Not just the oceans and atmosphere

[flacaltenn]

Attempt to go back to the topic.. Interesting observation from studies on Lake Tahoe where a warming trend has also been identified. Actual water temp measurements since the 60s show about 1.5degF warming. HOWEVER -- NASA satellite data shows "over 3 degrees of warming in just last 16 years".. Needs to be resolved. And the study in THIS OP relies very heavily on satellite measurements.

NC Media Watch: Will Lake Tahoe soon reach boiling point? (Updated 12-27-09, 2027)

So what other effects might be in play here? Certainly Lake Tahoe has been fighting a clarity issue since all the feeders into the lake have been HIGHLY affected by development alongside river/streams. Leading to a very noticeable decline in water clarity which can increase direct solar absorption of heat.

Secchi depth is a test where a white plate is lowered until it can't be seen..

Then there's the side-effects of regulations to control turbidity and pollutants in the feeder systems for the Lake. Highly restricted on what runs off into the Lake throughout the season. Which COULD mean that there is less volume filling the lake or that the streams/rivers are SHALLOWER than before leading to higher temperatures of the new waters entering the lake.

Don't know -- can't tell. Too many possibilities to pin that increase JUST on IR backradiation from increased CO2. Which we already know doesn't directly efficiently heat a volume of water.

Thanks! That's an interesting idea that I hadn't heard of before.

It's not really UHI effect but it is related. Instead we see past temperatures cooled, whereas this is another reason for them to be raised (or present temps to be cooled).

The lake level has been noticeably lower during the past decade as well. Not totally related to annual precipt, but more related to all the controls and regulations put on the drainage into the lake. Could very well be man-made warming -- but not just related to atmospheric effects.


Lake Tahoe Storage | Truckee Meadows Water Authority

 

[Old Rocks]

Basic question, are the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere warming the globe, and changing the climate?

Answer from the vast majority of scientists, YES!

Now as to the details, how much are we changing the climate, what the immediate affects will be, timeline for the changes, yes, many disagreements among the scientists. However, there is as much consensus on the basic question as there is on evolution.

That's CERTAINLY not the $10K "consensus" question Rocks and you know it. Because it would put me and Ian and a lot of others into the "consensus" category.. I challenge you to present ANY other IMPORTANT questions that you folks babble on about having "consensus"..

Absolutely that is the primary question. And now that the answer is yes, even for the denialists, the next question is are the affects, overall, negative, positive, or neutral.

So, that brings up further questions, such as are the number of extreme weather events increasing? What kind of weather events are they, and where are there primary affects? Agriculture, infrastructure, ect.

In other words, the denialists have suffered a complete rout in the first major battle on climate change. And now their back up position is "try it, you'll like it". So tell that to the people pumping out their basements, or the people sorting through the ashes of their homes burned in wildfires measured in hundreds of square miles.

 

[Old Rocks]

But we are not speaking just of one lake, we are examining the lakes all over the world. And seeing the same thing. Warming, and dramatic effects from that warming in a great many of the lakes.

 

[flacaltenn]

Basic question, are the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere warming the globe, and changing the climate?

Answer from the vast majority of scientists, YES!

Now as to the details, how much are we changing the climate, what the immediate affects will be, timeline for the changes, yes, many disagreements among the scientists. However, there is as much consensus on the basic question as there is on evolution.

That's CERTAINLY not the $10K "consensus" question Rocks and you know it. Because it would put me and Ian and a lot of others into the "consensus" category.. I challenge you to present ANY other IMPORTANT questions that you folks babble on about having "consensus"..

Absolutely that is the primary question. And now that the answer is yes, even for the denialists, the next question is are the affects, overall, negative, positive, or neutral.

So, that brings up further questions, such as are the number of extreme weather events increasing? What kind of weather events are they, and where are there primary affects? Agriculture, infrastructure, ect.

In other words, the denialists have suffered a complete rout in the first major battle on climate change. And now their back up position is "try it, you'll like it". So tell that to the people pumping out their basements, or the people sorting through the ashes of their homes burned in wildfires measured in hundreds of square miles.

Not really.. Folks following the issues know that our GHGs don't explain 100% of the temperature record. So the FUNDAMENTAL question -- the question that needs to be answered before any nidget goes and claims that every forest fire is due to CO2 --- is really HOW MUCH of the observed warming is due to man-made emissions..

And there is no consensus on that question.. Or the other dozen follow-up questions that stem from it..

 

[flacaltenn]

But we are not speaking just of one lake, we are examining the lakes all over the world. And seeing the same thing. Warming, and dramatic effects from that warming in a great many of the lakes.

Not really.. At least not from THIS mini-paper. Their evidence is largely high lattitude lakes. And they haven't even explained their data set. When asked if they "gridded" each lake in the video you provided -- they answered no. It is by no means a complete "GLOBAL" survey of lake temps. And not very precise at all. To make "GLOBAL" pronouncements like that -- you gotta do a lot more work than I see there. And then ask the question of whether satellite readings are the best way to determine lake water temperatures. Because the satellites are only measuring the oxygen MWave emission in the air directly above the surface and weighting that with the 1st 100 meters or so of atmosphere.

Valid for determining AIR temperature -- maybe not for determining lake warming or WHERE it's coming from..

 

[SSDD]

Basic question, are the GHGs that we are putting into the atmosphere warming the globe, and changing the climate?

Answer from the vast majority of scientists, YES!

Answer from the empirical evidence that proves the basic question.....chirp...chirp....chirp...chirp...just crickets because there is exactly zero empirical evidence that proves that basic question.....what sort of scientists form a consensus on an answer for such a basic question without the first bit of empirical evidence that proves the basic question...answer...not scientists at all...paid political shils.

 

[SSDD]

There is some weird tick that conservatives have where they read their own biases into what someone else says.

I don't worship anything. I've just had it up to here with people like you who either don't understand the science or are intentionally lying. I really don't care if anyone talks back who is either ignorant or a liar. There is a list of those here, evidently you add yourself to this list.

Its your bizarre diatribe against all the rest of the NATIONS in the world and 97% of the PH.D's in the world.

What YOUR 'opinion' is has no value on the subject. You are free to express it of course, but its like someone that says "Einstein just had his opinion on relativity, my opinion is just as valid".

I'm sorry, it isn't. The science that Global Warming is real and is accelerating was settled 15 years ago. There hasn't been debate among PH.D's since then. They have simply been refining the data.

I know others here like to entertain you people who either aren't sure or are lying. I don't.

There is no debate any more. Sorry if that makes you sad.

So you believe you have 10k PhD's in agreement on AGW...with that many agreeing, you should have little, to no problem bringing forward some empirical evidence that proves the most basic claim of AGW...that being that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming...got any such empirical evidence? I am quite sure you don't because no such empirical evidence exists...so you believe you have 10k PhD's in agreement on AGW but there is no empirical evidence to support the most basic claim of AGW...of what value, exactly is a consensus of scientists who are not following the scientific method?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Wyatt earp]

That is what the denier cult is, the modern day Flat Earth Society.

So proudly ignorant that you have ZERO experimental evidence

You have fossil fuel lawyers and talk radio backing you.

I have 10,000 PH.D's around the world and every nation in agreement the problem is real and needs to be addressed.

But your fear of reality is like blinders on a horse. Good luck Mr. Ed.

Just for the record -- what you are doing here is not following the science of GWarming at all. Don't know what those 10,000 PhDs agree on and what they don't. Dont even know what the debate questions are.. You're not following a science debate -- you're WORSHIPPING science. And taking the science evidence on faith.

Because somehow you got this vision that 10,000 PhDs agree on EVERYTHING. And you worship them.. That's why nobody wants to chat with you really when you come into these topics and spew your faith over and over and over again.....

REAL POLLS of climate scientists BY climate scientists show there is no solid consensus on the IMPORTANT issues of Global Warming.. It's that simple.. And that's really all I need I know on the topic of "consensus"..

Seen any lake warming evidence you'd like to share? ... Or do you believe because this "mini-paper" has 5 PhDs saying it --- that it is now "settled science" and needs no further discussion???

There is some weird tick that conservatives have where they read their own biases into what someone else says.

I don't worship anything. I've just had it up to here with people like you who either don't understand the science or are intentionally lying. I really don't care if anyone talks back who is either ignorant or a liar. There is a list of those here, evidently you add yourself to this list.

Its your bizarre diatribe against all the rest of the NATIONS in the world and 97% of the PH.D's in the world.

What YOUR 'opinion' is has no value on the subject. You are free to express it of course, but its like someone that says "Einstein just had his opinion on relativity, my opinion is just as valid".

I'm sorry, it isn't. The science that Global Warming is real and is accelerating was settled 15 years ago. There hasn't been debate among PH.D's since then. They have simply been refining the data.

I know others here like to entertain you people who either aren't sure or are lying. I don't.

There is no debate any more. Sorry if that makes you sad.

Still debating Gravity, relativity, proton decay, why the suns surface is 200 times hotter than it should be, how something as large as the Moon is orbit around the Earth, but your Cult doesn't debate...that's awesome

Anyone notice old rocks saying the same? They are running out of an argument and relying strictly on faith of their high priests .

 

[SSDD]

But we are not speaking just of one lake, we are examining the lakes all over the world. And seeing the same thing. Warming, and dramatic effects from that warming in a great many of the lakes.

Not really.. At least not from THIS mini-paper. Their evidence is largely high lattitude lakes. And they haven't even explained their data set. When asked if they "gridded" each lake in the video you provided -- they answered no. It is by no means a complete "GLOBAL" survey of lake temps. And not very precise at all. To make "GLOBAL" pronouncements like that -- you gotta do a lot more work than I see there. And then ask the question of whether satellite readings are the best way to determine lake water temperatures. Because the satellites are only measuring the oxygen MWave emission in the air directly above the surface and weighting that with the 1st 100 meters or so of atmosphere.

Valid for determining AIR temperature -- maybe not for determining lake warming or WHERE it's coming from..

Interesting that they trust satellites to tell them the temperature of lakes but not to determine the surface temperature.

 

[flacaltenn]

But we are not speaking just of one lake, we are examining the lakes all over the world. And seeing the same thing. Warming, and dramatic effects from that warming in a great many of the lakes.

Not really.. At least not from THIS mini-paper. Their evidence is largely high lattitude lakes. And they haven't even explained their data set. When asked if they "gridded" each lake in the video you provided -- they answered no. It is by no means a complete "GLOBAL" survey of lake temps. And not very precise at all. To make "GLOBAL" pronouncements like that -- you gotta do a lot more work than I see there. And then ask the question of whether satellite readings are the best way to determine lake water temperatures. Because the satellites are only measuring the oxygen MWave emission in the air directly above the surface and weighting that with the 1st 100 meters or so of atmosphere.

Valid for determining AIR temperature -- maybe not for determining lake warming or WHERE it's coming from..

Interesting that they trust satellites to tell them the temperature of lakes but not to determine the surface temperature.

They only like the satellites when they give the right answers..

 

[Crick]

http://laketemperature.org/Documents/GLTC_PR_Poster-v4-PDF.pdf

Rising lake temperatures may worsen algae blooms - HeraldNet.com

Lakes warm worldwide

A global database of lake surface temperatures collected by in situ and satellite methods from 1985–2009 : Scientific Data

 

[Old Rocks]

But we are not speaking just of one lake, we are examining the lakes all over the world. And seeing the same thing. Warming, and dramatic effects from that warming in a great many of the lakes.

Not really.. At least not from THIS mini-paper. Their evidence is largely high lattitude lakes. And they haven't even explained their data set. When asked if they "gridded" each lake in the video you provided -- they answered no. It is by no means a complete "GLOBAL" survey of lake temps. And not very precise at all. To make "GLOBAL" pronouncements like that -- you gotta do a lot more work than I see there. And then ask the question of whether satellite readings are the best way to determine lake water temperatures. Because the satellites are only measuring the oxygen MWave emission in the air directly above the surface and weighting that with the 1st 100 meters or so of atmosphere.

