New study finds heat is being stored beneath the ocean surface

New study finds heat is being stored beneath the ocean surface
acquired 2003 - 2012

For much of the past decade, a puzzle has been confounding the climate science community. Nearly all of the measurable indicators of global climate change—such as sea level, ice cover on land and sea, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations—show a world changing on short, medium, and long time scales. But for the better part of a decade, global surface temperatures appeared to level off. The overall, long-term trend was upward, but the climb was less steep from 2003–2012. Some scientists, the media, and climate contrarians began referring to it as "the hiatus."

If greenhouse gases are still increasing and all other indicators show warming-related change, why wouldn't surface temperatures keep climbing steadily, year after year? One of the leading explanations offered by scientists was that extra heat was being stored in the .

Now a new analysis by three ocean scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory not only confirms that the extra heat has been going into the ocean, but it shows where. According to research by Veronica Nieves, Josh Willis, and Bill Patzert, the waters of the Western Pacific and the Indian Ocean warmed significantly from 2003 to 2012. But the warming did not occur at the surface; it showed up below 10 meters (32 feet) in depth, and mostly between 100 to 300 meters (300 to 1,000 feet) below the sea surface. They published their results on July 9, 2015, in the journal Science.

"Overall, the ocean is still absorbing extra heat," said Willis, an oceanographer at JPL. "But the top couple of layers of the ocean exchange heat easily and can keep it away from the surface for ten years or so because of natural cycles. In the long run, the planet is still warming."

New study finds heat is being stored beneath the ocean surface
acquired 1993 - 2012

To understand the slowdown in global surface warming, Nieves and colleagues dove into two decades of ocean records; specifically, they examined data sets compiled from underwater floats and other instruments by the Argo team at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, by the World Ocean Atlas (WOA), and by Japanese scientist Masao Ishii and colleagues. The JPL team found that for most of the decade from 2003–2012, waters near the surface (0–10 meters) of the Pacific Ocean cooled across much of the basin. However, the water in lower layers—10–100 meters, 100–200 meters, and 200–300 meters—warmed.

The animated map at the top of this page shows the trends in water temperatures in various depth layers of the ocean as measured between 2003 and 2012. Areas in red depict warming trends in degrees Celsius per year, while blues depict cooling trends. Warming is most acute between 100–200 meters in the western Pacific and the eastern Indian Ocean. Some areas of the Pacific appear to cool—particularly near the surface and in the eastern half, which correlates well with the cool phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), which has been underway for much of the past 15 to 20 years.

Note that the Atlantic Ocean does not show significant trends at any depth, with warming temperatures in one place counter-balanced by cooling in others. The Atlantic basin is also relatively small compared to the Pacific and does not have as much impact on global temperatures. The JPL team also noted that the temperature signal was neutral or inconclusive at depths below 300 meters, where measurements are relatively sparse.

The figure below depicts the trends in a different way. It represents a cross-section of the top 300 meters of the global ocean and how temperatures changed from 1993 to 2012. Note how there are cooler waters near the surface in several years in the 2000s, but that waters at depth grow much warmer. Note, too, how the overall trend in 20 years goes from a cooling ocean to a significantly warmer ocean.

Nieves, Willis, and Patzert were provoked to launch the study because they wanted a more detailed, nuanced picture of ocean temperatures than is possible with most models. On a broad scale, models can replicate broad and long-term trends in the sea; but on smaller scales of space and time, a lot of the models cannot match real-world conditions. The new findings should help improve models of ocean heat storage and climate impacts on regional scales.

The Pacific Ocean covers nearly one-third of Earth's surface, so it has an outsized impact on the global thermostat. "As the top 100 meters of the Pacific goes, so goes the of the planet," said Patzert, a climatologist at JPL. With the layer of the ocean being cooler for much of the study period, those waters had a moderating effect on air masses and weather systems on the continents. However, ocean and air temperatures have started to rise swiftly in the past two to three years, which suggests that the cool phase of the PDO and the warming hiatus is over.

"Natural, decadal variability has been with us for centuries, and it continues to have big regional impacts on society," said Nieves, a JPL scientist with a joint appointment at the University of California, Los Angeles. "We can expect to have more hiatuses in the future, but unless future hiatuses are stronger than usual, they will be less visible due to fast rising greenhouse gases. Right now, the combined effect of the human-caused warming and the Pacific changing to a warm phase can play together and produce warming acceleration."


Explore further

Heat from global warming captured by the Pacific Ocean being transferred to Indian Ocean

More information: "Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating." Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4521
Journal information: Science

Provided by NASA
Citation: New study finds heat is being stored beneath the ocean surface (2015, July 10) retrieved 17 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-07-beneath-ocean-surface.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
2807 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 10, 2015
I can see why progressives admire the Chinese system of government. It eliminates the trouble of publishing propaganda like this. They just tell their citizens what they want to do and do it. There is no need to waste money on phony papers that could be better spent on hacking world governments.

Jul 10, 2015
Correct me if I am wrong here but just a few short months back it was unequivocally proven and agreed upon by 97% of all world scientists that the missing heat was locked in the waters 2000 ft. below the surface.

Jul 10, 2015
Weren't the ARGO buoys the system that they just "Recalibrated" to match the readings provided by ocean going vessels intake water temperatures. When I was a young adult NASA was considered to be at the pinnacle of everything that a government agency should be. It's decline to a propaganda mill has been really hard to watch. It should be defunded and rebuilt from scratch!

Jul 10, 2015
neutral or inconclusive at depths below 300 meters, where measurements are relatively sparse.


MOST of the water is below 300m

Jul 10, 2015
Which progressives admire the Chinese system of government? So you're saying that all the contributors to this paper are propaganda pushers? We should make a list and call them out.

Jul 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 10, 2015
Damn you CO2, why do you pick on the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean?
Don't you know it's GloBULL warming?

They say it takes 20 lies to coverup 1, so this won't be the last from the AGW Cult.

Jul 10, 2015
The article has many flaws: 1) It says that higher temps have come recently. This is not confirmed by two satellites RSS and UAH which show considerable divergence from constantly adjusted land record. 2) It does not describe why or how temps got higher in this region of the ocean, if it will repeat or stop. Instead the article seems to assume it has already stopped which seems premature conclusion at best. 3) The article mentions 10 year haitus. Actually RSS and UAH show close to 20 year haitus and that it has NOT stopped. 4) The article states the negative phase of the PDO is over. This is also unfounded. Scientists don't know why PDO is a cycle, what controls the cycle and if we are at the end or not. Typical cycles have been 30 years up and 30 years down. We are 20 years into this one and have presumably 10 years to go unless there is some evidence why the cycle has changed other than some recent weather. Overall pretty bad article from a scientific perspective.

Jul 10, 2015
"Overall pretty bad article from a scientific perspective."

That might be true John but it is an excellent article when one considers it's intended purpose, fear mongering.

Jul 10, 2015
Article makes sense. As the ocean performs the role of a carbon sink, it absorbs energy and heats up. PV=nRT, and all that. Question is, what happens when the carbon sinks fill up? That's when the *real* runaway climate change will begin.

Jul 10, 2015
57% of all CO2 that man has ever put into the atmosphere has been put in since 1997. UAH and RSS satellites show that even though the majority of all CO2 ever put in by man has happened in this period temperatures have not risen at all. Clearly CO2 cannot be the dominant factor in temperature forcing. This article says the heat from that CO2 went into the ocean. Why now? Why not before? When will it come out? Why? How does heat get from air surface to 10 meters below the surface while the intervening 10 meters gets cooler? The ARGO buoys measure about 30% of the oceans waters. What has happened to the temps in the other 70%? Can one conclusively say the heat has gone there without a method and missing 70% of the ocean? Real scientists should not use land temp record as it is divergent from 2 satellites which cover the entire globe much better and are in sync. NASA has said the satellites are more accurate. Why use land measurements?

Jul 10, 2015
" NASA has said the satellites are more accurate. Why use land measurements?"

Also many of these so called land "measurements" are nothing but pure guesses since many are just interpolations between 2 widely separated points. There are vast areas of the earth where the land temperature readings do not even exist and are just "Guessed At".

Jul 10, 2015
The oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The oceans could absorb HUNDREDS of degrees of atmospheric temperature with 0.1C change in the ocean barely noticeable. Conversely if the oceans decided to disgorge even a small amount of energy the atmosphere could heat up to incredible levels. What is missing is why any of these things happen. The climate community ASSUMED 30 years ago there was no weather in the ocean. There were no cycles or periodicity. That was bold assumption that is clearly unfounded and naive. We know nothing about the ocean and this article adds very little making our total knowledge still close to zero. ARGO Buoys don't go to some parts of the ocean and go to only 1/10th the depth of the ocean in parts. They don't capture a lot of crucial information. Why are we so arrogant to act like we know things we don't? Stop it. The article should say what we don't know not act like it knows what's going on. Why why why? It's wrong.

Jul 10, 2015
There are 5 thermometers for all of antarctica which is the 5th largest continent. Huge parts of Africa, canada and other land is hardly covered and of course the ocean has the 3,000 argo buoys which every week or so give us a reading of a fraction of the 70% of the surface of the earth. Satellites measure 100s of thousands of points daily uniformly across the globe. There is no comparison. RSS and UAH show temps have been flat for close to 19 years. They show that 2014 was 0.4C cooler than the now average anomaly while adjusted land records show 2014 0.02C higher than anomaly. There is a huge divergence that has been noticed. Which would you believe? Land records are adjusted by "simulated" time of day adjustments to reflect different times of measurement. 5 different adjustments are performed on land thermo readings including homogeneity adjustments that basically move data around willy nilly because a thermo seems wrong. Im going with satellites

Jul 10, 2015
Mr. Mathon, your passion is inspiring, while your information is not. "5 thermometers for all of Antarctica"? Everything you write is a form of spin. What is your agenda here?

Jul 10, 2015
"Conversely if the oceans decided to disgorge even a small amount of energy the atmosphere could heat up to incredible levels."

OK that part I don't understand. If the surface of the ocean is at say 70 degrees and gives up a huge amount of heat the atmosphere will still only reach 70 degrees.

Jul 10, 2015
Mr166, There is more heat than light in Mr. Mathon's propositions. He is behaving more like an advocate than a scientist. If you want to understand climate change and heat and carbon measurements, consult a climatologist. MIT, JPL, UCLA, Oxford, many others all have great information for the layman. You would probably be wise to consult these before being further led down the garden path.

Jul 10, 2015
The typical response of the "trained" AGW Chicken Little - Attack the messenger, not the message.
Tell us prion, what is false in Mathon's posts?

Jul 10, 2015
Prion the only industry more affected by short term weather patterns than climate science is farming! Today's weather event is tomorrows peer reviewed paper blaming it on increased Co2 levels.

Jul 10, 2015
Mr. Antigoracle. I suggest you consult any credible climatology department at any major research facility. There are excellent layman's explanations available. I am on vacation, and in any case have actual students that need my attention.

Jul 10, 2015
Which progressives admire the Chinese system of government?


"Stern joins a long list of liberals who've seen China embrace authoritarian capitalism and conclude that the secret to that success had to be the authoritarianism. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, my usual whipping boy in this department, has written thousands of words rhapsodizing about his "envy" of China. President Obama himself has said he's envious of China's president and has touted China's infrastructure spending as something to emulate.

Read more at: http://www.nation...goldberg

Jul 10, 2015
Conservatives are really good at making straw-man arguments such as ones by Mr. Mathon and others. If, like Mitch McConnell, their argument against global warming is that "God said he would not smite the Earth again," then has God also said that he would prevent humanity from smiting the Earth?

Also, I keep hearing this phrase "fear mongering," could it be that those who continue to spout that garbage are the ones who are really afraid?

Seems to me that any sufficiently intelligent species learns that fouling its own nest is not a good idea, yet humanity seems to keep repeating nest fouling events in one form or another over the centuries, take the Thames in the 1600's for example.

As I see it, there is a limit to how much crap you can put in your nest before the nest becomes unlivable, and that seems just basic common sense. That so many have so much difficulty getting this concept is rather troubling to me.

Jul 10, 2015
I find Mr. Mathon's critical perspective to be extremely informative and balancing. Thank you for your contribution. Please continue.

Jul 10, 2015
consult a climatologist.

Like Lindzen, formerly from MIT?

Jul 10, 2015
"Also, I keep hearing this phrase "fear mongering," could it be that those who continue to spout that garbage are the ones who are really afraid?"

Wiyosasa yes I am in fear. Fear that some will get their way and fossil fuels will be made so expensive that you will not be able to afford food. Fear that electric rates will double and you will not be able to afford electricity. Fear that you will blame these misfortunes on greedy capitalists and ask the government to pay for your food and power.

Jul 10, 2015
the creative minds of science have driven the price of electricity from wind and solar down to become the cheapest option.

Not science, the state.
Let's say I want to go all in, put up a solar system, with batteries, wind, etc. and go off the grid.
The state won't allow it.

Jul 10, 2015
neutral or inconclusive at depths below 300 meters, where measurements are relatively sparse.

MOST of the water is below 300m

This 'god of the gaps' shtick is getting really old.

Jul 10, 2015
Onions would you care to prove that the REAL cradle to grave cost of 24/7 solar power is anything near 7c/kwh. We do need 24/7 reliable power right? As I have previously posted I will gladly post a youtube video of me doing the happy dance with a green power sign over my head when this is a reality.

Jul 10, 2015
Onions you can even include wind power in the calculations since there is no real way of knowing if the bird and bat deaths are of any significance to the ecology. I do think however that the buffer zones between wind farms and livestock or people must be increased. The pressure waves created by the turbines can be harmful.

Jul 10, 2015
MR166 you're right it would be hard to explain how energy could do that. However, I am still baffled how energy from the atmosphere got to depth while the water ABOVE it got colder. I am simply saying we know SO little. ARGO covers 30% of the ocean which is 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, has more biomass than land, 70% of the surface area,We have practically zilch satellite info on oceans. What about heat vents on the ocean floor leaking heat into the ocean? Recent study showed huge unknown bfore open sores in the mantle along the ocean floors in places. Why is their a 60 year cycle in PDO or AMO? Is it sun related, ocean current related? Why would CO2 CANCEL PDO or AMO? Whatever causes these seems unlikely to be related to CO2. There are only 5 thermostats (even close to antarctica) which is the 5th largest continent and is supposed to be the fastest temperature rising area, A minor error in those thermos or adjustments would vastly affect overall result

Jul 10, 2015
Finally, there is the all to real problem of grid management when intermittent sources of power provide a higher percentage of supply. It really does not take much power variation to create a regional blackout. That is why I contend that renewable power will never be the major source of electricity until the storage problem is resolved.

Jul 10, 2015
I find what Climate Scientists say EXTREMELY arrogant. As a physicist trained at MIT and Stanford the Climate community use of "know" is absurd. It's more like what social scientists use as proof. This article is bad in the sense of how it positions and states what it knows. It is good that they have looked into where heat has accumulated but this is only a very small part of the story. As I point out we don't know how the heat got there, what will keep it there, why it is there, will it grow or disgorge? On and on. This article does not at all show that the PDO is ending. It doesn't show that the heat from CO2 went into the ocean. More important as I pointed out above our lack of knowledge is HUGE. Stop with the "we know" "this is going to happen" "we're all in agreement" with what are we in agreement? I have taken global warming class at Stanford as well. I can tell you we know nothing. It's arrogant and deceitful to say things we don't know. It is not science.

Jul 10, 2015
John wind driven changing water currents could move heated water to different depths. From my less than stellar understanding of IR temperatures vs wavelengths and blackbody radiation I suspect that 70F degree oceans radiate heat into space that is invisible to Co2. Thus Co2 concentrations do not contribute all that much to the outgoing heat balance since Co2 only absorbs a very narrow band of radiation.

Jul 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 10, 2015
Well it looks like the cooling might not only be confined to the NH.

http://www.nzhera...11478666

Jul 10, 2015
I figured there would be some griping about these findings, but the thrashing and punching is startling.

This takes one of the last assertions from the Deniers. It apparently got to them.

Jul 10, 2015
"This takes one of the last assertions from the Deniers."

You can only wish Gkam!!!!!

Over and over again you prove that science means nothing to you and the agenda is everything.

Jul 10, 2015
Wow the denialist troll brigade is out in force!

Jul 10, 2015
It just never fails to amaze me that " Everything" was predicted AFTER THE FACT. Floods, droughts, NH cooling, polar ice increases et all! The list is as endless as the government funding that supports it. The only constant is that power must be ceded to the governments in order to contain it!!!!!

Jul 10, 2015
Oh,stop it. We lost our freedoms to the SCARED folk and the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Acts which took MY civil liberties because somebody else got SCARED.

Pollution controls are not killing you, . . . greed, fear, and Fascism are.

bla
Jul 10, 2015
I can see why progressives admire the Chinese system of government. It eliminates the trouble of publishing propaganda like this. They just tell their citizens what they want to do and do it. There is no need to waste money on phony papers that could be better spent on hacking world governments.


Of course. It is so much more likely that the whole scientific community around the world merged their efforts to convince you of a big lie, spending their careers doing fake science, so that you would start protecting the planet against polution, rather than you being an ignorant...

bla
Jul 10, 2015
Weren't the ARGO buoys the system that they just "Recalibrated" to match the readings provided by ocean going vessels intake water temperatures. When I was a young adult NASA was considered to be at the pinnacle of everything that a government agency should be. It's decline to a propaganda mill has been really hard to watch. It should be defunded and rebuilt from scratch!


Of course. It is so much more likely that the whole scientific community around the world merged their efforts to convince you of a big lie, spending their careers doing fake science, so that you would start protecting the planet against polution, rather than you being an ignorant...
Please, use your brain, read the research papers to understand the arguments, and stop acting like a dead brain.

Jul 10, 2015
" . . the whole scientific community around the world merged their efforts to convince you of a big lie, spending their careers doing fake science, so that you would start protecting the planet against polution, . . ."
-------------------------------------

It was supposed to be OUR SECRET!!

Now, they know our game!

Jul 10, 2015
"Oh,stop it. We lost our freedoms to the SCARED folk and the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Acts which took MY civil liberties because somebody else got SCARED.

Pollution controls are not killing you, . . . greed, fear, and Fascism are."

OK Gcam what exactly has your boy Barrack Husein Obama done to correct that situation????

bla
Jul 10, 2015
" NASA has said the satellites are more accurate. Why use land measurements?"

Also many of these so called land "measurements" are nothing but pure guesses since many are just interpolations between 2 widely separated points. There are vast areas of the earth where the land temperature readings do not even exist and are just "Guessed At".


You didn't learn much about the convergence of interpolating polynomials, did you?

bla
Jul 10, 2015
IMO the global warming was the result of heating of soil and marine water with nuclear processes accelerated with dark matter cloud at the galactic plane. Therefore the warm water at the depth of the ocean is the reason of global warming, not the consequence of it.


Wow, that's a whole new level of crackpotery!! Please, tell us about the nuclear reactions between dark matter and baryonic matter which cause the heating, and explain us why we can't see dark matter (hence the word dark) in any earth base experiment, which includes experiments in nuclear reactors. Explain it to me first, and then publish it and collect the prize in Stockholm. The theories people are willing to accept just to deny that we have to change our habits...it's sadly ridiculous.

Jul 10, 2015
"You didn't learn much about the convergence of interpolating polynomials, did you?"

No but I did learn that you need more than a few measurements per every 100K square KM to get an accurate average. Using your theory one station at the North Pole, one at the South Pole and a handful at the Equator should work just fine just as long as we have NOAA to interpret the data.

Jul 10, 2015
I wonder why there is no mention of El Nino being expected this year? Doesn't an El Nino condition create warmer oceans?

http://www1.ncdc....5-pg.gif

http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/

Also, the beginning of the article says that there has been a warming hiatus. Wasn't the hiatus shown to be not true? It seems that they can't get their story straight, which is always suspicious.

Jul 10, 2015
" It seems that they can't get their story straight, which is always suspicious."

The Ministry of Truth is having personnel problems due to the Republican cutbacks. This is yet another deleterious effect of political dissent.

Jul 10, 2015
denglish: John wind driven changing water currents could move heated water to different depths.

jm: I am simply saying without explaining how this would happen they are not able to ascribe the cause. Most prior climate science predicted that below a few feet the sun could not affect ocean temperatures. They use a 2 layer model to represent the ocean and they always said they could ignore oceans because of this. Now they are saying the heat goes deep only. How? They proved it couldn't. They said mixing was minimal/non-existant.

denglish: 70F degree oceans radiate heat into space that is invisible to Co2.
JM: even if it did absorb some ocean radiated IR band frequencies it is completely unbelievable that this effects the PDO cycle of the ocean. So, the statement that PDO will end early is completely unscientifically based.

I am simply pointing out the extremely low quality of the science being done in this field. How many statements are not based on anything.

Jul 10, 2015
Mr mathon

I find what Climate Scientists say EXTREMELY arrogant. As a physicist trained at MIT and Stanford the Climate community use of "know" is absurd.


I was going to write a whole screed of rebuttals against you .... but you know what?
What's the point.
You have just offered the usual denialist hand-waving. Lots of protests and no science to back it up.

As a UKMO meteorologist of 32 years standing I know what you are saying is absurd.
On the contrary it is you who are EXTREMELY arrogant.

Jul 10, 2015
"in which power is being sold at 4 - 5 cents Kwh"

Onions if you think that selling solar power at the fire sale prices of 4cents/KWH during peak oversupply periods represents a viable non-subsidized business model then YOU are the problem with the whole green energy agenda.

Jul 10, 2015
I strongly believe that science doesn't take the position that they know this or that before they have proved it. True scientists are willing to point out the weaknesses and missing pieces of their science. This science initially assumed the oceans were static because we knew nothing about them. Now that we have Argo finally we have the smallest amount of data for 12 years. Even with Argo we don't have enough data by far. Why is it so hard for climate scientists to admit they don't know. They said there were no cycles in the ocean. Now they say this cycle will end early. They never admitted there is a cycle before. If there is a cycle then all the tuning of their albedo and sun calculations in the models are wrong for the last 100 years. Admitting a PDO cycle admits that all the models are wrong and therefore all their predictions are wrong. They need the PDO to end now and to never come back. My argument is a real scientist would never act this way. The quality is LOW.

Jul 10, 2015
Onions could be the poster boy for everything that is wrong with the green energy business. Lose money on every KWH sold but make it up in the future. If all else fails the government will have the ratepayers bail your green ass out.

bla
Jul 10, 2015
"You didn't learn much about the convergence of interpolating polynomials, did you?"

No but I did learn that you need more than a few measurements per every 100K square KM to get an accurate average. Using your theory one station at the North Pole, one at the South Pole and a handful at the Equator should work just fine just as long as we have NOAA to interpret the data.


a) The number of points needed for convergence depend on the length of the system and the scale of the event being interpolated;

b) There are a lot more than "one station at the North Pole, one at the South Pole and a handful at the Equator"; unfortunately I don't have enough characters left to explain to you in this comment, and I hope you decide to search that by yourself. You have many points to study the evolution over hundreds of years, and many many points to analyse the evolution over the last few decades.

Jul 10, 2015
runrig ... ad hominem attacks are pointless. I'm talking quality of science and what we know vs what is hand-waving. Science in journals should not engage in hand-waving or unmotivated and unsupported statements. If they do they should be extremely clear what they don't know in making those statements.

Yesterday I read a report in science magazine that looked at CO2 levels in different specific time periods and looked at ocean levels and basically correlated the two as if there was a causal relationship. This is shockingly low quality science. We know that ocean levels have been higher and lower than today. We know that temperatures have been higher and lower. However, a specific CO2 level is not correlated well with sea level because CO2 levels have been all over the place. There was no proven or shown direct correlation of CO2 to temperature or to sea level. If there were then this whole CO2 debate would have been over decades ago.

Jul 10, 2015
So Bla you are saying that most of the stations in the US are a tremendous waste of money since the data could be mathematically deduced and that the frequent recalibration of historical data by NASA and NOAA was not needed.

Jul 10, 2015
They need the PDO to end now and to never come back.


No "they" don't:

http://d35brb9zkk...x431.jpg

I take it you know what that signifies?

My argument is a real scientist would never act this way. The quality is LOW.

It is NOT an argument without corroborating science my friend. Sorry. It's called hand-waving from a biased position.

Jul 10, 2015
mr mathon

runrig ... ad hominem attacks are pointless. I'm talking quality of science and what we know vs what is hand-waving. Science in journals should not engage in hand-waving or unmotivated and unsupported statements. If they do they should be extremely clear what they don't know in making those statements.


You express an opinion with no back-up. That is hand-waving in any language. And worthless.
Give me some examples of the "bad science".
What we know is science ... let us have some.

Jul 10, 2015
Yup, we are trying to determine the earths temperature change down to 1/10 of a degree C per decade and just a handful of stations are really needed.

bla
Jul 10, 2015
I find what Climate Scientists say EXTREMELY arrogant. As a physicist trained at MIT and Stanford the Climate community use of "know" is absurd.


Are you sure you've studied physics at MIT and Stanford? Because would that be a fact, and you would be capable or reading scientific papers and avoid saying some of the ignorant arguments and distorted facts that you said. Have you even open the Science paper which this article is reporting?

Jul 10, 2015
There could be a hundred reasons why oceans at lower levels have gone up in energy content. They show no causal link or even a plausible way that the excess heat from CO2 IR absorption could possibly be getting into lower ocean levels. As I point out that would be critical to do because prior to this climate scientists argued that there was NO POSSIBILITY of this happening. So, it appears they "assume" that the excess heat came from CO2 with no mechanism in fact contradicting all previous climate science but provide no way.

Admitting that deeper oceans can be affected is a huge change in position. It brings up the possibility of longer cycles of heat and even deeper heat stores and movements which might explain a lot - for instance the LIA and MWP cycle. More importantly of course it means the models are all written wrong and need to be drastically modified to include the ocean now. Unfortunately we know practically nothing about that so then how to be arrogant?

bla
Jul 10, 2015
There could be a hundred reasons why oceans at lower levels have gone up in energy content. They show no causal link or even a plausible way that the excess heat from CO2 IR absorption could possibly be getting into lower ocean levels. (...)

(...) It brings up the possibility of longer cycles of heat and even deeper heat stores and movements which might explain a lot - for instance the LIA and MWP cycle. More importantly of course it means the models are all written wrong and need to be drastically modified to include the ocean now. Unfortunately we know practically nothing about that so then how to be arrogant?


Read the paper, Mathon. Read the research paper...

Jul 10, 2015
"More importantly of course it means the models are all written wrong and need to be drastically modified to include the ocean now. Unfortunately we know practically nothing about that so then how to be arrogant?"

Since the models were written to prove the UN and other governmental bodies position they do not need to be based on any real facts. The just need to robust enough to stand up to the casual scrutiny of a scientifically illiterate and politically biased press. Who is going to prove them wrong, grant seeking researchers or professors with a career hating death wish?

Jul 10, 2015
I can show you some PPAs below 4 cents/kWh.

Jul 10, 2015
" I can show you examples of ppa's around the world that are coming in at around 5 cents."

PLEASE DO ONIONS!!!!

BTW Don't forget to include the financials that prove that they can recover their investment and actually make a profit at 5 cents without ratepayer subsidies. I will be awaiting your proof.

You to Gkam!!!

Jul 10, 2015
GM sell a Volt for 35K that costs them 60K to produce. Does that make it a viable business model?

Jul 10, 2015
1) IPCC AR4 said variability was almost eliminated because of the dominance of CO2. They said models showed this. WRONG. Lawrence Livermore labs head of Climate modeling told me that haituses were gone. CO2 cancelled them. Apparently not. WRONG.

3) Most of the heating was between 100-300m. This was proven impossible in prior AR reports. WRONG

4) If heat is being absorbed into lower oceans when will it release? 60 years? Prior AR reports said there were no other long term natural variability other than CO2 that could affect temperatures. WRONG.

5) the author admits PDO cycle exists. That means the albedo tuning for cooling in 1945-1975 is WRONG. It means the argument that 100% of heating between 1975-2000 was CO2 is WRONG. It means the tuning for sun forcing for 1910-1945 is WRONG.

We were told it's proven. That's what I call ARROGANCE. Also they have failed to admit these problems. That's ARROGANCE. True scientists are not arrogant.

Jul 10, 2015
It's "you, too", Toots.

Sure. It is from a site for utility professionals:

http://www.utilit.../401642/

"Austin Energy is being offered to buy solar power from developers at record low prices, leading the utility to ask its oversight arm to slow the acceptance of bid in hopes that waiting a little longer or developing the solar itself can get it an even better deal, the Austin Monitor reports.

"Response to the utility's request for 600 MW of solar has yeilded a string of declining bids. The most recent bid of under $40 per MWh (less than $0.04 per kWh) was 20% lower than 2014's $0.045 per kWh Recurrent Energy contract price for a 150 MW solar project due online this year. It was only 25% of 2008's $160 per MWh ($0.16 per kWh) bid for the 30 MW Webberville array."

Jul 10, 2015
166 wants "proof" without telling us the price of nuclear power. Should we make him include the costs of Fukushima and Chernobyl?

Jul 10, 2015
More importantly of course it means the models are all written wrong and need to be drastically modified to include the ocean now. Unfortunately we know practically nothing about that so then how to be arrogant?


They are included in respect of radiative transfer and convective/LH/sensible heat transport, along with latest SST's. What they cannot do, and what they are not meant to do - is model climatic cycles such as PDO/ENSO. That is currently not possible. Yet the models are useful as we know that if the correct part of the ENSO cycle is in place then ave global temps are well modeled.

http://phys.org/n...sed.html

Jul 10, 2015
Oh,stop it. We lost our freedoms to the SCARED folk and the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Acts which took MY civil liberties because somebody else got SCARED.

Pollution controls are not killing you, . . . greed, fear, and Fascism are.


Terrorism and Domestic crime kill more people than weather disasters.

Worried about laws?
The Supreme Court is in violation of the 10th amendment regarding gay marriage, but there is no provision in the constitution to over-rule the Supreme Court when the Court blatantly violates the constitution.

The constitution needs to be amended to remove lifetime appointments for justices, and make them elected by popular vote.

Jul 10, 2015
"Austin Energy is being offered to buy solar power from developers at record low prices, leading the utility to ask its oversight arm to slow the acceptance of bid in hopes that waiting a little longer or developing the solar itself can get it an even better deal, the Austin Monitor reports.

"Response to the utility's request for 600 MW of solar has yeilded a string of declining bids. The most recent bid of under $40 per MWh (less than $0.04 per kWh) was 20% lower than 2014's $0.045 per kWh Recurrent Energy contract price for a 150 MW solar project due online this year. It was only 25% of 2008's $160 per MWh ($0.16 per kWh) bid for the 30 MW Webberville array."

So it is the above quote that proves to you that solar companies can make money @ 4c/kwh eh Gkam! Your lies might be might be acceptable in the green community but not mine.

Jul 10, 2015
For much of the past decade, a puzzle has been confounding the climate science community.


It hasn't been confounding me, if you will all remember. It's easier to imagine it's a combination of the ice melting and the heat from fossil fuels, which due to the mechanics of melting ice, and the fact that our burning fossil fuels have "leveled off" in time with the "pause."

Well, just how much more evidence do you need?

So, measurable heat from burning fuels, conclusive.
Melting icecaps/poles, conclusive.
Temperatures fluctuating with the Sun and heat from fossil fuels, conclusive.
Climate change directly correlated to burning fuels, conclusive.

Weak non-linear relation to CO2, meh, conclusive.
No concise science relating CO2 and climate change over 40++ years, conclusive.

NOW, before the news clouds it over, I want everyone to examine Northern Hemisphere temperatures for July.
It is cold for July everywhere.
You'll see it is "cold" for July everywhere.

Jul 10, 2015
You see normally one would think that global warming, Co2 levels and real renewable power costs do not belong all in the same link on a science site. But since the lies are so intertwined they most certainly do.

Jul 10, 2015
@John, your comments read as a book. Maybe you should write one.
It would be a lot of fun to show the systematic denial of lack of knowledge and continuous updates of fundamental principles without acknowledging this.
In fact climate 'science' is similar to the weather forecast: you can read almost all weather into it and when completely and undeniably wrong this isn't mentioned or corrected.

Jul 10, 2015
WP the cold July was duly noted by science community already. Papers have just come out tracing this to volcanoes. Once again weather predicts the science.

Jul 10, 2015
"So it is the above quote that proves to you that solar companies can make money @ 4c/kwh eh Gkam! Your lies might be might be acceptable in the green community but not mine."
--------------------------------------

They are not my "lies", Toots, they are the words from a site for utility professionals.

Which you ain't.

Jul 10, 2015
I stand corrected on the Volt GKam thanks for the link. It just goes to show you how poor quality biased reporting hurts everyone.

Jul 10, 2015
Also Gkam I did not say that the 4cents/kwh was a lie. But I do claim that the article did not state the solar company was making a profit at that rate. THAT is the fact that I asked you to prove. That is the fact that you said that the article proved. That was a lie.

Jul 10, 2015
NASA has said the satellites are more accurate.

Given the well known issues with satellite measurements, this seems unlikely. To begin with satellites cannot measure surface temperature. They measure the atmospheric temperature at various altitudes (where the temperature is cooler), feed those values into a model, and out comes the modeled surface temperature. But many problems have been found with those models over the years, so trusting those models seems problematic. UAH is coming out with a new model which significantly changes the satellite temperature record. Is it now correct?

In addition, satellites have several built-in cooling biases which make it very difficult for the models to get the surface temperatures correct. Some of the biases (e.g., ENSO) are not included in the models so, for example, the last 18 years of satellite "surface" temperatures are very suspect.

Cont.

Jul 10, 2015
In addition, Spencer has said that the polar coverage of the satellites is not very good and since the polar regions are where the greatest warming is currently happening, that leads to another cooling bias by the satellites. (To be fair, surface measurements have this problem as well, which is why the recent global temperature products use both.)

With all these problems, you'd have to be a special kind of fool to prefer satellite measurements to surface measurements and it's doubtful that NASA actually came out with a statement that satellites are more accurate for surface temperature measurements. That claim is probably made up. In fact, the chief scientist at RSS is on record as saying that surface temperature records are better than satellite records:
A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets

(http://www.remss....eratures )

Jul 10, 2015
MR166-Really, so when it's hot it's CO2 (not the Sun or my favorite, excess actual heat-heat causing warming, crazy I know), but when it's cool, it's volcanism, or something. Last year they denied it altogether you know, then in August it switched.

There is always an excuse save for the obvious one that simply explains it-simply, huh?

On the bright side, it looks like the shills that usually ruin anything interesting have taken my advice and found other jobs.

Jul 10, 2015
Hey! Wait! If it is volcanism, our problems are solved! Well get cooling now!

I guess the increased use of wind and solar (using the Sun's energy) instead of fossil fuels (=Sun + fossil fuel energy) has nothing to do with it! Just a coincidence!!!!

Anybody else notice city lights have been turned down and many put on solar?

Just a coincidence, but again, one I called.

Jul 10, 2015
IPCC AR4 said variability was almost eliminated because of the dominance of CO2.

Hmm. This doesn't appear to jibe with what AR4 actually says:
Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings.

(The scales referred to are scales less than 50 years.)
So this indicates that neither the models nor the observations show variability going away - on the contrary.
Substantial multi-decadal variability was found in the large-scale atmospheric circulation over the Atlantic and the Pacific.

More indication that variability hasn't disappeared.

Cont.

Jul 10, 2015
The conclusion in AR4–that observed changes in upper ocean water masses reflect the combination of long-term trends and interannual-to-decadal variability related to climate modes like ENSO, NAO and SAM–is supported by more recent studies.

So, again, variability is still around.
In summary, recent observations have strengthened evidence for variability in major ocean circulation systems on time scales from years to decades.

Again, there's that variability. If you felt compelled about making up something so easy to check, perhaps you've made up other claims of yours.

Jul 10, 2015
As I point out that would be critical to do because prior to this climate scientists argued that there was NO POSSIBILITY of this happening.

Can you point out where climate scientists argued that there was no possibility of this happening? It sounds like an absurd claim to make since it's not really that difficult to think of how that could happen.
Admitting that deeper oceans can be affected is a huge change in position.

As far as I'm aware, this has long been the position of climate science. Given the importance of convection in the oceans, it would be surprising indeed if the deeper oceans weren't affected. These statements of yours don't seem to make much sense, but maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Jul 10, 2015
Variability?

The change in the amount of CO2 is so slow, thermodynamically speaking, that changes from it should be easily predictable.

Unless, no wait, brace yourself, the phenomenon is actually occurring because OF another variable, one that changes dramatically, like say the heat released BY fossil fuels.

But 'Prophet, you whine, that would mean there is a strong correlation between combustion, temperature and climate.

And there is. And is is easy to look up. Temperature (wood for trees), combustion; industry metric etc.. the Sun's cycles (well there is an odd amount lies from environmental sites: Use Wiki.)

Jul 10, 2015
The thing of it is this: You notice more and more science is "suddenly" coming out about Climate Change.

Why is this? It no longer matters what the populous thinks, the big decisions have already been made, profit streams secured.

Fortunately, they managed to wheedle out a solution that involves profit and environmentalism. "They" own the wind and solar farms, and "we" don't.

But it is better than the alternative.

Now is the time to start looking for what the truth actually is and was, just to stretch your mind consider:

THE ARTICLE ABOVE HAS BEEN HAPPENING, it isn't new because they just reported it. My fans will recognize that this is something (minus the CO2) that I've been saying.

Jul 10, 2015
I'm sorry, I really couldn't resist.
" My fans will recognize that this is something (minus the CO2) that I've been saying."
You have no fans here, only folks who know your brass bowl and candle "model" is ridiculous, your understanding of physics, poor. Maths, you've probably heard of it. Learn some.

Jul 10, 2015
I'm sorry, I really couldn't resist.
" My fans will recognize that this is something (minus the CO2) that I've been saying."
You have no fans here, only folks who know your brass bowl and candle "model" is ridiculous, your understanding of physics, poor. Maths, you've probably heard of it. Learn some.


A 100 star comment!

Jul 10, 2015
What is happening is unfortunate. One can only hope that we will come out OK on the other side. I don't know what to think, but luckily, alcohol has not yet been regulated.

Chamberlain, Halifax, and Henderson live again.

If we do get through this, history will not kindly upon us.

Jul 10, 2015
What is happening is unfortunate. One can only hope that we will come out OK on the other side. I don't know what to think, but luckily, alcohol has not yet been regulated.

Chamberlain, Halifax, and Henderson live again.

If we do get through this, history will not kindly upon us.


Oh booohhhooo hoo hoo. Quit drinking and typing dude, You only get paid for the sober trolling.


Jul 11, 2015
Global warming is nothing but a globalist ploy to clear the derivatives markets of the HUNDREDS of TRILLIONS of runaway debt from gambling and speculation.

Jul 11, 2015
Global warming is nothing but a globalist ploy to clear the derivatives markets of the HUNDREDS of TRILLIONS of runaway debt from gambling and speculation.

What rightwing troll bait planted you here dude?

Jul 11, 2015
Hi MR166. :)

Mate, a slowdown in temp increases doesn't mean a slowdown in heat increases in the system! I already explained that in this transition phase towards new climate dynamics there will be hiatuses in the temp increases, but that because the increased heat has temporarily been 'shuffled around' the planet into the various heat sinks which ARE warming up while other places are not warming as rapidly therefore.

Don't take any notice of 'models'. Common sense and observation will tell you all you need to know about what has been happening. The increased EXTREMES of rain, winds/cyclones etc, heatwaves etc, are the SIGNS of the system shuffling heat around the globe. The huge ocean currents and upwellings go for thousands of miles and from deep to shallow waters. That is what is happening.

It's all there in the news. Science and Models are always far behind the news. I pointed out all this many years ago and got lambasted for it. But I was right all along. More to it. :)

Jul 11, 2015
Oh my god! Oh my god!
The government is after my piggy bank!

Thinks: "Wait a moment. That's not right. The government can just print money."
Thinks: " That is what they have been doing for 7 years. $84 Billion a month, every month."

Thinks: "Silly Chicken Little"
"Your piggy bank is safe"
Or is it?

Chicken little wants to know "What will the availability of chicken feed be?"

Jul 11, 2015
Fair crack of the whip boys! Howhot is right. We are awash with IOUs.

But it escapes this primitive mind how spending up big on anything is going get us out of debt.
But then again.
I am not an economist, so what would I know?

Jul 11, 2015
Where do you get your information on the number of thermostats?

He seems to be making up most of it.

Jul 11, 2015
Heat circulation is too complex to be understood with current science.

Inv #8030402

Jul 11, 2015
"This takes one of the last assertions from the Deniers."

You can only wish Gkam!!!!!

Over and over again you prove that science means nothing to you and the agenda is everything.


Oh, you've noticed there's no difference between "deniers" and AGWites when it comes to driving, breeding and heating and cooling the house? All together now, "THEY have to change". That's the 21st century and gen X. "I'm OK, you're the fucking cause of every problem!"

Jul 11, 2015
Heat circulation is too complex to be understood with current science.

Inv #8030402


Wonderful. The paid trolls are so brazen they're including invoice numbers on the posts now. I'm wondering how much they make. What's the price they put on deliberately screwing everything over?

Jul 11, 2015
zz - well said:

I would ask mr mathon which UAH version he prefers ... but I'd place my house on it being the *cooler* one.

http://www.drroys...2015.gif


I would also ask him how it is that this "more accurate" method comes up with a spurious 0.6C warming (both RSS & UAH) during the big 1998 Nino.

http://www.drroys...-RSS.gif


Jul 11, 2015
"Mate, a slowdown in temp increases doesn't mean a slowdown in heat increases in the system!"

Oh this is rich. Now since there is an 18 year pause, temperatures don't matter and were never a good indicator anyway. Now since the predicted crop failures have not materialized heat is being stored in the ocean as never has been before and we can prove it by our newly recalibrated ARGO buoys. We are only years away from this killing all marine life.

REPENT you ecological sinners REPENT!!!!

Jul 11, 2015
To top everything off you have government agencies like NASA acting like the plant in the "Little Shop of Horrors" yelling "Feed Me, Feed Me".

Jul 11, 2015
The AGW Cult, have so COOKED the land and ocean temperatures, that CO2 is now responsible for more heat than the sun has shone.

Jul 11, 2015
First. The use of "well modeled" is arrogant. models have failed miserably .. at even a modicum of ENSO means not WELL MODELED. Last year they predicted a huge El Nino based on the models. WRONG So, the models don't "well" model any radiative transfers from the ocean to atmosphere or within the ocean. The fact you refuse to admit that complete wrongness is even more arrogant. Calling it "well" modeled is like German commander telling Hitler they modeled air attacks over Germany "well" before Dresden occurred. It is known the models poorly model air temperatures over oceans and ocean temperatures. There's nothing wrong in admitting wrong. That's science.
runrig: they don't model ENSO/PDO.
Nobody knows why theses things happen nor how big, why there is a cycle. They can't model it because we don't know. Again what is wrong with admitting we don't know? You have demonstrated quite perfectly my argument. You won't admit wrong and that we don't know. That's not science.

Jul 11, 2015
Wonderful. The paid trolls are so brazen they're including invoice numbers on the posts now. I'm wondering how much they make. What's the price they put on deliberately screwing everything over?

You tell us.

The models have failed. The science of AGW is falsified again and again.

http://www.drroys...2013.png

At what point do we say, "There is just not enough evidence to justify moral and economic chaos?"

Inv. 451275

Jul 11, 2015
There is no room in the anti-fossil fuel agenda for the models to be wrong since that is the only "proof" they have to justify the huge government intervention that is planned. Basically the UN is trying to use the global warming scare to end capitalism.

Jul 11, 2015
The pause has forced them to change focus to something that is less easily measured which is sea temperatures. Since they cannot "prove" drought, flooding and crop failures any more they need to change apocalypses to sea life which is much harder to verify than surface crops and polar bears.

Jul 11, 2015
Wow, the paranoiacs are out today with their true feelings. How did we wind up with these chronic malcontents?

How did we get those so unable to accept reality they fall for any emotional appeal to their biases and bigotry and selfishness?

Bring 'em on!" - Screamed by a brave Republican hiding in his Undisclosed Location.

These folk welcomed the Police State to "protect" them, but want to blame Big Government on liberals!

Jul 11, 2015
Antarctica is from 66 degrees to 90 degrees south. There are 24 stations today reporting data in this entire region. Almost all of these stations are at the 66 degree along the rim of antarctica. Even today there are less than 5 stations from 75 to 90 degrees. The map here will show you the coverage today http://cdiac.ornl...032.html
Between 1900-1954 there were 3 stations in the entire region.
Between 1954-60 10 stations were added all along the periphery.
From 81-90 degrees there is only 1 station today.

Jul 11, 2015
gkam ... classic ... content less attack piece brilliant. You know what you talk about obviously. You know all about this topic don't you? NOT.

ZZ ... you asked where did climate scientists say that heating in lower ocean was impossible. This is basic climate science 101. The ocean is modeled on a 2-3 layer scheme. The assumption of all climate scientists was that convection to lower layers was impossible and extremely inefficient. All heat would be confined to the top layer and minimal to the next, none to the last. Here we see evidence heat is rising in the 3rd layer but NOT the other 1 or 2. This would be evidence that the heat isn't coming from above. However, the assumption of climate socialists is that since the CO2 really does create all this massive amount of heat it must have gone somewhere where it could do damage so since we found some here it must have gone here. It couldn't have radiated out to space.

Jul 11, 2015
"Since they cannot "prove" drought, flooding and crop failures any more "
---------------------------------

Where are you hiding? In some Undisclosed Location, cowering with Cheney and Dubya? I suggest you look outside of Fox and FreeRepublic, and see reality.

Jul 11, 2015
"Bring 'em on!" - Screamed by a brave Republican hiding in his Undisclosed Location. "

Well I would rather be a brave Republican screaming bring 'em on than a cowardly Democrat screaming the sky is falling here take my freedoms.

Jul 11, 2015
You do not get it, . . YOU republicans took MY freedoms when you got SCARED by those two cowardly draft-dodgers. Many of us who served in other wars saw through that silly nonsense, but YOU got FOOLED, didn't you?


Jul 11, 2015
"At what point do we say, "There is just not enough evidence to justify moral and economic chaos?""
-------------------------------------

We were screaming that before your Bush Wars!! Did you not see 3,000,000 people march world-wide? I was with those marchers as a war veteran.

We tried and tried and tried to tell you about the Office of Special Plans and Doug Feith. Were you unaware of it? Did you get suckered by them?

Did you get their oil? NO? Paid for the damages yet?

Don't dodge these questions, those are the events which ruined our Armed Forces and put us over $4,000,000,000,000 in Bad Debt. When are you going to PAY FOR IT??

Jul 11, 2015
I'm sorry, I really couldn't resist.
" My fans will recognize that this is something (minus the CO2) that I've been saying."
You have no fans here, only folks who know your brass bowl and candle "model" is ridiculous, your understanding of physics, poor. Maths, you've probably heard of it. Learn some.

That's correct thermo, just how many sockpuppets do you have?

The brass bowl model works-it predicted the most profound effects of climate change would be ice and water, not temperature. At the brass bowl iteration, that was more than the world agreed to just a few years ago. Some buffoons out there are still talking about temperature.

But temperature is a poor indicator of climate:
Imagine a brass bowl with ice and water in equilibrium.
What is the temperature of the water?
0C
Now add a candle underneath the bowl. What is the temperature of the water?
0C, until all the ice melts.

The Earth is far better buffered against change than a brass bowl.

Jul 11, 2015
If I was having this discussion in a physics topic with real scientists they would gladly admit that this went wrong, that this didn't work, that this has these problems. They would be EXCITED to talk about the failures and problems because that is HOW SCIENCE PROGRESSES. True scientists would not obscure failure. They would be eager to find failure. The would admit that this doesn't jive with that. Climate socialists aren't scientists. They are people with an agenda and will pervert science deny failure or wrongness till they are blue in their face. Today the models are less than 5% probability of correct according to the data we have seen. Every statistical analysis would PROVE THAT. For climate socialists 5% chance of correct means they are correct and they continue modeling and say things are "well modeled". ARROGANT. NOT SCIENCE. Real scientists would be excited at model failures. They would NOT scream DENIALIST... they would be the denialists! In real science.

Jul 11, 2015
"Now add a candle underneath the bowl. What is the temperature of the water?
0C, until all the ice melts."

OMG, did you really say that? When it was well over 100 degrees F here, I distinctly remember there being lots of ice at the poles. Were they all at the same temperature? No? Gosh, your "model" said it would all be at the same temperature. Is it valid?

Jul 11, 2015
The system represents the Earth, the candle buring fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are yesterday's Sunshine and heat, released today.

If you use these principles and improve the model. Instead of the gedanken bowl, use a simplified planet, with icecaps and heat sources, you can see what happens globally.

Add landmass, prevailing winds, geography and climate, then focus on a region. You, yourself will then be able to predict how the climate did change, is changing and will change, just with those assumptions.

Try it.

Jul 11, 2015
Oh, gkam, you've never actually been an idiot before.
Here let me help: The Earth is not a brass bowl.
This bears repeating. The Earth is not a brass bowl.

But a bowl full of ice can simplify principles needed for someone smarter than yourself to understand and predict climate change.

Jul 11, 2015
With the next solar grand minimum right around the corner any self respecting warmest would be drawing up alternate plans right around now. Since the average person can walk right out the door and determine that hey are freezing their A$$ off there is a real need to have an alternate reason for any cooling. This looks to be volcanic activity and sea warming at the moment.

Jul 11, 2015
" Instead of the gedanken bowl, use a simplified planet, with icecaps and heat sources, you can see what happens globally."
-------------------------------

It is not simple!!

Climate is the result of complex interactions between complex systems!!

Jul 11, 2015
Greenonions. That article written in 2013 is after my climate science class at stanford which taught me that the heat transfer to lower layers would not happen therefore a 2 layer or 3 layer model was sufficient to model the ocean. the layers were much smaller. 10m and 100m.

The article admits:
It is difficult to establish the exact mechanism for this stronger heat flux to deeper water, given the diverse internal variability in the oceans.

My point is the arrogance of climate "sieocislists" to not admit they didn't know this before is the problem. Everybody understands science evolves. It is WELL modeled they said. 95% certain. 97% of scientists agree. "Difficult to establish.." doesn't prevent the author from stating that the heat from CO2 is the cause of this warming. Are they 95% certain of that? They hide the changing theories even though 2 years ago they would have scoffed at this. If oceans could have done this then they wouldn't have predicted temps 0.5C > than they are

Jul 11, 2015
First. The use of "well modeled" is arrogant. models have failed miserably .. at even a modicum of ENSO means not WELL MODELED.


Try reading what I said ...

"What they cannot do, and what they are not meant to do - is model climatic cycles such as PDO/ENSO. That is currently not possible."
Last year they predicted a huge El Nino based on the models.

GCM's didn't.
runrig: they don't model ENSO/PDO.

I know - see above.

Models are always wrong. You cannot expect them to closely following the meandering global ave temp. GCM's DO NOT/CANNOT model complex climate cycles. That does not make them wrong, because that limitation is known and understood.

After taking away PDO/ENSO - global temps were well modeled. That shows the underlying science is sound. CO2 as a GHG does what it's said on the tin for ~150 years. ENSO will always modulate that signal - doesn't matter because the models show that it is redistributing heat already stored by AGW.

bla
Jul 11, 2015

Since the models were written to prove the UN and other governmental bodies position they do not need to be based on any real facts. The just need to robust enough to stand up to the casual scrutiny of a scientifically illiterate and politically biased press. Who is going to prove them wrong, grant seeking researchers or professors with a career hating death wish?


That's a ridiculous accusation. The fact that you don't understand the complex physics behind these simulations, doesn't make them false. You would need to have the scientists of the entire world, the top quality research journals, the supercomputing centres of every country, all together, in a massive worldwide conspiracy, to trick you into unnecessarily making this world a better place by realising less pollution. Does that make any sense to you? Do you really think that's credible? I'm surprise at how far people are willing to go to avoid little changes in their lifestyles...it's ridiculous.

Jul 11, 2015
Science 101 says that repeating something that is false - does not make it true.

Interesting.

The fact that you don't understand the complex physics behind these simulations, doesn't make them false.

Right. The observations make them false.
http://www.drroys...2013.png

Climate is the result of complex interactions between complex systems!!

Far too complex to claim an understanding enough to predict what it will do, or to think what it will do can be controlled.

Models are always wrong.

Your MIT buddy says they're right. But if they are wrong, why are economic policies being instituted based on models?

Jul 11, 2015
gkam, get your kneecap out of your mouth, it's hard enough trying to understand you with your foot in it.

That's why you improve the gedanken, or mental model in steps. Sorry, obviously you're not quite adept enough to do it, but most people are.

MR166-Right you are. I've been following this longer than I care to think about, and remember the guffaws of "deniers" when the Sun was at a Solar Schwabe Cycle minimum, then the "I told you so's" of the AGWers when the Sun went to a local maximum in it's 11 year cycle.

It was modified by about a 20% add-on because of heat released by fossil fuels, buffered by ice, which absorbs 300x more heat than water, and water absorbs about 90x more than air.

But we go on using air temperature as an indicator of climate change. The ocean weighs: 1.3*10^21kg. The atmosphere weighs: 5*10^18. The atmosphere dumps it's heat within months.

Jul 11, 2015
"That's why you improve the gedanken, or mental model in steps. "
---------------------------------------

How about looking at the real thing, instead of your silly simplistic "model"? By the time you add in the complications, you will have proven our point.

Jul 11, 2015
ZZ ... you asked where did climate scientists say that heating in lower ocean was impossible. This is basic climate science 101. The ocean is modeled on a 2-3 layer scheme.

Umm, no. Where did you get this mind-boggling silly idea? The inability to resolve small features is a problem with all models (but that's a computer limit, not a model limit), but I'm not aware of any models that use a 2-3 layer scheme - at least not for many years. The IPCC models use up to 30 layers (http://www.ipcc-d...ide.html ). Even crappy models (and you can't get much crappier than a Spencer climate model) use much more than 2-3 layers (http://www.skepti...ate.html ).

Cont.

bla
Jul 11, 2015
Heat circulation is too complex to be understood with current science.

Inv #8030402


No, it is not. The fundamental physics behind it have actually been understood by the 19th century. Solving the maths behind Riemann problems is known since the 50's with the Godunov's schemes. It's all about the computational capability, and not about the scientific knowledge, and these days, we do have the computational capability. Stop denying things you don't understand, if you don't know the science behind this, study it before denying it.

Jul 11, 2015
"After taking away PDO/ENSO - global temps were well modeled."

Runryg let me paraphrase a little if I may. After removing the effects of everything that we don't know the models work well.

Well for the most part the models predict a linear increase in temperature for a linear increase in Co2 levels. Pretty simplistic for an earth that has 100s if not 1000s of variables. I know that E=MC2 is beautiful in it's simplicity but I really doubt that climate change is that simple.

Jul 11, 2015
The assumption of all climate scientists was that convection to lower layers was impossible and extremely inefficient.

This seems like another of your made up "facts". Do you have any pointers to a publication that indicates this is so?
They would be EXCITED to talk about the failures and problems because that is HOW SCIENCE PROGRESSES.

Have you ever heard a climate modeler talk? The problems with models are one of the big topics of the talks - and how they're working to improve them. Have you ever read a paper on climate models? Talking about the problems is a big part of those. How about the IPCC? Not to repeat myself, but: http://www.ipcc-d...ide.html . Talking about the problems with models is a large part of that page.

Cont.

Jul 11, 2015
How about the IPCC?

Lost all credibility with Climategate and Climategate 2.0

bla
Jul 11, 2015
If I was having this discussion in a physics topic with real scientists they would gladly admit that this went wrong, that this didn't work, that this has these problems. (...) Today the models are less than 5% probability of correct according to the data we have seen. Every statistical analysis would PROVE THAT.


You are talking with a real scientist here. I'm a theoretical astrophysicist, used to deal with modelling of complex systems in the context of relativistic astrophysics, including multiphysics effects from GR to QCD, which rely on the usage of supercomputers for up to several months to run a simulation. And I guarantee to you that most of what you are saying is nonsense, and that the assertion that climate models are less than 5% probability of correct is purely false - you cannot back that up with any research data, and you can actually find that proving the opposite.

Jul 11, 2015
However, the assumption of climate socialists is that since the CO2 really does create all this massive amount of heat

Ahh, the use of "socialists" gives you away. You're like denglish and believe politics can dictate reality. So you're not really interested in the science at all. Because if you were, you wouldn't say something silly like "CO2 really does create all this massive amount of heat" since the science is clear that CO2 doesn't create any heat at all. But you'd have to understand science and the greenhouse effect to understand that. Since you don't seem to understand that, you might want to read up on it (http://scienceofd...-effect/ ).
It couldn't have radiated out to space.

Well, no, that's measured so everyone knows that the heat isn't going into space. It's building up in the climate.

Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 11, 2015
Greenonions. I know they don't model ENSO/PDO/AMO. It turns out that is a huge problem which I saw from the beginning. They didn't anticipate that. That means they ascribed the wrong sun forcing in 1910-1940, the wrong albedo forcing for 1940-1975, the wrong attribution of warming in 1975-2000. What does it mean "well modeled" when they get all the attributions wrong? What probability do you place on the long range predictions of models whose tuning turns out to be wrong and is missing a massive factor that is 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, is 70% of the surface of the earth and has more life than the surface? When they can't model the basic processes of this giant variable sitting next to us that happens (according to them) to have eaten all the heat for the last 20 years from co2 unbeknownst to Climate Scieocialists until 2 years ago and how they don't kno what do you think is well modeled about it? Weve spent billions on models that are no better than a+bx

Jul 11, 2015
You're like denglish and believe politics can dictate reality.

Reality dictates reality. Observe the observations:

Models Falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png

CO2 levels follow temperature, not vice/versa:
http://theinconve...-CO2.png

Finally, beliefs beget politics, not vice versa. This is something liberal and socialist plebs do not understand, and is perhaps their greatest weakness. They believe it so strongly that they ascribe it to others, and follow their leaders without question.


Jul 11, 2015
Last year they predicted a huge El Nino based on the models. WRONG So, the models don't "well" model any radiative transfers from the ocean to atmosphere or within the ocean.

Did the models predict a huge El Nino? Let's see:
Most climate models are predicting a weak-to-moderate event

(https://www.clima...scussion )
So I guess you made up that bit. Now, as runrig has indicated, models aren't currently designed to model short term events, like an El Nino. But how bad did they really do: https://www.clima...big-bust . So they didn't do too badly. (Incidentally, I attended a talk be Ben Santer a year or two ago in which he said they routinely try to use climate models to predict the weather. Not because they expect success now, but because they hope to get ideas of how to improve the models for short term predictions.)

Jul 11, 2015
But how bad did they really do

NOAA lost credibility with Climategate and Climategate 2.0

Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 11, 2015
I noted something else here. You said:
Last year they predicted a huge El Nino based on the models

El Nino, of course, is an example of variability. So you admit that scientists are using models to examine climate variability (and, supposedly, very large climate variability). But up above, you claimed:
IPCC AR4 said variability was almost eliminated because of the dominance of CO2. They said models showed this.

So are you now admitting to have lied about what the IPCC AR4 said (we already know that it was wrong)?

Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 11, 2015
Greenonions what you say is EXACTLY why everything is so wrong.

The models do show a high correspondence to the temperature variation over 100 years. Billions of dollars to engineer models which precisely are tuned for albedo, sun forcing, humidity, clouds, ... Now saying PDO/AMO exists basically destroys all that. Don't you see? Any scientist would see that. The correspondence is DAMNING because how could it be so accurate if it is missing PDO/AMO? Don't you see that means all the previous conclusions were WRONG. It means all the predictions are WRONG. When you remove ENSO/PDO/AMO there may be a "well" model for 1975-2015 but clearly if you remove these things from prior periods the curves will be hugely in error. Don't you see that 97% agreement, 95% certainty, we know this stuff is ARROGANT. Any scientist would admit that the models are now less than 5% probability of being in terms of the simplest variable: temperature. They are wrong in many many other ways.

Jul 11, 2015
This is just an evasion, until these short term event can account more than 2% of actual climate development. And the El Nino cycle is definitely not 18 years old long - this is already the duration of global warming hiatus.

No, but other short term cycles (like PDO) are in that range. And when you talk about the "hiatus", do you really know what you're talking about? For instance, it's well known that the heat content of the climate has increased during that period. Every global surface temperature record shows continued warming of the atmosphere. And even with the well known cooling bias of the satellites over that period (http://www.ualber...ster.pdf ), the satellite temperatures aren't much different statistically from the surface record.

Jul 11, 2015
Now saying PDO/AMO exists basically destroys all that. Don't you see?

Can you detail why this might be the case? PDO/AMO are cycles, so over the long term they cancel each other out. For short term projections, this is a problem. But that's not what climate models are designed for (remember when you made up the story about the IPCC says there's no variability anymore, and I pointed you to where the IPCC indicated that variability was a problem for scales < 50 years?). So are you now saying that climate models are good for long term projections - their primary job?

Jul 11, 2015
Let's look at the article which started all this.Above it says: As we raise greenhouse gases this internal variability will decrease. Look at that statement. It is incredibly unscientific. CO2s effect increases logarithmically.Therefore, unless we produce greenhouse gases exponentially forever CO2s effect is the one that will diminish. There is no basis to say that ENSO will decrease or increase. As you point out they can't model it. So, saying it will decrease is basically a religious prediction. Pointing out that adjusted land station readings show the last couple years hit a new high 0.02C higher than prior temperatures does not "cancel" the haitus especially when the 2 satellites don't confirm that and the rise for 18+ years is 0.01 instead of 0.00 even using land data which is now in divergence with satellites. He suggests although no mechanism is provided that all the heat is because of the CO2 which is neat conclusion. Not very scientific. Crap science.

Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 11, 2015
The reason behind these papers is so transparent as to be laughable. Just a few days ago there was a paper proving that just a very small change in sea temperature will create massive flooding. Now there is a new paper released proving that the seas and not the air are warming. Thus massive flooding is inevitable without immediate government action. Only a carbon tax and green rate subsidies can save us even though some are wearing a sweater in July.

Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jul 11, 2015
Maybe because I have studied this for decades now. I believed the initial hypothesis. I still believe the physics of course. We are not talking physics here. We're talking 5 datapoints for all of antarctica between 75 and 90 degrees. 3000 buoys which cover less than 30% of the ocean and provide data more sparse than the antarctic 5 stations do for the ocean. Now we have decided to ignore the satellites which provide hundreds of thousands of data points daily. They aren't meshing with our global warming rapidly accelerating theory. So, we'll just forget mentioning them. Is there a way to shoot them out of the sky?

An important data point for me. About 5 years ago the NOAA copied the data from september to october for nearly the entire country of russia. This resulted in NOAA claiming it was the hottest year ever. It took a layman to find the error. Not a scientist. We talk of scientists policing other scientists. NO. Not in climate science. Layman found the error.

Jul 11, 2015
Denglish-I've heard CO2 follows temperature before, but I don't believe it either.

Here's how you can check it out: Use a neutral third party!

People have studied the effects of CO2, O2 on insect growth through prehistoric times. If memory serves there is very no correlation to CO2 and temperature. Check it yourself, but I think CO2 has skyrocketed sans temperature, and other squiggles.

Of course you'd be getting your facts from sources without an environmental bias.

Jul 11, 2015
I can guarantee that ocean warming has surpassed air warming as the new Apocalypse. Even the admirers of NASA and NOAA had a good laugh at the extremes they had to go to prove that last month was the warmest ever. My God, they had to recalibrate all of the ARGO buoys to match the intake water temperatures of 50 year old ocean freighters in order to pull off that trick.

Jul 11, 2015
docile, I believe your theory needs more study.I have for years said ignoring the oceans was a mistake.I also say that not understanding the mantle and how that could be affecting the ocean could be an issue. Ignored.The GCMs don't model the last 100 "well" they do even worse over 1000 years.Nature paper just a few months ago proved this.They do even worse over 8,000 years and they have no correspondence with ice ages.The current theory of ice ages based on malinkovich cycles is not sufficient to explain the 8C+ variation.CO2 is brought in to help but it is inconsistent.There are clearly other factors, cycles either in the ocean, sun, mantle of the earth at play.There could be chemical, biological or even geographical interactions we don't understand. About 3 million years ago ice ages went from once every 100,000 to every 50,000 years.Some suggest the isthmus of panama closing changed the entire cycle of the earths ice ages.WE DONT KNOW. Why is that so hard to say we DONT KNOW.

Jul 11, 2015
John you can add orbital eccentricities, polar procession and reversing magnetic fields to your list also.

Jul 11, 2015
Why is that so hard to say we DONT KNOW? Because they have said they knew. Because they said this was proven. Because they call everyone who doesn't believe every last word they say a "denialist." Because they are not open minded scientists. They are agenda driven political sciologists. Scientists modify their models on the data. The sciologists of climate cling to the models over the data. When the data disagrees it must be reanalyzed and reanalyzed till it corresponds to the models. The models are facts, the data is fungible. I think I'm talking to a parent protecting a child convicted of crimes.He may have killed 3 people but he's doing well.These computer models are the most embarrassing stupid wasteful science money ever spent.We need more data, more real science, more theories not screaming DENIALIST at everyone who doesn't take lock stock and barrel these ridiculous software playthings that have cost us billions and are worse than random guessing.Studies show this.

Jul 11, 2015
ZZ I agree that the cycle of PDO/AMO cancels out over 60-70 year periods.The problem is that they fit their curves very precisely without knowing about PDO/AMO.They tuned the models to mimic temperatures by changing the forcings for albedo, volcanoes, particulates, albedo of the earth.Everything was tuned.Now you throw in a huge variable that swings up and down by +.2 and -.2.That completely invalidates all the tuning they did.Did they mention this?When you extract that +0.2 and -0.2 variation the models now look like crap.Also, how do you think those models are going to do with the next 100 years with all those tunings wrong?

This is actually quite simple.If you just want to look at CO2 we have the data.We can do that calculation easily.we have raised co2 by 150ppm.To double CO2 to 550ppm will require another 150ppm.We are halfway to a doubling.We got 0.5C for the the first half. CO2 effect is logarithmic. The next 50% will produce 0.3C. That's it TCS=0.8C.Done.Not 2.5,3,4..

Jul 11, 2015
ZZ i want to point out something also very important. The LIA and MWP have been shown now to be real. They constitute what appears to be another cycle probably 1000 years. If I were climate sciologists I wouldn't want to be caught with my pants down a second time. Check out the graphs for temps for 1000, 5000, 8000 years. You will see what I'm talking about. CO2 has not varied in this time period. So, models are crap. They don't explain any of that. There are cycles in the system. I don't know what they are caused by but they are clearly there. If they admit PDO/AMO they should consider other cyclic factors. If so, they may find that some of the heat from the last cycle contributed to the warming in the 20th century. Meaning CO2s effect is even less. They never want to show these other graphs because CO2 wasn't higher but temps were. That's unexplainable by current theory. Something else is going on. They ignore it. You decide if that is scientific.

Jul 11, 2015
"If so, they may find that some of the heat from the last cycle contributed to the warming in the 20th century. Meaning CO2s effect is even less."

This was exactly my point. There are 100s of inputs that add positive and negative feedback to the system. The majority of these we do not even know the sign let alone the value. Water vapor is a prime example of this.

Jul 11, 2015
Sorry for going off topic as far as this reply is, but gkam quipped-
Pollution controls are not killing you, . . . greed, fear, and Fascism are.

My 1972 Pontiac Firebird with 2-barrel carbureted 400 CID (6.6L) V8 engine without any pollution controls other than positive-crankcase ventilation, released less CO2 per mile than my 1981 VW Scirocco with port fuel injected 104 CID (1.6L) I4 engine with converter, O2 and PCV.

Tailpipe NOx emissions were also higher on the VW, than the Pontiac... simply due to the more lean fuel mixture increasing combustion temps.

The only place the Pontiac lost was HC emissions and mileage. The VW earned around 30 MPG combined average for the VW with 5 speed manual transmission and around 25 for the Pontiac with 3 speed automatic TH350. Not really bad considering the Pontiac also weighed almost twice the VW.

So yeah, pollution controls don't do anything harmful, right?

Jul 11, 2015
john-I like what you have to say.

john and All: But, we do know, we do know exactly. Ask yourself this, what information would it take for you to understand the climate right outside your window?

Pretty easy right? now climate changes slowly.
What would it take for you to understand the climate change outside your window?

You seem pretty intelligent, I'm guessing you'd say to yourself, "just knowing the right variables," and how my climate fits into the bigger picture.

Well, I guarantee you, you can understand that.

If you have trouble with the variables, use the process of elimination. Look at the actual effects of change, and ask yourself what could cause them?

Can, for example a ubiquitous insulating gas be the cause?
Well, that would cause warming, yes, but a moderation in weather, and other insulating effects.

Reverse engineer the observed effects, you are certain about to possible causes.

Jul 11, 2015
ABEC I am pretty much a car nut and really doubt that a 1972 400 ci gets 25 MPG. I have 1996 Jeep with a 318, fuel injection and a catalytic converter that almost gets 20 on the highway, 15 around town and 8 going up a moderate hill. I have a real time MPG gauge in the Jeep. Cats do not really decrease gas mileage. Don't get upset Gkam this is not my daily driver.

Jul 11, 2015
Catalytic converters actually let them get better mileage, because they do not have to worry about some of the pollutants, and can run at closer to optimum efficiency.

Jul 11, 2015
If any of you care to understand all this I wrote it up in a blog a while ago. https://logiclogi...ificant/


Jul 11, 2015
"Catalytic converters actually let them get better mileage, because they do not have to worry about some of the pollutants, and can run at closer to optimum efficiency."

I would not go that far Gkam. If you add "while maintaining emissions standards" I would agree. BTW I really think emission controls are a valuable plus to the world we live in. I remember NYC during rush hour in the 60s. The fumes would bring tears to your eyes. The solutions of the late 70s were horrible, thank God for science and progress. Today's engines and cars are superb examples of technological progress. They last forever and require 1/10th of the maintenance of cars of the 50s!!!

Jul 11, 2015
Kudos for the link John. It certainly looks like you put a lot of effort into it. It will take me quite a few readings to fully absorb and evaluate.

Jul 11, 2015
If you look at the engines today that use direct injection into each cylinder the gas mileage is fantastic. The 2015 Corvette gets 30 mpg on the highway with a 455 HP engine.

Jul 11, 2015
Pretty cool john, it'll take a bit to absorb it, but, this may help your approach.

CO2 acts as insulation, theoretically.

Solar radiation of all spectrums are incident on the earth, hits the Earth and are converted to relevant thermal energy.
Water vapor is 50x more prevalent, 40x more powerful a GHG and has increased by 435ppm not a paltry 135ppm as CO2.

Finally, what is the relationship between increasing INSULATION and temperature? (Rhetorical.) CO2, even water vapor are passive effects to something active. Which includes the Sun, mass transfer of heat from ground to space (more important than insulation), mass transfer of heat from equator to poles, etc..

V/R

Jul 11, 2015
Of course you'd be getting your facts from sources without an environmental bias.

I'm pretty sure the measurements are legit Prophet. CO2 following temperature is an observation, not a theory.

Jul 11, 2015
Just is case anyone wonders about the intentions of the US government just google Operation Jade Helm. It is a US military operation in 8 states for one month. Why does this not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

Jul 11, 2015
ABEC I am pretty much a car nut and really doubt that a 1972 400 ci gets 25 MPG. I have 1996 Jeep with a 318, fuel injection and a catalytic converter that almost gets 20 on the highway, 15 around town and 8 going up a moderate hill. I have a real time MPG gauge in the Jeep. Cats do not really decrease gas mileage. Don't get upset Gkam this is not my daily driver.
Any other time, I'd probably agree with the MPG doubt you show, however having driven the car from my home to Los Angeles for well over a year, and seeing how much fuel I'd consumed tells me the truth- about 5 gallons of gas a day for a 130 mile trip works out to about 25 MPG.

Edit to add: the pressure exerted by the foot on the accelerator pedal is a strong influence on mileage. Also, the 1973 Dodge Coronet my parents had, with a 318, would pull close to 20 around town and nearly 30 on the freeway.

Jul 11, 2015
So, is El Nino birthed as entirely as a surface phenomena or what?

Jul 11, 2015
Well my Jeep is full time 4WD and weighs 3700 lbs., so that does enter into the equation. BTW I hope you are comparing Apples to Apples IE highway mileage for both cars.

Jul 11, 2015
Well I just Googled it myself and found out it is across 9 states. Attention citizens coming to a town near you, see your military in action practicing to enforce military law.

Just imagine if Bush did this!!! Don't you think that the media might have a wee bit to say about it???????????????????

Jul 11, 2015
ABEC said:
My 1972 Pontiac Firebird with 2-barrel carbureted 400 CID (6.6L) V8 engine without any pollution controls other than positive-crankcase ventilation, released less CO2 per mile than my 1981 VW Scirocco with port fuel injected 104 CID (1.6L) I4 engine with converter, O2 and PCV


And Mr166 said:
ABEC I am pretty much a car nut and really doubt that a 1972 400 ci gets 25 MPG. I have 1996 Jeep with a 318, fuel injection and a catalytic converter that almost gets 20 on the highway, 15 around town and 8 going up a moderate hill. I have a real time MPG gauge in the Jeep.


Mr166 is correct. I would guess that ABEC confused carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide.

Sorry Mr 166 I gave you a one instead of a 5 (and you deserved the 5 for catching that one).

Jul 11, 2015
You are talking with a real scientist here. I'm a theoretical astrophysicist, used to deal with modelling of complex systems in the context of relativistic astrophysics, including multiphysics effects from GR to QCD, which rely on the usage of supercomputers for up to several months to run a simulation.
Do you believe there is science "beyond GR"? Is "beyond GR" becoming a new buzzword in your circles? I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer who likes to keep up on such things. Astronomy is my hobby as a member of an astronomy club. I'm just trying to keep up with the most recent lingo used in your professional circles. Do you know about this new & emerging science of "beyond GR"?

Jul 11, 2015
@WP
"That's correct thermo, just how many sockpuppets do you have?"
I'm nobodies sockpuppet, and Thermo most certainly doesn't need to SP, need I remind you of this thread?
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
So I'll repeat, maths, learn some.

Jul 11, 2015
Of course you'd be getting your facts from sources without an environmental bias.

I'm pretty sure the measurements are legit Prophet. CO2 following temperature is an observation, not a theory.
........otherwise how else could you explain the 95% CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere, all that CO2 residing in that atmosphere & it just never seems to get warmer there. If you need CO2 as a precedent, then earthbound climatology has it just backwards.

Why do so many point to Venus' 95% CO2 as our future if we do not reduce the 0.04% CO2 content of our atmosphere? Here it is, two planets on each side of us with same levels of CO2 but with vastly different end results. Maybe we should instead be looking at Mars as our future?

Jul 11, 2015
Hi MR166. :)
..wind driven changing water currents could move heated water to different depths[q/]Exactly. That's what I have been pointing out for uba and others for some time now. Add to that the slow but steady conduction/re-radiation rate downwards over decades across all isoclines/layers, and deep warming is quite inevitable. Also, warmer deep layers, the slower the convection upwards of magma heat. Also, CO2 'dissolves' in ocean surface waters in exothermic process as CO2 changes from higher kinetic energy molecule to lower kinetic energy molecule/ions in water.
..I suspect that 70F degree oceans radiate heat into space that is invisible to Co2. Thus Co2 concentrations do not contribute all that much...since Co2 only absorbs a very narrow band of radiation
There's a wide range, as CO2 not constant in densities/vibrational/motional states etc; and at higher and higher altitudes the more CO2 emitted and mixed/diffused more vertically in atmosphere.

It's messy. :)

Jul 11, 2015
Hi Benni. :)
..how else could you explain the 95% CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere, all that CO2 residing in that atmosphere & it just never seems to get warmer there....

...Why do so many point to Venus' 95% CO2 as our future if we do not reduce the 0.04% CO2 content of our atmosphere?
The base system is entirely different to Earth's in both cases.

Mar's atmosphere is thin, mixed more violently to higher altitudes. So any input heat escapes to space at greater rate than on Earth. Also, the internal heat loads from below crust (or from sun insolation) are quite different in magnitude/proportion when comparing the base system/dynamics.

Venus has dense atmosphere and much heat from planet which has been trapped by it for much of its history, not only by CO2 content but also Sulphur etc in the atmosphere which 'rains' as sulfuric acid within its meteorological dynamic.

You're missing some of the reality factors on this one, Benni. It's very complicated, mate! :)

Jul 11, 2015
RC are you saying that the main absorption band of of Co2 changes significantly with density.

Jul 11, 2015
Hi denglish. :)
CO2 following temperature is an observation, not a theory
You miss th obvious 'feedback' and 'swings' involved. Over time, the observations will 'seesaw' as heat is shuffled around and into heat sinks and then saturation occurs temporarily as phase/dynamics changes and sinks give up some heat, and so on. Any simplistic observation/model/conclusion like you repeated there is flawed by virtue of what it misses both in timing and dynamical feedback etc factors. This is why no 'model' from any source can be 'perfect' at any one time/place. It's an overall observational trend informed by known and potential factors which is best available, not complete in any way. As for the trend seen in all models, however imperfect/variable, it is interesting to note that such climate change has been long observed from its very earliest signs...

http://phys.org/n...new.html

See? Not a 'conspiracy' by climate scientists, mate! :)

Jul 11, 2015
HI MR166. :)
RC are you saying that the main absorption band of of Co2 changes significantly with density.
I'm saying it's complicated by many factors than simplistic modeling/physics has so far indicated/allowed for. The vibrational states change with temps and interactions with other air molecules. Also the concentrations affect the inter-CO2 shuffling of heat/radiation between themselves and other air molecules. Also the motional directions upwards, downwards/sideways/rotational etc in currents/vortices at all altitudes/concentrations can affect 'doppler factor' for interaction with photons of more than just narrow wavelength band. Also CO2 dissolved in water droplets may change absorption/re-radiation factors. It's very messy, and no simplistic model/physics analysis extant takes into account all these other complicating factors.

But one thing is becoming clear from all models/observations: Extreme transition events are driven by CO2 lagging of any escaping heat. :)

Jul 11, 2015
Mr166 is correct. I would guess that ABEC confused carbon monoxide with carbon dioxide.

No, not confused.
Had to get emissions tests done when I sold the Firebird recently, and California does test CO2 even though it wasn't assigned a pass/fail criteria at the time. The VW was tested as well slightly before the Firebird.

Take it for what you will. This was my experience with cars I maintained. Your mileage may vary... pun intended.

Jul 11, 2015
Well my Jeep is full time 4WD and weighs 3700 lbs., so that does enter into the equation. BTW I hope you are comparing Apples to Apples IE highway mileage for both cars.

Well, full-time 4WD means spinning the transfer case, prop-shaft, front differential and output shafts to the wheels. This would equate to increased friction and reduced mileage. It's is also not quite as aerodynamic as the Firebird... which isn't necessarily all that slick either.

As I mentioned, the Firebird's mileage was based on driving from home to the Los Angeles area, so most of the time it was on the I-15 and SR91 freeways. The mileage figure for the Scirocco came from when I used it for work, servicing CA lottery machines across San Bernardino county and most of that travel was similarly on freeways like I-15, I-40 and I-10. Both situations, I was getting paid mileage, so it was in my best interest to squeeze every mile I could out of them. I admit both cars could get under 10 MPG if flogged.

Jul 11, 2015
Hi Benni. :)

how else could you explain the 95% CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere, all that CO2 residing in that atmosphere & it just never seems to get warmer there

Why do so many point to Venus' 95% CO2 as our future if we do not reduce the 0.04% CO2 content of our atmosphere?


The base system is entirely different to Earth's in both cases.

You're missing some of the reality factors on this one, Benni. It's very complicated, mate! :)


Hey RC -:)........ Yeah, actually I already knew all that you pointed out regarding the base systems, I was just drawing on the incogent contrasts some AGW Enthusiasts resort to when trying to scare the gullible into believing Earth could soon become like Venus if we don't stop exhaling CO2 & raising farm animals which......well, you know what they do. I figured the gullible should have the luxury of a choice, they could have their CO2 hot or they could have it cold -:)

Keep smiling, science is the winning side.

Jul 11, 2015
Hi Benni. :)
Hey RC -:)........ Yeah, actually I already knew all that you pointed out regarding the base systems, I was just drawing on the incogent contrasts some AGW Enthusiasts resort to when trying to scare the gullible into believing Earth could soon become like Venus if we don't stop exhaling CO2 & raising farm animals which......well, you know what they do. I figured the gullible should have the luxury of a choice, they could have their CO2 hot or they could have it cold -:)

Keep smiling, science is the winning side.
Understood, mate. Keep up the good work researching/discussing the science in reality around us. Keep to the wider perspective at all times.

PS: I may be absent for a few days. Busy here, and going to Sydney more often. Take it easy, stay well, Benni, everyone! Cheers. :)

Jul 11, 2015
Ah yes. Now we get to the nitty gritty. SEX.

Don't take my Pontiac Firebird away from me!!
My sex aid.
How will I get laid?

Reality itself pivots around his willie.

bla
Jul 11, 2015
OK, ok - maybe it's just http://www.climat...obs.jpg.

Your plot just forgot a "minor" detail - error bars for observed quantities - put the error bars where they should be, and watch what happens...

Don't be so pedantic right here. BTW What the theoretical astrophysicist has to say about global warming more than average Java programmer?

a) Read the comment in it's appropriate context, it is a response to another comment. It's not that hard to understand it when you read the previous comment, really.
b) A physicist knows more about the physics and the maths behind climate models rather than an average Java programmer. Climate models aren't about programming; sure, you do have to code, but it's the content of the code that matters, and not coding itself.

Jul 11, 2015
MR166/RealityCheck:
CO2's absorption spectrum increases dramatically with pressure--it's called pressure broadening. It is very significant on Venus, not so much here on Earth. Another reason why studying the three different effects of CO2 on the three planets is interesting.

bla
Jul 11, 2015
Do you believe there is science "beyond GR"? Is "beyond GR" becoming a new buzzword in your circles? I'm a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer who likes to keep up on such things. Astronomy is my hobby as a member of an astronomy club. I'm just trying to keep up with the most recent lingo used in your professional circles. Do you know about this new & emerging science of "beyond GR"?

Sure, GR predicts it's own failure when you have solutions with singularities, such as BH's, for which you cannot use GR to describe what happens inside the apparent horizon. There's a lot of theoretical work around alternative theories of gravity, mainly to address the problems of dark energy and dark matter, but from the observational side, there are yet no observations finding problems in GR. We need to wait untill the thirties, when the european space agency will launch a very powerful observatory for gravitational waves.

bla
Jul 11, 2015
Why is that so hard to say we DONT KNOW? (...) These computer models are the most embarrassing stupid wasteful science money ever spent.We need more data, more real science, more theories not screaming DENIALIST at everyone who doesn't take lock stock and barrel these ridiculous software playthings that have cost us billions and are worse than random guessing.


Just admit that you don't know what's inside a climate model. You have no glue. Those are not just software playthings, there are a lot of complex physics and sophisticated maths tools inside. It is the physics and maths that matter, not the fact that it is performed in a computer (where else would you want to perform such a simulation? Woul you want to try and compute it yourself by hand with a pen and paper?). You are clueless, and that's particularly noticeable when you claim these computer codes cost billions (lol, common, seriously?? You have no idea of the budget for a scientific research project, do you?).

Jul 11, 2015
Well, not for nothing, but I have managed a M&S efforts. I was disappointed many times with the approximations used.

It can be very hard to program non-linear relations, and unfortunately, being a computer programmer means very frequently you have been training in engineering, where everything is simplified to a linear relation, whereas most things are not linear relations.

With complexity, these problems compound, and the programmers will tell you, they are "just doing what they are told."

Why model, when you can just look at history and make extrapolations and use your own mind to make excellent predictions?


Jul 12, 2015
WaterBowlMan says:
MR166/RealityCheck:
CO2's absorption spectrum increases dramatically with pressure--it's called pressure broadening. It is very significant on Venus, not so much here on Earth. Another reason why studying the three different effects of CO2 on the three planets is interesting.


There are, actually, three major broadening sources:

1) Pressure (collision broadening)

2) Doppler broadening (which can move the frequency of the line)

3) Natural broadening (due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). This is always present.

What they do is to change the width of an absorption/emission line or move the peak in the case of Doppler broadening. However, they do not simply "increase the absorption spectrum." Instead, the CO2 partial pressure is orders of magnitude different between Earth and Venus. That is why the atmosphere of atmosphere is much better at absorbing IR than that of earth.

Jul 12, 2015
See? Not a 'conspiracy' by climate scientists, mate!

Didn't say it was. it is simply observation.

Jul 12, 2015
Just admit that you don't know what's inside a climate model.


That's one problem with the 'science'. The high priests of climate control the holy 'models'.

I suggest reading 'Models of Doom' to gain an appreciation of the failure of predicting a complex future.

Jul 12, 2015
GR predicts it's own failure when you have solutions with singularities
Because GR predicts INFINITY when dividing 1 by 0. GR is not predicting it's own failure here, it is predicting INFINITY can't exist inside the Universe.

such as BH's, for which you cannot use GR to describe what happens inside the apparent horizon
GR certainly does predict that the Schwarzschild Radius can never be so small as reach zero as I pointed out above.

lot of theoretical work around alternative theories of gravity
What alternative theories will address DE & DM?

mainly to address the problems of dark energy and dark matter


from the observational side, there are yet no observations finding problems in GR
This is not what the DM Enthusiasts claim, they claim 75-99% of the mass of the Universe is missing. Our solar system remains in this Universe & the gravity of the visible mass of our Sun has been so accurately calculated that we know 75-99% is not missing



Jul 12, 2015
Just admit that you don't know what's inside a climate model.


Duh, it's the al.go.re.dumb, of course.

bla
Jul 12, 2015
So Bla you are saying that most of the stations in the US are a tremendous waste of money since the data could be mathematically deduced and that the frequent recalibration of historical data by NASA and NOAA was not needed.


No, that's not at all what I said. Just read my comments again.

bla
Jul 12, 2015
Since the models were written to prove the UN and other governmental bodies position they do not need to be based on any real facts. The just need to robust enough to stand up to the casual scrutiny of a scientifically illiterate and politically biased press. Who is going to prove them wrong, grant seeking researchers or professors with a career hating death wish?


Of course, it makes a lot of sense that researchers around the world would fake scientific results to favour some political organization, even if there are much more powerful groups who would benefit from paying a lot more to the same scientists to claim that taxing against pollution is ludicrous, and by the end of it all there would be no other scientist to point the scientific errors and publish it on a peer-review journal...
Or maybe, just maybe, it's you that are completely scientifically illiterate and didn't make the effort to understand the physics involved in these models...

bla
Jul 12, 2015
Just admit that you don't know what's inside a climate model.


That's one problem with the 'science'. The high priests of climate control the holy 'models'.

I suggest reading 'Models of Doom' to gain an appreciation of the failure of predicting a complex future.


I suggest reading the papers concerning the models themselves, and understand what you are talking about before calling something rubbish. You are recommending us a book from the early seventies, which analyses modelling in a time when you didn't have computers to do the highly complex simulations you can run nowadays in a supercomputer. Modelling back than was completely different, there's absolutely no comparison. Educate yourself, it pays off!

bla
Jul 12, 2015
Because GR predicts INFINITY when dividing 1 by 0. GR is not predicting it's own failure here, it is predicting INFINITY can't exist inside the Universe.

No, the point is that the theory cannot describe the nature of the object behind the singularity - what is the singularity? You'll probably only be able to answer that with a theory of quantum gravity.

GR certainly does predict that the Schwarzschild Radius can never be so small as reach zero as I pointed out above.

Again, you didn't understand what I meant to say. I was talking of the limits of GR to describe nature (and it can describe past the Schild radius, which is an event horizon. It is the apparent horizon, which lies inside the event horizon, which alters the causal structure for the infalling observer). I think you also misunderstood the fact that the Schild radius is not the real singularity of a BH, it is a coordinate singularity (you can always find a gauge in which it is not a singularity).

bla
Jul 12, 2015
What alternative theories will address DE & DM?

Let's not turn this into a discussion on theoretical physics. I'm sure you can find a lot of science divulgation with keywords like "modified gravity", "alternative theories of gravity", "f(R) gravity", "scalar-tensor-vector theories of gravity", etc...

This is not what the DM Enthusiasts claim, they claim 75-99% of the mass of the Universe is missing. Our solar system remains in this Universe & the gravity of the visible mass of our Sun has been so accurately calculated that we know 75-99% is not missing

The point is: at this point, there can be DM (I do favour this for many reasons), there can be DE (I'm not so sure for this one, DE and DM are uncorrelated), or it can be that we didn't understand gravity on the strong regime. Every door is still open. If there is DM and DE, they are everywhere, but they don't affect the gravitational field in our solar system and that's why you don't see that. You see it at the cosm

Jul 12, 2015
"Of course, it makes a lot of sense that researchers around the world would fake scientific results to favour some political organization, even if there are much more powerful groups who would benefit from paying a lot more to the same scientists to claim that taxing against pollution is ludicrous, and by the end of it all there would be no other scientist to point the scientific errors and publish it on a peer-review journal..."

Right BLA the Koch brothers are going to pay the scientists the Billions of dollars that the governments have. Get real, funding for those who question AGW is miniscule in comparison to the funding provided by the world governments.

bla
Jul 12, 2015
If there is DM and DE, they are everywhere, but they don't affect the gravitational field in our solar system and that's why you don't see that. You see it at the cosmological scale. You see DM (or something else changing gravity) in the behaviour of galaxies, and DE (or something else changing gravity) on the behaviour of the expansion of the universe.

Of course, all of this is totally unrelated to what's being discussed here. Let's stick to the topic: scientists are understanding better and better the dynamics of the observed climate change, but there are lobbys propagating the doubt on science for economical reasons, and there are people who are happy to accept lazy arguments against science and scientists, because they are afraid of changing their lifestyles.

bla
Jul 12, 2015
Right BLA the Koch brothers are going to pay the scientists the Billions of dollars that the governments have. Get real, funding for those who question AGW is miniscule in comparison to the funding provided by the world governments.


How can that make any sense to you? Just read the budget of a science lab, for heavens sake... Billions?? Really?? I wish...I could do so much more with billions, and I could even justify an increase of my salary (which is not that impressive as you might be thinking in your confused mind)! What would be, in your imagination, the reason for all governments in the world, which are most of the time in diplomatic wars, to join forces and start funding, or actually bribing, labs in all countries of the world, in order for them to justify reducing pollution with fake science? What's going on your mind?? Are you unable to see the world past the USA? Because the world is so much bigger than that, and there's so much beauty to be seen!!!

Jul 12, 2015
While on the surface government grants and funding might look like a net positive for science it also represents an immense force pushing the results of any research in the desired direction.

Ok I'll bite BLA, how many climate scientists do you know that are not funded by government or university grants? Perhaps a few have real jobs with private industry.

Jul 12, 2015
new Maunder Minimum, burn more coal

Jul 12, 2015
"new Maunder Minimum, burn more coal"

Well that is a more plausible explanation for the "Pause" than any from NASA or NOAA.


Jul 12, 2015
bla, these folk are salesmen or bureaucrats or science wannabes, and assume all of us have the same professional ethics. They do not understand the difference between science and business. In finance, in business fudging is de rigeur, while it is professional death in science.

bla