Climate change caused by ocean, not just atmosphere

[Old Rocks]

Well now, Ian, you are starting to sound like Frankie Boy. Is that what your arguement has descended to?

What we do think is that there will be an El Nino that will make 1998 look like fun and games. Certain to happen. Here we are in a neutral ENSO and looking at maybe the warmest year on record.

And after we have that big jump, as we had in 1998, a good chance that the weather will settle for a little while in a new high plateu, and you and the others can claim it is cooling. As we continue to break records for heat worldwide.

 

[jc456]

Well now, Ian, you are starting to sound like Frankie Boy. Is that what your arguement has descended to?

What we do think is that there will be an El Nino that will make 1998 look like fun and games. Certain to happen. Here we are in a neutral ENSO and looking at maybe the warmest year on record.

And after we have that big jump, as we had in 1998, a good chance that the weather will settle for a little while in a new high plateu, and you and the others can claim it is cooling. As we continue to break records for heat worldwide.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Date: October 25, 2014

Source: Rutgers University


I'm no scientists but this seems to make a whole lot of sense to me. Why have we centered on atmospheric change and not this? Is it because Man can be accused of polluting the atmosphere and not the oceans? Just asking.


Summary:

Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere. A new study reveals another equally important factor in regulating the earth's climate.


Read the full piece @ Climate change caused by ocean not just atmosphere -- ScienceDaily

Do you not see the connection between these hypotheses and the idea that changes in wind patterns have recently altered ocean circulation and swapped warmed surface waters with colder water from the depths?

...desperate for any signs of warming, the AGWCult is forced to posit the bizarre, insane notion that the deep oceans appetite for warming has cause the 2 decade pause in surface temperatures.

Stay tuned

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well now, Ian, you are starting to sound like Frankie Boy. Is that what your arguement has descended to?

What we do think is that there will be an El Nino that will make 1998 look like fun and games. Certain to happen. Here we are in a neutral ENSO and looking at maybe the warmest year on record.

And after we have that big jump, as we had in 1998, a good chance that the weather will settle for a little while in a new high plateu, and you and the others can claim it is cooling. As we continue to break records for heat worldwide.

I keep asking for you peckerheads to show one experiment linking 120PPM of CO2 to "warming"

You never did, you never will because it's a physical impossibility

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGW causes volcanoes? maybe, there's no warming on Earth, who can say where the warming is going? It's no less absurd than saying the deep ocean ate the warming

 

[Crick]

Well now, Ian, you are starting to sound like Frankie Boy. Is that what your arguement has descended to?

What we do think is that there will be an El Nino that will make 1998 look like fun and games. Certain to happen. Here we are in a neutral ENSO and looking at maybe the warmest year on record.

And after we have that big jump, as we had in 1998, a good chance that the weather will settle for a little while in a new high plateu, and you and the others can claim it is cooling. As we continue to break records for heat worldwide.

I keep asking for you peckerheads to show one experiment linking 120PPM of CO2 to "warming"

You never did, you never will because it's a physical impossibility

You were shown several such experiments. What seems to be an impossibility is getting you to speak truthfully and admit it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well now, Ian, you are starting to sound like Frankie Boy. Is that what your arguement has descended to?

What we do think is that there will be an El Nino that will make 1998 look like fun and games. Certain to happen. Here we are in a neutral ENSO and looking at maybe the warmest year on record.

And after we have that big jump, as we had in 1998, a good chance that the weather will settle for a little while in a new high plateu, and you and the others can claim it is cooling. As we continue to break records for heat worldwide.

I keep asking for you peckerheads to show one experiment linking 120PPM of CO2 to "warming"

You never did, you never will because it's a physical impossibility

You were shown several such experiments. What seems to be an impossibility is getting you to speak truthfully and admit it.

You must be delusional. You show us a stupid chart that has less than nothing to do with your stupid theory. Who the fuck do you think you're fooling?

 

[Crick]

I speak truthfully and therefore I fool no one.

You lie, but you too, fool no one.

You have repeatedly been shown CO2 absorption spectra that are the result of experiments measuring CO2's absorption of thermal radiation - which I presume is that to which you refer when you mention "a stupid chart that has less than nothing do with your stupid theory". Now that graph is the very core of AGW, thus your complaint once more demonstrates your ignorance, but to the point, I wasn't talking about that graph. I was actually talking about videos...

 

[westwall]

PEER-REVIEWED
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Biotic and Human Vulnerability to Projected Changes in Ocean Biogeochemistry over the 21st Century

• Camilo Mora mail,
  
  
  
  
  
• Chih-Lin Wei,
  
  
  
  
• Audrey Rollo,
  
  
  
  
• Teresa Amaro,
  
  
  
  
• Amy R. Baco,
  
  
  
  
• David Billett,
  
  
  
  
• Laurent Bopp,
  
  
  
  
• Qi Chen,
  
  
  
  
• Mark Collier,
  
  
  
  
• Roberto Danovaro,
  
  
  
• Andrew J. Gooday,
  
  
  
  
• Benjamin M. Grupe,
  
  
  
  
• Paul R. Halloran,
  
  
  
• [ ... ],
  
• Moriaki Yasuhara

Ongoing greenhouse gas emissions can modify climate processes and induce shifts in ocean temperature, pH, oxygen concentration, and productivity, which in turn could alter biological and social systems. Here, we provide a synoptic global assessment of the simultaneous changes in future ocean biogeochemical variables over marine biota and their broader implications for people. We analyzed modern Earth System Models forced by greenhouse gas concentration pathways until 2100 and showed that the entire world's ocean surface will be simultaneously impacted by varying intensities of ocean warming, acidification, oxygen depletion, or shortfalls in productivity. In contrast, only a small fraction of the world's ocean surface, mostly in polar regions, will experience increased oxygenation and productivity, while almost nowhere will there be ocean cooling or pH elevation. We compiled the global distribution of 32 marine habitats and biodiversity hotspots and found that they would all experience simultaneous exposure to changes in multiple biogeochemical variables. This superposition highlights the high risk for synergistic ecosystem responses, the suite of physiological adaptations needed to cope with future climate change, and the potential for reorganization of global biodiversity patterns. If co-occurring biogeochemical changes influence the delivery of ocean goods and services, then they could also have a considerable effect on human welfare. Approximately 470 to 870 million of the poorest people in the world rely heavily on the ocean for food, jobs, and revenues and live in countries that will be most affected by simultaneous changes in ocean biogeochemistry. These results highlight the high risk of degradation of marine ecosystems and associated human hardship expected in a future following current trends in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

Real research by real scientists.

"Earth System Models"


Real science FICTION by poor scientists. Tell us how analyzing FAILED GCM's can result in anything useful?

 

[westwall]

Impact of global warming and rising CO2levels on coral reef fishes: what hope for the future?

1. Philip L. Munday1,*,
2. Mark I. McCormick1 and
3. Göran E. Nilsson2

Average sea-surface temperature and the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean are rising as a result of increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Many coral reef fishes appear to be living close to their thermal optimum, and for some of them, even relatively moderate increases in temperature (2–4°C) lead to significant reductions in aerobic scope. Reduced aerobic capacity could affect population sustainability because less energy can be devoted to feeding and reproduction. Coral reef fishes seem to have limited capacity to acclimate to elevated temperature as adults, but recent research shows that developmental and transgenerational plasticity occur, which might enable some species to adjust to rising ocean temperatures. Predicted increases inPCO2, and associated ocean acidification, can also influence the aerobic scope of coral reef fishes, although there is considerable interspecific variation, with some species exhibiting a decline and others an increase in aerobic scope at near-future CO2 levels. As with thermal effects, there are transgenerational changes in response to elevated CO2 that could mitigate impacts of high CO2on the growth and survival of reef fishes. An unexpected discovery is that elevated CO2 has a dramatic effect on a wide range of behaviours and sensory responses of reef fishes, with consequences for the timing of settlement, habitat selection, predator avoidance and individual fitness. The underlying physiological mechanism appears to be the interference of acid–base regulatory processes with brain neurotransmitter function. Differences in the sensitivity of species and populations to global warming and rising CO2 have been identified that will lead to changes in fish community structure as the oceans warm and becomes more acidic; however, the prospect for acclimation and adaptation of populations to these threats also needs to be considered. Ultimately, it will be the capacity for species to adjust to environmental change over coming decades that will determine the impact of climate change on marine ecosystems.

Now I could go on for hundreds of articles of scientists warning us about what the effects of inceasing the atmospheric CO2 is doing to the oceans, but it would not change your minds at all. You are simply going on politics, and science be damned. Sad, especially when otherwise intelligent men can totally ignore reality in favor of what they wish to be true.

Yes, you can blather on all day long about how these scientists are doing "studies". The problem is they are 95% based on models that we know are shit. When acidification has been tested in the lab there was no problem. The shells grew thicker, even when exposed to orders of magnitude more acidic water than they could ever hope to encounter in the real world.

You're nothing more than a pathetic broken record.

 

[Crick]

Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click>

 

[Old Rocks]

Glacier National Park. 150 glaciers when established. 30 or less glaciers today. By 2030, maybe no glaciers at all. Now that is some model.

 

[SSDD]

Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click> Models are bad <click>

When they don't match observation, the only thing they are useful for is to let you know that the hypothesis upon which they are built is wrong. A model that doesn't match observation is useless for telling you anything at all about what is happening.

 

[Crick]

Your knowledge of the design and function of GCMs and how their match to observations is judged is pathetic at best. Your obvious prejudice against the mainstream science that says you're an incompetent fool makes it extraordinarily unlikely that we would ever get a valid or significant opinion from you on the topic. And with such prejudice in place, fools like Roy Spencer, James Taylor and Bob Tisdale have no problem selling you complete shite on the topic of the accuracy of climate models. They argue that such models are flawed because it's easy to do so. Their public - you - is ridiculously easily fooled by manipulated model runs, by slipped start points, by fudged baselines and all the rest. By lies that say what you want to hear.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Does it ever occur to you that you could ignore all the models, and still find absolutely overwheliming evidence of climate change simply from observations?

Is the reason that you won't do that simply because your political bias makes observation impossible, or do you have other reasons to ignore what everyoe else sees?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Does it ever occur to you that you could ignore all the models, and still find absolutely overwheliming evidence of climate change simply from observations?

Is the reason that you won't do that simply because your political bias makes observation impossible, or do you have other reasons to ignore what everyoe else sees?

Of course, I never denied climate change...climate is always changing...anthropogenic climate change is the topic....so again, where is the human fingerprint....what is happening in the climate today that is outside of the boundaries of natural variability....or are you saying that manmade climate change looks just like natural climate change and that I should fear it because you call it manmade?

 

[SSDD]

Your knowledge of the design and function of GCMs and how their match to observations is judged is pathetic at best. Your obvious prejudice against the mainstream science that says you're an incompetent fool makes it extraordinarily unlikely that we would ever get a valid or significant opinion from you on the topic. And with such prejudice in place, fools like Roy Spencer, James Taylor and Bob Tisdale have no problem selling you complete shite on the topic of the accuracy of climate models. They argue that such models are flawed because it's easy to do so. Their public - you - is ridiculously easily fooled by manipulated model runs, by slipped start points, by fudged baselines and all the rest. By lies that say what you want to hear.

The climate models have failed...universally. No amount of condescending blather on your part can change that fact.

 

[Saigon]

You do make me laugh, SSDD - if you were the slightest best interested in understanding climate change, you'd have read the evidence 10 years ago they way everyone else did.

Everything you have posted the past 2-3 years is theatre, pure and simple. You want to see evidence of climate change the same way a TV evangelist wants to meet Satan.

So again - you COULD ignore the models and focus entirely on observed science, but you won't and you can't.

 

[Decus]

Even CERN can admit that the models are NOT complete:

"Atmospheric aerosols and their effect on clouds are poorly understood and yet important for climate. Indeed, they are recognised by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013 (link is external)) as the largest source of uncertainty in present radiative forcing and in climate projections over the 21st century."

Welcome to CLOUD Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets

With fluctuations in cosmic radiation questions exist as to how this effects cloud formation. Clouds are recognized for their significant impact on climate.

 

[jc456]

SSDD -

Does it ever occur to you that you could ignore all the models, and still find absolutely overwheliming evidence of climate change simply from observations?

Is the reason that you won't do that simply because your political bias makes observation impossible, or do you have other reasons to ignore what everyoe else sees?

It snowed this morning in Chicago!!! yes I do watch and observe. And once we get to Oct. 31st and temperatures are above 90 degrees, then I'll believe your schtick. Until then, the fact that you observe any climate that is proof is all a dream on your part.

LoSiNg