Posted on 09/20/2017 6:48:12 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
We’ve known for decades that the Earth is warming, but a key question is, how fast? Another key question is whether the warming is primarily caused by human activities. If we can more precisely measure the rate of warming and the natural component, it would be useful for decision makers, legislators, and others to help us adapt and cope. Indeed, added ocean heat content underlies the potential for dangerous intense hurricanes.
An answer to the “how fast?” question was partly answered in an Opinion piece just published on Eos.org, the daily online Earth and space science news site, by scientists from China, Europe and the United States. I was fortunate enough to be part of the research team.
Our work shows that scientists need less than 4 years of ocean heat measurements to detect a warming signal. This is much shorter than the nearly three decades of measurements that would be required to detect global warming if we were to use temperatures of air near the Earth’s surface. It is also slightly better than the nearly 5 years of sea level rise data that are needed for detecting a long-term trend. This means that the warming is not natural, but rather stems from the human-induced climate change, primarily from increases in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
“Ocean Heat Content” should become a standard metric not only for measuring climate change but for testing our computer models that are used to predict the future climate.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
We’ve known for decades that the Earth is warming, “
Correction, We have known for CENTURIES that the eareth is warming, that is why The Ice Age ended and we are here today.
I guess more people living close to the coast and peeing into the sea has raised the ocean temp faster over four years than at a rate before with less people living near the coasts?
These people are nuts. The only temperature changes to the general trend are the correction factors added to make the measurements match their computer models. The satellite data matches their measurements without the correction factors proving that the computer models are wrong.
wrote in an “opinion” piece, LOL
A few Hurricanes and they’re going all out to push their Global Warming ,I have to laugh at BBC today
With all the fish and whales and everything peeing in the ocean, no wonder its warming. LOL
The oceans are huge! There is a tremendous amount of heat energy stored in them. It takes a tremendous amount of heat energy to change their temperature.
The fallacy is that, if there is warming, there is no way to detect how much of that warming is from human activity. The SUN is responsible for the vast majority of the heat energy reaching the Earth’s surface.
Read The Neglected Sun: How the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe.
I wonder if they can estimate how much heat leaves Michigan on a cloudless January night. It gets crisp, and heads to subzero temps.
Well yeah. If everybody pees in it at the same time, obviously the temperatures gonna go up. What? They think we’re stoopid or something? /F
If you’re looking for warming of the oceans....you better look at the volcanoes sitting on the ocean floor. This is not new info.....I had a c1860 book....pictures and all. IIRC, The primary varmit was methane.
These guys are lousy liars:
“This means that the warming is not natural, but rather stems from the human-induced climate change, primarily from increases in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.”
They cite a new measuring methods and then without any reference to data, lie to us about what it means!
This is caused by the fact that the sun can’t be everywhere at the same time...
Goldie Hawn explains this in an old Laugh In film clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GBBD_si0QQ
Was that due to all of that high test coffee?
Went to this piece of excrement article to see where they test for HUMAN warming of the oceans. Nada.
How would there be any way to test for HUMAN effect on the warming of the oceans?
I’d like to see a nice chart depicting how much the dinosaurs warmed the oceans, and any other creature. How much have mice, cockroaches, bacteria, algae warmed the oceans? And how could you effing tell what did it?
WORST HEADLINE EVER!
I don’t know if punctuation is needed or what. But how do you detect the warming of humans in the ocean? Are humans warming the ocean with like fires and stuff? Electric heaters? Nuclear Reactors?
This is EXACTLY the type of propaganda that we have become numb to. They inserted the word Human for Global Warming/Climate Change. This makes this an emotional story, not a scientific report based on the Headline alone.
Now, very few will think twice about the headline and even fewer will actually read the article. But the innuendo message has been sent and received as intended. The validity of anything in the rest of the article is otherwise unimportant.
Remember the Good Ole Days (like last year) when these same “scientists” were explaining away the flat temps over the last 15 years to a previously undiscovered ability of the oceans to absorb heat?
From “no idea” to “we now know it all” in one short year.
Correction, We have known for CENTURIES that the earth is warming, that is why The Ice Age ended and we are here today.
“Our work shows that scientists need less than 4 years of ocean heat measurements to detect a warming signal. This is much shorter than the nearly three decades of measurements that would be required to detect global warming if we were to use temperatures of air near the Earth’s surface. It is also slightly better than the nearly 5 years of sea level rise data that are needed for detecting a long-term trend. This means that the warming is not natural, but rather stems from the human-induced climate change, primarily from increases in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.”
If this guys a scientist, I ask him to explain how anything he states earlier in this paragraph lead to the conclusion of the last sentence of this paragraph? All the rest of the paragraph states is that they can detect a trend faster when using oceanic temperature data, nowhere in those sentences does it offer anything that allows for the final sentence to be a true conclusion.
SO, can ANYONE explain HOW needing less data to spot a trend, leads to the conclusion claim that detecting a trend faster, proves its human caused?
I am open to the proof of this claim, but the author of this article as far as I can tell offers none, just states it to be true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.