Tony Abbott and his views on climate change and environment in general.
Mummy of Max 2 from donor eggs from my lovely sister.
The key graphic is here.
Some of the climate models predict that the diurnal temperature range, that is, the difference between Tmax and Tmin, should decrease due to greenhouse warming. The physics is that greenhouse gases have more impact at night when they absorb infrared and reduce the cooling, and that this effect is larger than the additional daytime warming. This predicted change is sometimes cited as one of the “fingerprints” that separates greenhouse warming from other effects such as solar variability. Previous studies [15-18] reported significant decreases in the diurnal temperature range over the period 1948 to 1994. Jones et al.  for example described the decrease as 0.08°C per decade for the period 1950 to 1993.The result of this calculation is shown in figure 4. The solid line represents the annual average of the diurnal range, and the dashed line shows the 10-year running average. The 1- and 2-standard deviation error uncertainties are shown with the two grey bands for the 10-year average. The behavior of the diurnal range is not simple; it drops from 1900 to 1987, and then it rises. The rise takes place during a period when, according to the IPCC report, the anthropogenic effect of global warming is evident above the background variations from natural causes.
Although the post-1987 rise is not sufficient to undo the drop that took place from 1901 to 1987, the trend of 0.86 ± 0.13°C/century is distinctly upwards with a very high level of confidence. This reversal is particularly odd since it occurs during a period when the rise in Tavg was strong and showed no apparent changes in behavior.
Last edited by Father; 11-10-2013 at 21:17.
"A new study of ocean warming has just been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013). There are several important conclusions which can be drawn from this paper.
Completely contrary to the popular contrarian myth, global warming has accelerated, with more overall global warming in the past 15 years than the prior 15 years. This is because about 90% of overall global warming goes into heating the oceans, and the oceans have been warming dramatically.
As suspected, much of the 'missing heat' Kevin Trenberth previously talked about has been found in the deep oceans. Consistent with the results of Nuccitelli et al. (2012), this study finds that 30% of the ocean warming over the past decade has occurred in the deeper oceans below 700 meters, which they note is unprecedented over at least the past half century.
Some recent studies have concluded based on the slowed global surface warming over the past decade that the sensitivity of the climate to the increased greenhouse effect is somewhat lower than the IPCC best estimate. Those studies are fundamentally flawed because they do not account for the warming of the deep oceans.
The slowed surface air warming over the past decade has lulled many people into a false and unwarranted sense of security."
Your "data" is flawed Father. Again.
However, the IPCC would suggest that there is not enough data to make such a claim as Trenberth and co. have. Some graphs from their latest report.
As you can see, there really has not been any reasonable coverage of the deeper ocean until after 2005. Before that, there really hasn't been any consistent and diverse measurements at all.
Argo, which has 1000's of buoys, has been providing the most accurate measurements of ocean heat content. But this data has really only been available since 2004. Argo doesn't really show any warming since 2004 (upper 700m).
Trenberth's study is a reanalysis, not actual observations. It is effectively a climate model, which is only ever as good as the data that is input into it.
A quote from Trenberth:
He has been looking for his 'lost heat' since. It is convenient to say it is in the deep ocean, where we can't really measure it. But it's impressive that the heat somehow got there without warming the atmosphere or the upper 700m. Maybe it found some sort of worm hole??The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.
They could afford to get their facts right here too. It talks about a 1.1m sea level rise, when even the IPCC say that, worse case scenario, it could be expected to rise 0.45 - 0.85. And that is their worse case!
In regard to heat-related deaths, it would have been nice if the complete picture was given. Whilst heat related deaths may increase, the benefit of less cold related deaths would far exceed the increase. Murdoch and his bias I guess
happy wanderer (22-10-2013)
Oh my god. Only .85. Really, that is FANTASTIC.
Not to mention, it is a model, a prediction, and you are the one who points out over and over again how it is only a prediction and not fact. How funny that you jump to the other side and start talking as if it is gospel now that it "supposedly" backs up some of your claims.
You're making my head spin.
Here is an interactive flood map, you can set it to 1 metre and interestingly, even with a rise of just 1 metre some countries will be in big trouble, like the Netherlands. Interesting to see how it will affect other places like Sydney as well, better hope your not living in Mascot, Tempe, St Peters, Arncliff etc.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!