Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why don't you address your idiotic assertions that get called for the idiocy that they are?....Let's start with Venus being 28% closer to the sun is "slightly" nearer to the star.That's the question I posed to you. And I am still waiting for your answer.
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?
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.
Why don't you address your idiotic assertions that get called for the idiocy that they are?....Let's start with Venus being 28% closer to the sun is "slightly" nearer to the star.That's the question I posed to you. And I am still waiting for your answer.
I'm pretty sure someone could whip up an attractive full color chart or graph to debunk your rank foolhardiness.
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).
Abraham3 said:I'm not a scientist. I'm an engineer. I've told you that several times now. Memory problem?
Socko, I wasn't aware you told ME you were an engineer..
So that was you, claiming you made those measurements of the deep ocean back then.. ERGO, a claim of expertise on the matter, hence my point and your BS getting old now...So either you are claiming to be a scientist or an engineer, does it really matter when it's BS anyway?
You're a forum trolling sock, and one of low-rep clones we have had a rash of lately..
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 don't think it is too much of a reach to suggest that every single poster on this board understands that CO2 produced by humans has changed our climate.
I am not saying that some questionsdo not remain, because they do, but the basic premise of climate change has simply been known and understood for too long to make most denial credible.
Anyone who believes in science as a concept understands that.
What we see here now is some empty kind of theatre, of posters arguing purely for the sake of arguing.
I have to say, I don't find that "You can't convince me!" style of debate terribly engaging.
Abraham3 said:I'm not a scientist. I'm an engineer. I've told you that several times now. Memory problem?
Socko, I wasn't aware you told ME you were an engineer..
I posted it. I have no control over what you do and do not read. Post your personal email address and I'll make certain you don't miss anything.
So that was you, claiming you made those measurements of the deep ocean back then.. ERGO, a claim of expertise on the matter, hence my point and your BS getting old now...So either you are claiming to be a scientist or an engineer, does it really matter when it's BS anyway?
I was responding to a fooking question - posted by IanC, not you - as to whether or not anyone believed the quoted resolution of bathythermograph data. I supported my response with the fact that I have dropped and analyzed BT data for over 30 years. You obviously have never come within a hundred yards of one or you'd be commenting on the facts of the matter instead of attacking me personally.
You're a forum trolling sock, and one of low-rep clones we have had a rash of lately..
The world has a rash from the likes of you.
I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.
I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.
There are a number who 'pretend' to reject the idea, but increasingly I get the idea they are going through the motions out of sheer belligerancy rather than any real interest in science.
It's been a long, long time since SSDD, Westwall et al showed any interest in what is actually happening in the Arctic, for instance.
Certainly some of the less literate posters can maintain denial because they aren't likely to happen upon a newspaper in the average year, but for the average poster on this board - denial is starting to ring might hollow.
I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.
There are a number who 'pretend' to reject the idea, but increasingly I get the idea they are going through the motions out of sheer belligerancy rather than any real interest in science.
It's been a long, long time since SSDD, Westwall et al showed any interest in what is actually happening in the Arctic, for instance.
Certainly some of the less literate posters can maintain denial because they aren't likely to happen upon a newspaper in the average year, but for the average poster on this board - denial is starting to ring might hollow.
I hate to say it, but there are a number of posters here who reject the idea that CO2 has changed our climate.
There are a number who 'pretend' to reject the idea, but increasingly I get the idea they are going through the motions out of sheer belligerancy rather than any real interest in science.
It's been a long, long time since SSDD, Westwall et al showed any interest in what is actually happening in the Arctic, for instance.
Certainly some of the less literate posters can maintain denial because they aren't likely to happen upon a newspaper in the average year, but for the average poster on this board - denial is starting to ring might hollow.
Yet more lies from saggy I see. Never, ever make assumptions for others. It makes you look like an ass. Here is the truth about the Arctic today, so far there have been half the number of days above 0C that is usually seen. That makes this year the coldest in the Arctic so far....
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
That makes this year the coldest in the Arctic so far...
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).
I didn't say it wouldn't promote growth. Increased CO2 increases growth and improves water use efficiency. But the effects of GHG-induced global warming will harm crops in several ways and the net result will be reduced crop yields.
If you think a lack of water as a result of increased temperatures is "not in evidence" you need to review the world's drought record of the past several decades. And if you think it debatable that temperatures have been increasing, I don't know why I'm wasting my time talking to you. There's a name for people that have lost touch with reality.
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 know what thread we're in and you weren't toying with me. You really are full of shite.
You made several statements that Trenberth was now claiming or admitting that thermal energy was hidden in the deep ocean for 30-50 years. Now you admit he said no such thing.
I am impressed. You just never stop making it up, do you.
There are a number who 'pretend' to reject the idea, but increasingly I get the idea they are going through the motions out of sheer belligerancy rather than any real interest in science.
It's been a long, long time since SSDD, Westwall et al showed any interest in what is actually happening in the Arctic, for instance.
Certainly some of the less literate posters can maintain denial because they aren't likely to happen upon a newspaper in the average year, but for the average poster on this board - denial is starting to ring might hollow.
Yet more lies from saggy I see. Never, ever make assumptions for others. It makes you look like an ass. Here is the truth about the Arctic today, so far there have been half the number of days above 0C that is usually seen. That makes this year the coldest in the Arctic so far....
COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
And yet the extent of Arctic sea ice is below normal:
Ahem. I suppose it didn't occur to you that over half of those temperature measurements in your graph are above normal. And I suppose it also didn't occur to you that most of those abnormal temperature measurements occurred during peak Arctic sea ice formation.
Oh, and then there is this:
Figure 3a. This image of air temperature anomalies at the 925 hPa level from July 1 to 10 July 10, 2013 shows higher than average temperatures over the Arctic, especially over the Kara Sea. Air temperature anomalies are relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
