It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Change Denial, Anyone?

page: 30
37
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Phage

The oceans gain heat from the sun and the atmosphere. As you have often pointed out, we have had a 30 year or so of warming.

Whether you see only "peaks and valleys" is irrelevant. Look at 30 year time periods instead of monthly or yearly data.

There is little doubt that there was below average temperatures for the 30 year period prior to 1980.

I am sorry, I should have said the AMO and the PDO are both entering cool phases.


OK, and so?


Now that they are coupled - we should start to see overall cooling.


Since the observations show the opposite----the conclusion is, what, then?




posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

mbkennel

The Pacific Ocean just gave up a huge amount of heat but somehow it didn't cool at all? More globing warmist exaggertions?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

You posit the argument that carbon dioxide is being released from the oceans due to temperature increase.

Why would the oceans not be releasing CO2 into the atmosphere if they are warming?


Because the partial pressure of CO2 on the atmosphere side is higher than the ocean side at current because there is more external CO2 in the atmosphere from the mining and burning of fossil fuels.


It could only not be the case if Henry’s law did not apply to the oceans. But it does apply. Sorry, but you seem to be trying to brush Henry’s law aside and that is not valid.


It is valid. If you start in a state of initial chemical equilibrium, then heating the ocean will result in carbon release. Since we are not in a state of chemical equilibrium, at present heating the ocean will result in lower rate of uptaking, meaning that a higher fraction of emissions than historical will remain in the atmosphere and contribute to additional excess global warming.

edit on 28-7-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Just to through some non scientific boots on the ground data in here. And yes, I know that just because it's hot here doesn't mean it's not cold somewhere else in the world. Just giving you some real world data.

The overnight low temperature reached 91 degrees, which broke the previous record of 90 degrees for the date, set in 2009, according to the National Weather Service. Thursday’s forecast of a 115 high is on track to break the 1995 record of 114 degrees. After Thursday, temperatures are expected to drop this weekend, with an expected high of 112 degrees Friday, 107 on Saturday and 102 on Sunday. Monday’s high should be 101 degrees, and Tuesday and Wednesday’s forecasts have highs of 103 degrees.

This will be the hottest July ever on Record here in Las Vegas.

I had to laugh when I saw a high temperature of 89 degrees for a "heat wave" in Philadelphia for the DNC. LOL Wimps.




edit on 28-7-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 06:02 AM
link   

It is valid. If you start in a state of initial chemical equilibrium, then heating the ocean will result in carbon release. Since we are not in a state of chemical equilibrium, at present heating the ocean will result in lower rate of uptaking, meaning that a higher fraction of emissions than historical will remain in the atmosphere and contribute to additional excess global warming.

But if the CO2 sinks cannot ‘sink’ the carbon fast enough because nature has increased the output from its sources, then the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases for that reason above what it previously would have been if the sources and sinks were in equilibrium. Or if the capacity of the sinks decreases so that they cannot ‘sink’ the carbon as fast as they did before, that is another reason for the level of atmospheric CO2 to increase above what it previously would have been if sources and sinks were in equilibrium. The assumed increase in CO2 of 17ppmv (132 Gts) as a consequence of the warming oceans of 1C would be the same regardless if humans were emitting CO2 or not. If humans suddenly emitted 17ppmv (or 132 Gts) of CO2 into the atmosphere (at the same time the oceans warmed by 1C), then yes, the oceans would not absorb it, but can you really blame that on humans? I would blame it on the oceans. A recent paper published in Nature found that:



The human-caused rise in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is being given an extra boost this year by the natural climate phenomena of El Niño, say climate scientists in a paper published in today’s edition of the journal Nature Climate Change. Since human emissions are now 25 per cent greater than in the last big El Niño in 1997/98, this all adds up to a record CO2 rise this year. The rising trend in CO2 was seen by Charles David Keeling when he began recording CO2 at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, in 1958. His early measurements were around 315 parts per million of carbon dioxide, 60 years later this has been rising at an average rate of 2.1 parts per million, but using a seasonal climate forecast model and statistical relationship with sea temperatures, Professor Betts and colleagues forecast the rise this year to be a record 3.15 + - 0.53 parts per million.

Anyway, my position on this subject is that equilibrium between the oceans and atmosphere is relatively fast, at about a year, based on Tom Quirk’s analysis of the time-delays between hemispheres, Murry Salby’s analysis of the growth-rates for CO2 emissions and the CO2 increase, and Tom Segalstad’s paper which indicates that equilibrium between oceanic DIC and atmospheric CO2 is achieved within a year. If I were to argue my usual case, I would argue that almost the entire CO2 increase is natural, but I’ll refrain from that since it’s an unnecessary position to defend, and it’s already laid out on my blog anyway.
edit on 29-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nathan-D

It is valid. If you start in a state of initial chemical equilibrium, then heating the ocean will result in carbon release. Since we are not in a state of chemical equilibrium, at present heating the ocean will result in lower rate of uptaking, meaning that a higher fraction of emissions than historical will remain in the atmosphere and contribute to additional excess global warming.

But if the CO2 sinks cannot ‘sink’ the carbon fast enough because nature has increased the output from its sources,


By sources you mean humans?


Then the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases for that reason above what it previously would have been if the sources and sinks were in equilibrium. Or if the capacity of the sinks decreases so that they cannot ‘sink’ the carbon as fast as they did before, that is another reason for the level of atmospheric CO2 to increase above what it previously would have been if sources and sinks were in equilibrium.


Agreed. This is why we don't want to heat the oceans!


The assumed increase in CO2 of 17ppmv (132 Gts) as a consequence of the warming oceans of 1C would be the same regardless if humans were emitting CO2 or not. If humans suddenly emitted 17ppmv (or 132 Gts) of CO2 into the atmosphere (at the same time the oceans warmed by 1C), then yes, the oceans would not absorb it, but can you really blame that on humans? I would blame it on the oceans.


If humans cause the heat balance to change and reduce the ability of oceans to absorb CO2, that's extra bad news.

Do you have a legal, as opposed to physical, attitude towards attribution of responsibility of greenhouse gases? I.e. if something natural like the oceans start relatively sinking less carbon than before, then that's a purely 'natural' phenomenon regardless of its causation, and furthermore this natural phenomenon dilutes responsibility for the changes in the atmosphere that humans definitively contribute to?

Oceans don't heat out of nowhere, there is no intrinsic heat generation, just transport.

Go back to the physics: interior of the Earth is not a heat sink because it is warmer than the surface and there is a small amount of heat generation from radioactivity. So therefore, everything controlling the basic heat balance for us living on the surface is out near the surface.

And given that Earth is in space, the only way to transmit significant energy in and out is electromagnetic radiation. And properties of that balance will fundamentally determine the climate.



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   

If humans suddenly emitted 17ppmv (or 132 Gts) of CO2 into the atmosphere (at the same time the oceans warmed by 1C), then yes, the oceans would not absorb it, but can you really blame that on humans?


If the oceans warmed because of human induced changes in greenhouse gases, then the answer is "yes, blame it on people", and this means that the climate sensitivity to human emissions is higher than naively believed, so humans should work to control their portion more.

If the oceans warmed because of hypothetical increases in solar output [not currently observed], then the answer is no, "don't blame it on people", and this means that given that existing phenomena is going to make us get hot, humans should work to control their portion of warming to not make it worse.

If oceans warmed because of control of particulate & sulfate pollution [which has clearly demonstrated impact against people's health and welfare], then the answer is 'yes', blame it on the humans, because we have been enjoying temperatures which have been cooler than otherwise we deserve as a result of our bad pollution habits and not fully facing our warming from our past emissions, and our past experience is underestimating climate sensitivity to greenhouse emissions.
edit on 29-7-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

you are now making this a "moral" issue for which people need to be punished. Along the lines of a sin?

Are you joking?????

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jul, 29 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Hot enough for you yet, deniers?

The Hottest Land Temperatures Ever Recorded



posted on Jul, 30 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   

If the oceans warmed because of human induced changes in greenhouse gases, then the answer is "yes, blame it on people", and this means that the climate sensitivity to human emissions is higher than naively believed, so humans should work to control their portion more.

If the oceans warmed because of hypothetical increases in solar output [not currently observed], then the answer is no, "don't blame it on people", and this means that given that existing phenomena is going to make us get hot, humans should work to control their portion of warming to not make it worse.

I think we’ve already discussed this. I said:


I think the assumption that human emissions are solely responsible for the entire atmospheric CO2 increase is doubtful, especially in view of 1850 coming roughly 800 years after the start of the MWP, i.e. when we would expect CO2 concentrations to start rising naturally anyway on the empirical basis of the ice-core record. The oceans are assumed to have warmed since 1850 and that warming should have released some CO2 into the atmosphere too (see calculations by Jaworowski on previous page).


The oceans can release CO2 when warmed and at the same time absorb more human CO2 than they have released, as pointed out on page 26. But my argument here is that some of the CO2 increase is probably natural.

And you responded:


If oceans release additional carbon from global warming from human activity [they are absorbing at present], then that is a positive feedback to increase sensitivity of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.

To which I said:


Well then I suppose this leads us back to the fundamental question: how much radiation-enhancement is CO2 actually producing and is it the main cause of global warming?

And then gave a possible alternative contributing natural factor to the warming:


One possible explanation are changes in cloudiness. Clouds have a strong net-cooling effect on the planet and so a general decrease would produce net-warming and there are many studies showing evidence that global cloud cover has decreased. One of these studies is Warren et al (2012) who estimates a reduction in global cloudiness of 1.56% from 1971 to 2009 and (assuming a general decrease) that equates to around 3 W/m2 based on Reed’s flux formula.

Using the IPCC’s figures for clouds (instead of Reed’s formula) I got 1.1 W/m2.
edit on 30-7-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven




www.quora.com...

This doesn't appear to say anything about rate of warming in the tropopause increasing. Try again.



posted on Jul, 31 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

First of all, I posted a study showing that the PDO appears to be the dominant force affecting the temperature of the troposphere.

I said nothing. In fact, I said that I didn't quite understand the details of the study and I am trying to figure it out.

When did I ever say anything about the rate of warming in the troposphere increasing?

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

you are now making this a "moral" issue for which people need to be punished. Along the lines of a sin?

Are you joking?????


No.

In one hundred years, the unconstrained mining and burning of coal will be viewed like people today view slavery: morally abhorrent, and yet, in the past, a disgustingly well accepted part of the economy.



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Why would cloudiness be going down?

Why is that necessarily unconnected with human influence? I can see at least two mechanisms: less particulate pollution (they might seed clouds) and higher temperatures.
edit on 1-8-2016 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: Nathan-D

Why would cloudiness be going down?

Why is that necessarily unconnected with human influence? I can see at least two mechanisms: less particulate pollution (they might seed clouds) and higher temperatures.

The IPCC argue that changes in cloudiness are aerosol induced and due to humans although they give a radiative forcing of —0.7 W/m2. That’s negative, implying cooling. My value is positive, implying warming. They may give a positive radiatve forcing figure for clouds but I didn’t see one. The IPCC say that the anthropogenic cloud-aerosol link is of ‘low’ certainty, saying that its uncertainties include a ‘Lack of direct observational evidence of global forcing’. There are natural factors that would affect cloud cover, such as cosmic rays possibly (to which the IPCC concede that ‘Some empirical evidence and observations as well as microphysical models suggest link to clouds’), the PDO-cycle (as suggested by ‘Mendoza et al 2013’), the electromagnetic linkage between the Earth and Sun, or perhaps something entirely different no-one has yet considered. We are still only scratching the surface in understanding what factors determine cloud cover.
edit on 1-8-2016 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

mbkennel

You are not viewing history in its proper context.

Without fossil fuels, people had to burn trees for warmth and fuel for cooking. Every tree on the planet would be gone by now without fossil fuels to replace wood.

Do you really equate doing what you need to do to survive with a sin?

You are so deep into CACW that you have now invented "sins" for which people must be be punished. You are into this way too deep.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Aug, 1 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
I have NEVER denied that the climate is changing but I refuse to believe that man has caused it. The climate has changed many times in this planets history and whether we like it or not, it is changing again. Sorry, that's just a fact. Deal with it.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: mbkennel

mbkennel

You are not viewing history in its proper context.

Without fossil fuels, people had to burn trees for warmth and fuel for cooking. Every tree on the planet would be gone by now without fossil fuels to replace wood.

Do you really equate doing what you need to do to survive with a sin?


No, that was then. This is now.

Now that we have alternatives which can be used (energy generation sources and population control medical treatments), denying the importance of the problem and resisting actions and mechanisms to improve the problem is immoral.



You are so deep into CACW that you have now invented "sins" for which people must be be punished. You are into this way too deep.


People in 100 years will not give a crap about our excuses and they will view the denialist obstructionism the way people today view pro-slavery propaganda of 1800.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cynic
I have NEVER denied that the climate is changing but I refuse to believe that man has caused it.


Despite specific physics and mechanistic evidence.



posted on Aug, 2 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cynic
I have NEVER denied that the climate is changing but I refuse to believe that man has caused it.


Despite specific physics and mechanistic evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join