Scientist Predicts Mini Ice Age in next few decades...

[Darwin333]

Climate sensitivity has been the entire point of contestation.
Satellites suggest there's something wrong with the mainstream.
Ocean starts to suggest there's not.

Problem with ocean is you claim to use "energy" instead of temperature in order to make it look big, and measurable. We measure energy through temp, and the change in temp has been extremely small.

A change of less than one tenth. That could easily be noise as much as a signal of true change.

I don't know, he sort of has a point about energy imho. It would take a whole lot of metric fucktons of energy to raise the temp of something as unimaginably huge as our oceans. I wonder if in the entire human history if we have made and used enough energy to raise the temp of the oceans even 1/10th of a degree?

Are there any calculations of how many BTUs it would require to raise the worlds oceans 1 degree?

 

[Paratus]

I don't know, he sort of has a point about energy imho. It would take a whole lot of metric fucktons of energy to raise the temp of something as unimaginably huge as our oceans. I wonder if in the entire human history if we have made and used enough energy to raise the temp of the oceans even 1/10th of a degree?

Are there any calculations of how many BTUs it would require to raise the worlds oceans 1 degree?

From 1980 - 2015 OHC increased by about 25x10^22 joules of energy.

Using Wolfram-Alpha that's equivalent to:

• 1/2 the impact energy of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs 65million years ago
• 200+ Hiroshima sized A bombs per minute for 35 years.

Please note by energy equivalence 200+ A bombs a minute for 35 years is still not enough to get through to a climate skeptic.


If you want to play yourself:

• The oceans have a mass of 1.35x10^21 kg according to google.
• Water has a specific heat of 4.19 KJ/(kg*K) @ 15C (288K)
• The atmosphere has a mass of 5.15x10^18 kg
• Dry air (not perfect but close enough) has a specific hest of 1.01 KJ/(kg*K) @ 15C

Amount of Heat Required to Rise Temperature
The amount of heat needed to heat a subject from one temperature level to an other can be expressed as:

Q = cp m dT (2)

where

Q = amount of heat (kJ)

cp = specific heat (kJ/kg.K)

m = mass (kg)

dT = temperature difference between hot and cold side (K)

So a 1 degree rise would require 5.643x10^25 joules or 5.35x10^22 BTUs.

The US uses around 100quadrillion BTUs per year so:

535,000 years of US primary energy consumption

 

[OverVolt]

From 1980 - 2015 OHC increased by about 25x10^22 joules of energy.

Using Wolfram-Alpha that's equivalent to:

• 1/2 the impact energy of the meteor that killed the dinosaurs 65million years ago
• 200+ Hiroshima sized A bombs per minute for 35 years.

And no runaway greenhouse gas effect amirite. Let me go check

*runs outside*

*takes deep breath*

Results seem promising.

 

[Paratus]

And no runaway greenhouse gas effect amirite. Let me go check

*runs outside*

*takes deep breath*

Results seem promising.

Lucky for us adding the energy over decades is less immediately destructive than adding it in less than a second. Yet it still more destructive than the millennia it normally takes for warming to happen.

It's also funny because most of the east cost would see the effect of climate change for themselves if they looked outside.

Your in medicine or something, right? Let me put it in those terms. When a 3 pack a day smoker comes in compaining of shortness of breath you don't tell him that since he hasn't had cancer yet smoking doesn't cause cancer. You tell him smoking raises the risk for bad shit to happen even if it hasn't happened yet. Then you tell him to cut that shit out.

Science shows we are risking some bad shit if we keep doing what we're doing. Much like the guy with shortness of breath we're starting to see some of the impacts.

 

[dphantom]

It's also funny because most of the east cost would see the effect of climate change for themselves if they looked outside.

So now we know specific weather events are in fact climate change? Wow. You all are really grasping at straws.

 

[fskimospy]

So now we know specific weather events are in fact climate change? Wow. You all are really grasping at straws.

Did you bother to read the article?

Speaking of grasping at straws I for one am simply baffled at the continuing flailing that comes from climate change deniers at this point. What arguments do you even have left? It's been a complete wipeout.

 

[dphantom]

Did you bother to read the article?

Speaking of grasping at straws I for one am simply baffled at the continuing flailing that comes from climate change deniers at this point. What arguments do you even have left? It's been a complete wipeout.

I am not sure who you are referring to as a "denier". Certainly not me. I am firmly in the camp that climate does change and our current climate has warmed a fair bit since 1750 or so.

 

[Greenman]

Did you bother to read the article?

Speaking of grasping at straws I for one am simply baffled at the continuing flailing that comes from climate change deniers at this point. What arguments do you even have left? It's been a complete wipeout.

In the eyes of an alarmist, I suppose it appears that way. To people not inclined to fanaticism, not so much.