Valid for determining AIR temperature -- maybe not for determining lake warming or WHERE it's coming from..

Interesting that they trust satellites to tell them the temperature of lakes but not to determine the surface temperature.

They only like the satellites when they give the right answers..

The discrepancies between the satellite data and the in situ temperatures were noted in the video. And the reason for the temperature reading being mainly large lakes was also explained.

You fellows are showing how desperate you are to create the impression that these things are not happening, and demonstrating that you are only going to accept reality after is is forced down your throats. And Momma Nature is doing a good job of that.

 

[flacaltenn]

But we are not speaking just of one lake, we are examining the lakes all over the world. And seeing the same thing. Warming, and dramatic effects from that warming in a great many of the lakes.

Not really.. At least not from THIS mini-paper. Their evidence is largely high lattitude lakes. And they haven't even explained their data set. When asked if they "gridded" each lake in the video you provided -- they answered no. It is by no means a complete "GLOBAL" survey of lake temps. And not very precise at all. To make "GLOBAL" pronouncements like that -- you gotta do a lot more work than I see there. And then ask the question of whether satellite readings are the best way to determine lake water temperatures. Because the satellites are only measuring the oxygen MWave emission in the air directly above the surface and weighting that with the 1st 100 meters or so of atmosphere.

Valid for determining AIR temperature -- maybe not for determining lake warming or WHERE it's coming from..

Interesting that they trust satellites to tell them the temperature of lakes but not to determine the surface temperature.

They only like the satellites when they give the right answers..

The discrepancies between the satellite data and the in situ temperatures were noted in the video. And the reason for the temperature reading being mainly large lakes was also explained.

You fellows are showing how desperate you are to create the impression that these things are not happening, and demonstrating that you are only going to accept reality after is is forced down your throats. And Momma Nature is doing a good job of that.

Momma Nature hasn't noticed the 0.6degs in your lifetime yet.

And I'm not at all desperate based on ONE short form paper that attempts to gets a GLOBAL lake average. Neither should you be. As a pointed out -- there are MANY reasons why lake temperatures can being due to man's actions. Not JUST the addition of CO2 to the atmos.. Could even be icing conditions or natural feeder system changes. Could even be pollutants or more suspended particulates in the feeders. The list is long of stuff that needs to be ruled out.

 

[flacaltenn]

They said in the presentation that the VOLUME of lakes determined the level of warming --- Duhhh... And since the majority of the puny 135 samples in this GLOBAL study were in the US and other populated areas -- this could have a lot to do with water usage going up.. Either from the lakes themselves -- or from shallower feeders due to human consumption from those feeders.

Also said that the highest warming was experienced in lakes that had some extent of yearly icing.. Except they ignored that TOO MUCH ICE can also lead to warmer spring/summer temps is shallower lakes. Because without constant icing, you radiate more heat from deeper levels during the winter (or the opportunity to have that effect).

Their map of meager samples is by NO MEANS a Global Average of any kind.. ALSO made some flippant remark about more solar irradiation because of less clouds.. Hmmmm ?????
I'll wait a bit before starting to throw a hissy fit about all this.

 

[flacaltenn]

Also nowhere in that presentation did I see an ACTUAL chart of average temps over time.
Have no idea what time span this covers.. Do you Rocks?? Or what the GAvg change looks like..

Don't know why you'd assume that any of this is definitive.. Why don't you explain to me why I should panic about any of this??

 

[Crick]

How many times have we seen it argued that because CO2 and temperatures have risen to high levels without the assistance of human GHG emissions in the distant past, it is likely that humans are not responsible for the current increase in CO2 or of global warming? Many times.

And yet here, with the world warming, with the oceans warming, with the ice melting, we find - huge surprise - that lakes also appear to be warming. NOW, however, you insist the warming taking place in the rest of the world has no bearing - no impact - on the likely causes of lake warming.

Good logic.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's the same ol', same ol'. First, they state that the research is inadaquete. Then they say that since you found nothing, we are cutting funds for any further research. And then, when their water supply cannot be used, they state, "with all that money we gave them, why didn't the scientists warn us of this"?

