|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 23, 2016 16:34:32 GMT
Missouriboy: You are being to analytical. Today's scientists don't like someone doing that, as it may show their analysis to be in error.
My post in Post paris crap thread indicates that ANYONE who goes against the "grain" won't be published as the stick their heads in the sand papers don't want to acknowledge a different analysis, nor outcome.
To do so may upset the climate change gravy train me thinks.
It is a pleasure to have you on this board.
You are doing more for science than the "Climate Scientists" it seems.
P.S. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the checks from all those horrible oil companies who provide fuel to heat our homes and drive our cars.......and....deliver food and grow food......sanitize water.....ya know? That unimportant stuff!!
|
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Mar 23, 2016 17:16:36 GMT
The fact that the surface heat is dissipating into the ocean depths seems like very good news to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Mar 23, 2016 18:50:33 GMT
Given that there was a glacial period only 12,000 years ago and it was 6C lower, what quanta of energy would be required to restore equilibrium for the top 100M of the planet and what solar surplus would that require.
We can see a very slow lift in deep water temperature we are told that this a stunning amount of energy absorbed. So what has that to do with China releasing CO2 or what ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 23, 2016 22:31:37 GMT
Ocean heat rise is an indicator of earth warming, it isn't a good indicator of impacts at the surface, which is where any sizeable impacts will occur because it is the bottleneck. If a pond is blasted with a strong heat source for a few minutes, the pond depths will warm up slowly and overall irrelevantly, but that doesn't mean impacts at the surface will be marginal.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 23, 2016 23:09:27 GMT
Ocean heat rise is an indicator of earth warming, it isn't a good indicator of impacts at the surface, which is where any sizeable impacts will occur because it is the bottleneck. If a pond is blasted with a strong heat source for a few minutes, the pond depths will warm up slowly and overall irrelevantly, but that doesn't mean impacts at the surface will be marginal. Which was part of my point. But, if you only use the upper 100 meters, the net change from 2004 according to Argo was exactly zero through 2014. The 0.25 C increase across all oceans occurred from 2014-15 and will go slightly higher since the last Argo month I have is December, 2015 and the value i'm quoting is a 13-month centered moving average. However, note the ~0.1 C decline both before and after the 2009-10 El Nino. It's quite possible that the total 2014-15 increase may be wiped out by a following La Nina. If not all, then what's left will likely still not give us a figure that I can convince myself is dangerous. Unfortunately, we cannot readily see what happened on the upward and declining side of SC23, not to mention the 1996-97 El Nino and following La Nina. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 23, 2016 23:17:15 GMT
The fact that the surface heat is dissipating into the ocean depths seems like very good news to me. True enough. But it might take 10 to 25 years to dissipate the current 11-year surface gain, given the differential. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 23, 2016 23:39:21 GMT
Ocean heat rise is an indicator of earth warming, it isn't a good indicator of impacts at the surface, which is where any sizeable impacts will occur because it is the bottleneck. If a pond is blasted with a strong heat source for a few minutes, the pond depths will warm up slowly and overall irrelevantly, but that doesn't mean impacts at the surface will be marginal. Surface heat on the oceans is irrelevant. The heat lost to evaporation removes any heat as a result of CO2 radiation. Where the oceans gain heat is UV radiation. The slight increase in OHC is the result of the improvement in the earth's clearness of the atmosphere. Short term responses in temp are achieved via volcanic action. That is washed out in a few years unless the volcanic action is uninterrupted. Being earth's brightness coefficient has improved, more UV radiation is entering the ocean. Has very little effect on surface temperature, but up to 100 meters down is a known driver of heat. Cloud cover has also decreased approx 5%, last number that I have read. That decrease works hand in hand with the earth's brightness improving so facilitates further exposure to UV radiation. Canada's metro does a great job in this, as they post a UV radiation on their weather links. We are further north, thinner atmosphere and more gets through. The higher levels have only started to occur in the past 10 years or so, hence the now measurement and warning. I don't understand why climate scientists, in their heat budgets, seem to totally ignore UV. It is VERY potent!! The reason ice melts and water runs off my roof even when it is -20F here. (I have a black roof to capture heat, as cooling is not a major energy budget here, but warming sure is!) CO2 radiation bands are reflected off my windows, UV just flips right on in and creates warm spots in my house on sunny days. I can turn the thermostat down to 50F, let the bedroom side of my house cool off, while the dining room and living room are nice and toasty while the sun is shining through the windows. Water is like a window. Reflects CO2 radiation, but is transparent to UV radiation. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 23, 2016 23:43:17 GMT
Missouriboy: You are being to analytical. Today's scientists don't like someone doing that, as it may show their analysis to be in error. My post in Post paris crap thread indicates that ANYONE who goes against the "grain" won't be published as the stick their heads in the sand papers don't want to acknowledge a different analysis, nor outcome. To do so may upset the climate change gravy train me thinks. It is a pleasure to have you on this board. You are doing more for science than the "Climate Scientists" it seems. P.S. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the checks from all those horrible oil companies who provide fuel to heat our homes and drive our cars.......and....deliver food and grow food......sanitize water.....ya know? That unimportant stuff!! Too bad I no longer have my expensive GIS and image processing software. i could load up all those gridded SST, sat images and other data bases AND REALLY HAVE FUN.  You can only do so much with a non-coordinate-referenced spreadsheet. Too bad about those checks though. The 15-year old was kinda hoping I could fix him up. I told him I could probably handle the 'fix' part.  |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 24, 2016 7:36:30 GMT
There's nothing to convince me the changes at the surface will be disastrous yet. Let's just keep watching it I suppose.
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 24, 2016 13:32:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 24, 2016 13:54:25 GMT
Now isn't it amazing that cloud cover has declined a bit? And temps rose a bit? Gosh, how is that possible?
Warmer temps are suppose to increase H2O vapor, (AH) and form more clouds trapping that CO2 radiation and cooking the earth.
That tropical hot spot is like a Jackalope. Very elusive critter, widely written about but observation hasn't produced a specimen of mounting quality.
Ever get the feeling that the BULL CRAP is so deep, in regards to AGW science, that UV radiation can't penetrate the pile anymore?
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 24, 2016 14:33:48 GMT
Now isn't it amazing that cloud cover has declined a bit? And temps rose a bit? Gosh, how is that possible? Warmer temps are suppose to increase H2O vapor, (AH) and form more clouds trapping that CO2 radiation and cooking the earth. That tropical hot spot is like a Jackalope. Very elusive critter, widely written about but observation hasn't produced a specimen of mounting quality. Ever get the feeling that the BULL CRAP is so deep, in regards to AGW science, that UV radiation can't penetrate the pile anymore? Lot of things being covered up out there UV-wise. No doubt about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 24, 2016 20:05:07 GMT
cloud cover reducing as a result of warming is a prediction of positive cloud feedback effect
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 24, 2016 20:08:32 GMT
cloud cover reducing as a result of warming is a prediction of positive cloud feedback effect Is that a new twist socold? Because for years and years the feed back was opposite that by mainstream climate science. Prof Lindzen disagreed with that, and actually wrote a paper about it, and was chastised horribly for doing so. So now, AGW folks agree with Prof Lindzen? Could it be that he is still the smartest guy in the room? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 24, 2016 20:14:13 GMT
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/This is a terrifically important feedback,” Lindzen concludes, “because if you double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but don’t have any feedback within the system, you only get about 1 degree of warming (averaged over the entire globe). But climate models predict a much greater global warming because of the positive feedback of water vapor. Yet these models are missing potentially another negative feedback (the infrared iris) which can be anywhere between a fraction of a degree and 1 degree—the same order of magnitude as the warming.” (The net result would then be that the Iris’ negative feedback cancels the water vapor’s positive feedback. The warming for a doubling of carbon dioxide would then return to the 1°C that scientists predict would occur if there were no feedbacks.)
|
|
You can only do so much with a non-coordinate-referenced spreadsheet. Too bad about those
