Scientists riding the global warming bandwagon have puzzled for nearly a decade over why the increases of global surface temperature, which were the highest they’d ever been in the 1980s and 90s, slowed down to basically nothing in the 21st century.
This slowdown actually prompted a change of nomenclature from “global warming” to “climate change” (which could conveniently mean basically anything). Well, a crack team of scientists finally has an answer for why global temperatures haven’t been increasing in recent years: the deep ocean has acted as a heat sink sucking up all the extra heat energy. Let’s hear the theory from their own mouths:
Observations of ocean heat content and of sea-level rise suggest that the additional heat from the continued rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations has been absorbed in the ocean and has not been manifest as a rise in surface temperature.
Okay. Just one question. Was the ocean not there in the 80s and 90s, or am I missing something? Wouldn’t it have acted as a heat sink then as well? They apparently have an answer for that as well: deep ocean temperatures have continued to increase in the last ten or so years, even though surface temperatures have remained fairly steady. But no word on why they weren’t sucking up all the surface heat in the 80s and 90s? I don’t get it. Why is an increase in deep ocean heat correlative to a hiatus of surface temperature increases?
And simple science explains why oceans would continue to heat up even while surface temperatures remain steady. Much of that can obviously be explained by the specific heat properties of water. Temperatures in water change rather slowly, and just as heat reaches an average equilibrium in a pot of water, it will also reach that equilibrium over a much longer time in the much larger ocean. So heat that obviously touches the ocean on the surface would slowly work its way down to the deep ocean. This would happen regardless of whether or not more heat continued to be applied to the surface. What the surface temperature plateau indicate is that, at least for the time being, the heat on the stove has been turned off. The deep oceans will continue to heat up slowly as the ocean reaches an equilibrium, but they will also begin to cool down if global surface temperatures continue steady or, more than likely, drop.
Part of the problem here is that reliable (or at least systematic) data collection for all of this is a fairly modern phenomenon—less than one hundred years old. That doesn’t stop NASA from presenting a chart of CO2 and temperature “data” that purports to go back nearly 400,000 years. Most of this data is speculative of course. But that doesn’t stop them from naming the page “evidence.” Seventy years is not enough time to come up with a definitive theory for global cycles. Come up with theories all you want, but don’t expect to get a very clear picture for quite some time. Furthermore, meteorology and environmental science are only generally capable of speculating on the correlation of environmental causes and effects, and even less capable of accurate prediction. There are very many variables involved here, and it is no surprise that we just don’t have an exhaustive grasp on how all those variables interact.
None of this is necessarily bad. Provisional statements and a lack of certainty are the necessary humility of science, and without this open-minded humility, science becomes a destructive superstition as dogmatic and destructive as a false religion. And that is what worries me about the “science” surrounding global warming—not all of the possibilities for explanation are being given equal opportunity. Example?
For one, in past decades, the sun has had higher than average temperatures due to higher than average sunspot activity. Since 2000 that sunspot activity has diminished. The natural cycle, as recorded by the regular fluctuation of sunspot activity, fits the data much more easily than CO2 emissions data does. And the axial precession of the Earth could help to explain some of the longer cycles. These theories don’t require that we come up with asinine post hoc explanations for the anomalous holes in a degenerating paradigm. Why “scientists” do not give other theories much time indicates that another agenda, political and ideological, is at work here. With dogged and unflappable faith, adherents of anthropogenic global warming theory hold to it as an unimpeachable dogma. And that is not science.