Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

[Political Junky]

More facts for the Right to ignore.

Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

 

[westwall]

More facts for the Right to ignore.

Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

Yet another in a long line of "studies" that make large claims but can present nothing empirical to support them. Models aren't data no matter how much you wish they were.


"Analysis"...which is what they are claiming to have done are not facts. Take into account the widespread PROVEN historical data falsification and the claims are false.

 

[gipper]

More facts for the Right to ignore.

Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

Yet another in a long line of "studies" that make large claims but can present nothing empirical to support them. Models aren't data no matter how much you wish they were.


"Analysis"...which is what they are claiming to have done are not facts. Take into account the widespread PROVEN historical data falsification and the claims are false.

Facts matter not to the Warmer. They just believe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The deniers can deny all they want if it makes their feelings better.

I see no peer-reviewed, objective evidence from the deniers. Fox News gave a report that the three greatest dangers in the future are from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies.

edit: Watch the confirmation bias comments below.

 

[SSDD]

The deniers can deny all they want.

The evidence contradicts their yelling.

Here is some evidence for you buckwheat.....less than 8% of NOAA temperature stations are accurate to less than 1 degree C and yet, they claim to be extracting global temperature with a precision of 0.01 degrees C....pure bullshit...and all these records are claimed to be records by mere fractions of a degree....a margin to which a very an exceedingly small percentage of even those temperature stations which are accurate to less 1 degree C can boast...in short, the output of climate science and all their claims have become nothing more than a river of bullshit that no thinking person could possibly take seriously....so if you believe, you are either a person with no critical thinking skills to speak of or you are a political operative who doesn't mind lying your ass off in support of a failed hypothesis if you think that there is political gain to be had...

So which are you?...take your time....

 

[gipper]

The deniers can deny all they want.

The evidence contradicts their yelling.

Here is some evidence for you buckwheat.....less than 8% of NOAA temperature stations are accurate to less than 1 degree C and yet, they claim to be extracting global temperature with a precision of 0.01 degrees C....pure bullshit...and all these records are claimed to be records by mere fractions of a degree....a margin to which a very an exceedingly small percentage of even those temperature stations which are accurate to less 1 degree C can boast...in short, the output of climate science and all their claims have become nothing more than a river of bullshit that no thinking person could possibly take seriously....so if you believe, you are either a person with no critical thinking skills to speak of or you are a political operative who doesn't mind lying your ass off in support of a failed hypothesis if you think that there is political gain to be had...

So which are you?...take your time....

You can't educate them. They believe.

There is a certain segment of the world's population who believe whatever government tells them.

 

[Stephanie]

lol, the guardian. youbetcha

 

[jc456]

More facts for the Right to ignore.

Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

 

[westwall]

The deniers can deny all they want if it makes their feelings better.

I see no peer-reviewed, objective evidence from the deniers. Fox News gave a report that the three greatest dangers in the future are from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies.

edit: Watch the confirmation bias comments below.

These are what is known as facts Jake. Pay heed to them.

1. The oceans are the heat repositories of the world. When the oceans are warm the world is warm.
2. UV radiation from the Sun (you know, that big yellow ball in the sky) penetrates up to 500 meters deep into the oceans and warms them.
3. Long wave IR (the supposed agent of global warming) is not capable of penetrating even one millimeter into the oceans.
4. With no penetration into the depths of the oceans there is no warming.

Those are facts.

Deal with them....

 

[Billy_Bob]

More facts for the Right to ignore.

Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

New calculations shows there is just a 0.01% chance that recent run of global heat records could have happened due to natural climate variations

How many times must we tell you fucking idiots that model outputs ARE NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND!!

And their Model has failed empirical statistical review. It has no forward or reward predictive powers.. The model is GARBAGE and does not reflect the physical system.. Statistical sampling is so small the only thing it could generate is "Man Made" claims..

Michal Mann and Penn State just released another one with the same issues trying again to justify his dam failed hockey stick. Place your bets! Another hotted-up Mann-tastic modeling claim The conjecture and falsification in that one is stunning too.. (ETA:This is dam funny..Its the same piece of shit paper but a diffenrt source)

What, You guys think if you lie your asses off and look like it might be scientificiy you will get some fools to believe you? One of the statisticians I work with said this; (and she teaches advanced courses) "I would suggest to that student, handing in work of this calibre, That he should really consider a less demanding discipline." The sampling is so small that it does not reflect any form of reality.. This is the kind of 3rd rate crap I expect from alarmists, Mann, and Penn state in general.

The Stupid.... IT BURNS!!!

 

[Stephanie]

get a clue you rightwingers. damnit

 

[Stephanie]

 

[whitehall]

Another "study" and still more "new calculations" by unidentified psudo scientific entities who make a living promoting the theory of man made global warming. What ever happened to the "ozone layer"?

 

[Stephanie]

Another "study" and still more "new calculations" by unidentified psudo scientific entities who make a living promoting the theory of man made global warming. What ever happened to the "ozone layer"?

it's never going to end now. the elitist, like Obama and the Democrat party, the UN is a big contributor to it. they have found another way to fool the people in order to bend them to their will and also take their money

 

[Billy_Bob]

http://cartoonsbyjosh.com/climate-models.jpg

 

[Wyatt earp]

I wonder if these computer models can predict the weather for memorial day this year (I am having a big party want to know if I should rent a hall or have it outside?) or the numbers of Friday nights mega million ?

Call me when they can and maybe I will also bow down with the AGW cult.

 

[Wuwei]

These are what is known as facts Jake. Pay heed to them.

1. The oceans are the heat repositories of the world. When the oceans are warm the world is warm.
2. UV radiation from the Sun (you know, that big yellow ball in the sky) penetrates up to 500 meters deep into the oceans and warms them.
3. Long wave IR (the supposed agent of global warming) is not capable of penetrating even one millimeter into the oceans.
4. With no penetration into the depths of the oceans there is no warming.

Those are facts.

Deal with them....

You don't have all the physics correct. These are the facts:

Night and day the surface of the ocean is loosing around 400 Watts per square meter of thermal IR radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law). That radiation is leaving within the top half mm of the surface.

The greenhouse gasses, (including water vapor for the most part), are continually backscattering a large percentage of that loss as IR right back to that thin top surface.

The net result is that the thin surface is not loosing as much heat by radiating IR as it would otherwise. To talk about incoming IR heating the thin ocean surface is missing the point since the ocean is radiating more there than it is receiving.

 

[flacaltenn]

These are what is known as facts Jake. Pay heed to them.

1. The oceans are the heat repositories of the world. When the oceans are warm the world is warm.
2. UV radiation from the Sun (you know, that big yellow ball in the sky) penetrates up to 500 meters deep into the oceans and warms them.
3. Long wave IR (the supposed agent of global warming) is not capable of penetrating even one millimeter into the oceans.
4. With no penetration into the depths of the oceans there is no warming.

Those are facts.

Deal with them....

You don't have all the physics correct. These are the facts:

Night and day the surface of the ocean is loosing around 400 Watts per square meter of thermal IR radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law). That radiation is leaving within the top half mm of the surface.

The greenhouse gasses, (including water vapor for the most part), are continually backscattering a large percentage of that loss as IR right back to that thin top surface.

The net result is that the thin surface is not loosing as much heat by radiating IR as it would otherwise. To talk about incoming IR heating the thin ocean surface is missing the point since the ocean is radiating more there than it is receiving.

Everything on the planet is "radiating more than it recieves".. It's ALL a net loss to the sky. The point is, although we've shown some deeper ocean warming (accurate only in the past 40 years or so) --- MOST of that ocean skin heat goes into convection not radiation.. That's why most weather STARTS over the oceans.

And when "climate scientists" make the assertion that "the oceans ate the warming" for the past decade or so -- they do so with no agreed mechanism for that to actually happen IF it was due to increased IR back radiation.
Not to mention that oceans show they have been "eating" warming at relatively the SAME RATE for the past 50 years and don't SHOW any accelerated "appetite"..

As far this OP --- if it was ALL MANMADE and it followed the silly expectation that Temperature is a simple linear consequence of CO2 -- There wouldn't be so many changes in the RATES of warming that the models mostly miss..

 

[westwall]

These are what is known as facts Jake. Pay heed to them.

1. The oceans are the heat repositories of the world. When the oceans are warm the world is warm.
2. UV radiation from the Sun (you know, that big yellow ball in the sky) penetrates up to 500 meters deep into the oceans and warms them.
3. Long wave IR (the supposed agent of global warming) is not capable of penetrating even one millimeter into the oceans.
4. With no penetration into the depths of the oceans there is no warming.

Those are facts.

Deal with them....

You don't have all the physics correct. These are the facts:

Night and day the surface of the ocean is loosing around 400 Watts per square meter of thermal IR radiation (Stefan-Boltzmann law). That radiation is leaving within the top half mm of the surface.

The greenhouse gasses, (including water vapor for the most part), are continually backscattering a large percentage of that loss as IR right back to that thin top surface.

The net result is that the thin surface is not loosing as much heat by radiating IR as it would otherwise. To talk about incoming IR heating the thin ocean surface is missing the point since the ocean is radiating more there than it is receiving.

No, it's you who don't understand. To warm the oceans the energy MUST penetrate deeply into the oceans. Mere surface warming does nothing, and not even being able to penetrate the skin of the water means there is NO energy transfer to the oceans. Heat rises, remember that from 5th grade science? If the heat rises away from the less than one millimeter of the water how then does it warm it?

It's time you took that 5th grade science class again....

 

[Crick]

Why greenhouse gases heat the ocean

Filed under:

• Climate Science
  
• Greenhouse gases
  
• Oceans

— group @ 5 September 2006
Guest commentary by Peter Minnett (RSMAS)
Observations of ocean temperatures have revealed that the ocean heat content has been increasing significantly over recent decades (Willis et al, 2004; Levitus et al, 2005; Lyman et al, 2006). This is something that has been predicted by climate models (and confirmed notably byHansen et al, 2005), and has therefore been described as a ‘smoking gun’ for human-caused greenhouse gases.
However, some have insisted that there is a paradox here – how can a forcing driven by longwave absorption and emission impact the ocean below since the infrared radiation does not penetrate more than a few micrometers into the ocean? Resolution of this conundrum is to be found in the recognition that the skin layer temperature gradient not only exists as a result of the ocean-atmosphere temperature difference, but also helps to control the ocean-atmosphere heat flux. (The ‘skin layer‘ is the very thin – up to 1 mm – layer at the top of ocean that is in direct contact with the atmosphere). Reducing the size of the temperature gradient through the skin layer reduces the flux. Thus, if the absorption of the infrared emission from atmospheric greenhouse gases reduces the gradient through the skin layer, the flow of heat from the ocean beneath will be reduced, leaving more of the heat introduced into the bulk of the upper oceanic layer by the absorption of sunlight to remain there to increase water temperature. Experimental evidence for this mechanism can be seen in at-sea measurements of the ocean skin and bulk temperatures.

​

During a recent cruise of the New Zealand research vessel Tangaroa, skin sea-surface temperatures were measured to high accuracy by the Marine-Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (M-AERI), and contemporaneous measurements of the bulk temperature were measured at a depth of ~5cm close to the M-AERI foot print by a precision thermistor mounted in a surface-following float. The M-AERI is a Fourier Transform Infrared spectroradiometer that has very accurate, NIST-traceable, calibration. The skin temperature can be measured with absolute uncertainties of much less than 0.1ºK The thermometer in the surface following float is accurate to better than 0.01ºK. Both are calibrated using the same equipment at the University of Miami.
Clearly it is not possible to alter the concentration of greenhouse gases in a controlled experiment at sea to study the response of the skin-layer. Instead we use the natural variations in clouds to modulate the incident infrared radiation at the sea surface. When clouds are present, they emit more infrared energy towards the surface than does the clear sky. The incident infrared radiation was measures by a pyrgeometer mounted on the ship, and the emission from the sea surface was calculated from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation using the skin temperature measurements of the M-AERI. The difference between the two is the net infrared forcing of the skin layer. If we can establish a relationship between the temperature difference across the skin layer and the net infrared forcing, then we will have demonstrated the mechanisms for greenhouse gas heating the upper ocean. That is seen in the flow chart on the right.
The figure below shows just the signal we are seeking. There is a clear dependence of the skin temperature difference on the net infrared forcing. The net forcing is negative as the effective temperature of the clear and cloudy sky is less than the ocean skin temperature, and it approaches values closer to zero when the sky is cloudy. This corresponds to increased greenhouse gas emission reaching the sea surface.

Figure 2: The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave radiation.
There is an associated reduction in the difference between the 5 cm and the skin temperatures. The slope of the relationship is 0.002ºK (W/m2)-1. Of course the range of net infrared forcing caused by changing cloud conditions (~100W/m2) is much greater than that caused by increasing levels of greenhouse gases (e.g. doubling pre-industrial CO2 levels will increase the net forcing by ~4W/m2), but the objective of this exercise was to demonstrate a relationship.
To conclude, it is perfectly physically consistent to expect that increasing greenhouse gas driven warming will heat the oceans – as indeed is being observed.