Extremism in Climatology

[hurste1951]

Let's examine the magnitude of earths natural climate cycles and natural processes

Here is an assessment of the magnitude and direction of the various forcings that affect the climate.

The x-axis shows the units of radiative forcing in watts/sq. meter

The oceans on earth account for roughly 90% of earths atmospheric temperature. The oceans have massive thermal inertia, and require massive amounts of energy in order to change their temperature (from cooling down trend or from a warming up trend) - and it will take an extremely long time to thermally change by heat input from only 120 ppm additional CO2 in earth's atmosphere - that amount of heat input to change the ocean's direction and rate of heating would be an extremely slow event. Meanwhile the oceans would dominate the atmospheric temperature during that lengthy period.

This is a somewhat oversimplified version of what role the oceans play. Almost no one who actually studies oceanography would think of the ocean as a simple block of water like some sort of giant heat sink. The oceans are dynamic and have a lot of currents moving energy around.

According to NOAA:

Climate is largely a story of how heat is transported from the tropics to the pole. The task of transporting heat from the tropics to the pole is accomplished by circulations in the atmosphere and currents in the ocean .The motions in the atmosphere and the currents in the ocean are not independent of, but strongly coupled to each other as the atmosphere and ocean exchanges heat, water, momentum, and biochemical species. The processes that enable the state of the atmosphere and the state of the ocean to mutually influence each other are referred to as ocean-atmosphere coupling. Ocean-atmosphere coupling is a major cause of climate variability, such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Current research in this area is focused on the coupling between the atmosphere and ocean over the Pacific region. We are particularly interested in the following questions: why is there ENSO, what causes the level of ENSO activity to vary, how ENSO responds to global warming, and what is the role of ENSO in the stability and sensitivity of the climate system? (SOURCE)

The IPCC has an extensive discussion of what is known and still debated about the coupled ocean-atmosphere system. You can read it here: 1.4.6 Ocean and Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Dynamics - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Presenting that 120 ppm additional CO2 in the earths atmosphere as the most dominate first order factor controlling the earth and the oceans temperatures is misinformation and poor science.

Apparently not according to the scientists.

D). Downdwelling LWIR from GHG (like CO2) cannot penetrate the oceans surface more than 1 to 2 millimeters.

While the IR may not penetrate very deeply remember that the oceans are not homogenous blocks of water. They have CURRENTS and upwelling and downwelling.

Anyone who studies oceanography knows this. This is part and parcel of how energy within the oceans is transported.

 

[Heissonear]

Apparently needed to be stated again (and maybe again and again), to put "Extremism Climate Science" in its place, even their fancy (and of course hypothetical) graphs and all.

Well over 50% of the earths equator is ocean.

Most of the earths surface is oceans, polewards gyre, super cold polar regions, and lets not forget that just a few thousand feet above the earths surface the atmosphere is below -40°C temperature and the ocean floor seawater is near freezing point <34°F.

Small details that we are surrounded by frigid environments on earth.


Yea, 120 ppm (yes, parts per million) additional CO2 in the atmosphere is the elephant in the room, per Alarmism. Erroneous "natural science" that shows off-balance and over promotion in our day and age. In the Last Days, men will say ....... that are wrong conclusions, for sake of personal gain through delusion.

Meanwhile we are surrounded on earth by freezing and polar environments. The elephant Climate Extremists di not state nor put in perspective to their claims. I'm glad God had me study and become a natural scientist, to deal with Natural Extremism of our day.

B). You missed the elephant and its thermal dominance on earths temperature, and equated ~120 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere as enormous and accounting for two-thirds of earths global increase in temperature over the past decade. How can you be off in perspective and fundamental science that much?

The Pacific Ocean at the equator spans about 50% of earths surface! And there are north and south current gyre with physical transfer of warm equator waters polewards. That is a heap of thermal and mass transfer every moment.

Add to the polewards gyre process the duration of the gyre cycle times in decadal and multi-decadal periods and the compare such thermal transfer over time to the thermal transfer created overtime by ~120 ppm in the atmosphere - what we see is there is no comparable energy transfer between these two processes. You may have forgotten the amount of mass and the expanse that the ocean have.

 

[hurste1951]

Yea, 120 ppm (yes, parts per million) additional CO2 in the atmosphere is the elephant in the room, per Alarmism.

In the atmosphere there's less than 3% of which is greenhouse gas. Water is not a good "forcing" as much as it is "feedback" since it can easily adjust to changes in temperature and water content.

This <3% of the atmosphere is why we have a surface temperature higher than -15deg C.

Without any greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, even if it were still mostly oxygen, and nitrogren, we would have an ice cube of a planet.

This is how greenhouse gases work. You can easily calculate it for yourself. Without a greenhouse gas content in the earth's atmosphere which amounts to less than 3% of the atmosphere (and even then the important ones like CO2 are only a couple hundred ppm) the earth would radiate its heat back out at the black body temperature of the planet. Which is right at about -15degC.

I'm glad God had me study and become a natural scientist, to deal with Natural Extremism of our day.

Thankfully God called a lot MORE people to understand the science.

You scream this non-stop jeremiad against science you don't like and call others "extremists"?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

My reply to the above is:

A). Misinformation is presented - the "first order" perspective that 120 ppm additional atmospheric CO2 is the elephant in room is incorrect.

How do you determine what is misinformation and what is fact?

What motive do thousands of climate scientists uniformly have for misinforming the public via scientific articles that the vast majority of the public will never read?

The oceans on earth account for roughly 90% of earths atmospheric temperature. The oceans have massive thermal inertia, and require massive amounts of energy in order to change their temperature (from cooling down trend or from a warming up trend) - and it will take an extremely long time to thermally change by heat input from only 120 ppm additional CO2 in earth's atmosphere - that amount of heat input to change the ocean's direction and rate of heating would be an extremely slow event. Meanwhile the oceans would dominate the atmospheric temperature during that lengthy period.

Presenting that 120 ppm additional CO2 in the earths atmosphere as the most dominate first order factor controlling the earth and the oceans temperatures is misinformation and poor science.

Unless you start providing citations on your posts, this will be the last time I respond to your replies. As I said, I lose my patience with those who do not back up their claims. In this thread, I have provided multiple sources, websites and journal articles to support my claims; you have provided none.

B). You missed the elephant and its thermal dominance on earths temperature, and equated ~120 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere as enormous and accounting for two-thirds of earths global increase in temperature over the past decade. How can you be off in perspective and fundamental science that much?

I base my conclusions off the scientific literature because if not that, then what? Fairies and trolls? As I cited earlier, Lean et al (1995) did a comprehensive study and made their conclusions.

I'm not just basing this off random opinions and political blogs. This is based off calculations, physics, math, observations, computer models. Science.

The Pacific Ocean at the equator spans about 50% of earths surface! And there are north and south current gyre with physical transfer of warm equator waters polewards. That is a heap of thermal and mass transfer every moment.

Care to do give some citations or crunch the numbers? Stop hiding behind vague qualitative statements.

People have done the calculations and have crunched the numbers and they have come to conclusion that CO2 is an important driver. And they came to this conclusion 40 years ago and study after study after study confirms it.

Add to the polewards gyre process the duration of the gyre cycle times in decadal and multi-decadal periods and the compare such thermal transfer over time to the thermal transfer created overtime by ~120 ppm in the atmosphere - what we see is there is no comparable energy transfer between these two processes. You may have forgotten the amount of mass and the expanse that the ocean have.

"I" would not be the one that forgot it. It would be thousand of scientists who forgot about it. Maybe if you crunch the numbers and truly have a case, you could write to Leah et al and tell them where they made their error.

In short 120 ppm additional CO2 in earths atmosphere is nothing close to an elephant in the room. Unless you have an Extremist view of what CO2 in the atmosphere WILL DO, WHICH IS THE EXTREME INCREASE in earths temperature hypothesis.

So, if it isn't the CO2, then remind me again, what is it that is causing the observed heating since the 1850s?

Is it solar irradiance? Give me something concrete.

Again, natural factors and process account for what is called the Modern Warming Period since the Little Ice Age. Extremism of what 120 ppm CO2 WILL DO is un-needed and is the promotion of out-of-focus climate science and incomplete presentation of the natural processes and events that controls and changes earths atmospheric temperatures over time.

.

(Emphasis mine)

Be more specific on the bolded bit. What natural factors and processes?

 

[Heissonear]

How do you determine what is misinformation and what is fact?

What motive do thousands of climate scientists uniformly have for misinforming the public via scientific articles that the vast majority of the public will never read?



Unless you start providing citations on your posts, this will be the last time I respond to your replies. As I said, I lose my patience with those who do not back up their claims. In this thread, I have provided multiple sources, websites and journal articles to support my claims; you have provided none.



I base my conclusions off the scientific literature because if not that, then what? Fairies and trolls? As I cited earlier, Lean et al (1995) did a comprehensive study and made their conclusions.

I'm not just basing this off random opinions and political blogs. This is based off calculations, physics, math, observations, computer models. Science.



Care to do give some citations or crunch the numbers? Stop hiding behind vague qualitative statements.

People have done the calculations and have crunched the numbers and they have come to conclusion that CO2 is an important driver. And they came to this conclusion 40 years ago and study after study after study confirms it.



"I" would not be the one that forgot it. It would be thousand of scientists who forgot about it. Maybe if you crunch the numbers and truly have a case, you could write to Leah et al and tell them where they made their error.



So, if it isn't the CO2, then remind me again, what is it that is causing the observed heating since the 1850s?

Is it solar irradiance? Give me something concrete.

(Emphasis mine)

Be more specific on the bolded bit. What natural factors and processes?

It is clear on the issue of climate science you follow and put your trust in what men say.

Read 1John 2:20, 27

As a fellow brother in Christ I encourage you to not follow men, but as you spiritually mature let His anointing show you good from evil, right from wrong, truth from error.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

It is clear on the issue of climate science you follow and put your trust in what men say.

Read 1John 2:20, 27

As a fellow brother in Christ I encourage you to not follow men, but as you spiritually mature let His anointing show you good from evil, right from wrong, truth from error.

This has nothing to do with God. Based on your reply, I assume you have nothing more to say because you are wrong. You are wrong. You are wrong.


Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Heissonear]

As time progresses we are real-time observing the "Extremism" and "shady science" behind the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming movement in history.

Climategate was a mere wakeup call to what will be furthers exposed in history about "credibility in academia" and from "politicized scientific organizations", even government based scientific agencies.


The Scare was through Extremism. The below is appropriate at this point in time.

As I said a while back (The limits of Climate Hysteria) we&#8217;ve now reached the stage in these &#8220;climate wars&#8221; whereby the climate itself is the main combatant forcing the ranks of the delusional public academia, to be dragged kicking and screaming to the reality of our ever varying climate, as the climate itself now imposes discipline where the idiots in the so called &#8220;institutions&#8221; of so-called &#8220;science&#8221; failed.

In other words, when we only had a few years of data and a lot of climate variables, it was far far too easy to &#8220;investigate&#8221; the most worrying trends and then to further cherry pick the data. Then to write up this cherry picked data and publish in buddy review journals, put on Wikipedia as &#8220;settled science&#8221; and try to convince the world your religion has a credible basis. But, the more data that is acquired and the more people look into every nook and cranny and not just the short-term worrisome trends, the more the real picture of a continuously varying climate emerges and so the less important any one short-term change appears. The more people who gather data, the less any individual can cherry-pick the data to e.g. claim &#8220;snow is disappearing&#8221; in a warm winter or &#8220;floods are increasing&#8221; in a floody year or &#8220;droughts are increasing&#8221; in a dry year.

The Climate wars &#8211; toward a washup review. | Scottish Sceptic

 

[Heissonear]

A mere -44°F in north central Siberia today and predicted -50°F over the weekend. Lovely weather for earthlings. Sounds like CO2 is kicking in against "natural earth cooling factors".

Put these natural cooling factors on earth into your hypothetical numerical climate models and calculate earths global temperatures coming in the next six decades.

Climate scientists think they can promote future Catastrophies before the masses. Fortunately the masses are learning their pseudo-science and over hyped predictions of doom and gloom, give us money.

That is the production and product of Extremism in Climatology.

.