Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Wrong.

No one in this discussion has made those first two claims.

I know that I have attributed my weather to El Nino.

BTW - record high today - 28 C. El Nino work at work.

Jack,

I spent the past 12 days on a cruise ship heading from Long Beach, CA down to the tip of Baha.

It was much colder than normal. Temps during the trip up and down in the low 60's F and windy. Long sleeves, long pants and hoodie weather

Oops.... they guessed wrong again.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

I spent the past 12 days on a cruise ship heading from Long Beach, CA down to the tip of Baha.

It was much colder than normal. Temps during the trip up and down in the low 60's F and windy. Long sleeves, long pants and hoodie weather

Oops.... they guessed wrong again.

Weather.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

Care to share or perhaps elaborate? Does the skepticalscience.com crowd discuss UNeven ocean warming when they liken its warming to multiple Hiroshima bombs?

Skeptical Science did not say that the oceans were being uniformly heated from top to bottom. That was the incorrect inference that fryewe made. If he knows as much about ocean heat distribution as he claims he does, than it was disingenuous for him to present a calculation to his sycophants suggesting uniform heating.

Following is a portion of an article from Skeptical Science explaining how they arrived at the Earth heating with an energy equivalent of "4 Hiroshima bombs per second." Note that the upper levels of ocean are, not surprisingly, warming faster than the lower levels.

How 4 Hiroshimas Per Second was calculated

In 2012, several Skeptical Science contributors teamed up with John Church to publish a paper (Nuccitelli et al. 2012) in response to a flawed publication by Douglass & Knox (2012). In our paper, we analyzed global heat data, created by combining pentadal (5-year average) ocean heat content data to a depth of 2,000 meters from Levitus et al. (2012), and land, atmosphere, and ice heating data from Church et al. (2011).



As this figure shows, there has been no significant slowing in global heat accumulation, contrary to the mythical 'global warming pause'. So, how do we come up with 4 Hiroshima atomic bomb detonation equivalents per second from this data?

The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat. Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 1021 Joules per year, or 2.5 x 1014 Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'. That has to be the worst pause ever.

The data used in Nuccitelli et al. (2012) are now available for download so you can check it out for yourself.

If using the metaphor of Hiroshima bombs offends you, here is another site that lets you choose between atomic bombs, dynamite, lightning bolts, hurricanes, or earthquakes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

How about all the recent record high temps we keep hearing about, with no mention of El Nino? Or have the temps already been adjusted for that?

My local TV meteorologists (yes, they have degrees and designations) refer to El Nino.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

How about all the recent record high temps we keep hearing about, with no mention of El Nino? Or have the temps already been adjusted for that?

Oh look - El Nino mentioned. Of course it is not Faux News.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...es-1-5-c-mark/

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Weather.

Here we go again...

When it's cold where I am when it should be warm = weather

When it's warm where you are when it should be cold = Climate change

I'm beginning to see a pattern.


BTW: I also have a couple of University degrees..... just like your meteorologist friends on TV.

[newhaul]

OK now I am really sceptical of gw
Here is an excerpt from the link jack just posted
The planet overall is around 3 °C cooler during the northern hemisphere winter than during its summer. So even though February was 1.35 °C warmer than the 1951 to 1980 average for February according to the NASA GISS record, the planet was still cooler overall in February than it was during the previous July

[SV THIRD DAY]

Speaking of El Nino....why did all the Climate models BLOW IT this year?
Remember it was going to be a record El Nino year and yet it fizzles away like the dreams and hope of the Climate Science Hoaxers.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK now I am really sceptical of gw
Here is an excerpt from the link jack just posted
The planet overall is around 3 °C cooler during the northern hemisphere winter than during its summer. So even though February was 1.35 °C warmer than the 1951 to 1980 average for February according to the NASA GISS record, the planet was still cooler overall in February than it was during the previous July

It's pretty clear why you didn't become a scientist when you grew up.

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by jackdale

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Fascinating link.

Plots in the link assume uniform temperature anomalies for three depths ranges...0-100m, 0-700m, and 0-2000m. Imagine that.

One plot shows the anomaly for 0-100m is twice the anomaly for 0-700m, and four times the anomaly for 0-2000m.

The water volume ratio between the shallowest water column and the deepest is 20, so the anomaly ratios would indicate that four times as much energy is being absorbed by the oceans at depths between 100m and 2000m as between 0-100m. The ratios also indicate about 150 percent as much energy is absorbed by the ocean between depths 700m-2000m as between 0-700m (the water volume in the deeper region being almost three times larger).

Jack, can you explain to me the physical processes that cause so much energy to be absorbed by the deep ocean? Not a link...an explanation...in your own words.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Cut and Paste internet activism doesn't work that way...
The point is to build up a nice cut/paste library to dazzle and impress, but not to actually have a discussion of the issues. It's the ultimate feel goodism of the age. Remember the Red Ribbon on your lapel that made you feel good but did nothing? It's the same thing...except online for a broader audience to see and heap accolades.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

OK now I am really sceptical of gw
Here is an excerpt from the link jack just posted
The planet overall is around 3 °C cooler during the northern hemisphere winter than during its summer. So even though February was 1.35 °C warmer than the 1951 to 1980 average for February according to the NASA GISS record, the planet was still cooler overall in February than it was during the previous July

What is so hard about winter being cooler than summer?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

It's pretty clear why you didn't become a scientist when you grew up.

Actually I became an engineer ( the type that solves problems ). Once t scientists actually show me what t problem is . Gw is still in the therom stage

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by fryewe

Fascinating link.

Plots in the link assume uniform temperature anomalies for three depths ranges...0-100m, 0-700m, and 0-2000m. Imagine that.

One plot shows the anomaly for 0-100m is twice the anomaly for 0-700m, and four times the anomaly for 0-2000m.

The water volume ratio between the shallowest water column and the deepest is 20, so the anomaly ratios would indicate that four times as much energy is being absorbed by the oceans at depths between 100m and 2000m as between 0-100m. The ratios also indicate about 150 percent as much energy is absorbed by the ocean between depths 700m-2000m as between 0-700m (the water volume in the deeper region being almost three times larger).

Jack, can you explain to me the physical processes that cause so much energy to be absorbed by the deep ocean? Not a link...an explanation...in your own words.

I am not a climate scientist, nor do I play one on TV.

I rely on the scientists for the explanation.

I do have a sense of ocean currents. That is probably a very large factor.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Actually I became an engineer ( the type that solves problems ). Once t scientists actually show me what t problem is . Gw is still in the therom stage

Gravity is still in the theory stage too. But I will bet, as an engineer, you account for it.