67
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 07:24 am
@oralloy,
It's your opinion about what is real that is wrong, not what is real.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 07:28 am
@MontereyJack,
That is incorrect. Reality is not an opinion.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 08:09 am
Temperatures of deepest ocean rising quicker than previously thought
Quote:
Warming ocean contributes to sea level rise and to more extreme weather such as hurricanes

Even the pitch black, nearly freezing waters at the bottom of the ocean – far from where humans live and burn fossil fuels – are slowly warming, according to a study of a decade of hourly measurements.

The temperatures are rising quicker than previously thought, as recorded at stations at four different depths in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Uruguay. Between 2009 and 2019, the water there at points between 1,360m (4,462ft) and 4,757m deep warmed by 0.02-0.04C.

The change may seem minuscule, but it is significant.

“If you think about how large the deep ocean is, it’s an enormous amount of heat,” said Christopher Meinen, an oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and lead author of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

While the general consensus has been that the deep ocean is warming, scientists have had to rely on a snapshot of data collected every 10 years from research vessels. Climate models have found that high levels of climate pollution by the end of the century will penetrate deeper in the ocean, threatening deep sea creatures.

Roughly 90% of the heat absorbed by the Earth goes into the oceans. Although they warm slowly, the heat makes water molecules expand, contributing to sea-level rise. It also intensifies hurricanes.

By comparison, the global land and ocean surface temperatures are heating up much faster. In 2009, they were 0.56C higher than the long-term average. By 2019, they were 0.95C higher, according to NOAA data.

Meinen, who spoke for himself and not on behalf of the government agency, said the new findings are consistent with human-caused climate change. However, more research is needed to make definitive conclusions because there is not enough historical data on the deep ocean, which has not been studied as much as Earth’s atmosphere.

“We didn’t expect that you would see hour-to-hour and day-to-day variations down that deep,” Meinen said. “There are processes in the deep ocean that are making things change rapidly, and we don’t really know what those processes are yet.”

The research data came from a package of instruments scientists had been using for years to study ocean currents. After reading a study from the University of Rhode Island, the team realised the thick glass sphere weighted down by barbell plates also included a temperature sensor that was built into its pressure sensor.

The scientists also concluded that deep ocean temperatures must be taken at least yearly to understand long-term trends. They hope the study will prompt others to examine their own temperature data from similar instruments.

A better system for observing the ocean – including the deep ocean – could help scientists forecast seasonal weather so farmers can better choose which crops to plant, Meinen said.


Geophysical Research Letters: Observed Ocean Bottom Temperature Variability at Four Sites in the Northwestern Argentine Basin: Evidence of Decadal Deep/Abyssal Warming Amidst Hourly to Interannual Variability During 2009–2019
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 09:00 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Cherry-picked data can be made to say anything.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 10:46 am
@oralloy,
I don't know how many oceanographic instrumentats like Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers etc are used worldwide.
But how many, according to your oceanographic knowledge, must be used be used so you don't disqualify those data as "cherry picking"?
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 11:04 am
@Walter Hinteler,
The number of acoustic doppler whatsits doesn't matter. The data is untrustworthy no matter how many they use.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 11:11 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The data is untrustworthy no matter how many they use.
Why?

To keep a permanent eye on the ocean, a global network of free drifting sondes has been set up. Currently 3,500 of these robots operate in all parts of the world’s oceans and survey it on a grid of approximately 300 x 300 km.

What, according to your analysis, makes these data untrustworthy? What are your own experiences?
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 11:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
facts disagree with his narrative in which he has invested lotsa time and space buying. Ollie is unable to admit when he s wrong. He reminds me of a Christian Brother. (jesuits teach the value of lerning from error).
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 09:00 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Why?

Because cherry picked data is unreliable.


Walter Hinteler wrote:
To keep a permanent eye on the ocean, a global network of free drifting sondes has been set up. Currently 3,500 of these robots operate in all parts of the world's oceans and survey it on a grid of approximately 300 x 300 km.

What, according to your analysis, makes these data untrustworthy?

The cherry picking.


Walter Hinteler wrote:
What are your own experiences?

None whatsoever.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 09:03 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
facts disagree with his narrative in which he has invested lotsa time and space buying.

Wrong. I have no narrative whatsoever.


farmerman wrote:
Ollie is unable to admit when he s wrong.

Wrong again. I'm always quick to admit it when I am wrong.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 09:09 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
Why?

Because cherry picked data is unreliable.

Fine. Then, how many sonds do you consider to be positioned where, so that the data isn't considered by your ...

Walter Hinteler wrote:
What are your own experiences?
oralloy wrote:
None whatsoever.
... non-existing experience not to be cherry-picked?



oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 09:13 am
@Walter Hinteler,
It doesn't matter how many there are or where they are positioned. That won't change the fact that the data is being cherry picked.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 09:23 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

It doesn't matter how many there are or where they are positioned. That won't change the fact that the data is being cherry picked.
You said so a couple of times now.

Of course these moored sensors have not just one purpose but collect several data.
When writing about the ocean bottom temperature variability, you of course cherry pick the temperature data.

What and how would you do it differently?
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 09:53 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:
When writing about the ocean bottom temperature variability, you of course cherry pick the temperature data.

It would seem obvious, right? If you're doing studies on the warming of the oceans I think knowing the range of temperatures, from warmest to coolest would be of high relevance.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 10:34 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
What and how would you do it differently?

I'd not cherry pick the data but instead truthfully report what the facts are.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 10:47 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
What and how would you do it differently?
I'd not cherry pick the data but instead truthfully report what the facts are.
How would you get facts (here: observed "Maximum, Minimum, Record‐Length Mean, Temporal Standard Deviation, and Integral Time Scale") without the data?
Measure with your finger? Put your big toe in the water? And afterwards guess?

farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 11:05 am
@oralloy,
so you are asserting thht climate data is doctored?? Or are you saying that data that does not comport with , say, an emerging trend surface, is ignored???

Wow, So, is there an entire secret scientific underground that is busy removing data from th stream of randomly located and collected data?

How do you suspect that O16/O18 isotope data from ice cores are "DISCARDED AND IGNORED"??. Can you actually tell from looking at a core where the high temp data v low temp data will occur??

Of course you do claim to have reasoning powers beyond mere mortals. Im still a student of climate historical evidence.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 08:42 pm
https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/03-follower-la-1080-1050x750.jpg
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 09:10 pm
@oralloy,
Uh, branco. whose is the econbomy thats tanked., who's president? Who's dricving the lead van off the road? DJT. He ignored the pandemic that crippled us. The prez is supposed to react to crises and solve them, not blame everyone else and do nothing constrjuctive. As usual, you haven't a clue. Last timke Biden was in offcie he worked with obama for six solid years of growth, no collaposes like trump has given us. Why do you think biden would do anytning else this time around. Don't display your idiocuy for all to see.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Oct, 2020 09:19 pm
@farmerman,
farmer, oral claims all climate change datsa are tainted and cherry picked because he claims data were supopressesd and cherry picked because of the one journal artile about snowpack in the CA sierras that came to a conclusion that snowpack was not decvlining, which as you pointed out, the AGU relooked at the data and found snowpack was in fact declining. He claims that not publishing that article was evidennce of suppression of data by one journal. Which he then illogically means that journalS plurall) are suppressing data and are ntrustworth. From which he faseley generalizes that ALL climatte change data is tainted, no matter how independently done and verified it is. From one article that came to a conclusion that has proved not to be true,he illogicaly tars the findings of hundreds of scientists and thousands of researches. Which is very much oralls style of reaching totally stupid conclusions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 10/26/2020 at 01:28:13