Ocean Heat Has Shattered Records for More Than a Year. What’s Happening?

Nope. You are still in your bias loop. The point is that there's no wildfire connection to purported climate change.

 

The more I think about that statement, the more absurd it becomes.

This particular science is not like a mathematical equation. It is based on numerous assumptions and empirical relationaships. If that was not so, then they should be able to make perfect forecasts both in the near future and decades ahead. No reputable scientist on earth would believe that AGW is a perfect science which can be proved with absolute certainty. It comes down to whether the scientists believe it. And at this time, there is nothing that would indicate that 97% of scientists believe that AGW is the primary cause of global warming.

 

It's good to hear that you finally realized that. Hopefully this means you won't repeat the mistake.

Well... Looks like your realization didn't last long, did it...

 

And as usual, you try to claim my statement had some other meaning, and you avoid commenting on what I did say.

More avoiding what I said because you have no way to refute it.

 

Has anyone considered geothermal pulses.

Or must the provocation be a product of people?

 

The Run of Record-Breaking Heat Has Ended, for Now

A 13-month streak of record-breaking global warmth has ended.

From June 2023 until June 2024, air and ocean surface water temperatures averaged a quarter of a degree Celsius higher than records set only a few years previously. Air temperatures in July 2024 were slightly cooler than the previous July (0.04 degrees Celsius, the narrowest of margins) according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service.

July 2023 was in turn 0.28 degrees Celsius warmer than the previous record-hot July in 2019, so the remarkable jump in temperature during the past year has yet to ease off completely. The warmest global air temperature recorded was in December 2023, at 1.78 degrees Celsius above the preindustrial average temperature for December—and 0.31 degrees Celsius warmer than the previous record.
https://www.wired.com/story/13-mont...ange-global-warming-sea-surface-temperatures/

No reputable scientist on earth denies this is due to man made climate change.

 

The last sentence is a false claim.

 

The water was warmer before.
Early Holocene Reef Growth ‘Substantial And Active’ With 4°C Warmer Water And Faster-Than-Today Changes
By Kenneth Richard on 19. August 2024

A new study dispels the claim that coral reefs are at risk from modern environmental changes or rates.
From about 8000 to 6000 years ago the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) mean annual water temperatures were 4°C warmer than today.

Relative sea levels were ~2 meters higher and seas were rising at rates of ~6 to 7 meters per millennium (6-7 mm/yr).

The Early Holocene climate was also wetter than today, resulting in higher rates of terrestrial runoff (more turbidity and nutrient-rich waters) as GBR coastal land areas were increasingly inundated.

It has been assumed by modern scientists (and popularized by the recent preference for alarmist narratives) that reefs could not favorably withstand these environmental conditions – nor such rapid change.

However, new data suggest coral reef growth was “substantial and active” during this interval, which also characterizes the modern reef growth in this region.

“[W]ater quality during the Holocene between 8 and 7 ka was turbid and with high concentrations of nutrients, yet coral reef growth was substantial and active. The same holds true for modern corals in inshore environments, which can display very high percentage coverage.”



Image Source: Sanborn et al., 2024

 

Here's the answer to the thread question.
“Our analysis of the CERES EBAF 4.2 shortwave fluxes showed that the observed surface and subsurface ocean warming since 2000 (including the 2023 extreme heat anomaly) was exclusively caused by an increased uptake of solar energy due to a decreasing planetary albedo…”
Scientists: 100% Of 2000-2023 Warming Explained By Solar Forcing…Human Climate Forcing ‘Does Not Exist In Reality’
By Kenneth Richard on 23. August 2024

“Our analysis revealed that the observed decrease of planetary albedo along with reported variations of the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) explain 100% of the global warming trend and 83% of the GSAT interannual variability as documented by six satellite- and ground-based monitoring systems over the past 24 years.” – Nikolov and Zeller, 2024
A new, observation-based study makes extensive use of satellite data (CERES) to quantify the driving mechanism behind the global surface air temperature (GSAT) warming throughout the first 24 years of the 21st century.

Instead of agreeing with the prevailing narrative, the authors reject the hypothesis that accumulated “heat trapping” from rising greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in recent decades is the driver of global warming. Instead, satellite observations clearly indicate “100% of the global warming trend and 83% of the GSAT interannual variability” is explained by the increasing trend in absorbed shortwave radiation due to the downward trend in planetary albedo primarily induced by changes in cloud cover.

“According to CERES observations, the Earth’s all-sky albedo has declined by approximately 0.79% since 2000 causing an increase of planetary shortwave radiation absorption of ≈2.7 W/m².”



Image Source: Nikolov and Zeller, 2024
The authors point out that the prevailing narrative that says increases in downwelling longwave radiation from GHGs drive warming in the top 100 meters of the ocean is rooted in assumption. The proposed-but-never-observed (using GHGs as the causal variable) mechanism involves a hypothetical “thermal skin layer” temperature-gradient explanation for how GHG-induced water-warming might possibly work (see Wong and Minnett, 2018). In reality, thermal radiation penetrates less than one-thousandth of a meter and “cannot directly warm the deep ocean.”.

In contrast, satellite-observed increases in absorbed solar radiation – which penetrates 100 m and indeed directly warms the ocean water – explains not only the 0-100 m ocean-warming trend since 2000, but also 80% of the interannual temperature variability.

“CERES data do not support the hypothesis that the observed EEI [Earth’s Energy Imbalance] is a result of heat trapping by increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases. Instead, these data indicate that the Earth system has gained energy through an increased absorption of solar radiation…”

“Our analysis of the CERES EBAF 4.2 shortwave fluxes showed that the observed surface and subsurface ocean warming since 2000 (including the 2023 extreme heat anomaly) was exclusively caused by an increased uptake of solar energy due to a decreasing planetary albedo…”



Image Source: Nikolov and Zeller, 2024
Drs. Nikolov and Zeller further explain “the atmospheric longwave radiation is merely a byproduct (i.e., an effect) of the air temperatures rather than a driver of climate.”

This is because Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) – the energy budget presumed to be the determinant of atmospheric and ocean warming (positive imbalance) or cooling (negative) – “is not caused by heat retention (i.e., impedance of cooling) due to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, and therefore does not carry excess energy that can be stored in the oceans and later released to cause more warming.”

In other words, the anthropogenic global warming conceptualization is not a real-world phenomenon. It does not exist.

“[A] global longwave radiative forcing predicted by climate models and attributed to rising concentrations of atmospheric trace gases does not exist in reality.”

“Thus, the available empirical evidence does not support the existence of an anthropogenic radiative forcing disturbing the energy flow within the Earth’s climate system.”



Image Source: Nikolov and Zeller, 2024

 

Coral reefs around the world are turning white and dying.

Today scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared the world is currently experiencing its fourth global bleaching event on record.

Bleaching is bad. During long spells of extreme heat, the relationship between coral and the algae that live inside its tissues breaks down. Those algae give the corals most of their food and their brilliant color in exchange for nutrients and a place to absorb sunlight. White, or “bleached,” corals aren’t dead; they are starving to death.

Since early last year, NOAA scientists have confirmed mass bleaching in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, including along the coastlines of Florida, the Caribbean, and the Great Barrier Reef. The first bleaching event on a global scale was in 1998. “As the world’s oceans continue to warm, coral bleaching is becoming more frequent and severe,” Derek Manzello, a coral reef ecologist at NOAA, said Monday in a statement.
https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2...n-coral-spawning-bleaching-great-barrier-reef

It seems to me coral reefs broadly can't simultaneously be dying and doing well. I'm going with the analysis of reputable scientists.

 

Please note that the statement in your link preceded the peer-reviewed research in #1058 by a month. Science advances via research.

 

The answer to the OP question is at hand. I suppose that concludes this thread.
Satellite Observations Confirm 2000-’22 Warming Has Been Due To An Increasing Solar Radiation Trend
By Kenneth Richard on 10. September 2024

“Earth’s energy imbalance has doubled from 0.5 ± 0.2 W/m² during the first 10 years of this century to 1.0 ± 0.2 W/m² during the past decade. The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 W/m² increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR)…” − Loeb et al., 2024
Satellite observations from CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) indicate cloud cover has been declining since 2000. Declining cloud cover has meant less shortwave radiation has been reflected to space, resulting in an increase in the solar radiation absorbed by the Earth’s surface (ocean).

Earth’s Energy Imbalance (the net difference between incoming and outgoing energy) has been increasingly positive since 2000, rising from an average +0.5 W/m² from 2000 to 2010 to +1 W/m² in the last decade. This positive trend is the consequence of the +0.9 W/m² increasing trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) due to this observed decline in cloud cover.

Thus, the 2000-2022 increase in sea surface temperatures (SST) can be explained by increases in shortwave (SW) forcing, and not an enhanced greenhouse effect due to rising greenhouse gases.



Image Source: Loeb et al., 2024

 

Permafrost is not a problem.
Hype Uncovered: ‘Nature’ Study Shows That Permafrost Is Not A Climate Tipping Point
By P Gosselin on 15. January 2025

Germany’s Klimanachrichten here presents peer-reviewed climate science that shows permafrost is not really a tipping point we need to worry about.


Here’s the text of what is reported on the video:

“Permafrost soils store a lot of CO2 and are often described as a critical tipping element in the Earth system, which suddenly and globally collapses above a certain level of global warming. Yet, the view of a ticking time bomb that initially behaves rather calmly and only ignites at a certain warming threshold is controversial among researchers. According to scientific data, this claim is not correct, as an international study team led by the Alfred Wegener Institute has now been able to show.

According to the study, there is not one specific global climate tipping point, but many local and regional tipping elements that “ignite” at different times, accumulate over time and cause the permafrost to thaw in step with climate change.

Permafrost soils cover around a quarter of the land area in the northern hemisphere and store vast amounts of organic carbon in the form of dead plant remains. These are not decomposed when frozen. Only when the permafrost thaws do microorganisms become active and release a lot of carbon into the atmosphere as CO2 and methane. Rising global temperatures could therefore activate these gigantic reservoirs and massively increase climate change through additional emissions. In the public debate, there is therefore repeated talk of a “ticking carbon time bomb”. This is based on the assumption that permafrost, like the Greenland ice sheet, is one of several tipping elements in the Earth system. According to this, the permafrost initially disappears only slowly in the course of global warming. Only when a critical threshold value is exceeded do the thawing processes suddenly intensify themselves and a rapid, irreversible global permafrost collapse sets in. Although such a thawing scenario is often suspected, it has not yet been possible to clarify whether such a threshold value really exists and at what temperature it could be exceeded.

An international research team led by Jan Nitzbon from the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) has now gotten to the bottom of this question. The AWI researcher explains, quote: “In fact, the depiction of permafrost as a global tipping element is controversial in research. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also points out this ambiguity in its latest assessment report. We wanted to close this knowledge gap. For our study, we compiled the available scientific literature on the processes that can influence and accelerate the thawing of permafrost. Underpinned by our own data analysis, we evaluated all current findings on thawing processes to determine whether and on what spatial scale – local, regional, global – they can lead to self-sustaining thawing and thus to a ‘tipping point’ at a certain warming threshold.” End quote.

The results of the study clearly show that there are self-reinforcing, partly irreversible geological, hydrological and physical processes, but these only have a local or regional effect. One example is the formation of so-called thermokarst lakes. This involves ice melting in permafrost soils, which then sink. The meltwater collects on the surface and forms a dark lake that absorbs a lot of solar energy. This further increases the warming of the permafrost beneath the lake and creates a self-perpetuating dew process in the area around the lake. Similar amplifying feedbacks were also found in other processes relevant to permafrost, such as the loss of boreal coniferous forests due to fires – but here too only on a local to regional scale. There is no evidence for self-reinforcing internal processes that would simultaneously affect the entire permafrost above a certain degree of global warming and accelerate thawing globally. Even the estimated release of greenhouse gases would not lead to a global leap in global warming at least until the end of the century. The depiction of permafrost as a global tipping element is therefore misleading.

The study was published in Nature Climate Change in June 2024.”

 

The notion of a permafrost tipping point was always self-evidently nonscience. If it had existed, it would have been passed in the Holocene Optimum, or in previous interglacials warmer than this one, and there is no evidence for such events.

 

Fake News.

Ocean temperatures were significantly warmer during the Last Interglacial period, with global sea surface temperatures estimated to be around 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius warmer than present day temperatures, and with some regions experiencing even greater warming; this period also saw significantly higher global sea levels compared to today, reaching 6 to 9 meters higher.
Key points about the Last Interglacial and ocean temperatures:

• Temperature increase:
  Global average sea surface temperature during the Last Interglacial was approximately 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius warmer than pre-industrial levels.
• Higher sea levels:
  Due to the warmer temperatures, global sea levels were considerably higher during the Last Interglacial, reaching 6 to 9 meters above current levels.
• Polar amplification:
  The most pronounced warming during the Last Interglacial was observed in polar regions, with temperatures potentially 3 to 5 degrees Celsius higher than today.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-022-01016-y

https://polar.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/sio115_week02_shackleton-natgeo-2020.pdf

https://www.bas.ac.uk/project/retre...5,to the pre-industrial era (~ 1850-1900) [3].

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...average sea,SST evolution in tropical regions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_...f the,than at present, with global ice volume

https://essd.copernicus.org/article...experienced,et al., 2009; Dutton et al., 2015).

 

I'm stuck between believing only great fools believe this climate death cult crap, and whether they know full well that these are lies, but see them a "useful" lies to advance their corrupt political agenda.

IT’S ONLY A MODEL: Defying Doomsday Forecasts: Critical Ocean Current Is Still Going Strong After 60 Years.

'The AMOC, crucial for Earth’s climate, has remained stable over the past 60 years, per a WHOI study.'

'Earth, with 71% of its surface covered by water, is profoundly influenced by the ocean and its movements. A key player in this dynamic system is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), a network of interconnected currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Driven by a combination of winds and ocean density differences, the AMOC circulates water across the globe, redistributing heat, moisture, and nutrients while playing a critical role in regulating Earth’s climate and weather systems.'

 

Dotard has withdrawn the US from the WHO and the Paris climate accords.

Trump Withdraws U.S. from World Health Organization
Public health experts say U.S. withdrawal from the W.H.O. would undermine the nation’s standing as a global health leader and make it harder to fight the next pandemic.
Trump Withdraws U.S. from World Health Organization
Public health experts say U.S. withdrawal from the W.H.O. would undermine the nation’s standing as a global health leader and make it harder to fight the next pandemic.
www.nytimes.com

Trump declares ‘national energy emergency,’ orders U.S. to withdraw from Paris climate agreement
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/20/tru...-his-legal-options-to-address-high-costs.html

He's affirmatively working on degrading the health of the nation's citizens.

 

Great news on climate.

 

There seems to be at least as much of a national energy "emergency" as there is a global climate "crisis."

 

The AMOC is doing fine, and that troubles the alarmists.
Climate Alarmist Stefan Rahmstorf Struggles With The Reality Of Uncertainty
By P Gosselin on 2. February 2025

The AMOC Quarrel
By Frank Bosse
(Translated from the original at Klimanachrichten)

We have kept you, dear readers, very promptly informed about AMOC conjectures.

Recently, we also informed you about a new study that found a stable Atlantic overturning circulation since the 1960s. It is not the only one in the recent past.

However, Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is a great advocate of the “The Day after Tomorrow” scenario of a collapsing oceanic current. As recently as June, 2024, he noted on X (formerly Twitter) that the AMOC mitigation saga “is even more dramatic than it ever was”.

He himself had been responsible for a whole series of papers as author or co-author, which also contributed to the scenario, and he initiated an “open letter” in the fall of 2024 that dramatically addressed politicians. We also reported on this.

Of course, the new findings could not couldn’t pass him by without comment. Under the headline “The AMOC is slowing down, is stable, yes, no, no, yes…” he commented on it on the blog “Real Climate”, which is run by scientists, including himself, Gavin Schmidt from NASA, and others.

What he has to say there can be stated in a nutshell: He defends his approaches and lists the problems of the more recent studies. That was to be expected. For example, he emphasizes that the new climate models (CMIP 6) hardly show any connection between “his fingerprint”, the sea surface temperatures of the “warming hole” in the North Atlantic (see the article here from 17 January 2025) and the actual current, but that the approximately 4 years older ones called CMIP5 do. He also questions whether the new ones are really more reliable in this respect than the older ones. However, the effort for the former was considerable.

He summarized:

I don’t believe that the newer methods are more reliable than the old ones (his, the author). … However, since we don’t have measurements going back far enough, there is still some uncertainty in this respect…“

And that’s the crux of the matter! He “doesn’t believe” in all honor, but knowledge in science would probably be more adequate! And yes, everything is uncertain and “nothing precise is known”.

This is also stated by the well-known oceanologist Carl Wunsch in a paper published in August 2022:

In the coming decades, continuous monitoring of the entire coupled ocean-atmosphere system will be necessary to assess the true risks of AMOC collapse, but to date there is no evidence of imminent or overwhelming danger.“

There are many assumptions, a lot of back and forth in science and, when viewed in the light of day, a lot of “belief” or “non-belief”, i.e. the unmistakable indication of a lack of knowledge.

So when you, dear reader, are once again told by a trained psychologist in a news magazine that there is “an imminent danger in a few decades if things go badly” (see here) or here: “Europe’s heating is weakening”: be careful, people are pretending a ‘certainty’ that simply does not exist. As I said, it’s not seldom about assumptions and belief or non-belief.

Also Prof. Rahmstorf rushed to say: “The Gulf Stream system is failing”, and not “The Gulf Stream system” could “somehow, somewhere, sometime” stall, the northern branch, the AMOC is perhaps stable or no, or yes (according to his own blog headline).


Image: generated with the KNMI Climate Explorer.

The AMOC is still in excellent health today, as the measurements from 2004 onwards show; these are the actual “hard facts”.

We should finally stop scaring people in the Atlantic, it doesn’t work with enlightened citizens like you, dear readers.

 

Nothing to see here. The AMOC is healthy.
New Study, Good News Greenland’s Ice Loss Likely Won’t Disrupt Atlantic Current
By P Gosselin on 9. April 2025

“Will dissuade people from climate doomism,” researcher hopes. Ice sheet runoff at the coast has much less impact on the AMOC than melting ice bergs ou to sea do.

We hear it again and again: the melting ice in Greenland due to global warming will soon lead to a collapse of the Gulf Stream system, with the result that it would be difficult to restart. Then we would see great disasters like those depicted in Roland Emmerich’s dramatic climate movie “Day after Tomorrow”.

Hat-tip: EIKE

The seawater salinity in the north is critical because the salt-rich tropical water cools and sinks due to the higher salt content. This acts as the pump that makes circulation possible in the first place. This serves to transport very large amounts of heat into the North Atlantic, keeping Europe on the mild side in the wintertime. Scenarios have been published recently that calculate a drastic cooling of the large area (especially Europe) around it if the Gulf Stream system got “switched off”. But those scenarios are proving to be over-dramatic and alarmist.

