Global Warming

I'm totally full of shit. Just ask 95 % of climate scientists.

 

So how many scientists would need to be trotted out that "knows their shit" before you would begin to question the legitimacy of his claims?

 

Again, you've made this empty point before. Global warming refers to the increase in global temperature. Climate change occurs due to global warming. A rebranding of sorts was done because people misunderstood global warming to mean everywhere will be hotter than normal all the time.

I've explained this to you before.

 

ben4vols, when you make a coherent argument I will respond to it. Right now, I gather you are arguing that because the warming trend isn't linear it can't be CO2/climate isn't that sensitive. Why one would assume the response would have to be linear with Earth's complex climate system, I don't follow. What the alternative explanation for the warming cycle is similarly seems to escape me.

Why you/Tinsdale/random hack blog you read is unaware of the well-documented influences on climate in the two periods being highlighted as not warming, again I have no idea. These are things that have been discussed on this forum before. Plinian eruptions releasing aerosols and ash particulate into the stratosphere account for the first period, aerosols account for the second. This is something that was looked at and figured out a long time ago.

 

In other words, the dollars were drying up using the original term, and mamma needed a new pair of shoes.

 

Volcanoes


http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5589

 

Lovely phrasing!

 

IP, just got done reading an article that talks about a 2012 NASA report back in March, that says the extra C02 is actually good because it helps filter more UV rays, which in turns helps the Earth cool better.

Here's the article I read...

http://principia-scientific.org/sup...e-cools-atmosphere.html#.UVYwRz4bXF4.facebook

Seems like they are going the other direction from climate scientists.

 

Platypus


http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/platypus/

 

Here's a Youtube video on that article I posted...

[video=youtube;EEFQHDSYP1I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEFQHDSYP1I[/video]

 

YouTube video of the article I posted:


[youtube]0gM5TjSOQ48[/youtube]

 

hahahaha!!

 

If we combined Oregon and Oregon State, we have the mascot!

 

IP, the floods out there, are you safe?

 

I like it!

[video=youtube;tCy03nrfc24]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCy03nrfc24[/video]

 

[video=youtube;aYDfwUJzYQg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYDfwUJzYQg[/video]

 

My argument is very coherent and based on fact. You won't respond because it challenges your deep religious like belief in a highly sensitive climate system. The fact is all current evidence points to the climate system being much less sensitive. You say your side is a fact. Your side cannot reproduce or correctly model your hypothesis, as I have shown. You say the oceans are warming when in fact the majority of the oceans haven't warmed for almost 20 years. You say you agree that the missing heat is being stored in the ocean, yet the only thing you have to prove that is OHC (Ocean Heat Content) data which relies on very unreliable data from ARGO floats. If the majority of the sea surface isn't warming how is the missing heat also being missed at the surface? The surface would have to show warming for the missing heat to make it into the depths. The only way around that is if trade winds have increased over the last 20 years which would increase vertical mixing. Trade winds have remained virtually unchanged however. Even if the oceans were warming at depth, as currently modeled the climate sensitivity would fall much closer to my side than yours. Check the graph below. Even the unreliable ARGO data shows very little warming and way under what the model mean estimate was.

Not Tinsdale but Tisdale. So a crack blog, in your opinion, is a blog that takes observed data and plots it against modeled mean? Come on. As for periods of "not warming", the graphs I showed dealt with the periods of warming.

 

You are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of modeling. Rarely do models have a perfect fit, and climate models' accuracy is rapidly improving. Showing only a decades worth of time is also misleading, as these models are designed to look much large increments of time precisely because of their error bars. One can't misuse a tool and then complain that the tool is broken. If you are saying they must be able to 100 % model climate on an annual basis, you are asking for something that can't be replicated in any science, controversy or not. Models have successfully recreated temperature changes throughout the 20th century on land. Period. These models successfully predicted things like more pronounced warming in the Arctic and decreasing summer sea ice BEFORE they happened. The climatic cooling response of Plinian eruptions such as Mt. Pinatubo were successfully modeled BEFORE they happened.

Your claim is not based in reality. It is an often-repeated mantra of climate-deniers. Which section of time looks like it is not being adequately modeled by the IPCC's AR4 model?

Please give me a specific answer. Please also tell me where Hansen published that one decade graph you posted.


If one breaks these things up into tiny increments of time, of course the larger trend (and how well predictions fit) is obscured. Example:


The "majority of oceans"- the oceans are an interconnected feature. They have either warmed or they have not. There is ample evidence they have warmed.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_docum...etters_2005_warming-world-ocean_1955-2005.pdf

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_docum...articles/science_2000_warming-world-ocean.pdf

ftp://kakapo.ucsd.edu/pub/sio_220/e03 - Global warming/Roemmich_Gould_Gilson.NCC_2012.pdf

In regards to your question about heat at the surface versus the depths, there is some warming on the surface. Oceanic circulation patterns bring up water from the deep in upwellings in a circulation pattern that operates on thousands of years, which also carries the water down. Warming was at first expected to be mostly at the surface, but it is now realized that because of that circulation they are warming at depths that were previously overlooked. I posted a link earlier to a news story discussing it. How that makes climate less sensitive overall is not clear to me. There are thresholds that can be reached. Tipping points. When those are reached, a new paradigm takes over.

We can debate whether the oceans or wet or not too, if you'd like. It is really sad how much energy is put int quackery and misleading people when it comes to climate deniers.

 

Let me know when my new shoes are coming.

 

Already talked about how volcanoes fit in in another thread. If you had any big eruptions near you lately, better blame it on the dog because it isn't a volcano.