Science: Ocean Circulaion Drives Climate

[jmotivator]

That is not remotely what that graph shows.

That is exactly what that graph shows. the flat line at the bottom of the graph shows their prediction with no anthropogenic CO2 increases. They see zero climate change without anthropogenic CO2.

They literally model no climate change over the 100 years of the model run without changes in CO2.

 

[Deuce]

I seem to remember you using binary logic when it suits you...

Correct. It often suits me in an attempt to highlight the ridiculous arguments you people make.

But it never actually clicks. You people never realize I'm just mirroring your binary nonsense.

 

[Deuce]

That is exactly what that graph shows. the flat line at the bottom of the graph shows their prediction with no anthropogenic CO2 increases. They see zero climate change without anthropogenic CO2.

They literally model no climate change over the 100 years of the model run without changes in CO2.

They literally do not because the temperature actually increases on that chart. Check your eyes, that's not a flat line.

And you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of those models, just like every other right-winger. Do I have to explain this again?

 

[Lord of Planar]

That is not remotely what that graph shows.

Maybe the wrong graph to use, but IAW the AR4, global warming was 1.6 W/m^2, and CO2 contributed to 1.66 W/m^2 of it.

 

[Deuce]

Maybe the wrong graph to use, but IAW the AR4, global warming was 1.6 W/m^2, and CO2 contributed to 1.66 W/m^2 of it.

Clearly indicating the presence of other factors.

Which the IPCC explicitly discusses.

And yet jmotivator is trying to claim the IPCC rejects the existence of other factors. Do you agree with him, or do you agree with me that the IPCC explicitly acknowledges and even quantifies non-human factors?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Clearly indicating the presence of other factors.

Which the IPCC explicitly discusses.

And yet jmotivator is trying to claim the IPCC rejects the existence of other factors. Do you agree with him, or do you agree with me that the IPCC explicitly acknowledges and even quantifies non-human factors?

I don't see where he excluded other factors. His statement was "their model shows no warming in the atmosphere without anthropogenic CO2."

You confirmation bias is taking over rational thought again...

 

[Deuce]

Saying humans can cause climate change is not the same as only humans can cause climate change. But don't let the actual arguments get in the way of your false narrative.

You'd better tell that to the IPCC

I don't see where he excluded other factors. His statement was "their model shows no warming in the atmosphere without anthropogenic CO2."

You confirmation bias is taking over rational thought again...

Try again

And the line isn't flat.

And "no warming without anthropogenic factors" is the same thing as saying "there are no natural factors."

He objected to my original statement. There's not much else to discuss.

 

[jmotivator]

They literally do not because the temperature actually increases on that chart. Check your eyes, that's not a flat line.

No, the temperature does not increase at a rate greater than the uncertainty boundary, so no the model doesn't show warming without anthropogenic CO2. But please keep arguing that a 0.1C trend over 100 with a per-data-point uncertainty of 0.2C is significant. :lamo

And you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to the nature of those models, just like every other right-winger. Do I have to explain this again?

Nope, you are the one who is fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of these models. But why don't you explain the nature of these models in your own words.

 

[jmotivator]

Clearly indicating the presence of other factors.

Which the IPCC explicitly discusses.

And yet jmotivator is trying to claim the IPCC rejects the existence of other factors. Do you agree with him, or do you agree with me that the IPCC explicitly acknowledges and even quantifies non-human factors?

LOL! The IPCC is attributing 104% of observed warming to anthropogenic CO2. So all of the other contributors net effect, according to IPCC, is to global cooling.

So, I restate, all of the observed warming is attributed to CO2 by the IPCC.

I'm not saying that the IPCC rejects other factors in climate, only that they attribute all of the warming to anthropogenic CO2, which they clearly do.

 

[Deuce]

LOL! The IPCC is attributing 104% of observed warming to anthropogenic CO2. So all of the other contributors net effect, according to IPCC, is to global cooling.

So, I restate, all of the observed warming is attributed to CO2 by the IPCC.

I'm not saying that the IPCC rejects other factors in climate, only that they attribute all of the warming to anthropogenic CO2, which they clearly do.

Then you actually have no objection to the statement you quoted that lead to this derail, and you aren't suggesting the IPCC has a different opinion than that statement. Got it. Why you started with "tell that to the IPCC" when my statement accurately reflected the IPCC's stance is beyond me.

 

[jmotivator]

Then you actually have no objection to the statement you quoted that lead to this derail, and you aren't suggesting the IPCC has a different opinion than that statement. Got it. Why you started with "tell that to the IPCC" when my statement accurately reflected the IPCC's stance is beyond me.

You made a straw man argument that anyone here said that the AGW position is that only humans can cause warming. Skeptics readily admit that anthropogenic CO2 has an effect on the climate, but we claim that the climate is not understood well enough to quantify the net effect with any precision.

I countered your argument with the argument that the IPCC claims that only humans had caused global warming since 1850 because their models show no warming (or cooling) without anthropogenic CO2. In fact, their predicts there will be no climate change over the next 100 years without anthropogenic CO2.

THAT conclusion by the IPCC is what gives rise to the argument made by the skeptics. We don't say that AGW believes ONLY CO2 changes climate, but the IPCC does argue that the net effect of all other contributors are zero. This claim of natural stasis, as shown in their model, is simply absurd.

 

[Deuce]

You made a straw man argument that anyone here said that the AGW position is that only humans can cause warming. Skeptics readily admit that anthropogenic CO2 has an effect on the climate, but we claim that the climate is not understood well enough to quantify the net effect with any precision.

I countered your argument with the argument that the IPCC claims that only humans had caused global warming since 1850 because their models show no warming (or cooling) without anthropogenic CO2. In fact, their predicts there will be no climate change over the next 100 years without anthropogenic CO2.

THAT conclusion by the IPCC is what gives rise to the argument made by the skeptics. We don't say that AGW believes ONLY CO2 changes climate, but the IPCC does argue that the net effect of all other contributors are zero. This claim of natural stasis, as shown in their model, is simply absurd.

Renae repeatedly talks as though that's the argument made.

Their model actually showed warming without anthropogenic CO2. That line wasn't flat. Get your eyes checked.

 

[jmotivator]

Renae repeatedly talks as though that's the argument made.

Their model actually showed warming without anthropogenic CO2. That line wasn't flat. Get your eyes checked.

The change displayed was less than the error bars for the data points (o.1<0.2) so the graph shows zero trend for the constant-CO2 line.

Get your knowledge of statistics checked.

 

[longview]

Renae repeatedly talks as though that's the argument made.

Their model actually showed warming without anthropogenic CO2. That line wasn't flat. Get your eyes checked.

It is not necessary to eyeball anything as the IPCC had the table data just above the graph.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html

They state the best estimate for no additional CO2 after year 2000, would be .6 C over 100 years.
This is a whole .06 C per decade, not much dissimilar from the .05 C per decade for the 20th century.
Does the graph show continued warming, sure, would there be warming if Humans were not on Earth, unknown,
but the climate cycled up and down just fine before Humans were civilized.

 

[Deuce]

The change displayed was less than the error bars for the data points (o.1<0.2) so the graph shows zero trend for the constant-CO2 line.

Get your knowledge of statistics checked.

Hahahahahaha.

 

[Deuce]

It is not necessary to eyeball anything as the IPCC had the table data just above the graph.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
View attachment 67204092
They state the best estimate for no additional CO2 after year 2000, would be .6 C over 100 years.
This is a whole .06 C per decade, not much dissimilar from the .05 C per decade for the 20th century.
Does the graph show continued warming, sure, would there be warming if Humans were not on Earth, unknown,
but the climate cycled up and down just fine before Humans were civilized.

Well, I haven't gotten around to breaking the news to jmotivator that the "year 2000 constant levels" isn't an "earth without humans" scenario.

 

[longview]

Well, I haven't gotten around to breaking the news to jmotivator that the "year 2000 constant levels" isn't an "earth without humans" scenario.

But it is within the noise range of effective zero Human warming, Unless you believe the climate did not change temperatures
on it's own without human input.

 

[jmotivator]

Hahahahahaha.

You could have chosen a more dignified way to admit defeat.

 

[Deuce]

But it is within the noise range of effective zero Human warming, Unless you believe the climate did not change temperatures
on it's own without human input.

Humans existed before the year 2000 and added CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[longview]

Humans existed before the year 2000 and added CO2 to the atmosphere.

Correct, but we have no idea how the earth would warm without Human activity,
so the speculation of how much additional it will warm because of Human activity,
is, well speculation!

 

[Deuce]

Correct, but we have no idea how the earth would warm without Human activity,
so the speculation of how much additional it will warm because of Human activity,
is, well speculation!

Well that's comical logic.

 

[longview]

Well that's comical logic.

Just logic!
If you want define something as abnormal, you must first define what is normal.
In Science it is called a control group or scientific control.

 

[Jack Hays]

PDO
Study finds: Middle atmosphere temperature in sync with the ocean PDO

Relationship between decadal variations in temperatures in the Pacific and the tropopause identified From the HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR OCEAN RESEARCH KIEL (GEOMAR) Water plays a major role for our planet not only in its liquid form at the surface. In the atmosphere too, it considerably affects our lives as well as weather and climate. Clouds and…

. . . Now scientists of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, together with a colleague from Bergen (Norway), were able to demonstrate for the first time that natural fluctuations in water temperatures of the Pacific – which occur on decadal timescales – are directly related to the temperature of the tropical tropopause. “It has long been thought that human influences already affected the tropopause. However, it seems that natural variability is still the dominating factor,” says Dr. Wuke Wang from GEOMAR, lead author of the study just published in the international journal Scientific Reports. . . .