Climate Science Is Not Settled

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
And 90+% of actual scientists. They are all in on it, right?

Don't the majority of those scientist get money from grants? If you convince the government there is a problem then naturally more money will get spent to study the problem. Climatologists coming out and saying there is nothing wrong with the climate will quickly put them all out of work.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,851
13,788
146
So is this guy:


His power knows no bounds.
The mere precense of Al Gore changes the absorption spectrum of CO2 to be transparent to infra-red radiation, there-by proving man-made climate change false.

So let it be written so let it be done.

At least according to conservatives.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,835
49,538
136
Don't the majority of those scientist get money from grants? If you convince the government there is a problem then naturally more money will get spent to study the problem. Climatologists coming out and saying there is nothing wrong with the climate will quickly put them all out of work.

You realize that climatologists study a lot more than global warming, right?

And if you think this is all done because of money stop and think for a minute: what is likely to be a bigger source of money, government science grants or the oil industry? If anything it makes the deniers more suspect.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Don't the majority of those scientist get money from grants? If you convince the government there is a problem then naturally more money will get spent to study the problem. Climatologists coming out and saying there is nothing wrong with the climate will quickly put them all out of work.

They were getting grants under the Republican government too, but they didn't change their story.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,596
7,654
136
For the Earth, the sun is our heat source, (CPU), the continents, ocean, and atmosphere are our heatsink, and the Earths ability to radiate heat to space is our waterloop.

Climatologists claim that the increase in CO2 interferes with Earths ability to radiate heat, (turning down the pump in our waterloop metaphor). If that's true the temperature of our heat sink, continents, ocean, and atmosphere must warm.

They are.

Except for the atmosphere. How did it pause if _everything_ is pushing it to be warmer?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
What difference does it make where the money comes from? They change their story, they are out of a job.

They didn't change their tune even under GWB and GOP congress, despite significant political pressure on them to do "review" their stances.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Except for the atmosphere. How did it pause if _everything_ is pushing it to be warmer?

This has already been explained, upper/ocean surface isn't getting much warmer. It's going deeper into the ocean. Till there is a change in the ocean cycle this will continue at a similar pace. Even with this we still are seeing global temperature records.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,596
7,654
136
This has already been explained, upper/ocean surface isn't getting much warmer. It's going deeper into the ocean. Till there is a change in the ocean cycle this will continue at a similar pace. Even with this we still are seeing global temperature records.
You've got 2 hundredths (0.02c) of a degree increase down there, the atmosphere is missing 2 tenths (0.2c). The measurements do not add up.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
You've got 2 hundredths (0.02c) of a degree increase down there, the atmosphere is missing 2 tenths (0.2c). The measurements do not add up.

LMAO, this can't serious. I has to be a joke
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,851
13,788
146
Except for the atmosphere. How did it pause if _everything_ is pushing it to be warmer?

So the ocean is warmer at the surface and colder at the bottom. It is also warmer at the tropics and colder at the poles. Those differences in temperature in conjunction with the rotation of the Earth and pull of the moon drive the ocean currents.

When those currents bring large amounts of cooler water to the surface it will pull energy out the atmosphere cooling it, or at least slowing the increase.

This is where the PDO and ENSO come in. In the past we'd get 30 years of warm water coming to the surface, warming the atmosphere, and eventually escaping into space as infrared thermal energy. This would be followed by 30 years of cooler water making its way to the surface and warming as it cooled atmosphere.

Overall there would not be a net change in temperature.

Today we are measuring rapid increases in energy all the way down to over a mile deep. The oscillations are no longer going to be up down up down. They will be up pause up pause.

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-global-hiatus-deep-atlantic-ocean.html

Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean



Aug 21, 2014

(Top) Global average surface temperatures, where black dots are yearly averages. Two flat periods (hiatus) are separated by rapid warming from 1976-1999. (Middle) Observations of heat content, compared to the average, in the north Atlantic Ocean. (Bottom) Salinity of the seawater in the same part of the Atlantic. Higher salinity is seen to coincide with more ocean heat storage. Credit: K. Tung / Univ. of Washington
Following rapid warming in the late 20th century, this century has so far seen surprisingly little increase in the average temperature at the Earth's surface. At first this was a blip, then a trend, then a puzzle for the climate science community.
More than a dozen theories have now been proposed for the so-called global warming hiatus, ranging from air pollution to volcanoes to sunspots. New research from the University of Washington shows that the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and south Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle. The study is published Aug. 22 in Science.
Subsurface warming in the ocean explains why global average air temperatures have flatlined since 1999, despite greenhouse gases trapping more solar heat at the Earth's surface.

"Every week there's a new explanation of the hiatus," said corresponding author Ka-Kit Tung, a UW professor of applied mathematics and adjunct faculty member in atmospheric sciences. "Many of the earlier papers had necessarily focused on symptoms at the surface of the Earth, where we see many different and related phenomena. We looked at observations in the ocean to try to find the underlying cause."

The results show that a slow-moving current in the Atlantic, which carries heat between the two poles, sped up earlier this century to draw heat down almost a mile (1,500 meters). Most of the previous studies focused on shorter-term variability or particles that could block incoming sunlight, but they could not explain the massive amount of heat missing for more than a decade.

"The finding is a surprise, since the current theories had pointed to the Pacific Ocean as the culprit for hiding heat," Tung said. "But the data are quite convincing and they show otherwise."

Tung and co-author Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China, who was a UW visiting professor last year, used recent observations of deep-sea temperatures from Argo floats that sample the water down to 6,500 feet (2,000 meters) depth. The data show an increase in heat sinking around 1999, when the rapid warming of the 20th century stopped.

"There are recurrent cycles that are salinity-driven that can store heat deep in the Atlantic and Southern oceans," Tung said. "After 30 years of rapid warming in the warm phase, now it's time for the cool phase."

Rapid warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, they found, was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle that kept more heat near the surface. When observations show the ocean cycle flipped, around the year 2000, the current began to draw heat deeper into the ocean, working to counteract human-driven warming.

The cycle starts when saltier, denser water at the surface northern part of the Atlantic, near Iceland, causes the water to sink. This changes the speed of the huge current in the Atlantic Ocean that circulates heat throughout the planet.

"When it's heavy water on top of light water, it just plunges very fast and takes heat with it," Tung said. Recent observations at the surface in the North Atlantic show record-high saltiness, Tung said, while at the same time, deeper water in the North Atlantic shows increasing amounts of heat.

The authors dug up historical data to show that the cooling in the three decades between 1945 to 1975 – which caused people to worry about the start of an Ice Age – was during a cooling phase. (It was thought to be caused by air pollution.) Earlier records in Central England show the 40- to 70-year cycle goes back centuries, and other records show it has existed for millennia.

Changes in Atlantic Ocean circulation historically meant roughly 30 warmer years followed by 30 cooler years. Now that it is happening on top of global warming, however, the trend looks more like a staircase.

The temperature oscillations have a natural switch. During the warm period, faster currents cause more tropical water to travel to the North Atlantic, warming both the surface and the deep water. At the surface this warming melts ice. This eventually makes the surface water there less dense and after a few decades puts the brakes on the circulation, setting off a 30-year cooling phase.

This explanation implies that the current slowdown in global warming could last for another decade, or longer, and then rapid warming will return. But Tung emphasizes it's hard to predict what will happen next.

A pool of freshwater from melting ice, now sitting in the Arctic Ocean, could overflow into the North Atlantic to upset the cycle.

"We are not talking about a normal situation because there are so many other things happening due to climate change," Tung said.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,851
13,788
146
You've got 2 hundredths (0.02c) of a degree increase down there, the atmosphere is missing 2 tenths (0.2c). The measurements do not add up.

LMAO, this can't serious. I has to be a joke

I think I understand now why he's not understanding my arguements.

Jasklas,

Different mediums hold different amounts of energy at the same temperature. This is called specific heat, (cp).

Air at 20C has a specific heat of 1.005 KJ/kgK
While water has a specific heat of 4.18 KJ/kgK

The amount of energy (H) required to raise the temperature (dT) of a mass (m) of air is given as:

H = cp x m x dT

Mass of the Atmosphere 5.1 x 10^18 kg

So for your .2C dT that would be equal to :

H = 1.025x10^21J of energy.

There is 100 times the "missing" atmospheric energy in the oceans over the period of the pause.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
So the ocean is warmer at the surface and colder at the bottom. It is also warmer at the tropics and colder at the poles. Those differences in temperature in conjunction with the rotation of the Earth and pull of the moon drive the ocean currents.

When those currents bring large amounts of cooler water to the surface it will pull energy out the atmosphere cooling it, or at least slowing the increase.

This is where the PDO and ENSO come in. In the past we'd get 30 years of warm water coming to the surface, warming the atmosphere, and eventually escaping into space as infrared thermal energy. This would be followed by 30 years of cooler water making its way to the surface and warming as it cooled atmosphere.

Overall there would not be a net change in temperature.

Today we are measuring rapid increases in energy all the way down to over a mile deep. The oscillations are no longer going to be up down up down. They will be up pause up pause.

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-global-hiatus-deep-atlantic-ocean.html

All they do is explain phenomenon after it already happened. Aka no idea wtf they are doing. All because i disagree you automatically assume im science illterate but thats not true. I see climate scientists alot like i see early psychologists. They cant make sense out of their steaming pile of shit attempt to quantify the climate.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
If only you guys knew how baseless all the global warming fear mongering vitriol really was. Oh well. We have a sustainability problem... I get that. Climate scientists are about near the bottom of the list of the sciences i trust to solve the problem. Thorium reactor pls.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,596
7,654
136
When those currents bring large amounts of cooler water to the surface it will pull energy out the atmosphere cooling it, or at least slowing the increase.

Your point is well taken. OHC can continuously increase while still retaining water cold enough to moderate the atmosphere. My contest there is withdrawn.

Different mediums hold different amounts of energy at the same temperature. This is called specific heat, (cp).

Simpletron believed the increase in OHC would only raise the atmosphere 0.02c. "It doesn't add up" is assuming that's true.

There is 100 times the "missing" atmospheric energy in the oceans over the period of the pause.

That's an interesting idea.

I would like a computer model to forecast OHC, based on CO2 emissions. That may prove more valuable than forecasting atmospheric temperature.
 
Last edited:

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,851
13,788
146
Your point is well taken. OHC can continuously increase while still retaining water cold enough to moderate the atmosphere. My contest there is withdrawn.



Simpletron believed the increase in OHC would only raise the atmosphere 0.02c. "It doesn't add up" is assuming that's true.



That's an interesting idea.

I would like a computer model to forecast OHC, based on CO2 emissions. That may prove more valuable than forecasting atmospheric temperature.

I think simpletron was refering to the increase in temperature of the oceans caused by the 1x10^23 J of energy dumped into the ocean

Let's see. We can use the same equation above with the cp for water and the mass of the oceans, (1.37x10^21kg)

Wolfram Alpha comes up with:
.01746 K dT
(I love that site/app it does all the units for you)

So about .02C rise when you round.

So I'm in agreement with his number, but not the significance he puts on it.
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,278
89
91
The ocean contains more energy than air at the same temperature more news at 11 Jesus christ everyone should know that. Its not like you need wolfram to prove water has a higher specific heat than atmospheric air. Its going to be a bad estimate no matter what so wolfram is overkill.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,851
13,788
146
The ocean contains more energy than air at the same temperature more news at 11 Jesus christ everyone should know that. Its not like you need wolfram to prove water has a higher specific heat than atmospheric air. Its going to be a bad estimate no matter what so wolfram is overkill.

If you had been reading the thread you would realize that not everyone knew that fact. I was simply walking through how to calculate temprature changes using specific heat for those people.

Jaskalas and I had a difference of opinion about what simpletron was referring to. I used Wolfram Alpha to backup my opinion with math and facts.......


Is there anything else I could summarize for you since you appear to have missed most of the posts on this page?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,596
7,654
136
I think simpletron was refering to the increase in temperature of the oceans caused by the 1x10^23 J of energy dumped into the ocean...

So I'm in agreement with his number, but not the significance he puts on it.

Trying to be clear here before drawing further conclusions.

Is there agreement that the rise in OHC would equal 0.02c atmospheric warming? I'm assuming that means even less of a temperature change for the ocean.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,732
199
106
Trying to be clear here before drawing further conclusions.

Is there agreement that the rise in OHC would equal 0.02c atmospheric warming? I'm assuming that means even less of a temperature change for the ocean.



And from your previous post.

You've got 2 hundredths (0.02c) of a degree increase down there, the atmosphere is missing 2 tenths (0.2c). The measurements do not add up.

You know it's a .02c increase in ocean temperature from what you say.
 

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,851
13,788
146
Trying to be clear here before drawing further conclusions.

Is there agreement that the rise in OHC would equal 0.02c atmospheric warming? I'm assuming that means even less of a temperature change for the ocean.

No what we are saying is the increase in OHC has raised the average temperature of the ocean by 0.02C. OHC and Temperature are directly tied by the equation I used a few posts ago. I used that equation to check to see if simpletron was referring to the increase in ocean temperature. I got the same number simpletron did when I calculated the ocean temperature rise.

Also, that small rise in ocean temperature represents energy that IS NOT being used to warm the atmosphere. Basically as the ocean temperature rises the atmosphere cools or at least the temperature increase slows which is what we are measuring.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |