• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our oceans broke heat records in 2018 and the consequences are catastrophic

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic

Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record

Last year was the hottest ever measured, continuing an upward trend that is a direct result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The key to the measurements is the oceans. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that results from greenhouse gases, so if you want to measure global warming you really have to measure ocean warming.
===========================================
'The current rate of ocean warming is equivalent to five Hiroshima-size atomic bombs exploding every second.' Concerned yet? And all that CO2 gets absorbed by the sea water to form carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the water & adding insult to injury.

Most of the severe weather in recent years can be traced back to water & thermal energy coming from the ocean's surface. The warmer the water, the more storms & the more violent they become.
 
“Fake News” (brought to you by every Republican.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
“Fake News” (brought to you by every Republican.)
Click to expand...

They'd have to be clinically dumb to not recognize Global Warming, I can't believe Rupublicans as a group can be that stupid. Blinded by greed. Blinded by partisanship. Blinded by an ignorance of all things scientific. Blind to the environmental changes that surround them. Blind by birth. But Dumb. Fewer than 94-95% could qualify clinically.
/
 
:( .
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic

Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record

Last year was the hottest ever measured, continuing an upward trend that is a direct result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The key to the measurements is the oceans. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that results from greenhouse gases, so if you want to measure global warming you really have to measure ocean warming.
===========================================
'The current rate of ocean warming is equivalent to five Hiroshima-size atomic bombs exploding every second.' Concerned yet? And all that CO2 gets absorbed by the sea water to form carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the water & adding insult to injury.

Most of the severe weather in recent years can be traced back to water & thermal energy coming from the ocean's surface. The warmer the water, the more storms & the more violent they become.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Op-ed disguised as a science paper: “Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming”[/h][FONT=&quot]From the “don’t trust it, it’s from ‘Skeptical Science’ team operative John Abraham who’s a mechanical engineer” department comes this op-ed masquerading as a science paper at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Trenberth still hasn’t found his missing heat. Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming 2018 continues record global ocean warming INSTITUTE…
[/FONT]
2 days ago January 18, 2019 in Opinion.
 
Jack Hays said:
Nonsense.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01...mperatures-point-to-trends-of-global-warming/
[h=1]Op-ed disguised as a science paper: “Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming”[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]From the “don’t trust it, it’s from ‘Skeptical Science’ team operative John Abraham who’s a mechanical engineer” department comes this op-ed masquerading as a science paper at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Trenberth still hasn’t found his missing heat. Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming 2018 continues record global ocean warming INSTITUTE…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/18/op-ed-disguised-as-a-science-paper-record-breaking-ocean-temperatures-point-to-trends-of-global-warming/"]2 days ago January 18, 2019[/URL] in Opinion.
Click to expand...


Yes your copied and pasted conspiracy blog post from someone with no college degree and only a certificate to work as a weatherboy for radio/tv is nonsense. Clearly you have no problem posting his lies and nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Nonsense.

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/18/op-ed-disguised-as-a-science-paper-record-breaking-ocean-temperatures-point-to-trends-of-global-warming/"]
clouds-ocean.jpg
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Op-ed disguised as a science paper: “Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming”[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]From the “don’t trust it, it’s from ‘Skeptical Science’ team operative John Abraham who’s a mechanical engineer” department comes this op-ed masquerading as a science paper at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Trenberth still hasn’t found his missing heat. Record-breaking ocean temperatures point to trends of global warming 2018 continues record global ocean warming INSTITUTE…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/18/op-ed-disguised-as-a-science-paper-record-breaking-ocean-temperatures-point-to-trends-of-global-warming/"]2 days ago January 18, 2019[/URL] in Opinion.
Click to expand...


You do realize that by trying to debunk every argument supporting global warming you end up just debunking yourself. Right?
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic

Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record

Last year was the hottest ever measured, continuing an upward trend that is a direct result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The key to the measurements is the oceans. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that results from greenhouse gases, so if you want to measure global warming you really have to measure ocean warming.
===========================================
'The current rate of ocean warming is equivalent to five Hiroshima-size atomic bombs exploding every second.' Concerned yet? And all that CO2 gets absorbed by the sea water to form carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the water & adding insult to injury.

Most of the severe weather in recent years can be traced back to water & thermal energy coming from the ocean's surface. The warmer the water, the more storms & the more violent they become.
Click to expand...

