pogi Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) If you understood physics you understand that CO2 is not itself a heat source, but it does trap the heat generated. I understand that, but MFT's links say that the heat is going down into the ocean instead of going up into the atmosphere; you know that place where all the C02 is. Edited April 24, 2015 by pogi
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface (land-ocean). This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer of the ocean, and the level of this warming ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the layer. So although greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, don't directly warm the oceans by channeling heat down into the oceans, they still do indeed heat the oceans, and are likely to do so for a very long time.Increased warming of the cool skin layer (via increased greenhouse gases) lowers its temperature gradient (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer), and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to theatmosphere. One way to think about this is to compare the gradient (steepness) of a flowing river - water flows faster the steeper the river becomes, but slows as the steepness decreases.The same concept applies to the cool skin layer - warm the top of the layer and the gradient across it decreases, therefore reducing heat flowing out of the ocean. Using intruments to simultaneously measure the 'cool skin', the ocean below, and the amount of heat (longwave radiation) reaching the ocean surface, researchers were able to confirm how greenhouse gases heat the ocean. It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions, but the relationship was nevertheless established. Figure 2 -The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave (heat) radiation. The net forcing is negative as the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean skin layer, but approaches zero under cloudy conditions. See RealClimate post "Why Greenhouse Gases Heat The Ocean" by Professor Peter Minnett. Edited April 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) Did you not just agree that 2014 has no greater than a 38% chance of being warmer than any given year from 1880-2014 (yes my friend, that included 1998)? I totally agree(according to NASA), but that is not what you originally said in post 1034 you said, see post 1034 2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998. You are playing games, I am getting tired of this Edited April 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 I totally agree, Then you agree that your calculated 90% is ridiculously wrong? I totally agree(according to NASA), but that is not what you originally said in post 1034 you said, see post 1034 Sorry, I missed the word "greater" (as in 2014 has a 34% "greater" chance of being warmer than 1998), but that is what I meant and you know it. We have been through this before. Either way, 2014 has no greater than a 38% chance of being warmer than 1998 - that is not even close to a 90% chance. I have no clue how a you came up with your calculation. Suddenly your confidence in warming plummets from 90% down into the 30's, that must suck!
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) Then you agree that your calculated 90% is ridiculously wrong? It is not, 2014 as a 90% of being warmer than the specific year of 1998. Sorry, I missed the word "greater" (as in 2014 has a 34% "greater" chance of being warmer than 1998), but that is what I meant and you know it. st suck! So wrong english, do you see the difference? post 1034 2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998. thesometiemsaint and ERaR, do you see the difference? Edited April 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 Changes in ocean heat uptake. A number of recent papers have found evidence that heat has been going into the oceans rather than the atmosphere recently, see in particular Balmaseda et al (2013), Guemas et al (2013), Nuccitelli et al (2012) and Levitus et al (2012) (and also used in Otto et al, 2013). Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface (land-ocean). Do you see how post 1052 does not explain deep ocean warming. Post 1052 is exactly what I have been saying this whole time. The atmosphere MUST warm up before the ocean surface. The ocean surface MUST warm up before the deep sea, yet the part in red says that the heat is skipping that whole process that post 1052 so eloquently described. 1052 does not explain deep ocean warming. Not helpful to your argument, but very helpful for mine. Thanks! 2
thesometimesaint Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 I understand that, but MFT's links say that the heat is going down into the ocean instead of going up into the atmosphere; you know that place where all the C02 is. The vast majority of the heat does go into the oceans. Because water is a much better heat sink than air. What we have lacked until relatively recently was an accurate way to measure that heat. It is not every day that your local weatherman in say Kansas reports on the water temperature out in the middle of the ocean. We now have that way. The CO2 is allowing for the thermal expansion to increase the level of the oceans. It is also absorbed into the water in the form of Carbonic Acid increasing the acidic level. Both have been and are being observed.
ERayR Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) It is not, 2014 as a 90% of being warmer than the specific year of 1998. So wrong english, do you see the difference? post 1034 thesometiemsaint and ERaR, do you see the difference? What I see is someone who is either unable to understand or is being willfully ignorant. Sorry to be so blunt and I mean no offense but you did ask and that is how it looks to me. It really takes a magic trick to jump from 38% to 100%. A very good example of ex nihilo creation. Edited April 24, 2015 by ERayR 2
pogi Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) It is not, 2014 as a 90% of being warmer than the specific year of 1998. You're holding to your guns on this one huh? Remember when you agreed that 2014 has no greater than a 38% chance of being warmer than any given year (which includes the "specific" year of 1998) in post 1053? Edited April 24, 2015 by pogi
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) You're holding to your guns on this one huh? Remember when you agreed that 2014 has no greater than a 38% chance of being warmer than any given year (which includes the "specific" year of 1998) in post 1053? I did not say 2014 has a 90% greater chance than 1998, I said 2014 has a 90% of being warmer than 1998. Two different statements. I agree 2014 as a 34% greater chance than 1998, but that is not what you said "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034 Edited April 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
pogi Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 The CO2 is allowing for the thermal expansion to increase the level of the oceans. It is also absorbed into the water in the form of Carbonic Acid increasing the acidic level. Both have been and are being observed. The heat is skipping the atmosphere according to the studies, therefore no thermal expansion being caused by C02. Acid does not effect temperature.
pogi Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) I did not say 2014 has a 90% greater chance than 1998, I said 2014 has a 90% of being warmer than 1998. Two different statements. And they are both wrong Edited April 24, 2015 by pogi
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 It really takes a magic trick to jump from 38% to 100%. A very good example of ex nihilo creation. LOL you have no clue about what I was saying because you are not reading carefully what I am saying.The problem is that Pogi is not saying things properly, and he likes to misrepresent what I say
pogi Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 It really takes a magic trick to jump from 38% to 100%. A very good example of ex nihilo creation.
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) And they are both wrong Three different statements, and all of them are true 2014 has a 34% greater chance of being warmer than 1998. 2014 has a 90% chance of being warmer than 1998. 2014 has a 38% chance (NASA) of being the warmest year. You said, "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034Which is wrong English. I don't know why I am wasting my time with you, I know how to do infinitesimal Calculus, I understand Math. Greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat in the atmosphere and direct part of this back toward the surface (land-ocean). This heat cannot penetrate into the ocean itself, but it does warm the cool skin layer of the ocean, and the level of this warming ultimately controls the temperature gradient in the layer. So although greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, don't directly warm the oceans by channeling heat down into the oceans, they still do indeed heat the oceans, and are likely to do so for a very long time.Increased warming of the cool skin layer (via increased greenhouse gases) lowers its temperature gradient (that is the temperature difference between the top and bottom of the layer), and this reduces the rate at which heat flows out of the ocean to theatmosphere. One way to think about this is to compare the gradient (steepness) of a flowing river - water flows faster the steeper the river becomes, but slows as the steepness decreases.The same concept applies to the cool skin layer - warm the top of the layer and the gradient across it decreases, therefore reducing heat flowing out of the ocean. Using intruments to simultaneously measure the 'cool skin', the ocean below, and the amount of heat (longwave radiation) reaching the ocean surface, researchers were able to confirm how greenhouse gases heat the ocean. It should be pointed out here, that the amount of change in downward heat radiation from changes in cloud cover in the experiment, are far greater than the gradual change in warming provided by human greenhouse gas emissions, but the relationship was nevertheless established. Figure 2 -The change in the skin temperature to bulk temperature difference as a function of the net longwave (heat) radiation. The net forcing is negative as the atmosphere is cooler than the ocean skin layer, but approaches zero under cloudy conditions. See RealClimate post "Why Greenhouse Gases Heat The Ocean" by Professor Peter Minnett. Edited April 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
ERayR Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 LOL you have no clue about what I was saying because you are not reading carefully what I am saying.The problem is that Pogi is not saying things properly, and he likes to misrepresent what I say Did you ever think to look in the mirror for the problem? Obviously not as the problem has to be with Pogi, ERayR, Mola or anybody but you. You are so hung up on credentials why don't you post your qualifications in this area?
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) You are so hung up on credentials why don't you post your qualifications in this area? student that can understand English and does not misrepresent others Edited April 24, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 thesometimesaint, Do you see a problem with Pogi's statement? "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034
pogi Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) 2014 has no higher than a 38% probability of being warmer than any given year from 1880-2014 (can you refute that?) 2014 has a 90% chance of being warmer than 1998. You agree with both. Reconcile the two. (One of these things is not like the other) Edited April 24, 2015 by pogi 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 I did not say 2014 has a 90% greater chance than 1998, I said 2014 has a 90% of being warmer than 1998. Two different statements. I agree 2014 as a 34% greater chance than 1998, but that is not what you said "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034I hate to break it to you. But anything less than 100% is a chance that it wont happen. The second you went to some thing less than 100%, chance is brought in by default. It is the same. "I said 2014 has a 90% of being warmer than 1998" Still has "chance" involved since it is less than 100%. It has a 90% "what" of being warmer than 1998? You just left the word out because you think you have some legitimate claim to something. Does not matter if you said it specifically, it is impossible to not infer chance with what you just said.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) student that can understand English and does not misrepresent others Huh? 10 points for the most incoherent post in this thread. I still have no idea how you got the magic number of 100%. edit changed 90% to 100%. Edited April 24, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
TheSkepticChristian Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 You agree with both. Reconcile the two. One word can change the meaning of a statement I still have no idea how you got the magic number of 90%. OH boy, I am out of here
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 thesometimesaint, Do you see a problem with Pogi's statement? "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034 There is no issue.What is the probability that 1998 was the warmest year on record?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 (edited) OH boy, I am out of here Your bluffing. I can tell. I meant to say 100%. Edited April 24, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
ERayR Posted April 24, 2015 Posted April 24, 2015 thesometimesaint, Do you see a problem with Pogi's statement? "2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998." - Pogi, post 1034 "2014 (38% chance of being the hottest) minus 1998 (4% chance of being hottest year) equals = 2014 has a 34% chance of being warmer than 1998. Very low degree of confidence - not very likely". 2014 has 38% chance of being the hottest on record.1998 has a 4% chance of being the hottest on record.What is the chance of 2014 being hotter than 1998?
Recommended Posts