Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

DivineComedy · Jan 28, 2020

AFM said: ↑

It is absolutely necessary to remove CO2 from the earth to prove the hypothesis. You claim cause and effect. The only way to do that is to remove the cause and then measure the effect. Then to verify the result add the cause back in and measure the effect again. If the hypothesis is correct temperature will go down as CO2 is removed and temperature will go back up when CO2 is added back in.

All your post has is circumstantial evidence. Correlation does not prove causation.
Click to expand...

I see you failed to provide me with the quote of the IPCC hypothesis, which you claimed was different from mine, are you having a hard time finding it? I think it best you quote it immediately, to prove your intellectual honesty.

“Increased CO2 in the atmosphere can cause global warming.” (me)

“It is absolutely necessary to remove CO2 from the earth to prove the hypothesis. You claim cause and effect. The only way to do that is to remove the cause and then measure the effect. Then to verify the result add the cause back in and measure the effect again. If the hypothesis is correct temperature will go down as CO2 is removed and temperature will go back up when CO2 is added back in.” (AFM)

1) Feel free to quote the exact place in this topic I used the phrase “cause and effect.”

Most of us have some transportation, whether or not you have ever had a carbureted vehicle I don’t know. Maybe everything in life has been computerized and simplified for you.

It is not absolutely necessary to remove the earth’s air to test if increased air in an Air–fuel ratio will cause a lean condition.

Say the hypothesis was, “increased dihydrogen monoxide in your computer can cause failure”; it is not absolutely necessary to remove dihydrogen monoxide from the earth to prove the hypothesis, you could just take the garden hose inside and test it that way. I suggest you do that now.

AFM · Jan 28, 2020

DivineComedy said: ↑

I see you failed to provide me with the quote of the IPCC hypothesis, which you claimed was different from mine, are you having a hard time finding it? I think it best you quote it immediately, to prove your intellectual honesty.

“Increased CO2 in the atmosphere can cause global warming.” (me)

“It is absolutely necessary to remove CO2 from the earth to prove the hypothesis. You claim cause and effect. The only way to do that is to remove the cause and then measure the effect. Then to verify the result add the cause back in and measure the effect again. If the hypothesis is correct temperature will go down as CO2 is removed and temperature will go back up when CO2 is added back in.” (AFM)

1) Feel free to quote the exact place in this topic I used the phrase “cause and effect.”

Most of us have some transportation, whether or not you have ever had a carbureted vehicle I don’t know. Maybe everything in life has been computerized and simplified for you.

It is not absolutely necessary to remove the earth’s air to test if increased air in an Air–fuel ratio will cause a lean condition.

Say the hypothesis was, “increased dihydrogen monoxide in your computer can cause failure”; it is not absolutely necessary to remove dihydrogen monoxide from the earth to prove the hypothesis, you could just take the garden hose inside and test it that way. I suggest you do that now.
Click to expand...

You are claiming cause and effect. Temperature goes up because CO2 has gone up. No ??

Now how do you falsify that hypothesis ??? Kinda obvious don’t you think ???

DivineComedy · Jan 28, 2020

AFM said: ↑

Temperature goes up because CO2 has gone up. No ??

Now how do you falsify that hypothesis ???
Click to expand...

The earth rotated, which produced a rosy-fingered Dawn in really old literary terms.

AFM · Jan 28, 2020

DivineComedy said: ↑

The earth rotated, which produced a rosy-fingered Dawn in really old literary terms.
Click to expand...

So after all this you have nothing.

DivineComedy · Jan 28, 2020

AFM said: ↑

So after all this you have nothing.
Click to expand...

AFM’s hypothesis, he challenges me to falsify; “Temperature goes up because CO2 has gone up.” (AFM)

I did so with Homer, the sun rising out of Oceanus. I probably could have just turned on my electric heater to prove the hypothesis wrong, I did not have to remove CO2 from the earth to make the temperature go up, or stop the earth’s rotation so we stayed in the dark side. Maybe I should have just pointed to a more contemporary book:

“The novel is set in the year 2312, in the great city of Terminator on Mercury, which is built on gigantic tracks in order to constantly stay in the planet's habitable zone near the terminator.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2312_(novel)

At some point, I should quote some Don Lemon, because damn, reading, wees bees ignorant of that stuff according to the Lemon show.

AFM · Jan 28, 2020

DivineComedy said: ↑

AFM’s hypothesis, he challenges me to falsify; “Temperature goes up because CO2 has gone up.” (AFM)

I did so with Homer, the sun rising out of Oceanus. I probably could have just turned on my electric heater to prove the hypothesis wrong, I did not have to remove CO2 from the earth to make the temperature go up, or stop the earth’s rotation so we stayed in the dark side. Maybe I should have just pointed to a more contemporary book:

“The novel is set in the year 2312, in the great city of Terminator on Mercury, which is built on gigantic tracks in order to constantly stay in the planet's habitable zone near the terminator.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2312_(novel)

At some point, I should quote some Don Lemon, because damn, reading, wees bees ignorant of that stuff according to the Lemon show.
Click to expand...

Okay.

JCS · Jan 30, 2020

Moi621 said: ↑

Remember all that Antarctic ice on the move
BLAME PEOPLEKIND is back seat to Blame for me.
I mean those "scientist" found flowing water under the ice
at terra firma regardless of top side ice insulation.

The Heat Source
Diving For Dollars Scientist
Do Not Discuss is Geothermal.
No Dollars In That. Probably "blacklisted" from grants.

The change in geothermal effects is most visible
in the Arctic & Antarctic but is evident world wide
if someone would just stick a thermometer in some Earth's .
Blobs of Warm Water as off the California coast.
Australian Reef and other coral die offs world wide.
Notice the above 2 exist in areas of geothermal plate tectonic activity.

What Am I Missing Here?

is draining a lot of
Fresh Water on our
Oceanic Thermal Conveyor systems.
Global Terrorism
Shutting down oceanic thermal conveyors
Click to expand...

I took a short hiatus from the forum, but wanted to continue with your theme on underwater geothermal heating & how much impact it's contributing, if any, to global warming. The idea is worth considering, which compelled me to look more into it as well. I found some relevant info that I thought I should share.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<> PART 1 <>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMOUNT OF HEAT RELEASED FROM GEO/HYDROTHERMAL SOURCES IS NOT ENOUGH TO ACCOUNT FOR OCEAN WARMING

Dr. Craig McClain is the Executive Director of the Lousiana University Marine Consortium. He addresses the "Hydrothermal Vents = Global Warming" claim:

Both articles continue on with complete foolishness. The evidence is the continued reports of new hydrothermal vent finds with amazingly high temperatures. The first problem, of many, is that they confound the discovery of a vent with the geological appearance of a vent. The other problem is the basic chemistry and math. I will show with simple math that these conjectures are outlandish.

* The water volume of the ocean is 1.30 x 109 km3 or 2.15 x 1024 grams (given a density of 1,025 km/m3). It is actually a little larger, but I use the more conservative estimate to bias it toward their proposal
* “Geophysical estimates…of the total hydrothermal flux (9×1012 W) are well established.” That is 9×1012 Joules per second or 2.15 x 1012 calories per second or 6.78 x 1019 calories per year.
* The specific heat of seawater is ~3.850 J (g C) or 0.92017 calories
* Thus it would take 1.98 x 1024 calories to raise the temperature of the ocean 1 degree (#3 x #1)
* It would take 29,200 years to raise the ocean 1 degree C (#4 / #2)
* In one year, hyrdothermal vents would raise the ocean temperature by 0.0000343 degrees C (inverse of #5)

In a reply to a reader, the author further states:

Please also note that there are no assumptions in the above calculations. I.e. the volume of water in the oceans, the specific heat of seawater, and geophysical thermal outputs, are measurements taken, and confirmed by multiple methods.

The flux estimates are widely accepted. While I agree there may be some error associated with the term. It would have to be orders of magnitude off to lead to the desired “global warming”. Essentially every part of the seafloor would have to be covered with vent fluxing at a rate 100x greater than they currently do. We definitely know, as in fact, that hyrdothermal vents DO NOT cover the entire seafloor.

https://www.deepseanews.com/2007/02/hydrothermal-ventsglobal-warming/
Click to expand...

DEEP OCEAN TEMPERATURES REMAIN STABLE AT BETWEEN 1-3 C. TEMPERATURES DROP RAPIDLY WHERE THE THERMOCLINE BEGINS AND GRADUALLY DIMINISH BEYOND IT. TEMPERATURES AT SHALLOWER DEPTHS ARE WARMER AND CAN FLUCTUATE GREATLY

Thermocline: A thermocline is a transition layer between deep and surface water (or mixed layer). The definitions of these layers are based on temperature. The mixed layer warms the fastest due to the high sun angle and warm air interacting with the water. The thermocline varies in thickness from about 1,000 feet to 3,000 feet. Below this point water cools more slowly. At areas like the Mariana Trench (or the Marianas Trench) the water temperature ranges from 34-39 degrees F (1-4 degrees C).
Click to expand...

