Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

Author
Discussion

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Thursday 24th November 2016
quotequote all
plunker said:
Toltec said:
plunker said:
So why the 'dubious' status? Not taking a stance without a good look at the evidence I hope wink
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
"Evidence suggesting" isn't good enough

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Thursday 24th November 2016
quotequote all
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?
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)?
One could suggest that that is the warmest part..... How can you change the location of your data points and expect to get anything that has any meaningful results ? I suppose they will have factors that can be applied to give the required results..

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Thursday 24th November 2016
quotequote all
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?
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)?
Eh? You're mixing up Sea Surface Temperature data and Ocean Heat Content data I think. There was a change from buckets to engine inlet measurements for SST in the 1940s.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Thursday 24th November 2016
quotequote all
So what's the accuracy (calibrated?) of all these disconnected measuring instruments?

mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Thursday 24th November 2016
quotequote all
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?
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)?
One could suggest that that is the warmest part..... How can you change the location of your data points and expect to get anything that has any meaningful results ? I suppose they will have factors that can be applied to give the required results..
Because bulk temperature, rather than spot (surface) temp. Argos floats do an ascend from 2000 to surface over 6 hours to get the temp profile, controlled to 10cm/s. Then data dump, drift for ten days, repeat. Do that with enough floats, and you'll get a solid x-section of temp and energy content.

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.

hairykrishna

13,159 posts

202 months

Monday 28th November 2016
quotequote all
robinessex said:
So what's the accuracy (calibrated?) of all these disconnected measuring instruments?
Rather good.

http://www.seabird.com/technical_references/Longte...

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Tuesday 29th November 2016
quotequote all
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...
That's now. What about all the data collected/gathered since planet Earth started?

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Sunday 4th December 2016
quotequote all
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.

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Thursday 8th December 2016
quotequote all
Current Antarctic sea ice extent



Arctic reduction against CO2






Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 8th December 20:49

mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Thursday 8th December 2016
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
Arctic reduction against CO2






Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 8th December 20:49
Care to share the raw data and the rational behind the chosen dates...

deeen

6,079 posts

244 months

Thursday 8th December 2016
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
Gandahar said:
Arctic reduction against CO2






Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 8th December 20:49
Care to share the raw data and the rational behind the chosen dates...
Ridiculous "graph" is ridiculous!

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?

hairykrishna

13,159 posts

202 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
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



QuantumTokoloshi

4,161 posts

216 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

hairykrishna

13,159 posts

202 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
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.


Jinx

11,345 posts

259 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
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)?

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
Current Antarctic sea ice extent



Arctic reduction against CO2






Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 8th December 20:49
The arctic sea ice is currently at a record low for the time of year as well, in both extent and concentration.

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.



mko9

2,328 posts

211 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
Arctic reduction against CO2






Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 8th December 20:49
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!

plunker

542 posts

125 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
mko9 said:
Gandahar said:
Arctic reduction against CO2






Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 8th December 20:49
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!
It's an odd one - the aim seems to be to assign a rate of sea ice area loss per ton of emitted CO2, which is an usual way of looking at it, but the way it's been done is fine.

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
mondeoman said:
Gandahar said:
Arctic reduction against CO2



Edited by Gandahar on Thursday 8th December 20:49
Care to share the raw data and the rational behind the chosen dates...
Here is the paper

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?


mondeoman

11,430 posts

265 months

Friday 9th December 2016
quotequote all
yet in the other climate thread, 1953 was an arctic sea ice minimum... something does not compute.