LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You don’t support lowering the figure from 25% to 0.11% as Bill1940 does, do you?
- Status
J
jilly4ski
Guest
Actually no. You would have to tie the trade winds to global warming in order for increased ocean temps to be tied to AGW. Why, because the amount of IR could be the same no matter what, it is just that the ocean cannot shed the heat as well because of the stirring. In fact for re-radiation to be heating the oceans, there would have to be a similar rate of increase in atmospheric temps. Of course the only problem with this theory is that the trade winds haven’t been strong for 20 years to mix up the ocean, and the atmosphere temps have not been increasing for the last 17 years either.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I don’t think so. Remember the only reason we are even considering ocean warming is to explain how global warming could be proceeding without a constant rise in air temps over the past 17 years. The climate scientists say the extra heat is going into the oceans. But the other side says wait a minute. There is no possible mechanism for ocean warming without air warming. Then a mechanism is offered that involves increased IR radiation due to the greenhouse effect. Then the other side says “but why is the ocean temp rise showing up in the deep ocean and not in the shallows?”. The explanation is that something causes increased mixing. You yourself suggested the trade winds. I don’t know if that is the only mechanism. It seems there are lots of choices. None of them need to be demonstrably tied to global warming before they can be used as an explanation. They could be coincidental. It does not matter. All that matters for this one question is that some sort of reasonable mechanism is possible to accomplish the mixing. We don’t have to explain how every supporting detail is playing out. That is too much to ask. I think the burden is on the other side to prove that the greenhouse effect is not working, despite the fact that we know it works in closed-system controlled experiments.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
No, what we are saying is the above is impossible without some level of increasing air temps. The Ocean receives direct IR radiation from the sun, then it sheds some heat to the atmosphere, then greenhouse gases absorb some heat and reflect some heat back down to the Earth surface. The issue is with the greenhouse gases absorbing the reflected heat. This necessitates that the atmosphere experience some heating, even if it is reflecting some heat back to the oceans, since that is the definition of the greenhouse gas effect.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I’m sort of getting mixed up here. Are skeptics saying that sea surface temps have nothing to do with warming or cooling near by air temps?
I remember when living in Aurora, IL. The weather people would always be talking about the “lake effect” which keeps Chicago cooler than Aurora (45 miles to the west of Chicago) during the summer and warmer during the winter.
Also the reason why the ancient Peruvians were able to grow crops a lot higher in the Andes than today was because they had a system of canals throughout their growing area, which absorbed warmth during the day, radiating that warm back at night, keeping the crops from freezing.
To my knowledge the ocean has even a larger effect, keeping the air above it and along the coast warmer in winter and cooler in summer.
Now if there are mechanisms, as suggested, that would subduct that sea surface warming to a deeper level, leaving the surface cooler, that would cause cooling (or at least reduce the warming) above the water bodies and on close by land areas. Also, it should be noted there is more water than land area around the world, and the ocean can mix the heat to a deeper level a lot better than land can.
This seems like a no-brainer common sense to me. It’s sort of like stirring a pot on the stove, making the hot areas cooler and the cool areas warmer. Simple kitchen physics.
B
Bill1940
Guest
You confine your observation to 318 ppm vs.400ppm from all sources of CO2 but CO2 is still only 3.6 percent of greenhouse gases and you have not differentiated sources. There is a good case to be made that atmospheric CO2 increases as a result of warming, and is thus a lagging indicator of the same. Meanwhile, there are far more ominous dark clouds on the horizon having nothing to do with the weather.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
No we are being skeptics and saying the AGW position has not been adequately explained.
Your hot pot example doesn’t work for the world “climate” for a variety of reasons. Mainly physics. The ocean warms, and there is only two things that can happen, the ocean holds on to the heat or the heat sheds into the atmosphere. Papers you cited back in post #1075 say that the atmosphere is generally a few degrees cooler than the top layer of ocean temps, thus facilitating the thermodynamic transfer of heat. Without the oceans shedding heat to the atmosphere the oceans would be in a continual state of warming.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
And how do you know that the atmosphere is not experiencing some heating as the greenhouse effect plays out? Just because the temperature readings for 17 years happen to be statistically flat? There are many other factors that influence air temperature on a chaotic or random basis that could easily counteract the pure greenhouse warming for a period of only 17 years. Drawing long term conclusions from short term observations is not very reliable.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Yes, and that is even more worrisome. If CO2 increases as a result of warming and if warming is caused by CO2 we have a positive feedback loop that will increase until it hits some external limit. When you say CO2 is only 3.6 percent of greenhouse gases, are you counting by effectiveness in the greenhouse effect, or by weight, or by volume, or by what? And are you also considering the extent to which the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is much longer than many other greenhouse gases which degrade into something else sooner?
E
estesbob
Guest
Because that’s not what we were told 17= years ago In fact we were told unless we took immediate and drastic steps to mitigate C02 emissions we would quickly go past the point of no return.So c02 went up, the temperatures stayed the same and now we see wild scrambling to try and explain how even though they were wrong their theory is still correct.Best for all our they just about they were wrong and use the billions spent supporting this myth towards helping the poor and needy. For instance instead of trying to shut down coal mines perhaps we should be looking at finding a way to economically get coal to people whob are trying to cook and keep from freezing to death by cutting down every tree in sight and burning cow dung.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What is “quickly”? Can you cite a reference saying that a majority of scientists predicted doom in 17 years? I think not.
“Wild scrambling”? Your characterization of the scientific community is fanciful. No one is acting wild, except perhaps the Heartland Institute and others who are madly looking for every possible way in which statistics can be bent to discredit the theory.
B
Bill1940
Guest
Dear LeafByNiggle: Say we put you in charge. What would you do?
E
estesbob
Guest
I don’t have to trust.We were told increases c02 led to increased temperatures.That has proven not to be true.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I would refuse the assignment. I’m not qualified for that.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Will lead - will lead.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
That most certainly has been proven to be true – thru paleoclimatology, laws of physics, and current warming, and when I say current I mean over the past 100 years.
Of course if you cherry pick the data (e.g., by only looking at 17 years of data) and fail to include other variables, you can prove or fail to prove almost anything.
As I type this, the temperature outside is in the mid 80’s.
For August, this is much cooler then normal. We typically have triple digits this time of year.
Seems to me there is not current warming.
But I am sure you have a graph to tell me that it is really not cooler outside.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Your one anecdotal observation may be significant for how you experience life, but climate change is not all about you.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Since many here bring up how much it will cost to mitigate GW, I think it is important to also look at how much GW effects will cost in finances, as well as human health and lives. It’s not right just to look at costs of mitigation – which I’ve always insisted, if done right, will actually be negative costs, helping personal finances and the economy, or at least not cost nearly as much as skeptics seem to imagine…in the long run as some measures “pay for themselves.”
On another thread they are discussing how weather has been a significant drag on the economy. Considering that GW is just in its initial phases and just now extreme weather and other possible GW effects are being attributed to some extent to GW, it is not hard to image once GW really gets going, the harms and costs it will cause.
Here is a report about AGW contributions to extreme weather events in 2012: ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf
Right now there are extreme weather and other events related to GW happening as predicted, and knock-on effects: extreme flooding, extreme droughts, extreme wildfires, extreme storms, heat-related deaths, lowering food production (in some parts of the world now, and in northern mid-latitudes by 2050), etc.
And that is only with .7C of warming. When it gets to be 2C warmer (global average), it would likely be much worse.
On another thread they are discussing how weather has been a significant drag on the economy. Considering that GW is just in its initial phases and just now extreme weather and other possible GW effects are being attributed to some extent to GW, it is not hard to image once GW really gets going, the harms and costs it will cause.
Here is a report about AGW contributions to extreme weather events in 2012: ametsoc.org/2012extremeeventsclimate.pdf
Right now there are extreme weather and other events related to GW happening as predicted, and knock-on effects: extreme flooding, extreme droughts, extreme wildfires, extreme storms, heat-related deaths, lowering food production (in some parts of the world now, and in northern mid-latitudes by 2050), etc.
And that is only with .7C of warming. When it gets to be 2C warmer (global average), it would likely be much worse.
- Status