Ocean Temperatures Keep Shattering Records—and Stunning Scientists

[brianpatrick]

I see you wouldn't even listen to the science we give. We have both explained it from time to time.

Do you understand college level physics to include spectral physic? If so, you would be surprised at the way the science papers say one thing, and the pundits lie about what the science really says.

I understand the language of attempting to undermine the science, and hazards of climate change just like I understand the pseudo science behind the philosophy of creationism in the modern ethos.

 

[longview]

Yeah, I’m all for global redistribution of “first world” nations’ money. What the hell else is money for but to spend? I’ve never really shared the American/western “values” of individualism. Strikes me as an ego driven game of mindless acquisition and greed, often at the expense of other humans. I’m not saying it’s always malicious, but the results are the same. I’ve never been patriotic because that also seems to be a cover for maladapted egos.

Artificial scarcity is a game too. It’s a political weapon.

Anyway, you and Longview should spread out a bit into other threads. Makes it less obvious what you guys are doing. It’s like the same three or four gunners always in the gun threads advocating “freedom.” Ha ha, freedom. Another bullshit concept. Nothing wrong with actual freedom, but the modern American concept is just bullshit cover for more nastiness.

I defend Science and the scientific method whenever it is challenged by superstition.
There are scientific aspects of AGW, but much of the supposed scientific support is innuendo, like this thread.
Ocean Temperatures are responding to an El Nino event, and while there is background warming, the single day/month/year
temperatures do not mean much for the 30 year average for something to be considered a climate event.

 

[longview]

I understand the language of attempting to undermine the science, and hazards of climate change just like I understand the pseudo science behind the philosophy of creationism in the modern ethos.

Let's talk about the "hazards" of Human caused climate change for a second with science.
Currently that Alarmist would have us believe that a doubling of the CO2 level will cause 3C of warming.
This is not based on any observed data, but is a result of simulating an event called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).
ECS simulates an event that cannot really happen, the abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, so it's value as a simulation is very limited.
transient climate response (TCR) simulates increasing the CO2 level by 1% per year, which is very close to the 0.65% observed growth.
Unlike ECS, TCR has a doubling sensitivity of 1.31C, based on the observed temperature records.
The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to cumulative emissions

Accounting for observational uncertainty and uncertainty in historical non-CO2 radiative forcing gives a best-estimate from the historical record of 1.84°C/TtC (1.43–2.37°C/TtC 5–95% uncertainty) for the effective TCRE and 1.31°C/TtC (0.88–2.60°C/TtC 5–95% uncertainty) for the CO2-only TCRE.

It would be difficult for emissions to cause much "hazard" if the 2XCO2 sensitivity is only 1.31C, and it may even be much less than that.

Rather that wealth redistribution, why don't we focus of the distribution of science and knowledge of how to improve standards
of living with minimal climate impacts?
To a person living today like they did in the 1700's, really simple things hot and cold running water, indoor plumbing, and enough electricity
for lights, fans, and refrigeration, are large step forward.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I understand the language of attempting to undermine the science, and hazards of climate change just like I understand the pseudo science behind the philosophy of creationism in the modern ethos.

I am all pro science. If you think I undermine science, then you do not know what you speak of.

 

[brianpatrick]

I am all pro science. If you think I undermine science, then you do not know what you speak of.

You practice science in service to climate change denial reliably in every climate change thread. Are there people on the other side who scare people and try to profit from this fear? Of course there are. Is there actually a pretty nasty existential threat to humanity in the climate change reality? Of course there is. Will plenty of human beings survive? Of course they will. Will many humans die and be displaced catastrophically? Of course they will.

 

[Buzz]

Let's talk about the "hazards" of Human caused climate change for a second with science.
Currently that Alarmist would have us believe that a doubling of the CO2 level will cause 3C of warming.
This is not based on any observed data, but is a result of simulating an event called equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS).
ECS simulates an event that cannot really happen, the abrupt doubling of the CO2 level, so it's value as a simulation is very limited.
transient climate response (TCR) simulates increasing the CO2 level by 1% per year, which is very close to the 0.65% observed growth.
Unlike ECS, TCR has a doubling sensitivity of 1.31C, based on the observed temperature records.
The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to cumulative emissions

It would be difficult for emissions to cause much "hazard" if the 2XCO2 sensitivity is only 1.31C, and it may even be much less than that.

Warning!!

This is just another gross misrepresentation of climate science!

Equilibrium climate sensitivity(ECS) is an entirely different measure than transient climate response (TCR) and to compare the two as if they measure the same thing is just more denialist BS. ECS includes the extra warming associated with the Earth's energy balance reaching equilibrium. Whereas TCR doesn't include that extra warming and will always be significantly less than ECS. Plus, the doubling of CO2 in ECS doesn't happen abruptly. Longview is basing that lie on the fact that some models assume an instant doubling just to make the model simpler.

Oh... and just looking at warming from just CO2 ignores all the warming from the other GHGs and other sources of man-made warming.

Don't believe anything longviews says especially if he cites some study. He has gotten to the point that he misrepresents and lies about almost every study he cites.

 

[Buzz]

I am all pro science. If you think I undermine science, then you do not know what you speak of.

If this is true then why do you let longview misrepresent and lie about the science? You do realize he is a pundit that lies about the science... right? And we all know how you love to constantly complain about pundits lying about the science.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Warning!!

This is just another gross misrepresentation of climate science!

Equilibrium climate sensitivity(ECS) is an entirely different measure than transient climate response (TCR) and to compare the two as if they measure the same thing is just more denialist BS. ECS includes the extra warming associated with the Earth's energy balance reaching equilibrium. Whereas TCR doesn't include that extra warming and will always be significantly less than ECS. Plus, the doubling of CO2 in ECS doesn't happen abruptly. Longview is basing that lie on the fact that some models assume an instant doubling just to make the model simpler.

Oh... and just looking at warming from just CO2 ignores all the warming from the other GHGs and other sources of man-made warming.

Don't believe anything longviews says especially if he cites some study. He has gotten to the point that he misrepresents and lies about almost every study he cites.

You have been proven time and again to just run with the AGW cult, and you cannot speak the science like Longview and I can.

The warning should be issued about you.

You know, sometimes the minority viewpoint is the correct one.

 

[longview]

Warning!!

This is just another gross misrepresentation of climate science!

Equilibrium climate sensitivity(ECS) is an entirely different measure than transient climate response (TCR) and to compare the two as if they measure the same thing is just more denialist BS. ECS includes the extra warming associated with the Earth's energy balance reaching equilibrium. Whereas TCR doesn't include that extra warming and will always be significantly less than ECS. Plus, the doubling of CO2 in ECS doesn't happen abruptly. Longview is basing that lie on the fact that some models assume an instant doubling just to make the model simpler.

Oh... and just looking at warming from just CO2 ignores all the warming from the other GHGs and other sources of man-made warming.

Don't believe anything longviews says especially if he cites some study. He has gotten to the point that he misrepresents and lies about almost every study he cites.

Let's put your contention to a test!
ECS is what results in simulation from an abrupt doubling or quadrupling of the CO2 level,
so is not a valid simulation of how Human CO2 growth has been happening (~2.74 ppm per year since year 2000).
TCR is the 20 year average of temperatures around the time the CO2 level doubles.
Climate sensitivity

Transient climate response​

The transient climate response (TCR) is defined as "the change in the global mean surface temperature, averaged over a 20-year period, centered at the time of atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling, in a climate model simulation" in which the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases at 1% per year.[25] That estimate is generated by using shorter-term simulations.[26] The transient response is lower than the equilibrium climate sensitivity because slower feedbacks, which exacerbate the temperature increase, take more time to respond in full to an increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. For instance, the deep ocean takes many centuries to reach a new steady state after a perturbation during which it continues to serve as heatsink, which cools the upper ocean.[27] The IPCC literature assessment estimates that the TCR likely lies between 1 °C (1.8 °F) and 2.5 °C (4.5 °F).[28]

In addition we have to consider that small pulses in CO2 growth each reach maximum warming quickly,
as found by the same simulators user for ECS and TCR.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
For CO2 growth steps of 3 ppm per year, the time to reach maximum warming would be less than the decade found for
the 47 ppm (100 GtC) pulse. Also the simulation was taken out to 1000 years.

We also have to consider who is supporting their position with links and citation, and who is just
using unsupported words!

 

[brianpatrick]

You have been proven time and again to just run with the AGW cult, and you cannot speak the science like Longview and I can.

The warning should be issued about you.

You know, sometimes the minority viewpoint is the correct one.

Did you know that invested parties often sanction or even (god forbid) employ, or cause to be employed people who will willingly lie in support of their financial or other interests? Weird huh?

 

[longview]

Did you know that invested parties often sanction or even (god forbid) employ, or cause to be employed people who will willingly lie in support of their financial or other interests? Weird huh?

It is not weird, but it is surprising how many scientist will toe the IPCC's line just for funding.
One of my concerns is how this concept of catastrophic AGW will harm the integrity of Science.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Ocean Temperatures Keep Shattering Records—and Stunning Scientists

Sea surface temperatures have been skyrocketing beyond expectations. That may be a bad sign for hurricane season—and the health of ocean ecosystems.

www.wired.com

View attachment 67493521

Really, this is basically all you need to see. You can see how 2023 shattered records. But somehow 2024 is practically off the charts just at the start of the year.



That's right. If the ocean warms enough it just kinda dies. Epic. But no no lets not worry about it at all.

Hooray for those ocean temperatures....just keep shattering those records....


......................oh...............................



Never mind

 

[brianpatrick]

It is not weird, but it is surprising how many scientist will toe the IPCC's line just for funding.
One of my concerns is how this concept of catastrophic AGW will harm the integrity of Science.

Ha ha. Ridiculous. Have you ever actually met a real climate scientist? I’m not talking about public science communicators that may spin some data for funding or ratings, but real climate scientists.

I’m sorry, but you and LOP are just shills. Maybe you are just shilling for yourselves, or you do it for someone else, but either way both of you are disingenuous, and transparently so.

 

[longview]

Ha ha. Ridiculous. Have you ever actually met a real climate scientist? I’m not talking about public science communicators that may spin some data for funding or ratings, but real climate scientists.

I’m sorry, but you and LOP are just shills. Maybe you are just shilling for yourselves, or you do it for someone else, but either way both of you are disingenuous, and transparently so.

I have know many scientists, mostly people with physics degrees , which is the training of most climate scientist.
Do you think physics change because of the cause? Everyone knows that ECS in an invalid simulation, yet they still
used it to claim climate sensitivity. The gatekeepers of being published in the peer reviewed journals look for words of agreement
with the IPCC even if the finding do not support that agreement.
This study is a good example.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
The finding are that something other than greenhouse gases caused the warming between 2002 and 2020,
yet in the plane language summary, they say,

We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor

Think about the statement they made, do greenhouse gases reflect anything, no, so how can the reflection decrease?

 

[brianpatrick]

I have know many scientists, mostly people with physics degrees , which is the training of most climate scientist.
Do you think physics change because of the cause? Everyone knows that ECS in an invalid simulation, yet they still
used it to claim climate sensitivity. The gatekeepers of being published in the peer reviewed journals look for words of agreement
with the IPCC even if the finding do not support that agreement.
This study is a good example.
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
The finding are that something other than greenhouse gases caused the warming between 2002 and 2020,
yet in the plane language summary, they say,

Think about the statement they made, do greenhouse gases reflect anything, no, so how can the reflection decrease?

I’m not talking about people with just physics degrees. I’m talking about the on the ground men and women who do the actual field work of collecting and analyzing the data. These people are not partisan by and large and wouldn’t fudge data under any circumstances. They do this work because they live this work, and because they have the temperaments for it, not to try and trick people out of money.

 

[longview]

I’m not talking about people with just physics degrees. I’m talking about the on the ground men and women who do the actual field work of collecting and analyzing the data. These people are not partisan by and large and wouldn’t fudge data under any circumstances. They do this work because they live this work, and because they have the temperaments for it, not to try and trick people out of money.

What? have you read any of Gavin's blog?
realclimate

 

[Buzz]

You have been proven time and again to just run with the AGW cult, and you cannot speak the science like Longview and I can.

The warning should be issued about you.

That is nothing but another of your pathetic lies. Hell... I am the only one left still debunking longview's BS based on the science. You don't even contribute other than to troll me constantly.

You know, sometimes the minority viewpoint is the correct one.

Yeah... sometimes. Like a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Buzz]

Let's put your contention to a test!
ECS is what results in simulation from an abrupt doubling or quadrupling of the CO2 level,
so is not a valid simulation of how Human CO2 growth has been happening (~2.74 ppm per year since year 2000).
TCR is the 20 year average of temperatures around the time the CO2 level doubles.
Climate sensitivity

OK... from your link:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity​

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the long-term temperature rise (equilibrium global mean near-surface air temperature) that is expected to result from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (ΔT2×). It is a prediction of the new global mean near-surface air temperature once the CO2 concentration has stopped increasing, and most of the feedbacks have had time to have their full effect. Reaching an equilibrium temperature can take centuries or even millennia after CO2 has doubled. ECS is higher than TCR because of the oceans' short-term buffering effects.[23] Computer models are used for estimating the ECS.[31] A comprehensive estimate means that modelling the whole time span during which significant feedbacks continue to change global temperatures in the model, such as fully-equilibrating ocean temperatures, requires running a computer model that covers thousands of years.

So... your insistence on directly comparing ECS to TCR as if they are measuring the same thing is a completely bogus comparison. And notice that this definition says nothing about the doubling or quadrupling being abrupt. That is nothing but another of your lies.

In addition we have to consider that small pulses in CO2 growth each reach maximum warming quickly,
as found by the same simulators user for ECS and TCR.
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
For CO2 growth steps of 3 ppm per year, the time to reach maximum warming would be less than the decade found for
the 47 ppm (100 GtC) pulse. Also the simulation was taken out to 1000 years.
View attachment 67499927

Yes... maximum warming in about a decade but you keep falsely claiming that there is only warming from the last 10 years of emissions left. That just isn't true. From this study:

Our results indicate that as CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may take several decades, if not centuries to emerge. A large fraction of the warming, however, will be realized relatively quickly (93% of the peak warming is realized 10 years after the emissions for the 1000 PgC pulse). This implies that the warming commitment from past CO2 emissions is small, and that future warming will largely be determined by current and future CO2 emissions. Each additional CO2 emission will contribute to warming that will persist almost indefinitely. Thus, emission reductions implemented today will equally benefit current and future generations.

And since man is nowhere close to stopping our emission of CO2 then there is a lot more than 10 years worth of warming left to go.

We also have to consider who is supporting their position with links and citation, and who is just
using unsupported words!

Actually, both of your links back me up more than you.

 

[longview]

OK... from your link:

So... your insistence on directly comparing ECS to TCR as if they are measuring the same thing is a completely bogus comparison. And notice that this definition says nothing about the doubling or quadrupling being abrupt. That is nothing but another of your lies.

Yes... maximum warming in about a decade but you keep falsely claiming that there is only warming from the last 10 years of emissions left. That just isn't true. From this study:

And since man is nowhere close to stopping our emission of CO2 then there is a lot more than 10 years worth of warming left to go.

Actually, both of your links back me up more than you.

First off, I am not comparing ECS to TCR, I am saying that ECS is an invalid simulation.
Secondly since your quote "that is expected to result from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (ΔT2×)."
does not include a time frame for the doubling, it can only be abrupt, they clearly state a time frame for TCR.
Without a time frame for the doubling, one would have to assume a time frame, and that is not the way science works.

If we look at each years CO2 level increase (The way NOAA counts it) NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
as a step, then the 10 year to maximum warming for that step begins, and reaches maximum warming a decade later.
Forcing itself is near instant, so all the CO2 warming in the pipeline at any given time, is the ten year time out warming
for the last 10 years!

Your quote,

Our results indicate that as CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may take several decades, if not centuries to emerge.

is not saying what you think it says, it is talking about the fact that the warming from a change in the CO2 level would stay as long as the CO2 level remained high.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That is nothing but another of your pathetic lies. Hell... I am the only one left still debunking longview's BS based on the science. You don't even contribute other than to troll me constantly.

You keep making false claims about what we say. You are the one trolling. Do you expect people to just sit quietly when you harass them?

 

[flogger]

Well... it's obvious that you're too lazy to back up your BS. So I went and did some research. And it looks like you are correct that people are freezing to death in the UK but it isn't because of green energy like you keep claiming. It's because of poorly insulated homes and the high cost of natural gas.

And of course homes in China are so much better insulated aren’t they. Also the uk pays far more for its energy due to vast taxpayer subsidies for renewables which equate to some 25% of the average household energy bill. Ergo pensioners freeze in greater numbers despite us standing on centuries worth of cheap fossil fuels that eco zealots won’t let us touch

People are dying here now in the real world as a consequence of these policies and not in shonky subjectively constructed climate models 100 years from now

 

[Buzz]

You keep making false claims about what we say.

You haven't disproven anything I am saying here.

You are the one trolling. Do you expect people to just sit quietly when you harass them?

So... debunking denialist misinformation and lies is trolling and harassment?



If you can't handle the heat then maybe you should get out of the kitchen.

 

[Buzz]

First off, I am not comparing ECS to TCR,

Yes, you are. That is exactly what you did in post #303.

I am saying that ECS is an invalid simulation.

That is your opinion based on false assertions.

Secondly since your quote "that is expected to result from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration (ΔT2×)."
does not include a time frame for the doubling, it can only be abrupt,

Now that is just BS. Nobody knows when CO2 will actually double. To say it has to be abrupt is just stupid.

they clearly state a time frame for TCR.

Yeah... for the "climate model simulation". Again... nobody knows when it will actually double.

Without a time frame for the doubling, one would have to assume a time frame, and that is not the way science works.

Maybe for simple models. However, a more complex model should be able to determine a timeframe.

If we look at each years CO2 level increase (The way NOAA counts it) NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
as a step, then the 10 year to maximum warming for that step begins, and reaches maximum warming a decade later.
Forcing itself is near instant, so all the CO2 warming in the pipeline at any given time, is the ten year time out warming
for the last 10 years!

This only applies once CO2 emissions have stopped. And it doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon.

is not saying what you think it says, it is talking about the fact that the warming from a change in the CO2 level would stay as long as the CO2 level remained high.

In your biased and denialist opinion.

Whatever dude. You are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what the science says.

I think I am done trying to talk sense into you.

 

[Buzz]

And of course homes in China are so much better insulated aren’t they. Also the uk pays far more for its energy due to vast taxpayer subsidies for renewables which equate to some 25% of the average household energy bill. Ergo pensioners freeze in greater numbers despite us standing on centuries worth of cheap fossil fuels that eco zealots won’t let us touch

People are dying here now in the real world as a consequence of these policies and not in shonky subjectively constructed climate models 100 years from now

Whatever dude. You are just like most climate change denialists... all talk and no proof. Get back to me when you decide to back yourself up for once.

 

[flogger]

Whatever dude. You are just like most climate change denialists... all talk and no proof. Get back to me when you decide to back yourself up for once.

Prove what I,ve said is wrong then ? You already conceded my figures per kWh between China and the UK were correct

I,m a uk based pensioner myself and can read the breakdown of my own bills …. Sadly