Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Truth in ‘Warming’

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

I recently read a news summary at Science 2.0. The same summary was also published by ScienceDaily.

After reading the Science 2.0 article, I left a comment.

I was interested in how others would react to my analysis of the news summary. Well, I went back to the site, and couldn’t find this news summary. It’s now almost two weeks since I posted my reaction, and it has simply disappeared from the site (you can still google and find it, but with no comment shown).

The comment I left behind was along these lines: if, indeed, lakes are warming, then why—as the study indicates—do “ice-covered” lakes show the MOST warming?? You would think it would be the opposite, right.

That’s because the silly theory of “global warming” says the increased CO2 in the highest part of our atmosphere is reflecting light back to the surface water, warming them, with the warmed waters releasing more H20–which is the real hothouse ‘gas,’ not CO2. Well, if the lakes showing the most warming are covered with ‘ice’ (at least for a good portion of the year), then one would expect the ‘ice’ to melt, and the water in the lake beneath not to ‘feel’ the extra solar radiation. Hence, the ‘ice-covered’ lakes should have heated up the LEAST!!

But, there’s more.

OTOH, if the TRUE cause of lakes warming up (and of the oceans, and, via increased H20, the atmosphere) is from a greater amount of heat coming from earth’s core (IOW, a slightly higher temperature gradient), then, since “ice-covered” lakes CAN’T give off the heat coming from below as ‘water vapor’ (yes, like an ‘evaporate cooler’!!), then one would expect that the “ice-covered” lakes would heat up the most.

Same data: different conclusion; a conclusion that ought to be reached, but isn’t (why?).

And, of course, the news summary—with my comment—disappears.

So much for “truth in ‘warming’.”

P.S. I should add that if you look at the actual article—which can be accessed (or could)—you’ll find that some of the lakes showing the least amount of warming were located in the Alps. Now, if solar radiation is the cause of heating the lakes, then lakes that are higher in elevation–like those in the Alps–should show a higher level of warming; but they don’t. On the premise that the actual heating comes from the core of the earth, however, this makes sense since they are farther away from the source of this heat.

Comments
History says that humanity has always prospered during warmer periods and always had problems during colder periods. Obviously Zachriel doesn't care about Earthlings.Virgil Cain
January 5, 2016
January
01
Jan
5
05
2016
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
Zachriel:
Various measures put climate sensitivity at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2.
And yet a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm will only cause an increase of 0.6 C: The Mathematics of Carbon Dioxide, Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 The math is beyond ZachrielVirgil Cain
January 5, 2016
January
01
Jan
5
05
2016
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
asauber: Various claims put an imaginary number at about who the bleep cares? If you don't care of Earthlings, then it may not matter to you. However, for those who dwell on Earth, climate sensitivity determines how fast and how much the Earth will warm in response to greenhouse emissions. There are a number of ways to estimate climate sensitivity.
Volcanic forcing Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005. Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006. Paleoclimatic constraints Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011. Bayesian probability Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008. Review paper Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
Zachriel
January 5, 2016
January
01
Jan
5
05
2016
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
"Various measures put climate sensitivity at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2" Translated: "Various claims put an imaginary number at about who the bleep cares?" Andrewasauber
January 5, 2016
January
01
Jan
5
05
2016
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT
EugeneS: You are talking nonsense. The question concerned the period from 1846 to 1995, @13. EugeneS: What humanity is contributing is a tiny fraction of the natural temperature amplitude. Various measures put climate sensitivity at about 2-4°C per doubling of CO2. That's hardly a tiny fraction. The last glacial period was only about 5°C cooler.Zachriel
January 5, 2016
January
01
Jan
5
05
2016
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Zachriel, "Warming wasn't significant till 20 century." You are talking nonsense. What happened after the ice age? These things are periodic. What humanity is contributing is a tiny fraction of the natural temperature amplitude. Politicians want to use it to their advantage. Where one needs to recognize design you refuse to see it. But where there is not a good deal of design, you are seeing it. Strange...EugeneS
January 5, 2016
January
01
Jan
5
05
2016
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT
PaV: And, of course, “man-made” CO2 emissions is what caused this to begin to happen in 1846. Right? Warming wasn't significant until the 20th century. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/web_figures/hadcrut4_annual_global.png PaV: But, if you look at one of the quotes above in response to wd400, you’ll see that in the study, no such correlation holds up regionally.
This warming rate is consistent with the rapid annual average increase in air temperatures (0.25°C decade?1) and ocean surface temperatures (0.12°C decade?1) over a similar time period (1979–2012) [Hartmann et al., 2013a]. The difference between the overall trend for summer air and lake temperatures was not statistically significant across these sites, indicating broad global coherence in air and lake temperature trends. However, for individual lakes, air and lake temperature trends often diverged (Figure 2), emphasizing the importance of understanding the various factors that control lake heat budgets rather than assuming lake temperatures will respond similarly to air temperatures.
That's right. There is a correlation between summer air temperature and lake summer surface water temperature (the difference is not statistically significant). The effect does vary from lake to lake due to various local factors. So? That directly contradicts your stance that lake summer surface water temperature are not related to the warming surface air temperatures.Zachriel
January 5, 2016
January
01
Jan
5
05
2016
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT
wd400: You mean that you can "google" it and find it; but it's not been available at the site since an hour after I made my comment. Zachriel: Magnuson et al., Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover in the Northern Hemisphere, Science 2000: “Freeze and breakup dates of ice on lakes and rivers provide consistent evidence of later freezing and earlier breakup around the Northern Hemisphere from 1846 to 1995.” And, of course, "man-made" CO2 emissions is what caused this to begin to happen in 1846. Right? PaV: Further, if we assume this simple view, then you cannot explain why lakes at higher altitudes, as in the Alps, would not be warming up as fast as those at lower elevations. O’Reilly et al. found that summer air temperature was the best predictor of lake summer surface water temperature. But, if you look at one of the quotes above in response to wd400, you'll see that in the study, no such correlation holds up regionally. This is a local effect as far as this study is concerned.PaV
January 4, 2016
January
01
Jan
4
04
2016
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
PaV: This is a presumption, not a fact. Magnuson et al., Historical Trends in Lake and River Ice Cover in the Northern Hemisphere, Science 2000: "Freeze and breakup dates of ice on lakes and rivers provide consistent evidence of later freezing and earlier breakup around the Northern Hemisphere from 1846 to 1995." PaV: Further, if we assume this simple view, then you cannot explain why lakes at higher altitudes, as in the Alps, would not be warming up as fast as those at lower elevations. O'Reilly et al. found that summer air temperature was the best predictor of lake summer surface water temperature.Zachriel
January 4, 2016
January
01
Jan
4
04
2016
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
... the news summary is still there though? I don't know what happened to your comment, but I think it probably wasn't removed because of the devastating power of the argument in contained.wd400
January 4, 2016
January
01
Jan
4
04
2016
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
From the OP:
And, of course, the news summary—with my comment—disappears.
PaV
January 4, 2016
January
01
Jan
4
04
2016
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
If everything is as easy as you make it out, then why was the article pulled?
Which article do you think was pulled?wd400
January 4, 2016
January
01
Jan
4
04
2016
11:12 AM
11
11
12
AM
PDT
Zachriel: In addition, bodies of water are not generally frozen year around. With global warming, bodies of water are ice-free for longer periods of time just as the Sun is highest in the sky, meaning they absorb more energy. This is a presumption, not a fact. Further, if we assume this simple view, then you cannot explain why lakes at higher altitudes, as in the Alps, would not be warming up as fast as those at lower elevations.PaV
January 4, 2016
January
01
Jan
4
04
2016
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
wd400: If everything is as easy as you make it out, then why was the article pulled? And, of course, they were 'summer' temperatures: how would you get a temperature for 'surface waters' when the waters are covered with ice. This is a given.
Ice-covered lakes are typically warming faster than ambient air temperatures, and lake morphology affected the strength of this response. The world's deepest ice-covered lakes warmed twice as fast as the overlying air temperatures, consistent with previous single-lake studies (e.g., [Austin and Colman, 2007; Hampton et al., 2008]).
One explanation has to do with 'stratification' of waters. But, another explanation is that the heat is coming from below, something that is entirely consistent with what they find. And, if everything is as simple as: warming causes warmer air temperatures, which causes ice to melt sooner, which causes surface water temperatures to increase, then please explain the following:
The difference between the overall trend for summer air and lake temperatures was not statistically significant across these sites, indicating broad global coherence in air and lake temperature trends. However, for individual lakes, air and lake temperature trends often diverged (Figure 2), emphasizing the importance of understanding the various factors that control lake heat budgets rather than assuming lake temperatures will respond similarly to air temperatures.
Maybe you might want to read the paper.PaV
January 4, 2016
January
01
Jan
4
04
2016
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Maybe read the paper? The first sentence of the abstract could have saved you some time.
In this first worldwide synthesis of in situ and satellite-derived lake data, we find that lake summer surface water temperatures rose rapidly (global mean?=?0.34°C decade?1) between 1985 and 2009.
The effect is probably largely the result of lakes losing ice-cover earlier. There are otehr factors discussed in teh (open access) paperwd400
January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
PaV: It’s 3% of the total energy budget, right? That's 0.03% or about 47 terawatts. PaV: if solar energy is apparently 33 times more powerful than the earth’s core, well, we should be seeing powerful eruptions of water all over the ocean’s surfaces. That's more than three thousand times more power. Imagine the Sun stops shining. What do you think will happen to the Earth's mean surface temperature? Consider the difference in surface temperature due to the diurnal and annual cycles. PaV: Almost all of the solar radiation we receive finds its way out into space, so that the ‘net’ effect is small–or we would heat up like the sun. To stay in equilibrium, the Earth has to be warm enough to emit the energy received, which is about 340 w/m^2 averaged over the entire surface. (There's a small imbalance due to recent increases in greenhouse gases, but we can ignore that for now.) PaV: With this said: please explain to me why ‘ice-covered’ lakes are warming up faster than those with no ice. Higher latitudes are more affected by greenhouse warming because the insulating effect tends to minimize differences in temperature, whether due to the diurnal cycle or due to latitude. In addition, bodies of water are not generally frozen year around. With global warming, bodies of water are ice-free for longer periods of time just as the Sun is highest in the sky, meaning they absorb more energy.Zachriel
January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
Zachriel: As Mark Twain famously commented: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." That is, numbers can lie. Your contention is that earth's core heating should be disregarded. It's 3% of the total energy budget, right? Let me ask you a question: what causes "Old Faithful" to erupt in Yellowstone Park? Next, let me ask you this. Has anything like this happened in the middle of the ocean? You see, if solar energy is apparently 33 times more powerful than the earth's core, well, we should be seeing powerful eruptions of water all over the ocean's surfaces. But we don't. Try to understand what the energy budget means. It means your keeping track of inflows and outflows. Almost all of the solar radiation we receive finds its way out into space, so that the 'net' effect is small--or we would heat up like the sun. With this said: please explain to me why 'ice-covered' lakes are warming up faster than those with no ice.PaV
January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
Mahuna: We don't need your attitude. Relax. Try to understand what I'm saying. Global Warming fits in here at UD because like the warming alarmists, Darwinism---in whatever form they want to disguise it---is also a "consensus" science, with the very same defects. The 'defect' I've pointed out is the inability of scientists to face facts.PaV
January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT
PaV: a greater amount of heat coming from earth’s core The energy from the Earth's interior is only 0.03% of the energy budget of the Earth's surface. The other 99.97% is from solar radiation. Higher latitudes are more affected by greenhouse warming because the insulating effect tends to minimize differences in temperature, whether due to the diurnal cycle or due to latitude. As the ice melts, though, albedo is reduced, so energy absorption increases. This is a significant positive feedback with the Arctic Ocean.Zachriel
January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
Global Warming was never anything but a political litmus test. If you profess to believe it, then you've got approval from the tribal council. If you profess doubt, your head may be taken. And to think evolution made us this way. What a glorious accident. Andrewasauber
January 2, 2016
January
01
Jan
2
02
2016
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT
If you have any serious interest in the Global Warming hoax, simply go to Climate Depot and read their articles. The whole "97% consensus" thing was COMPLETELY explained several years back. It was based on a single poll to which most professionals did not respond. And among the respondents, any response other than "Hell no" was taken as "emphatically YES". But then Leftists generally interpret all data that way. The discussions and debunking at Climate Depot are EXACTLY the same kind of articles posted here except they are on different topics (e.g., wholesale misrepresentation of objective field data). You can't hope to match a site whose focus is different than yours. So I suggest you don't try.mahuna
January 1, 2016
January
01
Jan
1
01
2016
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply