Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[plunker]

turbobloke said:

The Wunsch & Heimbach paper points out that abyssal (deeeeeeep) ocean waters show cooling.

...

The oceans have not eaten Trenerth's missing energy

So in a surprising turn of events, what's going on in the ocean deeeeep is now settled science.

1. fake-sceptics

Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 12:59

[Einion Yrth]

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

The Wunsch & Heimbach paper points out that abyssal (deeeeeeep) ocean waters show cooling.

...

The oceans have not eaten Trenerth's missing energy

So in a surprising turn of events, what's going on in the ocean deeeeep is now settled science.

1. fake-sceptics

Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 12:59

Where exactly is it claimed that that is "settled science"? No true scientist would ever claim that anything is ever truly settled. It all just stands as evidence, around which we try and find a consistent standpoint, until that fails and we need to move on.

[Toltec]

Einion Yrth said:

Where exactly is it claimed that that is "settled science"? No true scientist would ever claim that anything is ever truly settled. It all just stands as evidence, around which we try and find a consistent standpoint, until that fails and we need to move on.

While the true climate scientists do not claim this the priests of Climate Change interpret the writings of their true prophets that way and preach the Word of Warming to the world that way.

While laying on the sarcasm pretty thickly there, many of the people they call skeptics simply have well refined bullst detectors. I have read a few of the papers linked recently and found a few more, it does look like the evidence that there has been unusually rapid rate of warming has good levels of uncertainty. I still do not agree with the proposed methods to do anything about it though, they are mainly about politics and money not science.

[plunker]

Einion Yrth said:

plunker said:

turbobloke said:

The Wunsch & Heimbach paper points out that abyssal (deeeeeeep) ocean waters show cooling.

...

The oceans have not eaten Trenerth's missing energy

So in a surprising turn of events, what's going on in the ocean deeeeep is now settled science.

1. fake-sceptics

Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 12:59

Where exactly is it claimed that that is "settled science"?

I thought it was pretty clear - "the oceans have not eaten Trenberth's missing energy" - that sounds like a 'last word' claim to me.

[plunker]

Toltec said:

Einion Yrth said:

Where exactly is it claimed that that is "settled science"? No true scientist would ever claim that anything is ever truly settled. It all just stands as evidence, around which we try and find a consistent standpoint, until that fails and we need to move on.

many of the people they call skeptics simply have well refined bullst detectors.

And others turn their proclaimed high scepticism on and off like a tap as it suits them.

[Jinx]

plunker said:

I thought it was pretty clear - "the oceans have not eaten Trenberth's missing energy" - that sounds like a 'last word' claim to me.

According to that paper. It was implicit in the post. This isn't the life of Brian and we are not now worshiping the sign of the shoe......

[plunker]

Jinx said:

plunker said:

I thought it was pretty clear - "the oceans have not eaten Trenberth's missing energy" - that sounds like a 'last word' claim to me.

According to that paper. It was implicit in the post. This isn't the life of Brian and we are not now worshiping the sign of the shoe......

Yes based on that paper, turbobloke (echoing Christoher Booker in the Telegraph) made a dash for the touchline and declared game over for Tenberth's missing energy - exactly. According to that paper, some parts of the deep ocean that are 'connected' to the surface are heating up, so if one were minded to (y'know - brimming over with confirmation bias like some eager beavers flying under the 'sceptic' flag are) one could easily sieze on that piece of info to declare Trenberth right, but I wouldn't be so hasty - especially when the reference paper spends large parts discussing the poorness of the data.

The author's responded to some of the 'egregious' reporting of their paper. See here:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-lambast-the...

[mko9]

plunker said:

The cynic in me thinks the the ocean heat content data would be highly citable if they failed to show any warming - surface temps 'hiatus' refers

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

Of course each dot on that map is about 100 miles in diameter. Graphic deliberately designed to make it appear we have complete and thorough coverage of the Earth's oceans. Reality, there are hundreds of miles between sensors.

[plunker]

mko9 said:

plunker said:

The cynic in me thinks the the ocean heat content data would be highly citable if they failed to show any warming - surface temps 'hiatus' refers

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

Of course each dot on that map is about 100 miles in diameter. Graphic deliberately designed to make it appear we have complete and thorough coverage of the Earth's oceans. Reality, there are hundreds of miles between sensors.

The dots get smaller if you click on it, though doubtless they're still bigger than reality. You'd need an image with MASSIVE resolution to see them at the correct scale of course.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 24th November 13:38

[durbster]

mko9 said:

Of course each dot on that map is about 100 miles in diameter. Graphic deliberately designed to make it appear we have complete and thorough coverage of the Earth's oceans. Reality, there are hundreds of miles between sensors.

If the dots were actual size, I don't think we'd be able to see them.

The coverage is far more extensive than I expected, particularly in the southern hemisphere. How much of a gap would you find acceptable?

[plunker]

durbster said:

mko9 said:

Of course each dot on that map is about 100 miles in diameter. Graphic deliberately designed to make it appear we have complete and thorough coverage of the Earth's oceans. Reality, there are hundreds of miles between sensors.

If the dots were actual size, I don't think we'd be able to see them.

The coverage is far more extensive than I expected, particularly in the southern hemisphere. How much of a gap would you find acceptable?

I doubt he has any idea. I read somewhere recently that you could get an adequate picture of global land temperature trends with just 150 well placed sensors - the result wouldn't change much.

[PRTVR]

mko9 said:

plunker said:

The cynic in me thinks the the ocean heat content data would be highly citable if they failed to show any warming - surface temps 'hiatus' refers

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

Of course each dot on that map is about 100 miles in diameter. Graphic deliberately designed to make it appear we have complete and thorough coverage of the Earth's oceans. Reality, there are hundreds of miles between sensors.

And add to that the calibration of the instruments that would need to be carried out to have any degree of accuracy,that probably isn't carried out, it looks less impressive.

A look at the sensors around the UK shows quite a few not working.

http://billinghamweather.com/wxbuoy.php

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

mko9 said:

plunker said:

The cynic in me thinks the the ocean heat content data would be highly citable if they failed to show any warming - surface temps 'hiatus' refers

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

Of course each dot on that map is about 100 miles in diameter. Graphic deliberately designed to make it appear we have complete and thorough coverage of the Earth's oceans. Reality, there are hundreds of miles between sensors.

And add to that the calibration of the instruments that would need to be carried out to have any degree of accuracy,that probably isn't carried out, it looks less impressive.

A look at the sensors around the UK shows quite a few not working.

http://billinghamweather.com/wxbuoy.php

The dots in the image are "Positions of the floats that have delivered data within the last 30 days".

ps. In your link those are described as 'moored bouys' so probably not ARGO network floats which are free to drift around the high seas in search of adventure.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 24th November 14:16

[PRTVR]

plunker said:

The dots in the image are "Positions of the floats that have delivered data within the last 30 days"

For how long did they deliver that data and how accurate is it, why do the points cover such a large area?

[plunker]

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

The dots in the image are "Positions of the floats that have delivered data within the last 30 days"

For how long did they deliver that data and how accurate is it, why do the points cover such a large area?

I've no idea - have you had a good look around the ARGO website?

[Toltec]

plunker said:

Toltec said:

Einion Yrth said:

Where exactly is it claimed that that is "settled science"? No true scientist would ever claim that anything is ever truly settled. It all just stands as evidence, around which we try and find a consistent standpoint, until that fails and we need to move on.

many of the people they call skeptics simply have well refined bullst detectors.

And others turn their proclaimed high scepticism on and off like a tap as it suits them.

It is a bit like a junk mail filter, once a source address is in it some effort is involved in reversing the status. Having read through some papers from the last few years I am starting to accept that there is good evidence that there is something anomalous happening to global temperatures. I have not had time to check anything new about human induced climate change evidence yet so that is still in the dubious bucket. A brief look at ocean levels show that this is still poorly understood so models based on current understanding are unlikely to be accurate.

It is about the science and changing ones opinion as better evidence is found, not taking a stance and ignoring anything that does not fit.

[plunker]

Toltec said:

plunker said:

Toltec said:

Einion Yrth said:

Where exactly is it claimed that that is "settled science"? No true scientist would ever claim that anything is ever truly settled. It all just stands as evidence, around which we try and find a consistent standpoint, until that fails and we need to move on.

many of the people they call skeptics simply have well refined bullst detectors.

And others turn their proclaimed high scepticism on and off like a tap as it suits them.

I have not had time to check anything new about human induced climate change evidence yet so that is still in the dubious bucket.

So why the 'dubious' status? Not taking a stance without a good look at the evidence I hope

[Toltec]

plunker said:

So why the 'dubious' status? Not taking a stance without a good look at the evidence I hope

The status is based on the evidence available when I last had time to research below the surface cruft. Like most people I have to go on news reporting and posts on social media and I've seen nothing to indicate it is worth investigating again at the moment. Some posts above made me think it was worth checking on new papers covering temperature measurements, so I did.

[plunker]

Toltec said:

plunker said:

So why the 'dubious' status? Not taking a stance without a good look at the evidence I hope

The status is based on the evidence available when I last had time to research below the surface cruft. Like most people I have to go on news reporting and posts on social media and I've seen nothing to indicate it is worth investigating again at the moment. Some posts above made me think it was worth checking on new papers covering temperature measurements, so I did.

Fair enough, we're in basic agreement about approach at least, if not about what the evidence suggests.

Edited by plunker on Thursday 24th November 16:25

[mondeoman]

plunker said:

PRTVR said:

plunker said:

The dots in the image are "Positions of the floats that have delivered data within the last 30 days"

For how long did they deliver that data and how accurate is it, why do the points cover such a large area?

I've no idea - have you had a good look around the ARGO website?

c3800 active floats currently, out of 12700 total fleet.

Suggests this would give very good ocean temp data down to 2000m, so why has it been discontinued and replaced by ship engine inlets, that only look at the top ten metres (if that)?