Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 48,583
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39218 Sep 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
Thirty-five percent of adults in 111 countries in 2010 say global warming results from human activities, while less than half as many ..
I hope warmists don't take this as a reason to crank up their propaganda mills.
Science doesn't care about your polls on the average persons understanding of the issue. The science isn't a political game. Only the response is subject to political maneuvering. And not much more of that or we will be paying heavily for inaction.

The science is going to take low values of scientific education as a prompt for more scientific education. YOU might be a good start if you ever showed yourself to be educable. But since your position seems to be a 'belief system' aka religion, that may not work.

But neither will your projection of a 'belief system' on the science.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39219 Sep 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scie...
Curious... only 4 of the 19 'statements' are from this decade.
Not curious at all. The last holdout skeptics in the science community gave up back in 2001 or so. AGW theory is over a decade old and some scientific academies were faster off the mark to declare it.

As to why they are still there, there is nothing changed in the basic science of AGW so the statement are still valid.
gcaveman1

Louin, MS

#39220 Sep 16, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
First, how long can toxic topix AGW deniers live without a liver? Forever...... they're toxic.
Second, you sure Hannibal won't come after you for stealing his material?
Not worried about Hannibal. More worried that Brain_Dead will lose it one day and go postal when reality intrudes on his fantasy.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39221 Sep 16, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't care about your polls on the average persons understanding of the issue. The science isn't a political game. Only the response is subject to political maneuvering. And not much more of that or we will be paying heavily for inaction.
The science is going to take low values of scientific education as a prompt for more scientific education. YOU might be a good start if you ever showed yourself to be educable. But since your position seems to be a 'belief system' aka religion, that may not work.
But neither will your projection of a 'belief system' on the science.
"The science isn't a political game."

"Consensus" is a political term.

How many times have you used that term?

If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39223 Sep 16, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A non sequitur. If heat is moving into the deep ocean where it wasn't before, which the evidence seems to suggest, then there is no reason to think that warming was overestimated.
<quoted text>
The man who told you about the missing heat says he's found it now:
Abstract
<quoted text>
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gr ...
Why do you believe him when he says there's missing heat but not when he says there is no missing heat any more?
<quoted text>
Here's a peer reviewed paper that says, when you take the random fluctuations of a small part of the Pacific ocean into account, the observations of global temperatures fit the predictions very well.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncu...
Here's another that shows observations matched model predictions over the previous 16 years, when the model is adjusted to previous climate fluctuations.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full...
Two papers that say recent slower warming is due to short term effects and says nothing about the long term threat of AGW.
I've posted links to two peer reviewed papers: let's see you do the same.
First off, if heat is moving into the deep ocean, that’s a good thing. It’s not coming back out.

Regarding Kevin Trenberth, he tells conflicting stories. In 2008 from an NPR article regarding the Argo buoys, this was said:
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. Where is the extra heat all going?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. That can't be directly measured at the moment, however. "Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php...

Then Trenberth publishes a paper telling us the “missing heat” is in the deep oceans.

Then another paper is written that conflicts with Trenberth’s paper, author Loeb:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurr...

Climate Wire report on Loeb’s paper published in Nature Geosciences paper:

Researchers puzzle over measurements of ocean-stored heat (Monday, January 23, 2012)
Lauren Morello, E&E reporter

Earth’s “missing heat” might not be missing after all.
That’s the conclusion of a new study that examines how accurately satellites and floating ocean instruments track the flow of energy from the sun to Earth and back again.

Those measurements are at the heart of a puzzle climate scientists have been trying hard to crack: why, as greenhouse gas emissions rose and satellite data showed an increasing amount of energy trapped in the planet’s atmosphere, the amount of heat absorbed by the world’s oceans — a major heat sink — wasn’t rising as quickly.
One answer to the puzzle came from climate scientists Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who coined the term “missing heat”— and later suggested it may be stored in the deep ocean, where there are few measurements to track the energy’s path.

But new research, published yesterday in the journal Nature Geoscience, argues that what Trenberth and Fasullo dubbed “missing heat” isn’t missing, after all — that the amount of radiation trapped in Earth’s atmosphere, as measured by satellite sensors, is consistent with measurements of heat absorbed by the ocean.
Any discrepancy falls within the margin of error on those measurements, say the study’s authors, led by NASA climate scientist Norman Loeb.

Continued next post
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39224 Sep 16, 2013
Continued post:

Part of the problem, Loeb said, is that the margin of error on the ocean measurements is large, a legacy of the early 2000s switch from an instrument originally developed in the the 1960s — the expendable bathythermograph, or XBT — to the more accurate Argo float.

Today, roughly 3,200 Argos are traveling the world’s oceans, collecting data as they repeatedly sink to prescribed depths, pop back up again and transmit the information they’ve collected to waiting satellites.

Diving into uncertainty
“Given that there’s a lot of uncertainty in the ocean measurements, given that there was this transition from XBT to Argo right around the time that satellite data and ocean data deviated, it raises a lot questions in my mind about whether you can say there is missing energy,” Loeb said.
His analysis examining the amount of solar radiation entering and leaving the atmosphere estimates the heat content of the upper ocean using three different data sets.
Loeb’s conclusion? That, if you consider the margin of error on the satellite and ocean measurements, the two data sources are in agreement — and there may not be any “missing energy.”

“It’s not to say that it’s not happening,” Loeb said.“It’s just that you can’t easily make that conclusion from the data.”

Not so fast, says Trenberth.“One of the key points of our paper was, when you try to do this inventory and things didn’t add up, if you take things at face value, that is an indicator by itself that the error bars are very large,” Trenberth said.“We were very aware of that — but they shouldn’t be that large.”

Trenberth said he also believes Loeb overestimated the error bars for the satellite data, which show the potential margin of error for those measurements.

But both scientists agree that the ongoing debate over the accounting of Earth’s energy budget demonstrates the need to improve monitoring of the Earth’s climate and to better understand sources of error in older measurements, like the ocean data collected for decades by XBTs.

“There are at least 10 estimates of upper ocean heat content,” Trenberth said.“They are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we have the best ocean observing system, with Argo floats, that we’ve ever had.”

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01...

So Trenberth is admitting that the estimates are all over the place and admits the there are plenty of unknowns. When I say “missing heat”, it’s because the scientists can’t agree on the missing heat. Who knows, it could be in the oceans or it could be going out into space.

Regarding your Nature paper, this paper ties the standstill with the cool phase of the PDO, which climate models in the past had not taken into account. This model does fit the temperature standstill we are seeing. So the PDO cooling phase is responsible for the standstill that was not predicted at this time. So tell me how the PDO warm phase was not predominantly responsible for the warming of the last 30 years? This paper actually proves my point that climate models have underestimated natural variability.

Peer reviewed paper: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/...

Many peer reviewed papers have been published showing a lower climate sensitivity, here are a couple:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full...

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003...

Fun Facts has posted many peer-reviewed papers on the underestimation of the sun.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39225 Sep 16, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"The science isn't a political game."
As I said, true. Science finds the best understanding of the issue. It doesn't generally have an 'agenda' or 'ideology' like politics
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
"Consensus" is a political term.
True. Yet it is also a simple word to describe a fact accepted by a vsst majority. Science isn't DEFINED by consensus, but we can judge the STRENGTH of the science by how many educated and well informed (on the subject) researchers accept it as theory.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times have you used that term?
It isn't EXClUSIVELY a political term. It can be used in politics or mathematics. Only YOU make it into an issue, which it isn't.
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
If it weren't for double standards, you'd have none.
Au contraire. I would have standards regardless of your double speak. MY standard is solid science and well established theory backed up by data. Yours is whether you can misuse or twist words.

I'll stick to MY standards,thank you very much..
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39226 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, if heat is moving into the deep ocean, that’s a good thing. It’s not coming back out.
First lie in the first paragraph. You are just as bad as ever. Or maybe as stupid and uneducated as ever.

Temperature WILL distribute itself. Almost EVERYONE knows this simple fact. Except you, apparently. Nothing can keep it constrained in the deep ocean forever. The temperature in the rest of the surface will rise as it levels out and the 'pause' will end. Most likely with a sudden peak from El-Nino (warm water upwelling).

I won't detail the endless errors in the rest of the post.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#39227 Sep 16, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, true. Science finds the best understanding of the issue. It doesn't generally have an 'agenda' or 'ideology' like politics
<quoted text>
True. Yet it is also a simple word to describe a fact accepted by a vsst majority. Science isn't DEFINED by consensus, but we can judge the STRENGTH of the science by how many educated and well informed (on the subject) researchers accept it as theory.
<quoted text>
It isn't EXClUSIVELY a political term. It can be used in politics or mathematics. Only YOU make it into an issue, which it isn't.
<quoted text>
Au contraire. I would have standards regardless of your double speak. MY standard is solid science and well established theory backed up by data. Yours is whether you can misuse or twist words.
I'll stick to MY standards,thank you very much..
"It doesn't generally have an 'agenda' or 'ideology' like politics"

No agenda to global warming science? No ideology?

Oh wait, you qualified that with "generally".

LOL
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#39228 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
Continued post:
Part of the problem, Loeb said, is that the margin of error on the ocean measurements is large, a legacy of the early 2000s switch from an instrument originally developed in the the 1960s — the expendable bathythermograph, or XBT — to the more accurate Argo float.
Correction, WAS a problem. The ARGOs floats solved it. And there is ENOUGH data to form a 'baseline' to see how things have changed. One thing is that oceans are RELATIVELY uniform in stratification and temperature. Thus, even the relatively few XBT records of the past are good reference points for subsequent changes.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39229 Sep 16, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
First lie in the first paragraph. You are just as bad as ever. Or maybe as stupid and uneducated as ever.
Temperature WILL distribute itself. Almost EVERYONE knows this simple fact. Except you, apparently. Nothing can keep it constrained in the deep ocean forever. The temperature in the rest of the surface will rise as it levels out and the 'pause' will end. Most likely with a sudden peak from El-Nino (warm water upwelling).
I won't detail the endless errors in the rest of the post.
Please explain to Gavin Schmidt the new physics:

Two further points have come in comment threads recently that are related to this. The first is whether the changes in deep ocean heat content have any direct impact other than damping the surface response to the ongoing radiative imbalance. The deep ocean is really massive and even for the large changes in OHC we are discussing the impact on the deep temperature is small (I would guess less than 0.1 deg C or so). This is unlikely to have much of a direct impact on the deep biosphere. Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...

So why don't you go ahead and detail my other "errors" as you are wrong about deep ocean heat coming back.
kristy

Oviedo, FL

#39230 Sep 16, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction, WAS a problem. The ARGOs floats solved it. And there is ENOUGH data to form a 'baseline' to see how things have changed. One thing is that oceans are RELATIVELY uniform in stratification and temperature. Thus, even the relatively few XBT records of the past are good reference points for subsequent changes.
The scientists don't agree with you. Write a paper and have it published. In any case, there are conflicting papers and uncertainties abound. No clear answer on the "missing heat."
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39231 Sep 16, 2013
krusty wrote:
The warmists are the ones who every year in October trot out the numbers of the Arctic Sea Ice EXTENT.......
....... because toxic topix AGW deniers don't know science or mathematics & like to ignore science & mathematics.

It is toxic topix AGW deniers who highlight Arctic sea ice EXTENT "recovery", AFTER record sea ice September lows of the previous years. Hey, the NP is in darkness six months of the year & presently it has to ice up in winter because Arctic air is cold.

However, toxic topix AGW deniers miss the boat(because they don't have science or mathematics).

As Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss most accurately shows the "60 btu per cubic centimeter" melting & heat energy storage THROUGHOUT 10,000 cubic km of sea ice loss in these latter Septembers, compared to 30+ years ago, Arctic sea ice VOLUME also accurately shows that winter Arctic sea ice VOLUME is also lessening, despite toxic topix AGW denier unscientific "evidence" that sea ice EXTENTS recover.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39232 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain to Gavin Schmidt the new physics:
Two further points have come in comment threads recently that are related to this. The first is whether the changes in deep ocean heat content have any direct impact other than damping the surface response to the ongoing radiative imbalance. The deep ocean is really massive and even for the large changes in OHC we are discussing the impact on the deep temperature is small (I would guess less than 0.1 deg C or so). This is unlikely to have much of a direct impact on the deep biosphere. Neither is this heat going to come back out from the deep ocean any time soon (the notion that this heat is the warming that is ‘in the pipeline’ is erroneous)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
So why don't you go ahead and detail my other "errors" as you are wrong about deep ocean heat coming back.
LOL. Your ignorance is blatant.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39233 Sep 16, 2013
krusty wrote:
<quoted text>
First off, if heat is moving into the deep ocean, that’s a good thing. It’s not coming back out.[?QUOTE]

Er...no it's not.

In the long term, as the deep oceans warm, that affects our climate.

Good for deniers of course, because the problem gets swept under the carpet for a few decades.

[QUOTE]Then another paper is written that conflicts with Trenberth’s paper, author Loeb:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurr...
From the abstract:
We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
So there's no missing heat, and the Earth continues to warm.

That helps your case how?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#39234 Sep 16, 2013
These deniers are particularly sans science. Just because they are able to look up science they are even more confused about how science marches on.

Lying was never so glamorous as posting lies about science on this forum. Pathetic.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#39235 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
Who knows, it could be in the oceans or it could be going out into space.
False.

Satellite observations say it isn't going out into space.

Remember, the paper you posted said:
We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
Regarding your Nature paper, this paper ties the standstill with the cool phase of the PDO, which climate models in the past had not taken into account. This model does fit the temperature standstill we are seeing. So the PDO cooling phase is responsible for the standstill that was not predicted at this time. So tell me how the PDO warm phase was not predominantly responsible for the warming of the last 30 years?
The oceans were warming during the last 30 years, therefore they couldn't have been causing the surface warming.
This paper actually proves my point that climate models have underestimated natural variability.

Peer reviewed paper: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/...
Krusty runs to the denier blogs again to cut'n paste a few papers that they tell her undermine global warming.

Internal variability doesn't mean global warming isn't a problem. It just means warming is slower for a decade or so, then picks up again.
Many peer reviewed papers have been published showing a lower climate sensitivity, here are a couple:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003...
No, not many, but there are a few.

If climate sensitivity is a bit lower, it doesn't mean we don't have to worry about global warming. Our CO2 emissions are so hight that dangerous warming will still result. Even the authors of these papers say so.

And there is no guarantee that these papers are right.

Paleo studies give a higher value.
These studies don't include possible feedbacks- eg CO2 from melting permafrost.
They don't include new data about deep ocean warming.
Fun Facts has posted many peer-reviewed papers on the underestimation of the sun.
fun farts posts garbage.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39236 Sep 16, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
fun farts posts garbage.
I'm glad you understand that "fun farts" is a more accurate rendering of the poster & is the name I call it continually, tho I was NOT the originator of its accurate name. Also, your understanding of the worthlessness of "fun farts" is accurate.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39237 Sep 16, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
More worried that Brain_Dead will lose it one day and go postal when reality intrudes on his fantasy.
Years ago, remember when "lyin' brian" blew his top, when someone posted his actual name? & after it allegedly threatened me 4 times, it reminded me that it was way over in Germany & wouldn't come after me. Then later, it told of his numerous flights over Greenland, as it traveled from Europe to the U.S.

Yeah, I agree. "lyin' brian" is dangerous, as are other toxic topix AGW deniers.
B as in B S as in S

Minneapolis, MN

#39238 Sep 16, 2013
kristy wrote:
Continued post:
Part of the problem, Loeb said, is that the margin of error on the ocean measurements is large, a legacy of the early 2000s switch from an instrument originally developed in the the 1960s — the expendable bathythermograph, or XBT — to the more accurate Argo float.
Today, roughly 3,200 Argos are traveling the world’s oceans, collecting data as they repeatedly sink to prescribed depths, pop back up again and transmit the information they’ve collected to waiting satellites.
Diving into uncertainty
“Given that there’s a lot of uncertainty in the ocean measurements, given that there was this transition from XBT to Argo right around the time that satellite data and ocean data deviated, it raises a lot questions in my mind about whether you can say there is missing energy,” Loeb said.
His analysis examining the amount of solar radiation entering and leaving the atmosphere estimates the heat content of the upper ocean using three different data sets.
Loeb’s conclusion? That, if you consider the margin of error on the satellite and ocean measurements, the two data sources are in agreement — and there may not be any “missing energy.”
“It’s not to say that it’s not happening,” Loeb said.“It’s just that you can’t easily make that conclusion from the data.”
Not so fast, says Trenberth.“One of the key points of our paper was, when you try to do this inventory and things didn’t add up, if you take things at face value, that is an indicator by itself that the error bars are very large,” Trenberth said.“We were very aware of that — but they shouldn’t be that large.”
Trenberth said he also believes Loeb overestimated the error bars for the satellite data, which show the potential margin of error for those measurements.
But both scientists agree that the ongoing debate over the accounting of Earth’s energy budget demonstrates the need to improve monitoring of the Earth’s climate and to better understand sources of error in older measurements, like the ocean data collected for decades by XBTs.
“There are at least 10 estimates of upper ocean heat content,” Trenberth said.“They are all over the place, in spite of the fact that we have the best ocean observing system, with Argo floats, that we’ve ever had.”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/01...
So Trenberth is admitting that the estimates are all over the place and admits the there are plenty of unknowns. When I say “missing heat”, it’s because the scientists can’t agree on the missing heat. Who knows, it could be in the oceans or it could be going out into space.
Regarding your Nature paper, this paper ties the standstill with the cool phase of the PDO, which climate models in the past had not taken into account. This model does fit the temperature standstill we are seeing. So the PDO cooling phase is responsible for the standstill that was not predicted at this time. So tell me how the PDO warm phase was not predominantly responsible for the warming of the last 30 years? This paper actually proves my point that climate models have underestimated natural variability.
Peer reviewed paper: Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/...
Many peer reviewed papers have been published showing a lower climate sensitivity, here are a couple:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s003...
Fun Facts has posted many peer-reviewed papers on the underestimation of the sun.
Your post received a number of judgement Icons that appear to deny the science in your links or the logic of your argument. Amazing how the believers of ACDDCGCDO have become the heretics they have so vociferously condemned.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
EverGreen Belgrade 30 min aqif blyta 11
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr wojar 180,902
Mrs. Bush: History will vindicate her husband (Jun '08) 1 hr Swedenforever 54,527
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 hr John Galt 1,144,008
Aldi's is the Worst Supermarket Chain (Jun '12) 2 hr Jamie 330
Boycott all Topix Sponsors 2 hr Jamie 5
World's Best Photo Art 2 hr Jamie 3
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 16 hr primetime justice 98,694
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:15 pm PST

NBC Sports 4:15PM
Washington benches RGIII, Colt McCoy to start
Bleacher Report 5:56 PM
Breaking Down Lions' Game Plan vs. Bears
Bleacher Report 7:26 PM
Bold Predictions for Colts Week 13 Matchup
NBC Sports 9:17 PM
Week 13 skill-position injury report — Wednesday
NBC Sports11:56 PM
Colts put in extra time to prepare for McCoy - NBC Sports