You can't stop change. Aren't we overdue for an ice age anyway?
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic

Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record

Last year was the hottest ever measured, continuing an upward trend that is a direct result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The key to the measurements is the oceans. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that results from greenhouse gases, so if you want to measure global warming you really have to measure ocean warming.
===========================================
'The current rate of ocean warming is equivalent to five Hiroshima-size atomic bombs exploding every second.' Concerned yet? And all that CO2 gets absorbed by the sea water to form carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the water & adding insult to injury.

Most of the severe weather in recent years can be traced back to water & thermal energy coming from the ocean's surface. The warmer the water, the more storms & the more violent they become.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the 90% number for greenhouse gasses is correct or not, the thing is however, that is not net absorption. Most of that energy is almost immediately radiated back up, because this spectra is all absorbed in the first few microns of depth, and radiated back out as if a black body absorber. It's only a very small percentage of greenhouse gas spectra that is retained due to imbalance, if any. The oceans radiate far more infrared energy than they absorb. This is because thy absorb and retain deep, for an average of decades, the solar shortwave spectra. It is possible, they don't retain any external I, simply because it is already so far out of balance to it.
 
DaveFagan said:
They'd have to be clinically dumb to not recognize Global Warming, I can't believe Rupublicans as a group can be that stupid. Blinded by greed. Blinded by partisanship. Blinded by an ignorance of all things scientific. Blind to the environmental changes that surround them. Blind by birth. But Dumb. Fewer than 94-95% could qualify clinically.
/
Click to expand...

Come on, give them a break, who wants to die of skull cancer for doing the right thing? *AHEM*
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic

Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record

Last year was the hottest ever measured, continuing an upward trend that is a direct result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The key to the measurements is the oceans. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that results from greenhouse gases, so if you want to measure global warming you really have to measure ocean warming.
===========================================
'The current rate of ocean warming is equivalent to five Hiroshima-size atomic bombs exploding every second.' Concerned yet? And all that CO2 gets absorbed by the sea water to form carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the water & adding insult to injury.

Most of the severe weather in recent years can be traced back to water & thermal energy coming from the ocean's surface. The warmer the water, the more storms & the more violent they become.
Click to expand...

196,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules​

Wow 197.7 Sextillion joules! And accurate to four places no less!
But no mention of how much that actually increased ocean
temperatures in either the Guardian or the Cheng & Zhu linked paper.
Gee I wonder why that is? Probably because the temperature rise is
essentially zero.
 
Steve Case said:
196,700,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules​

Wow 197.7 Sextillion joules! And accurate to four places no less!
But no mention of how much that actually increased ocean
temperatures in either the Guardian or the Cheng & Zhu linked paper.
Gee I wonder why that is? Probably because the temperature rise is
essentially zero.
Click to expand...

LOL...

LOL...

That prompted me to do the calculations.

The surface area of the ocean is 361,000,000,000,000 meters. This means the oceans have absorbed an average of 545,000,000 joules per square meter.

I'll bet 99.9% of the Guardians audience doesn't know that a joule is 1 watt second. So if I take the average year of the span given, I get 1995.5 and midway last year is 2018.5, so we have 23 years.

So.... 23 years worth of seconds is also a large number... 725,824,800 seconds...

This leaves an average absorption of 0.751 W/m^2.

Whoop-t-do... It is well within the range of all earth energy balance studies, and again, the sun contributes to this too.
 
Lord of Planar said:
LOL...

LOL...

That prompted me to do the calculations.

The surface area of the ocean is 361,000,000,000,000 meters. This means the oceans have absorbed an average of 545,000,000 joules per square meter.

I'll bet 99.9% of the Guardians audience doesn't know that a joule is 1 watt second. So if I take the average year of the span given, I get 1995.5 and midway last year is 2018.5, so we have 23 years.

So.... 23 years worth of seconds is also a large number... 725,824,800 seconds...

This leaves an average absorption of 0.751 W/m^2.

Whoop-t-do... It is well within the range of all earth energy balance studies, and again, the sun contributes to this too.
Click to expand...

Given that the output of the sun, averaged over the solar cycles, has been falling during this period, it's hard to see how changes in the sun's output can have contributed to a positive energy balance!
 
Surface Detail said:
Given that the output of the sun, averaged over the solar cycles, has been falling during this period, it's hard to see how changes in the sun's output can have contributed to a positive energy balance!
Click to expand...
So what is the latency period between energy input and ocean temperature response?
 
In the start of the study, they base this on the upper 2,000 meters. So in that time, the 2,000 meters have averaged 272,000 joules per cubic meter, or 0.272 joules per cubic centimeter. So now calories and degrees are related. It takes one calorie of energy to increase 1 gram of water by 1 degree. So this 0.272 joules is only 0.0651 calories, or 0.065 degrees of warming if pure water. The temperature change of the sea water will not be significantly different. Probably around 0.063 degrees.
 
Surface Detail said:
Given that the output of the sun, averaged over the solar cycles, has been falling during this period, it's hard to see how changes in the sun's output can have contributed to a positive energy balance!
Click to expand...

Why do you disagree with James Hansen? He claims such radiant energy has a 81 to 120 year timeline to equalize to 70% (or was it 60%?) This means around our time, this decade plus minus a decade or two because of other variables, will be the observational peak or solar warming from the sun's 1958 peak.

Take your argument up with James Hansen please.
 
Lord of Planar said:
In the start of the study, they base this on the upper 2,000 meters. So in that time, the 2,000 meters have averaged 272,000 joules per cubic meter, or 0.272 joules per cubic centimeter. So now calories and degrees are related. It takes one calorie of energy to increase 1 gram of water by 1 degree. So this 0.272 joules is only 0.0651 calories, or 0.065 degrees of warming if pure water. The temperature change of the sea water will not be significantly different. Probably around 0.063 degrees.
Click to expand...

And 0.065° isn't going to warm anything more than 0.065°.
 
Surface Detail said:
Given that the output of the sun, averaged over the solar cycles, has been falling during this period, it's hard to see how changes in the sun's output can have contributed to a positive energy balance!
Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]Rising temperatures with falling solar activity from the 1990's. The argument here is of course that the negative correlation over this period tells us that the sun cannot be the major climate driver. This too is wrong.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]First, even if the sun was the only climate driver (which I never said is the case), this anti-correlation would not have contradicted it. Following this simple logic, we could have ruled out that the sun is warming us during the day because between noon and say 2pm, when it is typically warmest, the amount of solar radiation decreases while the temperature increases. Similarly, one could rule out the sun as our source of warmth because maximum radiation is obtained in June while July and August are typically warmer. Over the period of a month or more, solar radiation decreases but the temperature increases! The reason behind this behavior is of course the finite heat capacity of the climate system. If you heat the system for a given duration, it takes time for the system to reach equilibrium. If the heating starts to decrease while the temperature is still below equilibrium, then the temperature will continue rising as the forcing starts to decrease. Interestingly, since the late 1990’s (specifically the 1997 el Niño) the temperature has been increasing at a rate much lower than predicted by the models appearing in the IPCC reports (the so called “global warming hiatus”).[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Having said that, it is possible to actually model the climate system while including the heat capacity, namely diffusion of heat into and out of the oceans, and include the solar and anthropogenic forcings and find out that by introducing the the solar forcing, one can get a much better fit to the 20th century warming, in which the climate sensitivity is much smaller. (Typically 1°C per CO2 doubling compared with the IPCC's canonical range of 1.5 to 4.5°C per CO2 doubling). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You can read about it here: Ziskin, S. & Shaviv, N. J., Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century, Advances in Space Research 50 (2012) 762–776 [/FONT]

​
​
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

 
[h=2]Mao et al., 2019[/h][h=3]The “Ocean Stabilization Machine” May
Represent a Primary Factor Underlying the
Effect of “Global Warming on Climate Change”[/h][h=6]• “Contemporary references to global warming pertain to the dramatic increase in monthly global land surface temperature (GLST) anomalies since 1976. In this paper, we argue that recent global warming is primarily a result of natural causes.”[/h][h=6]• “Global climate changes are controlled by major periodic [natural] factors that represent basic principles in climatology, such as solar radiation, atmospheric circulation and oceans.”[/h][h=6]• “A number of scientists subjectively consider that the recent dramatic upward trends in monthly GLST anomalies represent non-periodic and irreversible changes and postulate that warming related to the global greenhouse effect has primarily been caused by anthropogenic emissions. However, with the decline of global warming, an increasing number of scientists have started to question this view [Chen and Tung, 2014; Easterling and Wehner, 2009; Fyfe et al., 2013; Meehl et al., 2011; Risbey et al., 2014; Curry and Webster, 2011; Loehle, 2007; Lindzen, 2007; Holland, 2013; Seneviratne et al., 2014; Kosaka and Xie, 2014; England et al., 2014].”[/h][h=6]
Holocene-Cooling-Global-Temps-1-to-1995-AD-Non-Tree-Ring-Proxies-Loehle-2007.jpg
[/h][h=6]Image Source: Loehle, 2007[/h][h=6]• “There are two primary methods challenging the hypothesis that recent global warming is caused by anthropogenic emissions: the first method is to prove that the recent dramatic upward trend of monthly GLST anomalies is periodic, and the second method is to link global warming to major factors in nature.”[/h][h=6]• “In this paper, we have found that the dramatic upward rising signals can be perfectly fitted with periodic functions, which suggests that the major climate factors can still be the main reason for the recent global climate warming, and the secondary climate factor such as anthropogenic emissions might be the secondary reason. … We have identified 15,295 periodic functions that perfectly fit the monthly GLST anomalies from 1880 to 2013 and show that the monthly SST anomalies in six domains in different oceans are highly correlated [0.9 coefficient] with the monthly GLST anomalies.”[/h][h=6]• “If we use the best function to predict the future behaviour of GLST, we can know that the downward trend for the monthly anomaly of GLST had already begun, and it will reach −0.6051˚C in 2111.”[/h][h=6]• “The correlation study tells us that the dramatic anomalies can be seen in SST fields of different oceans, which might be the results of OSM [“Ocean Stabilization Machine”], and with the k-line diagram technique, we can see that most of the annual dramatically increasing GLST anomalies occur in El Niño years; and most of the annual dramatically decreasing GLST anomalies occur in La Niña years. These findings show us how OSM works. In a word, although there are many academic topics need to study further in future, we can still make a conclusion: “OSM” might play a very important role to cause global climate changes.”[/h]
Global-cooling-predicted-using-fitting-function-Mao-2019.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Mao et al., 2019[/h]

 
Uh-oh. Nic Lewis has found errors in this paper too. Maybe climate scientists should clear their work with Nic before publication? Is another correction in store a la "Resplandy et al?"


[h=2]Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought?[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on January 21, 2019 by niclewis | 9 comments[/FONT]
by Nic Lewis
There are a number of statements in Cheng et al. (2019) ‘How fast are the oceans warming’, (‘the paper’) that appear to be mistaken and/or potentially misleading. My analysis of these issues is followed by a reply from the paper’s authors.
Contrary to what the paper indicates:

  • Contemporary estimates of the trend in 0–2000 m depth ocean heat content over 1971–2010 are closely in line with that assessed in the IPCC AR5 report five years ago
  • Contemporary estimates of the trend in 0–2000 m depth ocean heat content over 2005–2017 are significantly (> 95% probability) smaller than the mean CMIP5 model simulation trend.
Continue reading →
 
Steve Case said:
And 0.065° isn't going to warm anything more than 0.065°.
Click to expand...

Not by much.

The followers of the religion simply fail to comprehend what the pundits say. But... It sounds good...
 
JacksinPA said:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...in-2018-and-the-consequences-are-catastrophic

Rising temperatures can be charted back to the late 1950s, and the last five years were the five hottest on record

Last year was the hottest ever measured, continuing an upward trend that is a direct result of manmade greenhouse gas emissions.

The key to the measurements is the oceans. Oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that results from greenhouse gases, so if you want to measure global warming you really have to measure ocean warming.
===========================================
'The current rate of ocean warming is equivalent to five Hiroshima-size atomic bombs exploding every second.' Concerned yet? And all that CO2 gets absorbed by the sea water to form carbonic acid, lowering the pH of the water & adding insult to injury.

Most of the severe weather in recent years can be traced back to water & thermal energy coming from the ocean's surface. The warmer the water, the more storms & the more violent they become.
Click to expand...

Yes, the unknown variable is water vapor feedback. The ability of the atmosphere to hold more water, not only leads to more intense storms, but increases trapped heat even more.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, the unknown variable is water vapor feedback. The ability of the atmosphere to hold more water, not only leads to more intense storms, but increases trapped heat even more.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Specifically, the team found that if Earth warms 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, the associated increase in water vapor will trap an extra 2 Watts of energy per square meter (about 11 square feet).

"That number may not sound like much, but add up all of that energy over the entire Earth surface and you find that water vapor is trapping a lot of energy," Dessler said. "We now think the water vapor feedback is extraordinarily strong, capable of doubling the warming due to carbon dioxide alone."
Click to expand...

Sorry, but with that positive added forcing is added negative forcing... You know, added cloud cover, less sunshine striking the surface... I have a friend who owns a cherry orchard. He would love to have you and those responsible for you links help pick cherries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom