We haven't hit the global warming pause button | Dana Nuccitelli

Jun 23, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Guardian

When you hear the term "global warming," do you think of the warming of air temperatures at the Earth's surface, or the warming of the planet as a whole? Only about 2 percent of the planet's overall warming heats the atmosphere , so if we focus only on surface air temperatures, we miss 98 percent of the overall warming of the globe.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of144
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: May 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Problem is that the AGW premise is the air/surface temps will go up. All the predictions '2*C' increase by 2100 is about the air temps.

Now that the air/surface temperatures are not going up as predicted, the AGWs are looking to find the increase in heat somewhere else.

Just like it used to be 'Global Warming' now it's climate change.

We may be warm, we may be even warmer, but as compared to the years since 1996, we are not warming.

May 2013 as compared to the average of the years 1996 to 2013

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

Spring 2013, March, April and May.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

Last winter
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

The November to April cold season

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

My area has hit the triple digits, not unusal for June, but we are not as warm as the year 1960.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yes. Global warming is of the SURFACE and air temperatures are only a PROXY for the warming. As such, we have to avoid problems in the proxy such as climate cycles that shift heat from the oceans to the air and visa versa (noise by definition of the intended signal). ENSO is one of the climate cycles that affects this as shown in the extreme warming in 1998 and the current extreme cooling (relative to the signal).

Not happy that they include the 'hiroshima bomb' analogy. Explosives are powerful in terms of damage but NOT in terms of energy release so it confuses the situation further. The effect of bombs are almost all due to the RAPIDITY of energy release. As fuel, you are better off putting a branch on the fire than a stick of dynamite.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Yes. Global warming is of the SURFACE and air temperatures are only a PROXY for the warming. As such, we have to avoid problems in the proxy such as climate cycles that shift heat from the oceans to the air and visa versa (noise by definition of the intended signal). ENSO is one of the climate cycles that affects this as shown in the extreme warming in 1998 and the current extreme cooling (relative to the signal).
Not happy that they include the 'hiroshima bomb' analogy. Explosives are powerful in terms of damage but NOT in terms of energy release so it confuses the situation further. The effect of bombs are almost all due to the RAPIDITY of energy release. As fuel, you are better off putting a branch on the fire than a stick of dynamite.
It is not the temperature, it is the heat. The Earth is gaining heat. This may be manifested in the temperature of the atmosphere or in the depths of the ocean. Ice melting is not a temperature change but a heat exchange. It takes about 80 calories of heat to change one gram of ice to a liquid at the same temperature. When ice melts this is a heat gain without a temperature gain. The fact that the atmosphere is not gaining temperature (heat) as rapidly as it did in 1998 has little to do with global warming. If the atmospheric temperature cooled to 20th century average, then I would be more suspicious of global warming. However, the past decade is the warmest on record.

Since: May 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Of course the oceans absorb the heat and distribute it throughout the system. The oceans have always done this.

During the time period of warming we had a positive PDO and a positive ENSO. That makes for warmer water and more frequent el ninos. If the La Ninas are cooling temps then the high activity of the El Ninos must have warmed up the temps.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MISSOURI.jpg

Since: May 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yep this last decade has been warmner than the average of the 20th century. By one half of a degree,.57*C.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

Has this decade been warmer than the average of the years since 1996.+.04*C.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

Warmer? yes. Warming, doesn't look like it.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 24, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not the temperature, it is the heat.
No. No. It is not the temperature. It is not the heat. It is the TOTAL THERMAL ENERGY..

P.S. You are often a pedantic dick. Just leave my posts alone if you don't understand them.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
No. No. It is not the temperature. It is not the heat. It is the TOTAL THERMAL ENERGY..
P.S. You are often a pedantic dick. Just leave my posts alone if you don't understand them.
Excuse me. I was agreeing with your post. Dont be so touchy. The concept of heat is misused. Yes thermal energy is a more appropriate term. Heat is energy in transit due to differences in temperature between two systems. I suppose one could call kinetic energy, thermal energy but heat can manifest itself as chemical or gravitational potential eneergy also. Anyhow, who is being pedantic?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

BTW, it is a heat problem. More heat is transferred from the Sun to the Earth than is being transferred away from the Earth to the universe.

Mostly I agree with your posts but sometimes you have a little difficulty with concepts.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 25, 2013
 
Doesn't look like more energy is being received than is exiting.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me. I was agreeing with your post. Dont be so touchy. The concept of heat is misused. Yes thermal energy is a more appropriate term. Heat is energy in transit due to differences in temperature between two systems. I suppose one could call kinetic energy, thermal energy but heat can manifest itself as chemical or gravitational potential eneergy also. Anyhow, who is being pedantic?
Ok. Ok. Maybe I was being a bit over the top. You are ALSO guilty of this at times.

Not that I think you added anything to my post. It was targeted to a general audience, not a scientific peer review. Most people don't understand that the same thermal energy can change temperature a different amount in different material, but the transfer of thermal energy is driven by temperature differences so regardless of the heat capacity, the temperature will roughly equalize given time. Heat is a very fuzzy term in science. It has meaning only as a colloquial synonym for thermal energy in my view.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
Doesn't look like more energy is being received than is exiting.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...
Gibbberish. So the 2003 to 2012 average is close to the 1996 to 2012 average. The 'warm spots' represent the 1996 to 2002 differential (the 2003 to 2012 is common and can be removed).

Of course, the 1996 to 2002 is cherry picked for the 1998 peak warming from the strong La-Nina but 'diluted' by the averaging over a longer period.

More silliness by a total scientifically ignorant and clueless denialist.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

FF aka Fossil Fuels wrote:
Problem is that the AGW premise is the air/surface temps will go up. All the predictions '2*C' increase by 2100 is about the air temps.
Baloney. The forecasts for AGW are related to the TOTAL THERMAL ENERGY of the SURFACE MASS, of which air is only 2%. Since temperatures of the oceans and land will affect that of the air, meterology data (air temperatures at 2 meters) will rougly follow the AGW signal but it is total crap to think that they cannot change independently from variations in climate (i.e. ENSO) dynamics.

More foolish fun by fart fellow.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. Ok. Maybe I was being a bit over the top. You are ALSO guilty of this at times.
Not that I think you added anything to my post. It was targeted to a general audience, not a scientific peer review. Most people don't understand that the same thermal energy can change temperature a different amount in different material, but the transfer of thermal energy is driven by temperature differences so regardless of the heat capacity, the temperature will roughly equalize given time. Heat is a very fuzzy term in science. It has meaning only as a colloquial synonym for thermal energy in my view.
Good. I hope those who did not understand the concepts of heat, temperature, and energy have a little better concept. It is the transfer of thermal energy that is important(heat). GHG's change the dynamic balance causing the Earth to retain a little more thermal energy than it would without their influence.(Less heat escapes to the universe.)
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. I hope those who did not understand the concepts of heat, temperature, and energy have a little better concept. It is the transfer of thermal energy that is important(heat). GHG's change the dynamic balance causing the Earth to retain a little more thermal energy than it would without their influence.(Less heat escapes to the universe.)
Going to quibble a bit here. When the earth reaches a new equilibrium with the higher level of GHGs, the SAME amount of heat will escape to the universe. It has to. That is, the influx MUST exactly balance (over the year and the surface area) the outflow.

What changes is that the surface has to be warmer in order to emit enough energy to drive the same energy escape against the higher levels of GHGs blocking it.

Prior to the 'new equilibrium balance', the earth is not hot enough to drive the escape of the input energy so some thermal energy is retained, until the temperature does balance.

Ok?

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Going to quibble a bit here. When the earth reaches a new equilibrium with the higher level of GHGs, the SAME amount of heat will escape to the universe. It has to. That is, the influx MUST exactly balance (over the year and the surface area) the outflow.
What changes is that the surface has to be warmer in order to emit enough energy to drive the same energy escape against the higher levels of GHGs blocking it.
Prior to the 'new equilibrium balance', the earth is not hot enough to drive the escape of the input energy so some thermal energy is retained, until the temperature does balance.
Ok?
so, you agree that the Earth gains a little thermal energy due to the increasing GHG........
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jun 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
so, you agree that the Earth gains a little thermal energy due to the increasing GHG........
Obviously. But that is a transitional state. That was my point.

Higher temperatures mean more intense IR emissions so while less of them get through the increased GHGs, the amount that do will balance the influx (if and when equilibrium is reached).

Indeed, one of the clues to AGW being mainly from GHGs is the fact that the intensity of emissions as measured by satellites has dropped in the GHG capture bands, thus showing that more thermal energy is being retained and the planet is warming.

It is important to distinguish the thermal energy FLUX from the thermal energy content. Increased GHGs change the thermal energy content. The thermal energy flux is temporarily reduced but will eventually return to a balance.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 26, 2013
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously. But that is a transitional state. That was my point.
Higher temperatures mean more intense IR emissions so while less of them get through the increased GHGs, the amount that do will balance the influx (if and when equilibrium is reached).
Indeed, one of the clues to AGW being mainly from GHGs is the fact that the intensity of emissions as measured by satellites has dropped in the GHG capture bands, thus showing that more thermal energy is being retained and the planet is warming.
It is important to distinguish the thermal energy FLUX from the thermal energy content. Increased GHGs change the thermal energy content. The thermal energy flux is temporarily reduced but will eventually return to a balance.
That is obvious.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Gibbberish. So the 2003 to 2012 average is close to the 1996 to 2012 average. The 'warm spots' represent the 1996 to 2002 differential (the 2003 to 2012 is common and can be removed).
Of course, the 1996 to 2002 is cherry picked for the 1998 peak warming from the strong La-Nina but 'diluted' by the averaging over a longer period.
More silliness by a total scientifically ignorant and clueless denialist.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php...
No prob. Let's go back to 1990 and pick up the cooling of Pinatubo along with the warming of the '98 el nino.
The ten years of 2003 to 2012 were .09*C warmer than the average of the 22 years ending in 2012. Almost a tenth of a degree.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If that's not good enough, here's 30 years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nma...

Isn't it interesting that NASA/GISS doesn't appear to think that they are measuring thermal heat content, they present measurements of air temperature.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Baloney. The forecasts for AGW are related to the TOTAL THERMAL ENERGY of the SURFACE MASS, of which air is only 2%. Since temperatures of the oceans and land will affect that of the air, meterology data (air temperatures at 2 meters) will rougly follow the AGW signal but it is total crap to think that they cannot change independently from variations in climate (i.e. ENSO) dynamics.
More foolish fun by fart fellow.
I am just saying what all the AGWs have been saying. Temperatures will go up by (your pick) 2*C 4*C 6*C by the year 2100. Those statements are not about total thermal energy, they are about air temperature.

I can understand why you need to change the valuation system. The air temperature increases that are supposed to track well with the increase in CO2 haven't happened.

The equations developed to determine the energy balance or inbalance don't work.

The missing heat is still missing. Nevermind the oceans are absorbing all the missing heat, the oceans have always absorbed the heat energy they receive from the sun. They are absorbing heat now and they absorbed heat in 1998. It's how they work.

What will be interesting to see is how the climate scientists explain the difference in how much heat the oceans absorbed in the last decade as opposed to the 1990s decade.

Since the ARGO bouys have been deployed since 2003, there'll be a lot of new extrapolations in our future. Or as we have been recently treated to, "reanalysis".

LOL

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of144
< prev page
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••