Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
plunker said:
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.Edited by plunker on Thursday 24th November 16:25
mondeoman said:
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?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)?
mondeoman said:
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?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)?
PRTVR said:
mondeoman said:
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?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)?
By sinking to 2000m, they get a good measure of the bulk temp,
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/temp.h...
At pretty much 4C.
robinessex said:
So what's the accuracy (calibrated?) of all these disconnected measuring instruments?
Rather good.http://www.seabird.com/technical_references/Longte...
hairykrishna said:
robinessex said:
So what's the accuracy (calibrated?) of all these disconnected measuring instruments?
Rather good.http://www.seabird.com/technical_references/Longte...
Heavier than is usual snow fall around Hawaii is waved away as nothing to get anyone excited.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38199730
Quite right too, although the gentle irony of the connection to Mauna Loa is almost an opportunity too good to ignore.
Still, at least they are in the right place to measure the snow depth and calculate some volumes and stuff thus capturing good data to work from.
Mind you, I'm assuming that the scientists on the ground there are qualified for such work and not just measuring CO2 levels.
If not presumably there is no way the snow can be measured accurately before it melts. That could be convenient in the future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38199730
Quite right too, although the gentle irony of the connection to Mauna Loa is almost an opportunity too good to ignore.
Still, at least they are in the right place to measure the snow depth and calculate some volumes and stuff thus capturing good data to work from.
Mind you, I'm assuming that the scientists on the ground there are qualified for such work and not just measuring CO2 levels.
If not presumably there is no way the snow can be measured accurately before it melts. That could be convenient in the future.
mondeoman said:
Gandahar said:
Care to share the raw data and the rational behind the chosen dates... 1) The Earth has never had zero C02 emissions (well, not for a few biliion years, anyway).
2) Cumulative? How much was absorbed?
3) Dates? (As mentioned above)... How about cumulative CO2 emissions since the Moon left us, for example?
It's obviously total anthropomorphic emissions. Hence why they start at 1850 when it's close to zero. CO2 is probably CIDAC data (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/).
Googling suggests it's based on a plot from;
Notz, Dirk, and Julienne Stroeve. "Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission." Science 354.6313 (2016): 747-750.
Sea ice data. 1953 to 1978 is HadISST and from 1979 to 2015 is the NSIDC sea-ice index. Raw data sources;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives.html
Googling suggests it's based on a plot from;
Notz, Dirk, and Julienne Stroeve. "Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission." Science 354.6313 (2016): 747-750.
Sea ice data. 1953 to 1978 is HadISST and from 1979 to 2015 is the NSIDC sea-ice index. Raw data sources;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives.html
hairykrishna said:
It's obviously total anthropomorphic emissions. Hence why they start at 1850 when it's close to zero. CO2 is probably CIDAC data (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/).
Googling suggests it's based on a plot from;
Notz, Dirk, and Julienne Stroeve. "Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission." Science 354.6313 (2016): 747-750.
Sea ice data. 1953 to 1978 is HadISST and from 1979 to 2015 is the NSIDC sea-ice index. Raw data sources;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives.html
Or could it be that the Dalton minimum has just ended in 1830-ish? and would not dove-tail quite as nicely into the narrative.Googling suggests it's based on a plot from;
Notz, Dirk, and Julienne Stroeve. "Observed Arctic sea-ice loss directly follows anthropogenic CO2 emission." Science 354.6313 (2016): 747-750.
Sea ice data. 1953 to 1978 is HadISST and from 1979 to 2015 is the NSIDC sea-ice index. Raw data sources;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadisst/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archives.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Or could it be that the Dalton minimum has just ended in 1830-ish? and would not dove-tail quite as nicely into the narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
As I said 1850 is effectively the start of significant human CO2 emissions. Pick a different year if you like, change the scale and plot it - all the data's available. You can argue that the CO2/ice extent correlation is spurious because we were coming out of a solar minimum if you like. I, and the vast majority of the peer reviewed literature, disagree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
hairykrishna said:
As I said 1850 is effectively the start of significant human CO2 emissions. Pick a different year if you like, change the scale and plot it - all the data's available. You can argue that the CO2/ice extent correlation is spurious because we were coming out of a solar minimum if you like. I, and the vast majority of the peer reviewed literature, disagree.
Seriously Hk? "emissions" v "ice extent" is your correlation? Ffs. How about use of white sugar and sea ice extent - probably get a better fit. Do you not even think about causation at all? Can you think what else might effect ice melt (give you a clue -air temp has feck all to do with ice extent)?Gandahar said:
Current Antarctic sea ice extent
Arctic reduction against CO2
The arctic sea ice is currently at a record low for the time of year as well, in both extent and concentration.Arctic reduction against CO2
Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 8th December 20:49
Which makes this combined arctic/antarctic sea-ice graph quite eye-catching...
I wouldn't expect it to continue this way, weather patterns have likely contributed quite a bit - there's been a lot of warmth at both poles recently.
Gandahar said:
While both datasets may reflect reality, the overlay of the two is complete bullst. You can take any two datasets with the same trend (upwards or downwards) and make them align by simply adjusting the scales on the X and Y axis. There is no rational basis for the scaling of either axis in that plot, except to make them align perfectly. Science!mko9 said:
Gandahar said:
While both datasets may reflect reality, the overlay of the two is complete bullst. You can take any two datasets with the same trend (upwards or downwards) and make them align by simply adjusting the scales on the X and Y axis. There is no rational basis for the scaling of either axis in that plot, except to make them align perfectly. Science!mondeoman said:
Gandahar said:
Care to share the raw data and the rational behind the chosen dates... http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/747...
I'm guessing the raw data would be something you couldn't actually use and that was just a keyboard response?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff