It's the Sun

[westwall]

Polar Bear, have you ever read the text below? It's the abstract to the work by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen from which that graph of ocean temperatures comes.

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the
ocean’srole in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the
time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observationalbased reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp
cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the
recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last
decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700m, contributing significantly to an
acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700m remains even when the Argo
observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments
illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical
distribution.

Up above, you showed us a pretty picture of lots and lots of ARGO buoys. What you didn't show us was their data. It would seem from the highlighted comment in the abstract, that the ARGO data shows the ocean is warming, even MORE strongly than this ORAS4 reanalysis.

Hmmmm. The warming is far less than was predicted by every climate model ever produced and, more importantly, is less than the instrument error of the ARGO system (which is around 0.1C)....so is there actually any warming? I mean really, if the instrument isn't capable of reading the increase then the only way that increase can show up is if SOMEONE PUTS IT THERE.

I wonder who that might be?????

 

[flacaltenn]

Growth in China Wind Energy Production Exceeds Coal For First Time Ever | The Energy Collective

By Li Shuo

Amid all the news about coal and pollution problems in China you might have missed this one: According to new statistics from the China Electricity Council, China’s wind power production actually increased more than coal power production for the first time ever in 2012.

Thermal power use, which is predominantly coal, grew by only about 0.3 percent in China during 2012, an addition of roughly 12 terawatt hours (TWh) more electricity. In contrast, wind power production expanded by about 26 TWh. This rapid expansion brings the total amount of wind power production in China to 100 TWh, surpassing China’s 98 TWh of nuclear power. The biggest increase, however, occurred in hydro power, where output grew by 196 TWh, bringing total hydro production to 864 TWh, due favorable conditions for hydro last year and increased hydro capacity. In addition, the growth of power consumption slowed down — in Chinese terms a modest increase of 5.5 percent — influenced by slower economic growth, and possibly the energy use targets for provinces set by the Chinese central government.

You windmill happy folks miss an important point on this China story.. CHINA is willing to build out a GW of coal or something else BEFORE they install the wind generation.. The wind generation is merely a SUPPLEMENT. You NEED a primary generation capacity increase to JUSTIFY even toying with wind power..

See the problem is China is BUILDING an economy.. Our Dirt People in charge of our shriveling economy are trying to LOWER our energy generation profile..

Given that China has enough money to play around with alternate energy sources, and are actually doing so, I'd say your argument is a lot of manure.

It's not an argument -- It's a FACT. If you EXPANDING grid capacity, you cannot DO THAT with WIND ALONE. You buy your PRIMARY 24/7/365 generation FIRST and then toss in a 10% wind investment to handle (maybe) a peak load prob on Tues..

Problem with OUR PLAN is --- we ain't planning EXPANSION of nuttin..

 

[flacaltenn]

Polar Bear, have you ever read the text below? It's the abstract to the work by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen from which that graph of ocean temperatures comes.

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the
ocean’srole in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the
time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observationalbased reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp
cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the
recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last
decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700m, contributing significantly to an
acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700m remains even when the Argo
observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments
illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical
distribution.

Up above, you showed us a pretty picture of lots and lots of ARGO buoys. What you didn't show us was their data. It would seem from the highlighted comment in the abstract, that the ARGO data shows the ocean is warming, even MORE strongly than this ORAS4 reanalysis.

Hmmmm. The warming is far less than was predicted by every climate model ever produced and, more importantly, is less than the instrument error of the ARGO system (which is around 0.1C)....so is there actually any warming? I mean really, if the instrument isn't capable of reading the increase then the only way that increase can show up is if SOMEONE PUTS IT THERE.

I wonder who that might be?????

Do you really NEED a model if you have buoy coverage like that? (You know the model put it there).. Or do they need the diving walruses?? REALLY !! read the abstract !! Diving pinipeds with backpacks... Maybe THERE'S your .1C ---- walrus body heat..

Somethings fishy here in the MECHANICS of this study..

 

[westwall]

Even if you set aside AGW, the acidification of the oceans due to billions of tons per year of CO2 being released into the atmosphere will ensure that we will notice. It's already happening.

From what I have read, we have an astounding 75 year time horizon before that acidification has any real impact on the ecology.

That does not justify the hysteria one iota. Further, damaging the economy to the extent that many of the alarmists calls for would not help un in that case. We need a strong economy to fund the research and the infrastructure that will be required to deal with this problem if we are ever to do so.

Another fact is that rising economies like China are not going to take this problem on and that is a fact. Sure, they pay a lot of lip service to it BUT when it comes down to actions, they are severely lacking. We cannot control the worlds CO2 emissions.

"From what I have read", then no link to anything you have read. Bullshit statement.

Damaging the economy in what way? Another bullshit statement with nothing at all to back it up.

Interesting, the rising economies are actually investing a bigger percentage of the income in alternatives than we are.

