Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[Abraham3]

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

Show us three of those reports please.

1) Cereal Killer: Climate Change Stunts Growth of Global Crop Yields: Scientific American

2) Climate Change: A Controlled Experiment; March 2010; Scientific American Magazine; by Stan D. Wullschleger and Maya Strahl; 6 Page(s)

3) Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?; Endangered Earth; Exclusive Online Issues; by Paul R. Epstein; 7 page(s)

4) Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water not the heat (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n5/full/nclimate1832.html)

5) Study finds growing evidence of global warming threat to future food supplies

6) Carbon dioxide could reduce crop yields

7) How Climate Change Will Affect Farms - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

8) IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

 

[Abraham3]

I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?

Yes. I was making some of those measurements.

 

[Abraham3]

You've mangled my quotes AGAIN.. Next time I will mangle yours.. Because you're not playing nice.. And please --- before you ATTACK --- think... I may be obtuse because I expect you are following developments closer than you actually are.. I ASSUME you're up to speed on the implications of Septillion joules of energy "hiding" in the oceans. Maybe you're not.. Because the old AGW fairytale required little expenditure of knowledge to parrot.

Here is the abstract of Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kallen's "Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content":

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observation-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.

And the accompanying graphic we've all seen before:

First, I would ask you to find anywhere in Balmaseda et al 2013 a statement indicating that they now believe their to be a 30-50 year lag between forcing factors and land/ocean temperatures - as you have been claiming they so state. The full text is available at Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content - Balmaseda - 2013 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Second, I would ask you to explain in the graphic above, at points where major volcanic eruptions are noted, the almost immediate response and the brief, 1-2 year recovery, if the system as a whole contains a 30-50 year lag as you contend.

I'm surprised you didn't remember what thread we were in.. So I toyed with you a little, but at least now --- you understand my comments about the OP topic..

I'm sure the paper is not stating a lag factor for the "hidden warmth".. Trenberth has unwittingly tho opened a can of worms here. Because his personal revelation that the Earth climate has storage mechanisms was obviously new to both him and Climate community as a whole.. But this is the ultimate inference that they are making. That like charging a battery -- the warming is STILL THERE.. Unfortunately for the warmers, it's in a place right now that can't influence the weather or human conditions IMMEDIATELY. That is actually the unspoken capitualization of the paper (i have skimmed it).

But like a battery, I can measure INSTANTEOUSLY the amount of the charge that I put into it.. So seeing immediate changes due to external forcings (like volcanoes) is not surprising to me.

Surprises me that you are surprised at this surprise..

OBSERVING the act of storing is not the same as the "discharge rate" of the storage. And I imagine that eventually all this energy Trenberth originally misplaced will have to be recycled to the surface gradually where it CAN be part of the radiative and thermal exchange with the rest of the universe.. The time scales and energy flows are brand NEW to the discussion but IMPLIED by the entire premise of the work...

Let's just say this can of worms WILL get unraveled and better models might even show a trigger point where all this "hidden storage" gets suddenly swept up into dominant ocean currents and decides to melt the Arctic in one decade.. THERE WILL BE an analysis of the delayed release of this energy..

In the meantime --- studying the LAG between natural forcings (like the substantial TSI increase since 1700) and temperature just MIGHT REVEAL a good approximation of what the discharge rate for this stored energy might be.. Don't expect you to "get" any of this unscripted science speculation until you read about it on your favorite "warmer" blog in a few years..

BTW: I predict that the climateers will also realize that the ocean is NOT the only energy storage game in town.. All those massive stores of calthrates was created by ancient energy "excesses" that also got hidden.. Created at a time when WARMTH allowed for massive bioactivity in the Arctic.

It's all part of the science that was missing all along in accounting for energy "balance". The release of the calthrates would represent an "opportunistic" lag delay of release that is a delayed function of temperature wouldn't it?

I'm afraid you're full of crap. If the system is storing energy for 30-50 years, it is doing it continuously. The energy changes caused by those eruptions were over - both directions - in less than 5 years. Your 50 years of storage doesn't hold water. Not a freakin' drop.

 

[Abraham3]

More CO2 makes plants grow less?
Why?

Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World - TIME

That's awesome, but he claimed higher CO2 will reduce yield.
Try again?

Dear Toddster,

Plant growth and crop yields are two different things.

 

[IanC]

I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?

Yes. I was making some of those measurements.

I call bullshit. Claiming precision of one hundreth of a degree, even in the ARGO era is preposterous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even Plants May Not Like a Warmer World - TIME

That's awesome, but he claimed higher CO2 will reduce yield.
Try again?

Dear Toddster,

Plant growth and crop yields are two different things.

Dear Abraham, warmer and higher CO2 levels are two different things.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?

Yes. I was making some of those measurements.

Back in the 1950s? Cool.
How'd you do it?

 

[orogenicman]

I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?

Yes. I was making some of those measurements.

I call bullshit. Claiming precision of one hundreth of a degree, even in the ARGO era is preposterous.

That isn't what he was claiming.

 

[gslack]

I posted that.
(
What I'm waiting for you or the sun worshipper FlaCalTennn to put up here is something supporting his charges that the IPCC lowballed the TSI values. We see what they say it was and why and we see what he thinks it should have been (and his value falls just about at the upper end of the IPCC's error bar) but evidence on his sides... not so much.

LOL, why should anybody bother with you? You are unsure who you are on here. You resposnd for yourself and for organman whenever it suits you... Get a grip on your identity crisis then maybe someone will take you seriously..LOL

 

[Abraham3]

You never answered my question about your Dear Leader's mis-characterization of the science..

The comments of Kim Jung Un are irrelevant to this discussion.

You also didn't address my observation about any RESTRAINT or SKEPTICISM shown on the parts of the UN or Congressional leadership.. (Short of the one example of the Bush years putting a lid on wild speculations and pronouncements coming from supposedly politically neutral govt scientists)

In a discussion of history or policy, individual persons and events are almost meaningless. You're purposely trying to use faulty logic here. The history of the IPCC is filled with political forces attempting to downplay the science.

Reality is --- the ONLY credible brakes on this biased process has COME -- not from political leadership -- but from the skeptic community as IanC pointed out. In fact, a couple years ago -- when the IPCC faced severe criticism on its review process, the momentum came from WITHIN the science community --- not from Barb Boxer or Henry Waxman. The IPCC had to ADMIT that a lot of their process was driven by the predominance of EQUAL review and comment from the NON-SCIENCE contributors to each of previous reports. In fact, the Exec Summary and sections for the poly sci political hacks often didn't even resemble the scientific comments in the report itself..

The scientific process is not biased.

Your comment that:::::

It has been almost universally the case, since the IPCC was formed and throughout every new report's composition, that the political representatives have urged or forced the science authors to downplay the chances, the risk and the danger.

stands as an incredibly naive and breathtakingly stupid opinion on the objectiveness of the process..

Stupid? Why might it be that the Wiki article supported that point of view and provided NO support for yours? Stupid? G f y a.

Do you agree with Obama's statement? Do you understand what the CHARTER of the IPCC says? It is biased from the get-go... And it's OK to lie, cheat and frighten the kiddies..

Am I talking with one of the kiddies?

I agree with the findings of the IPCC. If you think that's juvenile or stupid, feel free to sit on it and spin.

 

[gslack]

I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?

Yes. I was making some of those measurements.

ROFL, and there it is, the "I'm an expert" line... Knew it wasn't long before you pulled that one.. You socks have no other game do you...

 

[Abraham3]

I posted that.
(
What I'm waiting for you or the sun worshipper FlaCalTennn to put up here is something supporting his charges that the IPCC lowballed the TSI values. We see what they say it was and why and we see what he thinks it should have been (and his value falls just about at the upper end of the IPCC's error bar) but evidence on his sides... not so much.

LOL, why should anybody bother with you? You are unsure who you are on here. You resposnd for yourself and for organman whenever it suits you... Get a grip on your identity crisis then maybe someone will take you seriously..LOL

I see you can't deal with the truth. You have no hard evidence to back up your position, so you attempt to sidetrack the conversation with this trolling bullshit. G.A.Y.S.

 

[Abraham3]

I think it is very telling that Trenberth prefers to use heat content for ocean depths but seldom mentions that the actual temperature change is measured in hundreths of a degree. Does anyone here believe that we knew the temperature of deep oceans back in 1950, 1970 or even 1990? Especially down to a hundredth of a degree?

Yes. I was making some of those measurements.

ROFL, and there it is, the "I'm an expert" line... Knew it wasn't long before you pulled that one.. You socks have no other game do you...

Spoken like someone with NO credentials.

Care to argue the precision of a Sippican T5 XBT with me?

You socks have no other game do you...

Well, there is the entirety of the science, all of which supports my position because my position is that it's correct.

 

[gslack]

I posted that.
(
What I'm waiting for you or the sun worshipper FlaCalTennn to put up here is something supporting his charges that the IPCC lowballed the TSI values. We see what they say it was and why and we see what he thinks it should have been (and his value falls just about at the upper end of the IPCC's error bar) but evidence on his sides... not so much.

LOL, why should anybody bother with you? You are unsure who you are on here. You resposnd for yourself and for organman whenever it suits you... Get a grip on your identity crisis then maybe someone will take you seriously..LOL

I see you can't deal with the truth. You have no hard evidence to back up your position, so you attempt to sidetrack the conversation with this trolling bullshit. G.A.Y.S.

ROFL, you socks are pathetic.. You habitually say the most un-scientific, or just plain ignorant things, and then when we point it out, your defense is to proclaim victory by saying things like "I see you can't deal with the truth."

What truth moron? That you're an imbecile who has no other game than to claim himself an expert in the field???

Dude if we had half as many real scientists on this forum, as we have had fakes (like you) we would be the leadfing authority on just about every scientific field you can name...You fakes are always ready to try the "authority" game...

You're not fooling anybody socko. You din't fool anyone the last few times, and you're not fooling anyone this time..

 

[gslack]

Yes. I was making some of those measurements.

ROFL, and there it is, the "I'm an expert" line... Knew it wasn't long before you pulled that one.. You socks have no other game do you...

Spoken like someone with NO credentials.

Care to argue the precision of a Sippican T5 XBT with me?

You socks have no other game do you...

Well, there is the entirety of the science, all of which supports my position because my position is that it's correct.

ROFL, why don't you learn a new act? This ones old..

Face it, the scientist act isn't for you.. You just aren't sharp enough to pull it off. If you were you would have by now.. This is how many attempts now?

 

[freedombecki]

We're all waiting for your explanation of why obesity in non-human animals has been on the rise. I guess all the animals just decide to go on welfare, eat at Burger king all day, and get fat?

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more? Wouldn't that increase food availability? Guess what happens to animals when there is high food availability? The get fatter. Fatter animals would actually be evidence of the denialist claim that warmer temps caused by Co2 is a GOOD thing.

Don't denalists claim that increased CO2 will make plants grow a lot more?

Are warmists claiming increased CO2 doesn't make plants grow more?

Depends on if the plant has enough light and nutrients to make use of the extra CO2. It works in reverse - as well - extra light won't do any good unless their is CO2 to match it.

This is well known in the hydroponics community.

The hydroponics community who deliver mealy-mouthed, nutrient depraved, anemic pink tomatoes and bitter yellow lettuce to the grocery store? Oh, yeah, baby!

 

[Abraham3]

ROFL, and there it is, the "I'm an expert" line... Knew it wasn't long before you pulled that one.. You socks have no other game do you...

Spoken like someone with NO credentials.

Care to argue the precision of a Sippican T5 XBT with me?

You socks have no other game do you...

Well, there is the entirety of the science, all of which supports my position because my position is that it's correct.

ROFL, why don't you learn a new act? This ones old..

Face it, the scientist act isn't for you.. You just aren't sharp enough to pull it off. If you were you would have by now.. This is how many attempts now?

I'm not a scientist. I'm an engineer. I've told you that several times now. Memory problem?

 

[flacaltenn]

Scientists have stated on numerous occasions that the net effect of increasing CO2 will be a reduction in crop yields worldwide. The idea that it will 'green the world' is patent nonsense.

Show us three of those reports please.

1) Cereal Killer: Climate Change Stunts Growth of Global Crop Yields: Scientific American

2) Climate Change: A Controlled Experiment; March 2010; Scientific American Magazine; by Stan D. Wullschleger and Maya Strahl; 6 Page(s)

3) Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?; Endangered Earth; Exclusive Online Issues; by Paul R. Epstein; 7 page(s)

4) Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water not the heat (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n5/full/nclimate1832.html)

5) Study finds growing evidence of global warming threat to future food supplies

6) Carbon dioxide could reduce crop yields

7) How Climate Change Will Affect Farms - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

8) IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Most of those don't say that CO2 doesn't promote growth. THey state that the advantage of CO2 will be nullified by lack of water (not in evidence) and increasing temps (debatable).

 

[flacaltenn]

Spoken like someone with NO credentials.

Care to argue the precision of a Sippican T5 XBT with me?



Well, there is the entirety of the science, all of which supports my position because my position is that it's correct.

ROFL, why don't you learn a new act? This ones old..

Face it, the scientist act isn't for you.. You just aren't sharp enough to pull it off. If you were you would have by now.. This is how many attempts now?

I'm not a scientist. I'm an engineer. I've told you that several times now. Memory problem?

Yes.. Memory, scientific reasoning, manners --- all suspect generally...

"Dammit Jim --- I'm a DOCTOR not a mechanic." Dr. L. McCoy, Med. Officer, SS Enterprise.

 

[westwall]

Show us three of those reports please.

1) Cereal Killer: Climate Change Stunts Growth of Global Crop Yields: Scientific American

2) Climate Change: A Controlled Experiment; March 2010; Scientific American Magazine; by Stan D. Wullschleger and Maya Strahl; 6 Page(s)

3) Is Global Warming Harmful to Health?; Endangered Earth; Exclusive Online Issues; by Paul R. Epstein; 7 page(s)

4) Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water not the heat (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n5/full/nclimate1832.html)

5) Study finds growing evidence of global warming threat to future food supplies

6) Carbon dioxide could reduce crop yields

7) How Climate Change Will Affect Farms - Newsweek and The Daily Beast

8) IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Most of those don't say that CO2 doesn't promote growth. THey state that the advantage of CO2 will be nullified by lack of water (not in evidence) and increasing temps (debatable).

And no surprise at all, save for the first study they were ALL model studies. I will get the first study and see what it has to say.