Re: OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago

On Mar 3, 8:59 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:07 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:10:18 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 3, 10:16 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"

SNIP





No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.

Regarding cooling since 2000:

/quote

“This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950,” Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. “Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn’t have one.”

/end quote- Hide quoted text -

This  is an incomplete quotation. For the full text, look at

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/02/cooler-heads-at-noaa-coming-aro....

where Swanson is quoted as going on to say

"Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he
warned that it’s just a hiccup, and that humans’ penchant for spewing
greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.

“When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive
warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative
forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and
be very aggressive.”

which isn't quite the message that your deceitful text-chopping is
intended to convey.

I chopped the wild fantasy.

What you think is wild fantasy, because you don't understand enough to
follow the elementary loic involved.

I understand the AGW argument, it just isn't settled or science.

You claim - unconvincingly - to understand the the AGW argument. If
you actually understood it you would appreciate that the the
scientific argument is over, and we are just filling in the detail.

If these guys are saying they don't know the mechanism for the current
cooling then they don't know enough to predict 30 years or even 10
years ahead.

Actually, they do know the mechanism - ocean currents are moving heat
around, along with the atmospheric circulation.Unfortunately they
don't know enough about the ocean currents to be able to make short
term climate predictions. People are busy sinking strings of flow and
temperature sensors in the oceans in order to get a more detailed idea
of what is going on, but there aren't yet enough of them in place to
give all that much information.

That's a crap argument I've seen many times. Moving the heat around
doesn't affect global temperature. X joules of heat on the planet is X
joules whether it's in the ocean or the atmosphere.

Heat loss by radiation is proportional to the fourth power of
temperature. If there is a larger temperature difference between the
equator and the poles, the earth will radiate more heat than it would
if the difference were smaller.

The top 6 metres of the oceans store as much energy as the whole
atmosphere. The oceans account for 90+% of energy storage. Anyone who
claims AGW without having measured the oceans properly is an idiot.

You may like to think so.

Predicting the broad long term effect of more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere is easier - the surface of the earth is going to get warmer
- than precisely predicting which bits are going to get warmer and
when.

Easier and almost irrelevent.  If ocean currents can more than
compensate for CO2 for the next 30 years, according to Swanson, then
CO2 forcing isn't much to write home about.

Swanson's claim was that it might compensate for up to thirty years,
which isn't quite the same thing.
Despite the fact that the oceans can - and do - store a lot of heat,
CO2 forcing does happen to be important.
In the long term, the heat the earth absorbs from the sun has to
balance the heat it radiates, and various greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere determine the surface temperature, despite the thermal
inertia of the oceans and the body of the planet.

Me, I blame the sun as usual.  Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

The AGW climate predictions up until the last couple of years were for
continuous warming. Can't say their predictions have been accurate or
useful.

You are mistaken. The climate modellers involved in predicting the
effects of anthropogenic global warming don't claim to make short-term
weather predictions, and the claim they do make - a warming of 1.1 to
6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the twenty-first century - isn't
particularly precise.

Whiat is important is the rather more reliable prediction that if we
do keep on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere we will eventually raise
global temperatures by 4°C and make something of a mess of our world.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126971.700-how-to-survive-the-coming-century.html

I'm aware that you don't want to believe this, but your scepticism is
not well-founded.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is Nob Really Dr. Joseph Goebbels?
    ... > suppose for a moment the earth was a solid object, without atmosphere, ... > the radiated heat by about 10 %, so obviously any imbalance will settle ... > according to surface temperature.. ... > rotation and oceans creates the weather patterns. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: Is Nob Really Dr. Joseph Goebbels?
    ... You don't seem to get what i told you about the net influx of heat, ... suppose for a moment the earth was a solid object, without atmosphere, ... according to surface temperature.. ... rotation and oceans creates the weather patterns. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: realistic aliens and the necessities of storytelling
    ... particularly when winds press water into bays get *much* higher rises ... And the conclusion is that, on the IPCC figures, the average salinity ... "But in point of fact a rise like that - IN TERMS OF OCEANS - would ... predictions call for a tiny bit of it happening in a century. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: OT: Global cooling 34 million years ago
    ... cooling then they don't know enough to predict 30 years or even 10 ... joules whether it's in the ocean or the atmosphere. ... The top 6 metres of the oceans store as much energy as the whole ... produce useful predictions. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: John Harshman and Ozone
    ... condensation of your oceans that floated overhead up until 3800 ... formation decayed rapidly, giving off extraordinary heat. ... soil were dissolved and washed into low-lying areas. ... oceans are salt water. ...
    (talk.origins)