wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,948
- Reactions
- 13,240
Define deniest.
The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.
You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.
Define deniest.
Define deniest.
The closest a google search could come up with was "dentist".
Head in the sand and soon to drown,
in this context
Head in the sand and soon to drown,
in this context
The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.
You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.
... the science is getting better ...
The ippc report is not only watered down to fit with the oil lobby it is also reporting from figures and measurements that are now more than six years old.
You deniests are a joke and so far up it that you will be under water and still sticking to you narrow minds.
Firstly Explod, I don't deny global warming. I am sceptical of the IPCC's projections because they are extreme and not validated by recent evidence. By the way, they studied evidence up to 2012 for the latest report. Pity they couldn't take in the recent evidence of 60% increase in Artic Ice for the Report.
If you could call the 5th IPCC Report "watered down" it is not because of the oil lobby but because many scientists were stating the evidence did not support their original conclusions . The lead authors then decided to moderate (some) of their findings to maintain some consensus.
I again draw your attention to The Australian article by Prof Curry some days ago that I posted on this thread regarding consensus. Consensus is NOT scientific and in any case it has been manipulated by some lead authors on occasions.
The warming trend is erratic, not a clear linear trend as we were initially led to expect. It has flat lined for quite awhile.
... to delay any action that would reduce CO2 emissions ...
A waste of time as you would shoot any reference made from the banks of the myriad oil lobby material available to the skeptics (sorry about denier,s, a badly chosen word the other day)Can you find an alternative source basilio, we have already demonstrated that source untrustworthy.
What ocean heating reveals about global warming
Filed under:
”” stefan @ 25 September 2013
The heat content of the oceans is growing and growing. That means that the greenhouse effect has not taken a pause and the cold sun is not noticeably slowing global warming.
NOAA posts regularly updated measurements of the amount of heat stored in the bulk of the oceans. For the upper 2000 m (deeper than that not much happens) it looks like this:
The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there (you can read more about this in the last IPCC report from 2007). The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance.
If the oceans are warming up, this implies that the Earth must absorb more solar energy than it emits longwave radiation into space. This is the only possible heat source. That’s simply the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy. This conservation law is why physicists are so interested in looking at the energy balance of anything. Because we understand the energy balance of our Earth, we also know that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases – which have caused the largest imbalance in the radiative energy budget over the last century.
If the greenhouse effect (that checks the exit of longwave radiation from Earth into space) or the amount of absorbed sunlight diminished, one would see a slowing in the heat uptake of the oceans. The measurements show that this is not the case.
The increase in the amount of heat in the oceans amounts to 17 x 1022 Joules over the last 30 years. That is so much energy it is equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima bomb every second in the ocean for thirty years.
The data in the graphs comes from the World Ocean Database. Wikipedia has a fine overview of this database. The data set includes nine million measured temperature profiles from all of the world’s oceans. One of my personal heroes, the oceanographer Syd Levitus, has dedicated much of his life to making these oceanographic data freely available to everyone. During the Cold war that even landed him in a Russian jail for espionage for a while, as he was visiting Russia on his quest for oceanographic data (he once told me of that adventure over breakfast in a Beijing hotel).
How to deny data
Ideologically motivated “climate skeptics” know that these data contradict their claims, and respond … by rejecting the measurements Millions of stations are dismissed as “negligible” – the work of generations of oceanographers vanish with a journalist’s stroke of a pen because what should not exist, cannot be. “Climate skeptics’” web sites even claim that the measurement uncertainty in the average of 3000 Argo probes is the same as that from each individual one. Thus not only are the results of climate research called into question, but even the elementary rules of uncertainty calculus that every science student learns in their first semester. Anything goes when you have to deny global warming. Even more bizarre is the Star Trek argument – but let me save that for later.
Reducing CO2 emissions had best not be the right step forward.
It will cost trillions and leave billions of people in abject poverty.
It would be far better to see what is damaged by AGW
Then target specific problems with specific solutions.
Dwelling on disappearing coastline .... move away from the coast!!
#3% more tropics and 3% more people exposed to Malaria .... cure Malaria !!
You would rather hold back the tide???
I do, however, like the idea of clean air (for breathing purposes you understand)
... Curing Malaria ain't that easy ...
... Loss of arable land isn't easy to overcome. GM foods can only go so far ...
... What proof do you have than we can't move forward in a way that also reduces CO2 emissions?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?