortwave does. True. But rest assured that all heat received by the ocean is re-radiated,

    Unfortunately that is wrong. First, the wavelength of DWLWIR is such that it only penetrates (and is fully absorbed) within MICRONS, not millimetres.

    Second, all the heat (more correctly energy) is not all re-radiated. Even the K&T energy budget cartoon does not suggest that to be the case. First there is conduction which leads to convectional thermals which is said to account for 24 w/m2, and then there is latent heat evapotranspiration which is said to account for a further 78 w/m2. Third, some part of the energy received by the oceans from the sun is absorbed to depth and does not reappear for more than a 1,000 years (eg the thermohaline circulation).

    An example of the K&T energy budget:

  13. oldbrew says:

    all the heat (more correctly energy) is not all re-radiated

    That implies the Earth should be continuously warming forever, but we don’t see that.

  14. richard verney says:

    That implies the Earth should be continuously warming forever, but we don’t see that.

    I am not talking about top of atmosphere. I was addressing a point regarding the oceans and talking about the top of the ocean and how energy is lost from the ocean (given up by the ocean).

    Whilst the K&T energy budget cartoon is far removed from reality and deals with averages, it is clear from that that cartoon that whilst it is claimed that the oceans receive 492 w/m2 of energy (ie., 168 + 324), the surface of the ocean only re-radiates 390 w/m2.

    The difference of 102 w/m2 is not re-radiated, but is lost through other processes namely conduction powering convectional thermals (24 w/m2), and latent heat evapotranspiration (78 w/m2).

  15. oldbrew says:

    Basic Physics Proves NASA GISS Temperatures Don’t Implicate CO2

    Nothing regarding the physics of the CO2 molecule or the GHG Effect can explain the temperature pause between 1940 and 1970. Climate alarmists simply ignore these inconvenient observations because there are no answers that can implicate CO2.

    So not looking good for so-called ‘GHG effect’.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s