Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
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. ...
The oceans have not eaten Trenerth's missing energy
- fake-sceptics
Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 12:59
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. ...
The oceans have not eaten Trenerth's missing energy
- fake-sceptics
Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 12:59
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.
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. ...
The oceans have not eaten Trenerth's missing energy
- fake-sceptics
Edited by plunker on Saturday 19th November 12:59
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. 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......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......The author's responded to some of the 'egregious' reporting of their paper. See here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/scientists-lambast-the...
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/
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.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
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/
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.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
Edited by plunker on Thursday 24th November 13:38
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?
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?
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/
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.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
A look at the sensors around the UK shows quite a few not working.
http://billinghamweather.com/wxbuoy.php
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/
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.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
A look at the sensors around the UK shows quite a few not working.
http://billinghamweather.com/wxbuoy.php
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 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?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. 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.
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. 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.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
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)?
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff