pogi Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 And has Pogi has pointed out the evidence for man caused GW is less than stellar. You beat me to it. I don't know where they get all their confidence from?
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) I have said all along that there has been a pause from 1998. This data demonstrates that warming over that time period is more unlikely than likely. The top four hottest years are very unlikely to be before 1998, that is after your so-called pause. If you want to play that game, the data before 1998 is not 100%, looking for 100% certainties is not useful in science. Even if you are right (unlikely) you keep ignoring that the oceans are still getting warmer quickly. Warming up, turning sour, losing breath: ocean biogeochemistry under global changeA 2000 year record of Atlantic Water temperature variability from the Malangen Fjord, northeastern North Atlantic (Hald et al. 2011)Global ocean re-analyses for climate applications (Masina et al. 2011)Deep ocean warming assessed from altimeters, Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, in situ measurements, and a non-Boussinesq ocean general circulation modelSynchronous intensification and warming of Antarctic Bottom Water outflow from the Weddell Gyre all the evidence says that the planet should be getting a lot colder, but it is still warming because of the CO2 that humans are emitting. You forget that I am an RN and can see right through your bluff. You missed my point, scientists are very skeptical about everything, even if it is obvious. So we can say with reasonable certainty that a scientific 90% is true. What we are 100% certain about, scientists are not. And I just rebutted it as being regional and not global data. Every region on the planet will have a different effect, not all the regions on the planet will be affected the same. The papers covered most of the regions. Here are more that prove that global warming is happening. What caused the observed 20th century weakening of the Walker circulation? (Power & Kociuba, 2011)The Changing Cryosphere: Pan-Arctic Snow Trends (1979–2009) (Liston & Hiemstra, 2011)Observational and model evidence of global emergence of permanent, unprecedented heat in the 20th and 21st centuries (Diffenbauch & Scherer, 2011)Seasonal variation of surface temperature change during the last several decades (Manabe et al. 2011)Rapid change in semi-diurnal tides in the North Atlantic since 1980 (Müller, 2011) Edited April 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 The top four hottest years are more unlikely to be before 2004, see the data. \Even if you are right (unlikely) you keep ignoring that the oceans are still getting warmer quickly. ll the evidence says that the planet should be getting a lot colder, but it is still warming because of the CO2 that humans are emitting. You missed my point, scientists are very skeptical about everything, even if it is obvious. So we can say with reasonable certainty that a scientific 90% is true. Every region on the planet will have a different effect, not all the regions on the planet will be affected the same. The papers covered most of the regions. Here is a viable answer to the deep ocean warming:http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-underwater-volcanoes-long-term-climate-02473.html See this: http://www.sott.net/article/269256-Volcanic-eruptions-rising-CO2-boiling-oceans-and-why-man-made-global-warming-is-not-even-wrong As you are not skeptical I can safely assume you are not a scientist? So it is just a pick your region game? I've got it.
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Here is a viable answer to the deep ocean warming:http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-underwater-volcanoes-long-term-climate-02473.html See this: http://www.sott.net/article/269256-Volcanic-eruptions-rising-CO2-boiling-oceans-and-why-man-made-global-warming-is-not-even-wrong As you are not skeptical I can safely assume you are not a scientist? So it is just a pick your region game? I've got it. Please cite the scientific literature. Pogi doesn't believe the measurements for ocean temp are reliable.So, are you saying that underwater volcanic activity has been increasing faster and faster after 1970? What a coincidence. http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/deep-sea-volcanoes-and-ocean-warming-reprinthttp://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#volcanoes poor reasoning, but I'll try to go with the ones I think are most convincing.This argument suggests that volcanic activity (not just volcanoes) on the ocean floor must be increasing over the last few hundred years. We see no evidence of this - and the author of the post only uses evidence that we have discovered more volcanoes (up to 3.4 million) on the seafloor.The author claims "that 3,477,403 number, coming from two well-respected oceanographers, does reinforce my point rather nicely, namely, that underwater volcanoes are heating the seas." Sure, there might be a lot of volcanoes but he makes no mention of how many might be active enough to heat the ocean water. We can see at surface volcanoes that not all of them are erupting or puffing away simultaneously - why would undersea volcanoes be different? Additionally, of those 3.4 million 'volcanoes' he cites from a 2007 study, how many were considered active?Finally, you would expect in this situation that ocean water would warm from the bottom (near the volcanoes) upwards, but it is actually the surface waters that are warming, not the deep ocean. This suggests that heating is coming from exchange with the atmosphere, not from some deep source on the ocean floor.It is very easy to try to throw around some partially baked ideas about volcanism to try to explain the changing in the ocean temperature worldwide, but they would require extraordinary circumstances where ocean volcanic activity was increasing exactly when human carbon dioxide production was also increasing. Sorry, the subsurface volcanoes are no source for your ocean heating (and if I had the time, I'd calculate how much energy would take to heat all the oceans by 0.5C - it is bound to be more than you can get out of a few hundred thousand Ruapehus)."For more information on Submarine Volcanoes, check out our lesson here! Figure 3: Changing heat content of the global ocean, with respect to the mean of 1993 to 2008 (Trenberth 2010). This analysis samples the ocean to 700 m depth and gives an average warming trend of 0.64 W m−2 (pink line). The data available from Argo floats since 2003 enable an estimate to 2,000 m depth (blue line). Edited April 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) The oceans are by far the largest heat reservoir on Earth, absorbing 93% of global warming. Because of this, accurate assessments of heat uptake are essential to balance the sea level budget, and for observationally-based estimates of climate sensitivity. Durack (2014) find that the top 700 metre layer of ocean, over the period 1970-2004, has warmed some 24-58% more than previous analyses have indicated. again, the top 4 hottest years are very unlikely to be before 1998, that is after the so-called pause. The data before 1998 is not 100% certain, almost nothing in science is 100% certain. Edited April 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Even if you are right (unlikely) you keep ignoring that the oceans are still getting warmer quickly. You keep ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter. The global temperatures and probabilities calculated by NASA take that into account. Even if the oceans are warming, it is still more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming on a global level over the past two decades. ...but it is still warming because of the CO2 that humans are emitting. It is more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming on a global level over the past two decades. Every region on the planet will have a different effect, not all the regions on the planet will be affected the same. The papers covered most of the regions. When it is all taken into account and "global" temperatures are considered, it is more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming over the past 2 decades. Maybe if I repeat myself enough it might sink in (more unlikely than likely).
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) You keep ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter. The global temperatures and probabilities calculated by NASA take that into account. Even if the oceans are warming, it is still more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming on a global level over the past two decades. but it is still more unlikely that the top 4 hottest years are before 1998, so that doesn't help your 17 year pause. If you want to play the likely and unlikely game, well the data before 1998 is not 100% You can't say that it was more likely hotter 17+ years ago. Even if the land surface stopped warming, that proves that the sun cannot be warming the oceans. Edited April 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) You keep ignoring the fact that it doesn't matter. The global temperatures and probabilities calculated by NASA take that into account. Even if the oceans are warming, it is still more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming on a global level over the past two decades. It is more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming on a global level over the past two decades. When it is all taken into account and "global" temperatures are considered, it is more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming over the past 2 decades. Maybe if I repeat myself enough it might sink in (more unlikely than likely). I am beginning to think we are talking to a computer program and getting computer generated answers. Edited April 21, 2015 by ERayR
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) I am beginning to think we are talking to a computer program and getting computer generated answers. See post 907 and 904, I hope you guys answer my questions, I can play the probability games too. Edited April 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) but it is still more unlikely that the top 4 hottest years are before 1998, so that doesn't help your 17 year pause. Dude, the pause is from 1998 - 2014, not before 1998. Do you deny that the probability is more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming in that time period? Edited April 21, 2015 by pogi
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) Dude, the pause is from 1998 - 2014, not before 1998. Do you deny that the probability is more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming in that time period? I understand what you are saying, but the top four are more likely after 1998. It is more unlikely that the top 4 are before 1998, and before 1998 you have uncertainties too.So where do you say the top 4 most hottest year are? Before or after 1998? What is more likely according to NASA and NOAA? Why do you think it is more likely that the warmest years are before 1998? Pogi, Please make this the last video you watch from me, at least after 5:00, He cites the scientific literaturehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUk0tm47yr8 Edited April 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 21, 2015 Posted April 21, 2015 Yes, that is what I am saying,...It is? You are trolling us right?
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) It is? You are trolling us right? Still waiting, are the 4 warmest years more likely before or after 1998? Indicators of a warming world based on surface, satellite, and ocean temperature measurements, satellite measurements of energy imbalance (the difference between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere), and of receding glaciers,sea ice, and ice sheets, rising sea level, and shifting seasons. Edited April 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
mfbukowski Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Uggah buggahJust trying to see if he responds with something about scientific literature.
thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Like this one?SEE http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Do you deny that the probability is more unlikely than likely that there has been any warming in that time period? Do you deny that the probability is more unlikely than likely that the 4 hottest years were before 1998? Look at the graph carefully, 2010, 2005, 2014 were probably hotter than any year before 1998. Therefore, the probability that any year (and combined) before 1998 was hotter is very low. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf Edited April 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Why do you think it is more likely that the warmest years are before 1998? Could it be that the consumption of hot peppers increased dramatically? The scientific literature pretty much unanimously agree that hot peppers are hot. 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Could it be that the consumption of hot peppers increased dramatically? The scientific literature pretty much unanimously agree that hot peppers are hot. What causes the number of church converts to grow? the holy ghost or natural processes in the brain like the critics claim? Do you believe the Holy Ghost significantly contributes to missionary work? or is it just a natural cycle?Is the church still growing or is there a so-called pause?Do you believe the church have 20 million members by 2030? Like this one?SEE http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897 nice scientific paper, I wish pogi and ERayR cite scientific papers from reputable journals more often. Edited April 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) Still waiting, are the 4 warmest years more likely before or after 1998? Indicators of a warming world based on surface, satellite, and ocean temperature measurements, satellite measurements of energy imbalance (the difference between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere), and of receding glaciers,sea ice, and ice sheets, rising sea level, and shifting seasons.When we look at only the history of recorded temps? They were more likely before 1998. Before record keeping. They all would be highly unlikely to be the highest temps. Not sure the point of your kindergarten poster. It has nothing to do with your question on probabilities. Edited April 22, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
pogi Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) nice scientific paper, I wish pogi and ERayR cite scientific papers from reputable journals more often. You have a subscription to read it? Seriously, that is lame and leads me to believe that you only read the abstract. Was it peer-reviewed? Don't post links that require subscriptions. After reading the abstract, it gives no new information that we have not discussed before. Deep ocean warming has already been taken into account in the probability figures. So, where's the warming over the past 2 decades despite the ever increasing C02? This study does not answer that question, sorry. Do you deny that the probability is more unlikely than likely that the 4 hottest years were before 1998? What do you mean by "before 1998"? You mean from the beginning of the planet? Because the limited recorded data we have from 1880 is insufficient to determine if the warming from 1880-1998 is unusual. Scientist believe that there were warmer years before 1998 - lots of them! What is unusual (if C02 is as powerful a driver of temp as you believe) is the pause in warming over the past 2 decades despite the ever increasing C02. Why isn't the C02 trapping more heat in the atmosphere? Edited April 22, 2015 by pogi
thesometimesaint Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Before there were man made written records the earth itself made records. In science we call them proxies.
pogi Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Before there were man made written records the earth itself made records. In science we call them proxies. And they show much higher temps than today, they also show that the warming from 1880-1998 is not unusual at all. 2
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 (edited) is the pause in warming over the past 2 decades despite the ever increasing C02. Why isn't the C02 trapping more heat in the atmosphere? The oceans are by far the largest heat reservoir on Earth, absorbing 93% of global warming, look at the data since 1970. Do you know what the word "absorbing" means? There are a handful of short-term factors that drive changes in surface air temperature, even if CO2 levels are higher, so there is no problem at all. http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/ CO2 levels are affecting the oceans more than the air surface temperatures. What do you mean by "before 1998"? Of course Earth was hotter in the distant past. I mean since the recorded data from 1880. Why are you avoiding my question? In what period are the top 4 hottest years, what is more likely according to NASA and NOAA?A) 1998 - 2014B) 1880 - 1998 Again, I can play the probability games too. Therefore your so-called pause is very unlikely Edited April 22, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Why isn't the C02 trapping more heat in the atmosphere?I think we should ask is, "What kind of heat can be trapped in an atmosphere that has .0032% CO2. What kind of heat is trapped in an atmosphere that has .004% CO2. What is the difference? Can you even quantify the difference?" Everything right now, appears to say, that it is really quite insignificant. Which, I would agree just judging by how little CO2 is in the atmosphere. 1
pogi Posted April 22, 2015 Posted April 22, 2015 Why are you not acknowledging that the "warming" oceans don't change the pause in "global" warming when you take all variables into account? I am not avoiding your question. I have acknowledged the warming from 1880-1998 about a million times on here, are you kidding me? Again I ask, so what?
Recommended Posts