Global warming felt to deepest reaches of ocean

Mar 02, 2014
ocean

In the mid-1970s, the first available satellite images of Antarctica during the polar winter revealed a huge ice-free region within the ice pack of the Weddell Sea. This ice-free region, or polynya, stayed open for three full winters before it closed.

Subsequent research showed that the opening was maintained as relatively warm waters churned upward from kilometres below the ocean's surface and released heat from the ocean's deepest reaches. But the polynya—which was the size of New Zealand—has not reappeared in the nearly 40 years since it closed, and scientists have since come to view it as a naturally rare event.

Now, however, a study led by researchers from McGill University suggests a new explanation: The 1970s polynya may have been the last gasp of what was previously a more common feature of the Southern Ocean, and which is now suppressed due to the effects of on ocean salinity.

The McGill researchers, working with colleagues from the University of Pennsylvania, analyzed tens of thousands of measurements made by ships and robotic floats in the ocean around Antarctica over a 60-year period. Their study, published in Nature Climate Change, shows that the ocean's surface has been steadily getting less salty since the 1950s. This lid of fresh water on top of the ocean prevents mixing with the warm waters underneath. As a result, the deep ocean heat has been unable to get out and melt back the wintertime Antarctic ice pack.

"Deep ocean waters only mix directly to the surface in a few small regions of the , so this has effectively shut one of the main conduits for heat to escape," says Casimir de Lavergne, a recent graduate of McGill's Master's program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and lead author of the paper.

The scientists also surveyed the latest generation of climate models, which predict an increase of precipitation in the Southern Ocean as atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. "This agrees with the observations, and fits with a well-accepted principle that a warming planet will see dryer regions become dryer and wetter regions become wetter," says Jaime Palter, a professor in McGill's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and co-author of the study. "True to form, the polar Southern Ocean - as a wet place - has indeed become wetter. And in response to the surface ocean freshening, the polynyas simulated by the models also disappeared." In the real world, the melting of glaciers on Antarctica - not included in the models - has also been adding freshwater to the ocean, possibly strengthening the freshwater lid.

The new work can also help explain a scientific mystery. It has recently been discovered that Antarctic Bottom Water, which fills the deepest layer of the world ocean, has been shrinking over the last few decades. "The new work can provide an explanation for why this is happening," says study co-author Eric Galbraith, a professor in McGill's Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and a fellow of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. "The waters exposed in the Weddell polynya became very cold, making them very dense, so that they sunk down to become Antarctic Bottom Water that spread throughout the global ocean. This source of dense water was equal to at least twice the flow of all the rivers of the world combined, but with the surface capped by freshwater, it has been cut off."

"Although our analysis suggests it's unlikely, it's always possible that the giant polynya will manage to reappear in the next century," Galbraith adds. "If it does, it will release decades-worth of heat and carbon from the deep to the atmosphere in a pulse of warming."

Explore further: A look back and ahead at Greenland's changing climate

More information: Nature Climate Change DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2132

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

A look back and ahead at Greenland's changing climate

Feb 06, 2014

(Phys.org) —Over the past two decades, ice loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet increased four-fold contributing to one-quarter of global sea level rise. However, the chain of events and physical processes ...

Brine linked to glacial health

Dec 06, 2013

(Phys.org) —A new NASA-led study has discovered an intriguing link between sea ice conditions and the melting rate of Totten Glacier, the glacier in East Antarctica that discharges the most ice into the ...

Recommended for you

Bridgmanite: World's most abundant mineral finally named

2 hours ago

A team of geologists in the U.S. has finally found an analyzable sample of the most abundant mineral in the world allowing them to give it a name: bridgmanite. In their paper published in the journal Science, the te ...

Volcano in south Japan erupts, disrupting flights

9 hours ago

A volcano in southern Japan is blasting out chunks of magma in the first such eruption in 22 years, causing flight cancellations and prompting warnings to stay away from its crater.

User comments : 86

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ScooterG
2 / 5 (27) Mar 02, 2014
"is now suppressed due to the effects of climate change on ocean salinity"

When the prime objective is to edify AGW, any weather or climate-related event can (and will) be linked to AGW, truth-be-damned.

The more bulls**t the AGW-faithfull throw at us, the less believable they (the faithful) become.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (17) Mar 02, 2014
Still mad about them owls are you Scooter? Did you see the article about them here recently?
retrosurf
4.3 / 5 (23) Mar 02, 2014
I hope that you are correct, ScooterG, but I haven't seen any evidence, absent of bluster and profanity, that supports your position. The data keeps rolling in, and it seems clear that the climate is changing.

The assertion that AGW is a gigantic, well-organized powergrab sounds more like the rantings of chemtrailers, Capricorn One conspiracists, psychics and crop-circlers than evidence-supported positions of large groups of scientists.

"..analyzed tens of thousands of measurements made by ships and robotic floats in the ocean around Antarctica over a 60-year period. Their study, published in Nature Climate Change, shows that the ocean's surface has been steadily getting less salty since the 1950s."

I hope you're right, ScooterG: I'd buy you a beer.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (24) Mar 02, 2014
Retrosurf, Scooter is convinced that global warming is not occurring because environmentalists support it, and environmentalists in Oregon also said that the spotted owl was going extinct because of logging, and it turned out that that was not true, but by then he (or his family, or a friend or someone) lost a bunch of money because of the spotted owl fiasco, and so because of the spotted owl, all of the science relating to global warming is not true.

And he is standing upon his pulpit of righteous indignation, damning whatever facts you may have, and loudly preaching that there is no global warming because them spotted owls cost him money!
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2014
"Although our analysis suggests it's unlikely, it's always possible that the giant polynya will manage to reappear in the next century," Galbraith adds. "If it does, it will release decades-worth of heat and carbon from the deep ocean to the atmosphere in a pulse of warming."


We can rest assured that it most certainly will, as hydrostatic equilibrium is restored following this apparent period of heat-loading.

Let's all just hope that it happens sooner -rather than later. An abrupt spike in surface temperature would be quite unpleasant for us all.

@retrosurf,

You forgot to mention the Agenda 21ers.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2014
In my hypothesis the global warming is of geothermal origin and it results from heating the marine water with weak force mediated radioactive decay and/or fusion of elements in it.
Really Zephyr, more of this? It is not a hypothesis Zephyr, it is speculation.

Show some evidence this can occur. Not word salad Zephyr, evidence. I'll make it easier for you; show any evidence that dark matter of any type can act as a catalyst as you claim. This should be fairly straight forward, as you are making a pretty straight forward claim.

Not speculation Zephyr. Evidence. Show by any means you have that there is any evidence anywhere that dark matter can act as a catalyst to initiate nuclear fusion.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Bonia
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
malapropism
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 02, 2014
When the prime objective is to edify AGW, ...

Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means, but I didn't see anywhere in the article where the researchers attributed the cause of climate change or the modelled CO2 increase to anything in particular.

Since you read into the article that the cause is one which you happen to take exception to, without any basis in the interpretation, this seems only to confirm that you are dogmatic in your belief.
RealityCheck
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2014
"is now suppressed due to the effects of climate change on ocean salinity"

When the prime objective is to edify AGW, any weather or climate-related event can (and will) be linked to AGW, truth-be-damned.

The more bulls**t the AGW-faithfull throw at us, the less believable they (the faithful) become.


Just what is your OBJECTIVE OBJECTION, mate? Talk is cheap. Either address the scope/context of the study/evidence/conclusion reported, or sit down and keep your politically motivated ego-tripping out of it. Please don't clutter the discussions with your irrelevant chatter; keep it for your tweets and babbles on twitter/facebook, ok? This is not that kind of site, it's a science news and discussions board on the science presented. Thanks in anticipation for your co-operation in keeping clutter out of here, mate. :)
RealityCheck
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2014
In my hypothesis the global warming is of geothermal origin and it results from heating the marine water with weak force mediated radioactive decay and/or fusion of elements in it.

Sure, Bonia, all these known/unknown heat inputs have always been part of heat generation/flows pattern of the planet 'equilibrating' feedback system. The whole point NOW is that where once that heat was LOST readily to space, NOW that heat and other heating inputs are LESS readily lost to space, because of increasingly THICKENING and HIGHER ALTITUDE distribution of the CO2 'blanket' which 'never sleeps' nommatter what the usual 'weather/feedbacks' lower down in atmosphere/oceans/mountain masses are doing.

No matter what attempts planet makes to convey heat higher into the space-escape zones, the CO2 is THERE making it less effective a cooling/shedding process than it used to be with lower CO2 content/distribution.

Doesn't matter where heat comes from, the planet must shed it or roast. :(
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2014
Oh Zephyr, trying to overwhelm by posting gigabytes of data does not help your case! I didn't ask you about the warming of other planets, news from student science, sites that have viruses, mars surface activity, or Venus express I asked you to specifically show evidence that dark matter acts as a catalyst to initiate nuclear fusion.

The next group, your so called "indirect evidence" : nuclear decay rates at the Earth-Sun distance, an article on British weather, a blocked site, fixed rates of radioactive decay, the Earth's missing heat, increased seismic activity, solar inertia caused global warming, Cassini's measurements of radioactive decay rates, speculation of changes in the speed of light, changing perceptions of time, and the multiple attachments of these off-topic articles say sweet NOTHING about dark matter initiated nuclear fusion!

ANSWER THE QUESTION!
brownlii27
Mar 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
aksdad
2.5 / 5 (17) Mar 02, 2014
The 1970s polynya may have been the last gasp of what was previously a more common feature of the Southern Ocean, and which is now suppressed due to the effects of climate change on ocean salinity.


First, please stop saying "climate change" when you really mean "global warming."

Second, really? Drawing the slimmest of correlations, and applying nothing more than glorified guesswork, you can make that statement with a straight face? And then use the now famously wrong climate models to support it?

Wonder of wonders, is there anything that global warming doesn't cause? And why is it that everything caused by global warming is a bad thing?

FYI, retro surf, climate is always "changing". It's the magnitude and how fast it happens that matter. Despite climate variations, earth has hosted hominids successfully for millions of years and there's no evidence that's changing. Personally I prefer the current warmth to the conditions of the last ice age.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (18) Mar 02, 2014
First, please stop saying "climate change" when you really mean "global warming."
Why? Global warming is climate change.
Wonder of wonders, is there anything that global warming doesn't cause?
A rising tide of education, certainly.
And why is it that everything caused by global warming is a bad thing?
It's a matter of degree.
So far the data shows global climate has been hospitable to animals and hominids for hundreds of millions of years and there is no evidence that's changing for millions more...except in the famously wrong climate models.
Sophistry, confusing cause and effect, and hasty generalization. On quite a roll askdad.
Eddy Courant
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2014
Can't argue with the AGW crowd! They'll find that missing heat somewhere lol.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2014
Can't argue with the AGW crowd! They'll find that missing heat somewhere lol.
Can't reason with denialists. No amount of evidence is ever enough.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2014
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Where did you get the inane idea that MIT, Stanford, MU, NASA, and the entire US govt, in your words, "all take the official position that human caused global warming is a fact"? Did you just make it up?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2014
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Where did you get the inane idea that MIT, Stanford, MU, NASA, and the entire US govt, in your words, "all take the official position that human caused global warming is a fact"? Did you just make it up?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Awwww still pouting! Comprehension, such an issue for denialists!

aksdad
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2014
Global warming is climate change


Global cooling is climate change too, but I haven't heard any of the alarmists claim they're worried about it (well at least since, the 70's anyway). They're currently worried about global warming.

...confusing cause and effect, and hasty generalization.


Where did I ascribe a cause or effect? Oh, wait, I didn't. And the "generalization" is essential; it's the missing ingredient in the claims of the alarmists: perspective. The paleoclimate record shows earth has warmed and cooled naturally--and more--than currently and yet hominids lacking our modern ability to better cope with temperature extremes (heating and air conditioning) survived just fine. Adaptation--what humans are good at.

And don't forget that, though it's possible human CO2 output (only 4% compared to nature's 96%) may be contributing modestly to warming, no one has yet adequately or accurately quantified that amount. The climate models have all overstated it.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2014
Global cooling is climate change too,
Yes it is
but I haven't heard any of the alarmists claim they're worried about it (well at least since, the 70's anyway). They're currently worried about global warming.
Alarmists? Is that like Albanians? Maybe they have cause to worry. DO you have anything beyond your belief that it is not happening?
yet hominids lacking our modern ability to better cope with temperature extremes (heating and air conditioning) survived just fine.
Neanderthals will be glad to hear that! The Clovis too! Homo Erectus will be relieved. Homo ergastur will be tickled! The fact that as little as 70,000 years ago there were something less than 2000 Homo Sapiens had nothing to do with climate right?
Adaptation--what humans are good at.
Well that and luck. And the shallowing of the gene pool.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2014
And don't forget that, though it's possible human CO2 output (only 4% compared to nature's 96%) may be contributing modestly to warming, no one has yet adequately or accurately quantified that amount.
Hilarious.
The climate models have all overstated it.
And of course, you can show evidence for this right? Or is it something you heard somewhere and agree with?
aksdad
2.3 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2014
It's a matter of degree

Whether global warming is a bad thing or a good thing is not a matter of degree. Good and bad are opposites, not variations of similar things.

Satellite photos show that CO2 has improved plant production. The current warm climate we are likely to experience for at least the next century (and perhaps much longer) is demonstrably more hospitable than the cold climate of the Little Ice Age (approximately 1350 to 1850 AD) as well as the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago when a massive ice sheet covered much of North America and Northern Europe.

Though the amount of future warming possibly caused by human CO2 output (4% compared to nature's 96%) is undetermined and appears to be a relatively modest 1 or 2 C, the good news is that global human CO2 output will likely begin to curtail sometime in the next 50 years (as it has already in the U.S.) due to population decline and more efficient use of energy (the natural trend of humankind).
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2014
Whether global warming is a bad thing or a good thing is not a matter of degree. Good and bad are opposites, not variations of similar things.
The fallacy of the excluded middle.

appears to be a relatively modest 1 or 2 C,
Which blog did you read this on?
the good news is that global human CO2 output will likely begin to curtail sometime in the next 50 years (as it has already in the U.S.) due to population decline and more efficient use of energy (the natural trend of humankind).
Holy. Please, show where you read this gem?
aksdad
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2014
I have posted links before to graphs showing that virtually all the climate models overstate warming and you know it, Maggnus. But once again for those who may be reading these comments, from the IPCC Fifth Assessment (AR5), widely considered the authority on climate change science:

IPCC AR5 Technical Summary TFE.3, Figure 1-4 (draft), :
http://wpmedia.op...mp;h=507

IPCC AR5 Technical Summary TFE.3, Figure 1-4 (final):
http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg

Don't get too excited about the models matching observations in the past. The models were tuned to match past observations, but when future predictions are compared to observations, almost all of them are off, and by large amounts. That means, quite simply, that they are overly sensitive to CO2, a topic of much discussion in the climate science community.

aksdad
2.5 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2014
By the way, Maggnus, you seem to spend a lot of time criticizing without providing proof yourself. Let's see some. Find some evidence that global population likely won't peak in the next 50 years and show it. The U.N. seems to think it will peak between 8 and 10 billion (14% to 43% more than today).

By they way, for declining U.S. CO2 emissions (without any government regulations on CO2, by the way), here you go:
http://www.yalecl...issions/

The U.S. is on track to meet Kyoto Protocol emissions targets despite NOT having signed the treaty. None of the Kyoto Protocol Treaty signing nations can say that.
aksdad
2.4 / 5 (14) Mar 03, 2014
appears to be a relatively modest 1 or 2 C

Which blog did you read this on?


Simple. It's called deductive reasoning. For CO2 sensitivity to be in the range of 1 to 2 C, just look at the IPCC AR5 Figure 1-4 I linked to:
http://www.climat...g1-4.jpg

It projects out to 2030. Grab yourself a straight edge and extrapolate the current trend out to 2100. Somewhere between 1 and 2 C. You can read the same conclusion on numerous blogs as well as in the IPCC report itself.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2014
By the way, Maggnus, you seem to spend a lot of time criticizing without providing proof yourself. Let's see some.
Shifting the burden of proof. I don't come to this site to post on an article discussing aspects of global warming, that it isn't happening.
Find some evidence that global population likely won't peak in the next 50 years and show it. The U.N. seems to think it will peak between 8 and 10 billion (14% to 43% more than today).
And that means what to you exactly?

By they way, for declining U.S. CO2 emissions (without any government regulations on CO2, by the way), here you go:
http://www.yalecl...issions/
The U.S. is on track to meet Kyoto Protocol emissions targets despite NOT having signed the treaty. None of the Kyoto Protocol Treaty signing nations can say that.
And that's good for the US. None? Are you sure?
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2014
aksdad, we did begin a discussion. You promptly advised that discussing it with me was a waste of time. For what it is worth, and seeing the comments you have left here and elsewhere, I am forced to agree with you. You have decided that it is not true, and the science be damned.

The models you denigrate discuss global surface temperatures, one aspect of global warming. This very article that you post your dismissal on speaks to where some of the denialist's pretend "lost heat" is going. There are other articles from the last two days that discuss other aspects.

Yet you come here and post how you, the great climatologist, can show how everyone else in the field is wrong. Do you understand the word hubris?
Rimino
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Where did you get the inane idea that MIT, Stanford, MU, NASA, and the entire US govt, in your words, "all take the official position that human caused global warming is a fact"? Did you just make it up?

ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Awwww still pouting! Comprehension, such an issue for denialists!
Well as I've stated before I'm not a denialist. What I detest are posturers and fashion whores like yourself who are willing to lie on a science site because it's fun and because they think they can get away with it.

If AGW is real, it is liars and posturers like yourself who keep people from believing in it. If AGW is not real, it is liars and posturers like yourself who keep us from finding out.

Quit playing your little games Magnus. Act like a responsible adult and own up to your lies. Contribute to the honest and open dissemination of knowledge.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Well as I've stated before I'm not a denialist. What I detest are posturers and fashion whores like yourself who are willing to lie on a science site because it's fun and because they think they can get away with it.
You are full of it Ghost. You are the one posturing, and I challenge you to show me where I have lied.

With regards to your repeated posting, I have said that their position is self evident. That you are asking for some, what, written document signed by every member of the entities named or whatever stupid "proof" you think is needed is a fallacy.

Human caused global warming is a fact. That you CHOOSE not to see that is a matter of self delusion or stupidity - and you don't actually strike me suffering from the latter.

Quit playing your little games Magnus. Act like a responsible adult and own up to your lies. Contribute to the honest and open dissemination of knowledge.
You play games, and you've admitted it. Your cloak of indignation is wearing thin.
Agomemnon
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
BTW this is a 'study' that 'suggests' and explaination for why there has been no warming (17 years via validated emprical evidence).

Therefore this is nothing.
No facts.
No data.
No science.
Those atributing this wish study as if its a fact or has any meaning is ridiculous.
enviro414
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
Discover the cause of the warming, the end of it, why temperatures are headed down and what to expect.

There are only two primary drivers of average global temperatures. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

The drivers are given at

http://agwunveile...pot.com/
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
Discover the cause of the warming, the end of it, why temperatures are headed down and what to expect.

There are only two primary drivers of average global temperatures. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

The drivers are given at

http://agwunveile...pot.com/
Cause it`s the SUN! Forget those pesky satellites measuring the reduced solar activity, cause it`s the SUN! Never mind the lowest rate of sunspots in generations cause IT`S THE SUN!

Well, at least you recognize that there is warming.........
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
this is nothing

@Agomemnon
did you read the study?
Here, we present a new analysis of historical observations and model simulations that suggest deep convection in the Weddell Sea was more active in the past, and has been weakened by anthropogenic forcing. The observations show that surface freshening of the southern polar ocean since the 1950s has considerably enhanced the salinity stratification. Meanwhile, among the present generation of global climate models, deep convection is common in the Southern Ocean under pre-industrial conditions, but weakens and ceases under a climate change scenario owing to surface freshening. A decline of open-ocean convection would reduce the production rate of Antarctic Bottom Waters, with important implications for ocean heat and carbon storage, and may have played a role in recent Antarctic climate change.


http://www.nature...132.html

jakack
4 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
...Forget those pesky satellites measuring the reduced solar activity... Never mind the lowest rate of sunspots in generations...

Well, at least you recognize that there is warming.........


@Maggnus. Reduced Solar Activity & Lowest rate of sunspots in generations? Could you clarify what you meant by those statements?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
...Forget those pesky satellites measuring the reduced solar activity... Never mind the lowest rate of sunspots in generations...

Well, at least you recognize that there is warming.........


@Maggnus. Reduced Solar Activity & Lowest rate of sunspots in generations? Could you clarify what you meant by those statements?


They are clear, you mean can I support them. See here: http://www.commdi...h-11127/

One of many I can cite.

Let's see who does it first.........
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
their position is self evident
-And thats bullshit. You need to post at least one mission statement, one proclamation by a university president or at least a dept head, that matches the declaration you have assigned to them. The FACT that you cant and still insist that this is so, is a LIE.
written document signed by every member of the entities named or whatever stupid
No sir. I have produced many examples of members of your so-called 'groups' who disagree with what you are claiming these groups stand for. And as I have said they have not been censored nor have they lost tenure.

Universities such as MIT and Stanford encourage healthy discourse on these sorts of issues, and are NOT about to declare themselves either for or against them, one way or another. This is obvious in the many respected dissenters ive posted.

This is also obvious to anyone who understands how these institutions operate and it is equally obvious to these people that you are lying about the fact.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2014
Human caused global warming is a fact. That you CHOOSE not to see that is a matter of self delusion or stupidity - and you don't actually strike me suffering from the latter
But many members of the so-called 'groups' that you cite do not agree, and their numbers seem to be growing. No matter. This is not related to the FACT that you are willing to LIE to further your position on the subject.
You play games, and you've admitted it. Your cloak of indignation is wearing thin.
Does it SOUND like I'm playing games magnus? You made things very serious indeed when you chose to lie and then acted as if it was something to joke about.

Either 1) Present some official statements by dept heads or officers of these named institutions which constitutes an official declaration of support for the idea that 'human caused global warming is a fact', or 2) Admit that you had no business making such a claim.

Perhaps your little peanut gallery can help you with the research.
Agomemnon
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
this is nothing

@Agomemnon
did you read the study?


Did you?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
And thats bullshit. You need to post at least one mission statement, one proclamation by a university president or at least a dept head, that matches the declaration you have assigned to them. The FACT that you cant and still insist that this is so, is a LIE.
No I don't; that you do not accept my explanation matters not. The FACT that you continue to try and OBFUSCATE by continually changing the subject speaks to your true motivation.
Does it SOUND like I'm playing games magnus? You made things very serious indeed when you chose to lie and then acted as if it was something to joke about.
Yes, it does, very much so. The joke is your attempts to blow up a point to hide the actual subject. Not playing that game!
Human caused global warming is a fact. That you CHOOSE not to see that is a matter of self delusion or stupidity - and you don't actually strike me suffering from the latter.
Apparently I was wrong.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
You know, another point you hypocritical buffoon; even if my statement was incorrect (which is not shown and stands resolute) it was said in the firm belief that it was true. To suggest that a mistake (which I do not believe it was) is equivalent to a lie is another misrepresentation and also a clear example of intellectual dishonesty.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
this is nothing

@Agomemnon
did you read the study?


Did you?
Obviously he did, given he has quoted from it. You haven't answered his question.
jakack
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
Maggnus - See here: http://sidc.oma.b...faml.php

The current cycle is low for sunspot numbers. However, look at the trend. The previous 7 consecutive cycles had more than 100 spots/year@max. That is unusually high compared to all prior data dating to 1700.

If I were to stoop to the level of the alarmist-driven analysis, I could state that the "Lowest rate of sunspots in generations" is why we are seeing record low-temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
it was said in the firm belief that it was true. To suggest that a mistake (which I do not believe it was) is equivalent to a lie
If you make a statement like that you should be expected to back it up with hard references if asked to do so. When shown that it is not true you should be able to admit your mistake. To continue to assert it even when you are shown enough evidence to prove that it is false, is a LIE.

Many dissenters at those institutions continue to write papers, articles, and books disputing AGW or some facets of it. Their colleagues may dispute them but they are still supported by the institutions which employ them.

I repeat: either 1) Present some official statements by dept heads or officers of these named institutions which constitutes an official declaration of support for the idea that 'human caused global warming is a fact', or 2) Admit that you had NO BUSINESS making such a claim.
Bonia
Mar 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
this is nothing

@Agomemnon
did you read the study?


Did you?

@Agomoron
I will take that as a NO as the paragraph I quoted was taken from the study, and it refutes your previous claim:
Therefore this is nothing.
No facts.
No data.
No science.

why not just say NO... would have been easier
Agomemnon
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
They stated clearly that it was a "study" based upon "models" not actual validated science.
I can read the whole thing over and over again and all it will tell is the same thing... "This is our idea and its not verified or validated, but it makes my religion of crisis AGW still seem justified"

Don't start calling names or being snarky when there is nothing scientific here.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
They stated clearly that it was a "study" based upon "models" not actual validated science

@Ago
again, in the first line i quoted
we present a new analysis of historical observations...
&
in the study
In 1974, newly available satellite observations unveiled

this means historical data, which is valid observation science
the MODELS are also based upon the same data, so you are also mistaken there
I can read the whole thing over and over again and all it will tell is the same thing

or it will not tell you what you want to hear
Don't start calling names or being snarky when there is nothing scientific here

based upon who's criteria?
Yours?
Or the scientific community?
This is MY point

arbitrarily saying it is not scientific is carries the same weight as you telling me you have unicorn poo in a bottle with a fairy

you made the claim, I offered data refuting your claim
now prove your claim
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
If you make a statement like that you should be expected to back it up with hard references if asked to do so. When shown that it is not true you should be able to admit your mistake. To continue to assert it even when you are shown enough evidence to prove that it is false, is a LIE.
Why, because you say so? You have not shown it is not true, so there is no mistake to admit. I say it is true. I say the truth is self evident. You disagree. Where is the lie?
Many dissenters at those institutions continue to write papers, articles, and books disputing AGW or some facets of it. Their colleagues may dispute them but they are still supported by the institutions which employ them.
That is the fallasic argument of biased sample. I think you are wrong, and that their institutions not only do not back them, but distance themselves from them. A tenured professor can say or do pretty much whatever he wants!
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
@jakack - what do you think that graph shows? What does yearly mean and 13 month smoothed mean?
If I were to stoop to the level of the alarmist-driven analysis, I could state that the "Lowest rate of sunspots in generations" is why we are seeing record low-temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere
What is an "alarmist-driven analysis"? You could say that about NA temperatures. You could say they are driven by pink fairies sprinkling pixie dust too. Your point?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
I repeat: either 1) Present some official statements by dept heads or officers of these named institutions which constitutes an official declaration of support for the idea that 'human caused global warming is a fact', or 2) Admit that you had NO BUSINESS making such a claim.
And I repeat: I will not play your game of blowing up false points in order for you to obfuscate the discussion about global warming! I say the institutions and universities named clearly offer official support for the premise that global warming is a fact and is a result of the loading of the atmosphere by CO2 burning, and I say their official support for that premise is self apparent.

Furthermore, I continue to contend that the science behind the premise that human induced CO2 loading of the atmosphere is causing warming is clear, robust, and multidisciplinary and those that deny this fact due to a political stand are guilty of outright denialism.
Agomemnon
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
They stated clearly that it was a "study" based upon "models" not actual validated science

@Ago
again, in the first line i quoted
we present a new analysis of historical observations...
&
in the study
In 1974, newly available satellite observations unveiled

this means historical data, which is valid observation science
the MODELS are also based upon the same data, so you are also mistaken there


I just made a model using historical data. It shows that there is not only no discernable warming but that it would also be a benefit to life and man.
Not only this my model has a confidence interval of 96.86%.

There. We both have Models using historical data making a predictive analysis. The conclusions are not the same. Which one is right? Why? Either? How would you make a determination? (time to think)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
their institutions not only do not back them, but distance themselves from them
So you've just made another unsubstantiated statement. Could you provide any evidence for this whatsoever or can we regard this as more bullshit?

"[Richard Lindzen] is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council at the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy... his publications list included 230 papers and articles published between 1965 and 2008, with five in process for 2009... He was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT from 1983 until his retirement... On 12-27-2013 the Cato Institute announced that he was Distinguished Senior Fellow in their Center for the Study of Science... 2001 Lindzen served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences... worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate."

-No evidence whatsoever.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
A tenured professor can say or do pretty much whatever he wants!
No, physorg posters can post most any kind of lying bullshit they want, as you've demonstrated. Tenured professors can be censured, lose tenure, or be dismissed if they engage in the sort of outrageous fabrication and misrepresentation you've displayed here.

MIT the institution neither withdrew 'backing' nor 'distanced' itself from Lindzen during his entire time there. This is OBVIOUS from what I've posted. Additionally he continued an active participation in the climate change debate at the Cato institute, the IPCC, and the NAS.
I say the institutions and universities named clearly offer official support for the premise that global warming is a fact
And AGAIN I have demonstrated that your a self-centered, self-deluded LIAR who is willing to make up most anything he wants to further his cause.
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
So you've just made another unsubstantiated statement. Could you provide any evidence for this whatsoever or can we regard this as more bullshit?
You can accept my opinion, or you can disagree with my opinion, or you can write on a piece of paper and shove it up your ass for all I care. You don't get to choose what I believe, and I don't care enough about what you think is right or wrong to bother countering your wrong opinion. Believe what you want, the fact you look stupid spouting it is your problem.

And your quote regarding Lindzen is just more biased sampling. You really don't get how to present you case logically do you?
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2014
A tenured professor can say or do pretty much whatever he wants!
No, physorg posters can post most any kind of lying bullshit they want, as you've demonstrated.
Aww, you don't like my opinion. Does that make you a liar?
Tenured professors can be censured, lose tenure, or be dismissed if they engage in the sort of outrageous fabrication and misrepresentation you've displayed here.
No stupid, they cannot be fired for expressing their opinions. Do you know what "tenured" means? Just because you spout your wrong opinions here doesn't mean they mean anything.

And AGAIN I have demonstrated that your a self-centered, self-deluded LIAR who is willing to make up most anything he wants to further his cause.
No, you have demonstrated that you are an opinionated blowhard with a chip on his shoulder.

And you are STILL obfuscating! You have NOTHING to present about the REAL debate except slander and ranting wrong opinions!
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
Tenured professors can be censured, lose tenure, or be dismissed
They really can. This is what did happen to http://911blogger...de/3942, who researched the 9/11 event. He is also one of cold fusion founders. The tenure is no obstacle here after then.


Steven Jones was accused of fraud and academic misconduct, allegations BYU felt had enough merit to not offer to renew his tenure. He did not lose tenure for stating his opinions (however unfounded those opinions may have been) and his tenure was not terminated.

Different kettle of fish Zeph.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
And looking a little closer at the Steven Jones case, I am not even sure it was a case that they didn't renew his tenure, although to be fair I believe that they were not going to. Officially, Steven Jones retired from BYU and still maintains the title Professor Emeritus.

Yes tenure can be terminated for cause, and yes professors can face censure, but realistically, the activity must be so aggrievous as to move into the realm of criminality. Oliver Manuel is a good example of that!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
I just made a model using historical data. It shows that there is not only no discernable warming but that it would also be a benefit to life and man

@Ago
cherry picking data?
If you show no discernible warming then you are not using all the data
That is not what the authors of the study did...
Not only this my model has a confidence interval of 96.86%

peer reviewed or personal?
post it. Let us see the maths
We both have Models using historical data making a predictive analysis

yours is not proven
just speculated upon
The conclusions are not the same... determination?

easy enough to answer: post your study for review

the one that is correct will be the one that:
has the better maths
includes all the data
peer reviewed for mistakes
accurately predicts observations

given that I haven't seen your model
and you cant see the science in the study
there is nothing to consider from you so far...

except that you are looking to Troll or argue
Rimino
Mar 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
jakack
2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
What do you think of the theory of cosmic rays as they relate to earth's climate?
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2014
It was different person. Steven E. Jones was never accused of misconduct. Also, the editor of journal, where he published his study was fired too. The uncomfortable truth is simply uncomfortable one.


No, it was the same one Zephyr: http://www.rense....cred.htm although I am not aware that the accusations were proven, nor, in fact, can I say that BYU took those accusations into consideration as they have never publically stated their position.

There is a no more uncomfortable truth than a false one Zeph, something you should consider.
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
What do you think of the theory of cosmic rays as they relate to earth's climate?
Tell you what, how about you first answer my questions, then we'll revisit this issue.

jakack
3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
@jakack - what do you think that graph shows? What does yearly mean and 13 month smoothed mean?


The graph shows that sunspot activity has increased within the past half century. 13 month smoothed is a method of getting rid of the extremes to see the forest instead of the trees.

What isn't shown on the graph, and what I'm implying is that the number of cosmic rays seems to be inversely related to the number of sunspots. So, low sunspot count = high cosmic ray count. A high cosmic ray count is associated with lower temperatures.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
Thanks jakack! I really haven't look at the issue; can you give a short primer?

Are you suggesting that the recent slowdown in global surface temperatures may be the result of this phenomena?
jakack
3 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
From what I understand, cosmic ray levels are fairly constant in space. When there is high sun activity, it creates a stronger magnetic field around the earth. This stronger magnetic field will block more cosmic rays. As you have stated there is low activity in the current sun-spot cycle, thus we are seeing higher counts of cosmic rays and lower temperatures. As far as why a higher count of cosmic rays results in a lower temperatures, this i don't know much about.
jakack
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
Wow that's a lot of material jakack! On another site, I would ask you to start a new thread lol!

These are very quick observations made without taking a close look at the material, so don't go all Ghost on me if you don't agree! :)

As I understand it, cosmic rays in general are not at a constant level, given that particles leaving supernova's and other exotic regions of space are what accelerates particles to relativistic velocities. (There may be other mechanisms as well, I haven't reviewed the recent literature)

High solar activity does not create a stronger magnetic field per se, rather it compresses the field. So at first blush, it would make sense to me that a compressed magnetic field would have the chance to affect more (and more energetic) particles. So that part of the equation seems sound.

How cosmic rays would lower temperatures seems problematic. I know that there have been arguments presented of the opposite; that is, it's been posited that cosmic rays .cont..
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2014
..cont.. striking the atmosphere release energy in the form of heat, thus leading to warming. This theory has been heavily criticized however, for a number of reasons from fluxes in numbers to the idea that cosmic rays should actually increase cloud formation; however I suppose the opposite to this could be the basis for the suggestion.

It would go something like this; decreasing solar activity would lead to an more dispersed global magnetic field, which would allow more cosmic rays to reach the atmosphere, thus seeding more cloud cover, increasing Earth's reflectivity and thus decreasing temperatures.

Is it possible? I don't know for sure, but it seems to me this would be a pretty minor factor,, and it seems to me that such a large amount of change from this source would be detectable. So my first impression is that it is unlikely.
jakack
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2014
It seems that the link between the sun's spot activity and the earth's climate is pretty clear. But whether cosmic rays are the link between the two, who knows.

Along the lines of what you were saying, the most visible theories I've seen are those that propose that an increase in cosmic rays will seed cloud cover. I agree, to me it seems to be an unlikely link. Do more clouds correlate to a cooler earth?

Who knows in what ways the rays are interacting with the atmosphere. I think rays make it to the top of the list because 1) they correlate with sun activity which links to earths climate 2) they would seem to have enough "bang" to be a lever for a change in earth's climate. 3) is a common denominator between the similarly changing climates on other planets in our solar system.
jakack
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
Being that the planets have fairly different atmospheres and having a general knowledge of their makeup, I believe the observation of other planets' levels of reaction to cosmic ray flux, especially at this time of low solar activity, would give real good data to point to what exactly cosmic rays could be reacting with in our own atmosphere.
jakack
3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
It's unfortunate that REMS on rover didn't make it to mars a few years earlier. If the theory is right, Mars should be on a cooling trend.

Anyone know of where to find perhaps a compilation of blackbody measurements of the other planets over a period of time?
jakack
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
Geomagnetism and climate V: general conclusions - http://adsabs.har.....11639M

Earth's Magnetic Field Variability, Links With Orbital/Rotational Motions, and Paleoclimate: Data and Models I - http://www.agu.or...51B.html
enviro414
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
The observation:
Lower sunspot number time-integral, cooling planet

The mechanism:
Less sunspot number time-integral
More galactic cosmic rays reaching low altitudes
More low altitude clouds
Lower average cloud altitude
Warmer average cloud temperature
More radiation from clouds to space plus
Increased albedo so less EMR is received by the planet
Cooling planet

http://agwunveile...pot.com/

jakack – It is encouraging to see someone else speak out that gets it.
jakack
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2014
enviro414 - believe me, we're not alone as you probably already know!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
You can accept my opinion, or you can disagree with my opinion, or you can write on a piece of paper and shove it up your ass for all I care
Sure thing ass-boy. So it is your 'opinion' that:

"their institutions not only do not back them, but distance themselves from them"

-is it? Is it also your opinion that today is Wednesday or that Obama is president? Is it clear that you consider your opinions facts?
You don't get to choose what I believe
I DO certainly get to object when you present your 'opinions' as facts, and will continue to do so. 'kay?
And your quote regarding Lindzen is just more biased sampling.
Well how would you know? You consider your opinions facts, and facts you disagree with, opinions. Obviously you're not capable of logic.
You really don't get how to present you case logically do you?
I am pretty good at telling fact from fiction even when I don't like it. How about you ass-boy?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
It's unfortunate that REMS on rover didn't make it to mars a few years earlier. If the theory is right, Mars should be on a cooling trend.

Anyone know of where to find perhaps a compilation of blackbody measurements of the other planets over a period of time?


That is a good observation, but there are a few issues that NASA has to contend with. First, the solar years for Mars (2 earth years) and Jupiter (almost 12 earth years) makes it difficult to follow trends. I am leaving Venus out because the conditions are so different (so is Jupiter, but we have more observation vehicles around it). You can see it is difficult to follow the Earth's heat balance carefully with all of the observations we have been making. Just imagine how difficult it will be for Mars with years twice as long and only a few instruments. Don't get me wrong, we will get there but it might take a century.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2014
their institutions not only do not back them, but distance themselves from them"

-is it? Is it also your opinion that today is Wednesday or that Obama is president? Is it clear that you consider your opinions facts?
Why yes, yes it is. Of course my opinion is backed by empirical probability and good common sense, whereas your juvenile derogatory spittle and based purely on your immature philistinism.
I DO certainly get to object when you present your 'opinions' as facts, and will continue to do so. 'kay?
Knock yourself out! That you stupidly cling to non-relevant obfuscations is also a fact. Whatever fills your drawers!
I am pretty good at telling fact from fiction even when I don't like it.
Fact is, your not pretty good at anything except bombastically displaying the chip on your shoulder and obfuscating scientific evidence with philistinism and juvenile posturing.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2014
It's unfortunate that REMS on rover didn't make it to mars a few years earlier. If the theory is right, Mars should be on a cooling trend.

Anyone know of where to find perhaps a compilation of blackbody measurements of the other planets over a period of time?
Ohm now you're in disagreement with zephyr - he has been showing evidence that both Mars and Jupiter are warming!
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2014
enviro414 mumbled oddly with
The observation:
Lower sunspot number time-integral, cooling planet
Observation as in including relative or absolute thermal data AND mass differential of solar wind & other deletrious?

What the heck is "sunspot time-integral" & where is it connected to Insolation ?

Data, actual data & real observations, not just a guess with neglible if any connectedness.

During this time how do you manage to assail:-

1. Increasing atmospheric CO2
2. Increasing local heat burden, at present ~ 230,000 Liters/second but, climbing

Along with:-

Known thermal properties of CO2 Eg regarding re-radiation

Insolation data would be a damn good start & your understanding re Integration etc ?

Hope you understand enviro414

The biggest issue in this particular paradigm is the relative difference of any loss of Insolation through the Spectra vs increased difference in heat retention re GHG & greater heat production of all man made source - including burning ancient fuels ?
enviro414
1 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
Mike - Did you not read the paper at the link or do you lack the science skill to understand it?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2014
enviro414 tried oh so shallowly to insult, how lame is that
Mike - Did you not read the paper at the link or do you lack the science skill to understand it?
Glanced at it, not impressed, Provenance issues, show me a followup dialectic commensurate with a position as to why CO2 should not or cannot be a factor combinatorially, then I will take another peek.

Next time find good reason to question 'science skill', I design products & alleviate human suffering, I am not focused on papers with doubtful provenance especially so given the differentials re GHG & impact of Isolation is not otherwise suitable correlated with sun-spots, factor in local chaotic influences and 'hey presto' the old adage 'correlation is not necessarily a proof of causality' comes to mind and yes that quote is generally for social scientists, it has import in a couple of tangential ways which i will leave you guessing about :-)

At least ryggy isnt here, thanks gawd, wait for it.....
enviro414
1 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2014
Mike - You confirm my suspicions. Apparently your measuring heat in "liters/second" wasn't just a misprint.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2014
enviro414 didn't exercise a modicum of inference with some imagination
Mike - You confirm my suspicions. Apparently your measuring heat in "liters/second" wasn't just a misprint.
The word petrol should have been there, on a laptop with a sensitive touch pad, apologies the tricknology of laptop configuration, responding to much more than a few forums on phys.org.

It seems you still don't get it, based upon the inferred level of your thinking:-

We are burning ~ 230,000 Litres of petrol/second each & every second worldwide.

This ADDs heat & billions of tonnes of GHG, water of which returns to earth fairly quickly due to the physics of humidity vs temperature re precipitation. The chief & most important of course is Carbon Dioxide which has proven thermal re-radiation properties.

When you understand Integration & can SUM over volume units of atmosphere it becomes abundantly clear how heat retention occurs, physics does not lie, maths does not lie.

Uneducated propagandists lie :-(
enviro414
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2014
Mike said "When you understand Integration . . .". after he said "What the heck is "sunspot time-integral" "

Perhaps you should learn about what you are talking about BEFORE you talk about it.

If you weren't too stubborn to look at the link you might have realized that numerical integration is used.

You might also have discovered that change to the level of CO2 has had no significant influence on average global temperature.

If you actually did a little research yourself you might also discover that, although CO2 is one of the ghgs, its effect is saturated. The only significant effect that it has is to cause the thermal radiation to be absorbed a tiny bit closer to the emitting surface.

Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2014
IIf you weren't too stubborn to look at the link you might have realized that numerical integration is used.

You might also have discovered that change to the level of CO2 has had no significant influence on average global temperature.

If you actually did a little research yourself you might also discover that, although CO2 is one of the ghgs, its effect is saturated. The only significant effect that it has is to cause the thermal radiation to be absorbed a tiny bit closer to the emitting surface.

And you should consider that you actually don't have a clue what you are talking about! You are wrong anbout sunspots, and your are absolutely, with dead certainty, utterly wrong about CO2 saturation.

Here, how about YOU try reading! http://www.skepti...nced.htm
http://www.realcl...rgument/
http://forecast.u...ter4.pdf
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2014
Be careful here enviro414
Mike said "When you understand Integration . . .". after he said "What the heck is "sunspot time-integral" "
My comment re integration Is in reference to CO2 and the "time integral issue" is dubious. You have to look at Insolation, recall I already questioned "Provenance issues", you ignored that question.

Show me where Insolation is correlated with Sunspot activity & that MUST relate to when sunspots are in line with the earth, of course allowing for the delay in radiation transit if relevant ;-)

Did you actually study physics at uni 1st or 2nd year & work it in with Calculus practical problems ?

Did you ever do any thermal heat flow calculations yourself re thermal resistivity re static/dynamic insulator in relation to conduction etc which exhibit re-radiative properties ?

When you have actually gone through those calculation types certain principles become very clear, sun spots in respect of Insolation should raise a yellow flag if you had...

,
enviro414
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
I have explained it to you but I can't understand it for you.

The CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature (AGT) doesn't. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising AGT will need to get even wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to some of the deniers of natural climate change.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
I have explained it to you but I can't understand it for you.

The CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature (AGT) doesn't. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising AGT will need to get even wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to some of the deniers of natural climate change.
Actually, yes it does, unless of course you are going by cherry picked data that is intended to support the position you have already decided to take.

You can use cherry-picked data to show anything (and it often is). When you look at the whole picture, not just the stuff that prima facie supports your chosen position, you cannot help but understand that the global environment is warming and that it has nothing at all to do with your pet theory. The correlation between sunspot numbers and global warming (or cooling, in your case) is weak at best.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2014
enviro414 doesnt get it
I have explained it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Thats right enviro414, you can't understand the massive capacity of ICE/Water AND especially the huge heat zapping capacity of the "Latent Heat of Fusion" of water to soak up heat WITHOUT increasing temperature.

Please appreciate, that When you:-

Add heat to ice, temps up
Add heat to water, temps up
Add heat to ice at zero deg. it does NOT warm up, it changes to water

Note: Decreased salinity proves there is MORE fresh water which logically comes from melted ice, especially poles, therefore you MUST include "Latent heat of fusion" !

I understand for those that didn't focus on physics at last year high school or didn't achieve a university education in physics it IS a very difficult concept to grasp. I know the maths for you is also hard but the physics principles are straightforward, patience.

PLEASE look at:-
http://en.wikiped...of_water

ie. Heat Capacity (as buffer).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.