Ocean News

Quote
'If the world ends in 2100, we’re probably OK'

http://www.theguardian.com/music/cl...29/if-the-world-ends-in-2100-were-probably-ok

There’s a myopia in the climate discourse today.

“Everyone is focused on what happens by 2100. But that’s only 2 generations from today. It’s like: If the world ends in 2100 we’re probably OK!” says Professor Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawai’i. “But It’s very clear that over a longer timescale there will be much bigger changes.”

If the next century seems impossibly far off, bear in mind that if you have a young child now, we’re talking about the world her or his grandchildren will be trying to raise their kids in.

Scientists who take the long view on climate change see parallels between global warming today and mass extinctions in Earth’s past: “Apart from the stupid space rock hitting the Earth, most mass extinctions were CO2-driven global warming things,” says Professor Andy Ridgwell of Bristol University in the UK.

It has been a consistent pattern throughout geological time: “If you screw with the climate enough, you have huge extinctions,” says Ridgwell.

Zeebe and colleagues compared isotope samples with computer models of the climate system. They stretched the models’ carbon emission timescale until they got a match with the isotope measurements. This showed that the carbon emissions which caused the PETM took about 4,000 years - remarkably similar to an estimate of about 3,000 years just published by Ridgwell and his colleague Sandy Kirtland Turner. They used a completely different approach from Zeebe, focusing on the differences in the carbon signal between marine and land sediments.

Narrowing the PETM emissions timeframe to around 3,000 to 4,000 years shows that, like today, the global warming back then was caused by geologically-fast carbon emissions. But our emissions have taken just a couple of centuries so, as Zeebe points out:

 

Perfect example of A Priori interpretation.



https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/639

"The evidence for warming comes from a variety of sources, the most compelling of which is the oxygen isotopes of planktonic and benthic forams in deep sea cores. These data suggest significant warming of 6-8 oC of ocean surface waters at a range of latitudes, as well as of deep waters.

Corresponding to the oxygen isotope shift is a large and negative 4 to 5 per mil change in carbon isotopes that is used to define the geological extent of the event. The isotope excursion has been identified in sediments deposited in the ocean and those laid down in terrestrial environments such as lakes and rivers. In particular, the excursion in terrestrial sediments allows us to correlate the changes that occurred on land during the PETM with those that took place in the ocean.

The content of CO2 in the atmosphere increased 3-4 times during the PETM. As a consequence, surface ocean temperatures at the peak of the event were extremely warm, especially in the high latitudes. Off the coast of Antarctica, a location today that is close to freezing, the oceans were about 20oC at the peak of the PETM! Imagine jumping into the ocean from Antarctica today! Tropical ocean temperatures were likely a few degrees warmer than at present. The PETM was also associated with major changes in the properties of the deep ocean. Unlike today when deep ocean waters are characterized by temperatures close to freezing, PETM deep waters were 10-15o C."

They interpreted all this from some missing isotopes in sediment samples.
And on the off chance they interpreted correctly, without too many error producing assumptions, they are DEFINITELY making an unwarranted assumption that the CO2 caused the warming, rather than the warming caused the CO2.
Their faith in AGW guides their presumption, NOT scientific observation or analysis.
There is no way for them to observe/determine which came first.
They decided based on their personal worldview.

That is known as A Priori interpretation, and why AGW scientists are NOT truly objective.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a priori

Full Definition of a priori

1
a : deductive

b : relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions
— compare aposteriori

c : presupposed by experience


2
a : being without examination or analysis : presumptive

b : formed or conceived beforehand

—a priori adverb

—apri·or·i·typlay \-ˈȯr-ə-tē\ noun

 

Narrowing the PETM emissions timeframe to around 3,000 to 4,000 years shows that, like today, the global warming back then was caused by geologically-fast carbon emissions. But our emissions have taken just a couple of centuries so, as Zeebe points out:

 

How ‘Natural Geoengineering’ Can Help Slow Global Warming | Yale Environment 360

 

2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record, Scientists Say | New York Times

 

Giant icebergs are slowing climate change, research reveals | The Guardian

 

BANNER HEADLINES!

You'd EXPECT to see "SALE of the CENTURY" at a used car lot!
They're selling old cars, and some are old junk cars not worth fixing. But they waxed up pretty and shiny, and $1999.99 will buy one.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time". Abraham Lincoln, (attributed). Also popularly attributed to P.T. Barnum.

Does $1999.99 appear significantly different to you, from two thousand dollars? Only if you're a penny-pincher!

IN posted from the NY Times. A newspaper. Well, banner headlines are stock in trade to sell newspapers.

When NASA/NOAA use banner headlines, it's disturbing! Until I recalled government agencies are trying to get more appropriation money, too!

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412

"2014 Earth's warmest year on record"

"•During 2014, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 135 years in the 1880–2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C)."

A record surpassing previous record by only 7 hundredths of a degree Fahrenheit gets banner headlines? Does that seem like HUGE warming to you?

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201512

"2015 is Earth's warmest year by widest margin on record;"

"•During 2015, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record, surpassing the previous record set last year by 0.29°F (0.16°C) and marking the fourth time a global temperature record has been set this century. This is also the largest margin by which the annual global temperature record has been broken."

Is 29 hundredths of a degree F significant warming?


" 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average" and "1.62°F (0.90°C) above the 20th century average".

"all 136 years in the 1880–2015 record" gives significance to the 20th century average. That average is the bulk of the record.

But to me, 1.24 F or even 1.62 F degrees above the average of a century, or more, doesn't seem very significant warming.
A lot like the penny less than the 2 grand sales gimmick.


I don't believe I'd buy a used car from an AGWer, or anything else. I'm afraid I'd get a hunk-of-junk!

I want to invent and market gullible meters!

Perspective. Point of view (POV). Is important.
The result of the "War of Northern Aggression" during early 1860s America.
The Confederate States of America finished in 2nd place, while the yankees came in next to last place!



How about THIS headline?

This past year, 2015, was ONLY , on average, about a degree and a half Fahrenheit warmer than LAST centuries AVERAGE temperature!
And all the OTHER recent years have been COOLER than 2015!

 

In MY POV, in the captured screen, today is nice, Sunday nicer and Monday nicer yet!
What's the fuss about a degree and half warmer than last centuries average!
You choose and don't be gullible!

 

Quote
http://www.wired.com/2016/01/please-stop-saying-humans-arent-causing-climate-change/

The world’s run of record-breaking hottest years is extremely unlikely to have happened without the global warming caused by human activities, according to new calculations.

Thirteen of the 15 hottest years in the 150-year-long record occurred between 2000 and 2014 and the researchers found there is a just a 0.01 percent chance that this happened due to natural variations in the planet’s climate.

2015 was revealed to have smashed all earlier records on Wednesday, after the new study had been completed, meaning the odds that the record run of heat is a fluke are now even lower.

“Natural climate variations just can’t explain the observed recent global heat records, but manmade global warming can,” said Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and one of the research team.

He said the record heat brought substantial impacts: “It has led to unprecedented local heatwaves across the world, sadly resulting in loss of life and aggravating droughts and wildfires. The risk of heat extremes has been multiplied due to our interference with the Earth system, as our analysis shows.”

In 2013, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with 95 percent certainty that humans are the main cause of global warming.

 

AGWers are always concluding and assuming and presuming unwarranted things to support their failed hypothesis.
They are devout!
2000 years ago, the roman warm period, 1000 years ago, the medieval warm period, today the current millennial cycle warm period. I'd bet there were other warm periods every thousand years in the past, but nobody wants to find them, at least not AGWers.
What is the probability that in a natural warming cycle , years would be warmer? Duh!

 

Veteran Climate Science Denialist Bob Carter Dies of Heart Attack

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/01/22/veteran-climate-science-denialist-bob-carter-dies-heart-attack

He died, aged 74, in hospital in his hometown of Townsville, Queensland, after suffering a heart attack.

I have written many stories featuring Bob Carter over the last decade or so and none of them have been complimentary.

So when I say that I extend my thoughts and sympathies to his wife, Anne, and his family and friends, I doubt many will think that I mean it. But I do. Losing loved ones isn’t easy.

Others who write and report on climate science denialism might cheer in private. Some have even done it in public.

Despite a virtually non-existent academic publishing record on climate change, he was held up as an expert by denialist groups around the world and by conservative commentators and media.

Carter was an advisor to many of the most prominent denialist think tanks around the world. From the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, to the Heartland Institute in the United States, to the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia. At one count, Carter had affiliations with at least ten different organisations.

He was a regular face at climate science denial conferences and is described by his legion of fans as cheery and supportive.

The Heartland Institute also has a tribute. Many notable activists in the climate science denial movement have also paid tribute — Fred Singer, Marc Morano, James Delingpole, Mark Steyn and Lord Christopher Monckton.


To me, Carter was a guy full of his own contradictions. Carter would say, for example, that “scientists are paid not to have agendas or opinions” while writing fiery opinion column after fiery opinion column.

After the fossil fuel funded Heartland Institute ran a billboard comparing “belief” in climate change to the values of terrorist Ted “Unabomber” Kaczynski, Carter was one of the few “sceptics” who refused to criticise the Chicago-based group who paid him.

Climate change, Carter would regularly claim, “shows all the hallmarks of orchestrated propaganda”, ignoring, of course, that he himself was playing a role in a grand propaganda effort to convince the public that fossil fuel emissions did not need to be cut.

His personal website says he “receives no research funding from special interest organisations.” In 2012, DeSmog published internal budget papers from the Heartland Institute showing how it intended to pay Carter $1667 a month that year for work on a climate report project.

The Heartland Institute has historically taken money from the likes of ExxonMobil and continues to take money from ideologically-tied funding groups like Donors Capital Fund.

Carter was evasive as to the sources of his own funding. When I pressed him on this point back in 2012 when the Heartland documents were made public, he said the details of any of the Heartland payments were “private” but he said: “Heartland is one of a number of think-tanks and institutions that I work with. Sometimes I’m paid an honorarium, sometimes expenses and sometimes I do it pro-bono.”

In any case, he said the long-standing practice where scientists declare who has funded their research was “quaint and old-fashioned” and that rather, research should stand on its merits.

Yet Carter would also claim that while he was impervious to the influences of funding, the scientists who agreed climate change was serious and caused by humans (which is to say, practically all of them) were not.

Carter wrote a couple of books too. Most recently, he wrote Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about climate change. Denialists thought it was great. The IPA sent it to all Australian MPs.

Mathematical physicist Ian Enting analysed the book and described it as a “polemic” characterised by “half-truths and slanted misrepresentation” and “appalling hypocrisy”.



Carter was a key member of the climate change denial movement’s infantry. It is that movement that has fought for decades to delay any government policy to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The movement has helped to politicize the science, confuse the public and delay action that has real consequences for the public around the world.

So that’s how I’ll remember Bob Carter.

But that doesn’t mean I can’t extend my sympathies, even if some people reading throw them back in my face.

 

Really, Yob, I would be hugely embarrassed if I were you. Your posts are sounding more and more like a shrill old senile woman. The very first sentence in the NY Times article provided the reference to the NOAA article, and virtually quotes them.

You've gone from being a worthy adversary to background noise.

 

More leftist quotes:
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” -Paul Watson, Greenpeace
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of.. how dangerous it is.” -Al Gore
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first IPCC chairman
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [lying] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, lead ipcc author, 1989
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
“Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.” -Pentti Linkola, Finnish Ecologist

anotherJoe on December 13, 2013 at 5:40 PM


And then there's THESE by one man!
"The result is we'll have 12,000 papers with category ratings and endorsement level. We can analyse this data in a variety of ways to tell many interesting stories - but what I'm guessing from what I've rated so far is we'll find is around 50% of the papers are explicit or implicit endorsements and the rest are neutral (with the tiniest fraction being rejection)"

"
"We beat the consensus drum often and regularly and make SkS the home of the perceived strengthening consensus."

"It's essential that the public understands that there's a scientific consensus on AGW. So Jim Powell, Dana and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus"

"
"To achieve this goal, we mustn't fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion "

All said by John Cook, who laid out the game plan for the 97% consensus study"

RESULT:
"0.3% climate consensus not 97.1%"
"Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it."
"Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.
In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

"cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/Legates

"Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

“It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”


You aren't fooling some of us.

 

You need to read my posts with something other than seeking a target to attack. You are missing the point, as does Samsam.
I did not disparage you for quoting the NY Times. I acknowledged it was a newspaper, and headlines were newspapers stock in trade to sell newspapers.
Totally appropriate to have banner headlines, in newspapers and used car lots.
All out of proportion for a 7 hundredths degree F annual temperature rise. Not news worthy or significant of anything, except a penchant for minutiae.

 

Yob states embarrassingly to himself he is the majority, when in fact he is clearly the major minority.
He can not read a simple chart he produced him self while saying "WE from the USA are the majority and majority rules" or other repeat garbage he produces from propaganda climate denialist out dated web sites.