• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Though there are a few inches of rain still in the pipe, California is pretty much off the hook. Some local, short floods expected in Oregon and Washington during the next 36 hours, though. So enough with the atmospheric river: it's yesterday's news.

If someone is hungry of frequency-increased natural disasters, turn your head towards Typhoon Pablo/Bopha which took land in Mindanao a few hours ago with winds up to 210 km/h and is moving slowly over where millions live. It is expected to gain strength again while moving towards Vietnam and Southern China later during this week. This typhoon seems to be worse than Washi which followed a similar path almost a year ago -another late season cyclone- killing at least 1,268.
 
Last edited:
I'm self-banning from the Forum, but I just wanted to get this in as to why:

Apparently it is JREForum's policy to sweep ALL threads concerning Global Warming, regardless of where they occur on the message board, into one humungously giant unwieldy thread tucked away in Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology? Okay I didn't know that until it just happened, but:

REALLY?

That appears to play directly into what feeds the problem on this issue - sweep it under the rug. Very similar to what did NOT happen at the U.S. Presidential debates: A cracking good discussion of an issue that affects every human and literally every life form in some way on this planet.

There should be threads left unmoved in every section of JREForum. Yet at least, create a separate forum here where unlimited threads can occur. But no. One catch-all thread, bouncing around in this forum.

Just appalling, this policy. Everyone should be discussing this, everywhere. Doing it the way you're doing it, JREForum? Out of sight, out of mind. Nice.

Exceedingly disappointed, and I cannot abide it.

Take care, those on JREForum whom I've enjoyed 'speaking with' over the last 6 years.

Dave
 
Hardly out of sight- very active thread and that's the problem. I have tens of thousands of posts on AGW and in all the forums the pattern is a single thread discussing the science and sometimes another thread for the denidiots...a dying breed.

PhysOrg won't even host the topic anymore due to the fights and muliple threads.
You may be new to the wars but many in this thread are not.
Even Nature and other science publications have a section partitioned off.

The battle has moved on to other fronts and if you have a specific topic such as the economics of coping then if you word the title and the OP correctly then it will likely be left alone.
 
ConspiRaider said:
Apparently it is JREForum's policy to sweep ALL threads concerning Global Warming, regardless of where they occur on the message board, into one humungously giant unwieldy thread tucked away in Science, Mathematics, Medicine and Technology? Okay I didn't know that until it just happened, but:

REALLY?

That appears to play directly into what feeds the problem on this issue - sweep it under the rug. Very similar to what did NOT happen at the U.S. Presidential debates: A cracking good discussion of an issue that affects every human and literally every life form in some way on this planet.
Click to expand...

I agree with this bit. There are different aspects of that doesn't belong strictly in Science. The thread I started, appropriate or not, is now buried somewhere inside a 170+ page behemoth that isn't related to what I was interested in talking about and I have no desire to sift through. Thanks, but no thanks.
 
But it is allowed now to start threads on specific aspects that months ago were under this large umbrella of the global warming thread.

This thread is now just for denialism-warmerism, climategates and climate conspiracies and bad science. We are discussing other aspects because we just get bored. For instance, there's an independent thread with "climate news from the science press" that has been abandoned -and it shouldn't-.

In the present conditions, if you open a thread about specific aspects, for instance "remediation and its costs" or "the globe warming quicker/slower than expected", "how many species will be left in a century" and a long etcetera, there's no reason for that to be merged here. The warming is that the moment a troublemaker starts to discuss angrily about AGW not happening and all being an error or a conspiracy, you have to refer them to this thread, and if they insist in their boisterous pursues you have to report them to the moderator team.
 
bobwtfomg said:
here's another paper showing if we don't mitigate at all and carry on increasing our CO2 emisssions we could hit 4 deg C by 2070
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/67.full
Click to expand...


Departing from the paper you provided: We have followed a path of emissions worse than that projected as A2 (red line), but we are here:

picture.php


You have both kinds of uncertainty represented there.

How do you explain that the 4°C is somewhat certifiable (assurable) and not certifiable (nuts) in the light of how much it has skewed in 13 years?

Ah! And it was 2100, not 2070.
 
Last edited:
The .8 "embedded" in the imbalance (and 2 or 3 more) will continue to be "embedded" in the imbalance for a long time. That's roughly what I was saying.
Click to expand...

so you are ending at 1.6 C above 20th century average at 500 ppm....wow - I don't think I could find a single analysis that would support that.

C02 is incremental so .8 embedded would be more to the tune of 1.2 embedded
You've got a lot more confidence in the ocean than I do.

••

you are doing dates now - where is the information on 500 ppm which is what I'm targetting.

The Royal Society disagrees with your optimism

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc

“In such a 4°C world, the limits for human adaptation are likely to be exceeded in many parts of the world, while the limits for adaptation for natural systems would largely be exceeded throughout the world.”
Click to expand...

F7medium.gif


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/06/02/234291/royal-society-7f-4c-world/
 
Last edited:
[Follow all the links I dropped in this thread]

I'm not saying that keeping the CO2 level in 500 ppmv during a whole century won't let us with 3 or 4°C of warming and an unrecognisable planet.

Independently, I was making some analysis and exchanging data and point of views -a nice way to say begging and asking- and I am now pretty confident that the temperature plateau is coming to an end and the raising trend will take control again slowly. It already started -though the global mean in not going to reflect that quickly- and I wouldn't be surprised if by 2017 we should be 0.3°C above today's levels with 5 or 6 hurricanes and typhoons categories 4 and 5 and about ice-free Arctic during a week in September. This doesn't mean at all that I -and many others- stop thinking temperature will raise just 0.8 or 0.9°C (some 1.5°C above pre-industrial times) by 2050 with lukewarm remediation efforts in the meantime. And then it's no longer my problem but the next two generations'.
 
I don't think 4c is an unrecognised planet tho if another 2 is in the pipeline then maybe.

I just don't think less than 4 with 500 ppm is a sensible combination of possible outcomes unless ( and that might just be the case ) there is an awful lot of aerosol countering the increased retention with lower radiation reaching the surface.

Do we even have an aerosol monitoring that is accurate??
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
I don't think 4c is an unrecognised planet tho if another 2 is in the pipeline then maybe.

I just don't think less than 4 with 500 ppm is a sensible combination of possible outcomes unless ( and that might just be the case ) there is an awful lot of aerosol countering the increased retention with lower radiation reaching the surface.

Do we even have an aerosol monitoring that is accurate??
Click to expand...

macdoc said:
so you are ending at 1.6 C above 20th century average at 500 ppm....wow - I don't think I could find a single analysis that would support that.

C02 is incremental so .8 embedded would be more to the tune of 1.2 embedded
You've got a lot more confidence in the ocean than I do.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like you and others are stuck in that perception and are using what is visible about the topic, a visibility that has been mostly determined by the actions of denialism.

Denialists have no scientific reason whatsoever but, holly molly! they have been partially successful in determining the whole agenda on the topic, and quite successful in determining what is visible and debated in popular arenas. They have been totally successful even in promoting self-censorship in the scientific community.

So you are saying «I don't think I could find a single analysis that would support that» and I want to reply to that, why not your own?

If you and others could bear with me during the next posts and participate in a collective exercise. The worse thing that could happen is learning something.

I want to start with this:

picture.php


This is the yearly mean temperature at the -700m ocean layer. 0-700m was traditionally used to measure ocean heat content as keeping track of deeper values was costly and it was supposed to be pretty irrelevant to the total heat transactions. I've already referred the image of this layer's heat content (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png) which shows nowadays a plateau effect lasting almost a decade, what is mimicking/mimicked by surface temperatures showing an even longer lasting plateau. This stagnation in a period of CO2 content climbing 25 ppmv is in the denialist mentality a smack in the face that the Earth is giving to climate science in order to disprove AGW.

Let's put all this aside for a moment. I invite you to join me and collectively answer a couple of questions while we're taking a look to the image above:

The first one is an easy one -one I often use to show denialists don't know shill from shinola-: If the average temperature of the Earth is about 15°C and the Earth has a hot core, and temperatures raise some average of 1°C each 30-35 metres when we go down into the crust, why on Earth can the ocean be at 10°, 6° and even 2°C at -700m? What causes it? If we speak of short and long terms, how does this work?

The second one is not so easy and points towards the "where's the heat?" question: Why on Earth can be this layer at 6°C at the Equator and be more than 10°C near Ireland or the English Channel? How can you explain this feature? Is there another noticeable feature you see on the image above?

About the bit "Why on Earth can be this layer at 6°C at the Equator and be more than 10°C near Ireland or the English Channel?" we may use a multiple choice:

a) Because thermometers are not reliable
b) Because there's an international conspiracy to feign AGW and do business.
c) Because there's a climate-related subsystem I should know.
d) Because the dinosaur-killing meteorite fallen in Yucatan coming from SW indeed did skipping and there are still remains of its heat.

Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
Lennart Hyland said:
Anyone seen this?

http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...ns-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/
Click to expand...


I would say that most people have seen this typical climate denier tatctic of denying the science in the popular press. The bad science in this opinion piece has been addressed elesewhere, e.g.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
I would say that most people have seen this typical climate denier tatctic of denying the science in the popular press. The bad science in this opinion piece has been addressed elesewhere, e.g.
  • Doubling Down on Climate Change Denial
Click to expand...
Did you mean this line to also be a link? If so, please add it.
 
he first one is an easy one -one I often use to show denialists don't know shill from shinola-: If the average temperature of the Earth is about 15°C and the Earth has a hot core, and temperatures raise some average of 1°C each 30-35 metres when we go down into the crust, why on Earth can the ocean be at 10°, 6° and even 2°C at -700m? What causes it? If we speak of short and long terms, how does this work?

The second one is not so easy and points towards the "where's the heat?" question: Why on Earth can be this layer at 6°C at the Equator and be more than 10°C near Ireland or the English Channel? How can you explain this feature? Is there another noticeable feature you see on the image above?

About the bit "Why on Earth can be this layer at 6°C at the Equator and be more than 10°C near Ireland or the English Channel?" we may use a multiple choice:
Click to expand...

because the hydrosphere is the main source of radiation back into space and that includes earth own internal heat that gets to the surface.

Deep ocean circulation is the main carrier to disperse the tropical heat to the poles in terms of the hydrosphere and incidentally picks up any earth radiated heat.
The North Labrador current is very cold as it sources int he Arctic then dives and winds along the ocean floor.

better explanation than mine.

Ocean circulation

Energy from the Sun doesn't fall equally all over the Earth. Most of the Sun's energy enters the Earth at the equator. This leads to large temperature gradients between the equator and the Poles. Movement of both the air and the oceans is controlled by these temperature differences and the result is a transfer of heat from the equator to the poles. About half the heat transport around the planet is by the oceans so the oceans are an extremely important part of the Earth's climate control system. If ocean circulation is changed by global warming, major changes in climate are therefore likely.
Click to expand...

continues

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1vc.html


Not really sure of your point other than you seem to think the deep ocean heat absorption can limit the atmospheric rise rather robustly...I'm skeptical.

which shows nowadays a plateau effect lasting almost a decade, what is mimicking/mimicked by surface temperatures showing an even longer lasting plateau.
Click to expand...

aerosols are one explanation....or accelerating convection which means better vertical mixing to bury heat deep.
 
Last edited:
"What if climate-change doubters held a debate and nobody came?"

"Al Gore's Climate Reality Project held its second annual 24 Hours of Reality broadcast today, with live online presentations about climate change from all 24 time zones. The event started at 8 p.m. EST on Nov. 14 and had attracted 3.2 million online viewers as of its halfway point on Thursday morning."

"At the same time, the climate-change doubting site Watt's Up with That held its own online event, featuring 24 hours of live broadcasts intended as a "counterpoint" to Gore's event. As of 10 a.m. the morning of Nov. 15, the event had attracted about 9,000 viewers. (Update 11/15/12, 8 p.m.: As the 24-hour events concluded, the Climate Reality Project broadcast had exceeded 15.7 million views. The Watts Up with That broadcast totaled just over 16,000."

Progress is being made, A thousand to one ratio is a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

http://opinion.financialpost.com/20...ns-on-weather-and-climate-say-125-scientists/
 
macdoc said:
because the hydrosphere is the main source of radiation back into space and that includes earth own internal heat that gets to the surface.

Deep ocean circulation is the main carrier to disperse the tropical heat to the poles in terms of the hydrosphere and incidentally picks up any earth radiated heat.
The North Labrador current is very cold as it sources int he Arctic then dives and winds along the ocean floor.

better explanation than mine.



continues

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1vc.html


Not really sure of your point other than you seem to think the deep ocean heat absorption can limit the atmospheric rise rather robustly...I'm skeptical.



aerosols are one explanation....or accelerating convection which means better vertical mixing to bury heat deep.
Click to expand...

Oh, my goodness! Let's analyse bit by bit -as Jack the Ripper used to say-. The oceans are not the main source of radiation back to the space, I mean, more that being the 70% of the total surface.

It's also difficult to conceive an ocean that has 10 or 20°C at the surface, in contact with the atmosphere and in optimal conditions to radiate into space and yet having waters at -3000m at 1, 2 or 3°C that would be cold because they radiate heat into space passing through a thick layer of cloudy and warmer waters? This doesn't pass the most simple reality check we can do. [Homer: «Lisa! In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!»]

About all the circulations and the reference, you are basically speaking of the 0-400m layer, so it's another subject.

Let me explain as, if you don't know, probably most participants here also don't know.

The origin of so low temperature in deep waters lies mostly in both polar sea ice areas. Every year some 32,000 km3 of ice are formed -by surface water and the atmosphere radiating heat into space when they are in the dark or almost in the dark- and as a result some 20,000 km3 of brine at -2°C are created. A brine that has all the salts of 52,000 km3 of sea water, so it's cold, it's extremely heavy and it's going down quickly in virtual columns similar to pipes. Of course this heavily concentrated brine takes some of the already cold polar winter waters and the concentration decreases, but not enough to stop the process of an increasing volume reaching the sea bottom. Some roughly 100,000 km3 reach the bottom every year. Let say, for the sake of our arithmetic, that 100,000 km3 or "sea water" at -1°C reaches the bottom. This mass has to neutralize the heat of the crust. How much is it? Almost all the geothermal energy reaches the oceans, so, let say 40 terawatt have to be absorbed by those 100 teratons of chilly water, what gives us a temperature of +2°C.

The question is, how many years does the Earth need to have -700m-to-bottom waters at this temperature if it started today? About 10,000 years! That's a lot of time. What does that say? First, this is a permanent feature of the planet, a much needed anchor. Second, temperatures are as average a few degrees above that figure, so some ocean mixing has occurred, but not much [This is the right/wrong supposition that has put deep oceans in a marginal climatic role]

This answers much roughly my first question. My second question goes towards that ocean mixing and why temperatures are not raising as "expected".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom