New Study Discredits Human Attribution in Global Warming
The forcing uncertainties and lack of observational measurements in the top-to-bottom global ocean preclude an assessment that modern warmth is due to anthropogenic activities.
Key points from a new paper (Gebbie, 2021):
• 93% of the changes to the Earth’s energy budget, manifested as warming of the Earth system, are expressed in the global ocean. Just 1% of global warming is atmospheric.
• Even with the advent of “quasi-global” temperature sampling of the ocean since 2005 (ARGO), these floats (pictured) “do not measure below 2,000-m depth.” This means that temperature changes in “approximately half the ocean’s volume” are still not being measured today.
• To detect the effects of anthropogenic forcing, it would require energy budget imbalance measurement precision of 0.1 W/m² at the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Uncertainty in the forcing changes affecting climate is ±4 W/m², meaning that uncertainty is about 80 times greater than an anthropogenic signal detection.
• Past changes in global ocean heat content, such as the last deglaciation, have been 20 times larger than modern changes.
• Ocean heat storage during the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Anomaly, or MCA) was much greater than modern. Modern global ocean heat uptake is “just one-third” of what is required to reach the levels attained during Medieval times.
One final point. Dr. Gebbie asserts that approximately 15% of modern global warming (ocean) can be attributed to geothermal heat fluxes through the seafloor that “persistently heat the ocean.”
Interestingly, he also assesses that the value attained for geothermal heating of the ocean, 87 mW/m², is similar to that which is required to end a glacial period (melt ice sheets) and transition into an interglacial.
Considering the ocean bottom waters warmed up 2°C from 19,000 to 17,000 years ago about 1,000 years before the surface warmed (and CO2 began rising) (Stott et al., 2007), and that Arctic bottom waters were 6-10°C warmer than today at the beginning of the Holocene about 10,000 years ago (Beierlein et al., 2015), geothermal heat fluxes could potentially explain a large portion of glacial-interglacial transitions – as well as millennial-scale global ocean temperature changes.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
JaKo
| #
So, if we assume that the coming (Eddy) GSM will be similar to the Maunder minimum and take this paper’s estimate of “reserve heat” accumulated during the modern maximum as valid/close enough (~1/3), we have something to look forward to — e.g. White Christmas in Miami — we will probably have to burn all the hockey sticks to keep warm…!
Also: “… ~15% of modern global warming (ocean) can be attributed to geothermal heat fluxes…”
Hello Zoe! Don’t be too late with that paper of yours!
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
the hypothesis that miniscule magic gas molecules control the temperature of
310 million cubic miles of ocean is beyond absurd > CO2 is a benign, trialing artifact
Reply
Dean Michael Jackson
| #
Why do these studies conspire to not direct our attention to the obvious empirical science that went down the memory hole several decades ago…
Greater than 94% of the energy contained within nitrogen and oxygen are unaccounted for by the ‘climate change’ narrative, informing us of the massive scientific fraud taking place, the purpose of the fraud to further weaken the West’s economies.
[On March 16 Trump directed the nation to stay home for 15 days(!), his Marxist economic sabotage directive still in play. Immediately following Trump’s directive, governors/mayors declared illegal Executive Orders to lockdown the nation, thereby proving Marxist coordination between Federal/State/Local governments.
No new investments will be taking place because investments require recouping the investments, and with the spectre of the fake COVID-19 returning, or equally fake new pandemics, future lockdowns are in the future, therefore no investments are on the horizon. In short, the United States has been turned into a Banana Republic overnight.]
Nitrogen and oxygen constitute, by volume, 99.03% of the atmosphere’s gasses, while the trace gases account for 0.97%, or just under 1% of the atmosphere’s gasses. If we include water vapor (H2O) in the atmosphere, which accounts for, on average, 2% of the atmosphere’s gases by volume, we therefore subtract this 2% from the atmosphere’s gasses, where nitrogen and oxygen will constitute 97.0494%, and the trace gasses will constitute 0.9506%.
Nitrogen and oxygen don’t absorb much infrared radiation (IR) emitted from the ground, and assuming they absorb 100% of thermal energy from the surface, constituting approximately 5% of Earth’s energy budget, we’re left with a massive energy deficit for nitrogen and oxygen, confirming that those two molecules derive their energy from thermal ground/ocean emissions instead, but since the ‘climate change’ narrative identifies such emissions as not thermal but IR, we have proof that the energy being emitted isn’t IR but thermal because nitrogen and oxygen absorb a miniscule amount of IR.
We’re told that Nitrogen and oxygen obtain 5.1% of their heat energy from thermal energy emanating from the surface…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/1200px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
…and another .078% of their heat energy from outgoing infrared radiation, leaving an energy deficit of approximately 94.8%.
Since nitrogen and oxygen constitute by volume 97.0494% of the atmosphere’s gasses (when water vapor is included in the calculations making for a more precise calculation), they must therefore retain that volume amount of heat energy, but 18.4 Wm2 only constitutes 5.1% of the Earth’s Energy Budget of 358.2 Wm2. Nitrogen and oxygen’s absorption of infrared radiation would only infinitesimally affect this missing heat energy.
The missing energy levels for nitrogen and oxygen direct our attention to another aspect of the scientific fraud taking place: Misidentified outgoing energy types. IR is assigned an energy magnitude of 358.2 Wm2, and thermals 18.4 Wm2. The opposite is closer to the truth, where IR is assigned 18.4 Wm2, and thermals 358.2 Wm2.
Hence why:
THERMODYNAMICS IS AWOL
Climate change mechanics conspires to do away with the physics of the atmosphere, where action and reaction is abandoned. When a new gas molecule is introduced into the dense troposphere, dislocation takes place, where if the new molecule is denser than the atmosphere (contains less heat energy), such as carbon dioxide, the gas molecule sinks displacing upwards the warmer nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Conversely, if the new gas molecule has more heat energy than the nitrogen-oxygen based atmosphere (such as methane), the new molecule rises, displacing relatively cooler nitrogen and oxygen molecules downwards, which displaces upwards relatively more heat retaining nitrogen and oxygen molecules, thereby cooling the area of dislocation. Thermodynamics in action in the atmosphere that keeps the Earth cool when increased radiation isn’t the new variable introduced.
At my blog, bead the articles…
‘House of Cards: The Collapse of the ‘Collapse’ of the USSR’
‘Playing Hide And Seek In Yugoslavia’
Then read the article, ‘The Marxist Co-Option Of History And The Use Of The Scissors Strategy To Manipulate History Towards The Goal Of Marxist Liberation’
Solution
The West will form new political parties where candidates are vetted for Marxist ideology/blackmail, the use of the polygraph to be an important tool for such vetting. Then the West can finally liberate the globe of vanguard Communism.
My blog…
https://djdnotice.blogspot.com/2018/09/d-notice-articles-article-55-7418.html
Reply
Chris
| #
Before anthropogenic forcing can be discussed there first needs to be experiments conducted that shows that it should even be a consideration.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Global warming (climate change) is really nothing but a science based religion. It’s an intellectual bait and switch scheme. If asked believers will supply you with a mountain of data. The data will do little more than vaguely suggest some alarming eventualities in the indeterminate future. If you then ask them to delineate the connection to carbon dioxide you can then expect to be called all kinds of derogatory names implying that you are self centered and don’t care about future generations.
The revelation that global warming is a religion based loosely on science is hardly front page news. What is less well known is that the same can be said for aspects of meteorology, specifically the convection model of storm theory.
My name is James McGinn. I am an atmospheric physicist and a science theorist laying the ground work for a brave new future of severe weather mitigation. I have an exciting new hypothesis on the cause of storms. Click the link below to see what all the excitement is about.
Thank you for your support.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi James,
You just wrote: “My name is James McGinn. I am an atmospheric physicist and a science theorist laying the ground work for a brave new future of severe weather mitigation. I have an exciting new hypothesis on the cause of storms.”
You have been writing for years about your novel hypotheses about storms. I seems now ‘you’ have decided they were wrong (or it was wrong).
Since you claim to be “an atmospheric physicist and a science theorist” is this self-claimed or do you have some academic experience. While I do not claim. that such is essential but one must consent to consider the experiences and efforts of others who do try to understand weather (storms),
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Well, Jerry, I’m a scientist. And since I don’t consider meteorology to be credible science I don’t refer to myself as a meteorologist. I consider myself the number one expert in the world on the physics of storms. And this is largely a consequence of also being the number one expert on the physics of H2O:
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17448
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Roser
| #
It is important to understand that the conservation of energy does not mean the conservation of kinetic energy. A moving object when struck from behind by an object with greater velocity will gain velocity (energy) regardless if the striking object has more mass (kinetic energy) or less mass (possibly less kinetic energy). As long as the gas molecules have greater velocity they will transfer energy to water.
Reply
geran
| #
Herb, kinetic energy is conserved in collisions.
Have you ever had a course in physics?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geran,
When a “hot” gas molecule strikes a piece of 0 C ice, the ice remains at 0 C. Does this mean the gas molecule transfers no energy to the ice and recoils with the same velocity?
Herb
Reply
geran
| #
Nope, that’s not what it means.
Have you ever had a course in physics?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran and Herb,
I have been pondering Herb’s definition that the collision is perfectly elastic. I know (understand) that relative to E = m c^2 was Einstein’s consideration that nothing was instantaneous. And then his assumption that the speed of light was a constant. Hence I consider there is such thing as a perfectly elastic collision. So I consider that the surfaces of both bodies would have been slightly ‘rearranged’ by the very slightly inelastic collision.
Next a question becomes, what energy of these bodies , might this rearrangement of the two bodies be?
Classification is a critically important activity in science. Relative to the Law of Energy Conservation we understand there is kinetic energy (the energy due to motion of a body and there is potential energy (the energy due to the position of a body.
I will stop here in an effort to reduce my many of errors.
Havv a good day, Jerry
Reply