Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Nice post of yours below and a video that will explain it a bit better for some others.

Originally Posted by ENT

Global warming 'pause' due to unusual trade winds in Pacific ocean, study finds
Monday 10 February 2014 00.17 GMT

Study shows sharply accelerating trade winds have buried surface heat underwater, reducing heat flowing into atmosphere

The IPCC in 2013 pointed out that more than 90% of the world’s extra heat is being soaked up by the oceans, rather than lingering on the surface.


The contentious "pause" in global warming over the past decade is largely due to unusually strong trade winds in the Pacific ocean that have buried surface heat deep underwater, new research has found.

A joint Australian and US study analysed why the rise in the Earth's global average surface temperature has slowed since 2001, after rapidly increasing from the 1970s.

The research shows that sharply accelerating trade winds in central and eastern areas of the Pacific have driven warm surface water to the ocean's depths, reducing the amount of heat that flows into the atmosphere.

In turn, the lowering of sea surface temperatures in the Pacific triggers further cooling in other regions.



The study, which is published in the journal Nature Climate Change, calculated the net cooling effect on global average surface temperatures as between 0.1C and 0.2C (0.2-0.4F), accounting for much of the hiatus in surface warming. The study's authors said there has been a 0.2C gap between models used to predict warming and actual observed warming since 2001.

The findings should provide fresh certainty about the reasons behind the warming hiatus, which has been claimed by critics of mainstream climate science as evidence that the models are flawed and predictions of rising temperatures have been exaggerated.



IPCC climate report: human impact is 'unequivocal'
27 Sep 2013
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) addressed the warming pause issue in its 2013 climate report, pointing out that the Earth is going through a solar minimum and that more than 90% of the world's extra heat is being soaked up by the oceans, rather than lingering on the surface.

Matthew England, a climate scientist at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, and leader of the research, said that while the solar minimum and aerosol particles have contributed to the slowdown, strong trade winds are the significant factor.

"Temperature models have an envelope of uncertainty but it is clear that the last decade has seen a much flatter temperature change compared to the 1980s and 1990s, when the increase was rapid," he said.

"We found that the wind acceleration has been strong enough in the past 20 years to pump a lot of the heat into the ocean. Winds accelerated in this period more than at any time in the past century; it really is unprecedented and the models haven't captured it all."

The acceleration of Pacific trade winds has been twice as strong in the past 20 years compared with the prior 80 years, cooling the east Pacific and propagating the trend to other parts of the world.


The study suggests the warming hiatus could continue for much of the present decade if the trade winds continue; however, should the winds return to their long-term average speeds, rapid warming will resume.

"Even if the winds accelerate even further, sooner or later the impact of greenhouse gases will overwhelm the effect," England said. "And if the winds relax, the heat will come out quickly. As we go through the 21st century, we are less and less likely to have a cooler decade. Greenhouse gases will certainly win out in the end."

England said it was unclear what has caused the increase in Pacific trade winds, although warming in the Indian Ocean has been cited as a potential trigger.


Dr Steve Rintoul, research team leader at CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, said the research shows that pauses in the rate of global warming are to be expected.

"The oceans have continued to warm unabated, even during the recent hiatus in warming of surface temperature," he said.

"Natural variations of the climate system also mean that climate trends estimated over a short period are unlikely to reflect long-term changes. A decade or two of slower or faster warming does not tell us anything about long-term climate change."


Richard Allan, professor of climate science at the University of Reading, said it is likely the current warming slowdown is only a temporary reprieve from brisk increases in global temperatures.

"This new research suggests that when the trade winds weaken again, the planet can expect rapid warming of the surface to resume, as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise," he said.

"We don't know what is causing these unprecedented changes, but the implications could be substantial."

• This article was amended on 10 February, 2014, to give the correct Celsius to Fahrenheit conversion for the calculation of the net cooling affect on global average surface temperatures.
Global warming 'pause' due to unusual trade winds in Pacific ocean, study finds | Environment | The Guardian

Sochi, 09.02.2014


The guys who prepared the hill for yesterday's competition looked like this. 15 degrees, metric.

WASHINGTON - The Arctic isn't nearly as bright and white as it used to be because of more ice melting in the ocean, and that's turning out to be a global problem, a new study says.

With more dark, open water in the summer, less of the sun's heat is reflected back into space. So the entire Earth is absorbing more heat than expected, according to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

That extra absorbed energy is so big that it measures about one-quarter of the entire heat-trapping effect of carbon dioxide, said the study's lead author, Ian Eisenman, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California.

The Arctic grew 8 percent darker between 1979 and 2011, Eisenman found, measuring how much sunlight is reflected back into space.

"Basically, it means more warming," Eisenman said in an interview.

The North Pole region is an ocean that mostly is crusted at the top with ice that shrinks in the summer and grows back in the fall. At its peak melt in September, the ice has shrunk on average by nearly 35,000 square miles - about the size of Maine - per year since 1979.

Snow-covered ice reflects several times more heat than dark, open ocean, which replaces the ice when it melts, Eisenman said.

As more summer sunlight dumps into the ocean, the water gets warmer, and it takes longer for ice to form again in the fall, Jason Box of the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland said in an email. He was not part of the study.

While earlier studies used computer models, Eisenman said his is the first to use satellite measurements to gauge sunlight reflection and to take into account cloud cover. The results show the darkening is as much as two to three times bigger than previous estimates, he said.

Box and University of Colorado ice scientist Waleed Abdalati, who was not part of the research, called the work important in understanding how much heat is getting trapped on Earth.

© 2014 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

Arctic grows darker, making Earth warmer - CBS News

The Arctic grew 8 percent darker between 1979 and 2011, Eisenman found...
While earlier studies used computer models, Eisenman said his is the first to use satellite measurements

So they had satallites in place in 1979 measuring this stuff ?

"Basically, it means more warming,"

How come the earths temp has been flat for the last 17 years them?
keep repeating ''the Earths warming'', does not make it true .

Originally Posted by blue

How come the earths temp has been flat for the last 17 years them?
keep repeating ''the Earths warming'', does not make it true .

According to who?

Send your findings to China ( main culprits ) see if they care !

We do what we can but if China wont listen..........

So don't bother doing anything then? I mean the US and India aren't exactly sucking up the CO2 are they?

Originally Posted by FlyFree

^Extinct? I doubt it. We may wish for it though.... Society will disintegrate.
IMHO the tipping point has come and gone, the beast is already feeding upon itself.

The sky is falling, The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by FlyFree

^Extinct? I doubt it. We may wish for it though.... Society will disintegrate.
IMHO the tipping point has come and gone, the beast is already feeding upon itself.

The sky is falling, The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!

Well it's not, it's just changing is all.

But the climate flat-earthers are having none of it. As a result, what should be a pressing debate about how to head off global calamity has been reframed in the media as a discussion about whether industrial-driven climate change is in fact taking place at all – as if it were a matter of opinion rather than science.

The impact of this phoney controversy during an economic crisis has been dramatic: in the US, the proportion of the population accepting burning fossil fuels drives climate change dropped from 71% to 44% between 2007 and 2011. In Britain, the numbers who believe the climate isn't changing at all rose from 4% to 19% between 2005 and 2013 (though the floods seem to be correcting that).

................

What lies behind the political right's growing refusal to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus? There's certainly a strong tendency, especially in the US, for conservative white men to refuse to accept climate change is caused by human beings. But there shouldn't be any inherent reason why people who believe in social hierarchies, individualism and inequality should care less about the threat of floods, drought, starvation and mass migrations than anyone else. After all, rightwing people have children too.

Part of the answer is in the influence of some of the most powerful corporate interests in the world: the oil, gas and mining companies that have strained every nerve to head off the threat of effective action to halt the growth of carbon emissions, buying legislators, government ministers, scientists and thinktanks in the process. In the US, hundreds of millions of dollars of corporate and billionaires' cash (including from the oil and gas brothers Koch) has been used to rubbish climate change science. That is also happening on a smaller scale elsewhere, including Britain.

Climate change deniers have grasped that markets can't fix the climate | Seumas Milne | Comment is free | The Guardian

Good opinion piece on the reasons for sticking your head in the sand and choosing to believe that global warming is not accelerating due to anthropogenic emissions.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

choosing to believe that global warming is not accelerating due to anthropogenic emissio

It's not accelerating at all , it's been flat for over 17 years, remember your side admitted it recently saying the trade winds have sent the 'extra' heat that they could not account for before , to the bottom of the ocean ?

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by Umbuku

choosing to believe that global warming is not accelerating due to anthropogenic emissio

It's not accelerating at all , it's been flat for over 17 years, remember your side admitted it recently saying the trade winds have sent the 'extra' heat that they could not account for before , to the bottom of the ocean ?

OMG! The bottom of the ocean is heating up?

"The beast is already feeding upon itself."

Originally Posted by blue

It's not accelerating at all , it's been flat for over 17 years, remember your side admitted it recently saying the trade winds have sent the 'extra' heat that they could not account for before , to the bottom of the ocean ?

Do we have to show you that graph AGAIN?

Extra heat eh. If it hasn't been increasing why is there extra heat going into the oceans...

Ok I admit i'm confused
i'll run it past you one more time -
We said the earths temp has been flat for 17 years , measured around the globe at the usual weather stations .
You said wrong- it's been rising at the said points - with graphs provided as proof.

Forward to recently and now you're quietly admitting the temp never rose at those points and was indeed flat ?, BUT extra heat was created and trapped in the atmosphere by co2 , but didn't show up at the weather stations because of unusual extra strong trade winds around the equator, that somehow spirited the extra heat down to the ocean floor - cos heat falls under cold ? right ! - or something like that ...

you cannot have it both ways
was the ground surface temp flat or not ?

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Originally Posted by blue

was the ground surface temp flat or not ?

Yes.

Originally Posted by blue

We said the earths temp has been flat for 17 years , measured around the globe at the usual weather stations . You said wrong- it's been rising at the said points - with graphs provided as proof.

That's correct. The Earth being the whole planet including the oceans, atmosphere and land. Still increasing but slowed over the last 17 years due to the increased absorption by the oceans and a low ebb solar energy output.

Greenhouse effect from increased CO2 and other gases is retaining the heat that the Earth would otherwise be radiating into space. Without the two mitigating factors above we would be in a much worse position now.

Heat absorption by the oceans...

Back to the El Nino/ La Nina cycle.

Originally Posted by JetsetBkk

Heat absorption by the oceans...

That's good news.

Oceans absorb heat. What we need is more oceans. Melting polar icecaps should cover that.


Sorted.

Every other ipcc prediction they have made has been wrong ; every computer model way off
Why should we believe them this time ?
A few years ago they said that soon children would never see snow , but it turned out what they would not see is warming !
The earth temp has been flat for 17 years ...

nice article here about how the ipcc etc sold out.

Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age?

......“In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”

Will The Overselling Of Global Warming Lead To A New Scientific Dark Age? - Forbes

This blog is a little insulting to climate change deniers but it lists the five main motivators for their skepticism.

Climate buffoons’ real motives: 5 reasons they still spout debunked garbage - Salon.com

Theory 1: They don’t understand science
The most simplistic of climate deniers are those who looked out their windows this winter, saw that it was snowing, and reasoned that global warming therefore can’t be real. This speaks to a basic confusion of the difference between weather and climate. (If you’d like a much more thorough debunking of weather-based climate change denial, read this.)
It’s also a classic example of confirmation bias: Deniers get giddy when it snows because it appears to confirm their belief that Earth isn’t really getting warmer. To understand why that doesn’t make sense, one need only look at the average global temperatures. Yes, it was very cold in parts of the U.S., but zoom out and it becomes clear that last month, overall, was the fourth-warmest January in recorded history.
...............
Theory 2: Big industry is pulling their strings
...............
Climate denial on a larger scale — the misinformation campaigns led by conservative and libertarian think tanks — is also supported by hefty donations from invested industries. Back in September, before the U.N. released its landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, a top official warned that major corporations were prepared to fund skeptics to undermine the work of climate scientists. That prediction bore out: The Koch brothers-affiliated Heartland Institute released its own report – tellingly named the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change – that questioned the IPCC report’s validity. The report, like the Heartland Institute itself, failed on almost all measures of credibility, and was written by paid contributors.
.................
Theory 3: Deniers hate regulations, and they really hate the EPA
Accepting that climate change is a real, human-caused problem requiring drastic, human-driven solutions means embracing the role of government regulation in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. And whether it’s due to fears that regulations will drive up prices, or just impede on our freedoms, they know that the best way to challenge the EPA’s recent attempts to do so is to undermine the legitimacy of their reasoning.
...............
Theory 4: They’re unable to grasp the big picture
Just as they can take one cold day and say it contradicts the decades-long, global pattern of climate change, climate deniers are constantly prioritizing the here-and-now over the future. How else to explain why Newt Gingrich found it so hard to understand why John Kerry would call climate change “the greatest challenge of our generation”?
.................
Theory 5: They just don’t want to believe it
Climate change is a terrifying prospect, one that scientists warn will change, and potentially destroy, nearly everything about life as we know it. Is it any wonder that some people just refuse to accept the idea of that happening?
Putting forward a theory of his own, Chris Hayes posited that it’s just “sexier and more fun” to mock climate change than to admit how screwed we are.
Even worse, of course, is admitting that it’s our fault. That’s why deniers will continue to insist that observed climate changes are “natural” and “cyclical,” and why young Earth creationists Tony Perkins and Ken Ham attribute them to an act of God.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Originally Posted by blue

was the ground surface temp flat or not ?

Yes.

Originally Posted by blue

We said the earths temp has been flat for 17 years , measured around the globe at the usual weather stations . You said wrong- it's been rising at the said points - with graphs provided as proof.

That's correct. The Earth being the whole planet including the oceans, atmosphere and land. Still increasing but slowed over the last 17 years due to the increased absorption by the oceans and a low ebb solar energy output.

Greenhouse effect from increased CO2 and other gases is retaining the heat that the Earth would otherwise be radiating into space. Without the two mitigating factors above we would be in a much worse position now.

Why do you want there to be climate change? When evidence comes out that may reveal that it either doesn't exist or is not as severe as we initially thought that should be a good thing, right? According to the 'leading scientists' global climate change would be a disaster for the Earth's species. So why, when facts are revealed that may dispute the severity of the issue are you so hostile to them? That should be taken as good news.

Originally Posted by War Elephant

So why, when facts are revealed that may dispute the severity of the issue are you so hostile to them?

None have been presented on this thread so far.

Originally Posted by War Elephant

Why do you want there to be climate change?

I don't.
It's preferable to confront reality than live in a fantasy world.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Blind ignorance fueled by anti anthropegnic warming websites funded by vested interests only interested in preserving their hegemony and profit margins

So there isn't profit in global warming through scientific grants, green energy schemes, foreign aid, etc.? You should follow the money trail on your side too.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Originally Posted by War Elephant

So why, when facts are revealed that may dispute the severity of the issue are you so hostile to them?

None have been presented on this thread so far.

You previously agreed that the temperatures have been stable for 17 years. Is that not as severe as previously forecasted, even considering the swamp gasses bouncing off the Eagle Nebula and pushing the heat to the ocean floor?

We were told that temperatures would rise, oceans would rise, snow would end, etc. etc. That hasn't happened, and global warming has 'paused' for 17 years, as stated. How is that not as severe as previously thought? Why is that not good news? Why can't you just say, "Well, guys, it's not as bad as we thought, thank God. But that was quite a scare, and we learned some positive things from this."