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

Full story: Newsday 49,174
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#40627 Oct 12, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose we all have different views on how big and reaching government can/should be.
I don't know what the Tea Party platform actually stands for other than 'smaller government' in general. I assume they don't want to pay most of the tab for other countries, who generally resent the US, rather it be infrastructure...or the UN...or whatever.
I think there's plenty of blame to go around for where the nation is with its debt problem. When do both sides come together and make hard choices? Why even have a debt ceiling.....if it really is meaningless and always lifted?
All I know is that the US isn't what it used to be.....and probably never will be again. Maybe it's time the country realizes the future damage caused by kicking the can down the road while government spending remains "business as usual"? Isn't that pretty much the same argument warmists hold about co2 emissions?
With Places like Antarctica there are few countries that have aircraft capable of bringing stuff in & out. There is only a small window in the southern summer to do it so lots of researchers hitch a ride with the US. In other words there will be a year of data lost on tea party BS and in the end what do they achieve ? Not a damn thing except drive those positive growth numbers backwards.

http://www.livescience.com/40237-antarctic-re...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40628 Oct 12, 2013
Wonder how Professor Curry is handling the government uncertainty.. like it is "so hard" to predict!!!!!
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40630 Oct 13, 2013
heavy tune wrote:
<quoted text>that is real funny,'caveman'. a rational person would know that the earth has been warming since the last ice age. hence there is no longer a mile and a half of ice over much of north America. a rational person would realize that. a rational person would not believe the fairytale of global warming caused by man, promoted by a failed political pos. rational people do not fall for such b.s.
5 years ago climate prophets claimed:
"Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt..."

Today, the same climate experts will concede that the title of this thread is NOT true.

These climate scientists are now saying their historic data indicates global warming has slowed down over the better part of 2 decades!

A rational person would not be in denial about the current state of 'climate reality'.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40631 Oct 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
These deniers are out touch with reality.. crazy people are posting in topix..
LOL...

Experts will now concede it is not true that:
"Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt..."

A rational person would not be in denial about this current state of 'climate reality'.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40632 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
5 years ago climate prophets claimed:
"Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt..."
Today, the same climate experts will concede that the title of this thread is NOT true.
These climate scientists are now saying their historic data indicates global warming has slowed down over the better part of 2 decades!
A rational person would not be in denial about the current state of 'climate reality'.
A new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that in the past 15 years we've undergone "the most sustained warming trend."

The researchers attribute this "missing heat" phenomena to the fact that about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been cooking.

The myth that global warming has slowed—which is frequently cited by climate deniers and perpetuated by "fundamentally flawed" studies that do not account for the warming of deep ocean waters—has had the dangerous effect of "lull[ing] many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security," writes Skeptical Science, "with many people wrongly believing global warming has paused when in reality it has accelerated."

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03...
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40633 Oct 13, 2013
"Without the IPCC assessment, the public would have no idea that our fossil-fuel usage is heating up the planet."

Without the IPCC people would just be enjoying the pleasant Autumn weather.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40634 Oct 13, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that in the past 15 years we've undergone "the most sustained warming trend."
The researchers attribute this "missing heat" phenomena to the fact that about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been cooking.
The myth that global warming has slowed—which is frequently cited by climate deniers and perpetuated by "fundamentally flawed" studies that do not account for the warming of deep ocean waters...
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03...
Glad we now realize that the past climate studies were "fundamentally flawed"!
The old models did not account for the ~90% of the heat going into the oceans and that their programmed heat budget only looked at the <10% that was going into the air.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40635 Oct 13, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
A new study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters says that in the past 15 years we've undergone "the most sustained warming trend."
The researchers attribute this "missing heat" phenomena to the fact that about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been cooking.
The myth that global warming has slowed—which is frequently cited by climate deniers and perpetuated by "fundamentally flawed" studies that do not account for the warming of deep ocean waters—has had the dangerous effect of "lull[ing] many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security," writes Skeptical Science, "with many people wrongly believing global warming has paused when in reality it has accelerated."
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/03...
One of the researchers (Trenberth) states the uptake of heat in the deep oceans will result in a rise in sea level beyond that which occurs from ice melt. This logically means that melt rate estimates are likely in error due to the failure of incorporating thermal expansion resulting from the assumed deep ocean heating.

Yes, there is no denying that past models, studies, and projections are "fundamentally flawed".

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40636 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Glad we now realize that the past climate studies were "fundamentally flawed"!
The old models did not account for the ~90% of the heat going into the oyceans and that their programmed heat budget only looked at the <10% that was going
into the air.
Failed reading skills: the quote does not refer to "the old models".

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40637 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
This logically means that melt rate estimates are likely in error due to the failure of incorporating thermal expansion resulting from the assumed deep ocean heating.
This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Not only are your reading skills fatally flawed, so are your skills in logic.

In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40639 Oct 13, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Failed reading skills: the quote does not refer to "the old models".
Yes, failed indeed:
"[4] A key question is how recent and robust is the role of deep ocean in the heat uptake, because the advent of the Argo ocean observing system is known to have a profound impact in ocean state estimations [Balmaseda et al., 2007]. Another question is how much disruption there is of the warming trends by natural variability and from the volcanic eruptions, which contributed to the TOA imbalance but have not been factored into most analyses of OHC variations. Several decadal hiatus periods of the upper ocean warming associated with natural decadal and interannual variability, such as La Niña events, have been found in a model [Meehl et al., 2011]. Recently, the 2001–2010 interannual variations of TOA radiation and OHC have been associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)[Loeb et al., 2012]."
Your welcome.
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#40640 Oct 13, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
This sentence doesn't make any sense.
Not only are your reading skills fatally flawed, so are your skills in logic.
In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject.
Really??: "In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject." That's your summation of contribution to this topic of thermal expansion and it's relationship to ice melt estimates?

Not sure of your "moron" point... I was speaking of rates of "sea level" rise.
Trenberth suggests "missing" heat goes into the ocean causing sea levels to rise due to thermal expansion.
So how much of the past 17 years of sea level rise is from thermal expansion and how much is due to ice melt and glacial calving?

Logically; old estimates of ice melt (and subsequent sea level rise) could not be correct if the "missing" heat was not a factor in their calculations.

Your thoughts?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40641 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Really??: "In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject." That's your summation of contribution to this topic of thermal expansion and it's relationship to ice melt estimates?
No, that's my summation of your understanding. Please prove me wrong and explain clearly and concisely how you think thermal expansion influences ice melt estimates.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40642 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, failed indeed:
"[4] A key question is how recent and robust is the role of deep ocean in the heat uptake, because the advent of the Argo ocean observing system is known to have a profound impact in ocean state estimations [Balmaseda et al., 2007]. Another question is how much disruption there is of the warming trends by natural variability and from the volcanic eruptions, which contributed to the TOA imbalance but have not been factored into most analyses of OHC variations. Several decadal hiatus periods of the upper ocean warming associated with natural decadal and interannual variability, such as La Niña events, have been found in a model [Meehl et al., 2011]. Recently, the 2001–2010 interannual variations of TOA radiation and OHC have been associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)[Loeb et al., 2012]."
Your welcome.
You still don't have any idea what the quote refers to.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40643 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
"Without the IPCC assessment, the public would have no idea that our fossil-fuel usage is heating up the planet."
Without the IPCC people would just be enjoying the pleasant Autumn weather.
This proves you prefer a know-nothing public like yourself..
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40645 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
Really??: "In other words you are a moron with nothing of any value to say on this complex subject." That's your summation of contribution to this topic of thermal expansion and it's relationship to ice melt estimates?
Not sure of your "moron" point... I was speaking of rates of "sea level" rise.
Trenberth suggests "missing" heat goes into the ocean causing sea levels to rise due to thermal expansion.
So how much of the past 17 years of sea level rise is from thermal expansion and how much is due to ice melt and glacial calving?
Logically; old estimates of ice melt (and subsequent sea level rise) could not be correct if the "missing" heat was not a factor in their calculations.
Your thoughts?
You think words analyze climate phenomena.. hahahahaha

How come they don't hire you to teach climate science?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40647 Oct 13, 2013
I know our resident deniers are USA-centric, so, don't look now, but there are three gigantic cyclones in the Southern Hemisphere right now.

Our Atlantic season being slower than usual doesn't mean there's no climate change.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40648 Oct 13, 2013
Speaking of man-made climate change.. "The federal government's research agencies have been largely shuttered, with scientists sent home and projects shelved," it read. "There are five Nobel Prize-winning researchers currently working for the federal government, all of whom are world-renowned scientists and leaders in their field. Four of them are currently furloughed and unable to conduct their federal research on behalf of the American public due to the government shutdown."

Among the agencies mentioned, the National Science Foundation has had it the worst. Ninety-eight percent of its employees have been furloughed, and the organization has not issued any new scientific research grants. The NSF funds non-medical science and engineering research and education programs across the country.

The National Institutes of Health, the nation's top medical research facility, has lost almost three-quarters of its staff, forcing it to turn away most new patients from its studies. Funding for the NIH became a focal point of debate early in the shutdown when reports emerged that children with cancer were being denied entry into potentially life-saving studies.

The majority of Americans may feel the greatest impact, however, from the cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Two-thirds of its personnel have been sent home, and as flu season begins, influenza monitoring has been cut back, according to the White House.

Still, the CDC will continue its most important role in monitoring any imminent threats to the public's health, and most flu vaccines are produced by private companies.[cnn]
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40649 Oct 13, 2013

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40650 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the researchers (Trenberth) states the uptake of heat in the deep oceans will result in a rise in sea level beyond that which occurs from ice melt. This logically means that melt rate estimates are likely in error due to the failure of incorporating thermal expansion resulting from the assumed deep ocean heating.
Let's see if we can unpick some your misunderstandings here.

Ice melt is not estimated from sea level rise- it is measured by satellites.

Sea level also increases as the oceans warm- at any depth. This is already known.

The budget must close- this is true.

Sea level rise must equal expansion due to warming plus ice melt volume.

The thermal expansion in the deep ocean was not incorporated in previous sea level budgets, but those budgets didn't close.

Sea level was more than expansion due to warming plus ice melt volume.

If sea level rise had equalled expansion due to warming plus ice melt volume, and the figure for expansion due to warming had increased, then you would have to assume either the ice melt data were in error, or doubt the deep ocean warming.

But because the budget didn't close, thermal expansion due to deep ocean warming actually explains the observed sea level rise better, and gives more confidence to observations of ice melt.
Recent sea level rise has so far been difficult to fully explain: satellites measure global sea level rise since 1993 to be about 3.1 mm/year. The warming and expanding 'upper ocean', or the top 700 metres measured by ships and buoys can explain 1.2 mm/year whilst the water added by melting snow and ice can be estimated from satellite gravity measurements for ice sheets and other methods for smaller glaciers, and is about 0.85 mm/year.

Simple addition of the numbers above (1.2 + 0.85 mm/year = 2.05 mm/year) shows that the result from the upper ocean thermal expansion and addition of water mass is still about 1 mm/year short of the observed 3.1 mm/year sea level rise. However, some previous studies have had these numbers quite close to each other when the uncertainties in the estimates have been considered.

....

The model simulations give a sea level rise of 1.1 mm/year from the thermal expansion of the deep ocean. When that is added to the 2.05 mm/year calculated above, the result (3.15 mm/year) is remarkably close to the observed rise of 3.1 mm/year (which more accurately is 3.11 mm/year).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/deep_ocean_wa...

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.

Texas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
US to start talks with Cuba to normalize full d... 4 min Trick Daddy 30
Life on oil rig hard but lucrative (Apr '12) 4 hr No Good 119
Murders up, but El Paso still safe, Texas lawma... 5 hr Justifiable Redrum 3
Convicted Robber With Long History Sentenced to... (Apr '09) Wed shayla 6
running from her life and family. Tue sick to my stomach 1
Texas open carry is shooting itself in the foot Tue Independent1 4
EMPIRE OPTION: binary options trading with Empi... (Jan '13) Dec 14 Jerry 2
More from around the web