March 31, 2015 | Graham

Heat not hiding in the ocean

Anyone who understands physics, which excludes many prognosticators on climate change (yes, I’m thinking of you @beneltham*), understands that the oceans drive the climate.

So it was always a bit of a stretch to think that the plateau in global temperatures of over the last 18 or so years was because the heat was hiding in the ocean.

For that to be the case they had to answer the question as to why the ocean had suddenly stopped heating the atmosphere and was now retaining the additional heat and effectively becoming hotter than the atmosphere.

Recent research by Liang, Wunch, Heimbach and Forget suggests that not only is the heat not hiding in the ocean, but the ocean is very gradually becoming cooler.

This opens the possibility that recent temperature increases reflect energy balances at some stage in the past, not the present. Another of the interminable list of confounding factors that can’t be, or aren’t, factored in to climate models.

Current emissions of CO2 may well just be balancing out a gradual cooling of the globe, which is evident in the record of the last 10,000 years.

*If you’re wondering about the Ben Eltham jibe click here to follow his haranguing of me for daring to have an opinion on global warming that differs from his. When he claims to be a scientist and tries to pull rank I ask him a simple question about water, air and thermal mass which he confuses with oceanography. You can read the whole unedifying discussion here. But I’ve also copied the tweets below.

I challenged Eltham, who works for rival think tank the Centre for Policy Development to a debate on the subject of global warming, but he refused. Seems it’s OK to have a view, but not necessary to be able to defend it.


Posted by Graham at 1:09 pm | Comments (7) |


  1. “asserting and not debating” BAM!! Like shooting Bambi……;)

    Comment by Chris Lehmann — March 31, 2015 @ 3:59 pm

  2. Well it’s interesting isn’t it?

    Facts are our climate is primarily driven by the sun, which has been in a waning (cooling) phase (NASA) since the mid seventies?

    Even so, we’ve seen unprecedented record ice melts and a formerly permanently frozen permafrost melting, and in so doing, releasing billions of tons of new methane.

    Some also believe that our eastern coastline is being protected from visible evidence of rising ocean levels, by a lifting of the tectonic plate (buckling in the middle?) to more or less match that increase? So, if you can’t see it, it isn’t happening? Right?

    Endlessly repeatable tests that endlessly arrive at the same result or answer; are the cornerstone of good science!

    And those repeatable tests seem to show that atmospheric moisture, may in fact, be the real greenhouse gas in most global warming?

    I mean, note the different temperatures during a cold winter, between a cloudless night and a dry atmosphere; and that of an overcast one. In the first instance one can get a frost, even as far north as the Atherton Tablelands; whereas, an overcast night can prevent one, even as far south as chilly, teeth chattering Devonport.

    Besides, the greenhouse effect may well be describing an increase in foliage growth; given the fertilizing qualities of Co2, which is then followed by increased aspiration and consequently more atmospheric moisture?

    Greenhouses promote increased growth; and by trapping radiant heat and moisture! [The greenhouse effect!]

    I mean, an acre of trees will evaporate 2.5 times that of open or ponded water! In any event, why all the fuss?

    I mean it can’t be too hard to simply adapt to carbon free/neutral energy, but particularly where that then results in 50% savings or better!

    Which would then allow us to completely resuscitate our manufacturing sector; and given high tech solutions, more than match it with the Chinese or Indian economies!

    Perhaps if all you clever folks with your degrees, could just set aside your extremely petty, testosterone fueled and totally unimportant squabbles?

    And just take a fresh look at our situation, and how we might benefit from/take advantage from that; and or, perceived real or imagined, global warming?

    We could just get on the same page and just crack on modifying our economy, and in so doing, remake ourselves as the wealthiest nation on the planet!

    I take it no Australian commenting here has a problem with that particular richest nation scenario?

    I mean if there’s any substance in the claims that global warming is real, we won’t be harmed economically by opting for choices that literally walk out the door! Now, before the rest of the world cottons on to the myriad advantages of so doing!

    What’s the problem guys, don’t like or want considerably cheaper energy?

    I mean if you’ve committed too much money in coal shares? And there’s a lot of (foreign) capital invested in coal; and if that’s the only problem, then sell them and buy Thorium/ceramic fuel cell stocks!

    It really is a no brainer and a far more logical and vastly safer use of finite funds!

    Or maybe you’re so tied in these petty squabbles, you’d rather see your holdings reduced to junk status than act?

    Perhaps there’s a case to prioritize what is really important? Winning some petty squabble or saving the planet, or even just OZ and her economy?

    I mean, if the most powerful storm in recorded history hits the Philippines later today, you guys must begin to understand that something has changed and there is a cause!?

    And hardly down to solar activity, given the sun has been in a waning or cooling phase, (NASA) since the mid seventies.
    Alan B. Goulding.

    Comment by Alan B. Goulding — April 1, 2015 @ 12:10 pm

  3. Here is where the heat has been hiding. It is in women’s under ware. They just got too hot.

    Comment by Ross — April 5, 2015 @ 11:52 pm

  4. Dear Graham,

    Sorry mate but your spin on the exchange with Ben Eltham looks more than a little petulant I’m afraid.

    Rather than what you have provided below it seems the initial swipe came from you with the tweet;

    “Looking forward to #mediawatch putting skeptical blow torch to climate change alarmists. Like they just did on health to health shonks.”

    So you are by inference calling someone like Eltham, who is an advocate for action on climate change, a shonk. I would have thought he had every right to express his dismay.

    Then you accuse him of not getting “science or intellectual inquiry” to which he quite reasonably quipped “I should just hand my science degree back.”

    Somehow in your mind this became him “haranguing of me for daring to have an opinion on global warming that differs from his. When he claims to be a scientist and tries to pull rank…”

    What the hell?

    He didn’t claim to be a scientist but only that he had a science degree and therefore would be expected to have some appreciation for science and intellectual inquiry. I see he is also a research fellow, albeit in the social sciences but weighty enough to be able to defend against that jibe.

    And then there was these from you;

    “Problem is science isn’t science. You have a science degree but don’t understand physics. I have a BA and do.”

    “When it comes to science there is physics, and all the rest is stamp collecting. You’re a stamp collector.”

    “BTW, most climate scientists get the answer wrong, which shows you how little scientists in this area actually know.”

    It went on and on, it even seemed you became confused and challenged Eltham about your own ‘stamp collector’ jibe.

    Mate, this was Anthony Cox standard not Graham Young and you were right it was totally unedifying.

    Perhaps there is history between you that we are not privy to, and I know you aren’t going to put much credence in my view of the exchange but do yourself a favour and show it to someone whom you respect and who is impartial to appraise the series of tweets and I think you might be surprised.

    Comment by Steeleredux — April 6, 2015 @ 1:24 am

  5. Hi Graham,

    You might like to try this –



    Comment by Geoff Botting — April 6, 2015 @ 1:31 am

  6. Steel, I wouldn’t expect you to agree with anything I said. Your analysis right from the get go demonstrates that. You try to set me up by suggesting I called Eltham a shonk when I did no such thing. I didn’t specify who the climate “shonks” were or are. Eltham would have been the last person on my mind. In fact I was surprised when he popped-up on my twitter feed. As far as I know I’ve never spoken to him before and had no idea he thought he knew what he was talking about on climate.

    And I’ve never suggested everyone with a position on climate change is a shonk. That is just a ridiculous insinuation for you to make.

    He starts his tweets with the “friendly” assertion that he might have had intellectual respect for me once, implying that while I might have been intelligent at some stage in the past I’m not now. He just gets worse from there. He might be a “fellow”, although I think it is only of a think tank, but he’s also a bully.

    Interesting article Geoff, but did you actually read the one I referenced?

    Comment by Graham — April 6, 2015 @ 8:02 am

  7. Hi Graham
    Yes I did read the article and its assumptions are interesting. I also found the article I cited interesting.

    I guess we will just have to wait a while longer before any conclusive evidence is fully proven


    Comment by Geoff Botting — April 6, 2015 @ 5:18 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.