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

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Comments (Page 1,844)

Showing posts 36,861 - 36,880 of45,445
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39214
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
The warmists are the ones who every year in October trot out the numbers of the Arctic Sea Ice EXTENT, not the volume. So we are only comparing what is trotted out by the warmists to the media every year. If the sea ice volume is a better measurement, then that is the number and graph that should have been publicized every year, but it wasn’t.
Deniers are doing what they did in 2008: pointing to a "recovery" in extent after a drastic drop in 2007 as though it proved there was nothing to worry about in the Arctic.

You'd think they wouldn't be stupid enough to make the same mistake twice...
Same with temperatures. Every year come January, we get the highly anticipated report of where the year ranked in terms of warmth. Now that it is has been explained that the decade of the 2000s had statistically no warmth, we are being told surface temperature is no longer a good measurement, even though we have been told that it has been for the last 20 years. So now you get all stompy feet mad when surface temperature and ice EXTENT are talked about.
Just like the trend in Arctic sea ice, there are years when the line wiggles down a bit.

I've been trying to educate Topix science deniers on this for four years or more
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I predict the thin ice will melt to a record low, if not this summer, then within a couple of years.
<quoted text>
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Fair Game wrote:
..a wiggly line may wiggle up and down, but wiggle up more than it wiggles down.
2009.

But Topix science deniers are quite happy to use short term trends to argue AGW is not a threat.

They told us the Arctic was recovering in 2008.
They tell us the Arctic is recovering in 2013.
They told us the world was cooling after 1998.
They told us warming had stopped after 1998.
They told us there was no significant warming for 15 years.
They told us sea level rise had stopped in 1996.

There's only so many times that denier claims based on short term data can fail by the wayside before people realise what deniers are: liars.
Cordwainer Trout

Elizabethtown, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39215
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

The AGW fearmongers will eat their words later, when the new IPCC overviews hit the street. Word is... they are starting to listen to actual data.
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/15/un-ipc...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39216
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Cordwainer Trout wrote:
The AGW fearmongers will eat their words later, when the new IPCC overviews hit the street. Word is... they are starting to listen to actual data.
http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/15/un-ipc...
The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report

Climate contrarians appear to be running damage control in the media before the next IPCC report is published

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report is due out on September 27th, and is expected to reaffirm with growing confidence that humans are driving global warming and climate change. In anticipation of the widespread news coverage of this auspicious report, climate contrarians appear to be in damage control mode, trying to build up skeptical spin in media climate stories.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climat...
litesong

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39217
Sep 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

colddrainedfish wrote:
...... fearmongers
Did you fear to even try for a mathematics or science degree?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39218
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39219
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39220
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39221
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39223
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39224
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39225
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39226
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39227
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39228
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39229
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39230
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

Snohomish, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39231
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39232
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39233
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39234
Sep 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 36,861 - 36,880 of45,445
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

46 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 8 min Realtime 1,071,807
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 43 min Jacques from Ottawa 173,582
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 44 min 40ish 389
IL Who do you support for Attorney General in Illi... (Oct '10) 1 hr rdarbin 641
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Eran Levi - Israel 67,524
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr edogxxx 97,434
Abby 7-11 1 hr edogxxx 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••