Resisting Climate Hysteria

[basilio]

How is the ocean heating up ? Where is it heating up ? What are the implications of these seismic changes ?
The Argo project is the key to understanding this critical part of the effects of global warming.

The Argo project is under threat with the decision by the CSIRO to withdraw from public good Climate Research

Global ocean monitoring program struggling to stay afloat, warn scientists
Graham Readfearn

The Argo array of ocean floats supported by 31 countries has ‘revolutionised’ our understanding of the oceans but its future is uncertain

Wednesday 24 February 2016 20.31 AEDT

Right now, roughly a kilometre below the surface of an ocean near you, a yellow cylinder about the size of a golf bag is taking measurements of the temperature and saltiness of the water.

Every couple of days, the float will drop deeper – down to 2km – and then rise to the surface to transmit its data, before disappearing back into the depths to do the whole thing again.
World's oceans warming at increasingly faster rate, new study finds
Read more

These floats do this for as long as eight years, until the poor little things die of exhaustion (well, their batteries run out).

There are about 3,800 of these floats scattered across the globe as part of a program called Argo, supported by more than 30 countries.

It’s likely you’ve never heard of Argo and much less likely you’ve ever seen one of the floats.

But for the last decade, climate scientists and oceanographers have been using the data from these Argo floats to plug a gaping ocean-sized hole in our understanding of global warming.

Scientific papers that use the data from these floats are now appearing in science journals at the rate of about one per day.

.....

Argo is fundamental because this all comes back to the heat problem. The key thing that matters for the Earth is how much extra heat is retained in the system.

While we have seen this huge debate over the last 15 years about this so-called ‘hiatus’, really what Argo shows us is that surface variability [in temperature] is just a re-organisation of heat.

When you get below a couple of hundred metres you see the inexorable growth of global warming happening in the oceans. That’s driving a good chunk of the sea level rise. It is telling us what the radiation imbalance is at the top of the atmosphere.

Once that heat and that carbon is down there in the deep ocean it’s there for decades – if not longer – and it’s locking in that warming. We see that warming in Argo right down to the depths of our measurement – right down to two kilometres and its probably extending further.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...loat-without-funding-promises-warn-scientists

 

[SirRumpole]

Another analysis of the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. This story goes into more detail of the climate that is killing the coral - and its not El Nino.



View attachment 66378

Chart showing record sea surface temperatures across northern and Coral Sea areas of Australia in summer 2015/16 Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology

Hughes said that in 1998, 2002 and this current GBR bleaching event, the areas of the reef that bleached matched “perfectly” the areas with unusually high SST.

The record warm oceans that have been stressing the corals in recent weeks are part of a long-term trend of warming ocean temperatures around the globe, including the waters off Australia.

View attachment 66379

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-clear-and-incontrovertible-say-scientists

Is this a permanent condition or will the reef return to normal if the sea cools ?

 

[Ijustnewit]

Another analysis of the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. This story goes into more detail of the climate that is killing the coral - and its not El Nino.



View attachment 66378

Chart showing record sea surface temperatures across northern and Coral Sea areas of Australia in summer 2015/16 Photograph: Bureau of Meteorology

Hughes said that in 1998, 2002 and this current GBR bleaching event, the areas of the reef that bleached matched “perfectly” the areas with unusually high SST.

The record warm oceans that have been stressing the corals in recent weeks are part of a long-term trend of warming ocean temperatures around the globe, including the waters off Australia.

View attachment 66379

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-clear-and-incontrovertible-say-scientists

Great info Bas , such a disaster and this sort of damaged cannot be downplayed . Interesting and also horrifying with waters around Tasmania and even though we are not loosing a reef down here the implications are causing massive problems . Hobart is set to break its April record for averages by probably 3 degrees over the current record. Unheard of in climate terms and in fact April will be hotter than the current November record. The 2016 April average is also going to be higher than a normal December , January and February Summer average.
El Nino hasn't helped but in the last 20 years down here records have continued to tumble , whatever the cause of climate change we have gone past the tipping point and can't go back.

 

[basilio]

Is this a permanent condition or will the reef return to normal if the sea cools ?

All depends... At a certain level of damage the coral can recover over time. The problem is

1) The higher the severity of bleaching the higher the probability of complete collapse of the ecosystem
2) As the oceans temperatures steadily increase there will be more frequent bleaching events until recovery is impossible.

http://www.reefresilience.org/coral-reefs/stressors/bleaching/resistance-tolerance-and-recovery/

 

[Ijustnewit]

Here is the Global outlook forecast for the 28/4/16 to the 05/05/16 , the heat is going no where.

 

[Ferret]

View attachment 66380

Here is the Global outlook forecast for the 28/4/16 to the 05/05/16 , the heat is going no where.

Interesting figure. I wonder what the white areas are?

 

[luutzu]

...

And the shame is, we can do it all at no more overall cost with clean alternatives.

If it will kill us, we'd do it anyway just to be sure [?]

Don't we sometime wonder how the heck does our species survive and the dinosaurs didn't?

 

[SirRumpole]

If it will kill us, we'd do it anyway just to be sure [?]

Don't we sometime wonder how the heck does our species survive and the dinosaurs didn't?

The dinosaurs survived for over 135 million years, and what killed them was not their fault.

We've been around for 200,000 years and look what we've done.

Call that intelligence, cos I don't.

 

[wayneL]

You answer it then. I haven't.
You won't though.


(you don't won't to challenge your religious beliefs by thinking about facts, It's Galileo all over again)

What are my religious beliefs Knobby?

DO I have to detail my official position all over AGAIN, to expose your appalling straw man fallacy?

 

[qldfrog]

Go to Google......there is a heap of info on the capture of CO2.

yes, but Noco, please point to any power station that actually do it; I do not know your science level but you do not need to be einstein to know that it is actually impossible if only in term of volume; compressing emitted CO2 requires around a third of the power plant output and then you need to pump it under pressure in a safe storage (underground reservoir, the only place I know of this being done is in Norway?from memory in the oil field where they actually need to inject gas to extract oil;
so once again how many power plants capture their CO2 emissions among the 65000 plus existing?

you may not "believe" (as if it was a belief) in global warming but at least do not fool yourself, power plants capture acid (sulfurs but do NOT capture CO2,but for a few experimental test ones.
Modern power plants DO NOT capture CO2.

 

[basilio]

Is global warming simply a consequence of the huge amount of heat produced by the burning of fossil fuels rather than the effects of greenhouse gases?

Apparently not. The question has been asked and analysed. Waste heat contributes 1% overall of the extra heating on the Earth. There are some regional differences . For example in highly industrial areas the US and Western Europe for example there will be some additional local warming.

The paper which does the maths on this question seems to be accessible if anyone would like to check it out.

It's waste heat
Link to this page
What the science says...
The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.
Climate Myth...

It's waste heat
"Global warming is mostly due to heat production by human industry since the 1800s, from nuclear power and fossil fuels, better termed hydrocarbons, – coal, oil, natural gas. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2 play a minor role even though they are widely claimed the cause." (Morton Skorodin)

When humans use energy, it gives off heat. Whenever we burn fossil fuels, heat is emitted. This heat doesn't just disappear - it dissipates into our environment. How much does waste heat contribute to global warming? This has been calculated in Flanner 2009 (if you want to read the full paper, access details are posted here). Flanner contributes that the contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2 (IPCC AR4 Section 2.1). Waste heat is about 1% of greenhouse warming.

Radiative forcing from waste heat vs anthropogenic greenhouse gas radiative forcing

What does these numbers mean? They refer to radiative forcing, the change in energy flux at the top of the atmosphere. Or putting it in plain English, the amount of heat being added to our climate. Greenhouse warming is currently adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.

...Somebody's crunched numbers. Small globally, noticeable regionally:

Nearly all energy used for human purposes is dissipated as heat within Earth's land–atmosphere system. Thermal energy released from non-renewable sources is therefore a climate forcing term. Averaged globally, this forcing is only +0.028 W m−2, but over the continental United States and western Europe, it is +0.39 and +0.68 W m−2, respectively. Here, present and future global inventories of anthropogenic heat flux (AHF) are developed, and parameterizations derived for seasonal and diurnal flux cycles. Equilibrium climate experiments show statistically-significant continental-scale surface warming (0.4–0.9 °C) produced by one 2100 AHF scenario, but not by current or 2040 estimates. However, significant increases in annual-mean temperature and planetary boundary layer (PBL) height occur over gridcells where present-day AHF exceeds 3.0 W m−2. PBL expansion leads to a slight, but significant increase in atmospheric residence time of aerosols emitted from large-AHF regions. Hence, AHF may influence regional climate projections and contemporary chemistry-climate studies.

Flanner, M. G. (2009), Integrating anthropogenic heat flux with global climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L02801, doi:10.1029/2008GL036465.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

 

[noco]

The basic theory of the three phases of ENSO are here:

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/history/ln-2010-12/three-phases-of-ENSO.shtml

TL;DR version is in each phase the ocean winds / currents are acting differently so the warmer water ends up in a different part of the Pacific Ocean.

During El Nino the water closer to the northern parts of Australia is cooler, so generally there is less rainfall and less cyclone activity. Land temperature is warmer because there is less cloud coverage etc.

During La Nina the water in that region is warmer.

So are the waters in the Coral Sea getting warmer or cooler?....Cooler waters will have a greater affect on the reef than warmer waters.....The coral will survive much better in warmer waters.

 

[Ves]

So are the waters in the Coral Sea getting warmer or cooler?....Cooler waters will have a greater affect on the reef than warmer waters.....The coral will survive much better in warmer waters.

There's two things here:

During El Nino the temperature in that part of the ocean is at a cooler part of the temperature cycle. Temperatures aren't stagnant. They fluctuate.

In saying that no one is saying that it is historically cooler than it usually is at this part of the cycle.

Can you confirm you understand the difference?

edit: I'm talking exclusively about the area in the BOM map discussing ENSO. Not the reef.

You asked why there were no cyclones this year, I'm confident I've answered that question.

 

[noco]

There's two things here:

During El Nino the temperature in that part of the ocean is at a cooler part of the temperature cycle. Temperatures aren't stagnant. They fluctuate.

In saying that no one is saying that it is historically cooler than it usually is at this part of the cycle.

Can you confirm you understand the difference?

edit: I'm talking exclusively about the area in the BOM map discussing ENSO. Not the reef.

You asked why there were no cyclones this year, I'm confident I've answered that question.

I think you want 2 bob each way.

One thing I do know, having lived in the tropics of North Queensland for the past 45 years, the temperatures of the Coral Sea do vary greatly as I keep saying, it has to be 28c for cyclones to form...So the seas must have been cooler for the lack of cyclones

If the seas are cooler it will have a dramatic affect on the Coral.....This is not the first time coral bleaching has occurred since I have been up here and it will not be the last time either.....The coral has a way of regenerating itself so I would not be too concerned about.

So what is your answer to stop the bleaching in the meantime?

 

[Ves]

I think you want 2 bob each way.


So what is your answer to stop the bleaching in the meantime?

Don't have an opinion on it at this point. As I've said, I only answered your question about why there were no cyclones in Northern QLD this year.

I'm not really interesting in debating anything outside of that.

 

[qldfrog]

Is global warming simply a consequence of the huge amount of heat produced by the burning of fossil fuels rather than the effects of greenhouse gases?

Apparently not. The question has been asked and analysed. Waste heat contributes 1% overall of the extra heating on the Earth. There are some regional differences . For example in highly industrial areas the US and Western Europe for example there will be some additional local warming.

The paper which does the maths on this question seems to be accessible if anyone would like to check it out.




http://www.skepticalscience.com/waste-heat-global-warming.htm

Thanks basilio, I still stick to my gun of at least 2C increase temperature of the atmosphere since the industrial revolution (am happy if someone can find a fayult in my computation (genuinely happy as this would increase the earth survival chances
, and instead of watt per square meter i would much prefer a temperature increase of the average atmosphere, the figures quoted above actually make me doubt the actual action of CO2....which is a paradox isn't it
cause if the CO2 effect is that much higher we should be boiling, as for measuring emission per m^2 and talking about various effect based on area, I would not give his degree to the university person involved; who cares if the heat is emitted in the US or in cChina, 10 y down the track the artic is warmer....
anyway, if i get time, I will have a quick look at the figure and double check them.
Thanks for the link Basilio, and I am not a GW denier in any way, I live on the land (small farm) and can recognise changes....

 

[qldfrog]

not able to access the paper refereed as source of truth for waste heat; i will try to see if I can get it otherwise

 

[noco]

Don't have an opinion on it at this point. As I've said, I only answered your question about why there were no cyclones in Northern QLD this year.

I'm not really interesting in debating anything outside of that.

I guess you don't want to debate any further because obviously do not know or understand it yourself....You have not answered any question to my satisfaction I am sorry to say.....

You may think you have but you are deluding yourself.

You have a one track mind and that is every problem relating to Earth is man made and nothing will ever change your mind.

According to you, natural phenomenons just do not occur.

 

[explod]

I guess you don't want to debate any further because obviously do not know or understand it yourself....You have not answered any question to my satisfaction I am sorry to say.....

You may think you have but you are deluding yourself.

You have a one track mind and that is every problem relating to Earth is man made and nothing will ever change your mind.

According to you, natural phenomenons just do not occur.

Sorry Noco, but you too have posted a heap of deluded thoughts.

 

[Ves]

I guess you don't want to debate any further because obviously do not know or understand it yourself....You have not answered any question to my satisfaction I am sorry to say.....

You may think you have but you are deluding yourself.

You have a one track mind and that is every problem relating to Earth is man made and nothing will ever change your mind.

According to you, natural phenomenons just do not occur.

**** off mate.