The thermocline varies in depth. It is semi-permanent in the tropics, variable in temperate regions (often deepest during the summer) and shallow to nonexistent in the polar regions, where the water column is cold from the surface to the bottom. A layer of sea ice will act as an insulation blanket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline
Click to expand...

During the summer the surface water warms. As warmer water is less dense than cold, this warm water remains at the surface and the water column is “stable”. There is little wind so the mixed layer is shallow, as is the thermocline. During the fall and winter, cooler temperatures and wind from storms cool the surface waters. This increases the density of the surface water, which then sinks to a level of similar density. This combination of cooling and wind mixing causes a deep mixed layer. In the spring, the water warms again and the thermocline reforms.

http://www.coexploration.org/bermuda/html/thermocline_graph.html
Click to expand...

Thermocline, oceanic water layer in which water temperature decreases rapidly with increasing depth. A widespread permanent thermocline exists beneath the relatively warm, well-mixed surface layer, from depths of about 200 m (660 feet) to about 1,000 m (3,000 feet), in which interval temperatures diminish steadily. The deep waters below the thermocline layer decrease in temperature much more gradually toward the seafloor. In latitudes marked by distinct seasons, a seasonal thermocline at much shallower depths forms during the summer as a result of solar heating, and it is destroyed by diminished insolation and increased surface turbulence during the winter. Water density is governed by temperature and salinity; consequently, the thermocline coincides generally with the pycnocline, or layer in which density increases rapidly with depth. The middle layer of water in a lake or reservoir during the summer is also called a thermocline.

https://www.britannica.com/science/thermocline
Click to expand...

Below this permanent thermocline, temperatures decrease slowly. In the very deep ocean basins, the temperature may be observed to increase slightly with depth. This occurs when the deepest parts of the oceans are filled by water with a single temperature from a common source. This water experiences an adiabatic temperature rise as it sinks. Such a temperature rise does not make the water column unstable, because the increased temperature is caused by compression, which increases the density of the water. For example, surface seawater of 2 °C (35.6 °F) sinking to a depth of 10,000 metres (about 33,000 feet) increases its temperature by about 1.3 °C (2.3 °F). When measuring deep-sea temperatures, the adiabatic temperature rise, which is a function of salinity, initial temperature, and pressure change, is calculated and subtracted from the observed temperature to obtain the potential temperature. Potential temperatures are used to identify a common type of water and to trace this water back to its source.

https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater/Temperature-distribution
Click to expand...

COMPUTER MODELS & OBSERVED DATA FURTHER VALIDATES ANTHROPOGENIC OCEAN WARMING

Scripps Study Finds Greenhouse Gases Proximate Cause of Ocean Warming

Researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear scientific evidence that human activity-and very little else- is warming the world’s oceans.

The Scripps’ report, coming from one of the world’s leading ocean research institutions, may turn out to be the “smoking gun” that finally establishes the link between greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide and other pollutants) and the increase in temperature worldwide, or global warming.

The authors contend that their results clearly indicate that the oceans’ warming is produced “anthropogenically,” i.e. by human activities. The study, conducted by Tim Barnett and David Pierce, along with colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), used a combination of computer models and real-world “observed” data to capture signals of the penetration of greenhouse gas-influenced warming in the oceans, a Scripps bulletin stated.

The findings were reported at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), held in Washington D.C. Dr. Barnett, a research marine physicist in the Climate Research Division at Scripps, stated: “This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution.” He admitted to being “stunned” by the results because the computer models reproduced the penetration of the warming signal in all the oceans. “The statistical significance of these results is far too strong to be merely dismissed and should wipe out much of the uncertainty about the reality of global warming,” he continued.

“In all of the ocean basins, the warming signal found in the upper 700 meters predicted by the models corresponded to the measurements obtained at sea with confidence exceeding 95 percent. The correspondence was especially strong in the upper 500 meters of the water column.”

The bulletin noted that it is this “high degree of visual agreement and statistical significance that leads Barnett to conclude that the warming is the product of human influence. Efforts to explain the ocean changes through naturally occurring variations in the climate or external forces- such as solar or volcanic factors–did not come close to reproducing the observed warming.”

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2005/02/21/51777.htm
Click to expand...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<> END OF PART 1 <>

JCS · Jan 30, 2020

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<> PART 2 <>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER GEOTHERMAL HEAT CAN PERTURB CLIMATE BY LOOKING AT THREE IMPORTANT PROPERTIES BETWEEN ATMOSPHERIC & OCEANIC DYNAMICS

Heat from the earth’s interior - geothermal heat (GH) - leaks through the earth‘s crust into the atmosphere and oceans at a rate which is very small compared to meteorological heat fluxes (Table 1). Therefore, climate modellers make no allowance for geothermal heat flux (GHF) in current climate models (e.g. Peixoto and Oort 1992). While this exclusion of GHF is justified for land surfaces (even in volcanic eruptions), what happens to GH entering the deep ocean?

There are important physical, dynamical and thermal distinctions between the atmosphere and oceans relevant to the theme of this paper:

* Physical: Oceans weigh nearly 300 times as much as, and contain over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and have a mean depth of nearly 4 km. Whereas air density depends mainly on temperature and pressure, sea-water density depends mainly upon temperature and salinity.

* Dynamical: Whereas the atmospheric circulation ultimately derives its energy from horizontal density gradients, the ocean circulation is primarily mechanically driven by frictional wind drag on its surface, although horizontal density gradients also play a significant r61e.

* Thermal: The atmosphere receives its main input of heat energy (radiation, sensible heat and latent heat) through its lower boundary, the ocean through its upper boundary. Thc atmosphere as a whole has a thermal response time of order one month. The ocean as a whole has a thermal response time of centuries, but the surface layer of ocean of order 30-100m thick, which interacts directly with the atmosphere, has a response time of a few months. However, the global ice-sheets which originate from atmospheric precipitation have response times of millennia. Finally, the poleward heat transfers by the ocean and atmosphere are comparable and are of order 3-6x1Ol5W in each hemisphere, although there is still a significant discrepancy between estimates based on satellite measurements and those based on surface measurements (Charnock 1993).

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1998.tb06333.x
Click to expand...

NASA STUDY FINDS EARTH'S OCEAN ABYSS HAS NOT WARMED

The cold waters of Earth’s deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years.

Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

In the 21st century, greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere, just as they did in the 20th century, but global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases. The temperature of the top half of the world's oceans — above the 1.24-mile mark — is still climbing, but not fast enough to account for the stalled air temperatures.

Many processes on land, air and sea have been invoked to explain what is happening to the "missing" heat. One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. This latest study is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean. Scientists have been taking the temperature of the top half of the ocean directly since 2005, using a network of 3,000 floating temperature probes called the Argo array.

"The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure," said JPL's William Llovel, lead author of the study published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. "The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is — not much."

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2165/nasa-study-finds-earths-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed/
Click to expand...

WARMING OF ARCTIC WATERS IS NOT DUE TO GEO/HYDROTHERMAL HEAT, BUT A LAYER OF WARM WATER IS GROWING BENEATH THE ARCTIC SEA ICE AT RELATIVELY SHALLOW DEPTHS, CREATING A TICKING TIME BOMB

When it comes to the ocean, deeper usually means colder. But there are exceptions. In the Arctic Ocean, for example, a warm layer of water is trapped 150 feet under the ocean’s chunky ice floes by a ceiling of cold fresh water near the surface. The cold layer insulates the sea ice from the warmer waters below.

In a 2018 study, scientists have found that the amount of heat in the trapped warm layer in the Beaufort Gyre, a major Arctic Ocean circulation system north of Alaska, has doubled over the past 30 years. And, if the temperatures continue to spike, it could eventually spell trouble for the ice above.

“At some point, the heat from this layer is going to have to come up to the surface, and it’s going to impact the ice,” said John Toole, a scientist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and co-author of the study. “It’s a ticking time bomb.”

The warm water layer forms in the summer, when warmer air temperatures cause ice in the adjoining North Chukchi Sea to melt, exposing the seawater to sunlight. The sun’s rays heat up the water, and then winds sweep the warm meltwater toward the ice-covered waters in the Arctic Ocean’s interior.

Warmer water typically floats since it’s lighter, but the higher salt content of this water makes it slightly denser than the more buoyant fresher ice-covered waters. The warmer, saltier waters sink and get trapped below the colder surface layer.

The study is yet another case in point of why melting Arctic sea ice is a problem: When ice melts, it can no longer play the important role of reflecting sunlight. Instead, the melting gives the sun unfettered access to the open water, allowing the ocean to absorb more heat.

As that heat diffuses upward over time, it stalls the growth of the sea ice during the winter in the region, said Toole. “And, if the deeper, warmer water starts mixing more vigorously with the cold water above it, we will see even more sea ice thinning during the summer.”

https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/a-ticking-time-bomb-in-the-arctic/
Click to expand...

CORAL BLEACHING

Coral bleaching may be caused by a number of factors. While localized triggers lead to localized bleaching, the large scale coral bleaching events of the recent years have been triggered by global warming. Under increased carbon dioxide concentration expected in the 21st century, corals are expected to becoming increasingly rare on reef systems. Coral reefs located in warm, shallow water with low water flow have been more affected than reefs located in areas with higher water flow.

Expanded list of possible triggers:

* increased water temperature (most commonly due to global warming), or reduced water temperatures
* oxygen starvation caused by an increase in zooplankton levels as a result of overfishing[unreliable source?]
* increased solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet light)
* increased sedimentation (due to silt runoff)
* bacterial infections
* changes in salinity
* herbicides
* extreme low tide and exposure
* cyanide fishing
* elevated sea levels due to global warming (Watson)[clarification needed]
* mineral dust from African dust storms caused by drought
* pollutants such as oxybenzone, butylparaben, octyl methoxycinnamate, or enzacamene: four common sunscreen ingredients that are nonbiodegradable and can wash off of skin
* ocean acidification due to elevated levels of CO2 caused by air pollution
* being exposed to Oil or other chemical spills

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching
Click to expand...

GREENHOUSES GASES TRAPPED IN UNDERSEA OCEAN "RESERVOIRS" COULD BECOME UNSTABLE & RELEASED AS OCEANS CONTINUE TO WARM

The world's oceans could harbor an unpleasant surprise for global warming, based on new research that shows how naturally occurring carbon gases trapped in reservoirs atop the seafloor escaped to superheat the planet in prehistory.

Scientists say events that began on the ocean bottom thousands of years ago so disrupted the Earth's atmosphere that it melted away the ice age. Those new findings challenge a long-standing paradigm that ocean water alone regulated carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during glacial cycles. Instead, the study shows geologic processes can dramatically upset the carbon cycle and cause global change.

For today's world, the findings could portend an ominous development. The undersea carbon reservoirs released greenhouse gas to the atmosphere as oceans warmed, the study shows, and today the ocean is heating up again due to humanmade global warming.

If undersea carbon reservoirs are upset again, they would emit a huge new source of greenhouse gases, exacerbating climate change. Temperature increases in the ocean are on pace to reach that tipping point by the end of the century. For example, a big carbon reservoir beneath the western Pacific near Taiwan is already within a few degrees Celsius of destabilizing.

Moreover, the phenomenon is a threat unaccounted for in climate model projections. Undersea carbon dioxide reservoirs are relatively recent discoveries and their characteristics and history are only beginning to be understood.

In many cases, the carbon reservoirs are bottled up by their hydrate caps. But those covers are sensitive to temperature changes. As oceans warm, the caps can melt, a development the paper warns would lead to a double wallop for climate change -- a new source of geologic carbon in addition to the humanmade greenhouse gases.

Oceans absorb nearly all the excess energy from the Earth's atmosphere, and as a result they have been warming rapidly in recent decades. Over the past quarter-century, Earth's oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, other studies have shown. Throughout the marine water column, ocean heat has increased for the last 50 years.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190213090812.htm
Click to expand...

GEOLOGICAL HEAT SOURCES

Most of Earth's heat is stored in the mantle, Marone says, and there are four sources that keep it hot.

(1) First, there's the heat left over from when gravity first condensed a planet from the cloud of hot gases and particles in pre-Earth space. As the molten ball cooled, some 4 billion years ago, the outside hardened and formed a crust. The mantle is still cooling down. It only contributes 5 to 10 percent of the total, "about the same amount as gravitational heat."
(2) Gravitational heat...The friction created by this process generated considerable heat, which, like the original heat, still has not fully dissipated.
(3) Then there's latent heat, Marone says. This type arises from the core's expanding as the Earth cools from the inside out. Just as freezing water turns to ice, that liquid metal is turning solid—and adding volume in the process. "The inner core is becoming larger by about a centimeter every thousand years," Marone says. The heat released by this expansion is seeping into the mantle. "The amount of heat caused by this radiation is almost the same as the total heat measured emanating from the Earth."
(4) For all this, however, Marone says, the vast majority of the heat in Earth's interior—up to 90 percent—is fueled by the decaying of radioactive isotopes like Potassium 40, Uranium 238, 235, and Thorium 232 contained within the mantle.

Sometime billions of years in the future, he predicts, the core and mantle could cool and solidify enough to meet the crust. If that happens, Earth will become a cold, dead planet like the moon.

https://phys.org/news/2006-03-probing-earth-core.html
Click to expand...

Geologists have used temperature measurements from more than 20,000 boreholes around the world to estimate that some 44 terawatts (44 trillion watts) of heat continually flow from Earth’s interior into space. Where does it come from?

Radioactive decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium in Earth’s crust and mantle is a principal source...

One thing that’s at least 97-percent certain is that radioactive decay supplies only about half the Earth’s heat. Other sources – primordial heat left over from the planet’s formation, and possibly others as well – must account for the rest.

https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2011/07/17/kamland-geoneutrinos/
Click to expand...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<> END <>

AFM · Jan 30, 2020

JCS said: ↑

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<> PART 2 <>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ADDRESSING THE QUESTION OF WHETHER GEOTHERMAL HEAT CAN PERTURB CLIMATE BY LOOKING AT THREE IMPORTANT PROPERTIES BETWEEN ATMOSPHERIC & OCEANIC DYNAMICS

NASA STUDY FINDS EARTH'S OCEAN ABYSS HAS NOT WARMED

WARMING OF ARCTIC WATERS IS NOT DUE TO GEO/HYDROTHERMAL HEAT, BUT A LAYER OF WARM WATER IS GROWING BENEATH THE ARCTIC SEA ICE AT RELATIVELY SHALLOW DEPTHS, CREATING A TICKING TIME BOMB

CORAL BLEACHING

GREENHOUSES GASES TRAPPED IN UNDERSEA OCEAN "RESERVOIRS" COULD BECOME UNSTABLE & RELEASED AS OCEANS CONTINUE TO WARM

GEOLOGICAL HEAT SOURCES

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<> END <>
Click to expand...

Nice cut and paste from the global warming alarmist plethora of papers.

Moi621 · Jan 30, 2020

@JCS
Copy / paste diving for dollars science doesn't count.

Observation like flowing water between Antarctic land & ice - - counts.
With that information "figure it out for yourself"
Easy not to find what you don't get paid to look for.

SUPPORT STATIC EARTH!

Stop Continental Drift.

Cork the volcanoes, thermal vents, etc.

AFM · Jan 30, 2020

Moi621 said: ↑

@JCS
Copy / paste diving for dollars science doesn't count.

Observation like flowing water between Antarctic land & ice - - counts.
With that information "figure it out for yourself"
Easy not to find what you don't get paid to look for.

SUPPORT STATIC EARTH!

Stop Continental Drift.

Cork the volcanoes, thermal vents, etc.
Click to expand...

Please don’t suggest to the alarmists that we should cork the volcanoes.

JCS · Jan 31, 2020

Moi621 said: ↑

@JCS
Copy / paste diving for dollars science doesn't count.

Observation like flowing water between Antarctic land & ice - - counts.
With that information "figure it out for yourself"
Easy not to find what you don't get paid to look for.

SUPPORT STATIC EARTH!

Stop Continental Drift.

Cork the volcanoes, thermal vents, etc.
Click to expand...

Poetic...but got any science to back up your ideas?

Bowerbird · Jan 31, 2020

AFM said: ↑

Please don’t suggest to the alarmists that we should cork the volcanoes.
Click to expand...

Nah! Because the “alarmists” would be too busy rollong on the floor laughing whilst the denialists would be building a conspiracy theory out of it

Bowerbird · Jan 31, 2020

AFM said: ↑

Nice cut and paste from the global warming alarmist plethora of papers.
Click to expand...

Nice failure to address the science

JCS · Jan 31, 2020

AFM said: ↑

Nice cut and paste from the global warming alarmist plethora of papers.
Click to expand...

(1) The devil is in the details, (2) there are too many details to simply paraphrase (which allows you/others to address each detail the way it was presented), (3) I don't want you to claim the scientist/author(s) didn't say what I post, and (4) I don't want you to claim I'm making up information.

That's why I cut/paste so much. Plus I cite my sources so you can review it in its entirety (which I don't think you even read, to be honest). Where is your science? Where are your cites? Why don't you ever cite scientific articles & studies...or even links for your sources?

By the way, one of the climate skeptic scientists you like mentioning...Judith Curry...has recently blogged about supporting a “50-50” attribution (i.e. that trends since the middle of the 20th Century are 50% human-caused, and 50% natural.) So she's not an outright AGW debunker...but believes, according to HER analysis, that it's not 100% AGW. (In fact, her confidence as to the truth of the matter appears to be rather low.) She said:

Pick one:

a) Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans.

b) Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes.

When faced with a choice between a) and b), I respond: ‘I can’t choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50-50′.

AFM · Jan 31, 2020

JCS said: ↑

(1) The devil is in the details, (2) there are too many details to simply paraphrase (which allows you/others to address each detail the way it was presented), (3) I don't want you to claim the scientist/author(s) didn't say what I post, and (4) I don't want you to claim I'm making up information.

That's why I cut/paste so much. Plus I cite my sources so you can review it in its entirety (which I don't think you even read, to be honest). Where is your science? Where are your cites? Why don't you ever cite scientific articles & studies...or even links for your sources?

By the way, one of the climate skeptic scientists you like mentioning...Judith Curry...has recently blogged about supporting a “50-50” attribution (i.e. that trends since the middle of the 20th Century are 50% human-caused, and 50% natural.) So she's not an outright AGW debunker...but believes, according to HER analysis, that it's not 100% AGW. (In fact, her confidence as to the truth of the matter appears to be rather low.) She said:

Pick one:

a) Warming since 1950 is predominantly (more than 50%) caused by humans.

b) Warming since 1950 is predominantly caused by natural processes.

When faced with a choice between a) and b), I respond: ‘I can’t choose, since i think the most likely split between natural and anthropogenic causes to recent global warming is about 50-50′.
Click to expand...

Why should anyone care ??

Global warming is net beneficial and there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.

MrTLegal · Jan 31, 2020

AFM said: ↑

Why should anyone care ??

Global warming is net beneficial and there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...

Global Warming is projected to cause trillions in economic damage over the next century.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/upshot/how-to-think-about-the-costs-of-climate-change.html

tharock220 · Jan 31, 2020

MrTLegal said: ↑

No, we learn from them and make adjustments to the models.
Click to expand...

That's fair, and when there's some useful predictive power in the models other then we'll start considering them in policy decisions.

All they're doing right now is confirming what we already know, average global temperatures are increasing.

DivineComedy · Jan 31, 2020

AFM said: ↑

Global warming is net beneficial and there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...

“The only way to scientifically prove that increasing CO2 emissions is causing our current warming is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere which is impossible to do.” (AFM)

If we apply your version of the Scientific Method:

1) The only way to scientifically prove that Global warming is net beneficial is to remove Global warming from the atmosphere.

2) The only way to scientifically prove there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions is to remove “politically possible” from the atmosphere.

To accomplish number one the by any means necessary “liberals” with their little Acorns (just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military) space the “politically possible” Right out an airlock, then the Left proves number one. I think it starts with the Maxine Waters plan in conjunction with another “insurance policy,” not to mention Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, and Jive Turkey...

“Matias Rosario-Ramon, 37, Anthony Polanco, 29, Willy De La Cruz, 28, And Pedro Sandoval, 26”
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/0...spected-heroin-fentanyl-seized-in-bronx-raid/

I am sure the “liberals” are looking forward making more Death Wish movies in New York, so I am not buying the politically impossible argument; the “insurance policy” worked for the midterms, what they are doing now could work for the General Election.

AFM · Jan 31, 2020

DivineComedy said: ↑

“The only way to scientifically prove that increasing CO2 emissions is causing our current warming is to remove CO2 from the atmosphere which is impossible to do.” (AFM)

If we apply your version of the Scientific Method:

1) The only way to scientifically prove that Global warming is net beneficial is to remove Global warming from the atmosphere.

2) The only way to scientifically prove there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions is to remove “politically possible” from the atmosphere.

To accomplish number one the by any means necessary “liberals” with their little Acorns (just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military) space the “politically possible” Right out an airlock, then the Left proves number one. I think it starts with the Maxine Waters plan in conjunction with another “insurance policy,” not to mention Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, and Jive Turkey...

“Matias Rosario-Ramon, 37, Anthony Polanco, 29, Willy De La Cruz, 28, And Pedro Sandoval, 26”
https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/0...spected-heroin-fentanyl-seized-in-bronx-raid/

I am sure the “liberals” are looking forward making more Death Wish movies in New York, so I am not buying the politically impossible argument; the “insurance policy” worked for the midterms, what they are doing now could work for the General Election.
Click to expand...

It’s straight forward to estimate the benefits and costs of global warming.

What is the target temperature and how much will you have to reduce global human emissions of CO2 to achieve that target ??

How will you achieve that goal ??

How will you convince China and India to reduce their CO2 emissions ??

What is the economic cost of your insurance policy ??

AFM · Jan 31, 2020

MrTLegal said: ↑

Global Warming is projected to cause trillions in economic damage over the next century.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/upshot/how-to-think-about-the-costs-of-climate-change.html
Click to expand...

And benefits will exceed costs. And the real global gdp a century from now will be 20X what it is today.

How many trillions spread over 100 years ??? What is the global gdp today ??? (Hint - $85T).

MrTLegal · Jan 31, 2020

tharock220 said: ↑

That's fair, and when there's some useful predictive power in the models other then we'll start considering them in policy decisions.

All they're doing right now is confirming what we already know, average global temperatures are increasing.
Click to expand...

*At a rate largely consistent with the rate predicted by most of the models.

AFM · Jan 31, 2020

MrTLegal said: ↑

*At a rate largely consistent with the rate predicted by most of the models.
Click to expand...

What rate is that ??

JCS · Jan 31, 2020

AFM said: ↑

Why should anyone care ??

Global warming is net beneficial and there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce global CO2 emissions.
Click to expand...

Interesting...you went from "there is no AGW" to "why should anyone care?"

Global warming beneficial? To whom/what, and for how long? That's a new one from the Land of Make Believe.

But your last comment about reducing CO2 I would tend to agree with. Even reducing/eliminating industrial greenhouse emissions would have a negative impact because of a thing called "global dimming." (This may be why there's so much chemtrail spraying going on.)

Still, I think we should still reduce/eliminate greenhouse emissions from industries and work together to "weather the storm" in the interim by planting billions of trees annually, drastically reducing population, using mass transportation (mostly non-fossil fuel) almost exclusively, eliminating large-scale animal farming (use only small local farms), learning to live more simply, reducing major sources of heat, being inventive, etc. (Hell, even triggering volcanic eruptions worldwide might work to help offset global dimming while we get our act together...sort of like a "reset button"??) There's a lot we can do by simply working together & using our imagination...and I feel the earth's ecosystems can recover relatively quickly IF we give it a chance. But we're not giving it a chance.

Both global warming and environmental contamination & abuse/destruction are tough issues to resolve right now, particularly considering that human society is dominated by money & an elitist ruling class...as well as the programming in humans that compels them to allow such a system of enslavement to continue. So a systematic elimination of money & government would also be an important step towards allowing earth to return to (and STAY) a garden paradise.

It's not just about changing how we live, but much more importantly, how we think.

AFM · Jan 31, 2020

JCS said: ↑

Interesting...you went from "there is no AGW" to "why should anyone care?"

Global warming beneficial? To whom/what, and for how long? That's a new one from the Land of Make Believe.

But your last comment about reducing CO2 I would tend to agree with. Even reducing/eliminating industrial greenhouse emissions would have a negative impact because of a thing called "global dimming." (This may be why there's so much chemtrail spraying going on.)

Still, I think we should still reduce/eliminate greenhouse emissions from industries and work together to "weather the storm" in the interim by planting billions of trees annually, drastically reducing population, using mass transportation (mostly non-fossil fuel) almost exclusively, eliminating large-scale animal farming (use only small local farms), learning to live more simply, reducing major sources of heat, being inventive, etc. (Hell, even triggering volcanic eruptions worldwide might work to help offset global dimming while we get our act together...sort of like a "reset button"??) There's a lot we can do by simply working together & using our imagination...and I feel the earth's ecosystems can recover relatively quickly IF we give it a chance. But we're not giving it a chance.

Both global warming and environmental contamination & abuse/destruction are tough issues to resolve right now, particularly considering that human society is dominated by money & an elitist ruling class...as well as the programming in humans that compels them to allow such a system of enslavement to continue. So a systematic elimination of money & government would also be an important step towards allowing earth to return to (and STAY) a garden paradise.

It's not just about changing how we live, but much more importantly, how we think.
Click to expand...

When did I say there was no global warming due to human CO2 emissions ???

College textbook - “Climate Economics - Economic Analysis of Climate, Climate Change, and Climate Policy” - second edition - Dr. Richard S. J. Tol

What do you propose and how much will the rate of global warming be reduced ?? What are the economic costs ??

Oh, and there it is. The Malthusian proposal that Progressive Global Warming Alarmists advocate. How much of the population do you propose to eliminate ???

Log in or Sign up

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

DivineComedy Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

DivineComedy Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

DivineComedy Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

MrTLegal Well-Known Member

tharock220 Well-Known Member

DivineComedy Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

MrTLegal Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

DivineComedy Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

DivineComedy Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

DivineComedy Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Moi621 Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

MrTLegal Well-Known Member

tharock220 Well-Known Member

DivineComedy Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

MrTLegal Well-Known Member

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

JCS Well-Known Member Donor

AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches