Sciencescience

Sat Nov 3, 2018, 08:58 PM

Faster than expected

Abstract
The ocean is the main source of thermal inertia in the climate system1. During recent decades, ocean heat uptake has been quantified by using hydrographic temperature measurements and data from the Argo float program, which expanded its coverage after 20072,3. However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 20074,5. Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer. We show that the ocean gained 1.33 ± 0.20 × 1022 joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface. We also find that the ocean-warming effect that led to the outgassing of O2 and CO2 can be isolated from the direct effects of anthropogenic emissions and CO2 sinks. Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 19916—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases7 and the thermal component of sea-level rise8.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

47 replies, 1137 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 47 replies Author Time Post
Reply Faster than expected (Original post)
orson Nov 2018 OP
oflguy Nov 2018 #1
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #2
oflguy Nov 2018 #3
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #4
oflguy Nov 2018 #5
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #6
oflguy Nov 2018 #7
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #8
oflguy Nov 2018 #9
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #10
oflguy Nov 2018 #11
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #12
oflguy Nov 2018 #14
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #15
oflguy Nov 2018 #16
Meowmenow Nov 2018 #18
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #30
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #22
oflguy Nov 2018 #21
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #23
oflguy Nov 2018 #25
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #13
oflguy Nov 2018 #17
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #19
oflguy Nov 2018 #20
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #24
oflguy Nov 2018 #26
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #27
oflguy Nov 2018 #28
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #29
oflguy Nov 2018 #31
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #32
oflguy Nov 2018 #33
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #34
oflguy Nov 2018 #35
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #36
oflguy Nov 2018 #37
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #38
oflguy Nov 2018 #39
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #40
oflguy Nov 2018 #41
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #42
oflguy Nov 2018 #44
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #45
SatansSon666 Nov 2018 #43
Steelydamned Nov 2018 #46
Jack Burton Nov 2018 #47

Response to orson (Original post)

Sun Nov 4, 2018, 11:20 AM

1. Ah, so now CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a function of ocean temperature!

I thought they were a result of the burning of fossil fuels.

You people are SO desperate to explain away the failure of your computer models to predict global temperatures that you are groping for something, ANYTHING to excuse your incompetence.

Since you and all your buddies have no clue what temperature the oceans are, now you come up with THIS crap?

Your excuses are indeed surfacing faster than expected.

By the way, the seas are not rising.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 04:39 AM

2. Hmm

We show that the ocean gained 1.33 ± 0.20  × 1022 joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface.

So what happens to a system that can't reject as much thermal energy as it receives?

.8 watts/sq. Meter. That's the same number i gave you last time that you said I didn't.

The reason warming oceans contribute co2 to the atmosphere is because as water warms up, dissolved co2 escapes.
When co2 in the air asborbs/reflects long wave thermal radiation some goes into the ocean, it warms it up, releasing even more co2. This isn't a mystery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 08:21 AM

3. So now a watt is a unit of heat?

You and everybody else has no idea what temperature the oceans are, much less how much they have warmed or cooled.

The desperation to explain off why the models have failed so miserably continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #3)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 08:30 AM

4. Where the fuck did I say a watt was a unit of heat?

Lmfao..

So what happens when a system can't reject as much thermal energy as it receives?

Did you read the paper and interpret the data to reach your conclusion that they don't know?
The paper is dealing with thermal energy, not temperature.
Measuring the o2 and co2 to see how much thermal energy is in the oceans.
This coupled with other publish3d research give the same number of retained energy st around .8 watt/Sq. Meter.
Must just be a coincidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 09:00 AM

5. Silly boi

In water thermal energy can be determined by its temperature. (do you know why you can't do that in air?)

Why do you people get so hung up on what heat is?

To try to claim you know how warm the oceans are by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is sheer desperation to defend failed computer models.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 09:09 AM

6. Yes. It CAN be. It's not the only fucking way.

Also its volume and pressure have to be determined. The amount of gases released as it warms up also shows how much thermal energy is in the water. That's what the paper is about.
The research is right there for you to read and examine the data for yourself.
Some might be hidden because you have to pay to see it on the nature site, but if you email the researchers that submitted it, they are allowed to send you it for free. So no excuses.
The data tables are there to see though.. just click around, you'll find them..
Get debunking.

After you are done you can submit whatever errors you found in their data and calculations to nature journal and have it retracted.

Good luck Boi.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #6)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 09:28 AM

7. temper, temper

What happens when you make up stuff?

What temperature is the ocean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 09:35 AM

8. I didn't fucking make anything up.

Read the paper and debunk it.
Instead of throwing out bullshit about temperature that has nothing to do with the research in rhe paper.

What happens when a thermodynamic system can't reject as much thermal energy as it receives?
What happens to water when it is heated beyond 4 degrees Celcius?
How much energy is needed to expand 1 kg of water to allow for dissolved co2 and o2 molecules to escape?
Hmm?
Google it.

Then get to debunking that paper.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 09:42 AM

9. temperature has everything to do with the research in the paper, silly

You just said the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a reflection of ocean temperature.

What temperature is the ocean?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 10:07 AM

10. It is indicative of a rise in temperature.

Because....
When a thermodynamic system can't reject as much thermal energy as it receives, it fucking heats up. You know, the answer to the question you've been dodging for months.
You don't have to know the temperature to know it heats up.
That's what the paper is explaining in part.

It doesn't tell you the temperature for fuck sakes.
Where did you see a temperature reading in that paper?

It's hilarious when you whine about how research is done saying how flawed it is and then when a different method of calculating thermal energy in the oceans is used you ask what temperature the ocean is.
You'd rather not learn. That's fine, your loss.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 10:28 AM

11. You don't have to know the temperature to know it heats up?

brilliant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 10:35 AM

12. Care to prove that statement wrong?

Measuring the gases released is indicative of a temperature rise, without actually knowing the temperature.
So asking what temperature the oceans are is irrelevant and shows you do not understand the purpose of the paper or the science behind it.

2 cars are racing down a track. The length of the track isn't measured, there are no speedometers on the cars and the race isn't timed.
The car on the left wins the race.
How fast was it going?
It doesn't matter. The result would be the same if you knew the speed..


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 12:18 PM

14. Sorry but inductive reasoning makes for bad science

An example of inductive logic is, "The coin I pulled from the bag is a penny. That coin is a penny. A third coin from the bag is a penny. Therefore, all the coins in the bag are pennies."

Bob is a grandpa. Bob is bald. Therefore all grandpas are bald

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 01:08 PM

15. You can't prove the statement wrong so

You go into a nonsequitur about inductive reasoning.
There is no inductive reasoning needed to understand how dissovled co2 and o2 escape from water.
No inductive reasoning in the math either.
It matches up with other methods used for determining the amount of thermal energy in the oceans. Not the temperature. The amount of thermal energy. I know it's hard to understand but they aren't the same thing.

Show where an inductive reasoning logical fallacy was used in that research paper. Show it, don't just say so.
Should be easy enough.
Then after you've debunked the paper submit your findings to the journal of nature and have the paper retracted.

All the data is there, show the flaws. Show the errors in the calculations. Show how the co2 and o2 escaping the water isn't indicative of a gain in thermal energy. Don't ask the temperature. Don't deflect.
You won't.
You can't.
You'll whine and ask questions that have nothing to do with the paper because you won't take the time to learn the science and understand the reason behind the research in the first place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #15)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 04:06 PM

16. According to the paper

There has been a rise in CO2 over the past few years.

CO2 escapes from water

Therefore, all extra CO2 came from the oceans.

Sorry, but that kind of inductive reasoning is bad, bad science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #16)

Tue Nov 6, 2018, 01:11 AM

18. OMG

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meowmenow (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 08:57 AM

30. Unreal.. lmao..

He projects inductive reasoning onto the researchers without even looking at the data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 04:32 AM

22. No. That's not the reasoning.

Nor is it what the paper says.
Also, don't forget O2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #12)

Tue Nov 6, 2018, 10:46 PM

21. "Measuring the gases released"

What gases?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #21)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 04:36 AM

23. I explained how you can read the paper

And get the answer to your questions.

Then feel free to debunk the data and have the paper retracted.
What ya waiting for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 07:18 AM

25. But what gases?

If it can be measured, which gases and how much?

Its bullshit. They don't know how much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #11)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 10:39 AM

13. Your first sip of coffee burns your lip.

The second sip doesn't.
What is the temperature of your coffee?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #13)

Mon Nov 5, 2018, 07:44 PM

17. Has nothing to do with what I just said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #17)

Tue Nov 6, 2018, 07:56 AM

19. It has to do with

The fact that a research paper using a different method to determine thermal energy made you ask "what temperature is the ocean"

Just one of your little rabbit hole questions you throw out.
Similar to nolidads "scales to feathers" when talking about big bang theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #19)

Tue Nov 6, 2018, 12:02 PM

20. I thought you might be able to figure out why I asked that question

Evidently you didn't.

Your response should have been, there is no way to know the temperature of the ocean. Its a stupid question.

It doesn't take much understanding of the oceans to know that the temperatures vary not only from ocean to ocean, but also in the different depths of the oceans. Then you have the "rivers" in the oceans - streams of currents that carry waters from one location to another. They also carry varying temperatures of water. The fact is, oceans are so dynamic that it is silly to try to say what their temperatures are. A similar situation exists in the air. As we ascend into the atmosphere, the temperature varies to different degrees, and it is not always true that the air gets colder as you go up. The other similarity of the air to oceans is the different weather systems within the atmosphere.

Now we have a new theory, apparently, to tell us the temperature of water, and that is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I have to say I laughed when I read that. My guess is the old methods of measuring ocean temperatures are not satisfying the global warmers and they have dreamed up another method that suits them better.

Problem is, they picked a terrible way to fit their outcome. Inductive reasoning is bad science, but it is the only way they figured to do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #20)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 04:54 AM

24. Why do you ask "stupid" unaswerable questions?

To make some kind of point that you can't measure the temperature of that type of thermodynamic system?
Which is one of the reasons for the paper.

Now you say they can't determine the thermal energy in the oceans by determining the amount of CO2 and O2 released from the oceans. With no explanation as to why.
Just some claptrap about inductive reasoning.
You can't debunk the paper, so you have to say the method is flawed, yet you have absolutely no way of showing how it is flawed.

First you would have to explain how the O2 levels can't be determined through this method.
Then you have to explain how the data is not relative to the amount of thermal energy in the oceans.
Then you have to explain why the levels of O2 that are present aren't indicative of a gain in thermal energy.
Then you have to do the same for CO2.

That's just to start.
So better get on it.
Making a claim with nothing to back it up like, inductive reasoning, means absolutely nothing. It's a little cop out when you don't have anything else.
I'm not married to anything in science and if you or someone else can debunk the paper it doesn't effect me whatsoever.

However, when you are faced with evidence you jump around and through so many hoops to deny it or attach it to something else that there isn't much point in discussing the article with you. When people whine about the temp readings being inaccurate as a method and automatically deny another method without understanding it, it reeks of desperation. You then project by saying the research and it's conclusions are an act of desperation.

If you really cared you wouldn't ask silly rhetorical questions when faced with data.
You'd learn to understand the data and argue an opposing view with data and evidence.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 07:21 AM

26. To make you (and anybody else reading this) realize these people are full of crap

If they know how much, then how much is it?

Hummmmmmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 07:48 AM

27. How much what?

Thermal energy did the oceans gain?
It's right there in the abstract the in the OP.

1.33 ± 0.20 × 10^22 joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 08:37 AM

28. Please don't play stupid

How much CO2 has escaped from the oceans, but you knew what the question was

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 08:44 AM

29. Try to formulate your questions properly.

It helps prevent thst type of shit.
Specifics help when trying to answer a question like "how much is it". They also measured O2. You could have meant that as well.
You could have meant anything relevant to the research or even the abstract posted in the OP.
You could also check the data tables in the paper and find the answer yourself.
The O2 measurements are more important anyway, in my opinion.

So check the paper for your answer. It's linked in the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 08:58 AM

31. No it isn't

Stop lying

You can prove me wrong if you want to

(You can use the OP, its ok)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 09:33 AM

32. Then what the fuck am I looking at right now?



When you say THEY don't know, you mean YOU don't know.

Calls me a liar.
lmao!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #32)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 09:43 AM

33. So how much CO2 has been emitted by the oceans?

You still have an opportunity to prove me wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 09:47 AM

34. I proved you wrong.

I said the data is at the link and you called me a liar.

So, fuck no, I'm not helping you anymore than that.
I don't even care how much it was.
You do though, so find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 09:49 AM

35. Since when is O2 and CO2 the same thing?

stop lying

What you posted does not even say how much O2 has been emitted by oceans

You are bluffing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #35)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 10:31 AM

36. do you see all the weeks from

1989 going on the left hand side of my first pic?
now think how long that list is.
Then do it for all of the stations measuring that, then do it for CO2
Then APO, then plots...


All kinds of goodies if you would take the time to fucking look man.



At least I upgraded from liar to "bluffing".
I guess that's progress.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 01:17 PM

37. Still evading my question, I see

You are evading it because you can't answer it.

Nobody knows how much CO2 has been emitted from the oceans. And nobody knows what temperature the oceans are, or how much heat they contain.

You people are desperate to explain where all that heat went that your failed computer models predicted. You just can't admit you are wrong.

You people are so amusing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 01:52 PM

38. nobody knows, nobody knows!!!

You don't know. That's not the same thing, is it?
You never even bothered to look it up.
If you need someone to hold your hand through it, well, that's not gonna be me. Honestly though, I think you do.
Like I said, I don't care what the levels are, you do.
So find out.
Don't spout out bullshit about temperature and new CO2 is all from the oceans now and whatever other nonsense you said about the research.
Maybe your failed weatherman will chime in after he finds a way around it. Then I'll show you the paper we both saw and show that he lied about the data or the paper or, probably, both.
That's my prediction.
Maybe once one of your loons is proven to lie to you you'll start to see it differently, but I doubt it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 02:34 PM

39. Well, you sure don't know

We know that

And neither do your fellow global warmers

Unfortunately for you the whole premise of your theory to derive ocean temperature is based on how much CO2 the oceans have emitted. If you don't know how much, that presents a bit of a sticky wickett.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #39)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 04:00 PM

40. I told you I don't fucking care.

If I cared, I'd know.
You care, but you still don't know.

You are fixated on CO2 when there are other variables.

I even said I think the O2 is more important. Shows how much you fucking pay attention.

The info is there, look it up or don't.
It's like asking me how to spell something when there is a dictionary in front of you.
Get on it.
Debunk it.
Show the flaws and errors.

We'll all be very impressed if you even take the time to try.
You won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #40)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 04:02 PM

41. Hilarious

You are defending something you don't care about.

I love this forum

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 04:03 PM

42. Don't have to care to point out that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

I kinda care about that.
Mocking your ridiculous bullshit when the answers are in your face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SatansSon666 (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 05:25 PM

44. You get SO worked up

It was funny watching you for awhile, but now i'm feeling sorry for you.

Time for me to move on. When you can't answer a simple, relevant question, you go berserk.

All O2 and CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT come from the oceans, silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 06:49 PM

45. Don't call me silly when nothing says what you say it says.

You have effectively proven that you do not care about the data and conclusions enough to even look at them.

Yet here you are, all the time pretending you know what you are talking about and crying about global this and that, yet you only learned what a watt is a couple of months ago.

Why would anyone take your opinion on levels of any gas for any reason when you can't even demonstrate a basic understanding of the shit you are talking about.
Why take your word when the fucking information is right in front of you and you refuse to look at it or offer any credible explanation why it's false.

You pretend it's me that is getting worked up, but you've spent how many fucking years arguing this shit? I just started looking at it and I can already tell you are way out of your league.

You also owe me an apology for calling me a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oflguy (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 7, 2018, 04:09 PM

43. You should probabaly give up on this one.

I've handed your ass to you quite fashionably.
Showed you are everything you said I was.
Easily.
Why?
Because you don't look up the shit or understand the purpose of the research.
Watts up with that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to orson (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2018, 10:49 AM

46. Didn't.....

....this guy just discover that the paper cited in the Nature link, were incorrect on their math? Thus invalidating the entire study?

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/A-major-problem-with-the-Resplandy-et-al.-ocean-heat-uptake-paper.pdf?utm_source=Media&utm_campaign=e1136906ff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_11_07_10_05&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8f98a37810-e1136906ff-36424229


"The central problem, according to Keeling, came in how the researchers dealt with the uncertainty in their measurements. As a result, the findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper’s conclusion about just how much heat the oceans have absorbed over time."

https://www.thegwpf.com/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-in-study-of-how-fast-the-oceans-are-warming/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Steelydamned (Reply #46)

Thu Nov 15, 2018, 10:59 AM

47. Math, statistics, and reality are abstract and fluid concepts to doomers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience