Is it Game Over on the climate front?

[Genava]

Your initial claim that ocean warming is caused exclusively by man made CO2 emissions won't hold water.

Except the whole process is observed and quantified:

Like volcanoes, geothermal vents are not constantly spewing heat into the ocean bottom

The thing is: the deep ocean has a very big heat capacity, any changes in geothermal vents would took millenia to significantly raises the temperature. You have simply no idea about the order of magnitude necessary to achieve this. To have this done in a short amount of time, it should happens with a so strong geothermal activity that it would massively changes the chemical composition of the deep sea and changes the ocean circulation (because geothermal vents doesn't share only heat).

In contrast, the greenhouse effect is causing far bigger fluxes in energy, as satellite data shows:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...0.1.1.210.2513

Remember that the greenhouse effect is simply a way to limit the loss of energy by the Earth's surface from thermal radiation.

[Daruwind]

Uh, you're the one missing the point. You said in an earlier post that ocean warming starts at the surface and goes down.

Not I, the study. You haven´t even opened it right?

The new results indicate a total full-depthocean warming of 370 ± 81 ZJ (equal to a net heating of 0.38 ± 0.08 W m−2 over the global surface) from 1960 to 2019,with contributions of 41.0%, 21.5%, 28.6% and 8.9% from the 0–300-m, 300–700-m, 700–2000-m, and below-2000-m lay-ers, respectively.

This is what study sees.
And I stated in very #828 if you can show us any study,data that says otherwise. Not theories. Data. Clearly water is warming from up down, not otherwise and clearly globally.

This clearly isn't the only means of ocean warming.

Nobody saing it is only mean. But can you prove other means are dominant/significant? Any Data? Study to back it up?

If you slow down the animation you will see the warming band starting in the western pacific and working it's way round the globe.

So there is one single stream from El Nino around whole Earth? Care to explain how it works with real circulation? There is more streams than just one with one heating point...

It stands to reason then, that the warming effect of ocean to air is carried right over to the gulf and back into the ocean, as you claimed it should be doing.

So the ocean warming is causing air warming that is easily spread around Earth and back to colder oceans/seas? Huh?
...So dominant ocean warming is due to Earth itself and Sun/greenhouse gases are minor part? Why is then again warmer water by surface? If Earth is heating up things, deeper water must be warmer!

[quote]Like volcanoes, geothermal vents are not constantly spewing heat into the ocean bottom, but doing it intermittently at varying intensity. [quote]
This would still leave deeper oceans to be warmer right? Which again is not what we see...

Your initial claim that ocean warming is caused exclusively by man made CO2 emissions won't hold water.

Geneva said it better Checkmate!

[swabian]

Well, let's scrap all this nonsense. How can the problem be solved @ Geneva & Daruwind? Should we already start pumping more SO2 into the atmosphere?

[B. W.]

Except the whole process is observed and quantified:





The thing is: the deep ocean has a very big heat capacity, any changes in geothermal vents would took millenia to significantly raises the temperature. You have simply no idea about the order of magnitude necessary to achieve this. To have this done in a short amount of time, it should happens with a so strong geothermal activity that it would massively changes the chemical composition of the deep sea and changes the ocean circulation (because geothermal vents doesn't share only heat).

In contrast, the greenhouse effect is causing far bigger fluxes in energy, as satellite data shows:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...0.1.1.210.2513

Remember that the greenhouse effect is simply a way to limit the loss of energy by the Earth's surface from thermal radiation.

The report I linked is the most recent research and it undermines much of what you claiming from those old charts. I guess you only like data that has been manipulated. What a scientist!

[QUOTE=Daruwind;15867114]Not I, the study. You haven´t even opened it right?

This is what study sees.
And I stated in very #828 if you can show us any study,data that says otherwise. Not theories. Data. Clearly water is warming from up down, not otherwise and clearly globally.

Nobody saing it is only mean. But can you prove other means are dominant/significant? Any Data? Study to back it up?

So there is one single stream from El Nino around whole Earth? Care to explain how it works with real circulation? There is more streams than just one with one heating point...



So the ocean warming is causing air warming that is easily spread around Earth and back to colder oceans/seas? Huh?
...So dominant ocean warming is due to Earth itself and Sun/greenhouse gases are minor part? Why is then again warmer water by surface? If Earth is heating up things, deeper water must be warmer!

[quote]Like volcanoes, geothermal vents are not constantly spewing heat into the ocean bottom, but doing it intermittently at varying intensity.

This would still leave deeper oceans to be warmer right? Which again is not what we see...


Geneva said it better Checkmate!

Nope. I didn't say the Nino current goes all the way around the Earth. Quit making stuff up. Here is from the report you can't bring yourself to read:

The “eruptive” nature of El Niño ocean warming is interpreted as direct evidence that geological, and not atmospheric forces, generate El Niños. That’s because El Niño ocean warming does not occur in a uniform fashion, instead, it occurs in very distinct bursts/pulses that can best be characterized as “eruptions.” These intense heat pulses all originate at the same limited fixed non-moving geographical point in the far-western Pacific Ocean, occur at irregular intervals, and are powerful enough to maintain their shape as they are progressively moved by normal ocean currents eastward toward Central America. Fixed non-moving heat pulses are associated with fixed geological source points. Two good examples are eruptions from land volcanoes and hydrothermal seafloor vents.

[Daruwind]

The “eruptive” nature of El Niño ocean warming is interpreted as direct evidence that geological, and not atmospheric forces, generate El Niños. That’s because El Niño ocean warming does not occur in a uniform fashion, instead, it occurs in very distinct bursts/pulses that can best be characterized as “eruptions.” These intense heat pulses all originate at the same limited fixed non-moving geographical point in the far-western Pacific Ocean, occur at irregular intervals, and are powerful enough to maintain their shape as they are progressively moved by normal ocean currents eastward toward Central America. Fixed non-moving heat pulses are associated with fixed geological source points. Two good examples are eruptions from land volcanoes and hydrothermal seafloor vents.

Let´s see.... pulses, bursts,not uniform fashion..check.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But this is totally failing to adress linearity,uniformity of lower picture a) OHC ....which is point you are still ommiting. Care to explain?

[Genava]

Global warming theorists claimed that the unusually hot El Ninos of 2014-2017 were caused by increased levels of CO2. As it turns out, CO2 had nothing to do with it. They were caused by deep sea geological sources:

http://www.plateclimatology.com/furt...cal-heat-flow/

I don't see any convincing evidences. There is no estimation for heating or geothermal activity. Merely an argumentation that roughly a few geothermal vents matches surface temperature, but this is absolutely a cherry-picking with a very rough personal opinion that it's look like correlated. There is no statistics to back up their claim.

Moreover, I don't think they understand the process occurring during El Nino:
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/Z...enso/enso2.htm
https://earthhow.com/el-nino-la-nina/
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/...nino-skit.html
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...r/eln/upw.rxml



Edit: and it doesn't address my concerns about chemical composition. Geothermal effect should be traceable on the water chemistry. It is not the case.

[Ferdiad]

To all the denies, do you claim to have access to more info than NASA, more resources and be smarter than them? augmentation at this stage is more how to mitigate rather than does this easily provable fact actually exist.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/s...ections-right/

[Genava]

You don't have to talk about the climate science if you use the conspiracy card. Evidences, expertise and scientific theories do not hold against this argument. This is why it is called deny and not skepticism.

[B. W.]

Let´s see.... pulses, bursts,not uniform fashion..check.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

But this is totally failing to adress linearity,uniformity of lower picture a) OHC ....which is point you are still ommiting. Care to explain?

I see. You're having trouble making sense of charts that were compiled using data of questionable provenance.

I don't see any convincing evidences. There is no estimation for heating or geothermal activity. Merely an argumentation that roughly a few geothermal vents matches surface temperature, but this is absolutely a cherry-picking with a very rough personal opinion that it's look like correlated. There is no statistics to back up their claim.

Moreover, I don't think they understand the process occurring during El Nino:
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/Z...enso/enso2.htm
https://earthhow.com/el-nino-la-nina/
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/files/...nino-skit.html
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/gu...r/eln/upw.rxml



Edit: and it doesn't address my concerns about chemical composition. Geothermal effect should be traceable on the water chemistry. It is not the case.

How do you know it is not the case? Your simple cartoon is an old theory that has been around a long time, but there is a problem about the amount of heat that could accumulate by water stacking up in the western pacific.

This new theory, although I don't think it is the answer to everything, addresses a lot of the short falls of previous theories including ANG. Heat runs hot to cold so it is difficult to imagine that the cartoon illustration you presented would allow for enough heat buildup to generate an El Nino since the heat in the water is constantly dissipating.

The new theory suggests that the 700 degree F heating of the water at the vents would be sufficient to create the necessary volume of heated water required for an El Nino. Also, the vast amounts of CO2 released by this would account for a great deal of the increase in CO2.

There is also the recent discovery of very large freshwater lakes underneath the Greenland ice sheet. These ally could only be possible if a heat source were available from underneath the ice sheet. Co-incidentally, it turns out that both Greenland and Iceland are geo-thermally active, thus the necessary heat source required for the under ice lakes and melt water.

You don't have to talk about the climate science if you use the conspiracy card. Evidences, expertise and scientific theories do not hold against this argument. This is why it is called deny and not skepticism.

You've never answered the question. Do you think Dr. Happer manipulated his data?

[Genava]

So you challenges not only how the scientific community understand the current warming but also how works El Nino? That's starting to look like really crazy.

El Nino is a topic purely studied by oceanographers, meteorologists etc. for decades. Nothing related to climate change originally. So you will end up by saying this is manipulated data like a little snowflake if we show you the huge numbers of studies exploring how it works?

Also, the vast amounts of CO2 released by this would account for a great deal of the increase in CO2.

No. The origins of the current increase in CO2 is backed by isotopic data.

[B. W.]

So you challenges not only how the scientific community understand the current warming but also how works El Nino? That's starting to look like really crazy.

El Nino is a topic purely studied by oceanographers, meteorologists etc. for decades. Nothing related to climate change originally. So you will end up by saying this is manipulated data like a little snowflake if we show you the huge numbers of studies exploring how it works?



No. The origins of the current increase in CO2 is backed by isotopic data.

1. The report I quoted was written by a geologist with a masters degree. You make it sound like its my idea.

2. Don't call me a snowflake.

3. Why can't you answer the question concerning Dr. Happer?

[Genava]

1. The report I quoted was written by a geologist with a masters degree. You make it sound like its my idea.

But you choose to believe this crazy theory. In your view, THIS is convincing.

2. Don't call me a snowflake.

I don't see a difference between your attitude and that of a SJW millennial defending transgenders should compete as female in competition. Both of you are denying the reality and are putting political ideologies above facts and science. Your inability to deal with contradiction without bringing the conspiracy card make you looking very much like a snowflake.

3. Why can't you answer the question concerning Dr. Happer?

Because there is nothing interesting to say about Happer. He doesn't have produced data on the topic, he cherry-pick what suits his view and ignores the contradictions.
This guy is the zenith of bad faith. Even bringing Godwin arguments is normal for him.

By the way you ignored so many times our comments on isotopic measurements, Milankovitch cycles and early scientific research on the topic of CO2, never taking in account a tiny bit of our arguments and without trying to argue or to defend your position with your own arguments.

[B. W.]

But you choose to believe this crazy theory. In your view, THIS is convincing.



I don't see a difference between your attitude and that of a SJW millennial defending transgenders should compete as female in competition. Both of you are denying the reality and are putting political ideologies above facts and science. Your inability to deal with contradiction without bringing the conspiracy card make you looking very much like a snowflake.



Because there is nothing interesting to say about Happer. He doesn't have produced data on the topic, he cherry-pick what suits his view and ignores the contradictions.
This guy is the zenith of bad faith. Even bringing Godwin arguments is normal for him.

By the way you ignored so many times our comments on isotopic measurements, Milankovitch cycles and early scientific research on the topic of CO2, never taking in account a tiny bit of our arguments and without trying to argue or to defend your position with your own arguments.

1. The theory is plausible. Yours is not.

2. Scientists coordinating and manipulating their data to produce the desired result is exactly what a conspiracy is.

3. Cherry picking your data is exactly what you've done. Don't project your shortcomings on a man of integrity. You still haven't answered the question.

4. I'm familiar with earth wobble, precession, and the great year. They have nothing to do with your notion of man caused global warming.

[Genava]

Btw, it doesn't bother you that William Happer is a member of two globalists institutes funded by the Koch brothers?
https://www.cato.org/people/william-happer
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/w...william-happer

It seems to have been a strong argument for you in the past:

OMG! A professor from Berkeley conducts a study funded by the globalist Koch brothers and concludes that the IPCC report is spot on. What a surprise!

[B. W.]

Btw, it doesn't bother you that William Happer is a member of two globalists institutes funded by the Koch brothers?
https://www.cato.org/people/william-happer
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/w...william-happer

It seems to have been a strong argument for you in the past:

Seriously? You're equating a tax write off in the same context as being a principal funder of a study.

The Koch bros. have made considerable contributions to the CATO institute and they actually tried to influence its trajectory, but failed. They even sued the CATO Institute in order to gain control of its goals and failed there also.

Can't you do better than this?

Why can't you give an honest answer to the question?

[Genava]

The Koch bros. have made considerable contributions to the CATO institute and they actually tried to influence its trajectory, but failed. They even sued the CATO Institute in order to gain control of its goals and failed there also.

Can't you do better than this?

Hell yes, the Cato Institute doesn't need the Koch brothers to be globalist!
https://www.cato.org/research/immigration
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...e-open-borders

Edit: By the way, the international conference of the climate deniers is organized by the Heartland Institute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...Climate_Change

The Heartland institute is organizing very often denying conferences and talks. Most of your favorite deniers are participating. Recently Happer: https://www.heartland.org/multimedia...op25-in-madrid

[B. W.]

Hell yes, the Cato Institute doesn't need the Koch brothers to be globalist!
https://www.cato.org/research/immigration
https://www.cato.org/publications/co...e-open-borders

Edit: By the way, the international conference of the climate deniers is organized by the Heartland Institute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...Climate_Change

The Heartland institute is organizing very often denying conferences and talks. Most of your favorite deniers are participating. Recently Happer: https://www.heartland.org/multimedia...op25-in-madrid

Sticking with the thread's issue (AGW), here's the Cato Institute's position on man made global warming since that would be the area Happer would make a contribution:

https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-p...arming-climate

[Cope]

Doom prophets destroyed.

[B. W.]

World's first climate change prediction has been found:

https://www.foxnews.com/science/viki...ediction-stone


The earth is warming:

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...ullyhosted_003

[Genava]

World's first climate change prediction has been found:

https://www.foxnews.com/science/viki...ediction-stone

If you are interested on the topic, the article is available here:
http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/...FULLTEXT01.pdf

Indeed there are historical accounts about really bad weather events during the years 535–536 occurring in Northern Europe. Ice core sulfate records matches these events and strongly suggest volcanic activity being the main cause. So the fear was real if this viking had some accounts of these times from his family. The article proposes the solar eruption of 774-775 to be the cause of his worrying. If this hasn't caused climatic changes, it probably caused strange sky event like turning it red (like it happened in 1770).

The earth is warming:

And:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....1002/grl.50425