Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 63

Thread: Global Climate change 2019

  1. #41
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,239
    Amen (Given)
    1537
    Amen (Received)
    965
    The rise in CO2 in the Oceans reflects the rise in the CO2 in the atmosphere, and the potentially devastating impact on the oceans. The monitoring in 2019 shows a worsening trend.

    Source: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/see-the-drastic-toll-climate-change-is-taking-on-our-oceans/



    See the drastic toll climate change is taking on our oceans
    For World Oceans Day, we look at the impact our carbon emissions are having, from the shore to the deep sea.


    BY KENNEDY ELLIOTT
    The massive amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that have entered our atmosphere since the Industrial Era began in the 18th century have had significant effects on the world’s oceans.

    Solar energy striking Earth is either reflected back into space or absorbed and then radiated back as heat. Greenhouse gases trap some of that heat. Because they are accumulating in the atmosphere, excess heat is accumulating too, and the Earth is warming.

    “Greenhouse gases like carbon amplify the amount of excess heat left over because they prevent heat energy from releasing from Earth’s system,” says oceanographer Tim Boyer of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

    Excess heat trapped in the atmosphere by our greenhouse gases spreads into the oceans. They've absorbed about 90 percent of that heat. As a result, they've been warming steadily for a long time.

    Sea surface temperatures over the last several decades reflect such warming, but are also sensitive to weather events like hurricanes and El Nino. That explains why temperatures fluctuated from one year to the next as far back as the mid-1800s.


    Along with the warm air itself, the heat absorbed by the oceans melts ice in the polar regions, releasing fresh water that accounts for more than half of all sea level rise; the rest is attributed to the expansion of seawater as it warms. “This has obvious effects on coastal area flooding and real estate,” says NOAA oceanographer Andrew Allegra, as well as implications for marine life.

    The oceans don't just soak up excess heat from the atmosphere; they also absorb excess carbon dioxide, which is changing the chemistry of seawater, making it more acidic. “Ocean acidification is one simple and inescapable consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 that is both predictable and impossible to attribute to any other cause,” says oceanographer John Dore of Montana State University.

    “Almost every aspect of marine biology—from bacteria to blue whales—is in some way influenced by the acid-base balance of seawater itself,” he says. “The effects on other marine life are harder to predict, but it could take thousands of years or more to undo what we are presently doing to ocean pH.

    © Copyright Original Source

    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  2. #42
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,799
    Amen (Given)
    224
    Amen (Received)
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    There are other examples of the "consensus" rejecting new ideas. Copernicus for example.
    The thing is, while Copernicus may have been right--well, sort of, he had the basic idea that the Earth goes around the Sun right, but got a lot of the specifics wrong--the available evidence at the time was insufficient to prove him right. Even Galileo, a century later and with better evidence, didn't have answers to some of the criticisms of heliocentrism. That came later with new evidence, and then as a result of that new evidence, heliocentrism gained ground and became the dominant viewpoint.

    That's not really a valid analogy for this situation. I mean, if we're going to use Copernicus for this argument, then we might as well throw out all of science. The Earth is round? Well, sure, the current evidence says that, but something new might come along to disprove it. Viruses cause diseases? Well, sure, the current evidence says that, but what if we uncover something that proves that to be incorrect? That's all that invoking Copernicus can do, to claim the possibility that new evidence down the right might prove a widely held belief wrong. And if we dismiss scientific claims simply on that rationale, then we might as well throw out everything because anything could feasibly be disproven as new evidence is acquired.

  3. Amen TheLurch, shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  4. #43
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    So, the oil companies were making their funding dependent upon showing climate change was real?

    And, while i'm asking questions, do you think that climate researchers in the US are getting more funding as a result of this?
    More? I am thinking they are getting funding. If there were no global warming, they wouldn't have funding.


    Hang on. You do realize that austerity budgeting and socialism are largely incompatible, right?
    uh no. I am talking about such things as the "green new deal" which is a socialist plan that relies on taking away things such as cows, airplanes, powerplants, etc, and making the public more reliant on the government for everything. They couldn't push such things through if there weren't a crisis they could point to.

    A bit under a foot. Attribution, i'd have to look up; would you consider the contribution due to glacial/ice cap melt to be climate driven, or an indirect effect?
    The charts I have seen show about 7 inches in the last 100 years, (200 mm) and the rise is steady, not an increasing curve like you would expect if global warming was causing it over the last few decades.


    https://climate.nasa.gov/system/char...Level_left.gif


    Closest i can come conveniently is 2004, which provides this:
    Attachment 39420
    The IPCC Third Assessment Report is 2001, which is closer to your desired time frame, but is also something like 11 volumes long. If you'd like me to dig through it and look for any particular information, i will, but it'll take some time
    I am not sure what that chart is showing. Where is the actual temperature on that chart?

  5. #44
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    ok, let's do this then:

    NOAA's temperature record is nearly identical to that produced by other organizations. It has no role in energy policy, and therefore the end of that sentence is just bizarre.


    Completely unsupported assertion, and one that runs counter to pretty much all scientific evidence.


    NOAA announces its adjustments in the peer reviewed literature, and makes its scientists available to the press to explain them.


    Pretty much every scientist did, given that all it was doing was incorporating records that had already been published in the peer reviewed literature. It was a completely fabricated public controversy about a study that was scientifically uncontroversial.


    Science has indicated the paper got no special handling. In addition, Science issues press packs for 10 or more papers it publishes every single week. He's trying to mislead you into thinking that as a big deal, when it's normal operations.


    Science remains one of the two most respected journals in all of science.


    Her move was completely unrelated to this; pretty much anyone would make that switch, because her new position is far more prestigious. I'd personally jump at that opportunity.


    Again, the NOAA analysis has been validated by numerous independent ones. This is simply false, and a claim that's complete unsupported by Singer — you seem to be refusing to hold him to the same standard you're holding me to.


    There are definitely differences between the two, which is not surprising given that they measure completely different things. And it's worth noting that the satellite record has actually had several major errors that were large enough to completely reverse the trend once they were corrected.


    Again, false. The planet seems to be warming as expected, so they're not even trying to explain this.


    No, NOAA is aware of physics, and knows that the greenhouse effect exists.


    False.



    We don't use proxy data for this, because we have actual temperature data. Sediments and ice cores don't even have the temporal resolution needed to evaluate a 20 year period. Most of this garbage i've already seen from bloggers, but this is just deranged, and i have no idea where he's gotten it from.


    I'm not sure who "we" is or what they base that conclusion on, but it hasn't stood up well to more recent history.

    So, there we have it. A mix of misleading statements, statements that are only true within a small community of non-scientist bloggers, some outright falsehoods, a lot of completely unsupported claims, and a tiny bit of insanity.

    Do not listen to anything Fred Singer has to say. If he happens to be right about something, it's by accident.
    OK thanks. THat is too much to respond to point by point but I will take a look.

    I notice that chart has a HUGE temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century. Then it leveled off and now it is rising again. Since we had far fewer people back then, what cause that rise? And why did it flatten out during the most industrial period 1950-1980?

  6. #45
    Professor and Chaplain Littlejoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    North Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,355
    Amen (Given)
    1831
    Amen (Received)
    1874
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    OK thanks. THat is too much to respond to point by point but I will take a look.

    I notice that chart has a HUGE temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century. Then it leveled off and now it is rising again. Since we had far fewer people back then, what cause that rise? And why did it flatten out during the most industrial period 1950-1980?
    warming at the turn of the century was because the "Little Ice Age" ended in the late 1800's.
    "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

    "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

  7. #46
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Quote Originally Posted by Littlejoe View Post
    warming at the turn of the century was because the "Little Ice Age" ended in the late 1800's.
    So maybe we are just in another warm period.

  8. #47
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,355
    Amen (Given)
    90
    Amen (Received)
    536
    Reordering things slightly so they make more sense

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    OK thanks. THat is too much to respond to point by point but I will take a look.
    I don't expect a point by point response - having just done one, i know how much work they are (which is why i was reluctant to do this in the first place).

    Quote Originally Posted by Littlejoe View Post
    warming at the turn of the century was because the "Little Ice Age" ended in the late 1800's.
    Some of the warming in the late 1800s might have been that (the LIA ended a bit earlier than that), but clearing land for agriculture and the rapid growth in coal use are also thought to have contributed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I notice that chart has a HUGE temperature increase in the first half of the 20th century. Then it leveled off and now it is rising again. Since we had far fewer people back then, what cause that rise? And why did it flatten out during the most industrial period 1950-1980?
    Coal use produces two things, from a climate perspective:
    CO2, which warms the climate, and is long lived in the atmosphere. Its long time in the atmosphere means that emissions are essentially cumulative - each year's emissions are added to the total of all previous years..
    Aerosols, which reflect sunlight and cool the climate, but wash out with rains. Their effects are therefore short duration. You can think of the aerosol impact as a running average of the last 5 years of emissions only.

    Current thinking is that the cumulative impact of CO2 dominated until the vast expansion of coal use early-to-mid last century. At this point, there was so much coal being burned, that even the short lived aerosols could dominate. Starting in the 70s, Europe and North America started instituting pollution controls that lowered total aerosols, and CO2 had been accumulating the whole time, so the balance switched back.

    There's been some suggestions that, as China is cutting back on coal and starting to control its pollution, that we may see a somewhat enhanced trajectory starting somewhere in the next few decades. But i've not seen someone go through and do a quantitative projection on that.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  9. #48
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,355
    Amen (Given)
    90
    Amen (Received)
    536
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    More? I am thinking they are getting funding. If there were no global warming, they wouldn't have funding.
    You do realize that we studied the climate well before the general awareness of climate change as an issue, right? Getting climate data has always been part of the remit of both NASA and NOAA, and the military has collected a lot of it. And, if it weren't for the fact that we were funding this research before people were generally aware it was an issue, US-based scientists never would have been involved in determining it was an issue.

    A lot of your arguments here seem to be based on mistaken premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    uh no. I am talking about such things as the "green new deal" which is a socialist plan that relies on taking away things such as cows, airplanes, powerplants, etc, and making the public more reliant on the government for everything. They couldn't push such things through if there weren't a crisis they could point to.
    Ok, i interpreted austerity as meaning "government austerity", given your other term was a form of government. My mistake. I personally felt the green new deal was stupid, so we're agreed on that. Climate change is too important an issue to turn it into a wish list for a bunch of unrelated stuff.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    The charts I have seen show about 7 inches in the last 100 years, (200 mm) and the rise is steady, not an increasing curve like you would expect if global warming was causing it over the last few decades.


    https://climate.nasa.gov/system/char...Level_left.gif
    You may not be able to discern a curve visually, but if you use math, one's there.
    https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/n...-accelerating/

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    I am not sure what that chart is showing. Where is the actual temperature on that chart?
    This is not meant to be superior, but if you really have put time into trying to understand the science here, these are terms you really should know. For one, the temperature is shown as the anomaly (relative change) vs a baseline as the average of global temps between 1980 and 1999, as indicated in the axis label. CMIP is the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, a set of some of the most sophisticated climate models that are each run multiple times and averaged (the averaging makes the black trace much smoother than the actual real world data). The colored bars are the various temperature records - HadCRUT is the UK Met office, NOAA is NOAA, GISTEMP is NASA, Cowtan and Way is NOAA's updated one (the subject of the Science article Singer was ranting about).

    The Hindcast is simply feeding the models known forcings (CO2 levels, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, etc) and seeing whether it reproduces similar temperatures. The forecast is taking average forcings for things like solar and volcanoes, and increasing CO2 levels, and letting the models keep running beyond where the data runs out.

    There's a lot to potentially say here, but the key point for this discussion is that the models are running pretty close to the actual temperature for decades after the data runs out.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  10. #49
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    49,940
    Amen (Given)
    4999
    Amen (Received)
    22170
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    You do realize that we studied the climate well before the general awareness of climate change as an issue, right? Getting climate data has always been part of the remit of both NASA and NOAA, and the military has collected a lot of it. And, if it weren't for the fact that we were funding this research before people were generally aware it was an issue, US-based scientists never would have been involved in determining it was an issue.

    A lot of your arguments here seem to be based on mistaken premises.


    Ok, i interpreted austerity as meaning "government austerity", given your other term was a form of government. My mistake. I personally felt the green new deal was stupid, so we're agreed on that. Climate change is too important an issue to turn it into a wish list for a bunch of unrelated stuff.


    You may not be able to discern a curve visually, but if you use math, one's there.
    https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/n...-accelerating/


    This is not meant to be superior, but if you really have put time into trying to understand the science here, these are terms you really should know. For one, the temperature is shown as the anomaly (relative change) vs a baseline as the average of global temps between 1980 and 1999, as indicated in the axis label. CMIP is the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, a set of some of the most sophisticated climate models that are each run multiple times and averaged (the averaging makes the black trace much smoother than the actual real world data). The colored bars are the various temperature records - HadCRUT is the UK Met office, NOAA is NOAA, GISTEMP is NASA, Cowtan and Way is NOAA's updated one (the subject of the Science article Singer was ranting about).

    The Hindcast is simply feeding the models known forcings (CO2 levels, solar activity, volcanic eruptions, etc) and seeing whether it reproduces similar temperatures. The forecast is taking average forcings for things like solar and volcanoes, and increasing CO2 levels, and letting the models keep running beyond where the data runs out.

    There's a lot to potentially say here, but the key point for this discussion is that the models are running pretty close to the actual temperature for decades after the data runs out.
    OK, I have already admitted to having some Dunning-Kruger here on the topic.

    I am not completely convinced but I am feeling more confident in the data now. Thank you.

  11. #50
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    5,662
    Amen (Given)
    305
    Amen (Received)
    1605
    Quote Originally Posted by Sparko View Post
    OK, I have already admitted to having some Dunning-Kruger here on the topic.

    I am not completely convinced but I am feeling more confident in the data now. Thank you.
    Nice thread so far - enjoyed reading through it
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •