Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 16501 - 16520 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 09:01am PT
What's wrong with this picture?

what is a "forcing" and how does it relate to the dynamics of the climate?
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
Oct 6, 2014 - 12:32pm PT
Oceans Getting Much Colder


http://www.climatecentral.org/oceans
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 6, 2014 - 01:24pm PT

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/studies-show-how-climate-change-is-baking-australia-18102
crunch

Social climber
CO
Oct 6, 2014 - 02:07pm PT
sketch, thanks for the helpful link to the NASA article:

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/#.VDLyjr6bGS0


"The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study .... during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated."

Some clarification:
"Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."

This new research sheds light on what's going on the deepest depths, below 1.24 miles.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 6, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
A reason temperature changes before 1950-1965 are not very predictive for the future is that there was less manmade CO2 at that time.
The added immediate greenhouse effect is related to the difference between the long term CO2 level of (280-300) and the present level which was 310ppm in 1950, 320 in 1965, 400 in 2014.
There is a very slow increase for the first 200 years of the industrial revolution of 280ppm in 1750 to 310 in 1950. After that time, GHGs increase at a faster rate. Looking at the typical CO2 time graph, the added greenhouse effect increases each year. So recent years - the last 30 for example, would have a much higher effect than the previous 30 years.

And it is misguided to expect a linear graph of warming extending before 1960 to have much usefulness.

Additionally, cumulative long term feedbacks (melting, changes in surface reflectivity, release of stored GHGs, etc.) will delay equilibrium, which is why temperature will continue to increase long after GHG levels stabilize.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 6, 2014 - 05:39pm PT
Reasons why arctic melting is more important than antarctic ice extent:

1) Arctic ice mostly lasts through the summer, when the sun is shining in the north. If Arctic ice is melted in the summer, it can't reflect sunlight very well. The albedo of ice is ~ .6 (where 1 = perfect white reflector) , but the albedo of open water is only .06, so less Arctic ice in summer makes a big difference to global albedo.

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html

Antarctic sea ice mostly melts in the southern summer Dec-March. So when the sun is shining on the southern sea, it is not ice. So there is no significant change in albedo during the sunny months, which are the more significant months.

The total combined effect is that the decrease in the northern ice extent is 4 times as significant as the increase in the south.

Compare Feb in the south, to Aug in the north at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/snow-and-ice/extent/sea-ice/S/2

2) Antarctic land ice is still melting, as is Greenland. Antarctic sea ice maximum extent is not a good indicator of global trends.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 6, 2014 - 05:43pm PT
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Snow-Spotted-in-Chicago-as-City-Prepares-for-Record-Temps-278112851.html
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
Oct 6, 2014 - 05:46pm PT
Oceans Getting Much Colder


http://www.climatecentral.org/oceans
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 6, 2014 - 07:35pm PT
Norton did you read your alarmist link?

If you had, surely you would have noticed that they were claiming ocean warming for several decades prior to 2005.

When was Argo fully deployed Norton?

Not in those decades they are claiming catastrophic accelerated warming.

How did they determine this catastrophic warming Norton? Was it the result of model output that isn't worth the electrons expended on the runs since they are nearly universally tuned to be oversensitive to CO2 forcing and ignore or under value natural processes?

What I get out of this little pile of steaming press release excrement is that actual observations show no warming since 2005.

By 2005 the effects of reduced short wave solar radiation and magnetic flux didn't allow for the warming of the vast mass of the ocean. Sure, there was a little surface warming from long wave radiation backscattered from water vapor and CO2 but it doesn't penetrate more than a few centimeters.

The only thing currently keeping us from a distinct cooling of the upper levels of the ocean and land surface is the weak double peak of solar cycle 24. Within months this should conclude and the cycle will dropoff over a period of years to a deep and prolonged minimum not seen in over a 150 years.

There will be a severe winter in large parts of the NH this season. The Arctic ice melt for 2015, starting from a higher total extent and thickness, will be less than 2014. The Antarctic will continue to add more land ice mass, as some satellite measurements show, and the sea ice will again reach new records. The El Nino of 2014/2015 will be weak. The climate liars will be even less credible in sept. 2015 than in 2014.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
Nature Climate Change PUBLISHED ONLINE: 5 OCTOBER 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2389
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming

Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor

The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming1–4. Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data sparse regions5–7. We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modeled results. These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1  10²² J 35yr⁻¹) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:02pm PT
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html

Nature Climate Change
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 5 OCTOBER 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2387

Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade

W. Llovel, J. K. Willis, F.W. Landerer and I. Fukumori

As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change. Here, we infer deep-ocean warming in the context of global sea-level rise and Earth’s energy budget between January 2005 and December 2013. Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise. Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77±0.28 mm yr⁻¹ in sea-level rise and agree with the upper-ocean estimate to within the estimated uncertainties. Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes -0.13±0.72 mm yr⁻¹ to global sea-level rise and -0.08±0.43 Wm⁻² to Earth’s energy balance. The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64±0.44 Wm⁻² from 2005 to 2013.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:08pm PT
Complete B.S. paper Ed.

Likely underestimated-typical weasal wording. Suite of models- as I suspected. Heat hiding in the southern oceans where monitors are sparse- how typically convenient, where is Cowtan and Way?

EDIT: your second offering has a better title at least

Question Ed; how much has sea level risen in your local seas of SF bay over the last 35 years?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:13pm PT
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf

Nature Geoscience PUBLISHED ONLINE: 22 JANUARY 2012 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1375


Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty

Norman G. Loeb, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard P. Allan, David R. Doelling, Takmeng Wong, Brian J. Soden and Graeme L. Stephens

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2 . Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm⁻² (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:15pm PT
your reading skills have declined substantially, rick...

you forgot to see, or perhaps you didn't understand, that the first paper is driven by satellite data...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:32pm PT
What does a large suite of climate models mean to you Ed? Don't be so quick to assume I am addled and you are not.

Now , about your local sea levels, in fact the whole west coast? Isostatic rebound is not likely the cause of the west coast lack of sea level rise, nor is it likely that uplift uniformly along the entire subduction zone is the cause. So why is it that we have disagreement between tide gauges and satellite and even between different satellites?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:55pm PT
addled? well I read the paper...
and the supplementary material.

But I guess your brilliance need not be so constrained as to actually respond to what was written, substituting instead what you imagine was written.

Pretty typical of your responses, rick, even when you can read the papers you don't understand them, nor do you feel you need to, but you can always give us your opinion.

Nature doesn't print B.S.... by the way.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 7, 2014 - 06:55am PT
Yes that might be true,The Chief.

But it is not,and you and yours[that article,opinion] are full of that fantasy.

You are right,you are not a denier.



wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 7, 2014 - 07:17am PT
"Maybe that is what is missing in climate science — the lack of any sort of tradition of the maverick being righter than the entire body of established work"


Truly Laughable,though you wish it were true.


edit;What is a click? ...lol
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 7, 2014 - 07:48am PT
How so?

It reads like a deniers wish list.

Back to Work,thanks for the laughs,with two broken ribs from a recent trials mtb fall,that hurt.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:04am PT
Here's an piece I though found interesting.
    Sketch


Nothing like mind-bending intellect.



Maybe he's full of sh#t. I don't know. What I do know is this piece rang true.

Don't try to follow this logic unless you want to hurt yourself.
Messages 16501 - 16520 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta