• 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

Lord of Planar said:
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.
Click to expand...

My link is reputable, you have none.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Your link is fine. That's not the problem. It's your interpretation of it being all.
Click to expand...

Here is the text from the link. Please explain what you disagree with, and be concise. And please provide scientific analysis that proves your disagreement with peer reviewed literature.

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."
 
There Has Been Just 0.1°C Of Unremarkable ‘Global Warming’ In The Last 50 Years

By Kenneth Richard on 18. February 2019
Nothing-Remotely-Remarkable-Global-Warming.jpg

I. According to the IPCC, the true manifestation of “global warming” can almost exclusively (93%) be found in the oceans. The surface air or atmospheric heat changes amount to just 1% of the “global warming” representation.

IPCC-93-vs-1-Percent.jpg

Image Source: IPCC (2013)

II. In the first 2000 meters of the global ocean, there has only been about 0.1°C of “global warming” in the last 50 or 60 years. . . .
[h=4]III. Below that depth (2000 meters), the global ocean has been cooling since the 1990s. . . .[/h]
 
Jack Hays said:
There Has Been Just 0.1°C Of Unremarkable ‘Global Warming’ In The Last 50 Years

By Kenneth Richard on 18. February 2019
Nothing-Remotely-Remarkable-Global-Warming.jpg

I. According to the IPCC, the true manifestation of “global warming” can almost exclusively (93%) be found in the oceans. The surface air or atmospheric heat changes amount to just 1% of the “global warming” representation.

IPCC-93-vs-1-Percent.jpg

Image Source: IPCC (2013)

II. In the first 2000 meters of the global ocean, there has only been about 0.1°C of “global warming” in the last 50 or 60 years. . . .
[h=4]III. Below that depth (2000 meters), the global ocean has been cooling since the 1990s. . . .[/h]
Click to expand...

And the ocean changes are far more receptive to solar changes hitting the surface (must include atmospheric transparency changes) than the are the IR spectra from greenhouse gasses.
 
Jack Hays said:
There Has Been Just 0.1°C Of Unremarkable ‘Global Warming’ In The Last 50 Years

By Kenneth Richard on 18. February 2019
Nothing-Remotely-Remarkable-Global-Warming.jpg

I. According to the IPCC, the true manifestation of “global warming” can almost exclusively (93%) be found in the oceans. The surface air or atmospheric heat changes amount to just 1% of the “global warming” representation.

IPCC-93-vs-1-Percent.jpg

Image Source: IPCC (2013)

II. In the first 2000 meters of the global ocean, there has only been about 0.1°C of “global warming” in the last 50 or 60 years. . . .
[h=4]III. Below that depth (2000 meters), the global ocean has been cooling since the 1990s. . . .[/h]
Click to expand...

This chart disagrees.

OceanHeat_SeaLevelRisecom.JPG
 
Lord of Planar said:
And the ocean changes are far more receptive to solar changes hitting the surface (must include atmospheric transparency changes) than the are the IR spectra from greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...

A Warming Ocean | NEEF

The average global sea surface temperature has increased about 1.5oF since 1901, an average rate of 0.13oF per decade.
The average global sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable records began in 1880.
Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the earth’s surface and play a very important role in regulating the earth’s weather and climate. Currently, oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that is trapped in the atmosphere from increasing levels of greenhouse gases, which raises the temperature of the water at the sea surface.
 
Media_Truth said:
A Warming Ocean | NEEF

The average global sea surface temperature has increased about 1.5oF since 1901, an average rate of 0.13oF per decade.
The average global sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable records began in 1880.
Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the earth’s surface and play a very important role in regulating the earth’s weather and climate. Currently, oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that is trapped in the atmosphere from increasing levels of greenhouse gases, which raises the temperature of the water at the sea surface.
Click to expand...

The error of misattribution. Most ocean heat derives from Solar influence, not greenhouse gases.
 
Media_Truth said:
A Warming Ocean | NEEF

The average global sea surface temperature has increased about 1.5oF since 1901, an average rate of 0.13oF per decade.
The average global sea surface temperature has been consistently higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable records began in 1880.
Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the earth’s surface and play a very important role in regulating the earth’s weather and climate. Currently, oceans absorb more than 90% of the heat that is trapped in the atmosphere from increasing levels of greenhouse gases, which raises the temperature of the water at the sea surface.
Click to expand...

That statement is very misleading, and 100% wrong as implied. That 90% number is not supported in the context they use it by their source listed.

They flat out lie! Their source states that the oceans have absorbed 90% of the changes since 1955. The largest change since 1955 is the cleaning of the skies from pollution, letting more sun strike the oceans and being absorbed. These idiots treat their source as if the only change was CO2 levels.
 
Jack Hays said:
The error of misattribution. Most ocean heat derives from Solar influence, not greenhouse gases.
Click to expand...

They don't get it. Changes from greenhouse gasses are around 90% absorbed in the first few microns, but that heat is not retained in the ocean. It adds to the evaporation as that energy, at the immediate surface, with wind, modulates how hast water is absorbed into the air. It adds to evaporation cooling, and might even have a net cooling effect of the ocean. Almost all the forcing of greenhouse gasses goes into making rain.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That statement is very misleading, and 100% wrong as implied. That 90% number is not supported in the context they use it by their source listed.

They flat out lie! Their source states that the oceans have absorbed 90% of the changes since 1955. The largest change since 1955 is the cleaning of the skies from pollution, letting more sun strike the oceans and being absorbed. These idiots treat their source as if the only change was CO2 levels.
Click to expand...

The only occurrences of cover-ups and lying is the misinformation being put out by your fossil fuel industries. Here's what the EPA has to say in their area on "Climate Change Indicators".

Climate Change Indicators: Greenhouse Gases | Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA

Greenhouse gases from human activities are the most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century.
...
Ocean Heat. Three independent analyses show that the amount of heat stored in the ocean has increased substantially since the 1950s. Ocean heat content not only determines sea surface temperature, but also affects sea level and currents.

Ocean Heat. Three independent analyses show that the amount of heat stored in the ocean has increased substantially since the 1950s. Ocean heat content not only determines sea surface temperature, but also affects sea level and currents.

Ask yourselves these questions next time you don't think that oceans can pick up heat from the atmosphere.

1. Do turbulent waves and splashing create a wonderful heat exchange surface?
2. Does warm rain and water vapor fall into the ocean?
3. Do waves that pound against beaches and rock pick up heat from those surfaces?
 
Media_Truth said:
The only occurrences of cover-ups and lying is the misinformation being put out by your fossil fuel industries. Here's what the EPA has to say in their area on "Climate Change Indicators".

Climate Change Indicators: Greenhouse Gases | Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA

Greenhouse gases from human activities are the most significant driver of observed climate change since the mid-20th century.
...
Ocean Heat. Three independent analyses show that the amount of heat stored in the ocean has increased substantially since the 1950s. Ocean heat content not only determines sea surface temperature, but also affects sea level and currents.

Ocean Heat. Three independent analyses show that the amount of heat stored in the ocean has increased substantially since the 1950s. Ocean heat content not only determines sea surface temperature, but also affects sea level and currents.

Ask yourselves these questions next time you don't think that oceans can pick up heat from the atmosphere.

1. Do turbulent waves and splashing create a wonderful heat exchange surface?
2. Does warm rain and water vapor fall into the ocean?
3. Do waves that pound against beaches and rock pick up heat from those surfaces?
Click to expand...

Ocean heat content is solar-driven.

[h=3]THE OCEANS AS A CALORIMETER[/h][FONT=&quot]... decided to write about it. I would have written earlier, but as I wrote before , I have been quite busy. I now have time, sitting in my ... physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth's oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and ...
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Ocean heat content is solar-driven.

[h=3]THE OCEANS AS A CALORIMETER[/h][FONT="]... decided to write about it. I would have written earlier, but as I wrote before , I have been quite busy. I now have time, sitting in my ... physical reaction. It turns out that one can use the Earth's oceans as one giant calorimeter to measure the amount of heat Earth absorbs and ...
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

You're not wrong with that statement. But it's only part of the picture. A warmer atmosphere also warms the oceans more.

1. Do turbulent waves and splashing create a wonderful heat exchange surface?
2. Does warmer rain and warmer water vapor fall into the ocean?
3. Do waves that pound against beaches and rock pick up heat from those surfaces?
 
Media_Truth said:
You're not wrong with that statement. But it's only part of the picture. A warmer atmosphere also warms the oceans more.

1. Do turbulent waves and splashing create a wonderful heat exchange surface?
2. Does warmer rain and warmer water vapor fall into the ocean?
3. Do waves that pound against beaches and rock pick up heat from those surfaces?
Click to expand...

Inconsequential compared to the sun.
 
Media_Truth said:
I don't recall the earth getting a 2nd sun 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

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

[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]
 
Jack Hays said:
My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

[FONT="]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="]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="]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="]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]
Click to expand...

One writer vs thousands who came up with the range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg C. Interestingly enough, we are almost at 1 deg C now, and we're still not near to a doubling of CO2. OOPS!
 
Jack Hays said:
Inconsequential compared to the sun.
Click to expand...

Making this statement displays your ignorance. You must state it differently - "Inconsequential compared to the changes that have occurred to the sun." Now it makes sense - or NOT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom