All ocean basins examined have experienced significant warming since 1998, with the greatest warming in the southern oceans, the tropical/subtropical Pacific Ocean, and the tropical/subtropical Atlantic Ocean....The new result (Fig. 6) suggests a total full-depth ocean warming of 33.5 ± 7.0 × 1022 J (equal to a net heating of 0.37 ± 0.08 W/m2 over the global surface and over the 56-year period) from 1960 to 2015, with 36.5, 20.4, 30.3, and 12.8% contributions from the 0- to 300-m, 300- to 700-m, 700- to 2000-m, and below 2000-m layers, respectively. Here, we prefer to use the total energy change in the budget analyses rather than the linear trend because the change is not linear owing to the general increase in radiative forcing with time. The new reconstruction confirms the previous finding that the upper ocean experiences the most statistically significant warming, while the 0- to 2000-m layer contributes to the vast majority of the ocean warming since 1960
Cheng, Lijing, et al. "Improved estimates of ocean heat content from 1960 to 2015." Science Advances 3.3 (2017): e1601545.
In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.
"Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries. Most of the warming, however, will emerge relatively quickly, implying that CO2 emission cuts will not only benefit subsequent generations but also the generation implementing those cuts."
Last edited by Guest on Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Res Ipsa wrote:Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which Water Dog deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.
Res Ipsa wrote:Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which WD deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.
So, WD, what’s your excuse this time? Which demonrat forced you to delete the last sentence?
LOL That is really bad dishonestly. What's worse is it is really stupid dishonesty. Did he not think someone would click on his link and read the abstract.
You keep repeating yourself, but you can't demonstrate any sort of functioning understanding of the equation you posted here. I want you to take that equation, since apparently you understand it super awesome, input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.
- Doc
all right man! Jesus Christ!
ΔF = αln(C/Co)
Radiative forcing= (5.35) log e (CO2 level (parts per million)/pre-industrial level (parts per million)) Do you have more questions?
Themis wrote:LOL That is really bad dishonestly. What's worse is it is really stupid dishonesty. Did he not think someone would click on his link and read the abstract.
Leaving out the last sentence and boldfacing the second to last sentence to change the meaning of the abstract is out and out fraud.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
You keep repeating yourself, but you can't demonstrate any sort of functioning understanding of the equation you posted here. I want you to take that equation, since apparently you understand it super awesome, input data into each component, explaining the steps, what they mean, why you're doing it, and then demonstrate how that relates to your obsequious statement where you claim you made it make sense.
- Doc
all right man! Jesus Christ!
ΔF = αln(C/Co)
Radiative forcing= (5.35) log e (CO2 level (parts per million)/pre-industrial level (parts per million)) Do you have more questions?
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Res Ipsa wrote:Now pay attention, class. Water Dog is the guy who started a whole thread on science and honesty. Click his link and read the abstract. Make sure you read the last sentence, which WD deleted. That’s right. The Dog carefully copied all but the last sentence, because he doesn’t want you to see the actual conclusion.
So, WD, what’s your excuse this time? Which demonrat forced you to delete the last sentence?
In my experience, this is the point where Waterdog often abandons the conversation.
Climate change denier are right up there with flat earthers and anti vaccination folk when it comes to actually examining the evidence. They have already formed their bias based conclusion, don't bother them with the evidence.
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.
Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality. ~Bill Hamblin