Yuxin Zhou, a postdoctoral researcher in UC Santa Barbara’s Department of Earth Science, recently went back in history to study when the AMOC was severely weakened, from 68,000 to 16,000 years ago, when the Laurentide Ice Sheet existed and thick ice covered northern North America and even New York City. Today that massive ice shelf of course no longer exists and thus there is no longer the potential of an ice melt and ice berg release of that scale.

Very different, less dramatic circumstances today

By analyzing sea sediment deposited by floating ice bergs out to sea in the North Atlantic, Zhou found that AMOC heat transferring oceanic current had been already moderately weakened back then before all the icebergs floated over the North Atlantic. Comparing the situation to today: “In contrast, the circulation is very vigorous right now, which suggests the melting of Greenland is not likely to plunge the North Atlantic into another deep freeze of the sort the alarmists fret about all the time.

Moreover, Technology Networks here adds (emphasis added):

Not all melting has the same effect on the Atlantic circulation. Freshwater released as icebergs has a much larger impact on the AMOC than runoff, which is released after melting on land. Icebergs can cool the surrounding seawater, causing it to freeze into sea ice. Ironically, this ice layer acts as a blanket, keeping the ocean surface warm and preventing it from plunging down to the depths and driving the Atlantic circulation. What’s more, icebergs travel much farther out to sea than runoff, delivering freshwater to the regions where this deepwater formation occurs.”


Today’s Greenland’s freshwater runoff won’t have the anywhere near same impact as the mass icebergs of the last age. Image: Yuxin Zhou et al.

Thus, should Greenland’s glaciers further recede inland, they would only melt on land and release freshwater at the coast rather than release icebergs far out to sea. This would mean a considerably smaller impact on the AMOC.
Stop the doomism

Zhou summarizes: ““We have a lot of anxiety about how fast climate change is happening and how dramatic the changes could be. But this is a piece of good climate news that hopefully will dissuade people from climate doomism, and give people hope, because we do need hope to fight the climate crisis.”

 

Click on the below link to see the video.



https://x.com/UltraDane/status/1910927200112828864?

 

It looks like folks are catching on.

Poll Shows Americans Support "Rolling Back" Green Rules

Recent Polling asked if that the climate-change movement “is a necessary response to a serious global crisis.” that only got 39% support.

'16% said “It has gone too far and is driven more by politics than science,” while
20% agreed: “I’m concerned about the environment but skeptical of climate alarmism.” Another
5% said “I used to support it but now question its motives and impact,” and
11% noted “I don’t believe climate change is a significant issue.”'

'(52%) expressed different degrees of skepticism about the climate-change movement, its motivations, its impacts and its significance for the future.'

'Trump is transitioning back to U.S. reliance on natural gas and crude oil, which are far more reliable and less expensive than the supposedly green alternatives, such as solar and wind power.'

It happened fast.

“Voters last November rejected the grandiose plans of the Biden Administration to abandon gasoline- and diesel-powered engines, natural gas hot water heaters and other appliances, and coal- and gas-fired power plants,” writes Duggan Flanakin on the Real Clear Energy website. “But who foresaw the total reversal of the anti-business regulatory climate of the past fifty years?”

 

Geothermal sources of ocean heating is an interesting theory, and worth looking into.

“The massive mid-ocean ridge system is a continuous range of underwater volcanoes that wraps around the globe like seams on a baseball, stretching nearly 65,000 kilometers (40,390 miles),” according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The issue, however, as I've always said, is less about global warming than it is the health of our environment - that is, humans turning our air, water, food and environment into a wasteland. Considering the oceans alone - what we dump into the oceans on a daily basis, the non-native EMF we expose ocean life to, and the billions who consume seafood, I'm amazed there's any life left in the ocean. People who are afflicted with cancer or some debilitating chronic disease caused by man-made toxins won't care about global warming - whatever its causes.

Still, overpopulation & the spewing of excess carbon & non-carbon greenhouse gases isn't helping either.