Record hot years near impossible without manmade climate change – study

[JakeStarkey]

Now the deniers will come back with their feelings and opinions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Jake, in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, which is 4f Warmer than then current "record"

Can you explain in your own words why 58> 62

 

[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.

Jake, in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, which is 4f Warmer than then current "record"

Can you explain in your own words why 58> 62

Your silly confirmation science comment is not worthy of a rebuttal.

When you guys can come out with full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, we will talk.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, how easy would it be to show lab work demonstrating increases in water temperature by controlling for a few 10ppms of CO2?

The Warmers have lab work this time for sure, right?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Jake, in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, which is 4f Warmer than then current "record"

Can you explain in your own words why 58> 62

Your silly confirmation science comment is not worthy of a rebuttal.

When you guys can come out with full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, we will talk.

Jake have you heard of NOAA? Yes or no

 

[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.

Jake, in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, which is 4f Warmer than then current "record"

Can you explain in your own words why 58> 62

Your silly confirmation science comment is not worthy of a rebuttal.

When you guys can come out with full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, we will talk.

Jake have you heard of NOAA? Yes or no

You have offered nothing of worth. My comment immediately above remains the proper answer for confirmation science sillies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Jake, in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, which is 4f Warmer than then current "record"

Can you explain in your own words why 58> 62

Your silly confirmation science comment is not worthy of a rebuttal.

When you guys can come out with full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, we will talk.

Jake have you heard of NOAA? Yes or no

You have offered nothing of worth. My comment immediately above remains the proper answer for confirmation science sillies.

Jake in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, now they're saying its 58 and 2015 is the warmest ever.

Did you fail every math class?

 

[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.

Jake, in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, which is 4f Warmer than then current "record"

Can you explain in your own words why 58> 62

Your silly confirmation science comment is not worthy of a rebuttal.

When you guys can come out with full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, we will talk.

Jake have you heard of NOAA? Yes or no

You have offered nothing of worth. My comment immediately above remains the proper answer for confirmation science sillies.

Jake in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, now they're saying its 58 and 2015 is the warmest ever.

Did you fail every math class?

Now you are spamming and trolling. Present full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, not confirmation science nonsense, and we can talk.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake, in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, which is 4f Warmer than then current "record"

Can you explain in your own words why 58> 62

Your silly confirmation science comment is not worthy of a rebuttal.

When you guys can come out with full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, we will talk.

Jake have you heard of NOAA? Yes or no

You have offered nothing of worth. My comment immediately above remains the proper answer for confirmation science sillies.

Jake in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, now they're saying its 58 and 2015 is the warmest ever.

Did you fail every math class?

Now you are spamming and trolling. Present full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, not confirmation science nonsense, and we can talk.

Jake, a peer reviewed study from a major scientific organization said the 1997 temperature was 62.

Ate you denying that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake, in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, which is 4f Warmer than then current "record"

Can you explain in your own words why 58> 62

Your silly confirmation science comment is not worthy of a rebuttal.

When you guys can come out with full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, we will talk.

Jake have you heard of NOAA? Yes or no

You have offered nothing of worth. My comment immediately above remains the proper answer for confirmation science sillies.

Jake in 1997 NOAA said the temperature was 62, now they're saying its 58 and 2015 is the warmest ever.

Did you fail every math class?

Now you are spamming and trolling. Present full, objective, peer-reviewed studies, not confirmation science nonsense, and we can talk.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now give us a link and make an argument with clear conclusions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sure thing, Reactionary Jake.

First prove to me you can spell NOAA and then count from 57 to 63.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Frank, you demonstrate the typical reactionary far right mind set and practitioner of confirmation science.

You make an assertion, offer one piece of evidence, and then stand back all proud of yourself.

Sigh.

 

[Wuwei]

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..

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.

Yes, you are looking at it from 5th grade science, but I am looking at it from grad school thermodynamics. I agree that back radiation cannot directly “warm” the ocean. That much is obvious. And it's obvious that back radiation cannot penetrate into the ocean. And it is obvious heat rises.

The point you fail to understand is that no real scientist should ever claim that the back radiation directly warms the ocean. The mechanism for warming the deep ocean is complex and not fully understood.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Again, this is the point I was making: The ocean is radiating about 400W/m^2 at the top surface. Back radiation is cutting down the amount of radiation loss only at that top surface. That prevents the ocean from loosing massive amounts of heat by radiation alone at the top surface. That allows the predominant loss to be rising heat and evaporation.

The major concepts you should come away with is that back radiation is what keeps the ocean (and yes, of course, the rest of the planet) from loosing as much heat as it would without greenhouse gases. And you should stop the silly talk about anyone thinking back radiation can directly warm the deep ocean.

See Cricks's post #20 for in-depth details. You can understand it if you read it carefully. The one thing I object to in Crick's post is the wording that GHG's will "heat" the ocean. It is far more accurate to say that GHG's prevent the ocean from loosing heat.

 

[PredFan]

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

Apparently you don't understand the definition of "facts".

 

[PredFan]

Lol, scientists cannot even prove that man is causing climate change, let alone prove it impossible without him.

Only left wing sheep are stupid enough to swallow this shit.

 

[westwall]

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.

That.....is hilarious. Incredibly stupid, but hilarious as hell.

 

[westwall]

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..

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.

Yes, you are looking at it from 5th grade science, but I am looking at it from grad school thermodynamics. I agree that back radiation cannot directly “warm” the ocean. That much is obvious. And it's obvious that back radiation cannot penetrate into the ocean. And it is obvious heat rises.

The point you fail to understand is that no real scientist should ever claim that the back radiation directly warms the ocean. The mechanism for warming the deep ocean is complex and not fully understood.

You are making a mountain out of a molehill. Again, this is the point I was making: The ocean is radiating about 400W/m^2 at the top surface. Back radiation is cutting down the amount of radiation loss only at that top surface. That prevents the ocean from loosing massive amounts of heat by radiation alone at the top surface. That allows the predominant loss to be rising heat and evaporation.

The major concepts you should come away with is that back radiation is what keeps the ocean (and yes, of course, the rest of the planet) from loosing as much heat as it would without greenhouse gases. And you should stop the silly talk about anyone thinking back radiation can directly warm the deep ocean.

See Cricks's post #20 for in-depth details. You can understand it if you read it carefully. The one thing I object to in Crick's post is the wording that GHG's will "heat" the ocean. It is far more accurate to say that GHG's prevent the ocean from loosing heat.

This part of your statement is very important. Why is it important?


"The point you fail to understand is that no real scientist should ever claim that the back radiation directly warms the ocean. The mechanism for warming the deep ocean is complex and not fully understood."

 

[Wuwei]

This part of your statement is very important. Why is it important?

"The point you fail to understand is that no real scientist should ever claim that the back radiation directly warms the ocean. The mechanism for warming the deep ocean is complex and not fully understood."

If you don't understand why that is important, I don't know how to explain it any better. It's the short wave radiation that can penetrate the ocean to much more depth that will directly heat the ocean. After all it's the sun that keeps the earth hot. The very deep ocean currents where the sun don't shine are the most difficult to understand as far as the energy flow on the planet.

 

[westwall]

This part of your statement is very important. Why is it important?

"The point you fail to understand is that no real scientist should ever claim that the back radiation directly warms the ocean. The mechanism for warming the deep ocean is complex and not fully understood."

If you don't understand why that is important, I don't know how to explain it any better. It's the short wave radiation that can penetrate the ocean to much more depth that will directly heat the ocean. After all it's the sun that keeps the earth hot. The very deep ocean currents where the sun don't shine are the most difficult to understand as far as the energy flow on the planet.

I DO understand what was important about the statement. Clearly it is YOU who don't.