Climate change caused by ocean, not just atmosphere, study finds

October 24, 2014, Rutgers University
The ocean conveyor transports water and heat through the deep ocean basins. Credit: NASA

Most of the concerns about climate change have focused on the amount of greenhouse gases that have been released into the atmosphere.

But in a new study published in Science, a group of Rutgers researchers have found that circulation of the ocean plays an equally important role in regulating the earth's climate.

In their study, the researchers say the major cooling of Earth and continental ice build-up in the Northern Hemisphere 2.7 million years ago coincided with a shift in the circulation of the ocean – which pulls in heat and in the Atlantic and moves them through the deep ocean from north to south until it's released in the Pacific.

The ocean conveyor system, Rutgers scientists believe, changed at the same time as a major expansion in the volume of the glaciers in the northern hemisphere as well as a substantial fall in sea levels. It was the Antarctic ice, they argue, that cut off heat exchange at the ocean's surface and forced it into deep water. They believe this caused global at that time, not carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

"We argue that it was the establishment of the modern – the ocean conveyor – about 2.7 million years ago, and not a major change in in the atmosphere that triggered an expansion of the ice sheets in the ," says Stella Woodard, lead author and a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Marine and Coastal Sciences. Their findings, based on ocean sediment core samples between 2.5 million to 3.3 million years old, provide scientists with a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of climate change today.

The study shows that changes in heat distribution between the ocean basins is important for understanding future climate change. However, scientists can't predict precisely what effect the carbon dioxide currently being pulled into the ocean from the atmosphere will have on climate. Still, they argue that since more carbon dioxide has been released in the past 200 years than any recent period in geological history, interactions between carbon dioxide, temperature changes and precipitation, and ocean circulation will result in profound changes.

Scientists believe that the different pattern of deep ocean circulation was responsible for the elevated temperatures 3 million years ago when the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere was arguably what it is now and the temperature was 4 degree Fahrenheit higher. They say the formation of the ocean conveyor cooled the earth and created the climate we live in now.

"Our study suggests that changes in the storage of heat in the deep could be as important to climate change as other hypotheses – tectonic activity or a drop in the – and likely led to one of the major climate transitions of the past 30 million years," says Yair Rosenthal, co-author and professor of marine and at Rutgers

Explore further: The last ice age

More information: Science, www.sciencemag.org/content/ear … science.1255586.full

Related Stories

The last ice age

July 3, 2014

A team of scientists has discovered that a giant 'burp' of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the North Pacific Ocean helped trigger the end of last ice age, around 17,000 years ago.

Corals provide clues for climate change research

July 16, 2014

(Phys.org) —Just as growth rings can offer insight into climate changes occurring during the lifespan of a tree, corals have much to tell about changes in the ocean. At Caltech, climate scientists Jess F. Adkins and Nivedita ...

Recommended for you

Maximizing the environmental benefits of autonomous vehicles

February 15, 2018

The added weight, electricity demand and aerodynamic drag of the sensors and computers used in autonomous vehicles are significant contributors to their lifetime energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, according to a new ...

223 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

freethinking
2.2 / 5 (38) Oct 24, 2014
The science is settled CO2 is the only cause of weather.

Ooopsss the science isn't settled.... Pssst Don't tell that to the AGW believers. Actually don't worry, Profit Al Gore does their thinking for them and as long as the AGW elite can make money for him, no matter what the science says.... AGW RULES
JoeBlue
1.7 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2014
Egads, I wish the hubris would stop and these so called professionals would stop making such declarative comments.

At least this one is more accurate to how the system works.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (26) Oct 24, 2014
30 year old news to me.

What do I keep telling you?

Capt Stumpid and crew, is THIS a good enough citation? I guess I could have waited three years, but honestly hindsight IS 20/20.

How was I to know when science would catch up with me? Coud've been today, could've been three months from now, or never.

Hey, why don't you tell me I never said this?

I don't call me a prophet for nothing.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (27) Oct 24, 2014
The science is settled CO2 is the only cause of weather.
Straw man fallacy detected.

Egads, I wish the hubris would stop
So do I, denying that water can be boiled is only possible for someone with a very serious case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

At least this one is more accurate to how the system works.
How would YOU know? You don't believe your head will get too hot if you put it in a bucket of boiling water; I suppose it's fairly lucky you have enough sense to decline to try it.
JoeBlue
2 / 5 (25) Oct 24, 2014
The science is settled CO2 is the only cause of weather.
Straw man fallacy detected.

Egads, I wish the hubris would stop
So do I, denying that water can be boiled is only possible for someone with a very serious case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

At least this one is more accurate to how the system works.
How would YOU know? You don't believe your head will get too hot if you put it in a bucket of boiling water; I suppose it's fairly lucky you have enough sense to decline to try it.


I see you think attacking me will do something for your argument.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2014
The science is settled CO2 is the only cause of weather.
Straw man fallacy detected.

Egads, I wish the hubris would stop
So do I, denying that water can be boiled is only possible for someone with a very serious case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

At least this one is more accurate to how the system works.
How would YOU know? You don't believe your head will get too hot if you put it in a bucket of boiling water; I suppose it's fairly lucky you have enough sense to decline to try it.


I see you think attacking me will do something for your argument.


........he's the king of "funny farm science", he also thinks something called the Casimir Effect is the source of energy for perpetual motion that can drive eternal expansion of the universe, he's also never seen a Differential Equation he could solve.
philstacy9
3 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2014
If there is uncertainty pick the side that funds science.
JoeBlue
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2014
The science is settled CO2 is the only cause of weather.
Straw man fallacy detected.

Egads, I wish the hubris would stop
So do I, denying that water can be boiled is only possible for someone with a very serious case of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome.

At least this one is more accurate to how the system works.
How would YOU know? You don't believe your head will get too hot if you put it in a bucket of boiling water; I suppose it's fairly lucky you have enough sense to decline to try it.


I see you think attacking me will do something for your argument.


........he's the king of "funny farm science", he also thinks something called the Casimir Effect is the source of energy for perpetual motion that can drive eternal expansion of the universe, he's also never seen a Differential Equation he could solve.


Oh, one of "those".
MR166
2.2 / 5 (24) Oct 24, 2014
"However, scientists can't predict precisely what effect the carbon dioxide currently being pulled into the ocean from the atmosphere will have on climate. Still, they argue that since more carbon dioxide has been released in the past 200 years than any recent period in geological history, interactions between carbon dioxide, temperature changes and precipitation, and ocean circulation will result in profound changes."

This has got to be climate science at it's best. In essence, we don't know what will happen but it must be bad since it includes CO2.

It is logic like this that is the basis for all of climate science.
richard_eklund_395
1.6 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2014
"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. … ." … Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way." Dr. Michael Crichton
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2014
You know this debate is perfect, they've armed AGW-ers with bad science, or the CO2 myth, and deniers have the advantage of the null hypothesis.

So long as AGW-ers are hanging their hat on an non-dependent variable, the debate can go on for another 40 years.

You'd think somebody'd wise up.
stabilizer
4.3 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2014
It's fairly obvious that global warming won't just heat the atmosphere. As anyone who has lived on the equator knows, it's a WHOLE lot hotter to live inland than on the coast, or best of all, a small island. When I lived about 30 kM inland on a continent, the temperature would often go above 100 F. When we moved to a small island with no continents nearby, the temperature dropped about 20 degrees, and we had a breeze all day long as air heated over the island and rose, subking in 80 degree air from the sea. Water has far higher heat holding capacity than air, so it can absorb the additional heat for many years, but this also works in reverse. Eventually the people presently dodging responsibility for their actions will be forced to admit reality, and we will start to reduce the additional heat. It will take much longer to see the results than if we could get everyone to be mature and accept responsibility for their actions.
partial recall
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2014
The age of dinosaurs lasted 170 million years or more. The world was tropical during that time and had much higher CO2 levels as well as high oxygen levels. Man has been around for 1 million plus years. So it can be argued that the atmosphere is abnormal now and should be returned to the more normal tropical state that existed for most of the earth's history.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2014
Oh, one of "those".


Yeah, Schneib I'm talking about. If there's anything you want to know about perpetual motion, he's the go to genius on how to make it work. He thinks galaxies & such rotate & jaunt their way through an infinitely expanding universe using the Casimir Effect as an infinite energy source. This King of Funny Farm Science has probably never even seen a trigonometric function he can understand & solve, much less Energy Science such as Thermodynamics.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2014
Oh, one of "those".


Yeah, Schneib I'm talking about. If there's anything you want to know about perpetual motion, he's the go to genius on how to make it work. He thinks galaxies & such rotate & jaunt their way through an infinitely expanding universe using the Casimir Effect as an infinite energy source. This King of Funny Farm Science has probably never even seen a trigonometric function he can understand & solve, much less Energy Science such as Thermodynamics.


I thought Thermo was easier than Trig. I didn't understand Trig until I learned about the Unit Circle. I was all like, WTF is COS and SIN, and where did these come from!?!?!?!
wasp171
1.3 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2014
OMG, that's hard one!
When I did my Commercial Pilot meteorology course in 1973 I've learnt the oceans were the main drivers of weather.
It is so obvious as heat and humidity all come from the 75% coverage of the planet.
Now they find out "after a study" this mind boggling "NEWS".
I am impressed by the development of pseudo science!
Earth Scientist
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2014
This has to be absolutely false as it does not fit the dogma of the religion of the warmers that man and man alone is 97% responsible for the warming that has not been happening since 1997!
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Wake
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2014
Will there NEVER be an end to these morons and their "climate change"?

Records of sea level have been kept in the USA since the civil war. EVERY single year the sea levels have risen. No matter the hot or cold years.

Where is that water coming from? FROM THE GLACIERS THAT WERE FORMED IN THE LITTLE ICE AGE IN THE 1600's AND HAVE BEEN MELTING EVER SINCE.

But what passes for "scientists" these days are telling us that the world is undergoing a catastrophe. So now we know that you spell MORON "S - C - I - E - N - T - I - S - T".
Wake
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2014
This has to be absolutely false as it does not fit the dogma of the religion of the warmers that man and man alone is 97% responsible for the warming that has not been happening since 1997!

The funny part is that 1997 was one of the hottest years on record. That means that it wasn't part of a warming TREND but nothing more than hot weather pattern of that year.
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2014
Hate to point out the obvious, kids, but-- no where in this article does it provide any information provided by the authors to explain what caused this shift in circulation.

I'm pretty sure that everyone was aware that an Ice Age occurred a while back.
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dustywells
1.3 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
Do any of these studies of ice ages and prehistoric climate changes include sea level changes and changes in ocean currents due to continental drift? I consider it rather myopic to exclude those factors. If we don't understand the effects these have on climate then we do not understand climate change.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2014
How many BOZO deniers does it take to make a thread stupid. Apparently several.

The bottom line you ignorant denier toadlings, regardless of what an ocean conveyor belt current will draw from the atmosphere, If the temperatures is going up in the atmosphere, the ocean conveyor isn't pulling heat down that quickly. Since Aug, and Sept 2014 where the hottest recorded temps since measurements began, it should be obvious you deniers are delusional idiots.

If anything, it means anthorpogenic (man made pollution) global warming is on it's worst track ever imagined. An that track is the extinction of mankind by his own waste.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2014
I see you think attacking me will do something for your argument.
No, I always point out idiots being idiots.

he also thinks something called the Casimir Effect is the source of energy for perpetual motion
Hi Lenni! Lurn tew spel yett?

Straw man fallacy detected.

Lying detected.

How many BOZO deniers does it take to make a thread stupid. Apparently several.
Plus their socks.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2014
The funny part is that 1997 was one of the hottest years on record. That means that it wasn't part of a warming TREND but nothing more than hot weather pattern of that year.
Look up the hottest ten years on record.

Get back to us, if you have the stones.
Rustybolts
1 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
They just figured that out?
mbee1
1.2 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2014
the problem with this study is it ignores the melting of the last ice age which was only about 10000 years long. The ice covered huge areas of the northerrn and southern continents yet most melted in a tiny slice of time. If you look at the sea level rise the oceans rose 120 feet in that ten thousand years about a meter a century up until a few thousand years ago where it slowed to a hundred of that. something other than a supposed ocean source of heat dumped huge amounts of heat into the oceans and into melting that ice. The only possible source is solar gain increases.
mbee1
1 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2014
I see the religous progressives are posting and busy calling everybody names who has actually looked at the science. This last august and september are not the hottest on record. The RSS data shows them to be 11th and 14th and the hottest US year was 1936, 78 years ago.
mbee1
1 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2014
The hottest year on record is 1000 AD
Marc Aurele
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 25, 2014
Al Gore is on suicide watch.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2014
the problem with this study is it ignores the melting of the last ice age which was only about 10000 years long. The ice covered huge areas of the northerrn and southern continents yet most melted in a tiny slice of time. If you look at the sea level rise the oceans rose 120 feet in that ten thousand years about a meter a century up until a few thousand years ago where it slowed to a hundred of that. something other than a supposed ocean source of heat dumped huge amounts of heat into the oceans and into melting that ice. The only possible source is solar gain increases.
For the glacial to interglacial transition? Yes, but that only starts the process. Once it's warm enough from the increased insolation, then the bacteria start to produce CO₂, and that takes it the rest of the way, along with changing ocean currents due to the salt conveyer and the extra heat. Then the land is exposed, plants grow, and animals feed, and you know the rest.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2014
I see the religous progressives are posting and busy calling everybody names who has actually looked at the science. This last august and september are not the hottest on record. The RSS data shows them to be 11th and 14th and the hottest US year was 1936, 78 years ago.
Globally, or in the US?
+++++++++++++++++++++
Al Gore is on suicide watch.
Teh Algore is not teh geophysicist.

Maybe you forgot.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2014
Hate to point out the obvious, kids, but-- no where in this article does it provide any information provided by the authors to explain what caused this shift in circulation.
You do know how the thermohaline cycle works, right?

Right?

Oh, wait, guess not-- otherwise you wouldn't have to ask.

For lurkers, the thermohaline cycle is the salt conveyer. Water that contains salt is denser and sinks; more salt, more density. Also, water that is cold is denser and sinks. The winds push the water to the North Pole, and it is saltier so it sinks; then it flows back in the deep ocean to the equator and beyond.

The picture at the top of this article shows the main salt conveyer currents around the world.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2014
So it seems the NOAA disagrees with you, mbee.

http://www.mb.com...rd-noaa/

"With the exception of February, every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm," [the NOAA] said.


Looks like you were only looking at the temperature in the US. And you ignored the rest of the world.

Typical conservatard: the rest of the world doesn't matter.

Try not to drool on your keyboard, mbee.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2014
Oh, one piece of business: I totally stole "look up the hottest ten years on record" from gkam, and s/he should be commended for asking it first.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (18) Oct 25, 2014
wasp171 claimed
When I did my Commercial Pilot meteorology course in 1973 I've learnt the oceans were the main drivers of weather.
I doubt that crap !
You should have learned oceans are "moderators of weather" sinks generally don't drive !

wasp171's further error
It is so obvious as heat and humidity all come from the 75% coverage of the planet.
Huh ? how does heat come from '75% coverage' - u mean oceans ?
Heat substantially comes from insolation ie short wave radiation & some heat from earths interior & more by burning of ~230,000 Litres petrol/sec overall but, this is comparatively small.

wasp171
Now they find out "after a study" this mind boggling "NEWS".
WoW u are easily impressed by media - not flying with U !
wasp171 muttered
I am impressed by the development of pseudo science!
You should be ashamed to be so easily led by media.

Science has ALREADY shown u (if u did study) that oceans moderate...

Your 1973 course needs updating !
SAOTIDOTW
4.5 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
The science is settled CO2 is the only cause of weather.

Ooopsss the science isn't settled.... Pssst Don't tell that to the AGW believers. Actually don't worry, Profit Al Gore does their thinking for them and as long as the AGW elite can make money for him, no matter what the science says.... AGW RULES

Why do they let your mouldy libertarian ass on a science website
Mike_Massen
3.6 / 5 (17) Oct 25, 2014
mbee1 claimed
..something other than a supposed ocean source of heat dumped huge amounts of heat into the oceans and into melting that ice. The only possible source is solar gain increases.
Perhaps AND U need to look at relative insolation & increase in heat retention by ALL greenhouse gases, especially CO2 as it also drives higher H2O.

History of interest but, cannot substantively demonstrate equilibria *at that time* & Note: NO precise temperature recording instrumentation until ~300-400 yrs ago. "Records" prior are 'reconstructed', must therefore have higher error bars & in any case ice core samples generally show local conditions *at that time*...

mbee1 mumbled
..RSS data shows them to be 11th and 14th and the hottest US year was 1936, 78 years ago.
Obviously it MUST be land_only IN USA. Note: Large ice mass << 0 C to North & NE - thought of that ?

mbee1
..hottest year on record is 1000 AD
Where, land/oceans ?
Evidence, data sets, methodology ?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2014
I see you think attacking me will do something for your argument.
No, I always point out idiots being idiots.

he also thinks something called the Casimir Effect is the source of energy for perpetual motion
Hi Lenni! Lurn tew spel yett?

Straw man fallacy detected.

Lying detected.

How many BOZO deniers does it take to make a thread stupid. Apparently several.
Plus their socks.

Schneib, The King of Funny Farm Science strikes again.
Consultofactus
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2014
Huh! Who woulda thought that a feature that contains ~85% of the latent surface heat of the Earth could affect the climate!
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
Hate to point out the obvious, kids, but-- no where in this article does it provide any information provided by the authors to explain what caused this shift in circulation. You do know how the thermohaline cycle works, right?

Right?


Yes, I do, DS-- which was my point. Although in my haste to point out the lack of a causative factor, I was sloppy. After a couple of hundred million million years of stable tropical conditions, there is a sudden plunge into an ice age? And then just as suddenly that ice age collapses, and this is all due to ocean circulation?

A mere two million years ago, the earth's surface wasn't significantly different(geomorphically) than it is today, so what(I ask again) was the sudden cause of this change in ocean circulation?

Whatever it is, IT would be the significant factor explaining the Ice Age.

And whatever it was, It would not explain the recent, sudden collapse of that Ice age.

contd
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2014
Da oceans!!!
Whatcha talkin bout willis!!!
Da False "Profit" Al brayed "Da science is settled. It is the CO2 from your car". Not from his private jets though, those fly too high to affect the climate.
One day, when they come down from their altar of stupidity, they will discover the effect, that huge ball of fire in the sky, has on climate.
jsland
5 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2014
"However, scientists can't predict precisely what effect the carbon dioxide currently being pulled into the ocean from the atmosphere will have on climate.

-----Would you rather have a dictatorship? A science tyranny? The facts of sudden great amounts of CO2 over 200 years, increasing and ongoing are making changes in the earth's climate. And how much, how distributed, when, where, the relationships with local changes etc., are all things real scientists are learning, studying, using scientific method on, discovering new data, applying new data to models, and sharing with peers. If there is a better process perhaps someone would like to let the world know.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2014
contd

And, whatever it was, neither IT nor ocean circulation are the causes of the very sharp, very sudden upward trend in global temperatures in the last couple hundred years.

This trend is the unmistakable signature of AGW.

That should clear things up for any and all of you that might not have been sure what I was getting at.

In other words, These scientists have only managed to identify yet another already understood phenomena, and have only managed to signal just how desperate for an alternative to AGW --ANY alternative-- the deniersiders reaaly are.

And this "changes-in-ocean-circulation"-boat just won't float.

Shootist
1 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2014
Climate change caused by ocean


Dayem! Who'da thunk it?

Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (15) Oct 25, 2014
antigoracle with his usual absurdities
..Da False "Profit" Al brayed "Da science is settled. It is the CO2 from your car". Not from his private jets though, those fly too high to affect the climate.
One day, when they come down from their altar of stupidity, they will discover the effect, that huge ball of fire in the sky, has on climate.
So antigoracle, have you taken the effort to educate yourself re physics esp Heat ! ?

Or a mindless robotic mouthpiece selling your integrity to the highest bidder ?

You antigoracle, should know that IF & WHEN you get/have an education you are so very resistant to dicks, mere idiots who make arbitrary claims BECAUSE with the correct application of education & science YOU can work it out for YOURSELF !

All you need (be (a) patient) is:-

- Education (first yr uni is great)
- Discipline - make Progress !
- Interesting in AVOIDING arbitrary claims from those with NO evidence

Do you antigoracle & other paid deniers understand ?
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (17) Oct 25, 2014
Shootist finally worked something out
Climate change caused by ocean

Dayem! Who'da thunk it?
Yeah amazing isnt it how oceans massive heat capacity moderates weather AND climate all because it has such a high heat capacity !

Heard of "specific heat" a fact regarding properties of materials - get it into your cranium ?

Why havent you noticed this - since at least (!) when you joined on 24th Feb 2008 ?

You Shootist have had so much time to get an education, only takes 4 years to get a physics degree - why did u miss out getting even a little smarter - have a mental block of sorts ?

OR are you also paid too much to sell your (cheap) integrity so very easily and thus be seen as a dick by those that went through the effort at a university degree (or 3 :) in "The Discipline of Acquisition of Knowledge" ?

Education, intelligence, smarts Shootist - where are yours - pray tell ?
MR166
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2014
Mike what you and the other Climate Theologists on this board will not acknowledge is that the oceans have been absorbing heat and moderating climate since the beginning of the earth. To offer as proof of the lack of CO2 induced warming the change in ocean oscillations is totally without merit. It is just as possible that the warming since the 70s has been caused by the very same change in oscillations. If the creators of the climate models had any idea of these oscillations they would have included them in the models, right, and the models would have been 100% correct.

Now after the models have been proven to be an abject failure the same scientists are claiming that they know enough about these oscillations to be certain that they are the cause for the model errors.

If these guys were your financial planners you would be suing them for incompetence due to the total loss of your retirement account.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2014
Mike what you and the other Climate Theologists on this board will not acknowledge is that the oceans have been absorbing heat and moderating climate since the beginning of the earth. To offer as proof of the lack of CO2 induced warming the change in ocean oscillations is totally without merit. It is just as possible that the warming since the 70s has been caused by the very same change in oscillations. If the creators of the climate models had any idea of these oscillations they would have included them in the models, right, and the models would have been 100% correct.

Now after the models have been proven to be an abject failure the same scientists are claiming that they know enough about these oscillations to be certain that they are the cause for the model errors.....


MR: Err! excuse me it is basic thermodynamics that Oceans "have been absorbing heat and moderating climate".
There is no need to acknowledge it explicitly.

cont
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2014
cont

And why do you state such bollocks if you know of the heat sink/retentive properities of said oceans?
No, it isn't "possible that the warming since the 70s has been caused by the very same change in oscillations" because ocean temps have been rising also (in general). Are you intimating that there is a geothermal origin of this warming in the oceans?
If so, evidence please.
For the nth time there is no need to include these cycles in the models (and they will be to a degree) - as it is merely a redistribution of energy due the imbalance present in climate due GHG's.
It is NOT POSSIBLE for any model of Earth processes to be "100% correct".
Why would you expect them to be?
However, NCM's that have hit the ENSO/PDO cycle correctly.....

From: http://phys.org/n...sed.html

cont
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2014
cont
"They then looked only at those models whose PDO settings matched those in the real world, and found that these models gave a much more accurate reconstruction of temperature trends – including the slowdown in warming seen over the past decade and a half.
The discovery shows that El Niño has a strong influence on temperature trends over relatively short timescales such as 15 years, Risbey said.
Because Pacific temperature patterns flip back and forth every few decades, not all climate models reflect the real-world state of El Niño at a given time. That means that, when many models are averaged together, climate models have tended to overestimate the rate of post-1998 warming."
http://www.skepti...2011.jpg
freeiam
1 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2014
Looks like the simpleton model 'CO2 regulates all' (reminds me of pseudo science economics) is in deep trouble.
In a few years mainstream science will deny that 'CO2' was ever considered a regulator at all (strange enough internet search will show less and less results).
freeiam
1 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2014
cont
"They then looked only at those models whose PDO settings matched those in the real world, and found that these models gave ...


So, the climate scientists of this research are full of crap?
If so, then what about other climate research?
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2014
Consultofactus muttered an odity
Huh! Who woulda thought that a feature that contains ~85% of the latent surface heat of the Earth could affect the climate!
What the f..k is "Latent Surface Heat" ?

You have heard of "Specific Heat" ?
http://en.wikiped...capacity

& maybe "latent heat of fusion (or vapourisation)" ?
http://en.wikiped...f_fusion
http://en.wikiped...rization

Then what the heck is your presumably made up term "latent surface heat" actually mean ?

Science please, not random mixture of terms to impress the uneducated as please be aware. many here are educated & some like myself with multiple university qualification crossing disciplines...

Reply please, don't stress, take your time, but be pertinent & pedantic if you so desire ;-)
Mike_Massen
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2014
freeiam claimed
Looks like the simpleton model 'CO2 regulates all' (reminds me of pseudo science economics) is in deep trouble.
Beg pardon, R U honest ?
where is the term "CO2 regulates all" offered in ANY peer reviewed journal or IPCC report or even phys.org comments to show anything in particular ?

Why do you freeiam suggest this term was ever used, R U making stuff up, so you are just a huge stuffup ?

If you don't reply with anything substantive then it proves you are a liar & a feeble dick !

freeiam added
In a few years mainstream science will deny that 'CO2' was ever considered a regulator at all (strange enough internet search will show less and less results).
Speculation isnt your skill, stick to politics its as vague as lines in the sand.

So you don't appear as having an IQ less than 50 please show us your education in the overall thermal properties of CO2 & btw add to that those of H2O, CH4 etc - capisce ?

Dunderhead freeiam (sigh)
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2014
Do you antigoracle & other paid deniers understand ?

Ah, the ignoRANT of the AGW Chicken Little.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2014
Yes, I do, DS-- which was my point. Although in my haste to point out the lack of a causative factor, I was sloppy. After a couple of hundred million million years of stable tropical conditions, there is a sudden plunge into an ice age? And then just as suddenly that ice age collapses, and this is all due to ocean circulation?
Ah, dealing with deniers has turned off my brain. Sorry about that.

So you disagree with their findings? Mmmmm, I'm a little skeptical myself. We have a pretty clear idea of what causes the transitions between glaciations and interglacials and vice versa: the Milankovic cycles. Not only that, but we can calculate where the planets were and where the Earth's axis was pointing, and see the reason.

So overall I think I might agree with you, Caliban.

I don't know if this is a desperate grab after something to deny climate change or not; they seem to be denying the Milankovic cycles, rather than climate change.
cls1
5 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2014
The science is settled CO2 is the only cause of weather. Ooopsss the science isn't settled....


I've been around scientists a long time and I've never heard one say "the science is settled." Or not. The question is absurd.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2014
SO AGW-ers are left with this dilemma:
If the oceans have been such a major player, why therefore has CO2 gotten the only press?
What is the tradespace between the polar ice sinking man made heat, the oceans distributing it, and sinking it, and CO2 insulating us?

Hmmm, looks like some folks need to go over their figures again. I mean if it was always CO2, then WHAT do these new variables introduce? Especially since the AGW-ers are falling all over themselves to pretend this was always part of the dogma.

Dilemmas, dilemmas. So many inconvenient facts for the supporters of right.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2014
Ah, dealing with deniers has turned off my brain. Sorry about that.


And I'm a "denier" of the Casimir Effect as a source of infinite energy to keep the the Universe eternally expanding. So, tell you what Mr King of Funny Farm Science, why don't you come up with your counter General Theory of Relativity?

Show us your your Differential Equations like Einstein did & prove to those of us in the engineering & scientific professions that you've come up with the Final Energy Solution with your Casimir Effect engine, then science can dispense with the notion for development of fusion energy because we'll have your "perpetual motion machine" that we can put to use to reverse all these ocean currents that are causing all this "warming" you keep complaining about. Or maybe we could use your infinite energy machine to build a plasma engine & move the earth a few million miles more distant from the sun?
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2014
Ah, dealing with deniers has turned off my brain. Sorry about that.


And I'm a "denier" of the Casimir Effect as a source of infinite energy to keep the the Universe eternally expanding
OK, Lenni, then explain why the universe's expansion is accelerating for the last seven billion years.

This is an observed brute physical fact, not a theory (or hypothesis or conjecture, either).

And this is the wrong thread. This one's on climate change.

Edited to add: why do you think they put the Hubble telescope up there, anyway, Lenni? Just for kicks? And why do you think they named it after Edwin Hubble, who discovered the galactic redshifts? It was designed and built to characterize the redshifts, and to use the Type 1a supernovae to check them. And it did.
tejolson
1.2 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2014
I'm curious as to how much money the public forked out for this research. These are the words I get from this "However, scientists can't predict precisely what effect the carbon dioxide currently being pulled into the ocean from the atmosphere will have on climate."

If you can't make any predictions with your science, than why are you doing this science? It would be nice if that money would go somewhere more productive, like nuclear energy.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2014
If the oceans have been such a major player, why therefore has CO2 gotten the only press?
Because we started with the atmosphere; the original GCMs had a very simplified homogenized model of the oceans. The latest ones (last fifteen years or so) are AOGCMs: Atmospheric and Oceanic Global Climate Models. Here's one:

http://www.giss.n.../modelE/

If you have enough computational power available you can download it and run it. If not, then you'll have to look at GISS' graphs of the output. You can also trace its development through Model II, and Model AOM-GR.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2014
It would be nice if that money would go somewhere more productive, like nuclear energy.
Funding doesn't work like that.

There would be plenty of money if Libertardian climate deniers would stop voting to strangle our government. And would stop promoting outdated economic conjectures from discredited economists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2014
It would be nice if that money would go somewhere more productive, like nuclear energy.
Funding doesn't work like that.

There would be plenty of money if Libertardian climate deniers would stop voting to strangle our government. And would stop promoting outdated economic conjectures from discredited economists.

I wish there were libertarians strangling the govt.
No, it's the socialists that are destroying wealth, printing money and expanding the power of the state.
gkam
3 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2014
You must think Georgie Dubya Bush was a socialist? That's who did it to us
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Oct 25, 2014


You must think Georgie Dubya Bush was a socialist? That's who did it to us


Did what to whom?

BDS (Bush derangement syndrome) must be a chronic illness.
Socialists just can't stop blaming Bush.
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2014
Ah, dealing with deniers has turned off my brain. Sorry about that.


And I'm a "denier" of the Casimir Effect as a source of infinite energy to keep the the Universe eternally expanding


OK, Lenni, then explain why the universe's expansion is accelerating for the last seven billion years.


Wait a minute here King of Funny Farm Science, you already have that inside knowledge, remember? "The Casimir Effect", remember? You've been out there, seen it in operation & should be proposing to build your own Casimir Engine here on Earth so we can deal with this "warming" thing.

Let us know when your "perpetual motion" Casimir Engine has begun lowering the ocean levels so we can bow down to you & declare you as savior for rescuing us from ourselves & ghosty can adorn you with an appropriate crown.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
" Every time anything goes wrong, Obama falls over himself pointing to Bush and saying "Not Me." Readers of "Family Circus" are familiar with the "Not Me" theme. The character appears as a ghost nearby the misdeeds of the cartoon children as they claim no responsibility. It might as well appear on the White House website and in the newly redecorated Oval Office, too.

From Iraq and Afghanistan to the economy and unemployment, the president has taken the position that nothing bad is his responsibility. Forget that Obama opposed the surge that led to victory in Iraq and that he emulated that plan in his buildup in Afghanistan. Those wars are only his if he wins. Anything wrong belongs to Bush."
http://www.mrc.or...y-circus
Now Obama owns the economy and ISIS.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 25, 2014
Look up the Dow now and when Obama took office. Since the Congress has been recalcitrant, the credit goes all to him.

Isis is the logical consequence of the Reagan/Casey organization, arming, and training of the rag-tag goat-herding Mujahadeen.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
The rich 'liberal' Wall Streeters like Buffet and Soros benefit greatly from inflated stock markets.

ISIS would not have been allowed to form had Obama not withdrawn US forces from Iraq.

Of course if you want to go back further, you can blame the 'liberals' for creating nation states like Iraq and Yugoslavia that did not exist prior to WWI.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2014
Look up the Dow now and when Obama took office. Since the Congress has been recalcitrant, the credit goes all to him.

Isis is the logical consequence of the Reagan/Casey organization, arming, and training of the rag-tag goat-herding Mujahadeen.

"Foreign policy decisions under President Obama have allowed Islamic terrorists to gain a better footing in the Middle East, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said this week."
http://thehill.co...n-policy
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2014
"Democrats Push for New Heavy Regulations on Internet Postings, Drudge, and Blogs"
http://www.breitb...nd-Blogs

This is consistent with the invective by AGWites here. When the socialist is losing the argument, he resorts to force to censor the opposition.
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2014
cls1 offered a pertinent observation
The science is settled CO2 is the only cause of weather. Ooopsss the science isn't settled...
I've been around scientists a long time and I've never heard one say "the science is settled." Or not. The question is absurd.
Indeed It's not scientist speak, media speaks because they communicate to the lowest common denominator which is the approx age of 12yr olds...

Scientists, especially those in the physical sciences speak of fundamentals, these ARE settled such as:-

- Properties of greenhouse gases such as CO2 with its KNOWN thermal re-radiation IR
- Properties of comparative specific heat such as oceans & atmosphere
- Thermodynamics & heat flow, statistical mechanics.

Science fundamentals are settled, if dumb denier thinks they aren't conduct experiments & refute 100+ years of confirmations, Eg. Critique experimental methodology.

Uneducated deniers can't do that, they switch often to politics !
Returners
1 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2014
If the oceans have been such a major player, why therefore has CO2 gotten the only press?
Because we started with the atmosphere; the original GCMs had a very simplified homogenized model of the oceans. The latest ones (last fifteen years or so) are AOGCMs: Atmospheric and Oceanic Global Climate Models. Here's one:

http://www.giss.n.../modelE/

If you have enough computational power available you can download it and run it. If not, then you'll have to look at GISS' graphs of the output. You can also trace its development through Model II, and Model AOM-GR.


That's screw up. It says if we halfed CO2 the global average albedo would go up 2%. This corresponds to 27 watts of forcing (day side) presently earth's temperature is about 1kelvin for every 4.7watts in the solar constant, which means this corresponds to about 6c worth of warming at equlibrium, if you use it to "post-dict" from the pre-industrial era.

It can't be that bad.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2014
It's not scientist speak, media speaks because they communicate to the lowest common denominator which is the approx age of 12yr olds

......which is precisely the reason the most prolific Commentaries on this site believe in a "perpetual motion universe".

Scientists, especially those in the physical sciences speak of fundamentals, these ARE settled such as:-
- Properties of greenhouse gases such as CO2 with its KNOWN thermal re-radiation IR
- Properties of comparative specific heat such as oceans & atmosphere
- Thermodynamics & heat flow, statistical mechanics.


And all these "properties", as you call them, are subject to chemical bonding properties as calculated by "rate of reaction equations" & transformation of mass to energy.

Science fundamentals are settled, if dumb denier thinks they aren't conduct experiments & refute 100+ years of confirmations

The problem is that novices like you collaborate to redefine what science fundamentals are.

Returners
1 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2014
I can see a day soon coming where Farm Equipment will need to be powered by electric cables running from Wind Turbines or Solar Arrays.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 26, 2014
Somebody tell Rygg this is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of measurement.

He loses.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 26, 2014
"I can see a day soon coming where Farm Equipment will need to be powered by electric cables running from Wind Turbines or Solar Arrays."
--------------------------------------------

Probably not. Ever plowed a field or bucked three-wire bales? The cables are impractical.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2014
The real issue with so much of this climate science stuff is that there is a media culture in this country & Europe that panders to the lowest depths of the emotional base of human psychology.

The talking heads in the popular media are so deficient in the basic concepts of science that they believe all that Star Trekkie stuff is so close to being real that they just take the next step & declare it so. No more need for the math to prove reality, just declare "perpetual motion" a reality because it just feels so good, they throw away Einstein's GR because they can't do the math anyway & we end up with 90% of the Commentary that ends up on this site.

To understand the chemistry of "climate science", one must have a very deep comprehension of chemical bonding & be able to understand "rate of reaction equations" . Most of what occurs in the politics of climate science cannot be calculated by rate of reaction & is thus reduced to emotional appeal by the 90% who can't do the math.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 26, 2014
Benni, look at the macro. Climate is the interaction between several complex systems. We have perturbed those systems and made the climate unstable. It will oscillate until it finds a new Stable State, one which may not be to our liking.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 26, 2014
http://news.natio...=Content

Tell me it's not real.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2014
If you can't make any predictions with your science, than why are you doing this science?
@tejolson
it is not a matter of "springing into the head fully formed"... it is a matter of finding the answers

that is what science is about

the science now has found anomalies within certain points in the current knowledge (that doesn't mean that all the previous knowledge is out the door, as alche is presenting it, it simply means that we've found something that needs better tools and more time to investigate to insure the answers are better and more predictable, etc)

this is the fallacy of the denier camp
it is NOT that oceans were never included just that parts of the ocean are poorly measured
(even Science Mag posted that)

IOW - we need to do better to understand a highly complex system that we may never know all the variables to
it is not as simple and direct as launching 500 pound rocks a specific distance to breach a wall
climate & weather are highly complex systems
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2014
Somebody tell Rygg this is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of measurement.

He loses.

Measurement of what?
The failure of climate models to predict?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2014
Somebody tell Rygg this is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of measurement.

He loses.

Measurement of what?
The failure of climate models to predict?


Measurement of energy on Earth my friend....
Predicted and explained by empirical science, which is NOT up for argument, sorry and all that.

Models use the above, with their necessary inexactness. Which are known and DO NOT discredit them... except in the eyes of ignorant, selfish, politically compromised, and bigoted deniers.
Who..
Guess what?
Do not count.
A self-fulfilling prophecy my friend.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2014
Measurement of energy on Earth my friend....


Obviously the AGWites are doing a poor job of measuring the energy.
I guess that's why the NPL wants a satellite called TRUTHS and why the US wants to launch CLARREO so they will have NIST traceable radiance data from earth.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2014
"The proposed TRUTHS (Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial- and Helio- Studies) mission would see a satellite launched which can make very high accuracy measurements of key indicators of climate change to test and constrain the forecasts of climate models- providing the unequivocal evidence to oblige global consensus action on adoption of appropriate mitigation strategies. The project is being lead by the National Physical Laboratory."
"The satellite would have a factor of ten better accuracy than current satellites, and also be able to calibrate and upgrade the performance of other Earth Observation satellites in space. This would significantly improve our understanding of climate change."

"Greater accuracy is necessary for climate model forecasts to be trusted. "

http://www.satnew...03760974
So the science is not really settled is it?
gkam
3.3 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2014
Rygg, if you want Absolute Truth, go find L Ron Hubbard.
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2014
Ah, dealing with deniers has turned off my brain. Sorry about that.
So you disagree with their findings? Mmmmm, I'm a little skeptical myself. We have a pretty clear idea of what causes the transitions between glaciations[...]the Milankovic cycles. Not only that, but we can calculate where the planets were and where the Earth's axis was pointing, and see the reason.

So overall I think I might agree with you, Caliban.


Exactly. No harm done.

I don't know if this is a desperate grab after something to deny climate change or not; they seem to be denying the Milankovic cycles, rather than climate change.


I don't disagree with their findings...I disagree with their interpretation, which may be just a matter of "applied spin" --impossible for me to say, since the paper itself is paywalled.

But if they are claiming what this article seems to say they are claiming, then they are utter morons, and or shills. It would be helpful to identify the funding sources.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2014
Rygg, if you want Absolute Truth, go find L Ron Hubbard.


Soooo funny!

Invective and half truths are all AGWites have.

If the science is so settled, AGWites should demand TRUTHS and CLARREO be cancelled and save the money.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2014
Rygg, if you want Absolute Truth, go find L Ron Hubbard.


Soooo funny!

Invective and half truths are all AGWites have.



That's not it at all, rygsuckn'

It's just the fact that no one here can be bothered to offer a serious response to any of your profligate trollblatt.

Now, stop your whining, and piss off.

dustywells
1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
this is the fallacy of the denier camp
it is NOT that oceans were never included just that parts of the ocean are poorly measured
(even Science Mag posted that)

IOW - we need to do better to understand a highly complex system that we may never know all the variables to

True!

So who is jumping to conclusions with insufficient data? The believers or the deniers?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2014
Rygg, if you want Absolute Truth, go find L Ron Hubbard.


Soooo funny!

Invective and half truths are all AGWites have.



That's not it at all, rygsuckn'

It's just the fact that no one here can be bothered to offer a serious response to any of your profligate trollblatt.

Now, stop your whining, and piss off.


I'm not whining.
I'm laughing at the pitiful responses of AGWites.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
So who is jumping to conclusions with insufficient data? The believers or the deniers?
@dusty
you misunderstand what is being said... no one is "jumping to conclusions" with insufficient data
that is an argument from the denier camp to mislead and obfuscate reality

Science is simply finding more and better data

science is all about finding more and better data to support better models and better findings as well as better understand what is going on

there is nothing wrong with the data that has been published to date, it is simply being augmented with more and better data

take the above examples of ryg-tard the political idiot: what is the relevance of his political agenda? none
it is not science, it obfuscates science

now read about jet stream instability: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

nothing wrong in it at all
we just have MORE data to put into it, and other studies
that is all
dustywells
1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
So who is jumping to conclusions with insufficient data? The believers or the deniers?
@dusty
you misunderstand what is being said... no one is "jumping to conclusions" with insufficient data

Among the millions of lines of flames, lies, posturing and bluffing, this is the one fact that was stated. To paraphrase: " It's a complex system, we don't understand it, we need more data."

The rest is only childish bickering of: "My opinion is better than your opinion. Nyahh Nyaah"

"Prove it!"

"No YOU prove it!"

The bottom line is that neither side, regardless of scientific background, has enough data to present a solid case and both sides must resort to name calling and pseudo science in a futile attempt at one-up-manship.

Up Yours!
freethinking
1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Dusty, If the AGW religionists would agree to the phrase "the science isn't settled." then discussions can start.

When the media quits protecting Democrats talking points, which AGW is one, then discussions can start. http://nypost.com...s-obama/

To be reasonable, you need AGW religionists you agree with the point that there may be NO AGW.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2014
The bottom line is that neither side, regardless of scientific background, has enough data to present a solid case and both sides must resort to name calling and pseudo science in a futile attempt at one-up-manship.


The way science is supposed to work, theory proponents must provide data to support their the theory. 'Peers' are supposed to challenge the theory and be skeptical.
AGWites can't tolerate skeptics.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
Dusty, If the AGW religionists would agree to the phrase "the science isn't settled." then discussions can start.

When the media quits protecting Democrats talking points, which AGW is one, then discussions can start. http://nypost.com...s-obama/

To be reasonable, you need AGW religionists you agree with the point that there may be NO AGW.

Mr free;

What is settled is that the Earth's climate system is warming (Land and sea).
What is settled is that it is not the Sun.
What is settled is that it is not geothermal.
What is settled is that CO2, CH4 and some others are GHG's.
What is settled is that mankind has spewed an additional ~40% of the stuff into the atmos. since the beginning of industrial times.
What is settled is the GHG properties of said CO2 and CH4.
What is settled is the amplification of the GHE by H2O.

cont
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
cont

What is settled is that it is CO2 doing the driving and not H2O (due ~10 day vapour phase in the atmos and the ~100's yrs of CO2.
What is settled is how/why the BL Law works.
What is settled is a measured increase in back-radiated IR via ground based spectography, determining said CO2 as the GHG involved.
What is settled is the lack of any evidence (correlation AND causation) it is anything else.
What is settled is the unanimity of all the above by the vast majority of the world's experts, bar a few ideologically challenged and media vocal deniers ..... this is to be expected - ITS HUMAN NATURE. And does not make the science wrong.
What is settled is that the deniers on here do NOT know more about the subject than said experts (common sense, elucidated by the DK syndrome).

cont
runrig
4 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
cont

What is settled is that there is not a world wide scam by thousands of said experts engaged in some nefarious attempt to get paid and fool the world (common sense).

PS sorry about all that ...
What is NOT settled......

Is where the imbalance in energy in vs energy out is being located and for what time periods.
ENSO is one (and the overriding culprit this last 16 yrs).

This does NOT matter as the heat retained by the oceans will out eventually and is merely akin to rearranging of molecules in a pan of water being heated to boiling.
That is: Given a known ambient air temp and pressure and quantity of water the said water in the pan will arrive at 100C in a predictable time with a predictable amount of heat.

The internal chaos (movement of heat within the system) is what is NOT settled and NOT the energy imbalance.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
" It's a complex system, we don't understand it, we need more data."
@dusty
your paraphrase is wrong
it should read "we don't understand some things about it" in the middle
and therein lies your inability to comprehend what is really going on... there is no conspiracy, nor is there this tid-bit
that neither side, regardless of scientific background, has enough data to present a solid case
There is plenty of evidence supporting AGW and the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere and in the environment
in fact, if you will read the studies, there is overwhelming evidence

the evidence against it is where there is a lack of any reputable proof, and where the name calling originates

tell you what: read this article and tell me where the lack of evidence is: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

your quote
Up Yours!
only proves that you are sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the empirical evidence for the sake of... what?
casualjoe
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Temperatures have exceeded 0.5 degrees above average every year since 2001, with 2014 set to be hotter than all of them despite a no show from El Niño.

http://www.ncdc.n...s/global
http://www.cpc.nc...rs.shtml

Meanwhile the known greenhouse gas CO2 is at record concentrations, what could explain these two phenomena?

I actually do wonder though, whether this will be beneficial during the likely maunder minimum on the way but I quickly realise that is just the primal dumb ass short term blinkered whining child in me speaking. Therefore, as a fickle human like the rest of you it's important to remember to step back and consider the whole picture when the crazy kicks in.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
above average every year

What is average?

record concentrations,

What record?

The earth is quite old and there is limited data, a few decades and very poor proxy data going back 1000 years.
pandora4real
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
The bottom line is that neither side, regardless of scientific background, has enough data to present a solid case and both sides must resort to name calling and pseudo science in a futile attempt at one-up-manship.


A perfect score! Every.last.vote on every.last.comment you've made on this page has been a "1"! I don't know that anyone has ever posted 19 comments on one page and ONLY received the lowest score we can give. QED: You are delusional. It stands demonstrated. Do you REALLY believe that you're the only one on this page that "gets it"? That's delusional. Do you REALLY think you're the only one that can "see the truth" reading this article? That's delusional. Do you think you're accomplishing ANYTHING? If you do, again, you're delusional. Which is it?

Moderator, can't you add "AGWites" to your spam filter? That's all it is.
saposjoint
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2014
Sorry, Pandora. I downvoted you unintentionally.

For that matter, everyone just start reporting every comment the halfwit ryggesogn2 makes.

Maybe the moderators will start reading his bullshit and be tired of the innumerable repetitions of buzzwords, stupidity and lying as the posters do who can reason without Fox Noise or Breitbart's help.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2014
PhysOrg just added an ignore button. :D I'm adding all the cranks to my list. They'll go away if they get ignored.
NOM
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
For that matter, everyone just start reporting every comment the halfwit ryggesogn2 makes.
I've been doing that for a couple of months now, at least to his "news" spam.
All of it is "off topic", but the moderators don't seem to care. Probably worried that if they banned rygtard, the number of posts wouldl halve.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
AGWite is a well defined term: one who follows the AGW faith.
And it is a faith in THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL and socialism.
Countless examples have been presented and many are located in these comments.

Now the system has an 'ignore user' so the AGWites won't have to be challenged in their faith, and I can disregard AGW invective.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Now that this site want to create user bubbles, time to ignore physorg.
NOM
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
time to ignore physorg.
Bye rygtard. [ignore user]

Great feature physorg
Da Schneib
4.9 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Now maybe we can have some sensible conversations about this stuff instead of having to fight off the cranks.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2014
Yeah, because you kids are doing real science on this site where your reputations are not at risk...
freethinking
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Progressives really can't stand to be questioned.
dustywells
1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2014
The bottom line is that neither side, regardless of scientific background, has enough data to present a solid case and both sides must resort to name calling and pseudo science in a futile attempt at one-up-manship.


A perfect score! Every.last.vote on every.last.comment you've made on this page has been a "1"! I don't know that anyone has ever posted 19 comments on one page and ONLY received the lowest score we can give.


Pffft! Thank you for pointing out the priorities of the posters to this site. That explains why so few participants have so many aliases.

And just to show that I can count, prior to this posting I have three, not nineteen posts in this thread and only two have a perfect "1."
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2014
.....the evidence against it is where there is a lack of any reputable proof, and where the name calling originates

tell you what: read this article and tell me where the lack of evidence is: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

your quote
Up Yours!
only proves that you are sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the empirical evidence for the sake of... what?


Sure, is that why this article says you're wrong?
dustywells
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2014
" It's a complex system, we don't understand it, we need more data."
@dusty
your paraphrase is wrong
it should read "we don't understand some things about it" in the middle
and therein lies your inability to comprehend what is really going on... there is no conspiracy,
I suggested no conspiracy.

But please explain how we can be certain of a conclusion if we don't understand all the factors leading to that conclusion.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2014
@Pandora4Real-Don't you know, on this site, "1" is the new "5."

@Stumped-Is this a good enough citation? I had to wait 30 years for it to show. But I'll cite it for my crazy theories...

Or do you need more.

See, I think the difference of perspective we have is this: As a research chemist, I don't wait for someone else to publish, I just go ahead and use basic principles and experience to design something.

To prove it I'll offer you a freebee: Is there any product you are unhappy with for one reason or another? Toothpaste maybe? I suspect you don't like toothpaste. I'll go ahead and put something together for you and post right here!

BTW, nothing about that elementary equation with the assumptions we all agree on...
dustywells
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2014
@Stumpy
tell you what: read this article and tell me where the lack of evidence is: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
|Maybe I'm too dumb to see what you see in it.

I see a study of Rossby waves and their correlation to surface weather with emphasis on weather anomalies. What do you see?
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2014
@prophet
See, I think the difference of perspective we have is this: As a research chemist, I don't wait for someone else to publish, I just go ahead and use basic principles and experience to design something....
That is indeed a vast difference in perspective. Your specialty has basic principles and quick results on your research whereas climatologists have observation, history and trends.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
Now that this site want to create user bubbles, time to ignore physorg.


All together now...

hip hip ...
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2014
Ah @dustywells, that is a beautiful insult. It is almost an honor to receive it.

On the other hand, I've been predicting climate change for 30 years, and articles like this one have been showing up a lot lately confirming my crazy theory. So I've had my long term observation as well.

I even have converts, folks that say the ocean is stabilizing climate, well it is, but temperature difference is a key thermodynamic driver, and ice much colder and absorbs 333x what water does... In fact, just to clarify, warmed water can travel (it doesn't really need to, it is just for intuition) to the ice to melt it.
There are those that say heat is more important than temp., now, those who recognize the rising ocean is the most observable and important aspect of man-made change, 6cm rise 1cmx ocean area x gravity.

Since temperature change has been so gradual .85 over 50+ years, it is easy to see how the sea could transfer heat to the icecaps, as well as weather systems.

Best regards
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2014
Benni, look at the macro. Climate is the interaction between several complex systems. We have perturbed those systems and made the climate unstable. It will oscillate until it finds a new Stable State, one which may not be to our liking.

I love this perspective. Honestly. No sarcasm. It is novel, I like novel.

However, a claim I have always had is that CO2 is an insulator, it should cause warming, yes, or at least effects of heat retention, but also, it should cause stabilization of this new "temperature," aka less extreme, if warmer weather.

What we observe is more extreme weather. Which is more indicative of heat sources or imbalance.

Thoughts?
dustywells
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2014
@prophet
Ah @dustywells, that is a beautiful insult. It is almost an honor to receive it.
It was not intended as an insult. I apologize if it is perceived as an insult.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 27, 2014
Now that this site want to create user bubbles, time to ignore physorg.


All together now...

hip hip ...
Hurray!

This should severely constrain the troll population; it will also help deal with the problem of dealing with constant irritating insults and constant crank physics.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2014
@dusty, no worries, I liked it better as an insult. ;)
Alas, now I will read it the other way. :(
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
On another website, there was a discussion about this same article. It was all about heat transfer and thermal mixing due to ocean currents.

http://www.nasa.g...ean.html

What became obvious was the plateau in global average temperatures was due to the ocean current mixing; thus the 18 year slow down, the deniers point out. However, if you look at land temperatures only another picture emerges entirely. It's getting a lot hotter in the interior lands.

Additionally, since the polar ice caps are melting rapidly, the ocean currents are changing in salinity. This has the effect of disrupting many ocean current systems in addition to temperatures changes in the uncharted depths. Certainly methane calcitrates will release methane as a feed back.

Just what is an ocean current;
http://www.roperl...ents.htm

Here is a good Nasa video
http://svs.gsfc.n...dex.html
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2014
@howhot2, So you are saying if ice were melting, and keeping the Earth cool like ice in your drink, ocean currents would tend to keep the temperature stable?

Don't I also always say effects of global heating would depend on climatic region?
...land temperatures only another picture emerges entirely. It's getting a lot hotter in the interior lands.


That's what I've always said. I say cautiously...

You ARE coming over to the dark side...
It's OK, we have truth and cookies.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (14) Oct 28, 2014
"What we observe is more extreme weather. Which is more indicative of heat sources or imbalance. Thoughts?"
---------------------------------------------

Yes, . . weather is driven by heat, specifically the evaporation of water over the oceans More heat means more energy to drive the storms and more evaporation means more precipitation. What we see is not the anticipated rate of rise in temperature, but some of the energy going into the severity of storms.

BTW, looking at the macro of complex systems interacting is not novel. Look up catastrophe theory, the study of discontinuities and stable states.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
@howhot2, So you are saying if ice were melting, and keeping the Earth cool like ice in your drink, ocean currents would tend to keep the temperature stable?

Exactly! Everyone knows the polar ice-caps are melting from AGW. AGW has had a profound effect on all ice from mountain snow caps, to mountain glaciers all the way to the big daddies of ice, Greenland and the polar ice caps.

That is dumping giga-gallons of warm freshwater into ocean currents, and freshwater is heavier than salt water, so it sinks warming the ocean floor. This burst of hot freshwater from AGW caused ice melt could have profound effects on the deep ocean currents. The immediate concern being sea floor methane calcitrates that when warmed will bubble methane into the atmosphere adding to the global warming problem.

Earth, Wind and Fire, I always wondered why they ignored water.


thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2014
Howhot said:
That is dumping giga-gallons of warm freshwater into ocean currents, and freshwater is heavier than salt water, so it sinks warming the ocean floor.


I really hate to contradict you. However, freshwater is not heavier than salt water. It is the other way around.
dustywells
2 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
What we observe is more extreme weather. Which is more indicative of heat sources or imbalance.

Thoughts?
Given the two options, if we hold the assumption that the only heat source of consequence is the sun, then the only answer to the question is imbalance.

I must add, however, that all weather, not only extreme events, is caused by imbalance. The greater the imbalance, the more severe the weather event.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2014
I suggested no conspiracy
@dusty
when you state
The bottom line is that neither side, regardless of scientific background, has enough data to present a solid case and both sides must resort to name calling and pseudo science in a futile attempt at one-up-manship
you suggest that the known physical laws are not known and therefore we cannot know anything, and suggest conspiracy to all published papers that use known physical laws to generate data or knowledge
therefore your comment
please explain how we can be certain of a conclusion if we don't understand all the factors leading to that conclusion
also ignores the known laws of physics, which means that either you are unaware of the overwhelming data already collected, or that you are ignoring it
in either case, it suggest conspiracy as you make inference that we ignore reality for whatever, even though the preponderance of published papers show empirical evidence pointing to facts, not assumptions
read the science
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
-Is this a good enough citation?
@alche/crybaby
still waiting for you to link proof of your prior assertions:
start with Thermo's plagiarism, then link proof/empirical evidence that CO2 is not affecting the climate in any way, and lastly, privide empirical proof that your water bowl has made valid predictions (using dated matierials for fact checking) and that your model is far more accurate than modern physics
until then, you are simply trying to cause obfuscation and re-direct the conversation
As a research chemist, I don't wait for someone else to publish
and you have no peer reviewed publications that prove your point, either
(being a research chemist OR being correct about the CO2 issue)

IOW - another red herring, obfuscation and appeal to self-authority without evidence

why can't you simply comply with the requests that we've been asking for proof of for months?
maybe because you have no proof?
nor can you prove your own POV?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
To prove it I'll offer you a freebee: Is there any product you are unhappy with for one reason or another?
@alche/crybaby
obfuscation- attempted redirect and red herring troll post (reported)
I've been predicting climate change for 30 years
this is one of the claims you have never been able to prove, nor have you ever been able to offer any empirical evidence of
red herring again, obfuscation and blatant lie in an attempt to troll (reported)
do i really have to even point out that the rest is pointless conjecture without evidence designed to inflame, troll and re-direct the conversation?

are you ever going to provide any proof of your outlandish claims or are we going to have to just hit ignore?
i would prefer the site mods actually got rid of idiots like you, but ignore will work as it will make all of your posts irrelevant and unseen, the death of a troll, which is good too
freethinking
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2014
Rygg, these ignore buttons should work for those that of us that are free thinkers. Progressives will ignore conservatives commentators, but as long as you don't ignore them, you can see what they post and then post counter arguments. The great thing is no more death threats, no more personal attacks from Progressives and Democrats.

Remember Paid Progressive Government Trolls live in a bubble and they are paid to make comments. You can't change their minds, however the undecided who really want to know the truth won't ignore any comments or commentators.

The ignore button will hurt the progressives and the paid democrat trolls and sockpuppets. My guess is after Physorg, the Democrats, and Progressives find this out, they will get rid of the ignore button. They want and need the Progressive/Democrat sockpuppet controlled Trolls.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
@gkam, it is novel for this site, and welcome. I am an old hand a chaology, haven't used it in a few years...

@Howhot2, I rather thin you mean 4C water is heavier, or thereabouts. Something like "0 C cold fresh water cools salt water beneath it..."

I confess I've never brought it that far before. It is interesting, and put it right in the realm of something I know little about, how those subsurface currents work. Just the "unmoving" bodies of water will have effects.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
I must add, however, that all weather, not only extreme events, is caused by imbalance. The greater the imbalance, the more severe the weather event


To circle the wagon back, CO2 is an insulator, so it should contribute to balance, or equilibrium. What we have seen is more extremes in weather, and for purposes of this discussion, climate.
Da Schneib
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2014
Howhot said:
That is dumping giga-gallons of warm freshwater into ocean currents, and freshwater is heavier than salt water, so it sinks warming the ocean floor.


I really hate to contradict you. However, freshwater is not heavier than salt water. It is the other way around.
And to follow through on the point, yes, it is lighter than salt water, and that means the water at the poles is not sinking. And that disrupts the deep currents, because the Arctic is the end of the conveyer. See the picture at the beginning of the article.
dustywells
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
that means the water at the poles is not sinking. And that disrupts the deep currents, because the Arctic is the end of the conveyer. See the picture at the beginning of the article.

The arctic is at the end of the conveyor and the water is not sinking. So I picture a huge pile of saltwater that keeps on growing...

No, it has to go somewhere. The question is whether the salt water can cool sufficiently before it is driven under the fresh water.
dustywells
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
@Stumpy
you suggest that the known physical laws are not known and therefore we cannot know anything, and suggest conspiracy to all published papers therefore your comment also ignores the known laws of physics, which means that either you are unaware of the overwhelming data already collected, or that you are ignoring it
in either case, it suggest conspiracy as you make inference that we ignore reality for whatever, even though the preponderance of published papers show empirical evidence pointing to facts, not assumptions

Very GOOD, Stumpy. I applaud. You have spewed a remarkable pile of oral feces without answering a thing. Let me remind you that on October 26 you said:
IOW - we need to do better to understand a highly complex system that we may never know all the variables to
and I asked how we can be certain of a conclusion if we don't understand all the factors leading to that conclusion. Now can you answer without insulting my intelligence or your heritage?
dustywells
1.7 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
To circle the wagon back, CO2 is an insulator, so it should contribute to balance, or equilibrium. What we have seen is more extremes in weather, and for purposes of this discussion, climate.
I don't see why CO2 should have any effect on equilibrium. The theory is that CO2 reduces infrared radiation into space and may thus shift the average.

Weather, in the simplest terms, is warm air rising and cooler air sinking and replacing the warm air. The steeper the gradient between hot and cold, the more extreme the weather event. Of course, humidity and particulates are also factors but are best left for another post.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
@dusty good point.
Over small scales of time, a given climate shouldn't change. Rolling it up into it being a climate.

This is what I mean by equilibrium, climates are unchanging. It's a bad concept, I am striking it from my mind, completely confusing with seasonal changes.
But my mechanism of thought was this: If there were enough CO2 like on Venus, the temperature would be warm, but it would also has little variation. No seasons etc., it would be closer to an equilibrium.
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2014
Howhot said:
That is dumping giga-gallons of warm freshwater into ocean currents, and freshwater is heavier than salt water, so it sinks warming the ocean floor.


I really hate to contradict you. However, freshwater is not heavier than salt water. It is the other way around.

Your right. Forget that rambling muse that freshwater sinks. Just the opposite. The massive amounts of freshwater mixing with saltwater still could have a profound influence on the currents (specifically the Great Ocean Conveyor Belt) by diluting the cold salty deep currents or smearing out the warmer fresh water currents stopping the conveyor belt completely.

I see that none of the deniers fact-checked me on that, so just goes to show how much they really know
dustywells
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
But my mechanism of thought was this: If there were enough CO2 like on Venus, the temperature would be warm, but it would also has little variation. No seasons etc., it would be closer to an equilibrium.
CO2 has no effect on seasons and to date there is insufficient evidence that CO2 has any effect on average global temperatures at least in the current concentrations.

So while I accept global warming as ongoing, unstoppable and irrefutable (but not immediate), I do not subscribe to anthropogenic global warming. But I do subscribe to anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale.
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
CO2 ... I do not subscribe to anthropogenic global warming. But I do subscribe to anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale.

That is kind of a contradiction isn't it? What is the difference between anthropogenic climate change and anthropogenic global warming?

No. You being foolish if you don't recognize the impact that man-made CO2 on the climate. The heat trapping potential of all of the CO2 we have released into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age is incredibly immense. Enough that this is potentially mankind's most dangerous crisis.

I hope you have some loyalty to reason (unlike most of the AGW deniers) and can see the danger that mankind is in if for example, there is a 10F rise base temperatures across the globe.

saposjoint
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
Maybe dustywells and water_RC are socks, maybe not, but they are both unmistakably dolts.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
@dusty-I don't believe CO2 has an impact either, but I do believe in AGW. Weird.

@Howhot2, I can reiterate my crazy if you like:
Heat emitted by humans is absorbed into the environs, via thermodynamics, since it is waste heat, it doesn't really "warm" the environment until it travels, via weather systems and as you are recently fond of, ocean currents, until it is able to be sunk in a colder heat reservoir. Ice.

Actually, this has lots of interesting implications with seasons, etc..

Alternatively, how can mankind be everywhere on Earth and not have some kind of persistent, therefore, climatic, change?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
Maybe dustywells and water_RC are socks, maybe not, but they are both unmistakably dolts.

@sap; I don't suppose you'd care to quantify that. No, you can't, no substance. I'll guess you are Mike_M, or one of thermo's clones who pathetically can't stand being ignored.
Speaking of which...
dustywells
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
Maybe dustywells and water_RC are socks, maybe not, but they are both unmistakably dolts.
Thank you for the compliment. I admit that I have opinions that may contradict yours but mine are not ossified and are subject to change as new data are added to the mix. If, in your taxonomy, that classifies me as a dolt I will wear the badge proudly.
dustywells
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
@howhot2
That is kind of a contradiction isn't it? What is the difference between anthropogenic climate change and anthropogenic global warming?
Natural Global Warming has been progressing for well over 10,000 years and will continue for at least another 300 years. It is human arrogance to suggest that we can either speed up or stop that natural cycle.

A simple definition of climate is "the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area." Here's a small example: You buy a few acres of forest and decide to cut a clearing to build a log house. After a year or two you notice that the plants in the clearing are different from the forest. You decide to paint the cabin white. Later you see the plants in your garden next to the south wall have died. Reflected sunlight, you realize.

You changed the local climate on a small scale, twice. First when you cut the clearing then again when you painted the cabin. Man can cause CC in many other ways on many scales.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2014
@prophet
@dusty-I don't believe CO2 has an impact either, but I do believe in AGW. Weird.

I thought all AGW theory hung on the CO2 nail. How is your opinion different from the norm?
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2014
MR166 again with dumb claims
Mike what you and the other Climate Theologists on this board will not acknowledge is that the oceans have been absorbing heat and moderating climate since the beginning of the earth.
Be honest for a change. When have I ever denied the massive specific heat of oceans or referred to a dogma re 'theology", I have often referred to thermal fundamentals - why Can't you MR166 acknowledge that, at least, by getting an education instead of feeble critique ?

MR166
To offer as proof of the lack of CO2 induced warming the change in ocean oscillations is totally without merit.
English not your 1st language ? how is there 'proof' in your sentence ?

MR166
It is just as possible that the warming since the 70s has been caused by the very same change in oscillations.
It changes, then its aperiodic ?
So what drives the change ?

Maybe, CO2 & its irrefutable thermal properties, still rising
http://www.woodfo...o2/every
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 29, 2014
tejolson playing with words but makes a dumb error
...These are the words I get from this "However, scientists can't predict precisely what effect the carbon dioxide currently being pulled into the ocean from the atmosphere will have on climate."
Note the word "precisely" ?

tejolson proves twists & lack of education with
If you can't make any predictions with your science, than why are you doing this science?
You, twister & liar left out "precisely" or isnt English your 1st language as well ? So many deniers "can't write right" - LOL.

Climate models just like weather predictions operate & according to error bars.

tejolson, would throw out weather predictions if the day temps were 4 deg C below forecast & then complain "why are they doing weather predictions" ?

Why is tejolson trying to show blithering lack of understanding ?

tejolson muttered
..more productive, like nuclear energy.
No. So how would they cost in All the disasters long term ?
casualjoe
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2014
Dusty, get a textbook on statistical analysis and read it. Water, get a textbook on Venus and read it.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 29, 2014
dustywells seems to be "a bit mixed up"
IOW - we need to do better to understand a highly complex system that we may never know all the variables to
True!
So who is jumping to conclusions with insufficient data? The believers or the deniers?
dustywells its NOT about belief, there is no dogma, there is no political law or idea that can change facts which are the fundamentals of climate. To FULLY understand the fundamentals one needs a fair to good education in physics & it is an effort to achieve.

Unfortunately all the deniers, yes I do say ALL that come here to post drivel, either have no education or if they have a smattering of an education they are easily led by propaganda & wish to aggrandize themselves to the denier camp how smart (they think) they are OR are paid.

dustywells, please understand that over the last ~200 yrs humans are emitting enough CO2 (& other GHGs) to affect heat balance, ie The amount of insolation vs radiation to space.

continued
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2014
cont

@dustywells & deniers with no physics education eg Water-_Prophet

Humans are burning ~230,000L of petrol each & every second 24/7. This adds a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere & most is above ambient temps, so naturally rises.

There's NO evidence CO2 does NOT have specific thermal properties of re-radiation, has been known for ~100+ yrs, this FACT has never been refuted or proven wrong by ANY experiment. It is a fundamental (settled) property of CO2 related to the molecule's vibrational states.

We start with the fundamental, CO2 (& other GHGs) re-radiate some normally emitted long wave radiation to space instead back to earth - adding resistance to heat flow. It is measurable & in relations to proven physics equations show it to be a FACT.

As a consequence we KNOW there is more heat, the problem is chaotic nature of how heat is distributed overall & its effect on ocean currents & atmospheric circulation.

Can ANY denier show fundamentals are wrong ?
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2014
dustywells claimed
Natural Global Warming has been progressing for well over 10,000 years and will continue for at least another 300 years.
Evidence, papers, studies NOT propaganda from vague sources ?

In any case dustywells, you NEED to appreciate rate of change is high & the FACT shown earlier of adding a greenhouse gas (GHG) with KNOWN thermal properties.

dustywells
It is human arrogance to suggest that we can either speed up or stop that natural cycle.
No. That completely depends on scale & time, given humans overall are burning ~230,000L of petrol per second ie. billions of tonnes of CO2 ADDED each year then you can understand effect of CO2 is obviously cumulative.

Correct to state its unlikely we change climate in 1 year or even 10 but, when you appreciate CO2 stays around a LONG time then you can see the nature of the issue & how CO2 & its also driving H2O partial pressure up can & does lead to (even incremental) climate change.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2014
... Trolls live in a bubble and they are paid to make comments
@freefromthought
thats right, you live in a bubble
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

that is why you ignore the overwhelming science in order to post drivel and you cannot refute a single study that i have linked so far

feel free to show me, with empirical data that is at least as reputable as those studies that i have posted, where there is no agw and where the studies i've provided are wrong

To circle the wagon back
@alche/crybaby
feel free to refute the following study which i have posted before (repeatedly) with equal and reputable evidence, meaning another study or proof of retraction (and since i am posting it then it has not been retracted, btw)
http://www.scienc...abstract
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2014
and I asked how we can be certain of a conclusion if we don't understand all the factors leading to that conclusion. Now can you answer without insulting my intelligence or your heritage?
@dustybrain
are you being deliberately obtuse?
there are known laws of physics, right?
there are known properties, right?
just because we don't understand every single variable with regard to how iron reacts with or mixes with other elements doesn't mean we have no freakin idea on how to mold steel or create iron products!

this is the same thing... just because we don't have all the data in on a very highly complex system doesn't meant that we cannot comprehend even the little things or how certain things react in the system right now:
http://www.scienc...abstract

and there is more we know

the above "remarkable pile of oral feces" said exactly the same thing
so are you illiterate as well?
or are you intentionally being stupid for the sake of attention?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2014
We start with the fundamental, CO2 (& other GHGs) re-radiate some normally emitted long wave radiation to space instead back to earth - adding resistance to heat flow.
Minor error, you meant "...re-radiate some normally emitted long-wave radiation back to earth, instead of allowing it all to escape to space..." but with deniers around we have to be absolutely accurate or we get to listen to them try to lawyer away "global warming" some more.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2014
CO2 has no effect on seasons and to date there is insufficient evidence that CO2 has any effect on average global temperatures at least in the current concentrations
@dustybrain
and here again, you mark yourself as either illiterate or intentionally being stupid:
what part of the following studies do you not understand?
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
(that second one has a nice video that explains it if you need me to link it)

IOW - we've proven to you how weather can be affected as well as how CO2 affects climate and you still come back with the above stupidity... this means that in order to
answer without insulting my intelligence
we would have to restrict ourselves to a monosyllabic vocabulary and try to grunt out replies!

(dusty- too much co2 bad, big change to world. now you see-ums real?)

read the science and learn

and quit ignoring reality
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2014
I do not subscribe to anthropogenic global warming. But I do subscribe to anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale.
@dusty
WTF? really?
you do realise that believing in the latter is the same as the former?

AGW is the same thing as
anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale
this is where we are having our problem? really?

This is simple enough to clarify: if you believe in:
anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale
what is the difference between anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale and AGW?
the anthropogenic climate change that is global right now is causing a warming trend as you can see from the changes :
http://www.woodfo...60/trend
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2014
alche the cry baby told Dusty
I don't believe CO2 has an impact either, but I do believe in AGW. Weird.
again, please provide the scientific study that refutes the following: http://www.scienc...abstract

I admit that I have opinions that may contradict yours but mine are not ossified and are subject to change as new data are added to the mix
@Dusty
that is how science works- and no one here is "ossified" except the deniers

but ignoring the empirical data in front of you is not part of how science works
nor is playing word games with
I do not subscribe to anthropogenic global warming. But I do subscribe to anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale
which essentially says: i believe in AGW, but not AGW

just follow the science and quit with the political and denial bs
this may help
http://arstechnic...nformed/
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
@dustry-I believe that CO2 is a basically independent variable IV, and if you've ever tried it, hanging proof on an IV, get get randomness back, with no real proof. People can argue it forever with the variations in trends. It is a red herring introduced to the argument to confound. And before you quip, if it were a fact, there wouldn't be an argument lasting 40yrs.

But here is a gedanken model that expresses my view:
Envision a pool-room with ice at one end under good thermodynamic equilibrium conditions, and is warm at the other. The air in the room is well mixed vertically, and relies on convection horizontally.
Now add a candle to the room, and allow to come to equilibrium again, what happens? The ice melts proportional to the amount of heat added to the system.

Now if we divide the candle into many smaller candles releasing the same heat-energy, yet are too small to "noticeably" change temperature, the same effect happens, ice melts.

The candle is fossil fuels.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
How it affects climate is by cold water entering the oceans. Ice recession. Changing equator to pole gradients-lots of effects from this, localized heat effects from fossil fuels, and others.

However, to start predicting climate you need to improve the fidelity of the gedanken model. Imagine a planet, hot end is the equator, icy zone becomes the poles. Add geography, understand prevailing winds, rain shadows, etc..

At that point you can start to predict what has happened, what is happening and what will happen climate-wise.

It does not predict the weather, just climate.

I used to use just a brass bowl with water and ice in it to demonstrate the the effect of adding a candle was that the temperature of the of the bowl didn't change. The water in the bowl was 0C, adding heat to the system melted the ice, but didn't change the temperature.

Even the brass bowl's predictions are pretty good.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
How can modeling the Earth-Sun system as a Sun, candle, and a bowl with water and ice in it, predict climate change?
1. Melting icecaps (ice cubes).
2. Temperature stability (no not flat-lining, just not a +4C increase).
3. Localized effects (where the flame meets the bowl).
4. "Climate" (OK it's a bowl, use your imagination) change from ice recession and increase of localized effects.

Less direct, but predictable:
5. Rise of the Earth's oceans.
6. Increase in number, but not necessarily intensity of Hurricanes. (More energy in the system.)
7. More dynamic weather.
8. More, this is a primitive model!
Now contrast this with CO2, or insulating the planet. Not the same.
The question is will ice melting in a brass bowl make these predictions?
Absolutely.
Is this what we have observed?
Yes.
dustywells
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
I do not subscribe to anthropogenic global warming. But I do subscribe to anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale.
@dusty
WTF? really?
you do realise that believing in the latter is the same as the former?

AGW is the same thing as
anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale
this is where we are having our problem? really?
That is precisely where we have our problem. Your response proves that you are clueless as to what climate is and what may change climate.

AGW is just some opportunists finding a way to get rich by "predicting" what real scientists have established 50 - 70 years ago but now blaming the industrialized nations for what is in reality a natural progression.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2014
@prophet
How can modeling the Earth-Sun system as a Sun, candle, and a bowl with water and ice in it, predict climate change?
I don't see how that model, as described, proves or disproves anything regarding AGW or even climate change. However, with a few tweaks it can be useful to demonstrate the effects of varying insolation due to orbital precession.
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
@dusty, well that's one of the more encouraging things ever said about it ;)
Of course you can't prove anything with a gedanken model. You can only demonstrate if the theory fits the facts intuitively.

If we assume that the Earth is in annual thermal equilibrium, which should be true, in terms of natural change, then how can you hunt for what is changing?

The brass bowl says you can add heat to the Earth-Sun system, and as you don't add more than about 1/10000 of the Sun's net energy, you will not see significant temperature changes. But the heat has to go somewhere. You'll see, predictably, local effects, well, what was indicated above.

One way to look at it is; fossil fuels are decayed animal and plant matter. The energy in it came from the Sun. Burning it today is exactly like releasing that Sunshine, today. Except; it is released as thermodynamic "waste heat," and it is released near ground where, it is homogeneously mixed, only a fraction can escape spaceward.
dustywells
3 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2014
Except; it is released as thermodynamic "waste heat," and it is released near ground where, it is homogeneously mixed, only a fraction can escape spaceward.
Please continue.
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2014
Since the article is about ocean currents and there effect on global warming models, here is an interesting forest from the trees view on global warming comparing global Land temperatures to global Ocean temperatures over the last 40 years.

http://woodfortre....9/trend

Clearly from this comparison, ocean temperature change does move more slowly than land temperatures but the fact that over 40 years there is a progressive increase in global temperatures both on land an ocean should send warning bells to anyone concerned about the future.
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2014
@Howhot2...Or since it is so small, it might just be geological change, OR!!!
Compare your wood for trees at 1940 to now.
Now look at the US inflation adjusted GDP:
http://www.truthf...urce.jpg

Tell me the character of the graphs do not show good correlation!

Even the pause, and increase in the 1970s.

I want to hear comments!

@dusty, I can prattle on... give me a vector? The idea is that heat released from fossil fuels contributes so little to blackbody radiation to space fractionally, that the majority of it is "stored" in air and water, until it reaches a colder environment. The net effect global ice melt. The counter intuition is this, say you run you auto near a glacier and you see it melt ice. Now what is the efficiency of ice melting when it is released from middle latitudes?
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
@prophet
dusty, I can prattle on... give me a vector?
Prophet, for what it's worth, you have my respect. You're much more adept than the fanatics.

Where did the ratio of 1/10000 come from? Is it an arbitrary value for demonstration?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
It is a red herring introduced to the argument to confound
@alche/crybaby
and like i said: feel free to offer the same level of evidence that is produced in the following linked study that refutes the claims made: http://www.scienc...abstract

until you can, you are simply obfuscating the science
ignoring empirical data
and blatantly lying for attention so that you can feel wanted somewhere
IOW - trolling, baiting and being stupid
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
AGW is just some opportunists ... progression
@dustybrain
no
AGW means Anthropogenic Global Warming, and was coined to let people know that the "anthropogenic" affects of what we are doing on earth are affecting the climate by causing an overall warming trend in the climate, which is empirically proven
see studies below
Ignoring this, or playing word games and accusing people of being "clueless as to what climate is and what may change climate" is sticking your head in the sand and yelling "Lalalalalaaaaa i can't hear you"
maybe this will help you understand: http://www.skepti...ycle.htm
http://onlinelibr...2105/pdf

i am not talking about opinion here, but empirical evidence
not politics
not opportunistic predatory tactics (like gore)
i am not asking anyone to believe "me" cause i have a smart sounding name etc
i am promoting the science with evidence

nothing but SCIENCE
try reading it sometime
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
That is precisely where we have our problem. Your response proves that you are clueless as to what climate is and what may change climate.
@dustybrain
last little dig here:
i've given you studies
i've linked you sites with references to studies and explanations of what those studies meant
i've given you empirical evidence in scientific studies proving my point and show ing you that the science says: AGW is real, it is caused by us in certain ways we are sure of, and that we have evidence proving this in those studies

so far, your argument consists of semantics, circular reasoning and non-logical reiterations of the same thing while claiming different definitions

IOW - i am giving you science, evidence and proof, and you are basically saying -"nuh uh. i don't believe you because you use words i don't like and i'm scared of them" or something just as absurd

tell you what: prove the studies wrong
give me the same level of evidence that i've given you
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
Captain Stumpy lamented
I do not subscribe to anthropogenic global warming. But I do subscribe to anthropogenic climate change, on the small scale as well as on the global scale.
@dusty
WTF? really?
you do realise that believing in the latter is the same as the former?
Thanks Captain Stumpy but unfortunately dustywells hasn't got the grip (yet) on scale, metrics etc.

It is possible a local (comparatively small) "climate" change can go either way, ie Increased albedo re reflection vs local emissions re absorptions shifting equilibria between the 2. Maybe I am being too kind to dustywells as he is new to this, it shows he hasnt prepared much re fundamentals or got up to speed on knowing fundamentals, Eg definitions.

Deniers often misuse terms ie dustywells seems to think "climate" can be applied to a local effect, it's not climate in the true definition ie re time & region.

BTW: Thanks for all your energy Captain Stumpy & your links, most helpful :-)
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
howhot2 offered a good link from the classic deniers reference site
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1970/to:2014.9/mean:20/plot/best/from:1970/to:2014.9/plot/best/from:1970/to:2014.9/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1970/to:2014.9/mean:20/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1970/to:2014.9/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1970/to:2014.9/trend

Clearly from this comparison, ocean temperature change does move more slowly than land temperatures but the fact that over 40 years there is a progressive increase in global temperatures both on land an ocean should send warning bells to anyone concerned about the future.
Indeed !
Would be great to see the site include data from other ocean layers, such as average of top 700m or so & other data sets scattered around. The site does seem to be respected as an independent collation of several data sets, hope it continues.

Thanks for the update link re that site, I hadn't much patience to wade through the plot options, it is much easier now, tah :-)
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
ryggesogn2 being narrow, obtuse & arbitrary again with
Invective and half truths are all AGWites have.
How are the facts re GHG's eg CO2 & well known proven irrefutable thermal properties a 'half-truth' ?

ryggesogn2 just doesnt understand, misled by ugly propaganda
If the science is so settled, AGWites should demand TRUTHS and CLARREO be cancelled and save the money.
Please try to get a grip.

When the statement "The Science of AGW is settled" is made it obviously relates to the Science, that means ipsofacto the fundamentals ie:-

- Known thermal properties of CO2 & H@o etc
- Insolation
- thermodynamics
- statistical mechanics

What is not settled is "The management of the Science of AGW", this is where groups of people make relative changes in weights of coefficients in algorithms as part of models. This is not empirical, it is a decision process which is asymptotic.

Please ryggesogn2, be smarter in your posts, language misuse does u no credit !
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
@dusty-good call.
Fluctuations of the Sun at or above that 1/10000 range cause changes in climate.
Pretty cool bit of quantification, huh?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 30, 2014
Water_Prophet being typically qualitative again Proving he never completed uni studies in "Physical Chemistry"
The brass bowl says you can add heat to the Earth-Sun system, and as you don't add more than about 1/10000 of the Sun's net energy, you will not see significant temperature changes. But the heat has to go somewhere.
Unfortunately your deluded preoccupation with "the brass bowl" sadly proves you have lost it re ANY quantitative issue completely consistent with someone who is both deluded AND has no Science training, sad :-(

Just HOW did your maths arrive at 1/10000 please show the workings, you know, just like the assignments in the physics per-requisities you HAD to pass to be able to graduate in "Physical Chemistry" as you have claimed ?

Isnt it embarrassing for you Water_Prophet, to be caught out so easily with mutterings so overwhelmingly not quantitative, do you have no sense of self-conscious nature to observe your delusions re 'brass bowls' ?
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 30, 2014
Water_Prophet with classic deluded self-congratulation
Fluctuations of the Sun at or above that 1/10000 range cause changes in climate. Pretty cool bit of quantification, huh?
WHERE did this 1/10000 come from ?
Re your "Brass Bowl" claims

1. How does scale compare with climate dynamics ?
2. How do U emulate tidal forces 9ie Moon) affecting ocean currents ?
3. Did you account for surface vs subsurface heat & temp - what instrument ?
4. How did U emulate wind to distribute heat ?
5. What albedo factor did you assign to the ice before & during melt ?
6. How much salt in your 'ocean depths' ?
7. How did U measure long wave (LW) radiation ?
8. How did U emulate short wave (SW) insolation ?
9. Did U get up each 12 hrs to emulate day/night cycles ?
10. Where is the maths model, ?
11. Does it include ANY differential equations ?
etc

How can any reader of even basic maths experience ever see credibly ANY person who claims a brass bowl models climate ?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2014
MM and TCS: Kudos to you for carrying on the fight against ignorance. I am taking a vacation from the idiots by using the ignore button for the usual deniers. If you ever get worn out repeating science to them I highly recommend that you ignore them for a while. You can always jump back in later when you have rested up. In the mean time I am enjoying reading what you have to say and not having to read the garbage they post.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
@thermo, applauding abuse? ignoring logical thought? It suits you, you are revealed by the company you keep:

Caliban, Magnnus, Captain Stumpy, Mike_M and Thermodynamics are either the same person, or a cache of mutual brown-nosers. Caliban/Magnnus are easy to recognize they're simply offensive and ignorant. Thermo claims to be a plasma engineer, yet isn't familiar with the phenomenology, can solve a simple diff-e-q, and the Captain answered a question with thermo's account here: http://phys.org/n...ans.html on june 11. The back-pedaling after that is notable.
Look for the phrase "chimed in." See if you come up with any other conclusions.

And thermo, ignored. Now I can't see any one of your pathetic avatars.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
@dusty, It occurs to me you don't know how I arrived at the 1/10000. The Sun varies our macro-climate at about 1/1000th from Solar peak energy to Solar mins. These occur every 11 years or so. They are associated with hot years that whip ignorant AGWers into a media-inspired frenzy, followed by the cold years about 5 years later, which get the deniers into a media inspired frenzy.

You can see where the 1/10000 comes from here:
http://en.wikiped...data.png

So what do you think of the excellent correlation from above to inflation adjusted GDP? It also discredits CO2...
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
dustywells claimed
Natural Global Warming has been progressing for well over 10,000 years and will continue for at least another 300 years.
Evidence, papers, studies NOT propaganda from vague sources ?
Why do you try to hold me to a standard different from yours? Most of the links I see from your side of the discussion are to propaganda sites and sites that hold a pronounced bias.
dustywells
1 / 5 (1) Oct 30, 2014
Humans are burning ~230,000L of petrol each & every second 24/7.
References please.
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
It is possible a local (comparatively small) "climate" change can go either way, ie Increased albedo re reflection vs local emissions re absorptions shifting equilibria between the 2. Maybe I am being too kind to dustywells as he is new to this, it shows he hasnt prepared much re fundamentals or got up to speed on knowing fundamentals, Eg definitions.

Deniers often misuse terms ie dustywells seems to think "climate" can be applied to a local effect, it's not climate in the true definition ie re time & region.
Now you are trying to redefine climate to bolster your belief. Write this on your bathroom wall: "Climate and Global Warming are not synonymous."
Scroofinator
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
A bit late to the party, but this needed to be added.
Hate to point out the obvious, kids, but-- no where in this article does it provide any information provided by the authors to explain what caused this shift in circulation.


Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. There is strong evidence that the Sun's solar cycle (and thus polar magnetic field) holds a major influence over the oceans, and is quite likely the facilitator of these ocean current changes.
http://www.john-d...rend.htm
dustywells
1 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2014
@Stump
maybe this will help you understand: http://www.skepti...ycle.htm
http://onlinelibr...2105/pdf

i am not talking about opinion here, but empirical evidence
Really, Stump? The first link is a propaganda site.

On the other hand, the second site presents a compelling case IF you accept the various assumptions, interpolations, data exclusions, etc. It actually appears to be specifically tailored to provide support for IPPC claims.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014
@dusty, It occurs to me you don't know how I arrived at the 1/10000. The Sun varies our macro-climate at about 1/1000th from Solar peak energy to Solar mins. These occur every 11 years or so. They are associated with hot years that whip ignorant AGWers into a media-inspired frenzy, followed by the cold years about 5 years later, which get the deniers into a media inspired frenzy.

You can see where the 1/10000 comes from here:
http://en.wikiped...data.png

So what do you think of the excellent correlation from above to inflation adjusted GDP? It also discredits CO2...

water:
I think you'll find that a cyclical variation of just 1 in 1366 has not caused global warming ... quite obviously as temps are on a rising trend and, well, the solar cycle corrects it's rises ... err, by going down again.
Looky here please...
http://www.skepti...asic.gif
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2014
dustywells claimed
Most of the links I see from your side of the discussion are to propaganda sites and sites that hold a pronounced bias.
The one temperature link I have posted on this thread is:- http://www.woodfo...o2/every
Which is often used inappropriately by AGW deniers skewing the plot by ignoring previous years in normal averaging process but, totally ignoring climate period. Others are wikipedia.

So you have a full appreciation & improved understanding, helpful to read the site notes:- http://www.woodfo...rg/notes
which is rather well balanced & especially the credits here:- http://www.woodfo.../credits
re the origins of the data set & who to further investigate.

As I try to avoid idle opinion sites then which propaganda site do you claim I posted please ?

Did u not notice that once U understand the fundamental Science Eg thermal properties of greenhouse gases (GHGs) etc then you CANNOT be manipulated ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2014
dustywells asked
Humans are burning ~230,000L of petrol each & every second 24/7.
References please.
There are several scattered over the wed, many derived from actual CO2 increase & worked backwards to source of fuels emitting CO2 such as:-
http://www.woodfo...o2/every

The number I quoted is now years old & likely to have risen, here are some if you are interested but, it won't help you much re the logic of local climate to AGW as I queried you ?
http://en.wikiped...sumption
http://www.eia.go...topL=con
http://www.ocean....bers.pdf
http://www.worldw...n-surges
http://www.oildecline.com/

There's no specific need to audit these figures that's Y I state approximate (~) but, there is no denying the magnitude of these figures by the oil companies, which can offer the error bars.

I am interested in anything U find refuting ?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
@thermo, applauding abuse? ignoring logical thought? It suits you, you are revealed by the company you keep
@ALCHE/crybaby
Thermo has you on ignore, stupid
and since when have you given "logical" thought?
there is no point in arguing the circles you continually keep giving since i "personally" have refuted you with studies and logic, while you continue to ignore the studies and logic, therefore it is you who is in denial and being conspiratorial (and thus promoting pseudoscience and being the "crackpot") http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
the company you keep is that of antig, rygg, rc and the other TROLLS
the same person, or a cache of mutual brown-nosers
already proved you wrong on this
WHEN are you going to refute those studies i left?
when are you going to give evidence of a like type proving AGW wrong?

you are BAITING/TROLLING/FLAMING/being stupid

reported
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
and the Captain answered a question with thermo's account here: http://phys.org/n...ans.html on june 11
@ALCHEMIST/crybaby
no, i answered your post, just like i am answering your above BS
you continue to TROLL this out whenever you have faced abject failure to provide any evidence for your water/ice bowl philosophy and when you make claims that you cannot substantiate, or that are completely without science or evidence in any way

this is no different
you go ahead and make the claim
keep posting it, it is the BIG sign pointing out to everyone reading that you have nothing further to add, that you can't prove anything, you can't refute the studies and you are a blatant liar with regard to your education and your "prophetic conjectures"

TROLLING
reported
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2014
dustywells claimed
Now you are trying to redefine climate to bolster your belief. Write this on your bathroom wall: "Climate and Global Warming are not synonymous."
No. Did u not notice the quotations in relating to your particular use of the terms, please re-read my posting.
I subscribe to the accepted definition fairly well described here:-
http://en.wikiped.../Climate

Other than your view of a peculiar local change in "climate" which is obviously a viable perspective. I wonder what you find in the wikipedia article & the averaging period that is not consistent ?

Can u see that when you integrate (sum) the large number of local changes ALL under the SAME pervasive CO2 influence AND knowing the irrefutable thermal properties of CO2 (& other GHGs) then what other conclusion can one come to.

What do u feel could be invalid in such logical approach ?

Is it perhaps the local (which u accept) to global "metric", if so then how can it be qualified ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2014
dustywells claimed
Natural Global Warming has been progressing for well over 10,000 years and will continue for at least another 300 years
You read this somewhere yes dustywells ?

Just like me, please show the provenance of the data, so even if the site has bias, the data set can be gleaned for intelligent consideration.

AND surely you would know that to claim
..will continue for at least another 300 years
Is a HUGE leap in terms of so called Natural Global Warming (NGW) prediction - how can it ?

Given solar insolation is going down then what Natural process can you speculate offers the same correlated line with CO2 & especially so KNOWING the irrefutable thermal properties of CO2 ?

Suggest get a grounding in the types of vague arguments deniers come up with, the vast majority ignore fundamental science & claim politics - why is that ?

This gives a fair grounding to consider:- http://www.skepti...nce.com/

Data sets can be found through Nasa etc
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014
Really, Stump? ...propaganda site
@dustbrain
and here again, you mark yourself as either illiterate or intentionally being stupid!

what part of the studies linked in the arguments do you not understand?
or did you not notice that there are links to other pages as well as studies in the various articles?
when i link a site like that, i try to always insure it has studies you can also follow in order to get the information from the source and check the facts

here are 2 studies linked in the article:
http://oceanrep.g...pted.pdf
http://www.lanl.g...ylek.pdf

that second link i gave was a study

so here we have empirical evidence of you intentionally ignoring studies to support your delusional belief system

why?

you've just proved in your own words that you stuck your head in the sand and ignored the science, and you are blaming me for your stupidity

why?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2014
It actually appears to be specifically tailored to provide support for IPPC claims
@dusty
and here we are going back to the "conspiratorial" belief system

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
the second site presents a compelling case IF you accept the various assumptions, interpolations, data exclusions, etc
like i said before
give me the same level of evidence, published in a reputable peer reviewed science mag or journal that proves there is "various assumptions, interpolations, data exclusions, etc" so that we can discuss this with equal evidence

pull your head out of your nether region and start reading the SCIENCE
it is not:
politically motivated
about the oodles of cash experimental scientists make (poor pay for a hard job)
faith
an international conspiracy
or anything else like that

it is about objective studies giving you hard facts
i've proven my point
all you give is conjecture

TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014
Where does the manipulation come from exactly? http://www.pbs.or...f-doubt/ John Hockenberry is a damn good journalist; one of the finest IMO.
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
@dusty-Stumpy, Thermo, Magnus who knows who else are all the same person. Good luck trying to argue with a person like that. It is your madness:

You already called thermo out, and were attacked by his avatars. You see the bias of the other clones. Hit the ignore button. Maybe the "report" button.
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
@runrig:
I think you'll find that a cyclical variation of just 1 in 1366 has not caused global warming ... quite obviously as temps are on a rising trend and, well, the solar cycle corrects it's rises ... err, by going down again.
Looky here please...
http://www.skepti...asic.gif


Stay with us brother, that is the Sun's threshold, anything lower than that will not be noticed as temperature, except locally. Re-read.

Skeptigarbadge? Really, YOU are throwing that high-school level pseudoscience around? I saw just the other night where it completely skewed the solar cycle, but it did make a point. I expect better.
:)
Cordially
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 31, 2014
@dusty-Stumpy, Thermo, Magnus who knows who else are all the same person. Good luck trying to argue with a person like that. It is your madness:
You already called thermo out, and were attacked by his avatars. You see the bias of the other clones. Hit the ignore button. Maybe the "report" button.
obfuscation/red herring/distraction from argument/redirection/straw man
you must be rc

when alchemist/waterprophet/crybaby cannot argue science, and when she cannot argue with proof or empirical evidence, she simply says "all these people that argue science with me and provide empirical evidence and proof that i am stupid are just one person"

and didn't i say that above?
you continue to TROLL this out whenever you have faced abject failure to provide any evidence for your water/ice bowl philosophy and when you make claims that you cannot substantiate, or that are completely without science or evidence in any way
no science = pseudoscience = troll

reported

dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2014
dustywells claimed
Now you are trying to redefine climate to bolster your belief. Write this on your bathroom wall: "Climate and Global Warming are not synonymous."
No. Did u not notice the quotations in relating to your particular use of the terms, please re-read my posting.
I subscribe to the accepted definition fairly well described here:-
http://en.wikiped.../Climate
It might be wise for you to read your own link.
Scroofinator
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
Stumpy, you constantly whine and clamour for data and empirical evidence, but it's all just a ploy. You don't actually care abut the evidence, it's just an excuse for you rant about non mainstream theories.

This can be evidenced by my earlier post which shows the Sun's cycles are drivers of Earth's ENSO/PDO cycles. Since I posted an actual peer reviewed, you and the goons just pass over it.
dustywells
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Stumpy, you constantly whine and clamour for data and empirical evidence, but it's all just a ploy. You don't actually care abut the evidence, it's just an excuse for you rant about non mainstream theories.
Actually, AGW has already become a mainstream theory foisted on us by opportunists. It's our own fault for feeding these trolls.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
you constantly whine and clamour for data and empirical evidence, but it's all just a ploy
@scroofthedoof
where is the ploy?
i care about evidence and science, not pseudoscience and philosophy, like what you promote
especially when you pushed for creationist beliefs over science in the thread here: http://phys.org/n...ics.html
This can be evidenced by my earlier post which shows the Sun's cycles are drivers of Earth's ENSO/PDO cycles
and again, i provided links/studies that promoted my POV, and i never passed over it...

why not link the entire argument then we can all see the actual discussion?

link on, doof...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
Actually, AGW has already become a mainstream theory foisted on us by opportunists. It's our own fault for feeding these trolls
@dustbrain
and again, there is empirical evidence that the only people trolling here are you and the denier idiots
where is your scientific refute of the following evidence?
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

your denial proves you are conspiratorial: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
or are you being paid by these trolls? http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

or are you simply illiterate?
can you not comprehend the science in the studies that show you are ignoring reality?

i would suggest not, considering you have not refuted anything, and your answer to the evidence is that anyone who believes in science and reality is a troll....

!
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
dustywells wasting time with
I subscribe to the accepted definition fairly well described here:-
http://en.wikiped.../Climate
It might be wise for you to read your own link. Np. It would be wise dustywells to be smarter & time efficient in communications which outline any disparity in my posts with reference to wikipedia link.

You have opportunity to point precisely to any errors or differences re interpretations offered by my post in concert with the wikipedia link, even by implication as I can see that you
havent had the benefit of university training in physics which covers heat & its complexity.

dustywells what is wrong or erroneous in my posts re the wikipedia link offered ?

Don't forget you dustywells posted re accepting local climate change (LCC), all I have done is expand on your acceptance & that of pervasive CO2 increasing thermal resistivity, there is, so far, no contrast with accepted definitions, if there is then point to it ?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2014
dustywells claimed
Actually, AGW has already become a mainstream theory foisted on us by opportunists. It's our own fault for feeding these trolls.
This is an odd claim because the major opportunists to benefit by a huge margin are the oil companies & others raking in massive revenue from subsidised fossil fuels. Do any AGW scientists have ANY comparable income at all to these sorts of numbers:-

http://en.wikiped...d_losses

Oil companies at top of list & often. Where do you imagine independent scientists are in respect of income in comparison with industry giants, top billion, top millions - where ?

Means, motive & opportunity: Largest wealthiest companies likely to spend & able to.

Why dustywells are you STILL weak to focus on the Science & answer my questions ?

Smarter to focus on basic irrefutable fundamentals Eg CO2 properties proven for >100yrs !

Is that possible to be smart, if not then why are you here ?
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
@Scroofie,

Providing references does,'t help. They are ignored when posted, and then he claims that you never post them. Probably for the benefit of new readers.

Stumpy claims there are pro-oil shills here. Well the radical other side, by promoting those false aspects of AGW accomplish the same thing, getting people to crawl into their shells and not examine new concepts.

I hope you know I think the popular theory pro AGW is a lie designed to make people NOT reach a decision, because they can't attain decision quality information. CO2 and warming being spurious, secondary variables.

In that; Mike_M, Stumpy, Maggnus, etc., etc., by attacking people in script are simply working for the oil companies themselves. Shewing interested parties away from decision quality information, provoking emotional response, trolling and downgrading other insights.

Hit the ignore button.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
Providing references does,'t help @alche/crybaby
it helps clarify and uses science
They are ignored when posted
only if they are not using science or linking empirical evidence like studies etc... like your links, alche!
the fringe site links that prove only that you can quote mine and politicize an argument while ignoring empirical evidence that refutes you

by the way, alche... did you ever find studies refuting those links i gave?
you know:
http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
and then he claims that you never post them. Probably for the benefit of new readers
this doesn't do any good if you can link to the argument, moron
like i have done with you proving you lied
proving you ignore evidence and cannot refute the science
like here: http://phys.org/n...ere.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
Stumpy claims there are pro-oil shills here
@alche/crybaby
no, i proved it: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
then PO also reported on it: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
which outed you as a delusional paid conspiracy troll
by promoting those false aspects of AGW
Have you found the studies refuting those studies that i linked, troll boy?
here they are again: http://www.scienc...abstract
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
I hope you know I think the popular theory pro AGW is a lie designed to make people NOT reach a decision
proof that you are a conspiratorial troll who cannot comprehend the science linked and posted
which is why you can't refute it, and why you have a conspiratorial faith in your delusions
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
because they can't attain decision quality information
@ALCHE/crybabyprophet
this is your delusion in full force! there is plenty of high quality irrefutable information out there (one major reason you cannot refute the science i linked) so that is a red herring, straw-man and additional blatant lie you've posted
it is people like you who undermine it for their fear, idiocy, peer pressure or whatever reason... for proof, see: http://phys.org/n...ate.html
or
http://arstechnic...nformed/
CO2 and warming being spurious, secondary variables
which I refute with the following: http://www.scienc...abstract
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
...by attacking people in script ...working for the oil companies themselves. Shewing interested parties away from decision quality information ... trolling and downgrading other insights
@ALCHE/crybabyprophet
1- the only other insight that is downgraded is the delusional one with no empirical evidence, kind of like your water bowl & your inability to show where you have a historically accurate predictions for decades, etc
2- the only thing our posts do is try to get people to think using logic and science and forget about conjecture, philosophy and faith based delusional beliefs that are considered pseudoscience, like your posts above
3- i can't speak for the others, but i will attack any pseudoscience i see because it is not science, just like your posts above
Hit the ignore button
if that will bring you peace, then please do
just remember, I will still be posting actual science undermining your argument so readers will be able to read about real science
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
lets examine pseudoscience vs real science
alche/crybabyprophet says Cpt-Mag-Therm-Run-Mike are
provoking emotional response, trolling
so we should be arguing with science

please examine the above posts by myself and water_prophet

notice that his posts are almost completely lacking in any real science
notice that he appeals to people with emotionally charged talk like
-You already called thermo out, and were attacked by his avatars
-Caliban, Magnnus, Captain Stumpy, Mike_M and Thermodynamics are either the same person, or a cache of mutual brown-nosers
-they're simply offensive and ignorant
-Tell me the character of the graphs do not show good correlation!
his version of science is the water bowl and ice above
when asked to refute science with actual science, his reply?
Good luck trying to argue with a person like that. It is your madness:
or his last post

WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?
not with alche

who linked studies?
I did

who's pushing pseudoscience?
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2014
Egads, I am so not tempted to un-ignore Stumpy. How much do you want to "Monty Hall" that the above is an offensive six page rant contributing zilch? If you to hit ignore, your time won't be wasted.

As "flattered" as I am that you don't ignore me Stumpy, I was answering Scroofie. If you'd ignore me, it would be such a simple gift.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2014
As "flattered" as I am that you don't ignore me
@crybaby ALCHE
if i ignored you, then some noob's would think you actually are attempting to promote science, and get conned by your complete baseless unsubstantiated BS conjectures above... and forget about looking for references and links in posts supporting conclusions

not all of my posts above were to you, narcissist
If you'd ignore me
and if i did that, who would pass on to the noob's that you are selling PSEUDOSCIENCE?

who would PROVE that you don't know what you are talking about?

you are the most destructive type idiot poster... much like too many PSEUDOSCIENCE posters out there... just enough science to get someone hooked, but never enough to prove anything, or make a point

and never proof of conjecture
never substantiating evidence proving claims

noob's don't always know this

so i will continue to monitor the crackpots IOT make sure people learn the science, not the sh*t!
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
Hey Stumpy, I peaked, a flaw with this ignore is if you come here without logging in:

if i ignored you, then some noob's would think you actually are attempting to promote science


I am not sure which is more ridiculous... saying people here are not educated enough to make a decision when confronted with my positions-are they so false yet so persuasive?

...Or that a man without a PhD or germane education to even demand or supply citations is somehow the bastion of scientific reason, even for this humble site.

Besides... I have started citing, and I notice you run like a scared kitten from those posts. It is cowardly, and trolling, you know to only call someone out when they don't cite, and ignore them when they do.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 06, 2014
saying people here are not educated enough to make a decision
idiotALCHE/crybaby
1- most people will not be scientifically literate, especially from certain countries
2- most people will not take the time to research and fact check
the rest of your post is BS
especially the
I notice you run like a scared kitten
I don't run
in order to make informed decisions/refute a study:
verify the content
check the facts
establish the credibility
research
refute with citations

it takes time

also- undermining the poster with legitimate science, especially when the poster uses fallacious premiss, conjecture or blatant stupidity is far easier than refuting science, so there are times when i choose this approach

especially when you offer so much that is so easily proven false
(your water bowl, ignoring properties of CO2, ignoring studies that directly refute your conjecture, lies etc)

-and that is only for the posts i see, BTW
i can't answer posts i never see, moron

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.