Climate Change

“An important result of this paper is the demonstration that the oceans have continued to warm over the past decade, at a rate consistent with estimates of Earth’s net energy imbalance,” Rintoul said. “While the rate of increase in surface air temperatures slowed in the last 10 to 15 years, the heat stored by the planet, which is heavily dominated by the oceans, has steadily increased as greenhouse gases have continued to rise.”

That extra heat isn’t expected to swim with the fishes forever. Some of it will eventually rise from the deep, raising temperatures in places that more directly affect us landlubbers.

Just how rapidly the oceanic heat will resurface to warm the land is “something that we struggle with,” said Scripps’s Gille. But she said heat is constantly shifting between oceans and the atmosphere. “A warmer ocean will mean a warmer atmosphere.”
 
6a00d83451e28a69e20120a6781d1d970c-pi
 
You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that man made global warming is obvious, common sense and empirically observed science that we are watching happen right before our eyes. It's a fact. Why should he not believe it? Unless he was say, for instance, a Libertarian extremist ideologue that is more interested in some ideological purpose than the facts. Or was being disingenuous and was actually working for a libtardarian think tank for salary.

I thought that we had settled this.

1. You accept the Hansen Hypothesis that it is man-produced CO2 that is causing our climate change;

2. You believe that a little increase in CO2 could cause a disproportionate increase in temperature via positive feedback;

I don't. I suppose I should add that I don't know what is causing climate change any more than those things that have always caused it. I don't know whether man is affecting his own climate or not, but I do know that their is no positive feedback. The feedback is a little negative in fact!!!
 
Last edited:
Scott Brown, Cory Gardner Shift Stance On Climate Change In First Senate Debates


WASHINGTON -- Republican Senate candidates Scott Brown and Cory Gardner on Monday embraced the notion that climate change is caused in part by human activity, despite previously expressing skepticism that man-made climate change is real.

Brown, a former Massachusetts senator, is seeking to unseat Sen. Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, while Gardner, a congressman from Colorado, is looking to defeat Sen. Mark Udall in that state. Both races, which are regarded as unexpectedly competitive for Democrats, had their first debates on Monday. In both, candidates were asked if they believed that humans were causing climate change.

Gardner briefly weighed in on the human contributions to climate change, then used his response to criticize the so-called Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed by House Democrats in 2010:

"First he denied the basic science behind climate change, now he’s changing his tune," Whithorne said in an email to HuffPost. "Scott Brown can’t make up his mind about what he believes. One thing is clear, he’ll say anything that’s politically convenient to try to get himself elected."

Gardner, according to Whithorne, "couldn't even answer the question without attempting to deny and deceive."

"First he ducked it entirely, then deceived Coloradans with an incomplete answer to deliberately mislead voters on his record," Whithorne said. "Maybe he thinks all of the pollution is caused by cow farts? The facts are clear; Gardner has taken votes to deny the reality of climate change and to let power plants dump unlimited carbon pollution into the air."

HuffPost's Pollster average, which combines all publicly available polling, shows Gardner and Udall tied.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/06/republicans-climate-change_n_5941866.html
 
Oceans Getting Hotter Than Anybody Realized

John Upton

The RV Kaharoa motored out of Wellington, New Zealand on Saturday, loaded with more than 100 scientific instruments, each eventually destined for a watery grave. Crewmembers will spend the next two months dropping the 50-pound devices, called Argo floats, into the seas between New Zealand and Mauritius, off the coast of Madagascar. There, the instruments will sink and drift, then measure temperature, salinity and pressure as they resurface to beam the data to a satellite. The battery-powered floats will repeat that process every 10 days — until they conk out, after four years or more, and become ocean junk.

Under an international program begun in 2000, and that started producing useful global data in 2005, the world’swarming and acidifying seas have been invisibly filled with thousands of these bobbing instruments. They are gathering and transmitting data that’s providing scientists with the clearest-ever pictures of the hitherto-unfathomed extent of ocean warming. About 90 percent of global warming is ending up not on land, but in the oceans.

assets-climatecentral-org-images-uploads-news-10_3_14_John_ArgoFloats-685x390.jpg
An Argo float. Credit: Alicia Navidad/CSIRO.

Research published Sunday concluded that the upper 2,300 feet of the Southern Hemisphere’s oceans may have warmed twice as quickly after 1970 than had previously been thought. Gathering reliable ocean data in the Southern Hemisphere has historically been a challenge, given its remoteness and its relative paucity of commercial shipping, which helps gather ocean data. Argo floats and satellites are now helping to plug Austral ocean data gaps, and improving the accuracy of Northern Hemisphere measurements and estimates.

“The Argo data is really critical,” said Paul Durack, a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory researcher who led the new study, which was published in Climate Nature Change. “The estimates that we had up until now have been pretty systematically underestimating the likely changes.”

Durack and Lawrence Livermore colleagues worked with a Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientist to compare ocean observations with ocean models. They concluded that the upper levels of the planet’s oceans — those of the northern and southern hemispheres combined — had been warming during several decades prior to 2005 at rates that were 24 to 58 percent faster than had previously been realized.

That rapid ocean warming has consequences for the Earth’s climate and its shorelines.

“We continue to be stunned at how rapidly the ocean is warming,” said Sarah Gille, a Scripps Institution of Oceanography professor. Gille was not involved with this paper, nor was she involved with a similar one published Sunday that examined the role of ocean warming in rising sea levels. She described both of them as “tremendously interesting” studies.

“Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today, we'd still have an ocean that is warmer than the ocean of 1950, and that heat commits us to a warmer climate,” Gille said. “Extra heat means extra sea level rise, since warmer water is less dense, so a warmer ocean expands.”

Ocean warming is exacerbating flooding caused by the melting of glaciers and other ice. Seas have risen 8 inches since the industrial revolution, and they continue to rise at a hastening pace, worsening floods and boosting storm surges near shorelines around the world. Another 2 to 7 feet of sea level rise is forecast this century, jeoparizing the homes and neighborhoods of the 5 million Americans who live less than 4 feet above high tide, as well as those of thehundreds of millions living along coastlines in other countries.

The other ocean temperature study, also published Sunday in Climate Nature Change, used Argo and other data to tentatively conclude that all of the ocean warming from 2005 to 2013 had occurred above depths of 6,500 feet. During the same period, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists who wrote the paper concluded, the expansion of those warming waters caused a third of the planet’s 2.8 millimeters of annual sea-level rise.

Sunday’s papers joined more than 1,000 others published so far that have used Argo float data to improve science’s understanding of waterways that are climatically influential but difficult to measure manually. “This research covers a very broad range of topics including ocean circulation, water mass formation and spreading, mesoscale eddies, interannual variability such as El Niño, decadal variability, and multi-decadal climate change,” said Scripps Institution of Oceanography professor Dean Roemmich, who was in New Zealand last week preparing Argo floats for deployment by the RV Kaharoa’s crew. “The program has revolutionized large-scale physical oceanography.”

Steve Rintoul, a researcher at Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or CSIRO, said findings of ocean warming above 6,500 feet in the Jet Propulsion Lab’s study explain the recent slowdown in warming at the Earth’s surface, which is sometimes called global warming hiatus, or warming pause.

“An important result of this paper is the demonstration that the oceans have continued to warm over the past decade, at a rate consistent with estimates of Earth’s net energy imbalance,” Rintoul said. “While the rate of increase in surface air temperatures slowed in the last 10 to 15 years, the heat stored by the planet, which is heavily dominated by the oceans, has steadily increased as greenhouse gases have continued to rise.”

That extra heat isn’t expected to swim with the fishes forever. Some of it will eventually rise from the deep, raising temperatures in places that more directly affect us landlubbers.

Just how rapidly the oceanic heat will resurface to warm the land is “something that we struggle with,” said Scripps’s Gille. But she said heat is constantly shifting between oceans and the atmosphere. “A warmer ocean will mean a warmer atmosphere.”
Excellent piece.
 
You've posted the same graph at least a half-dozen times.
I thought that we had settled this.

1. You accept the Hansen Hypothesis that it is man-produced CO2 that is causing our climate change;

2. You believe that a little increase in CO2 could cause a disproportionate increase in temperature via positive feedback;

I don't. I suppose I should add that I don't know what is causing climate change any more than those things that have always caused it. I don't know whether man is affecting his own climate or not, but I do know that their is no positive feedback. The feedback is a little negative in fact!!!


Well finally, there it is. So you don't think man-produced CO2 is causing global warming. That's just fucking stupid. A special kind of stupid. You are disagreeing with virtually the entire world's science community and common sense simple physics.

Actually I don't believe you. I think you are lying.

Co2ClimateChangeAndFossilFuel.jpg
 
Pardon me if this is a repeat...

The savage heat waves that struck Australia last year were almost certainly a direct consequence of greenhouse gases released by human activity, researchers said Monday. It is perhaps the most definitive statement climate scientists have made tying a specific weather event to global warming.

Five groups of researchers, using distinct methods, analyzed the heat that baked Australia for much of 2013 and continued into 2014, briefly shutting down the Australian Open tennis tournament in January when the temperature climbed to 111 degrees Fahrenheit.

All five research groups came to the conclusion that last year’s heat waves could not have been as severe without the long-term climatic warming caused by human emissions.

“When we look at the heat across the whole of Australia and the whole 12 months of 2013, we can say that this was virtually impossible without climate change,” said David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne who led some of the research.
 
I thought that we had settled this.

1. You accept the Hansen Hypothesis that it is man-produced CO2 that is causing our climate change;

2. You believe that a little increase in CO2 could cause a disproportionate increase in temperature via positive feedback;

I don't. I suppose I should add that I don't know what is causing climate change any more than those things that have always caused it. I don't know whether man is affecting his own climate or not, but I do know that their is no positive feedback. The feedback is a little negative in fact!!!

As I said, jem has at least a dozen threads where you can pursue this. Please do so.
 
Back
Top