Salinity history shows global warming causing an intensification of the hydrological cycle

[Crick]

"Basic thermodynamics and climate modeling" show that warming will cause dry areas to become drier and wet areas to get wetter. Examinations of precipitation data gave ambiguous results. The authors of this study show that their examination of salinity data give "robust" support to this idea. This behavior is not included in current GCMs.

Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mike Roderick has revised his assessments recently and your assumption is dead wrong. Solar heating was the direct cause not salinity changes. Mike took a lot of heat for his assumptions. I am actually surprised he did not retract that paper after the beating he took debunking his assumptions.

Keep flogging that dead AGW horse.... You just know it will get up... You just know!

 

[Old Rocks]

Crick gave a link to the paper he gave his opinion on, you have given us nothing but flap-yap, Mr. Billy Bob. You state there are papers debunking the paper that Crick linked to, so give us a link for them. That is what is expected of someone making the statements that you have.

 

[Crick]

Almost 24 hours now without a response from Billy Bob. Where are the papers he mentions?

And why does he so often fail to identify links to resources he claims exist?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, is it still your contention that 120PPM of CO2 has generated enough heat to warm the air and oceans by .9 degrees?

 

[Crick]

It is not only my contention, it is the firm opinion of thousands of PhD who study this very subject for a living. That YOU have a problem with it is as irrelevant as an ant in a wheat silo.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

But you cannot explain how a 120ppm increase in CO2 is causing the ocean temperature to rise. I doubt any of the AGWCult people can either which is why you've avoided making an effort to explain

 

[Crick]

The sun's full spectrum shines on the Earth and warms the surface, land and oceans. LIke anything above absolute zero, it reradiates that energy in the infrared bands (and higher bands if warm enough). CO2 absorbs bands of infrared radiation. It is like a tank of water that has a pipe feeding it (that would be the sun pouring its energy into the Earth) and a pipe draining it. The flow resistance of the drain pipe will cause a certain amount of water (heat) to build up in the tank. If we increase the flow resistance of that drain pipe, with a valve for instance, the level of water in the tank will increase. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere slows the release of infrared radiation to space. That causes the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere to rise towards a new, higher equilibrium.

The ocean absorbs 90% of the heat accumulated in that manner simply because of the different thermal characteristics of air and water. If you have something you need to work with that has been heated to the point that you cannot pick it up and you wish to cool it down, which will do it more quickly: dropping it into a sink full of 72F water or a sink fulll of 72F air? Water can absorb far more heat than air because the rate at which heat transfer between two samples takes place is dependent (among other things (the large density difference being one)) on the temperature difference. Because it takes more energy to raise the water's temperature, it will stay cooler than the air and thus will maintain a higher heat transfer rate. That higher rate is putting more thermal energy into the oceans than it is into our air.

 

[jc456]

It is not only my contention, it is the firm opinion of thousands of PhD who study this very subject for a living. That YOU have a problem with it is as irrelevant as an ant in a wheat silo.

a thousand. there's that number again. Fascinating to me that you have statements from a thousand PhD 's. I call bullshit. Let's see the list.

 

[Crick]

Work your way through the contributors to the various Working Group sections of AR5 jc. You can then add the authors of all the various studies, papers and reports in the footnotes and reference sections. They're all there. Name, Employers, email addresses. You can write them all and ask them if they REALLY believe that hoax or did someone just pay them to say that stuff.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Basic thermodynamics and climate modeling" show that warming will cause dry areas to become drier and wet areas to get wetter. Examinations of precipitation data gave ambiguous results. The authors of this study show that their examination of salinity data give "robust" support to this idea. This behavior is not included in current GCMs.

Ocean Salinities Reveal Strong Global Water Cycle Intensification During 1950 to 2000

And they call me a smart ass. You mean salt and rain?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Work your way through the contributors to the various Working Group sections of AR5 jc. You can then add the authors of all the various studies, papers and reports in the footnotes and reference sections. They're all there. Name, Employers, email addresses. You can write them all and ask them if they REALLY believe that hoax or did someone just pay them to say that stuff.

The guy who said they use Climate Change to redistribute wealth was one of the lead authors, amiright?

 

[Crick]

Do you try to change the subject EVERY time you lose a point?

Ottmar Edenhofer is an economist. Do you not know how to use Wikipedia or Google? He served as THE lead author for Working Group III of AR4, who wrote the section dealing with "Mitigation of Climate Change".

Here:
Ottmar Georg Edenhofer (born 8 July 1961 in Gangkofen, Lower Bavaria, Germany) is a German economist dealing with climate change policy, environmental and energy policy as well as energy economics. Edenhofer currently holds the professorship of Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin was appointed one of the co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group III "Mitigation of Climate Change". He is Deputy Director and Chief Economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. Among many other functions he is member of the group "Climate, Energy & Environment" of the German National Academy of Science Leopoldina, of the Advisory Committee of the Green Growth Knowledge Platform (joint effort of the Global Green Growth Institute, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Environment Programme (UNEP), and World Bank), of the Forschungsforum, Promoter Group Economy, chair of the Euro-CASE Energy Platform and of the German Academy of Science and Engineering acatech.

and, from an article about Edenhofer in Nature in which you will find that Edenhofer separated himself from the IPCC in April of 2013.

However, he adds, some perspectives cannot be tolerated. “Denying out-and-out that climate change is a problem to humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position.”

The upcoming Working Group III report that Edenhofer is presiding over is a massive, complex tome. A compendium of hundreds of scientific papers, it analyses how societies can slow down climate change and reduce its effects by altering all sectors of the economy, from electricity production to transportation to building design. The importance of his group's work has grown as the greenhouse problem has worsened with no political solution in sight. Since the 2007 IPCC report, emissions of heat-trapping gases have continued to grow despite a global economic recession. In 2012, annual emissions of such gases were equivalent to more than 50 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and reached an all-time high. And, in May 2013, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 crossed the ominous threshold of 400 parts per million (p.p.m.) for the first time since human beings appeared on Earth.

The report will provide a range of scenarios, and cost estimates, for stabilizing atmospheric CO2concentrations at 450 or 550 p.p.m.. It will make it clear that all realistic stabilization scenarios are decidedly at odds with current emissions trends. In fact, if one factors in methane, nitrous oxide and other warming gases that are governed by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol climate treaty, the combined concentration has already surpassed the equivalent of 450 p.p.m. of CO2. As a result, stabilization plans must allow for nations to temporarily overshoot a target before concentrations might start to subside.

The report will also make clear that the problem will only grow worse without action. Known hydrocarbon reserves still buried in the ground may contain up to four times as much carbon as has been released into the atmosphere since the onset of the Industrial Revolution (see 'The carbon age').

“Things can get pretty nasty when delegations play their little games of power.”

But in line with the IPCC's mandate — which requires the group to be policy-neutral — the assessment of Working Group III will avoid promoting certain mitigation options over others. Maintaining that distance will be a crucial test of Edenhofer's leadership.

“The IPCC is a scientific body whose task is to compare and review the relevant literature,” says Stavins. “Unfortunately, in my view, the IPCC has in the past overstretched its mandate. It has become too political — and that hasn't done it and the field any good.” Stavins feels, for example, that prominent IPCC members transgressed by lobbying for green policies such as emission cuts and carbon taxes.

Edenhofer is keen to steer clear of such territory: he often compares the task of the IPCC to that of map-makers rather than to that of political advisers. But he also knows that the report, by necessity, will weigh in on politically charged issues such as nuclear power, biofuels and geoengineering. When the report's summary for policy-makers — its most-read and most-disputed section — goes up for debate in April, the fighting among diplomats and scientists will be even tougher than it was in past sessions. Together with his Cuban and Malian co-chairs, Edenhofer will have to see, as patiently as his nature allows, that the haggling over the tiniest words proceeds in a civilized and productive manner.

Nature special: After Kyoto

He faces the date — his last as an IPCC official — with a mixture of anxiety and gladiatorial anticipation. “Where I grew up, the boys were always ready for a fight,” he says. “I'm not like that — but trust me, I do know when it's time to thump on the table.”

The stakes are mounting on his group's report. With its analyses of low-carbon energy options and different policy paths towards stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations, the report will be an important contributor to the upcoming negotiations as nations try to hammer out an international treaty over the next year.

When the last round of IPCC Assessment Reports came out in 2007, the body came under fire for including a few claims that lacked strong scientific support; in one high-profile gaffe, Working Group II uncritically repeated a baseless assertion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Edenhofer has pushed his own working group to thoroughly overhaul its procedures for evaluating scholarship to avoid such embarrassing blunders in his report. In particular, he has reduced the use of 'grey' literature — information not subjected to peer review, such as reports from environmental groups, governments and companies — to a minimum.

And, perhaps drawing on his background as a philosopher and theologian, Edenhofer has also broadened the scope of the IPCC's mitigation working group to give ethical considerations greater weight. For the first time, professional philosophers have been invited to contribute to the report's opening chapters on equality, risks and sustainability issues, which set the scene for more technical sections.

But even as it details the various options that nations might take, the report will not take sides, he stresses — because that involves decisions based on values and priorities that fall to elected officials. “Science cannot, and can't be expected to, provide simple yes or no answers,” he says.

“Science cannot, and can't be expected to, provide simple yes or no answers.”

To tread that neutral line, Edenhofer will have to control his own strong opinions, formed during his years as an economist and climate-policy expert. He favours cap-and-trade schemes, for example, over a direct carbon tax as the most effective way to cut emissions and promote climate-friendly innovation. And he is adamant that the global transformation to a low-carbon economy cannot be achieved — no matter what goals key emitters might commit themselves to — without substantially increasing the use of renewable energy in all sectors of the economy.

In spite of his own opinions, he has focused on delivering an unassailable product. “Ottmar is keen to get the best science for the next IPCC report, which he wants to lift to a new level of quality,” says Massimo Tavoni, deputy coordinator of climate-change programmes at the Eni Enrico Mattei Foundation in Milan, Italy.

Edenhofer is also ready to acknowledge the limits of knowledge in his field. The most important uncertainty, he says, concerns the reliability of economic models used to forecast the future. They rely on macroeconomic equations and assumptions that are often thwarted by real-world developments. Economists are well aware that although the models can anticipate broad trends, they have no ability to forecast disruptions such as major financial or political crises.

And great uncertainty remains over how nations will tackle climate change. How much will countries cooperate? To what degree will they rely on nuclear power? How quickly will renewable energy be deployed and at what price? Beyond those near-term concerns, researchers must also grapple with more distant potential mitigation strategies such as capturing and storing carbon on a massive scale, or large geoengineering projects aimed at rapidly staving off warming.

As Working Group III tackles such uncertainties, it will also wade into an increasingly contentious debate about the benefits of creating biofuels from plants and bacteria. Since the IPCC's 2007 report, a fast-growing body of literature has split over whether the indirect effects of growing crops for fuels do more harm than good to the climate.

Fears that excessive bioenergy production might cause food shortages make the debate even fiercer. “Clearly,” says Edenhofer, “this is one of the most controversial issues we're dealing with. By now, debate over bioenergy has outstripped controversy over nuclear energy.” The IPCC, he says, will summarize the pros and cons as authoritatively as scientific knowledge allows.

Teary finale
Edenhofer is convinced that the IPCC is better placed than any other group to address such thorny issues, because the final reports are vetted not only by scientists but also by political appointees from member nations. No purely science-led exercise could possibly have equal weight, he says. Although some scientists have started to question the utility of the IPCC, especially its drawn-out procedures, Edenhofer says the process should continue. The “miracle” of the IPCC, as he puts it, is that it forces governments to deal seriously with science.

“To be able to engage and criticize our work, governments do need to carefully read our reports,” he says. “Here's a unique mechanism for bringing science to the very level of government leaders.”

As he steers his group through that process, he will make frequent use of his desktop index card. But he has faith in the process. “When everything is said and done, and when even the most hard-boiled negotiators have tears in their eyes, it is the cause of science — and not power interests — that has the last word.”

Nature

501,

303–305

(19 September 2013)

doi:10.1038/501303a

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, you must be mental. There's no other explanation

Ottmar, went from a nobody expressing his personal opinion to now you're doing an HBO special on him and calling me a liar in the process.

You're totally mental

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Crick, thanks for the bio of the IPCC Leader who told us "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Suddenly, Crick is Ottmar Edenhofer biggest cheerleader. Is that normal behavior for a grown man?

First Crick dismissed him as a) a nobody, b) someone giving his personal opinion, c) not even discussing climate change and now Crick has I <3 Ottmar tattooed on his forearm

 

[mamooth]

Frank, you seem especially troubled today. Just what unspeakable depravities did your Dread Lord Ottmar order you to engage in?

By way of your cranial implant, of course. That's how Dread Lord Ottmar issues orders to all of his lackeys.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, you seem especially troubled today. Just what unspeakable depravities did your Dread Lord Ottmar order you to engage in?

By way of your cranial implant, of course. That's how Dread Lord Ottmar issues orders to all of his lackeys.

Poor AGWCult, no warming for 2 decades, so, lead by Ottmar, they now tell us that 90% of the missing warming was absorbed by the oceans.

Stop flinging pooh and show us how a wisp of CO2 generates the energy needed

 

[jc456]

Work your way through the contributors to the various Working Group sections of AR5 jc. You can then add the authors of all the various studies, papers and reports in the footnotes and reference sections. They're all there. Name, Employers, email addresses. You can write them all and ask them if they REALLY believe that hoax or did someone just pay them to say that stuff.

so you're saying there are a thousand names in that document?

 

[Crick]

There are orders of magnitude more there, doing research that validates AGW, then ever supported anything you've tried to push.