Slashdot Mirror
Past Measurements May Have Missed Massive Ocean Warming
An anonymous reader writes "Previous estimates of global ocean warming have been significantly underestimated due to historically sparse temperature data from the Southern Ocean, new research has found. From the article: "Earth's oceans have absorbed more than 90% of the warming caused by greenhouse gases, researchers estimate, with the stored heat showing up as warmer seawater. But a new analysis suggests scientists may have underestimated the size of the heat sink in the upper ocean—which could have implications for researchers trying to understand the pace and scale of past warming."
So given that conventional atmosphere models have ignored this to date, if the oceans are storing 90% of the excess heat, why aren't the conventional models showing temperature rises 10 times as great as what is observed, say 5-10 deg C?
Either the summary or the article are slack in the extreme.
The ice caps which are melting are taking some of the heat. Evaporating water will cool it down too. The currents moving the water to cooler areas will go to warm up the cold areas. That it is called global climate change. Not global weather change the whole system is changing from the imbalance.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Evaporation increases exponentially with temperature, so even with a lot of extra heat going into the oceans, the change in surface temperature will not be that large. Since water vapor is lighter than air, the extra evaporation will also increase air circulation above the sea, cooling it even further.
So, don't expect to notice any difference in tempearture when you go swiming. The only change that you might notice is melting polar caps, and a massive increase in tropical hurricanes.
You outed yourself with your last sentence. The only place global cooling was discussed was in the media, not in the scientific literature. It also wasn't the 1980s or 1990s, but the 1970s, which also means you either have a terrible memory, or are regurgitating something you heard someone else say. So, to sum up, you just demonstrated that you:
1. Get your scientific information from the mass media
2. Have a terrible memory of this topic, or simply regurgitate what others say without checking.
Just one of those is enough to make people not listen to you, but you got both. Brilliant.
im so sick of the lying
So why are you doing it? We just covered how wrong you are.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Ah yes.
"The Little Ice Age" myth.
Here you go, since you dont seen to know what youre talking about:
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Myth: The models arent accurate
Fact: The models are accurate.
"Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean."
"While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations."
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
And here goes the lying liar linking to another lying liar, again.
The only reason they're inexplicable, is because he's not a scientist.
The blog post refers only to land based sensors in the US, and the difference it causes is less than 0.02%, and it onyl affects a single data set for the US.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
"Denialists jumped on the bandwagon in regards to this shift making many grandiose claims that it invalidates all of the data that proves this has been the hottest decade in recorded history. This is not the case; it only makes a tiny difference that does not change the decade averages or the global averages."
So.. once again: nothing you have stated is valid.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Uh...no. You do know that's not how it works right?
Apparently not, or you wouldnt have said somehting so stupid.
So let me educate you: THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
What, you think scientists are out of work and have to go learn a new trade if they can't find anything to research, so they make stuff up?
JFC...how dumb are you?
http://arstechnica.com/science...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is "less than half" of the modeled warming.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot....
A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot....
I'm pretty sure it's pause explanation #1. The global temp hit a little pause. We wondered where all the extra heat was going. It turns out it was going into the oceans. Done in one.... This isn't new. We've known this for a while... This is simply that more of that has been occuring than we previously thought. Keep your snark.
I go hiking a lot. I check the weather forecast. it's usually right. I wouldn't trust it 10 days out, except as a vague guidline, but I'd trust it three days out. I do, regularly. I live in Oregon. It's important to have your raincoat here....
So no, weather models are NOT a joke. They're incredibly accurate for just about every use case I've ever used them for. The absolute joke must be you...
Actually I don't see any problem in the OPs statistics as stated. If you combine the 1951-1975 entries and the 1976-2000 entries you get a 50 year period, just like the two periods before. And its total number of cat 4 hurricanes is 46, well over the totals for the 50 year periods before, which perfectly fits his narrative. It isn't uncommon to reduce the intervals in statistical aggregations when things start changing more rapidly. In this case the OP did it such that we can easily recreate equal sized bins. By the way, those periods he used are 1851 to 1900 = 50 years, 1901 to 1950 = 50 years, 1951 to 1975 = 25 years, 1976 to 2000 = 25 years, not 49, 49, 25, 24 as you stated. The statistics here are pretty simple, not much room to manipulate or complain about them. Looks like a trend to me.
If you'd like to actually look at science papers instead of a crappy website, here's one in Nature that shows the models are inaccurate
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."