But, back to what you have read on ocean acidification. Here is what real scientists write on that subject;

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes

Abstract

Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414–432. Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequences for marine biota. Elevated partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is causing the calcium carbonate saturation horizon to shoal in many regions, particularly in high latitudes and regions that intersect with pronounced hypoxic zones. The ability of marine animals, most importantly pteropod molluscs, foraminifera, and some benthic invertebrates, to produce calcareous skeletal structures is directly affected by seawater CO2 chemistry. CO2 influences the physiology of marine organisms as well through acid-base imbalance and reduced oxygen transport capacity. The few studies at relevant pCO2 levels impede our ability to predict future impacts on foodweb dynamics and other ecosystem processes. Here we present new observations, review available data, and identify priorities for future research, based on regions, ecosystems, taxa, and physiological processes believed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification. We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

And these guys actually tested the hypothesis with real critters and found that all that hype is BS. The result is thicker shells instead of thinner ones, contrary to the fraudsters hyperbole. And, more to the point they used acidic levels FAR higher than could ever be experienced in the real world. In other words, acidification is a sham.


Title:
Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World
Authors:
Iglesias-Rodriguez, M. Debora; Halloran, Paul R.; Rickaby, Rosalind E. M.; Hall, Ian R.; Colmenero-Hidalgo, Elena; Gittins, John R.; Green, Darryl R. H.; Tyrrell, Toby; Gibbs, Samantha J.; von Dassow, Peter; Rehm, Eric; Armbrust, E. Virginia; Boessenkool, Karin P.
Affiliation:
AA(National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.), AB(Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PR, UK.), AC(Department of Earth Sciences, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PR, UK.), AD(School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences, Cardiff University, Main Building, Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3YE, UK.), AE(School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences, Cardiff University, Main Building, Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3YE, UK.), AF(National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.), AG(National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.), AH(National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.), AI(National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, University of Southampton Waterfront Campus, European Way, Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK.), AJ(Station Biologique de Roscoff, Place George Teissier, BP 74, 29682 Roscoff Cedex, France), AK(School of Oceanography, Box 357940, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.), AL(School of Oceanography, Box 357940, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA.), AM(School of Earth, Ocean and Planetary Sciences, Cardiff University, Main Building, Park Place, Cardiff CF10 3YE, UK.)
Publication:
Science, Volume 320, Issue 5874, pp. 336- (2008). (Sci Homepage)
Publication Date:
04/2008
Category:
OCEANS
Origin:
SCIENCE
DOI:
10.1126/science.1154122
Bibliographic Code:
2008Sci...320..336I

Abstract
Ocean acidification in response to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures is widely expected to reduce calcification by marine organisms. From the mid-Mesozoic, coccolithophores have been major calcium carbonate producers in the world’s oceans, today accounting for about a third of the total marine CaCO3 production. Here, we present laboratory evidence that calcification and net primary production in the coccolithophore species Emiliania huxleyi are significantly increased by high CO2 partial pressures. Field evidence from the deep ocean is consistent with these laboratory conclusions, indicating that over the past 220 years there has been a 40% increase in average coccolith mass. Our findings show that coccolithophores are already responding and will probably continue to respond to rising atmospheric CO2 partial pressures, which has important implications for biogeochemical modeling of future oceans and climate.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Sci...320..336I

 

[westwall]

Polar Bear, have you ever read the text below? It's the abstract to the work by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen from which that graph of ocean temperatures comes.

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the
ocean’srole in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the
time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observationalbased reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp
cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the
recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last
decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700m, contributing significantly to an
acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700m remains even when the Argo
observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments
illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical
distribution.

Up above, you showed us a pretty picture of lots and lots of ARGO buoys. What you didn't show us was their data. It would seem from the highlighted comment in the abstract, that the ARGO data shows the ocean is warming, even MORE strongly than this ORAS4 reanalysis.

Hmmmm. The warming is far less than was predicted by every climate model ever produced and, more importantly, is less than the instrument error of the ARGO system (which is around 0.1C)....so is there actually any warming? I mean really, if the instrument isn't capable of reading the increase then the only way that increase can show up is if SOMEONE PUTS IT THERE.

I wonder who that might be?????

Do you really NEED a model if you have buoy coverage like that? (You know the model put it there).. Or do they need the diving walruses?? REALLY !! read the abstract !! Diving pinipeds with backpacks... Maybe THERE'S your .1C ---- walrus body heat..

Somethings fishy here in the MECHANICS of this study..

Oh no, it's far more than "fishy". It stinks to high heaven. Like I said, the only way the warming could be shown was if someone PUT IT THERE. There was no way to measure it.

 

[orogenicman]

From what I have read, we have an astounding 75 year time horizon before that acidification has any real impact on the ecology.

That does not justify the hysteria one iota. Further, damaging the economy to the extent that many of the alarmists calls for would not help un in that case. We need a strong economy to fund the research and the infrastructure that will be required to deal with this problem if we are ever to do so.

Another fact is that rising economies like China are not going to take this problem on and that is a fact. Sure, they pay a lot of lip service to it BUT when it comes down to actions, they are severely lacking. We cannot control the worlds CO2 emissions.

"From what I have read", then no link to anything you have read. Bullshit statement.

Damaging the economy in what way? Another bullshit statement with nothing at all to back it up.

Interesting, the rising economies are actually investing a bigger percentage of the income in alternatives than we are.

But, back to what you have read on ocean acidification. Here is what real scientists write on that subject;

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes

Abstract

Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414–432. Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequences for marine biota. Elevated partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is causing the calcium carbonate saturation horizon to shoal in many regions, particularly in high latitudes and regions that intersect with pronounced hypoxic zones. The ability of marine animals, most importantly pteropod molluscs, foraminifera, and some benthic invertebrates, to produce calcareous skeletal structures is directly affected by seawater CO2 chemistry. CO2 influences the physiology of marine organisms as well through acid-base imbalance and reduced oxygen transport capacity. The few studies at relevant pCO2 levels impede our ability to predict future impacts on foodweb dynamics and other ecosystem processes. Here we present new observations, review available data, and identify priorities for future research, based on regions, ecosystems, taxa, and physiological processes believed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification. We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

Yeah Yeah.. That was written 5 yrs BEFORE NOAA attempted to kill baby oysters with 20X the pCO2 projected for 2100 and failed miserably.. Actually made stronger oysters.

Right, so that means that they killed baby oysters this year (2008+5 years), and so the paper you are going to provide us a link to is already available. Because I would be very interested in seeing how they managed to do what you suggest and not turn the oyster shells to mush.

 

[orogenicman]

You windmill happy folks miss an important point on this China story.. CHINA is willing to build out a GW of coal or something else BEFORE they install the wind generation.. The wind generation is merely a SUPPLEMENT. You NEED a primary generation capacity increase to JUSTIFY even toying with wind power..

See the problem is China is BUILDING an economy.. Our Dirt People in charge of our shriveling economy are trying to LOWER our energy generation profile..

Given that China has enough money to play around with alternate energy sources, and are actually doing so, I'd say your argument is a lot of manure.

It's not an argument -- It's a FACT. If you EXPANDING grid capacity, you cannot DO THAT with WIND ALONE.

Red herring. No one is making that argument.

You buy your PRIMARY 24/7/365 generation FIRST and then toss in a 10% wind investment to handle (maybe) a peak load prob on Tues..

Problem with OUR PLAN is --- we ain't planning EXPANSION of nuttin..

Well, that's certainly not true. In my city alone, they are adding two natural gas-fired plants, and shutting one 60 year old coal fired plant. And Indiana's wind-powered expansion is at 1,000% in just five years. Take a drive on I-65 north of Indianapolis sometime.

 

[orogenicman]

I don’t believe that is the ‘current’ situation though. It appears that was the situation last decade but now…

Where has the warming gone?

That is the core problem with AGW, it cannot make predictions. I don’t disregard the data but it is really meaningless as far as making policy if the only prediction that can be made is that we will either all be dead in 50 years or we won’t notice anything has changed.

Even if you set aside AGW, the acidification of the oceans due to billions of tons per year of CO2 being released into the atmosphere will ensure that we will notice. It's already happening.

Ah yes, the final attempt by the desperate. Acidification is a non starter. If we were able to put every bit of carbon from the terrestrial region into the aquatic the pH of the oceans would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 and the last time I checked that is....oh, what the hell do they call that???>>>>>>Oh yeah..ALKALINE!. You can NEVER make the oceans acidic....it is physically impossible.

Acidification is not something that is far in the future. It is happening right now. As for your BS statement highlighted above, since you posted nothing to back up that statement, I can safely assume that my assessment that it is BS is the correct one. Point of fact, hard corals require a pH of 8.2-8.4. So using your starting point of 8.1, they should already be dead. But they cling on to life because your 8.1 pH figure is wrong for coral reefs. I am very familiar with the requirements of living hard and soft coral, studied them in the wild, and having raised them for 19 years before the 2009 ice storm knocked the electricity out here for 8 days, killing my everything in my marine reef aquarium. Reefs require nearly perfect conditions, and have low tolerances for any condition outside of their required parameters.

 

[polarbear]

Polar Bear, have you ever read the text below? It's the abstract to the work by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen from which that graph of ocean temperatures comes.

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the
ocean’srole in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the
time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observationalbased reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp
cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the
recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last
decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700m, contributing significantly to an
acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700m remains even when the Argo
observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments
illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical
distribution.

Up above, you showed us a pretty picture of lots and lots of ARGO buoys. What you didn't show us was their data. It would seem from the highlighted comment in the abstract, that the ARGO data shows the ocean is warming, even MORE strongly than this ORAS4 reanalysis.

I think it's a good sign that Trenberth is suddenly using the RIGHT UNITS for an energy diagram. His famous 1st whack at the problem showing us a POWER -- and not an ENERGY diagram illustrates just how much the science wasn't settled. Now that he's using Joules instead of watt/m2 (someone in the engineering dept probably mocked him for that) --- we have a quandry with his NEW results..

1) The agreed power anomaly from CO2 heating is the backradiation given by 1.6W/M2 of additional radiative forcing that's been added to that component of the energy diagram.

2) The silly original Trenberth diagram doesn't know if it's day or night or summer or winter or water or forest or asphalt. So there is NO STATEMENT of the relative ability to actually store energy.. (Want to know why I became a skeptic?)

3) Now that climate jockeys are learning enough science, we have to use the assumption that EVERY meter2 of the surface GETS the 1.6W/m2 of additional CO2 forcing equally. (actually this forcing could just as well be solar or any other -- but these jerks are fixated.

4) So his NEW revelation is that the ocean ends up STORING 93% of this additional energy over time. Leaving only 7% for land and atmos.. I serious doubt that divide..

WHY? Because according the ORIGINAL Trenberth (power not energy) diagram, there was something like 320W/m2 coming down from back radiation and the NET SUM flow UP was something like 70W/m2 escaping the atmos. The oceans ARE 70% of the earth's surface, but to retain 93% of the heat from backradiation makes the heat retention capabilities of the land and atmos miniscule in comparision.. (haven't done the math -- but I intend to)

So of the 70W/M2 that escaping --- most all of that must be radiating from land and atmos --- not the seas. My math intuition says that the 93% fails miserably because of the relative heat sinking and storage abilities. OR --- the atmos is leakier than the original Trenberth diagram shows..

Keep it up -- in 20 years ---- Climate Science COULD BECOME a hard science..

On top of that all these 1.8 w/m^2 "CO2 back radiation diagrams" assumed that 50% of the 15 µm IR is (re-) absorbed by the surface and converted back into heat (..increasing water temperature ).
And that`s flat earth "science", because...:
Brewster's angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When light encounters a boundary between two media with different refractive indices, some of it is usually reflected as shown in the figure above. The fraction that is reflected is described by the Fresnel equations, and is dependent upon the incoming light's polarization and angle of incidence.

The incident light is polarized with its electric field perpendicular to the plane described above. The light is said to be s-polarized, from the German senkrecht (perpendicular).

and Fresnel equations regarding partial transmittance applied to Brewster`s angle:

Since we are talking about the heat that oceans absorb let`s use the 53 degree Brewster`s angle for water .
So in reality this "back radiation" is not 50% but only the 53 degree spherical cap portion:

cos 53 (brewster`s angle) = 0.6
H= 1- sin (53)
A= cos (53)
Surf.Area w/o Base = 1.2566 ( inside the 53 deg Brewster`s angle)
But the flat earth "science" still continues to use the entire 50% ( 6.2832) hemisphere ...in other words a value which is 5 times higher.
We have been around this bend before a couple of month ago with that Poopiedoo "computer modelling expert"

 

[flacaltenn]

Given that China has enough money to play around with alternate energy sources, and are actually doing so, I'd say your argument is a lot of manure.

It's not an argument -- It's a FACT. If you EXPANDING grid capacity, you cannot DO THAT with WIND ALONE.

Red herring. No one is making that argument.

You buy your PRIMARY 24/7/365 generation FIRST and then toss in a 10% wind investment to handle (maybe) a peak load prob on Tues..

Problem with OUR PLAN is --- we ain't planning EXPANSION of nuttin..

Well, that's certainly not true. In my city alone, they are adding two natural gas-fired plants, and shutting one 60 year old coal fired plant. And Indiana's wind-powered expansion is at 1,000% in just five years. Take a drive on I-65 north of Indianapolis sometime.

Like I said -- shutting a coal plant and replacing it with 2 nat gas plants is NOT grid generation expansion... Did you LOOK at the daily production chart I provided?? Wind is there for 20 minutes, gone for an hour.. Here on Monday --- gone on Tuesday.. You do NOT PLAN generation EXPANSION on wind alone.. You build PRIMARY SOURCES first and then suck off the equipment and production subsidies of wind to help FINANCE your expansion..

Wind is NOT a primary source of power and therefore is NOT an alternative. It's a supplement.. And a poor one at that..

Again --- pick up ANY of the Wind Threads and bump it if you don't like the conclusions. Let's not break wind or shuck oysters HERE...

 

[westwall]

"From what I have read", then no link to anything you have read. Bullshit statement.

Damaging the economy in what way? Another bullshit statement with nothing at all to back it up.

Interesting, the rising economies are actually investing a bigger percentage of the income in alternatives than we are.

But, back to what you have read on ocean acidification. Here is what real scientists write on that subject;

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes

Abstract

Fabry, V. J., Seibel, B. A., Feely, R. A., and Orr, J. C. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 414–432. Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) is altering the seawater chemistry of the world’s oceans with consequences for marine biota. Elevated partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is causing the calcium carbonate saturation horizon to shoal in many regions, particularly in high latitudes and regions that intersect with pronounced hypoxic zones. The ability of marine animals, most importantly pteropod molluscs, foraminifera, and some benthic invertebrates, to produce calcareous skeletal structures is directly affected by seawater CO2 chemistry. CO2 influences the physiology of marine organisms as well through acid-base imbalance and reduced oxygen transport capacity. The few studies at relevant pCO2 levels impede our ability to predict future impacts on foodweb dynamics and other ecosystem processes. Here we present new observations, review available data, and identify priorities for future research, based on regions, ecosystems, taxa, and physiological processes believed to be most vulnerable to ocean acidification. We conclude that ocean acidification and the synergistic impacts of other anthropogenic stressors provide great potential for widespread changes to marine ecosystems.

Yeah Yeah.. That was written 5 yrs BEFORE NOAA attempted to kill baby oysters with 20X the pCO2 projected for 2100 and failed miserably.. Actually made stronger oysters.

Right, so that means that they killed baby oysters this year (2008+5 years), and so the paper you are going to provide us a link to is already available. Because I would be very interested in seeing how they managed to do what you suggest and not turn the oyster shells to mush.

He already provided you a link as did I with the study which showed beyond doubt that your computer models are, once again, horseshit. I find it amusing that you will suck down whatever pap the modelers will shove down your throat, but will ignore solid EMPIRICAL evidence that says they're full of crap.

I wonder why that is? Oh yeah....BECAUSE IT'S MEASURABLE. That is one common fact amongst ALL the AGW fraudsters. They never give you something measurable.... Why is that?

Because once you have something measurable it can be discounted once those measurements fail. No measurements, no possibility of failure, no way for the con to ever end. That's why they have been forced to push out the time for the doom and gloom to 100 or 1000 years, and once again. Nothing measurable.

Pseudo-scientific conmen who are laughing their way to the bank.

 

[westwall]

Even if you set aside AGW, the acidification of the oceans due to billions of tons per year of CO2 being released into the atmosphere will ensure that we will notice. It's already happening.

Ah yes, the final attempt by the desperate. Acidification is a non starter. If we were able to put every bit of carbon from the terrestrial region into the aquatic the pH of the oceans would drop from 8.1 to 8.0 and the last time I checked that is....oh, what the hell do they call that???>>>>>>Oh yeah..ALKALINE!. You can NEVER make the oceans acidic....it is physically impossible.

Acidification is not something that is far in the future. It is happening right now. As for your BS statement highlighted above, since you posted nothing to back up that statement, I can safely assume that my assessment that it is BS is the correct one. Point of fact, hard corals require a pH of 8.2-8.4. So using your starting point of 8.1, they should already be dead. But they cling on to life because your 8.1 pH figure is wrong for coral reefs. I am very familiar with the requirements of living hard and soft coral, studied them in the wild, and having raised them for 19 years before the 2009 ice storm knocked the electricity out here for 8 days, killing my everything in my marine reef aquarium. Reefs require nearly perfect conditions, and have low tolerances for any condition outside of their required parameters.

Check the link I provided there mr. geologist. Of course the fact that the corals evolved when CO2 levels were 20 TIMES what they are today doesn't get a mention from you either

 

[flacaltenn]

Polar Bear, have you ever read the text below? It's the abstract to the work by Balmaseda, Trenberth and Kalllen from which that graph of ocean temperatures comes.

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the
ocean’srole in the Earth’s energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the
time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observationalbased reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp
cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the
recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last
decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700m, contributing significantly to an
acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700m remains even when the Argo
observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments
illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical
distribution.

Up above, you showed us a pretty picture of lots and lots of ARGO buoys. What you didn't show us was their data. It would seem from the highlighted comment in the abstract, that the ARGO data shows the ocean is warming, even MORE strongly than this ORAS4 reanalysis.

I think it's a good sign that Trenberth is suddenly using the RIGHT UNITS for an energy diagram. His famous 1st whack at the problem showing us a POWER -- and not an ENERGY diagram illustrates just how much the science wasn't settled. Now that he's using Joules instead of watt/m2 (someone in the engineering dept probably mocked him for that) --- we have a quandry with his NEW results..

1) The agreed power anomaly from CO2 heating is the backradiation given by 1.6W/M2 of additional radiative forcing that's been added to that component of the energy diagram.

2) The silly original Trenberth diagram doesn't know if it's day or night or summer or winter or water or forest or asphalt. So there is NO STATEMENT of the relative ability to actually store energy.. (Want to know why I became a skeptic?)

3) Now that climate jockeys are learning enough science, we have to use the assumption that EVERY meter2 of the surface GETS the 1.6W/m2 of additional CO2 forcing equally. (actually this forcing could just as well be solar or any other -- but these jerks are fixated.

4) So his NEW revelation is that the ocean ends up STORING 93% of this additional energy over time. Leaving only 7% for land and atmos.. I serious doubt that divide..

WHY? Because according the ORIGINAL Trenberth (power not energy) diagram, there was something like 320W/m2 coming down from back radiation and the NET SUM flow UP was something like 70W/m2 escaping the atmos. The oceans ARE 70% of the earth's surface, but to retain 93% of the heat from backradiation makes the heat retention capabilities of the land and atmos miniscule in comparision.. (haven't done the math -- but I intend to)

So of the 70W/M2 that escaping --- most all of that must be radiating from land and atmos --- not the seas. My math intuition says that the 93% fails miserably because of the relative heat sinking and storage abilities. OR --- the atmos is leakier than the original Trenberth diagram shows..

Keep it up -- in 20 years ---- Climate Science COULD BECOME a hard science..

On top of that all these 1.8 w/m^2 "CO2 back radiation diagrams" assumed that 50% of the 15 µm IR is (re-) absorbed by the surface and converted back into heat (..increasing water temperature ).
And that`s flat earth "science", because...:
Brewster's angle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When light encounters a boundary between two media with different refractive indices, some of it is usually reflected as shown in the figure above. The fraction that is reflected is described by the Fresnel equations, and is dependent upon the incoming light's polarization and angle of incidence.

The incident light is polarized with its electric field perpendicular to the plane described above. The light is said to be s-polarized, from the German senkrecht (perpendicular).

and Fresnel equations regarding partial transmittance applied to Brewster`s angle:

Since we are talking about the heat that oceans absorb let`s use the 53 degree Brewster`s angle for water .
So in reality this "back radiation" is not 50% but only the 53 degree spherical cap portion:

cos 53 (brewster`s angle) = 0.6
H= 1- sin (53)
A= cos (53)
Surf.Area w/o Base = 1.2566 ( inside the 53 deg Brewster`s angle)
But the flat earth "science" still continues to use the entire 50% ( 6.2832) hemisphere ...in other words a value which is 5 times higher.
We have been around this bend before a couple of month ago with that Poopiedoo "computer modelling expert"

If the only source considered is the DWN IR greenhouse radiation, then you do "patch integration" from a Metersquared patch in the atmos to a metersquared patch on the ocean surface. This effect WOULD reduce the integral of the energy transfered from neighboring atmos patches with a largely diffused radiation pattern. Yes.. The backrad percent absorption assumption needs complete modeling to determine even the INCIDENT ABSORBED radiation.

It's just hard for me to imagine that the 30% of surface area that is land only collects and stores less than 5% of the energy.. I'm sure the oceans are MORE EFFICIENT and a larger square area, but not to tune of collecting and storing 93% of that energy.. BUT -- MAYBE --- that's the number.
I think this is actually a white flag going up from the warmer side. Because this revelation that stupid juvenile Global Surface Mean Temp. doesn't tell the "global warming" story correctly (same for the Trenberth Diagram Version 1.0) -- turns the focus to heating of the oceans at depth. And the implications of feedbacks and climate sensitivities are different than the original AGW story.

For instance, if 93% of the GHGas generated energy is residing in the oceans --- then the "Climate Change" argument becomes an ocean driven model for current weather events. Not a truly REGIONAL driver of weather based solely on land surface temp.. Tornadoes and malaria rates (e.g.) are not largely "ocean driven".. [[they were never really solely TEMPERATURE driven either :LOL: ]]

The entire list of plagues from "Global Warming" now needs revision.. That's the bigger picture that is yet to come...

 

[mamooth]

Check the link I provided there mr. geologist. Of course the fact that the corals evolved when CO2 levels were 20 TIMES what they are today doesn't get a mention from you either.

So you don't understand why that didn't reduce ocean pH at the time?

Seek out some basic education concerning how ocean chemistry works. You don't even understand why "acidification" is the correct term, which is why it was happily used by everyone until the denialist cult decided to politicize the science.

You'd also look more consistent if you didn't use both "it doesn't happen!" and "it's good for the ocean!". Try being consistent and sticking with one conspiracy theory, instead of throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something will stick.

And your knowledge of statistics is flat out embarrassing. "... less than the instrument error of the ARGO system." Sheesh. The statistical blunder of your conspiracy there makes everyone who does understand statistics bust out laughing.

 

[orogenicman]

It's just hard for me to imagine that the 30% of surface area that is land only collects and stores less than 5% of the energy..

The oceans (i.e., water) have a much higher heat capacity than the continents (or any other landmass), or the atmosphere. It is the main reason why there is over 2,000 feet of ice on Greenland (and the Antarctic continent), and less than 10 feet on average in the Arctic ocean. I don't understand why you have a problem with this.

For instance, if 93% of the GHGas generated energy is residing in the oceans --- then the "Climate Change" argument becomes an ocean driven model for current weather events. Not a truly REGIONAL driver of weather based solely on land surface temp.. Tornadoes and malaria rates (e.g.) are not largely "ocean driven".. [[they were never really solely TEMPERATURE driven either :LOL: ]]

Except that our climate is very much ocean-driven. Tornados would be nearly non-existent in the U.S. were it not for the warm Gulf Of Mexico moisture flowing north and colliding with cold Canadian air flowing down out of the Rockies. The Eastern U.S. would not enjoy it's moderate weather and amply rainfall were it not for the existence of the Gulf of Mexico. The oceans are critical drivers of the global climate. El Nino, La Nina, the various oscillation currents, the thermohaline, hurricanes, tropical storms, etc., all are major players driving the climate on our planet. Surely you know this.

Malaria is a mosquito-borne pathogen. It thrives in marshy/wetland conditions. Where do you think all that water ultimately comes from?

 

[westwall]

Check the link I provided there mr. geologist. Of course the fact that the corals evolved when CO2 levels were 20 TIMES what they are today doesn't get a mention from you either.

So you don't understand why that didn't reduce ocean pH at the time?

Seek out some basic education concerning how ocean chemistry works. You don't even understand why "acidification" is the correct term, which is why it was happily used by everyone until the denialist cult decided to politicize the science.

You'd also look more consistent if you didn't use both "it doesn't happen!" and "it's good for the ocean!". Try being consistent and sticking with one conspiracy theory, instead of throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something will stick.

And your knowledge of statistics is flat out embarrassing. "... less than the instrument error of the ARGO system." Sheesh. The statistical blunder of your conspiracy there makes everyone who does understand statistics bust out laughing.

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

 

[orogenicman]

Check the link I provided there mr. geologist. Of course the fact that the corals evolved when CO2 levels were 20 TIMES what they are today doesn't get a mention from you either.

So you don't understand why that didn't reduce ocean pH at the time?

Seek out some basic education concerning how ocean chemistry works. You don't even understand why "acidification" is the correct term, which is why it was happily used by everyone until the denialist cult decided to politicize the science.

You'd also look more consistent if you didn't use both "it doesn't happen!" and "it's good for the ocean!". Try being consistent and sticking with one conspiracy theory, instead of throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something will stick.

And your knowledge of statistics is flat out embarrassing. "... less than the instrument error of the ARGO system." Sheesh. The statistical blunder of your conspiracy there makes everyone who does understand statistics bust out laughing.

Explain to the class how a physical process will work in one year and not in another. Be very precise...

http://www.cas.umt.edu/geosciences//faculty/stanley/stanley_files/Earth-Sci Rev Art 03-1.pdf

Scleractinians are a group of calcified anthozoan corals, many of which populate shallow-water tropical to subtropical reefs. Most of these corals calcify rapidly and their success on reefs is related to a symbiotic association with zooxanthellae. These one-celled algal symbionts live in the endodermal tissues of their coral host and are thought responsible for promoting rapid calcification. The evolutionary significance of this symbiosis and the implications it holds for explaining the success of corals is of paramount importance. Scleractinia stands out as one of the few orders of calcified metazoans that arose in Triassic time, long after a greater proliferation of calcified metazoan orders in the Paleozoic. The origin of this coral group, so important in reefs of today, has remained an unsolved problem in paleontology. The idea that Scleractinia evolved from older Paleozoic rugose corals that somehow survived the Permian mass extinction persists among some schools of thought. Paleozoic scleractiniamorphs also have been presented as possible ancestors. The paleontological record shows the first appearance of fossils currently classified within the order Scleractinia to be in the Middle Triassic. These earliest Scleractinia provide a picture of unexpectedly robust taxonomic diversity and high colony integration. Results from molecular biology support a polyphyletic evolution for living Scleractinia and the molecular clock, calibrated against the fossil record, suggests that two major groups of ancestors could extend back to late Paleozoic time. The idea that Scleractinia were derived from soft-bodied, ‘‘anemone-like’’ ancestors that survived the Permian mass extinction, has become a widely considered hypothesis. The 14-million year Mesozoic coral gap stands as a fundamental obstacle to verification of many of these ideas. However, this obstacle is not a barrier for derivation of scleractinians from anemone-like, soft-bodied ancestors. The hypothesis of the ephemeral, ‘‘naked coral’’, presents the greatest potential for solution of the enigma of the origin of scleractinians. It states that different groups of soft-bodied, unrelated ‘‘anemone-like’’ anthozoans gave rise to various calcified scleractinian-like corals through aragonitic biomineralization. Although there is evidence for this phenomenon being more universal in the mid-Triassic interval, following a lengthy Early Triassic post-extinction perturbation, it appears to have occurred at least three other times prior to this interval. This idea suggests that, because of ephemeral characteristics, the skeleton does not represent a clade of zoantharian evolution but instead represents a grade of organization. In the fossil record, skeletons may have appeared and disappeared at different times as some clades reverted to soft-bodied existence and these phenomena could account for notable gaps in the taxonomic and fossil record. A fuller understanding and possible solution to the problem of the origin of modern corals may be forthcoming. However, it will require synthesis of diverse kinds of data and an integration of findings from paleobiology, stratigraphy, molecular biology, carbonate geochemistry, biochemistry and invertebrate physiology.

What all this means is that we are uncertain of the origin of modern octacorals. They are not at all like Paleozoic hexacorals (every single species of which are extinct) that existed when the CO2 concentrations were so high. And they didn't evolve in a world with such high CO2 concentrations, because by then, the terrestrial and oceanic flora population had made a sizable dent in those concentrations. Certainly the corals that exist today do no exhibit any tolerance of anomalous water parameters. They have evolved to thrive under very specific water quality parameters, outside of which they simply cast off their symbiotic zooxanthellae and die.

 

[Abraham3]

Pwnage, lovely pwnage.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's just hard for me to imagine that the 30% of surface area that is land only collects and stores less than 5% of the energy..

The oceans (i.e., water) have a much higher heat capacity than the continents (or any other landmass), or the atmosphere. It is the main reason why there is over 2,000 feet of ice on Greenland (and the Antarctic continent), and less than 10 feet on average in the Arctic ocean. I don't understand why you have a problem with this.

For instance, if 93% of the GHGas generated energy is residing in the oceans --- then the "Climate Change" argument becomes an ocean driven model for current weather events. Not a truly REGIONAL driver of weather based solely on land surface temp.. Tornadoes and malaria rates (e.g.) are not largely "ocean driven".. [[they were never really solely TEMPERATURE driven either :LOL: ]]

Except that our climate is very much ocean-driven. Tornados would be nearly non-existent in the U.S. were it not for the warm Gulf Of Mexico moisture flowing north and colliding with cold Canadian air flowing down out of the Rockies. The Eastern U.S. would not enjoy it's moderate weather and amply rainfall were it not for the existence of the Gulf of Mexico. The oceans are critical drivers of the global climate. El Nino, La Nina, the various oscillation currents, the thermohaline, hurricanes, tropical storms, etc., all are major players driving the climate on our planet. Surely you know this.

Malaria is a mosquito-borne pathogen. It thrives in marshy/wetland conditions. Where do you think all that water ultimately comes from?

As I said, tornadoes and mosquito-borne diseases were never even Temperature driven plagues.. As anyone who's tried the hike the high alpine of Yosemite in the spring knows (with snow still on the ground). One of the deadliest outbreaks on record was in Siberia.

As for tornadoes, there are at least 5 REQUIRED prereqs. Including a dry air source and winds aloft. Unless you've got a mechanism for lowering the baro pressure, they will not even initiate or sustain..

The idea that PDO, AMO produce a RELIABLE, and CONSISTENT change in intensity or number of cyclones simply is not strong.. Much for the same reasons I suggested above..
An AMO or PDO peak MIGHT have a mild additive effect, but it's not consistent. So warmer oceans have implications for melting Arctic seas and mild effects on biospheres, but it's NOT "The Day After Tomorrow" scenerio that you are HOPING for..

Moreover --- it's DIFFERENT than the garbage scenarios we've been fed for 2 decades now about OVERALL surface warming..

 

[flacaltenn]

Check the link I provided there mr. geologist. Of course the fact that the corals evolved when CO2 levels were 20 TIMES what they are today doesn't get a mention from you either.

So you don't understand why that didn't reduce ocean pH at the time?

Seek out some basic education concerning how ocean chemistry works. You don't even understand why "acidification" is the correct term, which is why it was happily used by everyone until the denialist cult decided to politicize the science.

You'd also look more consistent if you didn't use both "it doesn't happen!" and "it's good for the ocean!". Try being consistent and sticking with one conspiracy theory, instead of throwing everything at the wall in the hopes something will stick.

And your knowledge of statistics is flat out embarrassing. "... less than the instrument error of the ARGO system." Sheesh. The statistical blunder of your conspiracy there makes everyone who does understand statistics bust out laughing.

Funny thing about the statistics of instrument errors.. If you have one instrument, you can do miraculous things picking out gems of untarnished data.. However -- if you rely on 10,000 of them and they not only have their own limits of measurement but a nasty inability to agree --- THEN -- your confidence level of measurement FOR THE ARRAY OF 10K of THEM becomes your "instrument error" and DOES represent the hard limit of confidence in the data.