Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Really RC?

Seems the journal Nature does think the "pause" exists and it's natural

Hehe - did you even read your own link....the "heat" is hardly missing...it's in the ocean

Which if you had been paying attention you would have known.

No pause there, in reality an uptick as more is pulled into the ocean depths. WHile the "pause" may be natural in the sense of the ocean interchange, the heat it's pulling down primarily a result of burning of fossil fuels.

Breaking Underwater Waves Cause Mixing in Deep Ocean
Charles Q. Choi, LiveScience Contributor | September 17, 2013 04:31pm ET - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/39716-breaking-underwater-waves-cause-mixing.html#sthash.8NFM67hh.dpuf

it's a pause for the atmosphere but no pause for AGW and Australia is certainly bearing the brunt of extreme weather just now.

Heatwaves in Australia are becoming more frequent, hotter and are lasting longer because of climate change, a report released today by the Climate Council says.

The interim findings of the report, titled Australian Heatwaves: Hotter, Longer, Earlier and More Often, come as southern Australia swelters through a heatwave, with the temperature in Adelaide today forecast to hit 46 degrees Celsius.

The report says heat records are now happening three times more often than cold records, and that the number of hot days across Australia has "more than doubled".

It says the duration and frequency of heatwaves increased between 1971 and 2008, and the hottest days have become hotter.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-16/australian-heatwaves-getting-hotter-and-longer/5202272

 

[Trakar]

Mea culpa with respect to missing them from the list, also experts in pests and their migrations and die-backs. I'm more of an engineer so missed those, no deliberate malice.

Whilst not in any way an expert I doubt that biological mitigation is going to be a front runner. At preasent the biosphere and the oceans absorb about half of the CO2 emissions. The overwhelming majority of that is into the oceans, someone out there should have a figure available based on the change in pH and the total volume of the oceans (also does anyone now if the pH changes are relatively uniform with depth? Whilst CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere, I don't know how well the disolved CO2 mixes in the ocean given the higher densities, the currents and thermoclines, etc)

Polar waters are actually quite cold and dense, which give them the capacity to absorb and carry quite a bit of gases (CO2 in particular), as these waters are on the downward slide of the conveyor system they are actually pretty good at short-term sequestration (centuries to millennium) surface waters respirate, sucking in where cooler, and spitting out where warmer. Cold/deeper waters tend to have lower pH than warmer/surface waters.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/oceans/glodap/Glopintrod.htm
CO2 induced pH change 1700s - 1990s

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel3087/feel3087.shtml
Acidified deep water upwellings onto continental shelves.​

 

[aleCcowaN]

“Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt.”

Part of a Göbbelian big lie, I'm afraid. No need for a counterargument as the whole "hiatus" stunt holds shorter than a fart stored in a wicker basket.

TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC

The supposed "16-year hiatus" only comes from taking isolatedly the monthly global average temperature for February 1998 -hence the nearly 16 years- 0.756°C above the "normals", which happened during an extraordinary strong Niño event -the second strongest in the last +65 years- and tell that the "failing" of the global climate to provide a new maximum during a range of different conditions "means" there's no warming.

You don't even need to know how to reed a graphic to expose the essential falseness behind such propaganda. It suffices you know that 0.27 is bigger than 0.269 -if you have problems understanding this you shouldn't analyse scientific information-.

With that sole ability, you could scan the table of monthly global temperatures looking for high temperatures. As after all 0.739°C above the "normals" means 0° has to be the "normal", so let's say that everything half way between 0 and 0.739 is "hot". Now scan the list and simply count the number of months with average global temperatures above 0.4°C. Here are the results (Niño years: ***, Niña years -cold-: °°°; the value for December 2013 is not available yet)

1990|1
1991 *** |0
1992 *** |0
1993|0
1994|0
1995 *** |1
1996|0
1997 *** |5
1998 *** |11
1999 °°° |1
2000 °°° |1
2001|7
2002|9
2003 *** |12
2004|8
2005 *** |10
2006|8
2007 °°° |5
2008|4
2009|9
2010 *** |9
2011 °°° |4
2012 °°° |8
2013|9 (of 11)

You can easily see how temperatures continue to go up -the trend is about +0.15°C each decade- in a way warm months are increasingly common even in years that "should" be cooler. Repeat the same analysis with 0.3 or 0.5°C. Even, repeat the analysis with 0.7°C and your table from 1850 to 2013 will have 0 in all columns but 1998's.

Denialists are trying to deceive you. As magicians, they use misdirections, and the exploit of 1998's values are one of them. But unlike magicians, they are not telling you it's an illusion. They are trying to get you buying into their bull and start promoting it with "evangelical" zeal.

What do you think it's going to happen the year a Niño returns lasting more than 9 months and having an index of 2 or more (for instance, in 2015)? Will the """hiatus""" "continue"?

 

[Trakar]

Really RC?

Seems the journal Nature does think the "pause" exists and it's natural

Climate change: The case of the missing heat
.

This article indicates that there was a slowing in the rise of surface air temps over the last decade due to the shifting PDO after 1998. It does not say that there was any cessation of the increased energy retention by atmospheric GHGs, merely that this heat was replacing deep ocean heat lost when in the extreme el Nino of 1998.

...At present, strong tropical trade winds are pushing ever more warm water westward towards Indonesia, fuelling storms such as November’s Typhoon Haiyan, and nudging up sea levels in the western Pacific; they are now roughly 20 centimetres higher than those in the eastern Pacific. Sooner or later, the trend will inevitably reverse. “You can’t keep piling up warm water in the western Pacific,” Trenberth says. “At some point, the water will get so high that it just sloshes back.” And when that happens, if scientists are on the right track, the missing heat will reappear and ["surface air" - TS] temperatures will spike once again.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Neither of the examples you give are "adverse findings". They are part of the mainstream understanding of climate science, from which the prediction of AGW is derived.

Please expand. In what sense is the prediction of CO2-induced warming "derived" from orbital mechanics or the lag between warming and CO2 concentration? 1) If atmospheric CO₂ lags temperature, then pre-historic temperatures predict CO₂ concentration and not the other way around. Why would you need CO₂ to explain temperature? 2) Climate science must incorporate orbital mechanics, I expect. In no sense is the AGW prediction "derived" from orbital mechanics. Given the positive feedbacks required to make AGW theory work, you would have warming with increased CO₂ in orbits of any shape and axis inclinations of any angle, wouldn't you? Or do you contend that CO₂-induced warming would NOT occur if the tilt of the Earth's axis was 22 degrees or 25 degrees or the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit was greater of less than the value it has today?

 

[Pixel42]

Please expand.

Please read the responses to your previous posts, e.g. this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9758324#post9758324

 

[r-j]

a) that ice reflects more sunlight than open ocean, so less ice means more warmth which means less ice which means more warmth which means ...

What? What does it mean?

Your "the theory of unicorn breeding" ("The theory of global warming") does not exist. Wow .

Oh the irony of it all.

The only skeptic is an informed one.

Yet the resident expert skeptics are still sure there is no theory of global warming. Or worse, that it's something "I" made up! It's beyond stupid.

And you want to preach science to others? You can't even describe the theory and predictions that the topic is about.

 

[r-j]

For those few that actually have mentioned predictions, I am not talking about you. As well as the few that have tried to describe the theoretical reasons for CO2 causing drastic global warming.

 

[Reality Check]

That's a terrible analogy.

It is a good analogy.
You made up a phrase: "theory of global warming".
I made up a phrase: "theory of unicorn breeding".
Neither phrase exists in Wikipedia. Big surprise !

 

[macdoc]

Why would you need CO2 to explain temperature?

Geez Malcolm - it's quite simple - garbage in garbage out. You have a flawed premise that C02 does not affect climate and you are wrong.

Why don't you actually study the science of orbitals AND the carbon cycle which magnifies the effect of the orbital driven radiative balance.

You DO understand that a cooling ocean absorbs C02 and enhances the cooling induced by orbitals and that the presence or absence of water vapour is another transient magnifier IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

You keep grinding out the same crap and you won;'t get anywhere until you acknowledge C02's role in the earth's climate. When another driver like an orbital cools the planet the oceans absorb more C02 which then decreases the optical trapping and so that feedback along with the water vapor magnifier enhances the change in EITHER DIRECTION/

But if you can't acknowledge that well established process, then all your questions are moot and factually flawed as your premises are flawed.

Move on to solutions....the questioning of established science for some odd agenda of renegadism for it's own sake is perpetually wearying.

 

[Reality Check]

Really RC?

Really Haig?
Did you bother reading my post?

Not great science because we now know that the "pause" does not exist. The oceans continued heating up at the same rate as before.

Did you miss the basic fact that most of the heat is contained in the ocean and that the ocean has experienced no pause?

Climate change: The case of the missing heat is a good article but tends to miss out an important word - surface as in global surface (not ocean) temperatures).

Ranting about climate scientists trying to cling to fantasies is just absurd, Haig. Some climate facts:
Fact: The global surface temperatures have slowed, not "halted" as you assert.

Fact: The oceans cover more of the Earth than the land and are made of water. What do you think that means about how heat is distributed, Haig?

Fact: The oceans have always been measured as holding much more heat than the atmosphere. 93% of heat goes into the oceans.

Actual climate science: The deep oceans have absorbed more heat than at any other time in the past 50 years: Global warming is unpaused and stuck on fast forward, new research shows

New research by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research investigates how the warming of the Earth's climate has behaved over the past 15 years compared with the previous few decades. They conclude that while the rate of increase of average global surface temperatures has slowed since 1998, melting of Arctic ice, rising sea levels, and warming oceans have continued apace.

Yes, Haig, denial of climate science is "laughably absurd, and pathetic"

 

[r-j]

It is a good analogy.
You made up a phrase: "theory of global warming".

Well, if the collective wisdom here actually agrees with that, then there is something seriously wrong with the people posting here.

That is quite an astounding claim, and as much as I would like to take credit for coining the phrase, that would be even a more far fetched proposition!

I see it simply as this. Woo woo claim, no evidence to back it up

You made up a phrase: "theory of global warming".

My evidence based claim is that "theory of global warming" is used in scientific papers and discussions, and it has a specific meaning.

Global Warming – Theory which states that an increase in carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere results in an additive effect on average global temperatures.

http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/code250/docs/PFRR_EIS/FINAL - Volume I Individual Files/Ch 8 Glossary.pdf

Global Warming Theory Affirmed

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=21241

The link between increased atmospheric greenhouse gas and global temperatures underlies the theory of global warming, explained the authors.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=28449
aug 20

Checkmate

 

[Reality Check]

Well, if the collective wisdom here actually agrees with that, then there is something seriously wrong with the people posting here.

I do not think that any reasonable person would think that Wikipedia contains any arbitrary phrase !

Your evidence based claim is that the words "theory", "of", "global" and "warming" are used in scientific papers and discussions.
Your evidence shows that "global warming theory" has a specific meaning - that science shows that there is a link between CO2 and temperatures. Well Duh .

My evidence based claim is that the phrase "theory of global warming" is used in 526 results (according to Google Scholar). This is a small fraction of the literature. Sampling the results indicates that "theory of global warming" often has a fairly unscientific meaning - the idea that global warning exists.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

My evidence based claim is that the phrase "theory of global warming" is used in 526 results (according to Google Scholar). This is a small fraction of the literature. Sampling the results indicates that "theory of global warming" often has a fairly unscientific meaning - the idea that global warning exists.

526? r-j has mentioned it more than 526 times in this thread alone!

 

[Trakar]

What? What does it mean?

Oh the irony of it all. Yet the resident expert skeptics are still sure there is no theory of global warming. Or worse, that it's something "I" made up! It's beyond stupid.

And you want to preach science to others? You can't even describe the theory and predictions that the topic is about.

I don't see anyone denying that there is "a theory of global warming," what we have been saying, is that there is no "Theory of Global Warming." Your word game is still nothing more than a game of words.

 

[Trakar]

Checkmate

Word games made up to score imagined rhetorical points, at least you admit the duplicitous nature of your agenda.

 

[Belz...]

Well, if the collective wisdom here actually agrees with that, then there is something seriously wrong with the people posting here.

Yeah because the fault couldn't ever be on your side, of course.

Checkmate

Meanwhile, in reality...

 

[r-j]

These word games are absurd. What's a skeptic to think? Anonymous forum experts? Or scientific sources?

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

skepticalscience.com

The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

skepticalscience.com

"if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group Greenpeace," namely the funding by ExxonMobil of groups opposed to the theory of global warming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

If changes in CO2 began after changes in temperature, didn’t that contradict the greenhouse theory of global warming?

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

According to the greenhouse theory of climate change, the climate system will be restored to equilibrium by a warming of the surfacetroposphere system and a cooling of the stratosphere.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/240/4850/293.short

The development of the ‘greenhouse’ theory of global climate change from Victorian times

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1997.tb06243.x/abstract

The more you deny it, the worse you sound.

 

[Trakar]

These word games are absurd.

Fully agreed, quit playing them.

 

[r-j]

I don't see anyone denying that there is "a theory of global warming,"

Oh it's so much worse than that! It's been claimed I made it up! And that's why it doesn't have an article or definition of Wikipedia!

Of course in reality, just because there is no entry for it on Wikipedia, that hasn't stopped people from using the phrase there.

the theory of global warming and other ecological threats to our collective existence;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

It is used hundreds of times, just like "global warming theory" is used there.

Conservative think tanks frequently cite the Heidelberg Appeal as proof that scientists reject the theory of global warming as well as a host of other environmental health risks associated with modern science and industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidelberg_Appeal

Global warming controversy - socio-political issues surrounding the theory of global warming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_climate_change

That's called evidence, in case you missed it. I'm still waiting for any evidence that I made up the term.

which criticised the theory of global warming and asserted that scientists critical of global warming theory were denied funding.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greenhouse_Conspiracy

It's not that the term doesn't appear, it appears over a thousand times, it's that there is no definition of it, no article explaining it. Not even a redirect to the ""enhanced greenhouse theory, or "enhanced greenhouse effect", or something, anything.

It's not like people haven't tried to explain it on Wikipedia, for example

Introduction - Should summarise scientific theory of Global Warming, not IPCC Report

The introduction is painfully agenda driven at the moment, it needs to summarise the observed increase in temps, the scientific theory of Global Warming (both natural and anthropogenic). The IPCC has absolutely no place in the introduction. Grimerking 07:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming/Archive_23

But let's face the facts. The fanatics of Wikipedia aren't going to let something like the theory of global warming (by any name) actually appear in an article called "Theory of Global Warming", which was actually linked to from this topic in the past. (it now goes to Global warming and does not even contain the word "theory" in the article)

You can claim anything you like, but if you can't support your claim with evidence, it will not fly, not with a skeptic, or a scientific thinker.