Global Warming

Naturally, you wouldn't. Oceans would be releasing CO2 as they have in the past (the origin of the infamous "lag" controversy that was passed around by your ilk as evidence against climate change once). But with pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere, you do.

It is pretty simple. Are oceans warming? Yes. http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/deep-oceans-warming-at-alarming-rate-130711.htm

Are the oceans getting more acidic from the absorption of CO2, while warming? Yes. http://phys.org/news63109133.html

Is this a natural thing to be occurring? You just indicated it wasn't yourself.

 

I think ben4vols may have been saying that warmer liquids hold less dissolved gas ... I would just say this isnt the way I would look at it - the saturation concentration or solubility of a gas in a liquid decreases with increasing temperature but the oceans aren't saturated in CO2 and the entire ocean is not at equilibrium...also increasing co2 in the atmosphere can lead to increased uptake in oceans even with increasing ocean temp as well

 

Agreed. But in recent geologic history this isn't something that happens.

 

Ben, do you mind not using the acronyms anymore?

 

Re: Spencer- he says the world was intelligently designed. That's his basis for humans not being a significant influence on climate. His positions are not based on observation, but rather he attempts to make observations to support his opinion.

 

Surely this Spencer doesn't hold that God intelligently designed the internal combustion engine. Not sure how a creationist view would preclude global warming in anyway imaginable.

 

I second this request although I'd settle for a parenthetical definition as well.
Oh, and ben, it's good to see you back.

 

I'd say that's selling him a bit short based on a little research.

 

If you're still taking IP's compulsive desire to bash anything resembling God as being serious, you're not paying attention.

 

TT-
Could you corral your nerd-boner long enough to simply tell us which one is full of shit. No need to church it up.

From my vantage point, I much prefer to believe that IP is having his ecological ass handed to him. So, find ways to support that.

 

Oh, the sweet, sweet honey-kissed nectar of irony in this mf'ing post.

I imagine that my feelings about this post must somehow closely compare to that which IP experiences when he lights a new candle at his Richard Dawkins heathen shrine.

Pure and other-worldly delight.

 

I don't fully accept the feedback process and climate sensitivity. I guess I am more of a "luke warm" type. For a doubling of CO2 I think you probably get closer to 1 to 1.5 C instead of the 3 to 5 C number thrown out by those who think the climate system is much more sensitive.

Which model? ALL OF THEM. I know they are incorrect because the ensemble mean has overstated the warming by a factor of 3 vs observed.

 

Other than the point of disagreement I as raising about increased co2 uptake and increased ocean temps (and really more of a statement about it not being that straightforward rather than disagreement), I'm afraid I can't throw a red flag at either one. I'm not sure about the intelligent design stuff but the concerns over accurately capturing climate sensitivity are reasonable concerns ... It is an important part of the equation.

 

It is mainly the Atlantic that has warmed over the last 20 years. The 1st graph shows roughly 75% of the ocean SST's (Sea Surface Temps). Everything but the Atlantic. Where is the warming? You can also see the modeled ensemble mean overlaid on the graph for reference. It severely overstated the warming...yet again. Is global warming selectively only warming the Atlantic or are there more forces at work? In the second graph you can see the other 25% of the oceans, the part that is quickly warming.

 

Spencer knows his shit, whether he believes in intelligent design or not he has serious credentials...

 

It seems that we were told it was "Global Warming" for about a Decade. When that did not bear out the message changed to "Climate Change".

 

A couple more interesting graphs. The 1st graph shows the two distinct observed warming periods of the 20th century. The second graph shows the newest global climate models ensemble mean for the same time period. As you can see the climate models came pretty close to nailing most of the recent warming (until recently). However the models did not come close to modeling the prior warming period in the early to mid 20th century. Why did it do so poorly in the prior period? Either a) the models overstate climate sensitivity to CO2 and neglect natural mechanisms or b) the manipulation of global temperature readings from the past were done incorrectly. By the way, credit to Bob Tisdale for the graphs I posted.

 

Thank you.

 

Sorry to intervene here, on IP's behalf - but everyone knows that if someone believes in intelligent design, they can no longer be considered capable of any reasonable thought, whatsoever.

This is a widely known fact.* And the reason that the Pepsi Challenge has been all-too-conveniently leaning away from Coke, all of these years.

IP can take the rest from here, but I just wanted to help him by making a quick interjection, on his behalf.


*Amongst godless, narrow-minded scientists who are willing to go to the greatest lengths in order to exclude the mere mention of any existence of any higher intelligent designer.

 

If only you know how utterly and completely wrong you are.