It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
a reply to: the2ofusr1
Long-term sea-level change revisited: the role of salinity
Paul J Durack, Susan E Wijffels and Peter J Gleckler
Of the many processes contributing to long-term sea-level change, little attention has been paid to the large-scale contributions of salinity-driven halosteric changes. We evaluate observed and simulated estimates of long-term (1950-present) halosteric patterns and compare these to corresponding thermosteric changes. Spatially coherent halosteric patterns are visible in the historical record, and are consistent with estimates of long-term water cycle amplification. Our results suggest that long-term basin-scale halosteric changes in the Pacific and Atlantic are substantially larger than previously assumed, with observed estimates and coupled climate models suggesting magnitudes of ~25% of the corresponding thermosteric changes. In both observations and simulations, Pacific basin-scale freshening leads to a density reduction that augments coincident thermosteric expansion, whereas in the Atlantic halosteric changes partially compensate strong thermosteric expansion via a basin-scale enhanced salinity density increase. Although regional differences are apparent, at basin-scales consistency is found between the observed and simulated partitioning of halosteric and thermosteric changes, and suggests that models are simulating the processes driving observed long-term basin-scale steric changes. Further analysis demonstrates that the observed halosteric changes and their basin partitioning are consistent with CMIP5 simulations that include anthropogenic CO2 forcings (Historical), but are found to be inconsistent with simulations that exclude anthropogenic forcings (HistoricalNat).
Full PDF: iopscience.iop.org...
Ooooh. Graphs and animations. Cool!
Good post with lots of graphs and animations .
Only to those who don't know the difference between weather and climate.
I think you might be hard pressed convincing that most of NA is warming seeing all the cold it's been having as of late .
Something is not quite right with the assumption that co2 drives temperature wouldn't you think ?
Further analysis demonstrates that the observed halosteric changes and their basin partitioning are consistent with CMIP5 simulations that include anthropogenic CO2 forcings (Historical), but are found to be inconsistent with simulations that exclude anthropogenic forcings (HistoricalNat).
but let’s ask a few simple questions:
The ones that don’t agree very well with observations?
Or the ones that disagree completely with observations?
What is the value of using a large number of models? Do they average their outputs?
Exactly what is the value of averaging the outputs of a large number of models known to disagree with observations?
If they weren’t averaged, what was the value of using a large number of them?
If they were all in agreement with one another, there would be no need to use a large number, you could use just a few, could you not?
If there was large disagreement between the models, of what value could ANY of them be in coming to a conclusion?
Internal variability. The models show it can happen, historical data shows it does happen.
Seeing there has been a constant rise in co2 levels and rising in sea levels and models are saying that temperatures should rise as well ,then how is it we have the Pause ?
There is a list of the models used within the article and why those models were selected.
but let’s ask a few simple questions:
And you rely on bloggers rather than scientists?
Me not being a scientist ,I have to rely on others to get a idea of what is being said .
According to whom?
In fact when you reduce the sensitivity of co2 in the models to 0 they do a much better job
In case you didn't notice, CO2 and pollution go hand in hand. They come from the burning of fossil fuels.
I think that there has been way to much money and effort to make us believe co2 is a bad thing and keep our minds off of pollution and other things that threaten humanity more
Without it Earth would be a snowball. More doesn't mean better.
Produce more when the levels are increased ,and without it the earth would be a dead zone .
CO2 levels are higher than they have been in at least 400,000 years. Man was not "man" 400,000 years ago.
In fact the levels of co2 in the environment were much much higher before man started burning fossil fuels .
That's one theory. So what?
Remember all that large fauna and large animals that died off because of a meteor strike .
And that technology means we can develop other technologies to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and produce both less CO2 and less pollution. We can go beyond burning stuff to stay warm.
We wouldn't be able to have the technology we have today if it were not fossil fuels or the byproducts of pollution
Today's technologies can reduce the rate of change (we have reduced the amount of CO2 production in the US and Europe a bit, sounds like China may be coming on board). As the article you linked says.
Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?
Optimal for who, in that case? If humans and trees weren't here, who cares?
I wonder if the optimal level might be less if humans and trees were not part of the natural world
The addition of crops does not have much of an reduction effect on CO2 levels. It can actually increase them since it entails the removal of existing vegetation (trees) and/or the use of carbon producing technologies.
I wonder if man had to plant more crops in the future that optimal level might be higher ?
Obviously. They are the ones saying "AGW? Phhft!"
They are the ones producing it and making the money from it and convincing us to participate .
a reply to: Phage That comes from a blog provided by a professor . I see you like to use wiki and thats ok . We are all convinced from the sources we search out .
Dr. Dietrich Koelle is one of the few scientists to assess estimates of natural annual CO2 emissions.
Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions GtC per annum
1.Respiration (Humans, animals, phytoplankton) 45 to 52
2. Ocean out-gassing (tropical areas) 90 to 100
3. Volcanic and other ground sources 0.5 to 2
4. Ground bacteria, rotting and decay 50 to 60
5. Forest cutting, forest fires 1 to 3
6. Anthropogenic emissions Fossil Fuels (2010) 9.5
TOTAL 196 to 226.5
Source: Dr. Dietrich Koelle
The IPCC estimate of human production (6) for 2010 was 9.5 GtC, but that is total production. One of the early issues in the push to ratify the Kyoto Protocol was an attempt to get US ratification. The US asked for carbon credits, primarily for CO2 removed through reforestation, so a net figure would apply to their assessment as a developed nation. It was denied. The reality is the net figure better represents human impact. If we use human net production (6) at 5 GtC for 2010, then it falls within the range of the estimate for three natural sources, (1), (2), and (4).
originally posted by: H1ght3chHippie
originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Because co2 is loved by plants they have a tendency to gobble up extra if added in green houses .I am not sure of the figures but it is substantial to the out-put of the plants .
So maybe the alleged increase in carbondioxide is rather due to a reduction in plant mass, especially trees, rather than due to an increased output of said gas.
a reply to: Rockpuck
“Two of the world’s premiere ocean scientists from Harvard and MIT have addressed the data limitations that currently prevent the oceanographic community from resolving the differences among various estimates of changing ocean heat content.”
Oceans are critical to CO2 levels because of their large sink or source capacity.
Data necessary to create a viable determination of climate mechanisms and thereby climate change, is completely inadequate. This applies especially to the structure of climate models. There is no data for at least 80 percent of the grids covering the globe, so they guess; it’s called parameterization. The 2007 IPCC Report notes,
Due to the limited resolutions of the models, many of these processes are not resolved adequately by the model grid and must therefore be parameterized. The differences between parameterizations are an important reason why climate model results differ.
Variable results occur because of inadequate data at the most basic level and subjective choices by the people involved.
The IPCC estimate of human production (6) for 2010 was 9.5 GtC
^ Fossil carbon dioxide emissions include those from the production, distribution and consumption of fossil fuels and as a by-product from cement production. An emission of 1 GtC corresponds to 3.67 GtCO2.
The difference however is that c02 levels in the atmosphere are not rising that fast
Incorrect. Please refer to section 1.3.9:
This is because the Biosphere is never taken into account.
I said there is no indication that volcanic activity has increased. Much less at a rate commensurate with the increase in CO2.
With the many under water volcanoes that we have only recently discovered I cant see how you could say they have not increased .
Don't care that the data says that CO2 levels are increasing. Don't care that the data says that temperatures are increasing. What do you care about? Just the stuff that a few bloggers have to say? You seemed to care about Koelle's data, one side of it anyway, you ignored the other side. The uptake side. The imbalance caused by fossil fuels.
I don't care one way or another what the data says
You know this how? You know that big oil has a lot of money to spend, right? Why is there so little actual research that says that temperatures are not rising. Why is there so little actual research that says CO2 levels are not rising? Can't the oil companies pay enough to get scientists to say what they want them to say?
And they know they have to make the data speak to the co2 scam or they wont get the grants and funding to do the research