Image via Wikipedia

WUWT posts an article by Alec Rawls, titled ‘Explaining Muller vs. Muller: is BEST blissfully unaware of cosmic-ray-cloud theory?’

This claim by the Berkely group really is only propaganda for the masses and has little scientific credibility, as is shown in this and previous posts.

I find the post section on ocean heat and levels of great interest. Firstly the degree of accuracy in measuring both these parameters is almost mind-boggling.

The immense volume of the oceans and the statistically small amount of data used in computing small but apparently meaningful changes in temperature. Huge variations in measurable ocean height due to tides, wave and global distribution, yet volume changes due to water temperature are assessed in fractions of a mm.

However, these computations are accepted, by scientists on both sides of the fence, as meaningful, i.e., variations in either direction are accepted as a useful measure of actual global, planet temperature or temperature anomalies.

Therefore there is no reason to dispute the reported results if the same rules are applied in assessing them. This is the particular section:

“Almost all of the heat capacity of the biosphere is in the oceans. Thus climate change over time means a change in ocean heat content. Land surface temperature is a volatile expression of this global temperature, depending on whether colder or warmer ocean currents are at the surface. That volatility makes surface temperatures an iffy way to track climate change, and today, better evidence is available.

In recent years, ARGO’s automated fleet of temperature sounding devices provides much improved direct measurement of ocean temperature. According to NOAA, data from these floats show ocean heat content for the top 700 meters as close to flat for about 10 years now:

(Bob Tisdale says that NOAA has recently started reporting heat content for the top 2000 meters, but apparently it is still a work in progress, as they don’t display it on their heat content page.)

Ocean heat content can also be measured by sea level, which is determined by the thermal expansion of the oceans, plus net land-ice melt. Here is NOAA’s sea level data, compensated for land-ice melt and variations in salinity. It shows ocean heat content as roughly flat for about the last eight years:

This best evidence indicates that global warming has stopped, which militates against the CO2 theory of late 20th century warming, but the oceans do not show the global cooling that the solar-theory predicts, so it does not clearly favor the cosmic-ray-cloud hypothesis either. The very latest sea level data, however, may finally be telling the tale:

Steve Goddard, September 2011: “The latest sea level numbers are out, and Envisat shows that the two year long decline is continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.”

That’s actual sea level, not steric sea level. Subtract out the ongoing land-ice melt from our currently warm climate and thermosteric sea level is falling even more rapidly. If cosmic-ray-cloud effects do dominate CO2 effects, we’ll probably have full proof within the next couple of years.”

So this post has several aspects of interest, all supporting our arguments that the carbon control world-wide drive is not justified by science.  It is past time that the public and governments got their brains in gear and their thinking on a realistic level.

Excellent publishing WUWT. Read the article here.

Related articles

• Global warming ‘confirmed’ anew (bbc.co.uk)
• Global warming NOT reconfirmed (trutherator.wordpress.com)
• See? I really am an AGW agnostic (wallacegsmith.wordpress.com)
• Has the AGW argument imploded? (hotair.com)
• AGW movement is Fraudulent and Politically Driven. (tipggita32.wordpress.com)