Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat
- Thread starter CrusaderFrank
- Start date
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,615
- 69,745
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #22
Hey Frank, Does that piece of shit plagiarize everyone's work without sourcing it??
Didn't exactly stick to the story line, well anyway, let's give this yale lady a read a see if she know shit ....................
30 Mar 2015: Analysis
How Long Can Oceans Continue
To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.
by cheryl katz
For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence.
But as those gases build in the air, an energy overload is rising below the waves. A raft of recent research finds that the ocean has been heating faster and deeper than scientists had previously thought. And there are new signs that the oceans might be starting to release some of that pent-up thermal
Enlarge
Nature Climate Change
This map shows trends in global ocean heat content, from the surface to 2,000 meters deep.
energy, which could contribute to significant global temperature increases in the coming years.
The ocean has been heating at a rate of around 0.5 to 1 watt of energy per square meter over the past decade, amassing more than 2 X 1023 joules of energy — the equivalent of roughly five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second — since 1990. Vast and slow to change temperature, the oceans have a huge capacity to sequester heat, especially the deep ocean, which is playing an increasingly large uptake and storage role.
That is a major reason the planet’s surface temperatures have risen less than expected in the past dozen or so years, given the large greenhouse gas hike during the same period, said Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The phenomenon, which some call the “hiatus,” has challenged scientists to explain its cause. But new studies indicate that the forces behind the supposed hiatus are natural Ocean heat accumulation is the equivalent of five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second since 1990. — and temporary — ocean processes that may already be changing course.
Pacific trade winds, for instance, which have been unusually strong for the past two decades thanks to a 20- to 30-year cycle called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, have been pumping atmospheric heat down into the western Pacific. The winds are powered up by the cycle’s current negative, or cool, phase. But scientists say that when the cycle eventually swings back to its positive, warm phase, which history suggests could occur within a decade, the winds will wind down, the pumping will let up, and buried heat will rise back into the atmosphere.
“There’s a hint this might already be starting to happen,” said Matthew England, an ocean sciences professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Without the winds’ cooling action, atmospheric temperatures could surge as they did in the 1980s and 1990s, the last time the oscillation was positive. During the next positive phase, “it’s very much likely that [warming] will be as fast or even faster,” he said, “because those greenhouse gases are now more elevated.”
Scientists are also learning that the ocean has gained more heat, and at greater depth, than they had realized. That means the entire climate is even more out-of-whack than is evident today.
“If you want to measure the energy imbalance of the earth, the ocean temperature gives you nearly the whole story,” said Dean Roemmich, oceanography professor at the University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
The long-term heat gain in the top 700 meters (.43 miles) of the world’s oceans has likely been underestimated by as much as half, according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory research scientist Paul Durack. Earlier measurements had lowballed heat accumulation due to historically sparse observations for large parts of the ocean. The figures were especially low for the Southern Hemisphere, which contains about 60 percent of the planet’s oceans but was very poorly sampled — until Argo, an array of Globally, the upper oceans may hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than previously reported. around 3,500 floating sensors, was deployed worldwide in 2005.
An updated analysis by Durack and colleagues found that from 1970 to 2004, the upper 700 meters of oceans in the Southern Hemisphere had gained from 48 to 166 percent more heat than estimated from earlier observations. Globally, their findings suggest that the upper oceans hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than previously reported.
“We have likely been missing a portion of the increasing heat,” said Durack. His study and other recent research, he said, suggests that “we may need to go back and start recalculating the climate sensitivity estimates for the earth.”
Excess energy is also penetrating deeper into the ocean and farther south, Roemmich and colleagues found, analyzing Argo data measuring heat down to 2,000 meters (1.24 miles). The network provides the first comprehensive measurements of the deeper ocean; most prior readings stopped at 700 meters. The researchers found that from two-thirds to 98 percent of the substantial ocean heat gain between 2006 and 2013 took place well south of the equator, where giant gyres drew it down. And half of the gain occurred from 500 to 2,000 meters deep.
Roemmich estimates that at depths from 500 to 2000 meters, oceans are warming by .002 degrees Celsius every year, and in the top 500 meters, they’re gaining .005 degrees C. annually. While that may not seem like a big temperature jump, it amounts to a staggering load of heat when multiplied throughout the depths of this immense system that covers 70 percent of the planet.
Temperature gains are larger at the sea surface, which heats faster than the ocean as a whole. The top 75 meters have warmed an average of .01 degrees C per year since 1971. But forces like winds and currents have strong effects on the ocean surface, and temperature measurements there are highly More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere. variable. Still, they indicate that some areas of the ocean are heating up especially fast, such as the Arctic Ocean — which this year had its lowest winter ice year on record — and is absorbing much more solar energy as melting ice cover exposes new dark surfaces. Summer sea surface temperatures in some sections have risen around 1 degree C over the past two decades — nearly five times the global average. Parts of the Indian Ocean, North Atlantic, and waters surrounding Antarctica are warming at nearly the same rate.
More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere.
“A couple of El Niño events will do the trick,” said England. The warm water and calm winds of this periodic Pacific tropical condition are “a big way to get subsurface heat back to the surface.” Meteorologists say a mild El Niño condition is underway this year.
The oceans won’t eject all that excess heat in a giant gush, of course — seawater’s heat capacity is huge and a portion will be locked away for millennia. Some of that banked energy will discharge into air at the ocean
Enlarge
NOAA
This graph shows the increase in the global ocean heat content since 1955.
surface, however, and the atmosphere will heat up. Given the enormity of the ocean’s thermal load, even a tiny change has a big impact.
“But the other thing I want to point out,” England added, “is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at such high concentrations compared to what they were 100 years ago that you don’t need to bring heat back up from the ocean to the surface to get future warming — you just need to slow down the heat uptake by the ocean, and greenhouse gases will do the rest.”
Recent weather trends suggest that uptake mechanisms like subsurface heat burial in the tropical Pacific and vertical heat transfer to the ocean depths could already be declining.
“And so this is why 2014 is now the warmest year on record,” said Trenberth. “In other words, the heat is no longer going deep into the ocean. The wind patterns have changed, the surface of the Pacific Ocean has warmed up. And that has consequences.”
One of the major consequences is higher sea levels. Thermal expansion — water swells as it heats — accounts for a substantial portion of rising seas, so warmer oceans mean even worse news for already threatened islands and coasts.
The effects on sea circulation patterns and weather are complex and difficult to tease out from natural variation, requiring long-term observation. But mounting evidence points to a variety of likely impacts. Among them: Rapidly warming Arctic waters could worsen summer heat waves in Europe and North America by lowering the temperature differential that drives mid-latitude circulation. And a recent rash of For marine life, ocean heating already presents multiple, intensifying dangers. unusually intense cyclones may be linked to changes in the tropical Pacific.
As for marine life, ocean heating already presents multiple, intensifying dangers. Warmer water holds less oxygen and other gases. On top of that, warming increases ocean stratification, which blocks the movement of oxygen-rich surface waters to lower depths. The resulting low-oxygen zones are now spreading, and climate models predict they could be 50 percent larger by the end of this century. Not only are the zones inhospitable to most sea creatures, they squeeze critical upper ocean habitat as they enlarge, said Sarah Moffitt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Davis’ Bodega Marine Laboratory.
“So you are losing this substantial habitat footprint for oxygen-respiring organisms,” she said. “We are seeing signals of oxygen loss in every ocean basin in the global ocean.”
A recent study by Moffitt and colleagues of seafloor sediments from the end of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 to 17,000 years ago, revealed that Pacific Ocean ecosystems from the Arctic to Chile “extensively and abruptly lost oxygen when the planet warmed through deglaciation,” she said. The findings offer a glimpse of what may lie ahead. “It shows us that in a carbon-rich, warm future, ocean systems have the capacity to change in a way that has no analogue” in today’s world, Moffitt said.
A further concern is that temperature increases could diminish the ocean’s vital role as a carbon sink. Absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere is another way oceans mitigate greenhouse gas impacts, although marine waters are growing increasingly acidic as a result. Currently, up to nearly half of humanity’s carbon dioxide output ends up dissolved in seawater, with most landing in the Southern Hemisphere oceans, where wind-driven eddies bury it deeply. But warm waters also hold less CO2. And those cyclical winds likely will someday decrease. The outcome of rising ocean temperatures and decreasing winds would be faster ocean CO2 saturation
ALSO FROM YALE e360
Although the IPCC recently increased its projections for sea level rise this century, some scientists warn even those estimates are too conservative. But, Nicola Jones reports, one thing is certain: Predicting sea level rise far into the future is a very tricky task.
READ MORE and far more heat-trapping gas entering the atmosphere — a scenario potentially akin to the massive ocean carbon release that helped end the last Ice Age.
There’s still time to turn things around, scientists say.
“We have the technology today to make a positive impact on climate, and all we lack is the political will,” said John Abraham, a thermal sciences professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. But he and others worry that by covering up the effects of our long fossil fuel bender, oceans are keeping us from realizing just how off-kilter the earth’s climate system has become.
“The ocean’s doing us a favor by grabbing about 90 percent of our heat,” Abraham said. “But it’s not going to do it forever.”
How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth s Excess Heat by Cheryl Katz Yale Environment 360
It's such a total farce. The excess heat, which never was in the atmosphere, magically appears 700M deep in the oceans
Uh huh. Sureeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
- 2,180
Thank you, I am 150 lbs I like the heat, the hotter the better, while my 225 lb co worker is always crying like a little girl about it.Frank.....notice these days that the temperature is almost invariably reported with the "heat index" temperature!!!
Hmmm..........no agenda to see here!!!
Come on now .....
Heat indexes simply take into account relative humidity.
The feels like temperature is a corrected relative temperature with an adjustment for relative humidity.
hmmmmmm.. Feels LIKE.... (subjective to ones own estimation) Vs. Temperature is (which is a derived observation of a consistent method using calibrated devices)
Does any one else see the alarmists using subjective crap ?
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Hey Frank, Does that piece of shit plagiarize everyone's work without sourcing it??
Didn't exactly stick to the story line, well anyway, let's give this yale lady a read a see if she know shit ....................
30 Mar 2015: Analysis
How Long Can Oceans Continue
To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.
by cheryl katz
For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence.
But as those gases build in the air, an energy overload is rising below the waves. A raft of recent research finds that the ocean has been heating faster and deeper than scientists had previously thought. And there are new signs that the oceans might be starting to release some of that pent-up thermal
Enlarge
Nature Climate Change
This map shows trends in global ocean heat content, from the surface to 2,000 meters deep.
energy, which could contribute to significant global temperature increases in the coming years.
The ocean has been heating at a rate of around 0.5 to 1 watt of energy per square meter over the past decade, amassing more than 2 X 1023 joules of energy — the equivalent of roughly five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second — since 1990. Vast and slow to change temperature, the oceans have a huge capacity to sequester heat, especially the deep ocean, which is playing an increasingly large uptake and storage role.
That is a major reason the planet’s surface temperatures have risen less than expected in the past dozen or so years, given the large greenhouse gas hike during the same period, said Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The phenomenon, which some call the “hiatus,” has challenged scientists to explain its cause. But new studies indicate that the forces behind the supposed hiatus are natural Ocean heat accumulation is the equivalent of five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second since 1990. — and temporary — ocean processes that may already be changing course.
Pacific trade winds, for instance, which have been unusually strong for the past two decades thanks to a 20- to 30-year cycle called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, have been pumping atmospheric heat down into the western Pacific. The winds are powered up by the cycle’s current negative, or cool, phase. But scientists say that when the cycle eventually swings back to its positive, warm phase, which history suggests could occur within a decade, the winds will wind down, the pumping will let up, and buried heat will rise back into the atmosphere.
“There’s a hint this might already be starting to happen,” said Matthew England, an ocean sciences professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Without the winds’ cooling action, atmospheric temperatures could surge as they did in the 1980s and 1990s, the last time the oscillation was positive. During the next positive phase, “it’s very much likely that [warming] will be as fast or even faster,” he said, “because those greenhouse gases are now more elevated.”
Scientists are also learning that the ocean has gained more heat, and at greater depth, than they had realized. That means the entire climate is even more out-of-whack than is evident today.
“If you want to measure the energy imbalance of the earth, the ocean temperature gives you nearly the whole story,” said Dean Roemmich, oceanography professor at the University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
The long-term heat gain in the top 700 meters (.43 miles) of the world’s oceans has likely been underestimated by as much as half, according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory research scientist Paul Durack. Earlier measurements had lowballed heat accumulation due to historically sparse observations for large parts of the ocean. The figures were especially low for the Southern Hemisphere, which contains about 60 percent of the planet’s oceans but was very poorly sampled — until Argo, an array of Globally, the upper oceans may hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than previously reported. around 3,500 floating sensors, was deployed worldwide in 2005.
An updated analysis by Durack and colleagues found that from 1970 to 2004, the upper 700 meters of oceans in the Southern Hemisphere had gained from 48 to 166 percent more heat than estimated from earlier observations. Globally, their findings suggest that the upper oceans hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than previously reported.
“We have likely been missing a portion of the increasing heat,” said Durack. His study and other recent research, he said, suggests that “we may need to go back and start recalculating the climate sensitivity estimates for the earth.”
Excess energy is also penetrating deeper into the ocean and farther south, Roemmich and colleagues found, analyzing Argo data measuring heat down to 2,000 meters (1.24 miles). The network provides the first comprehensive measurements of the deeper ocean; most prior readings stopped at 700 meters. The researchers found that from two-thirds to 98 percent of the substantial ocean heat gain between 2006 and 2013 took place well south of the equator, where giant gyres drew it down. And half of the gain occurred from 500 to 2,000 meters deep.
Roemmich estimates that at depths from 500 to 2000 meters, oceans are warming by .002 degrees Celsius every year, and in the top 500 meters, they’re gaining .005 degrees C. annually. While that may not seem like a big temperature jump, it amounts to a staggering load of heat when multiplied throughout the depths of this immense system that covers 70 percent of the planet.
Temperature gains are larger at the sea surface, which heats faster than the ocean as a whole. The top 75 meters have warmed an average of .01 degrees C per year since 1971. But forces like winds and currents have strong effects on the ocean surface, and temperature measurements there are highly More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere. variable. Still, they indicate that some areas of the ocean are heating up especially fast, such as the Arctic Ocean — which this year had its lowest winter ice year on record — and is absorbing much more solar energy as melting ice cover exposes new dark surfaces. Summer sea surface temperatures in some sections have risen around 1 degree C over the past two decades — nearly five times the global average. Parts of the Indian Ocean, North Atlantic, and waters surrounding Antarctica are warming at nearly the same rate.
More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere.
“A couple of El Niño events will do the trick,” said England. The warm water and calm winds of this periodic Pacific tropical condition are “a big way to get subsurface heat back to the surface.” Meteorologists say a mild El Niño condition is underway this year.
The oceans won’t eject all that excess heat in a giant gush, of course — seawater’s heat capacity is huge and a portion will be locked away for millennia. Some of that banked energy will discharge into air at the ocean
Enlarge
NOAA
This graph shows the increase in the global ocean heat content since 1955.
surface, however, and the atmosphere will heat up. Given the enormity of the ocean’s thermal load, even a tiny change has a big impact.
“But the other thing I want to point out,” England added, “is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at such high concentrations compared to what they were 100 years ago that you don’t need to bring heat back up from the ocean to the surface to get future warming — you just need to slow down the heat uptake by the ocean, and greenhouse gases will do the rest.”
Recent weather trends suggest that uptake mechanisms like subsurface heat burial in the tropical Pacific and vertical heat transfer to the ocean depths could already be declining.
“And so this is why 2014 is now the warmest year on record,” said Trenberth. “In other words, the heat is no longer going deep into the ocean. The wind patterns have changed, the surface of the Pacific Ocean has warmed up. And that has consequences.”
One of the major consequences is higher sea levels. Thermal expansion — water swells as it heats — accounts for a substantial portion of rising seas, so warmer oceans mean even worse news for already threatened islands and coasts.
The effects on sea circulation patterns and weather are complex and difficult to tease out from natural variation, requiring long-term observation. But mounting evidence points to a variety of likely impacts. Among them: Rapidly warming Arctic waters could worsen summer heat waves in Europe and North America by lowering the temperature differential that drives mid-latitude circulation. And a recent rash of For marine life, ocean heating already presents multiple, intensifying dangers. unusually intense cyclones may be linked to changes in the tropical Pacific.
As for marine life, ocean heating already presents multiple, intensifying dangers. Warmer water holds less oxygen and other gases. On top of that, warming increases ocean stratification, which blocks the movement of oxygen-rich surface waters to lower depths. The resulting low-oxygen zones are now spreading, and climate models predict they could be 50 percent larger by the end of this century. Not only are the zones inhospitable to most sea creatures, they squeeze critical upper ocean habitat as they enlarge, said Sarah Moffitt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Davis’ Bodega Marine Laboratory.
“So you are losing this substantial habitat footprint for oxygen-respiring organisms,” she said. “We are seeing signals of oxygen loss in every ocean basin in the global ocean.”
A recent study by Moffitt and colleagues of seafloor sediments from the end of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 to 17,000 years ago, revealed that Pacific Ocean ecosystems from the Arctic to Chile “extensively and abruptly lost oxygen when the planet warmed through deglaciation,” she said. The findings offer a glimpse of what may lie ahead. “It shows us that in a carbon-rich, warm future, ocean systems have the capacity to change in a way that has no analogue” in today’s world, Moffitt said.
A further concern is that temperature increases could diminish the ocean’s vital role as a carbon sink. Absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere is another way oceans mitigate greenhouse gas impacts, although marine waters are growing increasingly acidic as a result. Currently, up to nearly half of humanity’s carbon dioxide output ends up dissolved in seawater, with most landing in the Southern Hemisphere oceans, where wind-driven eddies bury it deeply. But warm waters also hold less CO2. And those cyclical winds likely will someday decrease. The outcome of rising ocean temperatures and decreasing winds would be faster ocean CO2 saturation
ALSO FROM YALE e360
Although the IPCC recently increased its projections for sea level rise this century, some scientists warn even those estimates are too conservative. But, Nicola Jones reports, one thing is certain: Predicting sea level rise far into the future is a very tricky task.
READ MORE and far more heat-trapping gas entering the atmosphere — a scenario potentially akin to the massive ocean carbon release that helped end the last Ice Age.
There’s still time to turn things around, scientists say.
“We have the technology today to make a positive impact on climate, and all we lack is the political will,” said John Abraham, a thermal sciences professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. But he and others worry that by covering up the effects of our long fossil fuel bender, oceans are keeping us from realizing just how off-kilter the earth’s climate system has become.
“The ocean’s doing us a favor by grabbing about 90 percent of our heat,” Abraham said. “But it’s not going to do it forever.”
How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth s Excess Heat by Cheryl Katz Yale Environment 360
It's such a total farce. The excess heat, which never was in the atmosphere, magically appears 700M deep in the oceans
Uh huh. Sureeeeeeeeeeeeee.
Yesssssss Sirrrrrrrrrrr, the lefts favorite play right out the book, a lie predicated on a lie .................
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,615
- 69,745
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #25
I grabbed Laurentian Abyss as the alleged final resting place of Red October. Glad to see you cut and paste from Wiki without attribution
You mentioned Guam, has it tipped over yet?
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Hey Frank, Does that piece of shit plagiarize everyone's work without sourcing it??
Didn't exactly stick to the story line, well anyway, let's give this yale lady a read a see if she know shit ....................
30 Mar 2015: Analysis
How Long Can Oceans Continue
To Absorb Earth’s Excess Heat?
The main reason soaring greenhouse gas emissions have not caused air temperatures to rise more rapidly is that oceans have soaked up much of the heat. But new evidence suggests the oceans’ heat-buffering ability may be weakening.
by cheryl katz
For decades, the earth’s oceans have soaked up more than nine-tenths of the atmosphere’s excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions. By stowing that extra energy in their depths, oceans have spared the planet from feeling the full effects of humanity’s carbon overindulgence.
But as those gases build in the air, an energy overload is rising below the waves. A raft of recent research finds that the ocean has been heating faster and deeper than scientists had previously thought. And there are new signs that the oceans might be starting to release some of that pent-up thermal
Enlarge
Nature Climate Change
This map shows trends in global ocean heat content, from the surface to 2,000 meters deep.
energy, which could contribute to significant global temperature increases in the coming years.
The ocean has been heating at a rate of around 0.5 to 1 watt of energy per square meter over the past decade, amassing more than 2 X 1023 joules of energy — the equivalent of roughly five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second — since 1990. Vast and slow to change temperature, the oceans have a huge capacity to sequester heat, especially the deep ocean, which is playing an increasingly large uptake and storage role.
That is a major reason the planet’s surface temperatures have risen less than expected in the past dozen or so years, given the large greenhouse gas hike during the same period, said Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The phenomenon, which some call the “hiatus,” has challenged scientists to explain its cause. But new studies indicate that the forces behind the supposed hiatus are natural Ocean heat accumulation is the equivalent of five Hiroshima bombs exploding every second since 1990. — and temporary — ocean processes that may already be changing course.
Pacific trade winds, for instance, which have been unusually strong for the past two decades thanks to a 20- to 30-year cycle called the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, have been pumping atmospheric heat down into the western Pacific. The winds are powered up by the cycle’s current negative, or cool, phase. But scientists say that when the cycle eventually swings back to its positive, warm phase, which history suggests could occur within a decade, the winds will wind down, the pumping will let up, and buried heat will rise back into the atmosphere.
“There’s a hint this might already be starting to happen,” said Matthew England, an ocean sciences professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. Without the winds’ cooling action, atmospheric temperatures could surge as they did in the 1980s and 1990s, the last time the oscillation was positive. During the next positive phase, “it’s very much likely that [warming] will be as fast or even faster,” he said, “because those greenhouse gases are now more elevated.”
Scientists are also learning that the ocean has gained more heat, and at greater depth, than they had realized. That means the entire climate is even more out-of-whack than is evident today.
“If you want to measure the energy imbalance of the earth, the ocean temperature gives you nearly the whole story,” said Dean Roemmich, oceanography professor at the University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
The long-term heat gain in the top 700 meters (.43 miles) of the world’s oceans has likely been underestimated by as much as half, according to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory research scientist Paul Durack. Earlier measurements had lowballed heat accumulation due to historically sparse observations for large parts of the ocean. The figures were especially low for the Southern Hemisphere, which contains about 60 percent of the planet’s oceans but was very poorly sampled — until Argo, an array of Globally, the upper oceans may hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than previously reported. around 3,500 floating sensors, was deployed worldwide in 2005.
An updated analysis by Durack and colleagues found that from 1970 to 2004, the upper 700 meters of oceans in the Southern Hemisphere had gained from 48 to 166 percent more heat than estimated from earlier observations. Globally, their findings suggest that the upper oceans hold 24 to 58 percent more heat than previously reported.
“We have likely been missing a portion of the increasing heat,” said Durack. His study and other recent research, he said, suggests that “we may need to go back and start recalculating the climate sensitivity estimates for the earth.”
Excess energy is also penetrating deeper into the ocean and farther south, Roemmich and colleagues found, analyzing Argo data measuring heat down to 2,000 meters (1.24 miles). The network provides the first comprehensive measurements of the deeper ocean; most prior readings stopped at 700 meters. The researchers found that from two-thirds to 98 percent of the substantial ocean heat gain between 2006 and 2013 took place well south of the equator, where giant gyres drew it down. And half of the gain occurred from 500 to 2,000 meters deep.
Roemmich estimates that at depths from 500 to 2000 meters, oceans are warming by .002 degrees Celsius every year, and in the top 500 meters, they’re gaining .005 degrees C. annually. While that may not seem like a big temperature jump, it amounts to a staggering load of heat when multiplied throughout the depths of this immense system that covers 70 percent of the planet.
Temperature gains are larger at the sea surface, which heats faster than the ocean as a whole. The top 75 meters have warmed an average of .01 degrees C per year since 1971. But forces like winds and currents have strong effects on the ocean surface, and temperature measurements there are highly More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere. variable. Still, they indicate that some areas of the ocean are heating up especially fast, such as the Arctic Ocean — which this year had its lowest winter ice year on record — and is absorbing much more solar energy as melting ice cover exposes new dark surfaces. Summer sea surface temperatures in some sections have risen around 1 degree C over the past two decades — nearly five times the global average. Parts of the Indian Ocean, North Atlantic, and waters surrounding Antarctica are warming at nearly the same rate.
More heat stored in the ocean now means more will inevitably return to the atmosphere.
“A couple of El Niño events will do the trick,” said England. The warm water and calm winds of this periodic Pacific tropical condition are “a big way to get subsurface heat back to the surface.” Meteorologists say a mild El Niño condition is underway this year.
The oceans won’t eject all that excess heat in a giant gush, of course — seawater’s heat capacity is huge and a portion will be locked away for millennia. Some of that banked energy will discharge into air at the ocean
Enlarge
NOAA
This graph shows the increase in the global ocean heat content since 1955.
surface, however, and the atmosphere will heat up. Given the enormity of the ocean’s thermal load, even a tiny change has a big impact.
“But the other thing I want to point out,” England added, “is that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are at such high concentrations compared to what they were 100 years ago that you don’t need to bring heat back up from the ocean to the surface to get future warming — you just need to slow down the heat uptake by the ocean, and greenhouse gases will do the rest.”
Recent weather trends suggest that uptake mechanisms like subsurface heat burial in the tropical Pacific and vertical heat transfer to the ocean depths could already be declining.
“And so this is why 2014 is now the warmest year on record,” said Trenberth. “In other words, the heat is no longer going deep into the ocean. The wind patterns have changed, the surface of the Pacific Ocean has warmed up. And that has consequences.”
One of the major consequences is higher sea levels. Thermal expansion — water swells as it heats — accounts for a substantial portion of rising seas, so warmer oceans mean even worse news for already threatened islands and coasts.
The effects on sea circulation patterns and weather are complex and difficult to tease out from natural variation, requiring long-term observation. But mounting evidence points to a variety of likely impacts. Among them: Rapidly warming Arctic waters could worsen summer heat waves in Europe and North America by lowering the temperature differential that drives mid-latitude circulation. And a recent rash of For marine life, ocean heating already presents multiple, intensifying dangers. unusually intense cyclones may be linked to changes in the tropical Pacific.
As for marine life, ocean heating already presents multiple, intensifying dangers. Warmer water holds less oxygen and other gases. On top of that, warming increases ocean stratification, which blocks the movement of oxygen-rich surface waters to lower depths. The resulting low-oxygen zones are now spreading, and climate models predict they could be 50 percent larger by the end of this century. Not only are the zones inhospitable to most sea creatures, they squeeze critical upper ocean habitat as they enlarge, said Sarah Moffitt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Davis’ Bodega Marine Laboratory.
“So you are losing this substantial habitat footprint for oxygen-respiring organisms,” she said. “We are seeing signals of oxygen loss in every ocean basin in the global ocean.”
A recent study by Moffitt and colleagues of seafloor sediments from the end of the last Ice Age, around 10,000 to 17,000 years ago, revealed that Pacific Ocean ecosystems from the Arctic to Chile “extensively and abruptly lost oxygen when the planet warmed through deglaciation,” she said. The findings offer a glimpse of what may lie ahead. “It shows us that in a carbon-rich, warm future, ocean systems have the capacity to change in a way that has no analogue” in today’s world, Moffitt said.
A further concern is that temperature increases could diminish the ocean’s vital role as a carbon sink. Absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere is another way oceans mitigate greenhouse gas impacts, although marine waters are growing increasingly acidic as a result. Currently, up to nearly half of humanity’s carbon dioxide output ends up dissolved in seawater, with most landing in the Southern Hemisphere oceans, where wind-driven eddies bury it deeply. But warm waters also hold less CO2. And those cyclical winds likely will someday decrease. The outcome of rising ocean temperatures and decreasing winds would be faster ocean CO2 saturation
ALSO FROM YALE e360
Although the IPCC recently increased its projections for sea level rise this century, some scientists warn even those estimates are too conservative. But, Nicola Jones reports, one thing is certain: Predicting sea level rise far into the future is a very tricky task.
READ MORE and far more heat-trapping gas entering the atmosphere — a scenario potentially akin to the massive ocean carbon release that helped end the last Ice Age.
There’s still time to turn things around, scientists say.
“We have the technology today to make a positive impact on climate, and all we lack is the political will,” said John Abraham, a thermal sciences professor at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. But he and others worry that by covering up the effects of our long fossil fuel bender, oceans are keeping us from realizing just how off-kilter the earth’s climate system has become.
“The ocean’s doing us a favor by grabbing about 90 percent of our heat,” Abraham said. “But it’s not going to do it forever.”
How Long Can Oceans Continue To Absorb Earth s Excess Heat by Cheryl Katz Yale Environment 360
Roemmich estimates that at depths from 500 to 2000 meters, oceans are warming by .002 degrees Celsius every year, and in the top 500 meters, they’re gaining .005 degrees C. annually
Holy crap! What an incredibly precise wild ass guess.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
- 2,180
Just a question did they have that technology 40 years ago?
The answer is no......
So you want to base a 4.5 billion year old planet on just a few years of ocean data?
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
More fine reading for those who need to discuss this :
While scientists are cautious, deniers throw caution to the wind
While the scientists themselves are suitably cautious (as seen in the paper's title), Anthony Watts is not. He seems keen to tempt NOAA into suing him for defamation. This time Anthony doesn't accuse the NOAA of fraud, he accuses it of lying, writing it is "the most mendacious attempt yet":
Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.
Anthony, who can't get his head around anomalies from a baseline, claims that "WUWT has already found the fatal weakness in the paper". Notice that he stops short of claiming that it was he, Anthony, who found a fatal weakness. He probably didn't understand the paper, if he managed to read it. From the comments Anthony passed the buck to Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale. So you can expect a tedious, verbose, and dense article with lots of irrelevant charts of sea surface temperature in various oceans, mixed up with El Niño, sunlight-fueled water, complaints that climate models aren't weather forecasts, and greenhouse effect denial.
I'll be writing a separate article (probably two) on the "frenzy of denial" about the paper. This one is about the paper itself.
HotWhopper NOAA No pause in the global surface temperature
While scientists are cautious, deniers throw caution to the wind
While the scientists themselves are suitably cautious (as seen in the paper's title), Anthony Watts is not. He seems keen to tempt NOAA into suing him for defamation. This time Anthony doesn't accuse the NOAA of fraud, he accuses it of lying, writing it is "the most mendacious attempt yet":
Tune in here tomorrow at 2PM EDT (11AM PDT) and you’ll see why this is the most mendacious attempt yet to save their climate science from the terrible ravages of an uncooperative planet.
Anthony, who can't get his head around anomalies from a baseline, claims that "WUWT has already found the fatal weakness in the paper". Notice that he stops short of claiming that it was he, Anthony, who found a fatal weakness. He probably didn't understand the paper, if he managed to read it. From the comments Anthony passed the buck to Perennially Puzzled Bob Tisdale. So you can expect a tedious, verbose, and dense article with lots of irrelevant charts of sea surface temperature in various oceans, mixed up with El Niño, sunlight-fueled water, complaints that climate models aren't weather forecasts, and greenhouse effect denial.
I'll be writing a separate article (probably two) on the "frenzy of denial" about the paper. This one is about the paper itself.
HotWhopper NOAA No pause in the global surface temperature
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
They claim hundredths of degrees in accuracy using thermometers which had 1.0 deg C error margins... Their fraudulent ' accuracy ' is only eclipsed by their need of deception..
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
The global warming hoax
Posted on March 23, 2014 by Malcolm Shykles in Views // 15 Comments
There were three key individuals central to the advance of the Global Warming Hoax; Ken Lay of the Enron Corporation, Al Gore Vice President of the USA and his former University lecturer Professor Roger Revelle.
A former under-secretary general of the United Nations, Maurice Strong also aided the promotion of their efforts.
In 1957, Revelle suggested that the Earth’s oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a ‘greenhouse effect’ that would cause global warming over time.
Al Gore graduated from Harvard in 1969 and had been particularly impressed by Revelle’s class. From then on Al Gore was and still is, convinced of manmade global warming.
By 1991 Revelle had changed his mind and co-authored an article ‘What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap’ which stated: ‘We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.’ At this point Al Gore, who is still convinced of the Greenhouse effect, pronounced Roger Revelle as senile.
In the 1980s, Lay was an energy company executive at Houston Natural Gas. This company was bought out and its name changed to Enron in 1985. The Enron Corporationgrew to become a commodities trading company in more than 30 products which included gas fired power stations and even broadband. It was willing to exploit any commodity for maximum profit. Before its bankruptcy on December 2, 2001 some 20,000 staff were employed.
California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW yet the demand was only 28GW. A supply gap was purposely created by Enron in order to obtain artificial shortages. In order to increase the price, power plants were taken offline for maintenance in days of peak demand. Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times the normal value. These manipulations brought about rolling blackouts which adversely affected many businesses and an 800% increase in the price of electricity by the December of 2000. Enron had cost California between $40 and $45 billion.
The US 1990 Clean Air Act had forced controls on how much pollution a fossil fuel plant could emit. Enron had then helped to create a market for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program. As that market proved to be very profitable, the company next turned to creating a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide, the forerunner of today’s carbon trading scam. The only problem was that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Under the Clinton administration in 1993, Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, and Vice President Al Gore met in order to create an international regulatory system that would manage carbon dioxide. At that time Al Gore claimed he had ‘not known that Ken Lay was a crook’.
In addition, Enron began to cultivate new friends in the environmental community. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation gave nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promoted global warming theories. Another $1.5 million was donated to other groups advocating international controls to curb global warming, including Greenpeace.
In 1997, Enron was investing in the manufacture of of wind turbines and set about promoting an international treaty to impose cuts on CO2 emissions and to allow Carbon Credit trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and would help Enron’s growing commodity trading and wind turbine business.
In 2006 Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006. The documentary was a critical and box-office success, winning Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song. The film grossed $24 million in the U.S. and $26 million in the foreign box office, becoming the 9th highest grossing documentary film to date in the United States.
When George W. Bush ran for president, Lay served as host at big fund-raisers and contributed plenty of his own money to the effort. Britain’s main parties were the recipients of Enron’s generosity. Between 1997 and 2000, the Labour Party accepted £38,000 from Enron in sponsorship money for its events, whilst the Conservative Party received approximately £25,000.
This skulduggery has led to the closure of our cheaper coal fired powered stations, the wind turbine scandal and expensive fuel bills, and still continues.
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because no gas can store energy (heat). Solids and liquids can store heat but not gases unless they are enclosed. The belief that CO2 raises the temperature of a gas system is based on the assumption of a closed system in which energy cannot escape. The earth is an open system and hence it cannot accumulate heat in its atmosphere. Due to convection currents warmed gases rise, and (if we ignore the adiabatic lapse rate because expanding gases cool anyway) any excess heat is radiated away through the atmosphere and into space, which is certainly apparent on cloudless nights. Greenhouse gas theory seems to be the domain of mathematically dominated science, rather than empirical science.
The global warming hoax -
Posted on March 23, 2014 by Malcolm Shykles in Views // 15 Comments
There were three key individuals central to the advance of the Global Warming Hoax; Ken Lay of the Enron Corporation, Al Gore Vice President of the USA and his former University lecturer Professor Roger Revelle.
A former under-secretary general of the United Nations, Maurice Strong also aided the promotion of their efforts.
In 1957, Revelle suggested that the Earth’s oceans would absorb excess carbon dioxide generated by humanity at a much slower rate than previously predicted by geoscientists, thereby suggesting that human gas emissions might create a ‘greenhouse effect’ that would cause global warming over time.
Al Gore graduated from Harvard in 1969 and had been particularly impressed by Revelle’s class. From then on Al Gore was and still is, convinced of manmade global warming.
By 1991 Revelle had changed his mind and co-authored an article ‘What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap’ which stated: ‘We can sum up our conclusions in a simple message: The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.’ At this point Al Gore, who is still convinced of the Greenhouse effect, pronounced Roger Revelle as senile.
In the 1980s, Lay was an energy company executive at Houston Natural Gas. This company was bought out and its name changed to Enron in 1985. The Enron Corporationgrew to become a commodities trading company in more than 30 products which included gas fired power stations and even broadband. It was willing to exploit any commodity for maximum profit. Before its bankruptcy on December 2, 2001 some 20,000 staff were employed.
California had an installed generating capacity of 45GW yet the demand was only 28GW. A supply gap was purposely created by Enron in order to obtain artificial shortages. In order to increase the price, power plants were taken offline for maintenance in days of peak demand. Traders were thus able to sell power at premium prices, sometimes up to a factor of 20 times the normal value. These manipulations brought about rolling blackouts which adversely affected many businesses and an 800% increase in the price of electricity by the December of 2000. Enron had cost California between $40 and $45 billion.
The US 1990 Clean Air Act had forced controls on how much pollution a fossil fuel plant could emit. Enron had then helped to create a market for the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program. As that market proved to be very profitable, the company next turned to creating a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide, the forerunner of today’s carbon trading scam. The only problem was that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Under the Clinton administration in 1993, Ken Lay, the CEO of Enron, and Vice President Al Gore met in order to create an international regulatory system that would manage carbon dioxide. At that time Al Gore claimed he had ‘not known that Ken Lay was a crook’.
In addition, Enron began to cultivate new friends in the environmental community. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation gave nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promoted global warming theories. Another $1.5 million was donated to other groups advocating international controls to curb global warming, including Greenpeace.
In 1997, Enron was investing in the manufacture of of wind turbines and set about promoting an international treaty to impose cuts on CO2 emissions and to allow Carbon Credit trading. Such an agreement would produce a gigantic windfall for Enron because it would boost the usage of natural gas at the expense of coal and would help Enron’s growing commodity trading and wind turbine business.
In 2006 Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ Premiered at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opened in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006. The documentary was a critical and box-office success, winning Academy Awards for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song. The film grossed $24 million in the U.S. and $26 million in the foreign box office, becoming the 9th highest grossing documentary film to date in the United States.
When George W. Bush ran for president, Lay served as host at big fund-raisers and contributed plenty of his own money to the effort. Britain’s main parties were the recipients of Enron’s generosity. Between 1997 and 2000, the Labour Party accepted £38,000 from Enron in sponsorship money for its events, whilst the Conservative Party received approximately £25,000.
This skulduggery has led to the closure of our cheaper coal fired powered stations, the wind turbine scandal and expensive fuel bills, and still continues.
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because no gas can store energy (heat). Solids and liquids can store heat but not gases unless they are enclosed. The belief that CO2 raises the temperature of a gas system is based on the assumption of a closed system in which energy cannot escape. The earth is an open system and hence it cannot accumulate heat in its atmosphere. Due to convection currents warmed gases rise, and (if we ignore the adiabatic lapse rate because expanding gases cool anyway) any excess heat is radiated away through the atmosphere and into space, which is certainly apparent on cloudless nights. Greenhouse gas theory seems to be the domain of mathematically dominated science, rather than empirical science.
The global warming hoax -
Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
We know all about Miriam's HOTWHOPPER liar site.. They call her Slandering Sue... She has Zero credibility as does the author of that article. You will note that they refuse to discuss the science and resort to defamation, adhominem, and slander as the article you posted clearly demonstrates. Just like many of the alarmists here, They will not discuss the science that Tisdale and Watts present because Miriam's position as with all alarmism is indefensible.
Last edited:
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Data collection of sea temps vs time, you might want to make a read.
Thermometers with an accuracy of 1 degree and being hard to read are used at one point.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf
Thermometers with an accuracy of 1 degree and being hard to read are used at one point.
http://www.ocean-sci.net/9/683/2013/os-9-683-2013.pdf
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax
By ElmerB on January 23, 2015 in News, Opinion
By Elmer Beauregard
The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.
I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.
1. Record Ice
In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.
2. Record Snow
2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.
3. Record Cold
In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”
4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted
Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.
5. Polar Bears Are Thriving
You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.
6. Moose Are Making A Comeback
A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.
7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming
You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.
8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man
In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.
9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.
If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.
10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players
One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.
Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax Global Climate Scam
By ElmerB on January 23, 2015 in News, Opinion
By Elmer Beauregard
The Senate voted this week on whether Climate Change is real or a hoax, I think it’s a hoax and here’s why.
I’m sure you’ve heard in the news that 2014 was supposed to be the hottest year ever. If it actually was “hottest year ever” you’d think all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen would be happening now but instead the opposite is happening.
1. Record Ice
In 2014 there was record sea ice in Antarctica in fact a global warming expedition got stuck in it. Arctic sea ice has also made a nice comeback in 2014. The Great lakes had record ice Lake Superior only had 3 ice free months in 2014. You’d think that in the hottest year ever that ice would be melting like Al Gore said.
2. Record Snow
2014 saw record snowfall in many areas, remember when they said that global warming would cause snow to disappear and children won’t know what snow is.
3. Record Cold
In 2014 we saw all kinds of cold records remember the Polar Vortex? You’d think that we’d be breaking all kinds of heat records in “the hottest year ever”
4. Oceans Are Rising Much Less Than Predicted
Al Gore predicted that oceans would rise 20 feet by 2100, it looks like were on track for about a foot. 80% of the tide gauges show less rise than the official “global average”. Many tide gauges show no rise in sea level, and almost none show any acceleration over the past 20 years.
5. Polar Bears Are Thriving
You’d think that Polar Bears would really be in trouble in 2014 “the hottest year ever” but they are thriving.
6. Moose Are Making A Comeback
A few years ago the moose population in Minnesota dropped rapidly and they immediately blamed global warming, then they did a study and found out it was actually wolves that were killing the moose. Wolves have been taken off the endangered species list and are now endangering other species so they opened a wolf hunting season in Minnesota and the moose are coming back. It turns out it had nothing to do with global warming in fact the years when the moose population declined were some very cold ones.
7. 99% of Scientists don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming
You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.
8. Nature produces much more CO2 than man
In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.
9. It Isn’t Actually the Warmest Year.
If you look at the satellite data 2014 was not the warmest year ever in fact there has been no global warming for over 18 years. The Reason they can say it’s the warmest year is because they are using the ground weather station data which is heavily influenced by the Urban Heat Island effect, many of which are near pavement. Even still they had to cherry pick that data to get at the warmest year ever and it is only the warmest by only two-100ths of a degree within a dataset that has a variability of a half of a degree. The fact they they had to ignore accurate data and fudge sketchy data to push their agenda proves (IMHO) that climate change is a hoax.
10. The Hypocrisy of the Main Players
One of the main reasons you can tell that global warming is a hoax is that the main purveyors of global warming live lifestyles opposite of what they preach, they all own multiple large homes and yachts and they fly around the world in private jets pushing their propaganda. Not to mention some people such as Al Gore actually profit from Carbon Taxes and other green energy laws. If they actually believed what they preached they would be leading quite different lives.
Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax Global Climate Scam
When you ask for information, receive, then ask for it again - or when you ask a question, receive an answer, then proceed as if the answer had been something else entirely, you are likely to receive insults from me. I have given you more rational explanations than anyone here and, considering your response to them, far more than you've deserved.
I have NOT read the entirety of AR5 but I'm quite certain I've read more of it than you have and with a far higher level of understanding. As far as the OP goes, when a thread gets started with a meaningless diatribe, I do not feel particularly bound to keep myself in a similar state.
I REPEAT, no one on my side of the argument has ever claimed that the deep ocean was being warmed by EM radiation. It is being warmed AS I STATED, by the vertical motion of water. Water within 50 meters or so of the surface DOES get warmed by EM radiation and conduction from the air. That warmed water gets MOVED into the depths.
Why SHOULDN'T they be concerned with it Frank? It's a very large portion of the Earth's heating.
Apparently, you're every BIT as stupid as I've ever suspected.
No, we didn't. Surface temperatures never stopped warming, they just seemed to have slowed. It was known fairly quickly that the deep oceans were warming in an extraordinary manner - surely even you will remember Balamaseda, Trenberth and Kallen. The thought for a good long while was that the heating had altered the tropical wind patters and were causing the subduction of greater amounts of warmed surface waters. This tended to cool the surface and led to the false "hiatus". Now, of course, we find improper treatment was being given to SST data collected via different means. That and the use of poorly sampled Arctic temperature data was producing false results. The truth is that there has been no hiatus, warming has continued at the same rate throughout this entire period. I know you had all your hopes staked to that hiatus and it must be painful to see them dashed like this. But, like they say around here, tough shit.
We aren't responsible for your ignorance or you poor memory. It's not our fault you can't seem to remember what you were told five minutes ago. We aren't to blame for your apparent inability to use Google or Wikipedia or any other information reference. So, you're on your own Frank.
PS, when are you going to provide a link to the post you claim to have seen in which I admit getting paid for posting here?
A handy collection of denier memes, making convenient and efficient the refutation thereof.
You fail to note how the Senate vote went. It went 98-1 that it is not a hoax. And, of course that includes a fair number of republicans.
Why would we think that? The sun is going to go nova someday. Today is the latest day there has ever been. Should we think that the sun will go nova today? Your statement is illogical and irrational.
The opposite of "all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen". That's interesting. Let's see what you've got.
There is a great deal of Antarctic sea ice because the collapse of the shelves has allowed Antarctic glaciers to accelerate up to five fold. The entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet has destabilized irretrievably and will crumble into the oceans. Given that the basin under that sheet is below sea level, there is a non-trivial chance that the collapse could be catastrophic. The ice in that shelf is sufficient to raise the level of the world's oceans over 20 feet.
And then continued downward as it's been headed for at least the last 36 years.
The Great Lakes and the entire northern midwest had record colds due to the Polar Vortex. The Polar Vortex is the result of Rossby Waves. Those waves are a large scale oscillation in the polar jet stream. While cold Arctic air was drawn into the northern midwest, warm equatorial air was drawn north in the Bering straits and Alaska (which had as many hot records as the Great Lakes had cold. That pattern was repeated around the world. The global temperature change from the effect was ZERO.
Same effect.
Same effect
Bullshit
Bulllshit
Polar bear are dependent on ice but they could shift themselves to dry land. Unfortunately that is NOT true for their primary food source: seals.
I'm glad the moose are okay. They are not an indicator of global warming.
Bullshit. The Oregon Petition, from which you get your 31,000 scientists number, is a piece of shit. They maintained NO control or error checking over the credentials provided by signatories and they have had NO requirement that their signatories have ANY significant knowledge of climate science. Real surveys of climate scientists and their work include the five listed on this graphic:
To which we can add three additional studies:
1) A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[123]
2) A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[124]
3) James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[125] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[126]
No one has ever contended that man was producing more CO2 than nature. That isn't the point. The Earth possesses systems that produce and consume CO2. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels had been in at least quasi-equilibrium for an enormous span of time. During the history of the planet, those levels change, but they do so over hundreds of thousand to millions of years - not over a century and a half. CO2 has not risen as rapidly as its current rate at any point in the last 65 million years. It rose more rapidly then because the Earth was struck by a seven mile wide asteroid which essentially set the planet aflame. The CO2 humans are emitting exceeds that being taken up by the Earth's flora (simultaneously shrinking due to deforestation) and, as you well know, its levels in the atmosphere have been building. The CO2 added to the Earth's atmosphere - that raised its level from 280 ppm to 400 ppm - are of human origin, not natural.
Satellites are not the best source of temperature data. They don't actually measure temperature and the data they do collect is not from the surface, where we live and where the greatest mass of air is present. There are no significant, unaccounted urban heat island effects. Even if there were, the vast bulk of the data comes from the oceans and rural areas in any case. UHI is the hoax. The data finding these warmest years is valid and properly calculated. The world continues to get warmer. There has been no hiatus.
The world's climate scientists are not playboy millionaires. This is a purely ad hominem attack and has zero validity in any case.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
A handy collection of denier memes, making convenient and efficient the refutation thereof.
You fail to note how the Senate vote went. It went 98-1 that it is not a hoax. And, of course that includes a fair number of republicans.
Why would we think that? The sun is going to go nova someday. Today is the latest day there has ever been. Should we think that the sun will go nova today? Your statement is illogical and irrational.
The opposite of "all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen". That's interesting. Let's see what you've got.
There is a great deal of Antarctic sea ice because the collapse of the shelves has allowed Antarctic glaciers to accelerate up to five fold. The entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet has destabilized irretrievably and will crumble into the oceans. Given that the basin under that sheet is below sea level, there is a non-trivial chance that the collapse could be catastrophic. The ice in that shelf is sufficient to raise the level of the world's oceans over 20 feet.
And then continued downward as it's been headed for at least the last 36 years.
The Great Lakes and the entire northern midwest had record colds due to the Polar Vortex. The Polar Vortex is the result of Rossby Waves. Those waves are a large scale oscillation in the polar jet stream. While cold Arctic air was drawn into the northern midwest, warm equatorial air was drawn north in the Bering straits and Alaska (which had as many hot records as the Great Lakes had cold. That pattern was repeated around the world. The global temperature change from the effect was ZERO.
Same effect.
Same effect
Bullshit
Bulllshit
Polar bear are dependent on ice but they could shift themselves to dry land. Unfortunately that is NOT true for their primary food source: seals.
I'm glad the moose are okay. They are not an indicator of global warming.
Bullshit. The Oregon Petition, from which you get your 31,000 scientists number, is a piece of shit. They maintained NO control or error checking over the credentials provided by signatories and they have had NO requirement that their signatories have ANY significant knowledge of climate science. Real surveys of climate scientists and their work include the five listed on this graphic:
To which we can add three additional studies:
1) A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[123]
2) A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[124]
3) James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[125] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[126]
No one has ever contended that man was producing more CO2 than nature. That isn't the point. The Earth possesses systems that produce and consume CO2. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels had been in at least quasi-equilibrium for an enormous span of time. During the history of the planet, those levels change, but they do so over hundreds of thousand to millions of years - not over a century and a half. CO2 has not risen as rapidly as its current rate at any point in the last 65 million years. It rose more rapidly then because the Earth was struck by a seven mile wide asteroid which essentially set the planet aflame. The CO2 humans are emitting exceeds that being taken up by the Earth's flora (simultaneously shrinking due to deforestation) and, as you well know, its levels in the atmosphere have been building. The CO2 added to the Earth's atmosphere - that raised its level from 280 ppm to 400 ppm - are of human origin, not natural.
Satellites are not the best source of temperature data. They don't actually measure temperature and the data they do collect is not from the surface, where we live and where the greatest mass of air is present. There are no significant, unaccounted urban heat island effects. Even if there were, the vast bulk of the data comes from the oceans and rural areas in any case. UHI is the hoax. The data finding these warmest years is valid and properly calculated. The world continues to get warmer. There has been no hiatus.
The world's climate scientists are not playboy millionaires. This is a purely ad hominem attack and has zero validity in any case.
ROFLMMFAO.....
Tl;dr
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,172
- 29,131
- 2,180
Dude,
You wouldn't know evidence if you ate it for lunch. Let's get this straight, you never answer a question that someone asks. You do the boogie woogie and dance. Insult the requesters and then claim you've answered the question. SORRY! WRONG
A handy collection of denier memes, making convenient and efficient the refutation thereof.
You fail to note how the Senate vote went. It went 98-1 that it is not a hoax. And, of course that includes a fair number of republicans.
Why would we think that? The sun is going to go nova someday. Today is the latest day there has ever been. Should we think that the sun will go nova today? Your statement is illogical and irrational.
The opposite of "all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen". That's interesting. Let's see what you've got.
There is a great deal of Antarctic sea ice because the collapse of the shelves has allowed Antarctic glaciers to accelerate up to five fold. The entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet has destabilized irretrievably and will crumble into the oceans. Given that the basin under that sheet is below sea level, there is a non-trivial chance that the collapse could be catastrophic. The ice in that shelf is sufficient to raise the level of the world's oceans over 20 feet.
And then continued downward as it's been headed for at least the last 36 years.
The Great Lakes and the entire northern midwest had record colds due to the Polar Vortex. The Polar Vortex is the result of Rossby Waves. Those waves are a large scale oscillation in the polar jet stream. While cold Arctic air was drawn into the northern midwest, warm equatorial air was drawn north in the Bering straits and Alaska (which had as many hot records as the Great Lakes had cold. That pattern was repeated around the world. The global temperature change from the effect was ZERO.
Same effect.
Same effect
Bullshit
Bulllshit
Polar bear are dependent on ice but they could shift themselves to dry land. Unfortunately that is NOT true for their primary food source: seals.
I'm glad the moose are okay. They are not an indicator of global warming.
Bullshit. The Oregon Petition, from which you get your 31,000 scientists number, is a piece of shit. They maintained NO control or error checking over the credentials provided by signatories and they have had NO requirement that their signatories have ANY significant knowledge of climate science. Real surveys of climate scientists and their work include the five listed on this graphic:
To which we can add three additional studies:
1) A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[123]
2) A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[124]
3) James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[125] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[126]
No one has ever contended that man was producing more CO2 than nature. That isn't the point. The Earth possesses systems that produce and consume CO2. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels had been in at least quasi-equilibrium for an enormous span of time. During the history of the planet, those levels change, but they do so over hundreds of thousand to millions of years - not over a century and a half. CO2 has not risen as rapidly as its current rate at any point in the last 65 million years. It rose more rapidly then because the Earth was struck by a seven mile wide asteroid which essentially set the planet aflame. The CO2 humans are emitting exceeds that being taken up by the Earth's flora (simultaneously shrinking due to deforestation) and, as you well know, its levels in the atmosphere have been building. The CO2 added to the Earth's atmosphere - that raised its level from 280 ppm to 400 ppm - are of human origin, not natural.
Satellites are not the best source of temperature data. They don't actually measure temperature and the data they do collect is not from the surface, where we live and where the greatest mass of air is present. There are no significant, unaccounted urban heat island effects. Even if there were, the vast bulk of the data comes from the oceans and rural areas in any case. UHI is the hoax. The data finding these warmest years is valid and properly calculated. The world continues to get warmer. There has been no hiatus.
The world's climate scientists are not playboy millionaires. This is a purely ad hominem attack and has zero validity in any case.
Do you have anything else to say?
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #39
A handy collection of denier memes, making convenient and efficient the refutation thereof.
You fail to note how the Senate vote went. It went 98-1 that it is not a hoax. And, of course that includes a fair number of republicans.
Why would we think that? The sun is going to go nova someday. Today is the latest day there has ever been. Should we think that the sun will go nova today? Your statement is illogical and irrational.
The opposite of "all the terrible calamities that are supposed to happen". That's interesting. Let's see what you've got.
There is a great deal of Antarctic sea ice because the collapse of the shelves has allowed Antarctic glaciers to accelerate up to five fold. The entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet has destabilized irretrievably and will crumble into the oceans. Given that the basin under that sheet is below sea level, there is a non-trivial chance that the collapse could be catastrophic. The ice in that shelf is sufficient to raise the level of the world's oceans over 20 feet.
And then continued downward as it's been headed for at least the last 36 years.
The Great Lakes and the entire northern midwest had record colds due to the Polar Vortex. The Polar Vortex is the result of Rossby Waves. Those waves are a large scale oscillation in the polar jet stream. While cold Arctic air was drawn into the northern midwest, warm equatorial air was drawn north in the Bering straits and Alaska (which had as many hot records as the Great Lakes had cold. That pattern was repeated around the world. The global temperature change from the effect was ZERO.
Same effect.
Same effect
Bullshit
Bulllshit
Polar bear are dependent on ice but they could shift themselves to dry land. Unfortunately that is NOT true for their primary food source: seals.
I'm glad the moose are okay. They are not an indicator of global warming.
Bullshit. The Oregon Petition, from which you get your 31,000 scientists number, is a piece of shit. They maintained NO control or error checking over the credentials provided by signatories and they have had NO requirement that their signatories have ANY significant knowledge of climate science. Real surveys of climate scientists and their work include the five listed on this graphic:
To which we can add three additional studies:
1) A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[123]
2) A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.[124]
3) James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[125] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[126]
No one has ever contended that man was producing more CO2 than nature. That isn't the point. The Earth possesses systems that produce and consume CO2. Prior to 1750, CO2 levels had been in at least quasi-equilibrium for an enormous span of time. During the history of the planet, those levels change, but they do so over hundreds of thousand to millions of years - not over a century and a half. CO2 has not risen as rapidly as its current rate at any point in the last 65 million years. It rose more rapidly then because the Earth was struck by a seven mile wide asteroid which essentially set the planet aflame. The CO2 humans are emitting exceeds that being taken up by the Earth's flora (simultaneously shrinking due to deforestation) and, as you well know, its levels in the atmosphere have been building. The CO2 added to the Earth's atmosphere - that raised its level from 280 ppm to 400 ppm - are of human origin, not natural.
Satellites are not the best source of temperature data. They don't actually measure temperature and the data they do collect is not from the surface, where we live and where the greatest mass of air is present. There are no significant, unaccounted urban heat island effects. Even if there were, the vast bulk of the data comes from the oceans and rural areas in any case. UHI is the hoax. The data finding these warmest years is valid and properly calculated. The world continues to get warmer. There has been no hiatus.
The world's climate scientists are not playboy millionaires. This is a purely ad hominem attack and has zero validity in any case.
Do you have anything else to say?
Nope, loserterians really just oppose and think they know everything there is too know. They're a sad group of idiots that hate government.
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,615
- 69,745
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #40
1. Still no explanation of "excess heat"
2. Still clinging to the idea that AGW is heating the oceans down to the base of the abysses by "heat transfer"
3. Still not clued into the face that the AGWCult started "the ocean at me warming" meme because there's been no warming for 2 decades.
Similar threads