 

[flacaltenn]

It's the same ol', same ol'. First, they state that the research is inadaquete. Then they say that since you found nothing, we are cutting funds for any further research. And then, when their water supply cannot be used, they state, "with all that money we gave them, why didn't the scientists warn us of this"?

Did you see the example of the sat data (about 1/2 way thru the vid) where there was "cool plume" on a lake. Dark blue temps in a dark red lake. And they flippantly discussed the cause being a WESTERLY WIND across the lake??

More than a 1deg change because of the prevailing WINDS?? Then you are not measuring lake water temperatures in any meaningful fashion.. You are measuring the air boundary just above the water.. OR the 1st couple centimeters of depth.. And if you don't grid the lake -- the sampling that determines the "single point for each lake" will suck wads in terms of accuracy.. Let them WORK HARDER on this... Likely the surface waters are just an amplified version of the surface air temps and temporary storage of FULL SPECTRUM solar insolation..

There's no reason to cast aspersions here. You folks want to consume this stuff and let your imaginations run wild -- have a blast.. What you NEED TO DO -- is to read this stuff critically and decide WHEN it is good enough to justify all the implied horrors and disasters that they were paid to produce..

PS --- From those vids -- did they ever say how many years this study covered?? Or produce an actual graph of the warming.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Oh I know, you scared deniers have your 'charts' and your 'polls' and all the rest of your vale of deniability to protect you from the scary world, but its all false. Not surprising that you post a chart of a 'poll' of only US citizens. Out of the 7 billion people on Earth we are 5% of the population, and out of that tiny minority of humanity the tiny minority like yourself that are members of the denier cult are irrelevant. The game is up Percy. The world has moved on but as usual, you cons are left behind to lament and grieve for years about the 1950s.

Whine away!!

Funny thing about street preachers screaming about stuff they don't want to understand. And can't or won't discuss. They tend to fade into the background and nobody pays them any mind. Any comments ON THIS TOPIC -- preacher man? You noticed any warming in the Great Lake region recently???

Great Lakes surface water temperatures today (left) are much warmer as a whole than this time last year (right)(NOAA/GLERL CoastWatch)
PrintEmail
By Mark Torregrossa | [email protected]
Follow on Twitter
on July 06, 2015 at 7:37 PM, updated July 06, 2015 at 10:41 PM



The Great Lakes water temperatures are much warmer than this time last year.

It appears we are slowly climbing out of the cold water situation we had last year.

The graphic above shows a comparison of the surface water temperatures July 5, 2015, on the left to July 5, 2014, on the right.

If you scan the graphics, you can get somewhat of a feel that the lakes are warming up more than last year.

Here are the exact numbers, as given by the Great Lakes Environmental Research Center.

Lake Superior currently has a 48-degree average surface water temperature, compared to 44.5 degrees this date last year. The entire volume of water in Lake Superior is one-half degree warmer than last year. That may not sound like a lot, but Superior holds lots of water.

Lake Michigan is more than three degrees warmer on the surface than last year. Currently, Lake Michigan is 61.0 degrees versus 57.7 degrees last year. The entire lake volume is 0.7 degrees warmer than last year.

Lake Huron is averaging 61.5 degrees as opposed to 58.2 degrees at this time last year. It also is 0.7 degrees warmer through its entire volume.

Lake Erie is warmer than last year, but not by much. The average surface water temperature is 68.8 degrees compared to 68.4 degrees last year. The whole water volume is 0.2 degrees warmer this year.

Lake Ontario is almost two degrees warmer than last year. It's 62.0 degrees now and was 60.3 degrees last year. The whole body of water in Lake Ontario is the same temperature as last year, 43.4 degrees.

If we continue to inch above the average temperatures on land, the Great Lakes water temperatures will continue to warm to higher temperatures than last year. This warmer water temperature pattern will be one of the factors that may keep us out of another extremely cold winter.

Great Lakes water temperatures much warmer than last year

Here you go.

Last year they were 97.1% frozen over you nit wit! The land of ignorant twits and their propaganda is never a disappointment..