NASA's top global warming nut admits warming has stopped for 10 years...

[Old Rocks]

Warming Ocean Threatens Sea Life: Scientific American

It stands to reason that as the atmosphere warms from the buildup of greenhouse gases, so does the ocean. Scientists have long suspected this was true, but they did not have enough solid evidence. Now they do. Data compiled by Marinexplore in Sunnyvale, Calif., not only confirm previous studies that the world's oceans are simmering, but they also bring surprising news: the heating extends beyond the first few meters of surface waters, down to 700 meters. Because most organisms live in the top 400 meters, the data suggest that warming could affect most marine life, altering food chains and migrations. It could change the distribution of life—from tiny phytoplankton to big whales—across the seven seas. “The more the atmosphere warms up, the more heat it transfers to the ocean,” says Roberto De Almeida, an ocean data engineer at Marinexplore. “That heat propagates downward.” Indeed, the extra energy could affect massive ocean currents and the weather patterns they influence.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is Global Warming Happening Faster Than Expected?: Scientific American

Now it appears that the assessment was too optimistic. The latest data from across the globe show that the planet is changing faster than expected. More sea ice around the Arctic Ocean is disappearing than had been forecast. Regions of permafrost across Alaska and Siberia are spewing out more methane, the potent greenhouse gas, than models had predicted. Ice shelves in West Antarctica are breaking up more quickly than once thought possible, and the glaciers they held back on adjacent land are sliding faster into the sea. Extreme weather events, such as floods and the heat wave that gripped much of the U.S. in the summer of 2012 are on the rise, too. The conclusion? “As scientists, we cannot say that if we stay below two degrees of warming everything will be fine,” says Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of physics of the oceans at the University of Potsdam in Germany.

 

[Old Rocks]

Is Global Warming Happening Faster Than Expected?: Scientific American

Also surprising is how little extra energy, or “forcing,” was required to trigger past swings. For instance, 55 million years ago the Arctic was a subtropical paradise, with a balmy average temperature of 23 degrees C (73 degrees F) and crocodiles lurking off Greenland. The tropics may have been too hot for most life. This warm period, dubbed the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), apparently was sparked by a preceding bump of about two degrees C in the planet's temperature, which was already warmer than today. That warming may have caused a rapid release of methane and carbon dioxide, which led to more warming and more emissions of greenhouse gases, amplifying further warming. The eventual result: millions of years of a hothouse earth [see “The Last Great Global Warming,” by Lee R. Kump; Scientific American, July 2011].

 

[westwall]

News


'Nothing off-limits' in climate debate

by:Graham Lloyd
From:The Australian
February 22, 201312:00AM















THE UN's climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain's Met Office, but said it would need to last "30 to 40 years at least" to break the long-term global warming trend.

Dr Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that open discussion about controversial science and politically incorrect views was an essential part of tackling climate change.






Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[ScienceRocks]

Most of the warming before 1940 was solar induced. Even the IPCC says this...So it takes 40 years to break 70 years of warming?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Old rocks,

why are these people saying what westwall is posting?

 

[Saigon]

Most of the warming before 1940 was solar induced. Even the IPCC says this...So it takes 40 years to break 70 years of warming?

Matthew -

If you are going to make sweeping statements which contradict every scientific document ever published, it is probably worth at least going through the motions of making a case.

 

[Saigon]

Old rocks,

why are these people saying what westwall is posting?

Because open debate is good. We should encourage it.

Everyone seems to understand that temperatures have risen in uneven steps for the past several hundred years, and each step is hotter than the one before it. As Westwall's source says, it would only be if one of those 'steps' began to last for 30 or 40 years that the current accepted science might seem to be inadequate.

 

[Old Rocks]

Old rocks,

why are these people saying what westwall is posting?

A pause in rising temperatures. Not a downturn. Well, the rising nations, China and India have been putting out vast amounts of aerosols, contributing to a solar dimming effect. There has been a slight decline in the Total Solar Irradiation. And we have had some strong La Ninas, without any strong El Ninos in that period except for 1998. Yet we have matched 1998 twice in the last ten years. And fifteen of the twenty hottest years on record occured in the last 17 years.

Better question yet, why are we not seeing a downturn in temperatures such as we saw in the seventies?

 

[polarbear]

Old rocks,

why are these people saying what westwall is posting?

A pause in rising temperatures. Not a downturn. Well, the rising nations, China and India have been putting out vast amounts of aerosols, contributing to a solar dimming effect. There has been a slight decline in the Total Solar Irradiation. And we have had some strong La Ninas, without any strong El Ninos in that period except for 1998. Yet we have matched 1998 twice in the last ten years. And fifteen of the twenty hottest years on record occured in the last 17 years.

Better question yet, why are we not seeing a downturn in temperatures such as we saw in the seventies?

Nice try my friend, nice try.
But neither the Ninas nor the Ninos can account for it else the IPCC would have said so already.
The "Chinese aerosols" can`t reflect enough sunlight on a global scale either to explain the heating-halt of the last 12 years
Matter of fact as the IPCC Ozone gurus claimed these destroy the Ozone layer. Less Ozone means more high energy UV hits "black-body" earth which then radiates more IR that CO2 is supposed to radiate back to earth heating it even more than without the Chinese aerosols.
Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight". The droplets evaporate leaving you with a transparent vapor from the propellant and the chemical which was dissolved in it.
Unlike the rest of the crowd which is as usual switching the temperature stall topic to football coaches and politics you did not evade the facts the IPCC is already trying to address and gave it your best shot.

 

[polarbear]

Old rocks,

why are these people saying what westwall is posting?

A pause in rising temperatures. Not a downturn. Well, the rising nations, China and India have been putting out vast amounts of aerosols, contributing to a solar dimming effect. There has been a slight decline in the Total Solar Irradiation. And we have had some strong La Ninas, without any strong El Ninos in that period except for 1998. Yet we have matched 1998 twice in the last ten years. And fifteen of the twenty hottest years on record occured in the last 17 years.

Better question yet, why are we not seeing a downturn in temperatures such as we saw in the seventies?

I have a better idea how you could proceed. But that requires a lot of expertise in spectral physics which overlaps physical chemistry.
Global warming at 380 ppm CO2 is as good as it gets. Higher concentrations add no additional effect. The molar extinction coefficient for CO2 is such that at a 10 meter path length you get a 20 % absorption and after that it slopes off, because I1/I0 is logarithmic.
It takes a 100 meter path length to get an 80% extinction and a 1 kilometer long path to get a 100% extinction (absorption).
There is no way that CO2 100 meters, 1 kilometer or more above the surface can radiate enough IR back to earth through the same layer that absorbed it...to heat the surface to a higher temperature.
Climatologist should have realized that a long time ago when "greenhouse effects" were studied with greenhouses.
Normal window glass absorbs even more IR than CO2.
That`s why you can`t use glass lenses on a IR spectrophotometer...we use lenses made out of polished rock-salt for the sample tubes.
There was no difference between greenhouses that used rock-salt instead of a glass ceiling. Both got warmer at exactly the same rate because convection was blocked by the ceiling.

 

[Gadawg73]

Most of the warming before 1940 was solar induced. Even the IPCC says this...So it takes 40 years to break 70 years of warming?

Really, good show.
Ya think that the reduction of the ozone layer may have caused that?
And what causes that good man?

 

[Gadawg73]

Old rocks,

why are these people saying what westwall is posting?

A pause in rising temperatures. Not a downturn. Well, the rising nations, China and India have been putting out vast amounts of aerosols, contributing to a solar dimming effect. There has been a slight decline in the Total Solar Irradiation. And we have had some strong La Ninas, without any strong El Ninos in that period except for 1998. Yet we have matched 1998 twice in the last ten years. And fifteen of the twenty hottest years on record occured in the last 17 years.

Better question yet, why are we not seeing a downturn in temperatures such as we saw in the seventies?

Nice try my friend, nice try.
But neither the Ninas nor the Ninos can account for it else the IPCC would have said so already.
The "Chinese aerosols" can`t reflect enough sunlight on a global scale either to explain the heating-halt of the last 12 years
Matter of fact as the IPCC Ozone gurus claimed these destroy the Ozone layer. Less Ozone means more high energy UV hits "black-body" earth which then radiates more IR that CO2 is supposed to radiate back to earth heating it even more than without the Chinese aerosols.
Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight". The droplets evaporate leaving you with a transparent vapor from the propellant and the chemical which was dissolved in it.
Unlike the rest of the crowd which is as usual switching the temperature stall topic to football coaches and politics you did not evade the facts the IPCC is already trying to address and gave it your best shot.

So you agree with IPCC and use them as your source for the truth?

 

[Gadawg73]

Old rocks,

why are these people saying what westwall is posting?

A pause in rising temperatures. Not a downturn. Well, the rising nations, China and India have been putting out vast amounts of aerosols, contributing to a solar dimming effect. There has been a slight decline in the Total Solar Irradiation. And we have had some strong La Ninas, without any strong El Ninos in that period except for 1998. Yet we have matched 1998 twice in the last ten years. And fifteen of the twenty hottest years on record occured in the last 17 years.

Better question yet, why are we not seeing a downturn in temperatures such as we saw in the seventies?

Nice try my friend, nice try.
But neither the Ninas nor the Ninos can account for it else the IPCC would have said so already.
The "Chinese aerosols" can`t reflect enough sunlight on a global scale either to explain the heating-halt of the last 12 years
Matter of fact as the IPCC Ozone gurus claimed these destroy the Ozone layer. Less Ozone means more high energy UV hits "black-body" earth which then radiates more IR that CO2 is supposed to radiate back to earth heating it even more than without the Chinese aerosols.
Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight". The droplets evaporate leaving you with a transparent vapor from the propellant and the chemical which was dissolved in it.
Unlike the rest of the crowd which is as usual switching the temperature stall topic to football coaches and politics you did not evade the facts the IPCC is already trying to address and gave it your best shot.

Your team has been claiming politics is the entire motivation for the results of all the scientific testing that man is causing the warming from day one.

 

[SSDD]

[
Argo buoys sample all the way down to 2000 meters and the heat that the CO2 increase was supposed to have caused could not be found with all these buoys:

It`s not in the atmosphere either.

The missing heat is the ficticious greenhouse effect. Model the earth as a rotating sphere receiving radiation on one side and dark on the other, factor in the gradual heating up and cooling down of the illuminated side and the darkness on the unilluminated side and you don't need a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature of the earth.

Model the planet as a flat disk with no rotation and weak illumination 24 hours a day and you need a greenhouse effect to explain the temperature.

 

[mamooth]

Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight".

Polarbear fails to grasp that atmospheric aerosols are _particles_, not droplets that evaporate. After all, being a common-sense conservative, he knows that aerosols are what comes out of a spray can, and no pointy-headed scientist is going to convince him that there can be other meanings.

That, of course, leads to his usual thing where he takes some basic misunderstanding of the science and runs with it to a conspiracy-theory conclusion.

 

[SSDD]

Aerosol droplets don`t float around as droplets in the Atmosphere "reflecting sunlight".

Polarbear fails to grasp that atmospheric aerosols are _particles_, not droplets that evaporate. After all, being a common-sense conservative, he knows that aerosols are what comes out of a spray can, and no pointy-headed scientist is going to convince him that there can be other meanings.

That, of course, leads to his usual thing where he takes some basic misunderstanding of the science and runs with it to a conspiracy-theory conclusion.

On your best day...the very best day you have in your entire life polar bear will toss out more scientific knowledge in his fingernail clippings than you have in your entire being. The fact that you can read his comments and still suggest that he doesn't know what aerosols are is a clear indication that you can't even begin to understand what he writes.

You are, without a doubt, at the bottom of the heap on this board insofar as grasp of the science goes. Even rocks and yes, even siagon appear as intellectual giants in comparison to you even though they are also victims of the hoax.

 

[SSDD]

Your team has been claiming politics is the entire motivation for the results of all the scientific testing that man is causing the warming from day one.

What scientific testing? Show me any results from actual scientific testing that prove the AGW hypothesis or even prove the existence of a greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science.

Good luck with that.

 

[mamooth]

The first question is how did this heat sneak past the argos system?

Where did you get such a crazy idea about the Argo Float System?

Oh, that's right, you're getting it from denialist propaganda, which _still_ reports that Argo is reporting cooling, even though that software error was fixed by 2007. The researcher who originally reported the cooling, Josh Willis, said he was totally wrong about making that claim. The denialist leaders have known for over 5 years that they're pushing a big lie about Argo, but they still push it. Here's the report on it in _Nature_ from 2007:

http://w3.jcommops.org/FTPRoot/Argo/Doc/Nature-2007.pdf

No matter. The cult orders them to parrot the big lie, therefore SSDD and PolarBear and the rest will continue to repeat the big lie about Argo, no matter how many times they see it refuted.

 

[mamooth]

On your best day...the very best day you have in your entire life polar bear will toss out more scientific knowledge in his fingernail clippings than you have in your entire being.

Then why did PolarBear get it so laughably wrong?

One-third of PolarBear's stuff is gibbering hate at liberals, one-third is laughably bad physics, and the remaining third will be correct, but will have nothing to do with the topic of AGW. And cultists like you can't see through the snow job.

There is a way to show you're not a brainless cultist. Reveal the sources that lied to you about Argo, and publicly renounce them here. Fail to do so, and that's solid evidence that you will defend known liars, provided those liars are on your side.