 

[buckshot24]

I wonder, would the earth be better off (as far as human existence is concerned) with a 5 degree celsius average increase or decrease?

 

[fskimospy]

I am not sure who you are referring to as a "denier". Certainly not me. I am firmly in the camp that climate does change and our current climate has warmed a fair bit since 1750 or so.

If you are denying that human influences have been the primary driver in those changes over the past century or so that would make you a denier.

 

[fskimospy]

In the eyes of an alarmist, I suppose it appears that way. To people not inclined to fanaticism, not so much.

Nope, just in the eyes of people actually evaluating the scientific evidence. Unlike climate change deniers I don't care which way the science comes down. If for some reason there was a scientific breakthrough that showed all our climate science up to this point to be wrong I wouldn't just accept it, I'd be really happy.

Unfortunately no such breakthrough has happened and there is currently an overwhelming amount of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Since that's the way the science points, that's the way I point. I encourage you to join me and dispense with the fanaticism.

 

[Paratus]

So now we know specific weather events are in fact climate change? Wow. You all are really grasping at straws.

Weather 101: warmer air holds more moisture. Ocean temperatures are at or near record levels due to man-made climate change resulting in more warm moist air. When warm moist air meets cold artic air snow falls. This winter storm was exacerbated by climate change.

Climate change also exacerbated flooding due to sea level rise. Several parts of the coast had worse flooding than Hurricane Sandy. As the article states parts of Delaware are seeing tides 1 foot higher over the last century.

You really think adding all that energy to the system will result in no discernible changes? Talk about grasping for straws.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ocean is a bit bigger and deeper than your pool Paratus.
And it has been measured less reliability for a long time.
There might as well be no historical record of it.

I wonder where polling falls on the reliability of ARGO, that we know for certain the oceans have changed a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree and that anyone should care. IF true it might confirm the amount of energy being absorbed by our planet. Might even match the estimates for change in CO2. Doesn't mean our atmosphere is feeling the difference.

Troposphere is supposed to warm fastest... it has not. Surface claims that title, but it is corrupt in so many ways. You can't even begin to match that contest.

If ocean heating is confirmed... it'll come down to a simple question of why anyone should care about ocean heating?
If we've absorbed half a Chicxulub meteor since 1950s, it'll take 10x that energy to raise the oceans one degree. Are we even going to get there?

 

[dphantom]

If you are denying that human influences have been the primary driver in those changes over the past century or so that would make you a denier.

Now you are making assumptions without any basis.

I prefer to keep up with current research in this area of interest to me. As research uncovers new information, I may change my opinion. It depends on the data.

 

[dphantom]

Weather 101: warmer air holds more moisture. Ocean temperatures are at or near record levels due to man-made climate change resulting in more warm moist air. When warm moist air meets cold artic air snow falls. This winter storm was exacerbated by climate change.

Climate change also exacerbated flooding due to sea level rise. Several parts of the coast had worse flooding than Hurricane Sandy. As the article states parts of Delaware are seeing tides 1 foot higher over the last century.

You really think adding all that energy to the system will result in no discernible changes? Talk about grasping for straws.

You really are a patronizing person. 🙂

I live in a lake effect snow area and have experienced over 60" of snow n the last 15 days or so. Moisture, cold, combine ingredients... yep check all that.

Sea level has been rising for as long as we have measurements.

How much is due to thermal expansion is still being researched. Lots of papers that are trying to explain the reasons.

Bottom line, we have much to learn and I am not so smart as to know with certainty unlike you and others it seems the exact amount humans have contributed. Some, probably, how much remains yet to be determined precisely.

 

[dphantom]

I wonder where polling falls on the reliability of ARGO

In the Karl et al paper, Argo data was adjusted upward to match readings from water buckets and EIT readings. I believe it was .12C upward but not sure. Would have to go find the paper again.

The Karl paper also did not account for the discontinuity in the data from the late 1940's to early 1950's. That also changed the slope and helped eliminate the so called "pause" we have seen since around 2005 or so.

There are quite a few problems with that paper but until something more definitive comes out, it appears that it will stand for now.

 

[Paratus]

You really are a patronizing person. 🙂

I live in a lake effect snow area and have experienced over 60" of snow n the last 15 days or so. Moisture, cold, combine ingredients... yep check all that.

Sea level has been rising for as long as we have measurements.

How much is due to thermal expansion is still being researched. Lots of papers that are trying to explain the reasons.

Bottom line, we have much to learn and I am not so smart as to know with certainty unlike you and others it seems the exact amount humans have contributed. Some, probably, how much remains yet to be determined precisely.

So are you. 🙂

You insinuated that we can't know if that winter storm was exacerbated by climate change. This is despite the link I provided. Which led to my assumption you either didn't read it or dismissed it out of hand. So I gave you my understanding of the article and the weather and why we know it was influenced by climate change.

Interestingly you've stated that the climate has been warming since the 1700's and you know the effects of warm humid air in creating snow, so I don't understand your appeal to ignorance in this case.

Care to explain?

 

[Paratus]

Ocean is a bit bigger and deeper than your pool Paratus.
And it has been measured less reliability for a long time.
There might as well be no historical record of it.

I wonder where polling falls on the reliability of ARGO, that we know for certain the oceans have changed a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree and that anyone should care. IF true it might confirm the amount of energy being absorbed by our planet. Might even match the estimates for change in CO2. Doesn't mean our atmosphere is feeling the difference.

Troposphere is supposed to warm fastest... it has not. Surface claims that title, but it is corrupt in so many ways. You can't even begin to match that contest.

If ocean heating is confirmed... it'll come down to a simple question of why anyone should care about ocean heating?
If we've absorbed half a Chicxulub meteor since 1950s, it'll take 10x that energy to raise the oceans one degree. Are we even going to get there?

Care to link me to a study that says the bolded? (Not a challenge just interested)

Averaging many sensors and reading doesn't stop working just because the ocean is involved.

As for the ocean heat read the article I linked or the conversation dphantom and I are having for some specific impacts of a warmer ocean. (Stronger storms, higher storm surge and tides).

Edit Ars just dropped an article on OHC going back to 1865. Warming added 5x10^23 joules to ocean with most of that coming in recent decades as the rate of heat retention accelerates.

That's equal to 1 Chuxulub impact by the way.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/half-the-oceans-warming-has-come-in-the-last-couple-decades/

 

[dphantom]

Care to link me to a study that says the bolded? (Not a challenge just interested)

He may be referring to the missing so called tropical troposphere hotspot predicted by current GCMs.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc12017/

 

[dphantom]

Interestingly you've stated that the climate has been warming since the 1700's and you know the effects of warm humid air in creating snow, so I don't understand your appeal to ignorance in this case. Care to explain?

I am unsure what you want me to explain. I thought I had been quite clear in my comments. Are you looking for a specific answer to something?

 

[OverVolt]

I wonder where polling falls on the reliability of ARGO

Meh!

 

[Paratus]

I am unsure what you want me to explain. I thought I had been quite clear in my comments. Are you looking for a specific answer to something?

Merely asking for a better explanation why you find it difficult to attribute the severity of last weeks snow storm to climate change.

You agree the climate has warmed. You understand how moist air increases snowfall. So what reason keeps you from drawing the conclusion that record warm oceans from climate change create more moist air which creates record amounts of snowfall?

 

[mysticjbyrd]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase."

"The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969."

Merely asking for a better explanation why you find it difficult to attribute the severity of last weeks snow storm to climate change.

You agree the climate has warmed. You understand how moist air increases snowfall. So what reason keeps you from drawing the conclusion that record warm oceans from climate change create more moist air which creates record amounts of snowfall?

It's impossible to attribute a single event to climate change. You can just say the frequency of events might increase. As someone that lives on the east coast, what I find far more unusual than the snow storm, is the temperatures. About a month ago, the temperature rose so much it was like a late summer outside. I had the windows, and doors open in the middle of winter. Next week it's going to get above 60 again.

 

[dphantom]

Merely asking for a better explanation why you find it difficult to attribute the severity of last weeks snow storm to climate change.

You agree the climate has warmed. You understand how moist air increases snowfall. So what reason keeps you from drawing the conclusion that record warm oceans from climate change create more moist air which creates record amounts of snowfall?

If the conditions are right of course any weather event can occur. Examples might include:

The Blizzard of 1888 -- Northeastern United States
Mount Shasta 1959
New York City 2006
The New England Blizzard of 1978

 

[Paratus]

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

"All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase."

"The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969."



It's impossible to attribute a single event to climate change. You can just say the frequency of events might increase. As someone that lives on the east coast, what I find far more unusual than the snow storm, is the temperatures. About a month ago, the temperature rose so much it was like a late summer outside. I had the windows, and doors open in the middle of winter. Next week it's going to get above 60 again.

I'm aware and agree with most of what you said. However I linked to an article where they did link the storms severity to climate change.

If the conditions are right of course any weather event can occur. Examples might include:

The Blizzard of 1888 -- Northeastern United States
Mount Shasta 1959
New York City 2006
The New England Blizzard of 1978

I agree storms will occur regardless of warming. I'll ask the question in another way. Knowing what you know about weather and climate do you think last weeks storm and the ones you list above would have been less severe if warming hadn't taken place over the last 150 years?