The Oceans Ate Global Warming?

American Thinker ^ | September 15, 2014 | Jonathon Moseley

[Moseley]

In Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll, Alice says she cannot believe impossible things. The Queen of Hearts is surprised: “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

Therefore, suppose we compare two events:

1.Global warming advocates argue that the oceans are absorbing the extra heat that their computer models predicted, which has mysteriously vanished. The missing heat over the last 18 years has been going into the oceans.

2.Yet, the Arctic Sea Ice Cap aound the North Pole has grown by 43% since 2012. As confirmed by satellites from orbit, the Arctic ice pack has grown by 1.715 million square kilometers in the last two years, as reported in England’s Daily Mail. That is the size of the truly massive state of Alaska.

So, might we ask a question? Yes, you with your hand up.

If the Earth hasn’t warmed for the last 18 years because the predicted heat is going into the oceans, then why is there 43% more ice in the last two years? If you add heat to water containing ice, doesn’t the ice normally melt? Does it normally freeze over, creating more ice?

The Economist confidently waffles that “The mystery of the pause in global warming may have been solved,” in “Davy Jones’s heat locker”. The oceans “may be” absorbing the warming.

But wait: Why didn’t the oceans absorb the previous warming first in the past? Why was there a 20-year period of warming without the oceans sponging any of it up back then?

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Careful. Are you allowed to say NIGO?

[xp38]

Global Warming sleeps with the fishes.

[Thermalseeker]

If you look at the ice core data extracted from the core samples taken at Vostok in Antarctica, which cover almost 500,000 years of climate history, they clearly show that rises in C02 follow temperature rise, not the other way around. I'm an Engineer and a Pilot of more than 35 years. I've studied physics, meteorology, and chemistry, all at a college and/or post graduate level. I'm pretty sure I can follow along. I have yet to have anyone explain to me on a molecular level how it is that the C02 molecule, at .034% of the total atmosphere, traps infrared wavelengths of light in sufficient quantities to warm the planet, or even less plausible, the atmosphere. Been asking this question for 20+ years and all I ever get get in response to my question is insults from the anthropogenic globull warming Leftists.

[Organic Panic]

Well. Now we can spend trillions more dollars on research grants to liberal institutions to study the effects of no global warming on the oceans. The trough just got a whole lot bigger.

[diogenes ghost]

"I thought flatulent cows were also a reason?!!"

Well, they are, of course. BUT....there are no cows farting in the Arctic, so it is icy there.

[palmer]

they clearly show that rises in C02 follow temperature rise, not the other way around.

That is true. For every degree rise C, there might be 5 ppm rise in CO2. Maybe 10 at the most. We have had over 100ppm rise that is essentially manmade

I have yet to have anyone explain to me on a molecular level how it is that the C02 molecule, at .034% of the total atmosphere, traps infrared wavelengths of light in sufficient quantities to warm the planet, or even less plausible, the atmosphere.

The atmosphere warms, not the ground. The CO2 absorbs some wavelengths that are generally unique due to its unique vibration mode (bending of the molecule). But that energy is almost instantly transferred to the rest of the molecules in the atmosphere via conduction. So the atmosphere warms more than it would without the CO2.

[RinaseaofDs]

Because it would be more true to say that the oceans ate the CO2, which is what it does on a regular basis.

The ocean oxygenates when CO2 mixes with oceanic plant life. Plants use it for photosynthesis, and give off oxygen, which fish use to digest the plant life and smaller fish they eat.

What NOBODY around this giant fraud has mentioned, and nobody with a high school science background should fail to grasp, is that CO2 IS HEAVIER THAN AIR.

If there really was a build up of CO2, the first place you’d locate a sensor is in Death Valley, CA - which is below sea level.

If the CO2 there doubles, from 0.037% of the atmosphere to say 0.074%, then you’d have a case that humans are the ones causing the problem.

YOU STILL WOULD NOT HAVE ESTABLISHED THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO CO2. At those low concentrations, it isn’t going to make any difference at all in holding heat to the surface of the earth.

The only thing that can do that is atmospheric WATER VAPOR.

NO2, SO2, and other ‘acid rain’ causing chemicals are also heavier than air.

When they come out of giant smoke stacks, the start descending through the air column until they end up in clouds, which then becomes rain, and indeed damages forests and water supplies. You can replicate that bit of science in a lab, as you can the CO2 science above.

NONE of what these criminals are shoveling can be proved in a lab, only in a cooked model on a computer.

[wbill]

I've studied physics, meteorology, and chemistry

Yeah, but AGW promoters have degrees in things like anthropology and social justice. How dare you argue with them! :-)

Seriously...there was an article posted on FR awhile ago about the "Coalition of Concerned Scientists", or somesuch. Man-Made global warming promoters, at any rate.

A more interested FReeper than I did some checking on them, and found that only one of the "Concerned Scientists" had a degree peripherally related to the topic (Geology, if memory serves). The rest were lawyers and social workers, of all things.

Lots and lots of people feeding at this particular money trough. 'Twon't do to have people pointing out too many inconvenient truths.

[palmer]

When they come out of giant smoke stacks, the start descending through the air column until they end up in clouds

Smokestacks do not reach above the clouds.

[Mastador1]

I thought flatulent cows were also a reason?!!

Stop trying to blame it on shrillary and moochelle!

[Balding_Eagle]

There’s a great deal of circumstantial evidence that the sun, or rather the absence of magnetic storms on the surface of the sun, are a driving force behind ice ages.

[morphing libertarian]

example or previous settled science: sun and planets rotate around the earth

[morphing libertarian]

of

[MaxMax]

Because the Americans who support Dems are STUPID and are being used as IDIOTS!

This crap would not succeed if people had an attention span and common sense.
The advocates of the Green theology or cult leaders know this.

[Pecos]

Paraphrasing Burt Rutan from his speech at Oshkosh a few years ago, I may not be a climatologist, but I have seen enough data that I know how easy it is to manipulate it to tell you anything you want to believe.

In my case, when I was working on my Master's thesis, I thought I had discovered a new law of nature... until I realized that I had swapped the X and Y axes. Luckily, I discovered this before I talked to my advisor about it. So, we were able to have a nice conversation as to how my research nicely filled in a small hole in the world's body of knowledge. Saved by the strategic pause!

Over the 30 years since then, I have seen innumerable cases of people confusing faith with knowledge. AGW is the currently the only government-approved religion in this country.

[polymuser]

TIME Magazine, 1974:

“Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age...”

TIME Magazine, April 1977 cover:

How To Survive The Coming Ice Age

TIME Magazine, 2006:

“Never mind what you’ve heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us...”

[ThePatriotsFlag]

Now we are going to try logic? Forgetaboutit...it’s their religion.

[mikrofon]

Akin to- “The dog ate my GW research...”

[RinaseaofDs]

No, but the heat in the plume sends the chemicals above 2000 feet, which is all you need for rain cloud formation.

[Pox]

But, at a certain height in the atmosphere, the temperature was modeled to increase in temperature as a result from the increased CO2 levels in the lower atmosphere.

However, observations did not reflect the models predictions.

It’s possible that the atmosphere does not behave the way many believe it does, specifically the way CO2 reacts to Solar radiation, particularly when there are so many other factors to take into consideration.

Man has added CO2 to the atmosphere, but it remains to be seen what the true effect of increased CO2 truly is. If it indeed is causing warming, that would be a good thing, for plants in general, and perhaps it would help forestall the next “Ice Age” that is eventually going to come. Civilization can cope with higher temperatures, but lower temperatures will be catastrophic, starting with our food supply.