Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

[CrusaderFrank]

For any natural parameter, when you hit a record, be it high or low, you can always expect to fail to meet that record for a bit.

You've never had statistics, have you.

What are the odds that you can post an experiment showing a temperature increase from adding 120PPM of CO2?

 

[jc456]

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.

So, you can't answer. Hmmmm. See our problem? When one can't answer simple questions others doubt the problem. See, you failed.

 

[mamooth]

Antarctic sea ice extent is now _below_ the historical average.

During the time Antarctic sea ice extent was _above_ the historical average, deniers were all crowing about how it disproved global warming. Now, they're all strangely silent.

The point is their inconsistency. In contrast, the rational people here understand how short term trends are not statistically meaningful.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Antarctic sea ice extent is now _below_ the historical average.

During the time Antarctic sea ice extent was _above_ the historical average, deniers were all crowing about how it disproved global warming. Now, they're all strangely silent.

The point is their inconsistency. In contrast, the rational people here understand how short term trends are not statistically meaningful.

You've eliminated all the other variables? Soot? etc?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.

The more apt analogy to continue the "tiny sea snails and canaries" theme would be ---------

The canary was NOT in the coal mine until the Global Warming grant was recieved. THEN they put the canary in the coal mine..

 

[jc456]

Antarctic sea ice extent is now _below_ the historical average.

During the time Antarctic sea ice extent was _above_ the historical average, deniers were all crowing about how it disproved global warming. Now, they're all strangely silent.

The point is their inconsistency. In contrast, the rational people here understand how short term trends are not statistically meaningful.

Curious your linky thingy.

 

[Politico]

I'm still unclear on CO2 causing forest fires, is there any real science on this?

If a climate change causes an area with forests to dry, it would increase the odds of fires. Seems simple enough.

No the treehugger Millennial environmentalists who won't let the forest service clear out underbrush cause forest fires.

Enough of that God damned lie. The Forest Service cannot clear out underbrush and thin because every year, just as we are doing this week, the Forest Service runs out of money allotted to fighting fires, and has to pull out money from other budgets, the first being forest management.

All These Fires Are Burning Through Firefighters Budgets WIRED

THE WHOLE WEST is freckled with fires. And in between each fire, the land is dry and hot as hell. As of yesterday, six million acres of US land has caught fire in 2015. But it’s not the burning land that has firefighters anxious. It’s that the money we’re throwing at these fires is burning up, and will soon come out of the budget for preventing future fires.

The vicious cycle was outlined Wednesday in a report from the US Forest Service. In the past 20 years, the agency’s firefighting budget has more than tripled, which means less money for everything else the service does. And even that budget swell isn’t enough fuel for the firefighting: Many years—including the past three—fire suppression has gone over its already-inflated budget, burning through money for other programs.

And the fire season has just begun.

and who is starting all these fires? Man?

Nature and Progressives. Keep up.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.

The more apt analogy to continue the "tiny sea snails and canaries" theme would be ---------

The canary was NOT in the coal mine until the Global Warming grant was recieved. THEN they put the canary in the coal mine..

Grant from whom and where? You see, the findings of the scientists all over the world in all the different nations, cultures, and political systems, are the same. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So whom is orchestrating this great international conspiracy? Illumati? The Masons? Oh, I know, them thar dirty pinko commies!

Your logic is pretty silly.

 

[jc456]

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.

The more apt analogy to continue the "tiny sea snails and canaries" theme would be ---------

The canary was NOT in the coal mine until the Global Warming grant was recieved. THEN they put the canary in the coal mine..

Grant from whom and where? You see, the findings of the scientists all over the world in all the different nations, cultures, and political systems, are the same. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So whom is orchestrating this great international conspiracy? Illumati? The Masons? Oh, I know, them thar dirty pinko commies!

Your logic is pretty silly.

And yet in seventeen months I've been on here you have presented one piece of evidence. So friend, if it's so real, why don't you have any evidence?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.

The more apt analogy to continue the "tiny sea snails and canaries" theme would be ---------

The canary was NOT in the coal mine until the Global Warming grant was recieved. THEN they put the canary in the coal mine..

Grant from whom and where? You see, the findings of the scientists all over the world in all the different nations, cultures, and political systems, are the same. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So whom is orchestrating this great international conspiracy? Illumati? The Masons? Oh, I know, them thar dirty pinko commies!

Your logic is pretty silly.

How is it a danger when life of Earth thrived in much much higher temperatures?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well now, why in the hell should any one pay attention to a tiny canary in a coal mine. Just a waste of time.

The more apt analogy to continue the "tiny sea snails and canaries" theme would be ---------

The canary was NOT in the coal mine until the Global Warming grant was recieved. THEN they put the canary in the coal mine..

Grant from whom and where? You see, the findings of the scientists all over the world in all the different nations, cultures, and political systems, are the same. AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. So whom is orchestrating this great international conspiracy? Illumati? The Masons? Oh, I know, them thar dirty pinko commies!

Your logic is pretty silly.

Alex -- I'll go with Dirty Pinko Commies for $300 please..

The UN is the Field Marshall for you movement. THEY are sponsoring the conferences and whinefests. Don't tell me you can't see any coordination here.. And like I said before.. There is NO money for researching small sea snails UNLESS you make some noise about how they might be affected by Global Warming.

You get the research you PAY for.. And the money is flowing to give control of energy to Central Planning and to validate Redistribution of Wealth amongst the nations.. If you're a climate researcher and you hate the oil companies and fossil fuels and want to provide cover for their demise -- why NOT spice up your work?

UN is biased starting with their Mission Statement. You know how it reads. I've quoted it a dozen times. IT IS NOT (by any stretch of the imagination) an OBJECTIVE body of work...

YOU are a HUGE opponent of the oil and fossil companies --- are you NOT? How objective does that make you?

And for once -- would you REPLY to these questions rather than posting those long lists of consensus that don't represent their membership opinions..

 

[Crick]

How about you posting some evidence supporting the numerous unsubstantiated assertions you just made?

 

[flacaltenn]

How about you posting some evidence supporting the numerous unsubstantiated assertions you just made?

What?? You want me to post the IPCC Mission Statement for you a TWELVE time?? Get another hobby...

 

[Crick]

I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.

 

[westwall]

I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.

No you wouldn't. It has been shown to you repeatedly. Go waste your own time we're tired of wasting ours with a dirtbag like you.

 

[flacaltenn]

I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.

So you KNOW the Mission Statement of the IPCC is to research ONLY MAN-MADE Global Warming, but you don't think they are actually serious about their stated goal..

They are an Emissions Conference... Not a Climate Science Conference..

 

[Crick]

I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.

No you wouldn't. It has been shown to you repeatedly. Go waste your own time we're tired of wasting ours with a dirtbag like you.

It's not a matter of would or wouldn't. The comment was obviously rhetorical. Sorry if you can't handle complex comments like that. All we have ever seen on this and a hundred other similar issues is your CLAIMS that this will have that effect and that will have this effect. FCT will put the mission statement up here and tell us that it obviously forces the IPCC to lean towards AGW as a conclusion. "They're not allowed to study all the whack-job theories we want them to waste their time on so they have no time to discover the harm that petroleum and coal will do to us." Problem is, I just don't take FCT's WORD or your WORD or SSDD's WORD or Crusader Frank's WORD or IanC's WORD or any of you denier idiots' WORD as evidence of jack shit. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

And, BTW, go fuck yourself, asshole..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A little internecine hostility?

The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that the oceans are "absorbing" 93% of "excess heat"

"Ocean warming dominates the global energy change inventory. Warming of the ocean accounts for about 93% of the increase in the Earth’s energy inventory between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with warming of the upper (0 to 700 m) ocean accounting for about 64% of the total.

It is likely that the ocean warmed between 700 and 2000 m from 1957 to 2009, based on 5-year averages. It is likely that the ocean warmed from 3000 m to the bottom from 1992 to 2005, while no significant trends in global average temperature were observed between 2000 and 3000 m depth during this period. Warming below 3000 m is largest in the Southern Ocean {3.2.4, 3.5.1, Figures 3.2b and 3.3, FAQ 3.1} ...

It is virtually certain that upper ocean (0 to 700 m) heat content increased during the relatively well-sampled 40-year period from 1971 to 2010."

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

Topic for discussion:

1. What is Excess Heat?
2. Where was this excess heat hiding before being absorbed by the oceans
3. Describe the mechanism by which the ocean absorbs excess heat. The IPCC (redistribute wealth by Climate change) alleges that this process occurs from the surface all the dow to the bottom of the Laurentian Abyss

Frank, why do you have to work so hard to demonstrate the intractability of your ignorance? Excess heat is a phrase. It has no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science. However, in conversations about a system that is being warmed, it's obviously a term that's going to come up now and then. In the context in which you've seen it most often, it is applied to the thermal energy accumulated by the greenhouse process in excess of the amount being radiated to space. I've told you this before and I have to say it makes me suspicious of your claims to be a seeker after knowledge when so often you pretend no one has told you anything.

The excess heat was not hiding anywhere. As usual, you've got the wrong picture.

The oceans are warmed by the absorption of SW and LW radiation and by conduction and convection from the air. Don't be misled by the observation that all that light gets absorbed quickly. Of course it does. But what does that mean? It means the ocean is good at absorbing energy. And no one on my side of the argument has EVER claimed that the deep ocean was being warmed by electromagnetic radiation. That whole argument was what you'd call a red herring. Aside from thermal vents and volcanoes and a tiny amount of heat coming through the ocean bottom from the Earth's core, the ocean is heated entirely betwee its surface and about the first 50 meters of depth. That covers all conduction and pretty much all electromagnetic radiation (SW and LW light). Heat below those depths gets there primarily by the motion of water. There are a number of vertically-oriented circulations in the oceans that very effectively move deep water up and shallow water down.

The Laurentian Abyss, Frank, is the fan of sediment at the mouth of the Ste Lawrence seaway. It is a long way from being the deepest spot in the ocean. It's not even the deepest spot in the Atlantic, the shallower of the two major bodies. Check terms you're not familiar with and don't use science from children's action movies. The deepest spot in the world is the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench off Guam.

So AR5 is based on something that has "no official scientific definition in the world of physics or thermodynamics or climate science."

 

[Billy_Bob]

I would like to see some evidence that the IPCC mission statement has in any way inclined the IPCC to produce false or incorrect data or conclusions.

No you wouldn't. It has been shown to you repeatedly. Go waste your own time we're tired of wasting ours with a dirtbag like you.

It's not a matter of would or wouldn't. The comment was obviously rhetorical. Sorry if you can't handle complex comments like that. All we have ever seen on this and a hundred other similar issues is your CLAIMS that this will have that effect and that will have this effect. FCT will put the mission statement up here and tell us that it obviously forces the IPCC to lean towards AGW as a conclusion. "They're not allowed to study all the whack-job theories we want them to waste their time on so they have no time to discover the harm that petroleum and coal will do to us." Problem is, I just don't take FCT's WORD or your WORD or SSDD's WORD or Crusader Frank's WORD or IanC's WORD or any of you denier idiots' WORD as evidence of jack shit. Just saying it doesn't make it so.

And, BTW, go fuck yourself, asshole..

BUT CRICK WILL TAKE THE WORD OF WHACK JOBS AND POLITICAL WHORES... Over critically thinking people, who are scientists, who work in the field... Who would of thunk it...

 

[Crick]

Of what "whack jobs and political whores" do you speak? And do you believe the hundreds of scientists involved in the production of AR5 are not critically thinking people working in the field?