| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
This only underscores what many recognize as truth: That you have no clue and are apparently proud of it.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wannabee--you've got to come up with a better insult. I know brilliant scientists--you're not one, neither am I. Nor are you Ronald Reagan or a comedian.
Here's just one, anyone with a brain is impressed by a director at Scripps:
http://scrippsscholars.ucsd.edu/mralph
You might peruse his article on melting of Greenland ice to see just how full of nonsense you are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wynsurfer
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 940
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While we here on the east coast have had the coldest February on record so far, those on the west coast have been basking in guess what? unusual warmth, perhaps record warmth. Denver has been in the 60's and even the low 70's this month. Skiing is no where near what it should be out there with temps in the 40's and 50's in the mountains.
Despite the extreme cold as of late, the winter as a whole has been about normal here in Ct. due to the unusually mild December and first half of January, when we were all wondering where is winter? As of last week we were below normal for heating degree days, meaning that it has so far averaged out to be slightly warmer than normal.
I's called weather. Climate change deniers are all over this pointing at the cold WEATHER out east which makes me laugh, as they parrot the climate change deniers. They look, well foolish at best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slinky wrote: | | I's called weather. Climate change deniers are all over this pointing at the cold WEATHER out east which makes me laugh, as they parrot the climate change deniers. They look, well foolish at best. |
People who can't construct a coherent sentence may look a little foolish also. No one is "denying" climate change. The climate is constantly changing, always has. Many, however, are questioning the "settled science" that the globe is warming due to the impact of man's activities. Since the dire predictions of the past two decades have failed to materialize, such questions seem reasonable to all but those with closed minds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I laugh (and cry) every time I see the euphemism, "climate change", which was constructed in haste after the public caught on to the AGW alarmism scam. Think about it: the warming wolf cry can be used only when global temperatures are not plummeting*, whereas "climate change" can be used ALL the time ... hell, every time anybody's grandmother puts on or takes off a sweater, windbreaker, cap, or raincoat.
* I started to say "when global temperatures are warming", but when have level or moderately declining temps stopped them from screaming, "TSUNAMI"? "MALARIA"? "DROUGHT"? "REPARATIONS"? "CARBON TAXES"? "THE CHILDREN"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So much horseshit:
| Quote: | | Since the dire predictions of the past two decades have failed to materialize, such questions seem reasonable to all but those with closed minds. |
Models were developed to test certain scenarios and reach conclusions about the impacts of certain activities. Their predictive capacity has always been limited--something understood by those with even a rudimentary understanding of physics and modeling. It is indeed good news that warming seems to be occurring more slowly than the worst fears and early models. But only a fool--or an apologist for carbon producers--would overlook the continuing growth of technical information on warming, on the contribution of CO2 to that warming, and the implications for centuries of higher temperatures.
Polemicists everywhere will grab a tiny fact and try to move a mountain with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2015 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are, of course, scientific responses to the fatuous comments of mrgybe. But first, take a look at this time series of earth temperatures. Not intended to evoke a response of "gee, that's cool". https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/history-earths-temperature-1880
Then there is this from the NOAA web site, with the chief source included:
| Quote: | The most likely explanation for the lack of significant warming at the Earth’s surface in the past decade or so is that natural climate cycles—a series of La Niña events and a negative phase of the lesser-known Pacific Decadal Oscillation—caused shifts in ocean circulation patterns that moved some excess heat into the deep ocean. Even so, recent years have been some of the warmest on record, and scientists expect temperatures will swing back up soon.
Yearly surface temperatures since 1880 compared to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
The “pause” in global warming observed since 2000 followed a period of rapid acceleration in the late 20th century. Starting in the mid-1970s, global temperatures rose 0.5 °C over a period of 25 years. Since the turn of the century, however, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero. Yet despite the halt in acceleration, each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.
Surface temperature each decade since 1880 compard to the twentieth-century (1901-2000) average (dashed line at zero). Each of the last three decades was the warmest on record at the time, and each was warmer than the last. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
The long-term trend—change over the course of a century or more—is what defines “global warming,” not the change from year to year or even decade to decade. Rising emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution explain most of the overall warming trend over the past century, and the rate of emissions has not slowed significantly in the recent past. So what else has been going on in the climate system over the past decade that could account for the pause in Earth’s surface warming trend?
During the last decade, a longer than usual solar minimum cycle, several volcanic eruptions, and relatively low amounts of water vapor in the stratosphere may have helped cool the atmosphere temporarily. But recent research suggests that the Earth’s natural climate variability—natural, short-term fluctuations in the climate system that occur on a year-to-year basis or longer—may have played the most pivotal role of all by transferring excess heat from the Earth’s surface into the deep ocean.
One of the most well-known natural climate oscillations—the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle—causes swings in sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific. Although ENSO originates in the equatorial Pacific Ocean, a strong El Niño or La Niña event is capable of bumping global temperatures upward or downward for a year or two. Since the last major El Niño event in 1997-1998, a series of La Niña events have dominated the tropical Pacific, resulting in a prolonged cooling of sea surface temperatures that has also likely stalled the rise in global temperatures.
Graph showing the Oceanic Niño Index (difference from average sea surface temperatures in a key region of the tropical Pacific Ocean) from 1980-2012. Cooling La Niña events (blue shading) in the past decade have outnumbered warming El Niño events (red shading). Data courtesy of the NOAA Climate Prediction Center.
Evidence for the global influence of these La Niñas comes from an innovative model experiment by a team of scientists from Scripps Institution of Oceanography. When they forced a climate model to closely follow observed temperatures in the tropical Pacific—mirroring the repeated La Niña events—the model simulated no significant trend in global warming since 2000. This led the group to believe that global temperatures would have continued to rise throughout the last decade if not for the prolonged cooling in the Pacific.
Just because the global surface temperature has not risen significantly in the past decade doesn't mean the Earth's heat energy imbalance has vanished, though. Excess heat energy trapped by greenhouses gases can have more than one fate in the Earth system; among other things, it can cause water to evaporate, it can melt ice, and it can be mixed into the deep ocean by overturning currents.
That mixing coupled with water's naturally large heat capacity makes the global ocean the Earth’s biggest absorber of heat; scientists estimate the ocean absorbs more than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. When analyzing temperature patterns at different depths of the ocean, scientists observed that deep ocean temperatures—measured more than a half-mile down from the surface—began to rise significantly around 2000, while shallower waters warmed more slowly. This divergence took place at the same time that a natural climate cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, was shifting to a negative phase.
Yearly global ocean heat content compared to the 1958-65 average (dashed line at zero) for the past four decades for different layers of the ocean: from the surface to depths of 300 meters (grey) and 700 meters (blue), and total depth down to 2,000 meters (purple). Surface waters warmed more slowly (line is nearly flat since the mid-2000s) than deeper waters (steep increase). Since the core of the Argo fleet can only dive down to 2,000 meters, the amount of heat going into the deep ocean is unknown. Image adapted from Figure 1 of Balmaseda et al., 2013 (pdf).
Unlike the ENSO cycle, which affects the climate on a year-to-year basis, the PDO affects the climate on decadal timescales. Since the late 1990s, the negative phase of the PDO cycle has contributed to cooler sea temperatures at the surface of the tropical (similar to La Niña) and northeastern Pacific. Strong prevailing winds during the negative phase of the PDO also stir up the ocean and mix surface waters down into the deep ocean, allowing heat to penetrate to greater depths.
The deep ocean may have been able to "hide" excess heat trapped in the Earth system by greenhouse gases, contributing to the warming “pause” in the last decade, but scientists know that heat energy doesn't just disappear. Eventually, natural ocean circulation may bring some of the extra heat stored in the deep ocean back to the surface, which can happen during an El Niño event, for example.
Meanwhile, other environmental indicators of climate change—melting ice in Greenland, the retreat of Arctic sea ice, global sea level rise—continue to send a clear signal that Earth is still warming. Over the coming century, human-caused warming will continue, with natural variability periodically speeding up or slowing down the pace from decade to decade.
*Editor's Note: Since this article was written, researchers have continued to try to quantify where exactly the deep ocean heat has gone and how it got there. The theory remains that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is the main mode of variability regulating temperature in the Pacific Ocean, contributing to the global warming hiatus and driving other climate trends elsewhere. But in the meantime, recent studies have investigated the cause of recent warming trends in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans. Some questions remain for scientists, including: What physical mechanisms drive variability in the ocean basins? How deep is Earth’s accumulating heat penetrating the depths of the ocean? This is a fast-moving area of research, so stay tuned for future posts on this topic.
References & Related Articles
Held, I.M. (2013), Climate science: The cause of the pause. Nature 501, 318-319. |
For graphs, go to: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
Those not cherry picking to support their biases (or portfolios) will be particularly interested in the accumulating heat in the ocean. As I noted here long ago, global warming didn't "pause" in the past ten years. Rather, heat has been accumulating in the ocean rather than being manifest in surface temperatures. The fact that we don't know exactly why will be used by polemicists to deny warming--without a bit of integrity or understanding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wynsurfer
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 940
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Human activity through the burning of matter releases one quadrillion btu's of HEAT every 26 hours!
Where does all this heat go?
It seems like our oceans are absorbing much of it, as mac pointed out.
Since our oceans cover 70% of the earths surface, it would seem as though we are in fact causing global warming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17748
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Slinky--that's not how it works. The heat from the sun overwhelms that from burning fuel (all of which's energy came from the sun in the first place) Here's a neat little discussion inb http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar%20FAQs.pdf
12. What is the theoretical potential of solar energy?
Sunlight has by far the highest theoretical potential of the earth’s renewable energy sources.
The solar constant (the solar flux intercepted by the earth) is 1.37 kW/m2.
etc. until they calculate the total amount of energy, which is
= 89,300 TW
This theoretical potential represents more energy striking the earth’s surface in one and a half hours (480 EJ) than worldwide energy consumption in the year 2001 from all sources combined (430 EJ).
iwindsurf can't handle footnotes, so you have to consult the original for references. I can't do the Terrawatt to BTU conversion without looking up conversion factors, so I'll leave you with the total highlighted.
The global warming phenonmenon has to do with carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases, most notably methane) reducing the release of that solar heat back into space. This gives a reasonable explanation of that effect:
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/globalwarmA5.html
Survival of the planet, and energy for our future, requires that we figure out how to tap solar energy and reduce CO2 emissions. There will always be nattering nabobs of negativity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
