Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Otispunkmeyer said:
I like how, as well, it seems to suggest that all the heat will magically just reappear in one lump sum to fry us all.
Don't think heat transfer works like that (unless its a rapid exothermic reaction).
Indeed. As per my previous post, the 2nd Law fries belief.Don't think heat transfer works like that (unless its a rapid exothermic reaction).
Worth a read through.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-i...
You also have to wonder what the measurement methodology error bar is for 0.06 deg C in the deep oceans.
Beati Dogu said:
Science hasn't been so perverted since the Third Reich.
In the past they manipulated the weak minded by reading chicken entrails, scattered bones, tea leaves or people's palms. Now they use computer modelling.
In the past they manipulated the weak minded by reading chicken entrails, scattered bones, tea leaves or people's palms. Now they use computer modelling.
Sadly we are in a period of people believing 'but the computer says x so it must be true, a computer doesn't lie' . They forget that we don't have AI and that all results are based on the data added and the results predicted by the person inputting the data.
turbobloke said:
Somebody should send Peter Franklin and Rebecca Leber this data from a Trenberth paper. That's Dr Kevin Trenberth, IPCC High Priest of Warming. It was featured over at the Hockey Schtick website and was covered on PH at the time.
Trenberth's paper shows the rate of change in global ocean heat content has been decreasing as the 'pause' continues.
Atmospheric heat getting to the deep oceans otherwise than via the surface 700m layer is climatewang. Deep ocean heat returning...2nd Law anyone?
Any claim that the 'pause' of global warming can be explained by an increase in the rate of ocean missing heat uptake is baloney, the rate has been decreasing for most of the 'pause'.
As I always ask my Believer friends; tell me, how does the heat get from the high atmosphere "greenhouse" and down into the deep ocean without the tedious business of raising the near surface temperatures? They are always strangely deflective...Trenberth's paper shows the rate of change in global ocean heat content has been decreasing as the 'pause' continues.
Atmospheric heat getting to the deep oceans otherwise than via the surface 700m layer is climatewang. Deep ocean heat returning...2nd Law anyone?
Any claim that the 'pause' of global warming can be explained by an increase in the rate of ocean missing heat uptake is baloney, the rate has been decreasing for most of the 'pause'.
Maybe the cunning heat uses one of those Thunderbird 4 spacecraft which can fly down from space and dive into the ocean? Well, it's about as plausible isn't it...
More for Franklin and Leber from Jo Nova.
Ocean Heat Content does not help the IPCC
1.If the oceans affected global temperatures after 1998, what were they doing before that?
If the oceans caused natural cooling over the last 15 years, how do we know they didn’t cause natural warming over the 20 years before that? The answer is, if La Nina’s can cool the surface, El Nino’s can warm it. If oceans can draw heat out of the sky, then in times when they are not doing that, they can also increase the trends.
Caught again, the IPCC hides this banal symmetry. Their self-serving lop-sided rule is: if it cools, it’s natural; if it warms, it’s artificial. The killer contradiction goes unspoken. If the warming from 1979 -1999 was significantly caused by natural changes in currents, clouds or wind which allowed heat to build up in the air, it means they underestimated the natural effect of the oceans and overestimated the effect of CO2 during the warming. When CO2 levels reached their “highest” levels in human history after 1998, the oceans overrode whatever effect CO2 had. The IPCC knows so little about the ocean, that they didn’t even allow for this possibility in their past predictions. Why should we let them get away with the banal post hoc hand-waving excuse?
This is a point so simple any science journalist ought to spot it immediately. Have any of them asked?
2. The oceans are supposedly 0.06 C warmer than 50 years ago (but we can’t really measure the global ocean temperature to a hundreth of a degree).
The first point of deception is that temperature is measured in degrees, but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean 'temperatures' in Joules. This hides the obvious problem — we just can’t measure the global ocean temperature that accurately.
Before 2003 there is only sparse irregular measurements with everything from buckets off boats to thermometers fired into the water and usually without pressure sensors (we estimated how deep they were from how long they’d been falling…not much room for precision there). Much of the ocean wasn’t covered, and there were almost no readings below 700m (the average depth of oceans is 4km).
We’ve only had decent measurements of the ocean since mid-2003 when the ARGO system started. But even these measurements are considerably less certain than often claimed, and they didn’t find the missing energy anyway (see point 4).
3. The utterly banal again: All forms of warming cause ocean heat to rise.
Ocean warming (like most other indicators) doesn’t prove anything about the cause. If the warming since 1700 was due to solar magnetic effects, or lunar effects, cosmic rays and changes in cloud cover, the oceans would warm. The only point that matters is whether the models have verifiable predictive skill of any kind. They don’t: ergo the theory is wrong.
4. The missing energy is just not enough. The numbers Jim, look at the numbers!
ARGO data started in 2003, but the observed ocean warming does not fit the model predictions. (See this post for details.) The rate of increase is too small to demonstrate a large radiative imbalance.
Ocean Heat Content does not help the IPCC
1.If the oceans affected global temperatures after 1998, what were they doing before that?
If the oceans caused natural cooling over the last 15 years, how do we know they didn’t cause natural warming over the 20 years before that? The answer is, if La Nina’s can cool the surface, El Nino’s can warm it. If oceans can draw heat out of the sky, then in times when they are not doing that, they can also increase the trends.
Caught again, the IPCC hides this banal symmetry. Their self-serving lop-sided rule is: if it cools, it’s natural; if it warms, it’s artificial. The killer contradiction goes unspoken. If the warming from 1979 -1999 was significantly caused by natural changes in currents, clouds or wind which allowed heat to build up in the air, it means they underestimated the natural effect of the oceans and overestimated the effect of CO2 during the warming. When CO2 levels reached their “highest” levels in human history after 1998, the oceans overrode whatever effect CO2 had. The IPCC knows so little about the ocean, that they didn’t even allow for this possibility in their past predictions. Why should we let them get away with the banal post hoc hand-waving excuse?
This is a point so simple any science journalist ought to spot it immediately. Have any of them asked?
2. The oceans are supposedly 0.06 C warmer than 50 years ago (but we can’t really measure the global ocean temperature to a hundreth of a degree).
The first point of deception is that temperature is measured in degrees, but the Climate-change Industry always report ocean 'temperatures' in Joules. This hides the obvious problem — we just can’t measure the global ocean temperature that accurately.
Before 2003 there is only sparse irregular measurements with everything from buckets off boats to thermometers fired into the water and usually without pressure sensors (we estimated how deep they were from how long they’d been falling…not much room for precision there). Much of the ocean wasn’t covered, and there were almost no readings below 700m (the average depth of oceans is 4km).
We’ve only had decent measurements of the ocean since mid-2003 when the ARGO system started. But even these measurements are considerably less certain than often claimed, and they didn’t find the missing energy anyway (see point 4).
3. The utterly banal again: All forms of warming cause ocean heat to rise.
Ocean warming (like most other indicators) doesn’t prove anything about the cause. If the warming since 1700 was due to solar magnetic effects, or lunar effects, cosmic rays and changes in cloud cover, the oceans would warm. The only point that matters is whether the models have verifiable predictive skill of any kind. They don’t: ergo the theory is wrong.
4. The missing energy is just not enough. The numbers Jim, look at the numbers!
ARGO data started in 2003, but the observed ocean warming does not fit the model predictions. (See this post for details.) The rate of increase is too small to demonstrate a large radiative imbalance.
In that BBC propaganda piece about deep ocean heat, specifically the Atlantic, why does a graphic depicting air humidity over the Pacific (complete with scary red colouring) get put about halfway down? What relevance is it - other than scary red heat colour?
Plus, from the argot link, if they are reading down to 2km but the oceans are 4km average depth, how do they suppose what is happening below? Have those watery beings from The Abyss been visiting again with their own temp records?
Plus, from the argot link, if they are reading down to 2km but the oceans are 4km average depth, how do they suppose what is happening below? Have those watery beings from The Abyss been visiting again with their own temp records?
The Don of Croy said:
In that BBC propaganda piece about deep ocean heat, specifically the Atlantic, why does a graphic depicting air humidity over the Pacific (complete with scary red colouring) get put about halfway down? What relevance is it - other than scary red heat colour?
Plus, from the argot link, if they are reading down to 2km but the oceans are 4km average depth, how do they suppose what is happening below? Have those watery beings from The Abyss been visiting again with their own temp records?
It's all fairytales taken from the movie Deep Ocean starring Linda Loveheat.Plus, from the argot link, if they are reading down to 2km but the oceans are 4km average depth, how do they suppose what is happening below? Have those watery beings from The Abyss been visiting again with their own temp records?
That chart represents a close-up of her hotspot.
turbobloke said:
You also have to wonder what the measurement methodology error bar is for 0.06 deg C in the deep oceans.
The degree of consistency required, instrument by instrument, and buoy function by buoy function across units with an initial life span of 4 years rising to 6 years (which presumably means they are now into deploying the third generation or possibly even the fourth generation of buoys since the project started) to be able to calculate for the global oceans of that level of accuracy is surely remarkable. To be able to compare the numbers collected by the technology oer the past decade to numbers collected sporadically by buckets dropped from ships 50 years ago must involve significant amounts of utter genius.Or at least significant amounts of something.
turbobloke said:
The Don of Croy said:
In that BBC propaganda piece about deep ocean heat, specifically the Atlantic, why does a graphic depicting air humidity over the Pacific (complete with scary red colouring) get put about halfway down? What relevance is it - other than scary red heat colour?
Plus, from the argot link, if they are reading down to 2km but the oceans are 4km average depth, how do they suppose what is happening below? Have those watery beings from The Abyss been visiting again with their own temp records?
It's all fairytales taken from the movie Deep Ocean starring Linda Loveheat.Plus, from the argot link, if they are reading down to 2km but the oceans are 4km average depth, how do they suppose what is happening below? Have those watery beings from The Abyss been visiting again with their own temp records?
That chart represents a close-up of her hotspot.
Andy Zarse said:
turbobloke said:
The Don of Croy said:
In that BBC propaganda piece about deep ocean heat, specifically the Atlantic, why does a graphic depicting air humidity over the Pacific (complete with scary red colouring) get put about halfway down? What relevance is it - other than scary red heat colour?
Plus, from the argot link, if they are reading down to 2km but the oceans are 4km average depth, how do they suppose what is happening below? Have those watery beings from The Abyss been visiting again with their own temp records?
It's all fairytales taken from the movie Deep Ocean starring Linda Loveheat.Plus, from the argot link, if they are reading down to 2km but the oceans are 4km average depth, how do they suppose what is happening below? Have those watery beings from The Abyss been visiting again with their own temp records?
That chart represents a close-up of her hotspot.
BBC climate coverage is enough to make anyone spit.
turbobloke said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I like how, as well, it seems to suggest that all the heat will magically just reappear in one lump sum to fry us all.
Don't think heat transfer works like that (unless its a rapid exothermic reaction).
Indeed. As per my previous post, the 2nd Law fries belief.Don't think heat transfer works like that (unless its a rapid exothermic reaction).
Worth a read through.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/26/the-relentless-i...
You also have to wonder what the measurement methodology error bar is for 0.06 deg C in the deep oceans.
Laws of thermo:
1) You cannot win (you don't get something for nothing)
2) You Cannot break even (entropy)
3) You cannot get out of the game (good luck reaching 0 K)
Those who expect relatively minor changes in heat transfer that make it to the deep oceans to reappear as dangerous global warming in the troposphere must be sweating every time somebody on the planet strikes a match. Not so much because they're afraid of getting a minor burn if one happened to be nearby, but because at any time in the future in each location the energy dissipated could refocus itself on the spot where the match was, and somebody standing there could be set alight. Or not, if you understand the first thing about entropy, which admittedly most journalists and some so-called scientists don't. They can't even cope with causality, what hope with entropy.
They'll just do what they do already and write a 'Fudge Factor' subroutine which rejects any data that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGVr8rItsE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGVr8rItsE
Beati Dogu said:
They'll just do what they do already and write a 'Fudge Factor' subroutine which rejects any data that doesn't fit their preconceived ideas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGVr8rItsE
That clip just gives Fudging a bad name.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGVr8rItsE
Leonardo on climate. Stick to the day job is what comes to mind, and go back to school if time allows.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/leonardo-di...
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/leonardo-di...
turbobloke said:
Leonardo on climate. Stick to the day job is what comes to mind, and go back to school if time allows.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/leonardo-di...
That would be this Leonardo then?http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/leonardo-di...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656850/Le...
Better for the environment surely if he gave up the day job and headed of to live as a hermit somewhere obscure and where he could do no damage and make no mischief.
The Celebrity Cult strikes again.
Something very odd going on. I saw this article in the Register about the increasing size of Australian spiders. Aha, I thought, it will have Climate Change all over it.
Australia (check)
Creatures changing in living memory (check)
Academic paper (check)
That's the strange thing - it doesn't: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/22/supersize_...
I even read the cited paper. Urban heat islands, yes, climate change no.
The Sydney University Biological Sciences department must have missed the memo.
Australia (check)
Creatures changing in living memory (check)
Academic paper (check)
That's the strange thing - it doesn't: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/22/supersize_...
I even read the cited paper. Urban heat islands, yes, climate change no.
The Sydney University Biological Sciences department must have missed the memo.
LongQ said:
turbobloke said:
Leonardo on climate. Stick to the day job is what comes to mind, and go back to school if time allows.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/leonardo-di...
That would be this Leonardo then?http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/leonardo-di...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656850/Le...
Better for the environment surely if he gave up the day job and headed of to live as a hermit somewhere obscure and where he could do no damage and make no mischief.
The Celebrity Cult strikes again.
mybrainhurts said:
LongQ said:
turbobloke said:
Leonardo on climate. Stick to the day job is what comes to mind, and go back to school if time allows.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/leonardo-di...
That would be this Leonardo then?http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/08/21/leonardo-di...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2656850/Le...
Better for the environment surely if he gave up the day job and headed of to live as a hermit somewhere obscure and where he could do no damage and make no mischief.
The Celebrity Cult strikes again.
The internet is a funny place.
I was given a gift of some food plant seeds over the winter and decided I had better show willing and try to grow something - if only to discover how costly and ineffective "grow your own" would be for most people tempted to take it on.
So I now have a load of expensively grown coloured chard and wondered how I was going to eat it all - or at least those leaves that are worth trying to prepare.
And so to the Internet where, amongst other recipes I stumbled on this one.
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/recipes/rainbow-char...
which seems quite reasonable so long as one adds some bacon and cooks it more in the style of an omelette to save some of that oven time CO2 output.
In the links I noticed this;
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/articles/milton-glas...
Wondering what it was I clicked it, as you do, and discovered that Mr. Glaser is not something to do with Man. United but is apparently the bloke who started all those darned silly "I [heart] NY" T shirts by designing a logo for the city.
Now he has one for Climate Change too.
This link is in the article previously linked but here is the logo link and pleading page anyway.
http://itsnotwarming.com/
It's not what you may think it is based on the site name.
What a celebration of mediocrity.
I was given a gift of some food plant seeds over the winter and decided I had better show willing and try to grow something - if only to discover how costly and ineffective "grow your own" would be for most people tempted to take it on.
So I now have a load of expensively grown coloured chard and wondered how I was going to eat it all - or at least those leaves that are worth trying to prepare.
And so to the Internet where, amongst other recipes I stumbled on this one.
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/recipes/rainbow-char...
which seems quite reasonable so long as one adds some bacon and cooks it more in the style of an omelette to save some of that oven time CO2 output.
In the links I noticed this;
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/articles/milton-glas...
Wondering what it was I clicked it, as you do, and discovered that Mr. Glaser is not something to do with Man. United but is apparently the bloke who started all those darned silly "I [heart] NY" T shirts by designing a logo for the city.
Now he has one for Climate Change too.
This link is in the article previously linked but here is the logo link and pleading page anyway.
http://itsnotwarming.com/
It's not what you may think it is based on the site name.
What a celebration of mediocrity.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff