Posted by: graemebird | July 7, 2009

Ethnically Cleansing The Dance Of Sun And Ocean

Roger pretty scathing of this new study.

Yet this hasn’t stopped Penny from reaching out and grasping it.

“We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data. The strong interdecadal variability of global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain similar to our earlier estimate.”

We’d want to know the justification for all these exclusions and “corrections”. Because to me it looks like they’ve ethnically cleansed out the dance between the oceans and the sun that the earlier graphs implied. They’ve tried to make it look like a straight-line improvement in warmth. Rather than the gigantic mega-joules see-saw we took from earlier data.

You see now it looks like a story with a narrative that describes the advance caused by the ceaseless March of CO2-warming. But prior the heat content would swing upwards and then plunge. The oceans quickly losing far more joules than the atmosphere ever held. But this has all been smoothed out somehow. The plunge in imbedded joules in the face of rising CO2 was too much for this crowd. So one suspects that a good way to get something published, if not a grant, would be to find some semi-plausible excuse to eliminate some of this soaring and swinging action.

But as surprising as the soaring and plunging imbedded joules were when we first saw the earlier (and probably superior) data it all made perfect sense. Since the oscillations of the ocean systems have some momentum to them. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the North Atlantic decadal Oscillation flipping from one phase to the other. And its maybe more of a 30 year deal. Which puts it out of sync with the 10.7 year solar cycle, hence quite a complicated dance going on. The whole thing arbitrated by Stefan Boltzmanns law. This new smoothed arrangement therefore makes no sense to me. And I therefore pronounce it lies until proved otherwise in the most transparent fashion. We ought not be using this graph at all. We ought to be using earlier reconstructions.

I had a simplified model going where I imagined that the Gulfstream was a proxy for the entirety of oceanic behaviour. Which of course it isn’t. But I was trying to explain to myself how these soaring and plunging energy levels could be explained. One doesn’t want to confuse ones small models with the reality. But I thought I’d figured out the following inferences using this simplified model. What I was trying to do is get some smart researcher to pick up on this way of thinking and team up with some expert on ocean currents and other oceanic behaviour like cold-water upwelling. This sort of thing. Skip over it since the details are not important:

((((1. The “Gulf Stream” is faster-then-average AND decelerating……………. then the ocean WILL BE GROWING IN HEAT whenever the irradiance is above average AND SOMEWHAT BELOW AVERAGE AS WELL.

This is the clearest time when the ocean will absorb-most-readily the suns energy.

When the Gulf stream is very-fast-but-decelerating. The deceleration says that the heat differentials aren’t particularly strong………… yet the differential with the new energy coming in from the sun……. will be distributed very quickly and efficiently.

And so Stefans-Boltzmanns law says that the oceans will retain an unusual amount of the suns energy under those circumstances.

2. When the “Gulf Stream” flow is slower-then-average and ACCELERATING then under all but the strongest solar-flux-conditions…………….. the oceans will be losing heat energy.

So under ALL levels of solar flux, up to average and somewhat beyond average… under the above conditions the oceans will lose energy.

This is because the ocean will not redistribute the energy from the sun very well and so Stefans-Boltzmanns law dictates that this means that much energy will be radiated into space.

And the fact that the “Gulf Stream” is ACCELERATING means that on-the-instant the heat differentials are very strong and so the oceans will lose a great deal of heat.

So we have a few TENDENCIES here for the researcher to track.

1. ACCELERATION (associated with the oceans LOSING energy)

2. A HIGH-VOLUME-”GULF-STREAM” (assiciated with the oceans GAINING energy)


(associated with the oceans GAINING energy)

Now I could number these generalisations up to 6…. But its just the vice-versa of the above three….))))))))))

The important point was that to get beneath the mystery of how the oceans readily inhale and exhale so many joules and the troposphere keeps reasonably stable while all these joules are passing both ways through it…… Well you had to think about the rythym of the oceans, how the extra solar energy would affect this rythym, and what that would do to the joules once stefan-boltzmanns law was taken into account.

Let me give you an example. Supposing you are pushing your niece on the swing. If you push in the right way at the right time this is akin to the extra solar energy adding to the “gulf streams (the gulf stream as proxy for all ocean behaviour) momentum. And your niece will swing nice and high. Which is akin to the oceans being in a position to distribute heat very well, and therefore being able to retain and absorb a lot of joules vis a vis stefan-boltzmanns law.

But supposing you ineptly push just at the wrong time? So the force neutralises the swinging action. This is a bit analogous to a Forbush event punching joules in the ocean all at once and perhaps against the oceans rythym. So the water cannot retain all that energy. Its quickly released to the air step-fashion and we get that extra hot weather for awhile.

Another factor is the viscosity of water. Suggesting cycles since the colder water having higher viscosity will impede the “gulf-stream” even if the heat differentials are higher than otherwise. Upwelling of cold water will retain more joules in the ocean yet mean colder drier weather where this upwelling affects climate.

Anyway all this appears to be nixed by this ethnically-cleansed new version of oceanic energy. The swinging action so airbrushed out of arrangements that Michael was able to draw a red line gradient through it. So until someone can come up with the best you-beaut justification for these guys tampering with the data, then it ought to be simply dismissed for the time being.



  1. So, Graeme, you are always going on about ranking paradigms… It would help me understand your thinking if you would rank the various notable ideas you put forward in order of probability:
    1) Barack Obama is a Usurper
    2) Relativity is a fraud
    3) Global Warming is a fraud
    4) Continental drift is a fraud
    5) Quantum mechanics is a fraud
    6) There were, at some point, aliens on Mars
    7) Non-austrian economics is a fraud
    8) Any other notable ideas of yours which I may have left out.

  2. Number 6 is not known since we want to have some ground truth on that. Thats where the evidence points at this stage. Continental drift is a pretty bad theory. But there hasn’t been enough publicity that we could call it a fraud. People generally believe it in good faith. Not all non-Austrian economics is a fraud. The British Classical school fore example was a decent school of economics.

    I hope that helps. What was the point of your post?

  3. The global warming racket is the clearest and most blatant fraud. The one that is causing us the most costs and the most evil in motivation.

  4. While you are at it tractatus, you might want to think about coming good with contrary evidence. You don’t happen to have any of the usurpers personal papers? Some evidence for the existence of space-time? Some alternative reason why the continents ought to fit together both ways as they do? Some scientific reason why we ought not get inter-stella refugees once every many million years. Can you come up with evidence in favour of the Keynesian multiplier? Evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming? Evidence that there is more than 3 dimensions?


  6. Good stuff. Keep it coming.

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


%d bloggers like this: