Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
robinessex said:
Still on about bloody planet temperature, when no one has answered the question, does it matter ?
Yes because it reduces incidents of Tornadoes in the USA....http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html
Toltec said:
LongQ said:
I love the precision in those numbers.
No doubt measured at different sites, using different equipment over the years and perhaps not even directly, with careful corrections for tides, weather, expansion due to temperature and uplift due to loss of the down thrust of the ice covering in the last ice age. It's all in the statistical analysis which is all really, really complicated so we should just trust the scientists.
Oddly if the 0.27mm isn't from the Antarctic and it is in fact sucking up 0.23mm then something else is adding half a mill which sounds nicely approximate. Where is it coming from though? On the other hand have they just used the estimates for ice melting to calculate how much the sea level is rising so we are really about half a mill better off? It is probably out there somewhere, but it is too late to start looking tonight.
On the subject of trusting scientists, anyone else remember doing Millikan's oil drop experiment at school?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment
It was not too long after the controversy about his measurements arose which my teacher was aware of, I hadn't realised that later work had refuted this all be it at the cost of the results appearing less certain than Millikan stated.
Scientists are human, at one point I wanted to become a physicist enough to study it at university so I understand that quite well, I just ended up going down a more practical path.
At that point, and taking into account coastal topology and the effects of erosion and collapse on the White Cliffs of the UK South coast (and a few other marginally important cliff and delta sites) one can spread the volume of water over the surface area, adjust for the effects of compression due to the extra weight and a number of other factors like cloud pattern changes due to the melting ice ..... and come up with a number that is not too different from the width of a human hair (depending on which part of the world the hair comes from) for all practical purposes.
Obviously when discussing high precision nano engineering work or particle - as per Millikan's experiment.
As it happens I rediscovered an old file of interesting quotations and observations a few days ago.
One of them is attributed to Millikan.
"There is no likelihood that man can ever tap the power of the atom."
I should probably check the veracity of the attribution but don't have the time right now to do that task full justice.
Jinx said:
robinessex said:
Still on about bloody planet temperature, when no one has answered the question, does it matter ?
Yes because it reduces incidents of Tornadoes in the USA....http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html
durbster said:
Jinx said:
robinessex said:
Still on about bloody planet temperature, when no one has answered the question, does it matter ?
Yes because it reduces incidents of Tornadoes in the USA....http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html
Global sea ice extent very low, lowest by far in the sat record.
Antarctica is most interesting, first August winter maximum and really low extent since then. In prior years the Antarctic has been slowly gaining sea ice, this changed last year and now a real down turn so far.
Will be good to watch.
Antarctica is most interesting, first August winter maximum and really low extent since then. In prior years the Antarctic has been slowly gaining sea ice, this changed last year and now a real down turn so far.
Will be good to watch.
Edited by Gandahar on Wednesday 16th November 16:08
Jinx said:
durbster said:
Jinx said:
robinessex said:
Still on about bloody planet temperature, when no one has answered the question, does it matter ?
Yes because it reduces incidents of Tornadoes in the USA....http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/adj.html
plunker said:
jet_noise said:
plunker said:
Year to date (Jan-Sept) average is a whole degree (1.03C) above the base period. Probably won't be that high by the end of the year but well on course to set a new record for the third year running.
Welcome to the well known effects of El Nino. Perish the thought that you are trying to say the above is down to man!From my point of view, as someone who doesn't deny the radiative forcing from increasing Co2, saying 'El Nino' without 'Man' would be as incomplete as saying 'Man' without 'El Nino'. The fact that El Nino years keep setting new highs does point to an underlying warming trend after all, just as in a cooling world increasingly low lows would occur in La Nina years.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016...
plunker said:
Sure not looking much like it's the sun, stupid.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016...
Good old realclimate - shall we dig out the emails regarding that advocacy site again http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016...
Stop focussing on TSI no-one here has ever suggested it is TSI that has affected the climate outside of the Milankovitch cycles.
Jinx said:
plunker said:
Sure not looking much like it's the sun, stupid.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016...
Good old realclimate - shall we dig out the emails regarding that advocacy site again http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016...
Stop focussing on TSI no-one here has ever suggested it is TSI that has affected the climate outside of the Milankovitch cycles.
plunker said:
Sure not looking much like it's the sun, stupid.
You ever been out camping and slung a kettle over a camp fire and waited for it to boil, then at another time heated up seized wheel nuts on a lorry with oxyacetylene - you know it's the heat, stupid.Our heat predominately comes from the sun, sure there are a few geothermal hot spots, the odd volcanic eruption interrupting planetary albedo, and the cosmic ray stuff influencing cloud formation - Yay more albedo!
Sun cycles going back millions of years. Millions of years of the Earth with ice, and without ice, cycles in time, but for sure a few 'big' decades of CO2 emissions are going to kill us all.
It's all absolute rubbish.
Little more than a 'faith', a faith in how to make money. Nothing to see here, move a long please....
Jinx said:
Only because they insist on calling them "projections" - if the projections worked they wouldn't have to fiddle the data.
Second point I don't need to. The science says H2O does everything CO2 does and more (absorption spectra etc. ) - as more real science is done (e.g. Svensmark hypothesis) ultimately H2O as the governor of the Earth's climate system will be shown to be true. Unfortunately with all the money piled into plant food blame and catastrophe scenario building it will take real science a little longer to be done.
What governs the H2O?Second point I don't need to. The science says H2O does everything CO2 does and more (absorption spectra etc. ) - as more real science is done (e.g. Svensmark hypothesis) ultimately H2O as the governor of the Earth's climate system will be shown to be true. Unfortunately with all the money piled into plant food blame and catastrophe scenario building it will take real science a little longer to be done.
TheExcession said:
plunker said:
Sure not looking much like it's the sun, stupid.
You ever been out camping and slung a kettle over a camp fire and waited for it to boil, then at another time heated up seized wheel nuts on a lorry with oxyacetylene - you know it's the heat, stupid.Our heat predominately comes from the sun, sure there are a few geothermal hot spots, the odd volcanic eruption interrupting planetary albedo, and the cosmic ray stuff influencing cloud formation - Yay more albedo!
Sun cycles going back millions of years. Millions of years of the Earth with ice, and without ice, cycles in time, but for sure a few 'big' decades of CO2 emissions are going to kill us all.
It's all absolute rubbish.
Little more than a 'faith', a faith in how to make money. Nothing to see here, move a long please....
Halb said:
jshell said:
If you believe that CO2 concentrations drive GW, then what do you think of the warming hiatus that has gone on for around 15 years despite CO2 levels going up?
- hand up* another moderate sceptic here.
Simple thing is, we don't measure 99.999999999999% ish of the oceans mass for heat/temperature. We can't even find a plane full of people out there... There is no representative sampling going on in anywhere near a fraction, of a ba' hairs width on a squashed gnat's back!
jshell said:
Halb said:
jshell said:
If you believe that CO2 concentrations drive GW, then what do you think of the warming hiatus that has gone on for around 15 years despite CO2 levels going up?
- hand up* another moderate sceptic here.
Simple thing is, we don't measure 99.999999999999% ish of the oceans mass for heat/temperature. We can't even find a plane full of people out there... There is no representative sampling going on in anywhere near a fraction, of a ba' hairs width on a squashed gnat's back!
PRTVR said:
jshell said:
Halb said:
jshell said:
If you believe that CO2 concentrations drive GW, then what do you think of the warming hiatus that has gone on for around 15 years despite CO2 levels going up?
- hand up* another moderate sceptic here.
Simple thing is, we don't measure 99.999999999999% ish of the oceans mass for heat/temperature. We can't even find a plane full of people out there... There is no representative sampling going on in anywhere near a fraction, of a ba' hairs width on a squashed gnat's back!
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 00:49
plunker said:
PRTVR said:
jshell said:
Halb said:
jshell said:
If you believe that CO2 concentrations drive GW, then what do you think of the warming hiatus that has gone on for around 15 years despite CO2 levels going up?
- hand up* another moderate sceptic here.
Simple thing is, we don't measure 99.999999999999% ish of the oceans mass for heat/temperature. We can't even find a plane full of people out there... There is no representative sampling going on in anywhere near a fraction, of a ba' hairs width on a squashed gnat's back!
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 00:49
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
PRTVR said:
jshell said:
Halb said:
jshell said:
If you believe that CO2 concentrations drive GW, then what do you think of the warming hiatus that has gone on for around 15 years despite CO2 levels going up?
- hand up* another moderate sceptic here.
Simple thing is, we don't measure 99.999999999999% ish of the oceans mass for heat/temperature. We can't even find a plane full of people out there... There is no representative sampling going on in anywhere near a fraction, of a ba' hairs width on a squashed gnat's back!
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 00:49
True though, the OHC obs used to be far less satisfactory than they are since the ARGO float network started in the early 2000s. It's an ongoing deployment, here's the current state of play:
They collect temperature data (and other things) down to 2000m (floats that go down 6000m are in the pipeline)
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/
Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 11:51
plunker said:
PRTVR said:
plunker said:
But the best data we have shows the the oceans are heating up. Jshell didn't didn't tell you about that bit - he's ignoring it for some reason and claims the opposite.
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Compared to what ? Over what time scale ? Down to what depth ? My view is even if the ocean's are heating up it is doing its job, stabilising the planets temperature, can with the limited data we have say anything that has any relevance? The cynic in me found it to convenient that the missing heat was located in the ocean's.https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
True though, the OHC obs used to be far less satisfactory than they are since the ARGO float network started in the early 2000s. It's an ongoing deployment, here's the current state of play:
They collect temperature data (and other things) down to 2000m (floats that go down 6000m are in the pipeline)
Snip said:
We apply corrections for instrumental offsets of expendable bathythermographs (XBT) and mechanical bathythermographs (MBT) found by Gouretski and Koltermann [2007] as described by Levitus et al. [2009]. XBT profiles are excluded from our computations if they lack the metadata needed to correct drop rates. This is approximately 3.8% of all XBT profiles that are in the World Ocean Database.
[8] From every observed one-degree mean temperature value at every standard depth level we subtract off a climatological value. For this purpose we use the monthly climatological fields of temperature fromLocarnini et al. [2010]. Then we composite all anomaly values in each one-degree square by five-year running compositing periods. Next the same objective analysis procedure used byLocarnini et al. [2010]is applied to these gridded, composited anomaly values and a global, gridded field with temperature anomaly values defined in every one-degree square is produced for each standard depth level. To compute heat content at each gridpoint the specific heat and density were computed using annual climatological values of temperature and salinity from Locarnini et al. [2010] and Antonov et al. [2010]. We use a first-guess field of zero for our anomaly field computations. This is a conservative but we think appropriate procedure given the lack of data in some regions and some time periods.
Corrections, exclusions, algorithms, lack of data. Interesting use of 'best'.[8] From every observed one-degree mean temperature value at every standard depth level we subtract off a climatological value. For this purpose we use the monthly climatological fields of temperature fromLocarnini et al. [2010]. Then we composite all anomaly values in each one-degree square by five-year running compositing periods. Next the same objective analysis procedure used byLocarnini et al. [2010]is applied to these gridded, composited anomaly values and a global, gridded field with temperature anomaly values defined in every one-degree square is produced for each standard depth level. To compute heat content at each gridpoint the specific heat and density were computed using annual climatological values of temperature and salinity from Locarnini et al. [2010] and Antonov et al. [2010]. We use a first-guess field of zero for our anomaly field computations. This is a conservative but we think appropriate procedure given the lack of data in some regions and some time periods.
On the same basis, there's even 'better
data' from the well-known Wunsch paper. This commentary (below) must have been on PH climate threads a few times by now with the rate of reappearance of attrition loops that say the same thing and always omit any causality to humans as it doesn't exist.
As seen on PH before said:
One of the more comical spectacles of recent years has been the sight of scientific cheerleaders for man made global warming rushing round, trying to find some explanation for the increasingly embarrassing fact that, for 17 years now, global temperatures have been failing to rise as their computer models predicted. The favourite theory they've settled on, led by Kevin Trenberth, one of the UN's top climate alarmists, is that the world has continued to warm up since 1997, but that all that extra heat has somehow been hiding away deep in the oceans, where we can't see it.
Now magisterial cold water has been poured on this theory by none other than Prof Carl Wunsch, probably the world's most respected oceanographer. He has produced a paper suggesting not only that the warmists have no real evidence to support their claim other than computer modelling, but that the deeper levels of the oceans have, if anything, not been warming but cooling recently, thanks to climate changes dating back centuries.
The Wunsch & Heimbach paper points out that abyssal (deeeeeeep) ocean waters show cooling.Now magisterial cold water has been poured on this theory by none other than Prof Carl Wunsch, probably the world's most respected oceanographer. He has produced a paper suggesting not only that the warmists have no real evidence to support their claim other than computer modelling, but that the deeper levels of the oceans have, if anything, not been warming but cooling recently, thanks to climate changes dating back centuries.
Here's hoping we don't get England et al foisted upon us again; it claims to show that the hiatus aka The Pause in global surface temperature since around 2001 is due to strengthening Pacific
winds causing increased heat uptake by the global oceans, concentrated in the top 300m and mainly in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.
If it's cited it will undoubtedly be "even better data" but unfortunately this study used model-based ocean temperature "reanalyses" not measurements, so it's data in the eyes of the faithful but not data as we know it.
The oceans have not eaten Trenerth's missing energy nor have they eaten Jones' missing warming. Like missing homework, it would be better to blame it on the dog as usual. Like warming/cooling more snow/less snow more hurricanes/fewer hurricanes (etc) it can't be disproved = nonscience.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff