Oceans will be drastically different by 2100

[westwall]

I'm waiting for a scientifically supported alternative theory that explains where the energy in excess of incoming, trapped here by higher atmospheric GHG concentrations, goes.

I think that the problem with the IPCC is that their sponsors, politicians, want them to act political. And they try by dumbing down the science.

In the absence of the alternative theory above, I believe that the truth is unquestionable.

I am pretty sure we have been over this before.

you focus on one small piece of the equilibrium and pretend that it is the only one that matters. when I pointed out (according to Trenberth's cartoon) that the bulk of surface energy is lifted by phase change latent heat and themals, then direct escape through the atmospheric window, and finally 23W/m2 bounces about and finally leaves by the method impacted by CO2. 23W out of 396W! or perhaps you would rather consider it 23W out of the 160 that eventually escapes to space. so if you choke off another 1W from that 23W, most of it (~6/7ths) escapes via the other routes, but some warming may still occur.

that is if everything stays the same. in reality every time you change one factor in the equilibrium it affects all the others. most of the Sun's energy come in through the tropics, over water. that energy is predominately used to evaporate water and cause clouds, which in turn cools the ocean. sea water doesnt get above 30C because of the 'air conditioner' effect of clouds and thunderstorms. it is like running the furnace and the air conditioner at the same time. lots of energy movement but little change in temperature. any small increase of available energy caused by CO2 simply turns the air conditioner on a little bit earlier.

another issue is the 'quality' of energy. every watt of highly ordered shortwave radiation from the Sun is actually capable of doing work. completely diffuse longwave backradiation from CO2 is not to any appreciable extent.

PMZ- I am repeating all this for you so that you might put a little more thought into your understanding of CO2 theory. there are many more layers to this onion as well but it certainly isnt the straight forward tally sheet that you think it is.

I am also a liberal employed by govt health care so your political excuses for my 'denial' dont work here.

Erm, but what about the loss of albedo in the Arctic? Melting Arctic ice and other glaciers? What about warming changes that cause oceanic oscillations to adjust? There is evidence that El Nino has gotten stronger in the past 50 years, and that such an increase has not been seen in hundreds, if not thousands of years. What about acidification of the oceans? What about the oddness of all these things happening in three or four human generations after not ever happening all at once afaik and at such a rapid rate in the last 10,000 years coinciding with a dramatic increase in global atmosphere CO2 levels (most of the increase human-derived) and an increase in global temperatures as well as the increase in the rate of rise? It's all coincidence, eh?

Well, based on the Antarctic ice increase, and the corresponding increase in Arctic ice there is actually an INCREASE in the albedo of the Earth. So your argument holds no water...

 

[Abraham3]

Well, based on the Antarctic ice increase, and the corresponding increase in Arctic ice there is actually an INCREASE in the albedo of the Earth. So your argument holds no water...

These data say you are incorrect.

For what reason did you ignore all Orogenicman's other points?

Erm, but what about the loss of albedo in the Arctic? Melting Arctic ice and other glaciers? What about warming changes that cause oceanic oscillations to adjust? There is evidence that El Nino has gotten stronger in the past 50 years, and that such an increase has not been seen in hundreds, if not thousands of years. What about acidification of the oceans? What about the oddness of all these things happening in three or four human generations after not ever happening all at once afaik and at such a rapid rate in the last 10,000 years coinciding with a dramatic increase in global atmosphere CO2 levels (most of the increase human-derived) and an increase in global temperatures as well as the increase in the rate of rise? It's all coincidence, eh?

 

[orogenicman]

Well, based on the Antarctic ice increase, and the corresponding increase in Arctic ice there is actually an INCREASE in the albedo of the Earth. So your argument holds no water...

These data say you are incorrect.

For what reason did you ignore all Orogenicman's other points?

Erm, but what about the loss of albedo in the Arctic? Melting Arctic ice and other glaciers? What about warming changes that cause oceanic oscillations to adjust? There is evidence that El Nino has gotten stronger in the past 50 years, and that such an increase has not been seen in hundreds, if not thousands of years. What about acidification of the oceans? What about the oddness of all these things happening in three or four human generations after not ever happening all at once afaik and at such a rapid rate in the last 10,000 years coinciding with a dramatic increase in global atmosphere CO2 levels (most of the increase human-derived) and an increase in global temperatures as well as the increase in the rate of rise? It's all coincidence, eh?

It isn't the first time they've ignored my posts. I have to assume its because they don't know how to respond to it, at least, until they can figure out what lie to tell next.

 

[PredFan]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Erm, no they didn't.

"Erm"?

Yes they did, educate yourself dumbass.

 

[PredFan]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Who is They? And in what scientific journal was this published?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html


Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

I don't know who it was, I just remember the global warming nutjobs trying to convince me it was true, with links and charts and graphs. It was bull shit then as it is now.

 

[PMZ]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Who is They? And in what scientific journal was this published?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html


Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

I don't know who it was, I just remember the global warming nutjobs trying to convince me it was true, with links and charts and graphs. It was bull shit then as it is now.

Use all of the IPCC climate science. Not just the convenient stuff. Be real.

 

[PMZ]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Erm, no they didn't.

"Erm"?

Yes they did, educate yourself dumbass.

Who's they?

 

[PMZ]

I am pretty sure we have been over this before.

you focus on one small piece of the equilibrium and pretend that it is the only one that matters. when I pointed out (according to Trenberth's cartoon) that the bulk of surface energy is lifted by phase change latent heat and themals, then direct escape through the atmospheric window, and finally 23W/m2 bounces about and finally leaves by the method impacted by CO2. 23W out of 396W! or perhaps you would rather consider it 23W out of the 160 that eventually escapes to space. so if you choke off another 1W from that 23W, most of it (~6/7ths) escapes via the other routes, but some warming may still occur.

that is if everything stays the same. in reality every time you change one factor in the equilibrium it affects all the others. most of the Sun's energy come in through the tropics, over water. that energy is predominately used to evaporate water and cause clouds, which in turn cools the ocean. sea water doesnt get above 30C because of the 'air conditioner' effect of clouds and thunderstorms. it is like running the furnace and the air conditioner at the same time. lots of energy movement but little change in temperature. any small increase of available energy caused by CO2 simply turns the air conditioner on a little bit earlier.

another issue is the 'quality' of energy. every watt of highly ordered shortwave radiation from the Sun is actually capable of doing work. completely diffuse longwave backradiation from CO2 is not to any appreciable extent.

PMZ- I am repeating all this for you so that you might put a little more thought into your understanding of CO2 theory. there are many more layers to this onion as well but it certainly isnt the straight forward tally sheet that you think it is.

I am also a liberal employed by govt health care so your political excuses for my 'denial' dont work here.

Erm, but what about the loss of albedo in the Arctic? Melting Arctic ice and other glaciers? What about warming changes that cause oceanic oscillations to adjust? There is evidence that El Nino has gotten stronger in the past 50 years, and that such an increase has not been seen in hundreds, if not thousands of years. What about acidification of the oceans? What about the oddness of all these things happening in three or four human generations after not ever happening all at once afaik and at such a rapid rate in the last 10,000 years coinciding with a dramatic increase in global atmosphere CO2 levels (most of the increase human-derived) and an increase in global temperatures as well as the increase in the rate of rise? It's all coincidence, eh?

Well, based on the Antarctic ice increase, and the corresponding increase in Arctic ice there is actually an INCREASE in the albedo of the Earth. So your argument holds no water...

Evidence?

 

[PMZ]

I'm ignoring you because I already did.. Many posts ago.. But as usual -- nobody ever stays with the topic... Can give you many others -- but I work too hard already..

Where does the excess energy go? Physics says it goes to restoring the conservation of global energy by increasing TOA temperatures and therefore out going radiation.

What's your theory?

1.) There is no excess energy in addition to what the sun supplies
2.) "heat" trapped by CO2 does not necessarily raise the temperature by a fixed increment
That can only happen if all the other avenues which use "heat" (energy) are blocked....such as gas expansion, barometric pressure change, evaporation etc
That`s not a theory but a fact which is exploited with steam- internal combustion engines, jet turbines and even refrigerators, air conditioners, cooling towers etc etc.
Nobody disputes that CO2 absorbs heat energy!
We "deniers" dispute what exactly happens after it did so.
The absorption of IR is instantaneous and there is no lengthy time delay.
There is however a quite lengthy time delay before CO2 generated in China can dissipate over the rest of the globe...even as it does the ppm CO2 will at any given time be higher than that over the U.S.
The latest data has it consistently ~ 5% higher...that`s about 20 ppm more CO2 than what`s at any other time anywhere else.
Alright then, now explain why China never shows a higher temperature anomaly on any of these satellite thermal images.
Here are a few typical images, but go knock yourself out and look at all the other ones that have been published:

If you attribute that discrepancy to Chinese smog shielding China from solar radiation then you can`t ignore the fact that the IPCC never did factor in the global effect of overcast with their radiative forcing either.

There are a lot of large cities in the U.S. under smog-domes and none of them are cooler than the surrounding country side!

Most of us skeptics are getting tired of that smog theory the IPCC is blowing at us, trying to use it to "explain" the temperature stall...which is really a misnomer and amounts to no more than the usual rhetoric in order to avoid the admission that their models, which generated these future doomsday projections that were based on radiative forcing were dead wrong...period !

I'm going to stick with what physics says about a body in space. Out = in. If not, the body warms or cools until it does.

So simple and elegant.

 

[flacaltenn]

So How long before one of you make that same assertion again.. that "they" never said snow would dissappear by now?

I give it a week tops.

 

[polarbear]

I'm going to stick with what physics says about a body in space. Out = in. If not, the body warms or cools until it does.

So simple and elegant.

Go ahead and "stick" with it. So now you think that a 100 meter layer of CO2 over earth terrain and under 400 kilometers of air behaves the same as a body in "space".
2 days ago while posting these dumb ocean heat content graphs you also thought that 500 liters of 1 deg C cold water is "hotter" than 1 liter of water at 10 degrees.

"Out=in". Here we go yet again. You`ll never comprehend the difference between heat energy and temperature.
That "out=in" does not apply to temperature it applies only to energy.
If it would there would be no way to convert heat to mechanical energy.
Temperature is not an energy dimension such as watts joules btu`s or calories.
In case you haven`t noticed. All these arguments about AGW revolve around the CO2 close enough to the surface and a short enough path length which permits "back-radiation" and by how much that should raise the TEMPERATURE when this IR portion is absorbed again by the terrain.

Allright then tell me how much warmer a 25 m^2 section of 2000 meter deep ocean can get with 1.6 watts per m^2 while a 20 mph wind blows across.
Or how much warmer than the rest of the world China should be due to their 20 ppm higher CO2 concentrations.

 

[flacaltenn]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Who is They? And in what scientific journal was this published?

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html


Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

I don't know who it was, I just remember the global warming nutjobs trying to convince me it was true, with links and charts and graphs. It was bull shit then as it is now.

See my post last page.. ONE of the guys who was lying at you was David Viner, from CRU @East anglia in 2000.. Quote in my post above. But there WERE several other NOTABLE academics who made the press with BS like that.

The SAME Dr. David Viner that got caught in ClimateGate with the Famous EMAIL #59..

In case you missed it: In 1999, UEA's David Viner forwards an email to cru.all; the email contains sentences like:

"What do you think would be the most effective way to radicalise the UN agenda and protect the climate from our current economic and political systems?"

 

[PMZ]

I'm going to stick with what physics says about a body in space. Out = in. If not, the body warms or cools until it does.

So simple and elegant.

Go ahead and "stick" with it. So now you think that a 100 meter layer of CO2 over earth terrain and under 400 kilometers of air behaves the same as a body in "space".
2 days ago while posting these dumb ocean heat content graphs you also thought that 500 liters of 1 deg C cold water is "hotter" than 1 liter of water at 10 degrees.

"Out=in". Here we go yet again. You`ll never comprehend the difference between heat energy and temperature.
That "out=in" does not apply to temperature it applies only to energy.
If it would there would be no way to convert heat to mechanical energy.
Temperature is not an energy dimension such as watts joules btu`s or calories.
In case you haven`t noticed. All these arguments about AGW revolve around the CO2 close enough to the surface and a short enough path length which permits "back-radiation" and by how much that should raise the TEMPERATURE when this IR portion is absorbed again by the terrain.

Allright then tell me how much warmer a 25 m^2 section of 2000 meter deep ocean can get with 1.6 watts per m^2

If energy out < energy in, for a body insulated by empty space, physics is 100% certain about the consequences. The energy being accumulated by the imbalance will raise surface temperatures until that increases the energy out enough to rebalanced with incoming energy.

Energy has to be conserved. Bodies in a vacuum can only transfer energy by radiation. The amount of energy radiated is a function only of absolute temperature for a given body.

Definitely not rocket science.

 

[orogenicman]

Blah blah blah...they also told us there would be snow-less winters by the year 2010. They keep moving the goalposts and fear mongering the gullible.

Erm, no they didn't.

"Erm"?

Yes they did, educate yourself dumbass.

Erm, no they didn't. Stop making shite up. You look bad enough as it is.

 

[flacaltenn]

Erm, no they didn't.

"Erm"?

Yes they did, educate yourself dumbass.

Erm, no they didn't. Stop making shite up. You look bad enough as it is.

I was wrong. It wasnt a week before the believers IGNORED that david viner quote about no more snow and made asses of themselves.

Only the most pious warmers could do that faced with evidence to the contrary. You did it in less than an hour.

 

[orogenicman]

Does record snowfall disprove global warming?