Global Warming Air and Ocean

Strawman

 

Here's a diagram of the basic atmospheric circulation. Notice very little of the atmosphere crosses the equator. Feel free to send it to your alma mater; it obviously has a need for it:

 

You are missing the point completely. Not only does your circulation diagram only show the affect of surface temperatures on relatively low parts of the atmosphere it ignores the reason the ozone hole is worse over the Antarctic.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2010/twentyquestions/Q10.pdf

 

Are you aware what warms the ocean? Are you aware of what ENSO is? Are you aware the buoy records did not show warming the last 10 years so were adjusted upward?

 

A controversial paper published two years ago that concluded there was no detectable slowdown in ocean warming over the previous 15 years - widely known as the “global warming hiatus” - has now been confirmed using independent data in research led by researchers from University of California Berkeley and Berkeley Earth, a non-profit research institute focused on climate change.

The 2015 analysis showed that the modern buoys now used to measure ocean temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems, even when measuring the same part of the ocean at the same time. As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.

After correcting for this “cold bias,” researchers with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded in the journal Science that the oceans have actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade. This brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.

This eliminated much of the global warming hiatus, an apparent slowdown in rising surface temperatures between 1998 and 2012. Many scientists, including the International Panel on Climate Change, acknowledged the puzzling hiatus, while those dubious about global warming pointed to it as evidence that climate change is a hoax.

 

Are you aware that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

 

Told you to google Cape Grim. See that is where the CSIRO does atmosphere testing and where they find molecules emitted in America in air off the coast of Tasmania

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Grim
http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

Now I don't know where you got your kindergarten level line drawings from but even Wiki has better diagrams and they do not preclude mixing of gases between the hemispheres



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation

 

In what year of the hysteria induced funding orgy did warmunista's decide to look for 'lost heat' in the depths of the ocean? You clowns must've been shaking in your booties when the warming from the Little Ice Age stopped to prompt coming up with a c@ck 'n bull story that warm water sinks from the surface to hide from warming infidels.

 

Nope,..... An honest question,....

 

Here's the problem. The explanation you cite is very astute and scientific. But like many looking-good scientific studies some of the small and critical but difficult (embarrassing) assumptions are simply waved away.

"Halogen source gases emitted at Earth’s surface are present in comparable abundances throughout the stratosphere in both hemispheres even though
most of the emissions occur in the Northern Hemisphere." they say. Most halogens are emitted in the northern hemisphere but [magically!!!] appear throughout the stratosphere in both hemispheres. Really? How so? The article say almost all ozone is produced over the equator (Highest intensity of UV rays) but [magically again] ends up over mid latitudes and the poles. There is more ozone over the upper latitudes and little over the equator, they say, even though over the equator is where it is produced! It's not that some get through the Hadley and Ferrell cells, which keep atmosphere within a band of latitudes (and northern hemisphere atmosphere out of the south), it's that the preponderance goes north or south.

They make a similar throw away assumption about the transport of halogen gasses from mid north latitudes to the equator before they start their journey to the stratosphere. Hadley and the other atmospheric cells have been known a long time and should not be given so short shrift. Sorry but there are still significant unanswered questions on how the ozone hole forms, but we evidently don't have time to look into it because we have so much CFCs that need regulating.

 

Hey look all I can do is point you towards the answer to your question. I can't make you believe something that goes counter to your narrative and I can do nothing about your wilful ignorance....

 

Since ships tend to warm the surrounding water with their passage why were their temp readings not adjusted *down* to match the readings of the buoys which generate little heat?
This would have helped bring buoy and ship readings more in line with the readings from the satellites - which *do* show a hiatus!

OF COURSE the data is going to show warming after it has been adjusted UP!

As buoy measurements have replaced ship measurements they show the ocean to be colder than the AGW religionists can stand. So they adjust the buoy readings upwards!

Are they going to adjust the buoy temperatures DOWN after the last ship measurement is taken out of service? What's that going to do to the models?

 

"Several studies have noted that “ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data” and that buoy data are “more accurate,” "
If the bouy data is more accurate then why was *it* adjusted upward instead of the ship data being adjusted downward?
And you wonder why people question the data?

 

And Grade school science would tell you that atmospheric circulation does not preclude atmospheric mixing and I am sure if you had read the text with those drawings you would have found your logical error'

 

Because we have not long deployed enough bouys to give us further global coverage. It is like buying a new thrermometer and finding that it is reading .01 degree higher than your previous one so to make the data align..........

And before this starts a conspiracy theory rant about Al Gore making temperatures up - this data is collected and reviewed by hundreds of scientists world wide

 

Hundreds of scientists - minimum

So this data is collected by hundreds and then once published reviewed by thousands

But the right wing of America STILL think it is a conspiracy and that somehow Billy Bob with his piece of rope weather forecaster is more accurate

 

It's not about adjusting up or down. It's about adjusting to make up for the bias caused by the less accurate ship measurements. The actual temperature is less important than the rate of increase in the temperature. Moving from the slightly higher ship data to the lower buoy data made it appear that the rate of increase was slowing when in fact it was not. There are dozens of articles explaining this, if you don't believe me try Googling it......

 

It's all about apples to apples and relative increase.

When you change the instrumentation it's no longer apples to apples until you adjust for the difference.

 

Hey, I can dig it. So, once the poles melt, we will finally be out of the remnants of the ice age. Which would have happened, with or without man, right? We speeded it up a bit of course, but it was gonna happen anyways, right?

Regardless scientists also say that we are past the point to do anything about it, and truth is, if you stopped all co2 today, the warming would continue on. You guys do not talk about this. Nor are you screaming for addressing co2 levels with land management and halting rain forest deforestation. Seems like you would be clamoring for that, but all we hear from the concerned is attacking fossil fuels. Given that green energy currently cannot supply the energy needs of a growing world, that leaves fossil fuels and nuclear, and nuclear after Fukishima scares me. We have the San Madrid fault, overdue, and then there is the San Andreas in Ca, with nuclear power plants at risk for the big one.

So there are issues here, not being addressed rationally by the hysterical and the concerned. Instead they seem distracted with the deniers, and want to diss and fight with them incessantly instead of hollering for what we can do, land management to at least pull down the levels some. Some of these hysterical would depress already anemic economies which are not capable of feeding working americans now, and must be supplemented with welfare. But you can just about bet, the ones screaming to depress economies by energy costs, via carbon taxes are probably living in high consumption fossil fuel scenerios. They want others to be hurt, but not themselves. Gore is the best illustration of this hypocrisy. Kinda of like the man with a full stomach talking about fasting, at least until he gets hungry again, then forget about fasting.

 

It's happening but man is not the cause

rinse wash repeat

 

No actually it wasn't - Solar activity may or may not increase or decrease over the next few years but we cannot accurately predict that - and there is no scheduled Milankovitch event

Actually they say there is still hope and if we act soon we might be able to mitigate a lot of the adverse effects that we are now only beginning to understand. If you think nothing is being done about deforestation then you have not kept up with the international agreements on climate change

No I think it is more about perception of what is being addressed

Has anyone held a gun at your head and told you to stop driving your car? The jobs that were lost in the coal belt in America were lost due to automation not climate change interventions - climate change interventions have CREATED jobs with wind and solar. And if you want to do something about deforestation how about petitioning some of those coal companies to hire people to rehabilitate coal mine sites?

 

If buoy readings are more accurate then adjust the ship measurements DOWN!
The buoy readings are *lower* so to make everything align the ship measurements should go DOWN.

 

So what is your point? If buoy measurements are more accurate then why weren't the ship measurements revised downward?

 

I did not say it was precluded. I said it is highly improbable to mix between cells, the mixing at the equator boundary being the hardest..