New study finds heat is being stored beneath the ocean surface

July 10, 2015, NASA
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."

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

Related Stories

Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean

July 2, 2013

From 1975 on, the global surface ocean has shown a pronounced-though wavering-warming trend. Starting in 2004, however, that warming seemed to stall. Researchers measuring the Earth's total energy budget-the balance of sunlight ...

Warmest oceans ever recorded

November 14, 2014

"This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year," says Axel Timmermann, ...

Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds

August 3, 2014

New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which ...

Global climate on verge of multi-decadal change

May 28, 2015

A new study, by scientists from the University of Southampton and National Oceanography Centre (NOC), implies that the global climate is on the verge of broad-scale change that could last for a number of decades.

Recommended for you

697 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

MR166
1.8 / 5 (31) 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.
MR166
2 / 5 (29) 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.
MR166
2 / 5 (29) 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!
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2015
neutral or inconclusive at depths below 300 meters, where measurements are relatively sparse.


MOST of the water is below 300m
xstos
4.2 / 5 (15) 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.
docile
Jul 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) 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.
john_mathon
2.2 / 5 (20) 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.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (24) 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.
arpotu
4.2 / 5 (15) 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.
john_mathon
1.4 / 5 (19) 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?
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) 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".
john_mathon
2.1 / 5 (22) 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.
john_mathon
2 / 5 (20) 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
prion
3.9 / 5 (26) 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?
MR166
1.7 / 5 (18) 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.
prion
3.9 / 5 (22) 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.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (18) 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?
MR166
1.5 / 5 (17) 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.
prion
3.7 / 5 (25) 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.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) 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
wiyosaya
4.1 / 5 (17) 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.
HannesAlfven
1.3 / 5 (16) Jul 10, 2015
I find Mr. Mathon's critical perspective to be extremely informative and balancing. Thank you for your contribution. Please continue.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2015
consult a climatologist.

Like Lindzen, formerly from MIT?
MR166
1.7 / 5 (18) 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.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) 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.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (15) 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.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (13) 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.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (13) 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.
john_mathon
1.9 / 5 (14) 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
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) 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.
john_mathon
1.6 / 5 (14) 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.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (12) 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.
docile
Jul 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2015
Well it looks like the cooling might not only be confined to the NH.

http://www.nzhera...11478666
gkam
2.4 / 5 (26) 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.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (15) 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.
marcush
4.1 / 5 (14) Jul 10, 2015
Wow the denialist troll brigade is out in force!
MR166
1.6 / 5 (14) 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!!!!!
gkam
2.5 / 5 (25) 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
3.2 / 5 (24) 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
3.1 / 5 (23) 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.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (22) 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!
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) 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
2.9 / 5 (23) 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
2.9 / 5 (19) 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.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (13) 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.
denglish
2 / 5 (15) 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.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (12) 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.
john_mathon
2 / 5 (12) 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.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) 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.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) 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.
john_mathon
1.7 / 5 (11) 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.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) 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
2.7 / 5 (19) 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.
john_mathon
2.3 / 5 (12) 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.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) 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.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) 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.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) 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.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (11) 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
2.7 / 5 (19) 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?
john_mathon
1.9 / 5 (9) 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
2.7 / 5 (19) 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...
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) 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?
gkam
2 / 5 (20) Jul 10, 2015
I can show you some PPAs below 4 cents/kWh.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) 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!!!
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2015
GM sell a Volt for 35K that costs them 60K to produce. Does that make it a viable business model?
john_mathon
2.1 / 5 (11) 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.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (21) 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."
gkam
2.1 / 5 (21) 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?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) 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
Returners
2 / 5 (16) 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.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) 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.
Water_Prophet
2.7 / 5 (7) 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.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) 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.
freeiam
3 / 5 (6) 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.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) 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.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (22) 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.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) 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.
MR166
2 / 5 (8) 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.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) 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.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) 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 )
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) 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.
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (6) 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.
zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) 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.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) 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.
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (8) 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.)
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (9) 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.
TehDog
4.6 / 5 (10) 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.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (9) 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!
denglish
2 / 5 (8) 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.
howhot2
3.9 / 5 (7) 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.

Stevepidge
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) 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?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (18) 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. :)
Egleton
2 / 5 (4) 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?"
Egleton
1.8 / 5 (4) 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?
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2015
Where do you get your information on the number of thermostats?

He seems to be making up most of it.
jljenkins
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2015
Heat circulation is too complex to be understood with current science.

Inv #8030402
AGreatWhopper
2 / 5 (4) 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!"
NiteSkyGerl
2.8 / 5 (11) 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?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (7) 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

MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) 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!!!!
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) 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".
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.
john_mathon
2.6 / 5 (5) 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.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) 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
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) 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.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) 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.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (19) 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!
john_mathon
3 / 5 (4) 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.
john_mathon
1.8 / 5 (5) 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.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (19) 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.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (6) 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.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (17) 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?

gkam
1.8 / 5 (15) 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??
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) 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.
john_mathon
2.5 / 5 (8) 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.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (18) 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?
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) 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.
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) 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.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) 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.
gkam
1.9 / 5 (17) 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!!
john_mathon
2.3 / 5 (6) 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
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) 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
2.3 / 5 (15) 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.
denglish
1.9 / 5 (9) 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?
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) 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.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (17) 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.
zz5555
4.1 / 5 (9) 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
2.5 / 5 (16) 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.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) 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.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (8) 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.
denglish
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2015
How about the IPCC?

Lost all credibility with Climategate and Climategate 2.0
bla
2.4 / 5 (17) 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.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (9) 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.
docile
Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
john_mathon
1.6 / 5 (7) 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
denglish
1.8 / 5 (10) 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.

zz5555
4.4 / 5 (7) 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.)
denglish
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2015
But how bad did they really do

NOAA lost credibility with Climategate and Climategate 2.0
docile
Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) 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)?
docile
Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
john_mathon
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) 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.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) 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?
john_mathon
2 / 5 (8) 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.
docile
Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) 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.
docile
Jul 11, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
john_mathon
1.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) 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.
john_mathon
1.6 / 5 (7) 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.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 11, 2015
John you can add orbital eccentricities, polar procession and reversing magnetic fields to your list also.
john_mathon
2.3 / 5 (12) 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.
john_mathon
2 / 5 (8) 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..
john_mathon
3 / 5 (10) 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.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (10) 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.
abecedarian
2.3 / 5 (6) 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?
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (5) 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.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (6) 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.
gkam
1.8 / 5 (16) 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.
john_mathon
2 / 5 (8) 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/

MR166
4.2 / 5 (5) 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!!!
MR166
1 / 5 (2) 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.
MR166
3 / 5 (2) 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.
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) 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
denglish
2.3 / 5 (9) 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.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) 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.
abecedarian
1 / 5 (2) 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.
Bongstar420
1 / 5 (2) Jul 11, 2015
So, is El Nino birthed as entirely as a surface phenomena or what?
MR166
5 / 5 (2) 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.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) 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???????????????????
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) 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).
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) 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"?
TehDog
5 / 5 (8) 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.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (13) 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?
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (15) 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. :)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (16) 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! :)
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2015
RC are you saying that the main absorption band of of Co2 changes significantly with density.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) 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! :)
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (14) 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. :)
abecedarian
1 / 5 (1) 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.
abecedarian
1 / 5 (1) 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.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) 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.
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (15) 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. :)
Egleton
5 / 5 (1) 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
2.1 / 5 (16) 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.
Water_Prophet
2 / 5 (4) 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
2.1 / 5 (15) 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
1.9 / 5 (17) 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?).
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) 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?

thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) 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.
denglish
2 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
See? Not a 'conspiracy' by climate scientists, mate!

Didn't say it was. it is simply observation.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) 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.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (12) 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


antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) 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
2.3 / 5 (16) 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
2.3 / 5 (16) 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
2.3 / 5 (16) 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
2.1 / 5 (15) 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
2 / 5 (14) 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
MR166
1.9 / 5 (9) 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
2.3 / 5 (16) 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
2.1 / 5 (14) 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!!!
MR166
1.8 / 5 (10) 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.
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
new Maunder Minimum, burn more coal
MR166
2 / 5 (8) 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.

gkam
2.1 / 5 (19) 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
2.3 / 5 (16) 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.

You have no idea how research grants are distributed. It's other scientists who evaluate the quality of a project, so it would have to be scientists pushing themselves to fake science. It could never work, particularly at a worldwide scale!

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.

That's right, like in virtually all fundamental sciences, everyone is doing it with public funding. Because private sector is only interested in applied research, as should be common sense. What does that prove? And again, how on earth would all governments around the world, including those who didn't apply the kyoto agreement, like China and USA, agree to do such a scheme?
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
The most suspicious data in the AGW agenda is the difference between the land station data and the RSS land satellite data. Up to the year 2000 they pretty much matched then there was a huge divergence where ground data continued to show warming while the RSS showed no increase or very slight cooling. HUUUMMMM which data did NOAA "Adjust", I forget Right.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2015
computers to do the highly complex simulations you can run nowadays in a supercomputer.


GIGO.
Only faster with a 'super' computer.
gkam
2.3 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2015
If it was your computer would you trust it?

All your opinions spring from political prejudice, Ryggy. Go back to one of those sites.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2015
[q... completely scientifically illiterate ... @Bla
whereas that is entirely true of certain posters here, there are some other issues at play as well, from conspiracy theorists (see Mr's jade helm, but no mention of Reforger) to paid political obfuscation

they simply refuse to see logic or science if it specifically means alteration or refute of their belief system
http://phys.org/n...ies.html

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

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

https://www.psych...-sadists

they dont care - & some are just paid not to care. they're here to spread misinformation, their beliefs and obfuscate science

http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
Bla:

It takes a particular mind to rationalise a conspiracy theory as being more likely in order to justify their ideological standpoint than that the science is correct.
They do their damnedest to make reality bend to their world-view and throw common sense and rationality away in doing so.

To most of us that is, of course, bizarre.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
GIGO you sure are correct there. To do any real research today using the "Adjusted" historical data you need to be a forensic accountant besides being a scientist. That is the real shame, history has been destroyed by those entrusted with the data. If I as a layman want to look up past temperatures the first thing that pops up is the NOAA crap.

Besides the huge cost to taxpayers this waste of the nations brainpower is abhorrent. If all of these graduate students were developing useful products or processes the world would be much better off.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
I will admit Capt. I had to look up Reforger. It was a cold war show of force in Germany. So what is the purpose of Jade Helm, to scare the Tea Party?
Bongstar420
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 12, 2015
How about lets see a map of oceanic volcanism activity?
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2015
Bla:

It takes a particular mind to rationalise a conspiracy theory as being more likely in order to justify their ideological standpoint than that the science is correct.
They do their damnedest to make reality bend to their world-view and throw common sense and rationality away in doing so.

To most of us that is, of course, bizarre.

The words of the indoctrinated, spoken like the true believer you are. Completely blind to the fact that you are a victim of the very words you have been trained to parrot.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
One mole(~6e23) of N2 at STP has a volume of a cube ~13cm on a side.

For the sake of argument, suppose one bit could be used to model one molecule. To model one mole of N2, ~6e23 bits would be needed to store the state of one mole of N2.
6e23 bits is 75,000,000,000 terabytes.
Computers are improving every day, but 75 billion terabytes to model on 13x13x13 cm cube of atmosphere would require a very super computer.
Earth's atm is ~1.4e9 km^3 => 637,232,589,895,311 * 75e9 TB for a computer to account for every molecule of atm.
The response will be that this is why statistical mechanics are used. But the atm is a chaotic, emergent system so somehow to model perpetuation caused by just one mole of atm, that is still quite a 'super' computer.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
Ryggy-weather is chaotic, climate is not. You don't need sophisticated models to model climate. Climate is a function of geography, prevailing winds, the heat energy of the Earth, etc..

I maintain the reason models don't work is because they are using the wrong variable: CO2. It is like predicting the temperature in your car by measuring its speed. There will be correlations, but it aint the right variable.

Climate is easy to predict, and I encourage everyone to look at a map of their region. Understand geography, prevailing winds, forests, the ocean/lakes etc.. Study the recent history and how it has changed.

The predict: If it were an insulator, CO2, the region should be warming yes, but being affected by the moderating effect of insulation all over the world.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
I will admit Capt. I had to look up Reforger. It was a cold war show of force in Germany. So what is the purpose of Jade Helm, to scare the Tea Party?
@Mr
1- Reforger is/was always about multi-national training (it was also the "jade helm" of W. Germany which contained far more than German & American troops)
2- Jade helm is about multi-national training

there is no conspiracy. there is no grand "we're attacking the southwest now" type combat planned. there is no "subjugation of the masses of the USA" in the joint exercises being done on US soil... they have been and are now JOINT exercises.

I've participated in Reforger many times, just like i've participated in other joint exercises that didn't get the same "publicity" from the conspiracy theorists because "no internet"

your conspiracy ideation is not allowing you to be rational
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
So that land based temps are more accurate eh? The sattelites were never accurate eh?

Just look at the change in slopes from 2000 on.

http://woodfortre...00/trend
bla
2.1 / 5 (14) 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.


You are probably right, gkam. It's still very sad to read.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
Now the brighter AGWites will came that this is due to sensor degradation where as I claim it's due to moral degradation ! Since sensors can be recalibrated you be the judge.
bla
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2015
The most suspicious data in the AGW agenda is the difference between the land station data and the RSS land satellite data. Up to the year 2000 they pretty much matched then there was a huge divergence where ground data continued to show warming while the RSS showed no increase or very slight cooling. HUUUMMMM which data did NOAA "Adjust", I forget Right.


Forget about AGW. Climate research is a science, despite the fact that there is a lobby trying to scream to the governments that some change must be done based on the scientific research. And there you have a new question: how come that, according to your conspiracy theory, the governments are funding research units all over the world to "prove" an argument, and then they are so reluctant to act according with that argument? Do they want to look like stupid? Beside some minor moves in some EU countries, most countries around the world aren't moving in a cleaner direction, and keep funding this science!
bla
2.1 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2015
they simply refuse to see logic or science if it specifically means alteration or refute of their belief system


It's a sad strange world, Captain Stumpy. I do believe education can solve this...
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2015
" And there you have a new question: how come that, according to your conspiracy theory, the governments are funding research units all over the world to "prove" an argument, and then they are so reluctant to act according with that argument?"

Basically you have to give the people a very good reason for taking their freedoms away or else they may riot. Unless you are talking about Europe where they are so pussy whipped any freedom at all is considered a bonus.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
most countries around the world aren't moving in a cleaner direction, and keep funding this science!
@bla
raining on their parade isn't going to do any good. they will refuse to see logic. that is why i linked you those studies and articles above... perhaps you might get through to someone open minded who is learning, but don't argue with the rest. they will simply troll you...

case in point: see Mr166 argument re: jade helm above
then ask him why he doesn't think "top Gun" schools are trying to take over California (same basic thing, even with multinational combatants)
some of those links i gave above are pretty good, just FYI

the brighter AGWites will came that this is due to sensor degradation
@mr
because everyone knows that anything mechanical is always completely 100% functional, right?
cars never break down, people do! right?
your TV will work forever! right along with your laptop! right?
bla
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2015
Besides the huge cost to taxpayers this waste of the nations brainpower is abhorrent. If all of these graduate students were developing useful products or processes the world would be much better off.

If it's not too late, one day you'll be thankful that regardless of your ignorance and political bias, many graduate students got interest in tackling this problem, which is so important for the future of all of us.

@runrig: it's surely bizarre, but also very frustrating...
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
It's a sad strange world, Captain Stumpy. I do believe education can solve this...
@bla
i absolutely think education can solve this...
BUT
some big problems that i see, however, are things like religion (not faiths) as well as the fallacies we use to "justify" our behavior, as in the recent problems with Banking, as well as the stock market.

We do tend to attempt to validate and reason away the small lies, which children learn from their parents (it's not OK to steal $$ from petty cash, but it's OK to take a pen from work)

this is the flawed psychological basis for things like conspiracy theory, or religion over science. the justification or rationalization of a fallacy over factual empirical evidence becuase it is "good" or makes us feel "good" about ourselves

i found this interesting re: rationalizing lies

https://www.youtu...Jay_qdNc

it lends credence to the studies being done about deniers and those who ignore logic over their delusions
bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2015
One mole(~6e23) of N2 at STP has a volume of a cube ~13cm on a side.

For the sake of argument, suppose one bit could be used to model one molecule. To model one mole of N2, ~6e23 bits would be needed to store the state of one mole of N2.
6e23 bits is 75,000,000,000 terabytes.
(...)637,232,589,895,311 * 75e9 TB for a computer to account for every molecule of atm.


Rygge, why on earth would you want to model all the molecules of the world? That's nonsense! This is a radiative hydrodynamics problem, you need to define a lagrangian for the microscopic molecular dynamics and build an equation of state from that lagrangian. And than solve the radiative hydro with that EoS. Sure, it's a chaotic problem, but that just means that the result of the simulation is highly dependent of the initial data, so you have to run simulations for many slightly perturbed initial data to see how much dependent of the ID your results are.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
Capt. the government has already said on multiple occasions the Right Wing represents the biggest threat to the US, even bigger than ISIS. Now who is the so called "Right Wing" a handful of preppers or the very few remaining KKK members. No, they are anybody to the right of Hillary Clinton and even her they are not too sure about.
bla
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 12, 2015

Basically you have to give the people a very good reason for taking their freedoms away or else they may riot. Unless you are talking about Europe where they are so pussy whipped any freedom at all is considered a bonus.


You are acting like a dead brain. And I invite you to visit EU countries, to learn about what freedom really looks like...
bla
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2015
@Captain Stumpy

You are probably right, but it is so frustrating to read these comments...I feel that I can't avoid to answer them, and try to make them understand how ludicrous and ill-informed they sound.

I'll take the time to read the links you shared. And I'll surely see Dan Ariely video, I like a lot to read his research papers!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
Capt. the government has already said on multiple occasions
@mr
so? they also call me a potential domestic terrorist because of my military training/background
SO? how is that proof that Jade Helm is going to take over the SW? or that Top Gun is going to take over CA? or that climate change/agw is not real?
circular reasoning is not logical, and it is simply a means to justify your failure of logic or reason. see also: http://phys.org/n...ies.html

it is the story of your argument/life! as for the rest of your post: it is all personal fear based conjecture based upon political grandstanding, lies and innuendo

wanna know the truth?
ALL POLITICIANS LIE!
period

there is only one way to logically progress without bias or influences that are based upon fallacious beliefs and delusions: follow the scientific method

follow the science

forget the rest of the crap
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
You are probably right, but it is so frustrating to read these comments...I feel that I can't avoid to answer them, and try to make them understand how ludicrous and ill-informed they sound
@bla
i can understand... the only reason i do it is because i am collecting data for a study myself... psych... specifically why people believe in things when the empirical data in their face proves them wrong, and how they react, how they defend against the reality that encroaches upon their faith/fantasy world, and how their delusions integrate themselves into their every day world

i know... there are plenty out there that touch on that...
You are acting like a dead brain
believe it or not... some of them are not acting! they are true believers in their rhetoric, from denglish and waterprofit to uba and others!

Scary, isn't it?

ENJOY those links!
if you have anything else to share, feel free to link it re: Dan Ariely

ALWAYS willing to learn more!
THANKS
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
@bla continued!
.I feel that I can't avoid to answer them, and try to make them understand how ludicrous and ill-informed they sound.
by all means, please continue to post here!

the trolls have taken over for the most part, and anyone level headed with logic and linking evidence is very welcome!

remember: there are also folks who are reading who don't actually know what is going on... therefore, linking and posting like you do helps to spread actual science over pseudoscience!

this is one of the ways we can make a better tomorrow! spread actual science that refutes pseudoscience

that is why runrig posts, as well as Thermodynamics and Maggnus, and many others!

THANKS
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
"so? they also call me a potential domestic terrorist because of my military training/background"

Capt. I have nothing but the utmost respect for our military and the unfathomable sacrifices they have made for our freedoms. It is today's leadership that I do not trust to walk my dog. Just the act of abandoning the gains in Iraq and the discounting or US lives spent doing that is enough to make me puke.

If you don't think that we will lose just as many lives fighting the ISIS that our president created you are sadly mistaken.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2015
Capt. one day in the not too distant future you will realize that your service fighting external enemies was all in vane because our real enemies are from within. As an example the EPA is trying to regulate ANY and I repeat ANY surface water that might from time to time appear on your land. I am not talking about rivers, ponds or streams. Thus you have no land rights other than those that the government wishes to grant you!
MR166
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2015
And even those rights are fleeting at best since the government can move the goal posts at will.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
To highlight this lack of rights there was a couple in, I think , Arizona. They bought a building lot in an approved development. It was not in a declared flood zone or wetlands. They obtained a building permit from the local authorities. Into the project the EPA, shut it down and required them to return to land to it's ORIGINAL state or face 100s of thousands of dollars in fines. Is THIS what YOU fought for?????
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2015
specifically why people believe in things when the empirical data in their face proves them wrong,


Like socialism?

Or Bill Cosby doesn't drug and rape women?

How do you define 'empirical data'? Is this data the only one individual can obtain, say a Cosby rape victim or Moses who said God spoke to him?
Carl Sagan addressed this issue in Contact and science needs to be less arrogant and more open to human observations and individual humans, as it relates to diet and medicine.
How do you deal with the arrogance of science, stumpy?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2015
How do you deal with the arrogance of science, stumpy?
......why do you ask him anything at all about science? You should direct your questions to the ones whose professions you are questioning -:) Declaring yourself an atheist doesn't make you a scientist, he simply hasn't figured that out yet, no math skillsets required along that venue either.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2015
Empirical data for stumpy:

"It was a very deep depression, as deep as the one that succeeded in 1929. But in this case, the government did not intervene, and it was over in less than two years. Was this a coincidence? Grant does not think it was. He believes, as this writer does, that present government interventions have deepened our current economic malaise and are retarding a full recovery."
"The curious thing about Keynes's ideas is that there is nothing even remotely scientific about them. There isn't even logic or fact to support them."
http://www.breitb...anomics/

Climate, like economies, are emergent systems and attempts to intervene and predict the effects of intervention are very difficult.
But that won't stop socialist, central planners who assert they base their intervention on 'science'.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2015
Hi ryggesogn2. :)

Your sources failed to recognize that the earlier recession was in a transition economy/politics context from old feudal/shortages and unfettered capitalism economy where the poor had no choice but to carry on regardless. The only people/economy which 'recovered' were the wealthy and the capitalist profiteering/exploitative economy. Which is why there was in fact and effect NO recovery as a national economy for all; and this much touted false/selective 'recovery' merely exacerbated the wealthy-poor lives/economies divide, and so merely set the scene for the succeeding recession! Until the whole economy and production/distribution/labor/wage/opportunity/fairness etc aspects were addressed, recessions were sure to continue occurring. Hence onward to the 1930s recession! Which we recovered from because of Roosevelt's "New Deal' and other govt interventions/stimulus via infrastructure and job creation and economy/health/security-improving measures.

Balance. :)
bla
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2015
Climate, like economies, are emergent systems and attempts to intervene and predict the effects of intervention are very difficult.
But that won't stop socialist, central planners who assert they base their intervention on 'science'.


No, it is not. If it is true (and it is) that economy is not an exact science and nothing can be predicted, and that we can find flaws in both Keynesianism and neo-liberalism (and for whatever reason the few ideas outside of that black and white box are not coming out of the academic papers, while everybody plays like if there's no chance but one or the other), the same can't be said about climate sciences. That's physics, and while you don't know at all how this models are done (you told me earlier that you thought you would need all the molecules of the world to model it, like if we needed to know every detail from quantum mechanics at the microscopic level to explain why a wheel rolls), it doesn't change the fact that it's an exact science.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (20) Jul 12, 2015
HI MR166. :)

While I understand perfectly your wariness trusting scientists, don't confuse the people involved with the science itself. Obviously, many so called 'scientists' are 'bought' by lobby/industry interests, but not all scientists. Just as not all scientists dependent on govt grants/requirements. It's a mix/flux of many different scenarios depending on field/times/situations etc. Eg, it has been discovered that Tobacco, Asbestos, Pollution, Pharmaceutical, Nuclear/Fossil etc etc lobbies/industries have 'bought' so called 'scientists' to confuse and delay efforts against them. Likewise some govts (like the present Liberal-National Party Conservative one here in OZ) have tried to politicize/censor/corrupt the scientists and the science! But not all govts over all decades have done so. And you should look at the wider/longer picture from earliest climate discussion/observation/science to now. There are also totally independent/multi-discipline scientists....like ME. :)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2015
RealityCheck, excllent point.
For a while I was deliberatly looking for third party scientists who were interested in things like the temperature of the Earth, but were studying it for reasons not related to climate change.

For example looking up the relation between insect size and Oxygen availability, I was ale to get unbiased stats on CO2 concentrations that showed CO2 could vary greatly, and temperature had little correlation at all.

So, when looking for your climatology facts, look to people who need the same facts, but aren't researching climate.
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 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.


I'll ignore the rest of your post because this statement is just flat out wrong. Each of the last three decades has been the hottest on record - that means each was hotter than the one before it. We use both land and satellite measurements and both broadly agree.

This problem comes about because deneirs ran a campaign using air temps as a proxy for global warming. They're not. They're simply one element of the system. And even then temperatures have clearly been rising above normal climatic variation. Once you take the entire system into account rather than cherry picking, the situation becomes obvious.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
How do you define 'empirical data'?
@ryggTROLL
https://en.wikipe...evidence

... it does not include "...does not think it was. He believes..." or any versions of "biased interpretations" which cannot be repeatable

your further statements deal with the legal system and it's inequalities, not scientific evidence, so the blatant strawman of "how to deal with the arrogance" of anything is simply you trying to interpret something you cannot comprehend in the light of politically motivated stupidity, bias and fear because you are working off of a delusional interpretation of reality

you are refusing to accept definitions or empirical evidence, science or reality... you cannot even comprehend the difference between the legal system and science, so how can anyone actually interpret what you are trying to say?

you also don't comprehend the difference between Hearsay and Empirical evidence.

YOU posted hearsay and opinion.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
Declaring yourself an atheist doesn't make you a scientist
@benni
who said i was an atheist?
no math skillsets required along that venue either
you mean like your ability to do basic math, which you couldn't demonstrate here?
http://phys.org/n...als.html

or your failure to do differential equations here?
http://phys.org/n...ood.html

you've made some big claims, but have YET to be able to provide any empirical evidence of them to date! starting with
the wobble cycle of Earth's rotational axis seems to correlate closely with the time required for our solar system to complete a full orbital passage around the galactic core of the Milky Way
so by all means, benniTROLL... expound "anything at all about science" for us all!

bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2015
Obviously, many so called 'scientists' are 'bought' by lobby/industry interests, but not all scientists. Just as not all scientists dependent on govt grants/requirements.


a) Can you show as any example of a scientific publication from a scientist bought by a lobby which was not denounced by the scientific community and retracted from the journal?

b) What on earth do you guys think that iis the problem public funding of science? Think about it this way: why is it that around the world you have politicians with opposite political orientations winning elections and yet the scientific results are not changing according to the government? Of course the large majority of science will be funded with public money, because private companies are only interested in applied research, already at the level of patenting. The committees which decide on how to distribute that money, are invariantly composed by scientists, and no politician has place there. It is independent of te govt!!
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2015
Obviously, many so called 'scientists' are 'bought' by lobby/industry interests, but not all scientists. Just as not all scientists dependent on govt grants/requirements.


Can you show as any example of a scientific publication from a scientist bought by a lobby which was not denounced by the scientific community and retracted from the journal?


Bla, I'm beginning to get the impression that you fail to understand that everything on the planet is for sale. There is nothing that doesn't have a price, which is precisely the reason I work in private industry applying my scientific skills & not twaddling around inside some government agency. I personally have a price, the price for my scientific skills cannot be paid for within the low pay grades of government, the only thing government invents is more government, just look at Greece.

When I tried to have a science discussion with you above, you ducked it, but you had no problem morphing into other mindless prattle.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
yet the scientific results are not changing according to the government


But they are changing because of the govt.

invariantly composed by scientists,


Usually working for the govt.

no politician has place there

By the time 'scientists' get to a position of running their own research group, they ARE politicians.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
"This problem comes about because deneirs ran a campaign using air temps as a proxy for global warming. They're not. They're simply one element of the system. And even then temperatures have clearly been rising above normal climatic variation. Once you take the entire system into account rather than cherry picking, the situation becomes obvious."

So Lee you are saying that NOAA and NASA are claiming that the last six months are the hottest EVER because they include sea temperatures in the calculation. Well there is no real data on long term sea temperatures is there. Yes there are a mere handful of readings but there is no data robust enough to warrant drawing that sort of conclusion.
The goal posts have been moved so many times they are thinking of putting them on wheels so as not to delay the game.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
Sometimes the desperation of government agencies is beyond belief. It would actually be funny if they did not hold so much power.

http://www.breitb...e-facts/
Ultron
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2015

a) Can you show as any example of a scientific publication from a scientist bought by a lobby which was not denounced by the scientific community and retracted from the journal?


There was and alarmist hype in 2007 from IPCC (supposed big authority on climate) that Himalaya glaciers will melt until 2035 and it was later confirmed that it was MAJOR ERROR and NOBODY was denounced by scientific community, because most climatist are just grant whores and they will not blame each other to not spoil their alarmist bussiness. All the blaming of this obvious error was done by "denialists". Scientific whores just moved to create another hype.
http://www.ft.com...flDJD0Ek
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2015
Right Bla, I see your 1Star. Your mindset is no different than the neophyte post immediately above your most recent one. This site is mostly about performing in a "popularity contest", using the right weasel words to garner as many 5 Stars as possible from the neophytes, as per the example 7 posts above this by Stumpy.

You don't like challenges, you prefer the latest buzzword responses over those of science because "buzzword responses" are easier than science or calculus, Stumpy attests well to this mindset & you have as well.
bla
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2015
Bla, I'm beginning to get the impression that you fail to understand that everything on the planet is for sale.

Of course, because you feel that it is reasonable do believe that all research committees around the world have been bought to benefit some research direction, and all science labs have been bought to "find" a specific result, and that all governments of the world united themselves to enforce fake science results so that they look stupid for not applying any political measures to protect us from the dangers scientists are warning about.

the only thing government invents is more government, just look at Greece.

What do you think you mean by that? And how does it relate to what we are discussing, which is public funded science?

When I tried to have a science discussion with you above, you ducked it, but you had no problem morphing into other mindless prattl

I'm very happy to discuss topics related to theoretical physics with anybody, but I thi
Ultron
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
By the way, in 2007 IPCC warned that Himalayan glaciers will disappear until 2035 and in the years from 2007 to 2014 the glaciers EXPANDED. This is not a proof that whole idea of manmade global warming is wrong, but this is one of many examples, that the underlaying physics is far more complex than is expected by 97% grant whores calling themself climatologists.
http://www.livesc...ity.html
bla
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2015
When I tried to have a science discussion with you above, you ducked it, but you had no problem morphing into other mindless prattl

I'm very happy to discuss topics related to theoretical physics with anybody, but I think this is not the appropriate place; we risk dominating the comments with completely unrelated material. There are often news in phys.org about astrophysical events related to black holes and alike objects, if I find you commenting there, I'll be happy to start such a discussion there.

Right Bla, I see your 1Star.

It's not mine.

This site is mostly about performing in a "popularity contest" (...)

I hadn't even noticed that there would be any influence from the number of stars you have, I thought it was simply an irrelevant classification parameter.
bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2015
Rygge, you are very confused:

But they are changing because of the govt.

Show us such an example, please. For instance, something related to different results on climate science around the world as governments are changing. Or just in one country.

Usually working for the govt.

They are always working for public labs, Rygge, which is different from working for the government. Because, for the 1000th time, the private sector is not at all interested in funding fundamental sciences, only applied sciences.

By the time 'scientists' get to a position of running their own research group, they ARE politicians.

No, Rygge, they are not politicians. They are still scientists, without " "; if we are talking about very big labs, you can say they spend more time with managing duties than with science, but unless we are talking about a sociology research unit, I don't see where you think there could be room for ideology in your distorted ideas...
bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
There was and alarmist hype in 2007 from IPCC (supposed big authority on climate) that Himalaya glaciers will melt until 2035 and it was later confirmed that it was MAJOR ERROR and NOBODY was denounced by scientific community, because most climatist are just grant whores and they will not blame each other to not spoil their alarmist bussiness. All the blaming of this obvious error was done by "denialists". Scientific whores just moved to create another hype.


a) It was the IPCC who recognised the mistake you've mentioned, after the scientific community told that those conclusions where not based in publish results. Your assertion is therefore false, Ultron.

b) That does not reply to what I've asked, I've asked for an example of a scientific publication in a peer-review journal, by some scientist bought by a lobby, which was not denounced by the scientific community and retracted from the journal.

c) Why would a researcher want a grant to fake science?? Come on, really?
bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
By the way, in 2007 IPCC warned that Himalayan glaciers will disappear until 2035 and in the years from 2007 to 2014 the glaciers EXPANDED. This is not a proof that whole idea of manmade global warming is wrong, but this is one of many examples, that the underlaying physics is far more complex than is expected by 97% grant whores calling themself climatologists.
http://www.livesc...ity.html


Read what you share, Ultron. There is one glacier expanding, while the rest of the Himalayas glaciers are melting.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
Well BLA here is an easy one. Why don't you start with the paper that "Proved" that the missing heat which should be creating an atmospheric temperature increase was found in the oceans at the 2000 ft level. Now it is someplace else eh? Is this a corrupt agenda or just very poor science? From there you can graduate to the fact that NOAA changed all the reading of the ARGO buoys to match the readings from ship intakes to prove that every month is the warmest ever.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
They are always working for public labs, Rygge, which is different from working for the government.


A 'public' lab is a govt lab.

No, Rygge, they are not politicians. They are still scientists,.


Ever meet James Anderson? http://www.arp.harvard.edu/
I have.
He is quite political.

And the Union of Concerned Scientists are not political?
Or the scientists at the Center for Science in the Public Interest?
Paul Ehrlich has been quite adamant that scientists be more political.

Ever read the NAS report of the hearing held to allow critics of Mann's hokey schtick, McIntyre and McKitrick, to have an opportunity to present their data?
The report was very politic.

And the IPCC is a political, govt organization.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2015
A 'public' lab is a govt lab.

Universities are not beholden to government directions in what to research.
That's the whole point of something like tenure: so that you do NOT have anyone who can put pressure on you to produce the results they want.
bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2015
A 'public' lab is a govt lab

That was not the point, Rygge. The same way that the content taught in any university won't change according to government desires, the research in university labs is not going to change according to government desires.

Ever meet James Anderson? http://www.arp.harvard.edu/
I have.
He is quite political.

I haven't. Everybody has it's own political ideologies. If you think that guy is willing to fake science for the sake of his ideology, just tell it to his department, they'll know what to do.

And the Union of Concerned Scientists (...) the Center for Science in the Public Interest (...) the IPCC

Those are not research units, they are, like you stated, lobbies for political activism. I'm talking about something else. I'm talking about research labs. Research labs, Rygge!!!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
the only thing government invents is more government
@benniTROLL
most scientists seeking to push the boundries of ignorance work for college's etc and only recieve $ from gov't grants, etc. that is not the same as working for the gov't. you are comparing apples to Truck Tires
as per the example
a vote was likely about content and being unable to validate a claim: something you don't seem to comprehend
you think that just because you SAY something, it is valid. you don't prove anything, and you've been caught in so many LIES its pathetic
"buzzword responses" are easier than science or calculus
and you've proven woefully deficient in either science OR calculus!

start with the paper that "Proved"
@Mr
we talked about this before. a single paper only gives evidence of... it is the later papers researching and redoing the experiments that offer validation of a claim that, in the parlance of popular science or the public, "prove" anything
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
"Universities are not beholden to government directions in what to research.
That's the whole point of something like tenure: so that you do NOT have anyone who can put pressure on you to produce the results they want."

Thanks for a good laugh Psyorg! Universities are one of the most political structures on earth. Try being a conseravative professor and tell my how your career goes.
bla
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2015
Well BLA here is an easy one. Why don't you start with the paper that "Proved" that the missing heat which should be creating an atmospheric temperature increase was found in the oceans at the 2000 ft level. Now it is someplace else eh?


Read the papers you are citing. They didn't prove (and it was 2000 meters, not feet), they found evidence. They found that some heat should be there. Now they found that some heat is being stored somewhere else. Because science works like that, it is always learning more and improving it's knowledge, unlike you dear mr166, who would rather distort the intentions of an entire working class at the world scale level rather than admit that maybe, just maybe, you have absolutely no idea of the physics and maths behind this problem.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
I've asked for an example of a scientific publication in a peer-review journal, by some scientist bought by a lobby, which was not denounced by the scientific community and retracted from the journal
@bla
you will not get an answer, bla

People like rygg, benni & MR are here to share ideology and try to gain acolytes for their cause... that is why you see them choking the threads with completely unsubstantiated conjecture and then feeding off the responses negating their posts- flooding with MORE conjecture

you can offer plenty of validation, whereas the above mention can only offer opinion/politics. they're really here for the "psych ward social hour"

case in point: benni's post & denigration of anyone who proves he is not the "scholarly engineer of great renown" that he imagines himself to be (you should see the egregious errors in my links above re: his math)

.

@AA_P
yeah
look who you're talking to
bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
Thanks for a good laugh Psyorg! Universities are one of the most political structures on earth. Try being a conseravative professor and tell my how your career goes.


a) I have colleagues at US faculties who are conservatives. Many.

b) The world is much larger than the US, and again, you can come to any country in EU and you'll find anywhere you go professors with any political orientation.

I guess you ran away from universities fearing for it's political influence, and that might be the reason behind your poor critical thinking.
bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
This is a lost war in the short term, isn't it Captain Stumpy? I guess we must start rethinking education for the long term solution, to form critical, rational and creative minds from primary school...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
This is a lost war in the short term
@bla
absolutely ... especially as to the changing of the mind of someone entrenched in their delusion. there is some hope ( like this: http://phys.org/n...ies.html ) but until there is a concrete means of establishing a definition of evidence, and said conspiracy ideation can be undermined by their own change of argument, then discussion with THEM is simply a waste of time

but there are young people reading these pages trying to learn how to think logically and learning how to use the scientific method. Teaching them, by example, and by linking source material, is always a good reason to keep posting actual science over conjecture

keep the faith for the next generations.

the ones above are willfully choosing to ignore logic for their own purposes
jeffensley
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
the same can't be said about climate sciences. That's physics, and while you don't know at all how this models are done... it doesn't change the fact that it's an exact science.


Only sycophantic supporters of climate science can get away with ridiculous, unscientific statements like that. One, climate science isn't just physics... geology and chemistry both play important roles and biology which delves into the realm of chaos as far as we are concerned, is one of the most important aspects of it as far as we are concerned. To simplify it to spectroscopy is willfully dishonest. Secondly, to refer to climate science as "exact" is beyond ridiculous and I don't have to refer you to a study to prove it. Not even laboratory controlled experiments are "exact". Be careful the words you choose.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
So according to this (hot off the press --pun intended) story, from 2002 to 2012 all this heat went into the oceans, yet thermal expansion fell essentially flat during this exact period.
https://sealevel....azenave/
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
Good point AG. If the seas were absorbing heat at a faster rate than normal the rate of sea level rise would also be increasing.

http://hockeyscht...ise.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2015
The same way that the content taught in any university won't change according to government desires,


Yes it does.
There are whole departments at universities that have 'women's studies' or 'black studies' or all sorts of govt approved programs to rewrite history.

just tell it to his department, they'll know what to do.

He runs his 'department'.

lobbies for political activism. I

All who claim science credentials.

bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
Only sycophantic supporters of climate science can get away with ridiculous, unscientific statements like that. One, climate science isn't just physics... geology and chemistry both play important roles and biology which delves into the realm of chaos as far as we are concerned, is one of the most important aspects of it as far as we are concerned. To simplify it to spectroscopy is willfully dishonest. Secondly, to refer to climate science as "exact" is beyond ridiculous and I don't have to refer you to a study to prove it. Not even laboratory controlled experiments are "exact". Be careful the words you choose.


You are actually talking with a physicist, jeffensley. I know what's inside these models, because I read the papers. Geology ain't the same as geophysics, in the same way astronomy ain't the same as astrophysics. And what you call chemistry, is actually what we call nuclear and atomic physics (microphysics in short). Chaos is mathematics, not at all biology ;).
gkam
2.2 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2015
Ryggy, like most on his end of the political spectrum, assumes we all have his character, and would do what he would do.

Science is different from his business, whatever it is.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
we must start rethinking education for the long term solution,


Typical socialist response when they can't convince others of their fantasies, reeducation camps.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
Chaos is mathematics, not at all biology


Download Self-Organized Biological Dynamics and Nonlinear Control: Toward Understanding Complexity, Chaos and Emergent Function in Living Systems
http://www.stalkb...rsta.pdf
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
Climate Science keeps trying to predict the future when it cannot even understand the past. In reality the Apocalypse that we face in the next 100 years is the fact that we will very likely run out of most economically recoverable fossil fuels by then. Thus renewables, fission or fusion will be mandatory in the foreseeable future.
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
Speek of the Devil, here is the 2k meter article down at the bottom of the page.

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

If you believe that article then the warming cited in this article is just a very local anomaly.

But yet the rate of sea level rise is not increasing.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2015
Damm, life would be perfect for climate scientists if they just did not launch all of those silly satellites and did not have to deal with that uncensored data they keep transmitting.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
Climate Science keeps trying to predict the future when it cannot even understand the past.blah blah blah conspiracy ideation blah blah the foreseeable future.


Recurrent Fury: Conspiratorial Discourse in the Blogosphere Triggered by Research on the Role of Conspiracist Ideation in Climate Denial

http://jspp.psych...443/html
A growing body of evidence has implicated conspiracist ideation in the rejection of scientific propositions. Internet blogs in particular have become the staging ground for conspiracy theories that challenge the link between HIV and AIDS, the benefits of vaccinations, or the reality of climate change...Our findings extend a growing body of literature that has examined the important, but not always constructive, role of the blogosphere in public and scientific discourse.

gkam
2.3 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2015
"Typical socialist response when they can't convince others of their fantasies, reeducation camps"
-------------------------------------

Perhaps Ryggy "forgot" which bunch of SCARED folk put us into the Republican Police State. How do you like being spied on, you folk who got panicked into giving up my civil liberties for your fears?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
Damm [sic], life would be perfect blah blah conspiracy theory and ideation blah transmitting.
and as everyone knows, nothing mechanical EVER breaks down or degrades over time, right?
NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
http://web.missou...ange.pdf

The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science
http://journals.p....0075637

luckily, we have mr, deng, jvk, jeffe, benni, rygg and so many others to show us all the way

or reinforce the scientific method by demonstrating the validity of the above studies... depends on which camp you belong to, i guess - logical, methodical and literate (scientifically, especially) or conspiracy idealists
bla
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2015

Yes it does.
There are whole departments at universities that have 'women's studies' or 'black studies' or all sorts of govt approved programs to rewrite history.

Lol, rygge...what a logic!! There "women studies" and "black studies" because there are academics interested in such subjects of sociology! If you have evidence that some of these researchers are rewriting history, present that to the different committees for ethics in research around the world! It is really hard for you to understand that the world is far much much larger than the US, isn't it?
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2015
Good point AG. If the seas were absorbing heat at a faster rate than normal the rate of sea level rise would also be increasing.

http://hockeyscht...ise.html

In AGW Cult "science" CO2 acts in mysterious ways, or is that just man-made CO2.
I look forward to the next story they cook up to explain why thermal expansion flat lined during this period.
bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
Chaos is mathematics, not at all biology


Download Self-Organized Biological Dynamics and Nonlinear Control: Toward Understanding Complexity, Chaos and Emergent Function in Living Systems
http://www.stalkb...rsta.pdf


Rygge, you shared a book on applied maths...you can't distinguish among the different sciences, can you?? The editor of the book is a biophysicist, and there are several mathematicians and physicists among the authors! Sure, maths can be applied to many subjects, including biology, but also physics, chemistry, economy, sociology, etc... And of course, you can also study chaos just as a pure mathematical problem! If you want to learn more about it, I recommend to you the following reference: "Differential Equations, Dynamical Systems, an Introduction to Chaos Theory", Hirsch et al, Elsevier 2013.
bla
2.8 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2015
we must start rethinking education for the long term solution,


Typical socialist response when they can't convince others of their fantasies, reeducation camps.


You really can't think outside black and white dogmas, like thinking beyond the left vs right wing paradigm, can you Rygge? What a close mind you have!! Perhaps it would be good for you to spend a few years living and working in a different country, you would learn a lot in your life!
jeffensley
1 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
You are actually talking with a physicist, jeffensley. I know what's inside these models, because I read the papers. Geology ain't the same as geophysics, in the same way astronomy ain't the same as astrophysics. And what you call chemistry, is actually what we call nuclear and atomic physics (microphysics in short). Chaos is mathematics, not at all biology ;).


I think we're arguing two different points. Yes, perhaps nomenclature has changed but the general argument I see here has to do with the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which doesn't create a full picture. Yes, models attempt to account for many climate-related variables and I respect the effort but I have no confidence in the values chosen. We do not have the capacity to take direct measurements on a global scale nor do we have any idea how many variables we've left completely out of the picture. New ones continue to be added.
jeffensley
1.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
As far as "chaos", I would argue that biology (specifically mutation) is unpredictable, fitting my definition of chaotic. It wasn't intended to refer to the mathematical meaning.
bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2015
I think we're arguing two different points. Yes, perhaps nomenclature has changed but the general argument I see here has to do with the spectroscopic properties of CO2 which doesn't create a full picture. Yes, models attempt to account for many climate-related variables and I respect the effort but I have no confidence in the values chosen. We do not have the capacity to take direct measurements on a global scale nor do we have any idea how many variables we've left completely out of the picture. New ones continue to be added.


Models of climate change are actually codes to solve radiative hydrodynamics problems. You specify an equation of state for atmospheric matter, and nowadays for ocean matter too (and for both cases, that's easy to do, we already have enough knowledge since long ago of nuclear physics at these energies and density scales), and solve the radiation hydrodynamical problem with all it's non-linearities. Then track what happens to thermodynamical quantities
bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2015
I respect the effort but I have no confidence in the values chosen.

That is, of course, a discussable point - what is the choice of initial data - and I do agree that that discussion is interesting and important. Why is it that you don't trust the chosen initial data of these simulations?
bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
As far as "chaos", I would argue that biology (specifically mutation) is unpredictable, fitting my definition of chaotic. It wasn't intended to refer to the mathematical meaning.


Ok, I understand your point. But if we want to talk about chaos in climate sciences, we need to address its more abstract formulation, and not its application on another science. In very simple terms, chaos is found when a system is described by a set of differential equations which solutions are highly dependent on the initial data, that is, a slight perturbation of the initial data can finish in a very different result. In fact, we have mathematical tools to analyse the dependence of a numerical solution for a chaotic system on it's initial data, and researchers, of course, care about that, because contrary to some peoples faith, researchers are really motivated to solve scientific problems and learn what's out there, and not in serving some obscure interests.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
You really can't think outside black and white dogmas,


I am not the one asserting your audience is not sufficiently educated for you to persuade them of your beliefs, and your audience must be re-educated for you.

[qs]pend a few years living and working in a different country,

I have.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
because there are academics interested in such subjects of sociology!


Who funds the departments, and why?

There are academics interested in all sorts of stuff. Does that mean they should be funded by the state?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2015
As far as "chaos", I would argue that biology (specifically mutation) is unpredictable, fitting my definition of chaotic. It wasn't intended to refer to the mathematical meaning.


Jeff: unpredictability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for chaos. If that is your definition you need to look up the necessary and sufficient conditions to carry on a real conversation.
jeffensley
1.3 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
So based on arguments I've heard recently, surface temperatures are no longer important. What IS important is the total amount of heat contained on the planet. How are they estimating the volume of the ocean within these different strata?
bla
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2015
Who funds the departments, and why?

There are academics interested in all sorts of stuff. Does that mean they should be funded by the state?


I'm giving up on you, Rygge, since you clearly gave up on thinking. It was already weird enough that you believed that all the governments of the entire world, regardless of who was winning the elections, wanted to set a conspiracy to force you into a cleaner and healthier lifestyle for no good reason. But when you start thinking that the governments of the entire world have joined forces to rewrite history of women and black people for whatever reason (because you think it is not relevant to study discrimination and the underlying motivation for such behaviour??), that is already beyond ridiculous. That's too much non-sense even for my standards (and let me tell you, I love David Lynch cinema...your surrealist logic goes well beyond that), and I don't have time for that.
bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2015
So based on arguments I've heard recently, surface temperatures are no longer important. What IS important is the total amount of heat contained on the planet. How are they estimating the volume of the ocean within these different strata?


In a very naive language, heat is a potential which tells you about the flow of temperature in a fluid. It is actually easy to measure the total deep of an ocean, without going all the way down there, so you can put the entire deep measures on a computer as boundary conditions, and calculate the exact volume, without need for estimating quantities. In the 30's you would measure it throwing sound waves and waiting for them to come back. Nowadays you have much more sophisticated techniques with satellites and gravitometry measurements. The density deviation of different depth levels, according to whether or not you have different fluids coupling to water, are also easy to compute.
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2015
http://phys.org/n...can.html

I can see it now every itty cold snap and every bitty warm spell will index the Co2 death clock. One would have to be a total idiot not to realize that this paper is just political trash that is accepted by peers because it fits the agenda.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
heat is a potential which tells you about the flow of temperature in a fluid


Heat is energy. Temperature is a measure of that energy.

force you into a cleaner and healthier lifestyle for no good reason


Why is it the function of the state to force people to live the way you want them to live?

But when you start thinking that the governments of the entire world have joined forces to rewrite history of women and black people for whatever reason


It's not what I think, it's what the data shows. Contrary to your assertion the state has zero interest or intent to rewrite history.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2015
Hi MR166. :)

Mate, don't be too hard on the climate scientists. Overall they are an honest and diverse bunch, not all in a 'conspiracy' like you and others keep pretending is the case. :) Sure, no models are perfect, and are still improving, so they have still missed some factors. No swat. The trend is still clear, both from the overall wider picture presented by the combined modeling/stats/measurements etc etc. I work from reality extant, not just 'models' still catching up with all the factors/complexity over time/geography/pheiomena-set involved in the complete climate system in TRANSITION from previous to newer levels/patterns of weather/temps in increasingly more violent flux due to increasing energy in the system due ultimately to CO2 lagging of heat escape to space (irrespective of where the heat came from). Re your sea level rise' expectations from increased heat buildup in deep ocean, it takes decades for THAT deep heat to contribute much to sea level rise...

cont
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (14) Jul 13, 2015
...cont @MR166...

...because water at HUGE PRESSURES expands LITTLE while its temp being raised from near freezing to a few degrees more. Only when that heat finally conveyed by currents/slow convection/conduction to upper/surface layers will associated expansion be noticeable. Also, there are other factors/sinks involved where the heat is transiently 'stored' before final release to upper ocean layers and atmos; eg:

- gasifying of sedimentary clathrate-trapped gases etc will absorb heat and dissolve in deep waters;

- sediment layers themselves will heat up a little from previous as well;

- deeper crustal layers will lose less heat because of lesser thermo-gradient between it and waters.

Now re glaciers/mountains factors:

- mountain rock mass itself is absorbing heat too, eg, Alps tunnels compromised as previously hard frozen water in rock melts and tunnel rock surfaces crumble; this hidden heat flow/sink will build as glaciers slowly melt.

It's complicated. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
bla:
we must start rethinking education for the long term solution,


"English Juries Need Educating in Islamic Culture And Religion Says Human Rights Lawyer"
http://www.breitb...-lawyer/

leetennant
4 / 5 (8) Jul 13, 2015
"This problem comes about because deneirs ran a campaign using air temps as a proxy for global warming. They're not. They're simply one element of the system. And even then temperatures have clearly been rising above normal climatic variation. Once you take the entire system into account rather than cherry picking, the situation becomes obvious."

So Lee you are saying that NOAA and NASA are claiming that the last six months are the hottest EVER because they include sea temperatures in the calculation.


Can you read? I said that BASED ON AIR TEMPS ALONE each of the last three decades have been the hottest on record and that this is the hottest six months based on that alone as well. So the rest of your post is irrelevant.

Now we know the ocean is a heat sink and we know ocean temps are rising too. So it's clear that once you put the two together, global warming becomes even more stark.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
RC I know that I am harsh but so is economic reality. They pretend that they know enough to predict the climate and to justify a huge transfer of wealth and freedom to a select few. In reality every day is a total surprise to them and they spend a lot of time denying their failures. All they know for sure is that Co2 is responsible for some degree of warming the amount and the consequences of this warming is nothing but pure speculation.

In reality we are just as likely to enter another ice age as we are likely to enter runaway warming.

Since most of the earth's cycles are unknown we have absolutely no idea why today's climate exists. How can we then predict the future?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
There "women studies" and "black studies" because there are academics interested in such subjects of sociology!


"A U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) study to understand why lesbians are fat has now cost taxpayers over $3.5 million to-date."

"According to the study, "It is now well-established that women of minority sexual orientation are disproportionately affected by the obesity epidemic, with nearly three-quarters of adult lesbians overweight or obese, compared to half of heterosexual women. In stark contrast, among men, heterosexual males have nearly double the risk of obesity compared to gay males."

Apparently, "these disparities are of high public-health significance," therefore, the National Institutes of Health has been continuously funding the project. "
http://www.mrctv....1p1:SrEh
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 13, 2015
Since most of the earth's cycles are unknown we have absolutely no idea why today's climate exists. How can we then predict the future?
.....not to speak of the eccentricities of orbital cycles. Maybe we can get an astro-physicist to shed some light on these? Calling on all astro-physicists....any in the house?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2015
I hate when people claim ignorance is OK because it's complicated.
Chess is complicated.

Ryggy-you made a great point about CO2's performance in the case of AGWer perception.

If you look up water vapor as a black body absorber/emitter in the context of warming and cooling the human body, all the experts will tell you in the near IR that water acts as a near perfect blackbody.

So get this, water absorbs heat energy at 98%, and it does it at ground level, it is 50x more prevalent than CO2, and yet CO2 is supposed to have an effect.

That this radiative effect is completely overwhelmed by a light breeze is also amazing.

The CO2 cult is dead. Long live the cult of the heat released by fossil fuels!

http://www.asteri...ling.pdf
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
Hi MR166. :)
the EPA is trying to regulate ANY and I repeat ANY surface water that might from time to time appear on your land. I am not talking about rivers, ponds or streams. Thus you have no land rights other than those that the government wishes to grant you!
Can you explain what the 'from time to time' water regulations are, mate. I am interested for a specific reason to do with water quality/contamination issues here in OZ from many properties/activities.

They bought a building lot in an approved development. It was not in a declared flood zone or wetlands. They obtained a building permit from the local authorities. Into the project the EPA, shut it down and required them to return to land to it's ORIGINAL state or face 100s of thousands of dollars in fines.
Again, could you elaborate on the actual situation/reasons for that intervention? Again, I am curious/interest in possible local councils corruption/incompetence in water/environment.

Thanks, mate. :)
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2015
Here you go RC

http://www.usnews...ulations

If your lands drains into a stream or drainage ditch when it rains you can be regulated. What land doesn't?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 13, 2015
HI MR166. :)

Re recent 6-month period being the warmest on record, here some recent events/facts in/around OZ which may inform you better as to what is actually transpiring in the real world of late. The rain events have been more severe. entraining a lot of heat around with its moisture/winds dynamics. More unseasonal hot/cold/cyclonic events also involve much shuffling of heat around.

Eg:

http://www.abc.ne.../6582672
http://www.abc.ne.../6582568
http://www.abc.ne.../6585180
http://www.abc.ne.../6595124
http://www.abc.ne.../6597870

Also, unprecedented number of extreme storm/cyclonic events hit Queensland/Northern Territory within days/weeks.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 13, 2015
Hi MR166. :)
Here you go RC

http://www.usnews...ulations

If your lands drains into a stream or drainage ditch when it rains you can be regulated.
Thanks for that link, mate. :)

I'm not sure how serious water contamination problem of acquifers/streams/rivers are in your country, but our country has historcally taken such seriously and tried to prevent it, especially in water catchment areas which drain into dams for agriculture and city/town water supplies.

It's better to regulate as necessary to prevent, rather than try to undo contamination.

Also some 'development' approvals by local councils may go against common sense or environmental/water issues; especially where land contaminated with leachable nasties. Only short-sighted/selfish interests would argue with the 'better safe than sorry' approach; especially when the stakes in agriculture, health, city/town sustainability/costs of cleanups etc are so high. :)
Zzzzzzzz
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 13, 2015
And I thought this was a science site..... Climate change articles appear to invariably attract a crowd of fools masquerading as science minded people, who actively deny science. The psychotic delusions paraded by belief system practitioners are indeed tiresome. There simply is no honest debate on the subject of climate change, there is science and there is delusion. PERIOD.
leetennant
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2015
And I thought this was a science site..... Climate change articles appear to invariably attract a crowd of fools masquerading as science minded people, who actively deny science. The psychotic delusions paraded by belief system practitioners are indeed tiresome. There simply is no honest debate on the subject of climate change, there is science and there is delusion. PERIOD.


There are a handful of them that troll every single climate change article with the same "arguments". They should mostly be ignored. It is extremely frustrating though. I can't imagine what motivates someone to devote their life to yelling "no it's not!!" at every single scientific article on the subject.

Apart from water prophet who really believes that the hypothesis he produced from no evidence whatsoever (and that contradicts basic physics) is right and is desperately trying to twist every piece of new climate science to fit it.
jeffensley
1.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2015
In a very naive language, heat is a potential which tells you about the flow of temperature in a fluid.


I've always understood heat at any given moment in time as potential energy.

It is actually easy to measure the total deep of an ocean, without going all the way down there, so you can put the entire deep measures on a computer as boundary conditions, and calculate the exact volume, without need for estimating quantities.


Depth measurements I understand. Calculating the total volume is a different creature. A simple example is a cylinder on its side. An inch of water at the bottom has a much smaller volume than an inch of water in the middle. Since we are talking about different depth strata and their temperature changes, it would seem important to understand an approximate volume for each as we can estimate the heat contained within.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 13, 2015
Depth measurements I understand. Calculating the total volume is a different creature. A simple example is a cylinder on its side. An inch of water at the bottom has a much smaller volume than an inch of water in the middle. Since we are talking about different depth strata and their temperature changes, it would seem important to understand an approximate volume for each as we can estimate the heat contained within.


......not only all this, but density changes with increasing pressure from above as you go deeper. Our resident Astro-physicist started talking about "boundaries" as well. I guess he thinks the oceans are stratified such that these boundaries prevent mixing across diverse densities.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
solutions are highly dependent on the initial data, that is, a slight perturbation of the initial data can finish in a very different result.


How do you account for undetermined perturbations in subsequent data?
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Onions they can"t even predict the next El Nino. They know nothing about sunspot cycles. They are so ignorant that they don't even know past temperatures since they have to "adjust" historical climate records on a regular basis. Even today the pause is caused by unknown events, about 66 of them so far. If fact they could not even detect the pause in temperatures up until a few months ago.
MR166
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
As I said many times before, the weather predicts the science so how can the science predict the climate. Just like the ancient priests today's climate scientists look at weather and develop a plausible explanation. They don't blame it on the angry gods anymore but now use the new gods, computer models to direct man to make sacrifices.
MR166
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
The information from their most sophisticated sea temperature monitoring equipment started in 2003, ARGO Buoys was so inaccurate it had to be adjusted to match the water intake temperatures of about 50 ocean going vessels. We can't even measure the temperatures that we are claiming we can predict 100 years into the future.
MR166
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Does this look like we even own a thermometer that is capable of measuring the change in the earths temperature down to 1/10 degree C per decade?

http://woodfortre...00/trend
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Millions of hours painstaking work


Sound like a 'liberal' grading for effort and not results.

The NAS was not very kind to Mann's proxy data used to fabricate his hokey schtick.
MR166
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Onions just knowing something exists does not mean that it is "Known"!!!!

You have to know the period and amplitude of the excursions for it to be of any use.

Climate science violates the prime directive of science every day!

"Correlation does not imply causation"

It has very conveniently blamed all the temperature increases since the 70s on AGW not knowing where that point in time was in relationship to the earths cycles.
bla
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2015
heat is a potential which tells you about the flow of temperature in a fluid


Heat is energy. Temperature is a measure of that energy.


It's called potential energy, Rygge. I'm not replying to the rest of the comment because, has I've explained above, I have no time for people like you, and I'm giving up on anybody who gave up thinking.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Have they even tried looking for volcanoes down there?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2015
Greeno, I'm tempted to vote you 5 Stars for every post you make just so readers who adjust the filter for 5 Stars don't miss out on the typical demeanor of those whose background in science & math is so weak that their only comeback responses are based in the name calling & profanity laden posts of you & your associated voting clique. You indulge in this practice because you have none of the background in math & science by which you can present polite cogent responses to those who disagree with you.

I'm curious, do you feel as if you've raised your IQ by a point or two every time you resort to your modus operandi of diatribes?
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
heat is a potential which tells you about the flow of temperature in a fluid


Heat is energy. Temperature is a measure of that energy.


It's called potential energy, Rygge. I'm not replying to the rest of the comment because, has I've explained above, I have no time for people like you, and I'm giving up on anybody who gave up thinking.


@bla

Sorry about the down vote, meant to give you a "5".
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
"You don't even know what that means MR. Just because we know that sunspots exist - means that we don't know sunspots?"

Fine tell me when the next solar minimum will be and how long it will last and how much it will effect the earths heat balance. After all the UN "Proved" that changes in the sun can only affect the heat balance of the earth by 1 or 2 %.
gkam
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2015
" I guess he thinks the oceans are stratified such that these boundaries prevent mixing across diverse densities."
-------------------------------------

Look up thermoclines. Submarines hide in them.
bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2015
Since most of the earth's cycles are unknown we have absolutely no idea why today's climate exists. How can we then predict the future?
.....not to speak of the eccentricities of orbital cycles. Maybe we can get an astro-physicist to shed some light on these? Calling on all astro-physicists....any in the house?


Benni, we do understand eccentricities of orbital cycles. I think you are confusing that with the difficulty of solving a 3-body problem. As for the quoted comment (don't know who is the author), it doesn't even make sense to claim that we have no idea of why climate exists; we don't need to understand the cycles in order to understand that, but we actually can name the reasons for every climate cycle we know about in the history of this planet. We already know a lot about solar cycles, and we understand quite a few things about volcanic activity. We can not predict the future with deterministic accuracy, but we can explain what are the reasons behind all pa
bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2015
I've always understood heat at any given moment in time as potential energy.

It is potential energy. That's what a physicist means when he mention the word potential.

Calculating the total volume is a different creature. A simple example is a cylinder on its side. An inch of water at the bottom has a much smaller volume than an inch of water in the middle. Since we are talking about different depth strata and their temperature changes, it would seem important to understand an approximate volume for each as we can estimate the heat contained within.

I think you are confusing volume with density. The volume is a spatial quantity, and the volume of a cylinder is the volume of a cylinder, it doesn't change with depth. In general, you take the integral over all coordinates inside the boundary conditions, and you can compute that numerically with a tool called finite element method. To account for densities, you just need to build an equation of state, and that's easy.
bla
2.6 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2015
not only all this, but density changes with increasing pressure from above as you go deeper. Our resident Astro-physicist started talking about "boundaries" as well. I guess he thinks the oceans are stratified such that these boundaries prevent mixing across diverse densities.

Benny, as I've explained jeffnsley above, you can account for densities by building an equation of state, and that's easy to do because we already know a lot of kinetic theory at this densities and energy scales. By boundary conditions, I mean the physical boundaries separating the ocean from the land and from the atmosphere. You need that to compute the volume, which is simply given by a three dimensional integral over those boundaries, and for a cylinder is a problem that any high school kid can solve in five minutes. It will take the computer less than five to compute the actual volume of all the oceans and seas in our planet.
bla
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2015
@bla

Sorry about the down vote, meant to give you a "5".


Don't worry about it :), I don't keep track at all of the number of stars, and I'm about to quite this discussion, as it won't fade by itself! But thanks for the intention of five, high five for that :D
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
It's called potential energy,


ALL matter has potential energy, E=mc^2.

heat is a potential which tells you about the flow of temperature in a fluid


I didn't know temperature flowed in a fluid. Heat flows. Matter flows. How does temperature flow?

bla
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 14, 2015
I've already explained to you that I gave up on you, Rygge, what was it that you didn't understand? I'll make a one time exception just to make sure that other people reading this will not get as much confused in basic physics as you are (I probably won't be coming back to this thread anyway).

ALL matter has potential energy, E=mc^2.


You didn't understand at all the meaning of rest mass in special relativity, which by the way, doesn't apply to climate modelling, there's nothing relativistic about this. Anyway, for different arguments (I wouldn't have enough characters to give here a physics 101 lecture) what you say is actually true, but irrelevant as it doesn't contradict nor adds nothing to my previous comment.

I didn't know temperature flowed in a fluid. Heat flows. Matter flows. How does temperature flow?


Exactly, you have heat transfer, and that defines how temperature in a point is modified due to temperature in another point.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
Exactly, you have heat transfer, and that defines how temperature in a point is modified due to temperature in another point.


How does temperature flow?
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2015
@bla

Sorry about the down vote, meant to give you a "5".


Don't worry about it :), I don't keep track at all of the number of stars, and I'm about to quite this discussion, as it won't fade by itself! But thanks for the intention of five, high five for that :D
Oh but yes you do keep track, you gave me a 1 and blatantly denied it because you wanted to keep up your popularity with the usual mathematically challenged & foul mouthed name calling clique of voters. You just don't seem to have much of a problem with brazen hate do you? Not so long as Stumpy & that bunch of Copy & Paste Neophytes put up 5 Stars for you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2015
Terrorism and Domestic crime kill more people than weather disasters
This is true only if you dont know what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipe...ath_toll

-Which you rarely do.
Worried about laws?
The Supreme Court is in violation of the 10th amendment regarding gay marriage
So why dont you religionists simply create religious marriages as opposed to civil marriages? After all the state issues marriage licences and so gets to define what marriage is.

You can issue your own god-certified licences and refuse to recognize civil ones within the parameters of your religion, which no one will care about but you all.

Pragmatists will of course get both.

Win-win.

Youll still have to fret whether jewish or moslem ones are as good as xian ones but you probably already do that anyway.

And if we didnt have laws making it illegal to refuse to bake cakes for gays, you all would want to refuse the same for jews I bet.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
So Onions you are claiming that just knowing that the moon is there is enough knowledge to enable someone to predict the date and magnitude of the next high tide. There is no need to know the period also.

Well that is what you are claiming in regards to all of the ocean oscillations.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (15) Jul 14, 2015
"How does temperature flow?"
----------------------------

From big to little, Silly.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2015
Benni name calling & profanity laden posts

How is calling you willfully ignorant any different than you using phrases like this : Stumpy & that bunch of Copy & Paste Neophytes

Seems pretty hypocritical to me.


If you don't like my much toned toned down responses compared to your higher volume of strident rhetoric, then knock it off with the offenses. Go back & reread your own post from which you just made selective quotes & note the rest of what you said from which you're now trying to create some distance, then try to convince me you are a temperate & educated person. Then go back up and look at those Stumpy posts in which I'm referenced without provocation on my part, you, like he, when you can't come up with "science" responses you have no quibble with the usual name calling & profanity routine.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2015
Why don't you study it - instead of pissing on it..


See Greeno, you just don't know how to stop it do you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
I am sick and tired of the double standards


Stop practicing them yourself.
Do unto others....
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
most of the earth's cycles are unknown


It wasn't known that water existed 400 miles beneath the surface of the earth until recently.

Undersea volcanoes were just discovered off the coast of eastern Australia.

If these were unknown until recently, is it reasonable to assume there is much more unknown about the earth and likely unknown cycles, too.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
millions of hours put in by scientists to construct proxy data reaching back over billions of years.


Are you grading them on effort or results?

NAS said Mann's proxies were quite poor beyond ~400 years.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015


Apart from water prophet who really believes that the hypothesis he produced from no evidence whatsoever (and that contradicts basic physics) is right and is desperately trying to twist every piece of new climate science to fit it.


Tell me Lee, what about mankind releasing heat energy from fossil fuels contradicts physics?
Why is it you think the CO2 mankind releases everyday affects the climate-TO WARM IT, while you think the HEAT released by man doesn't warm it?

Are you stupid?
If CO2 were warming the Earth by GHE, wouldn't the heat released contribute? How could it not?

Right now the Sun's energy is effectively what takes us from space ambient, to Earth ambient.
Mankind releases 1/10000th of that energy in heat from fossil fuels.

Doesn't sound like a lot?

It takes 1/1350th of the Sun's energy to change climate. 1/10th of that, constantly in the Northern Hemisphere is exactly enough to cause observed changes.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 14, 2015
Hi W_P. :)

Mate, water vapor, combustion heat etc is important part, but regardless of what heat comes from what source/activity, it is the 'net' effect of the balance between inputs/outputs that determines what happens to average global temps in any set of inputs/outputs. The CO2 changing the 'lagging' effect of the overall atmospheric action (including water vapor, chemicals like Sodium, Sulfur and other aerosols/particulates from industry/volcanoes etc etc) will change the heating/cooling rate in any given set of circumstances. That is the point. The system was in a tolerable range 'net' state between inputs/outputs. Now CO2 is changing that 'net' state of balance. That's all. It's not where the heat comes from, it's where it goes to; within the system (changing weather/climate extremes/patterns); thence to space. CO2 levels in atmosphere affect how quickly/slowly it does that, irrespective where heat comes from or how variable it is within known range. Regards. :)
jeffensley
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
I think you are confusing volume with density.


No I'm definitely talking about volume. I do understand the difference. ;) The ocean floor is irregularly shaped so if we were measuring it thoroughly, we'd need a way to estimate volume at different strata. For example, if the ocean warmed 1 degree C at 14,000 to 15,000 ft stayed the same from 10,000 ft to 14,000 and cooled 1 degree C from 9,000ft to 10,000 ft, you'd have a net cooling effect because the ocean volume is greater from 9,000 ft to 10,000 ft. In hindsight however, due to the limitations of this study, those questions probably don't come into play.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
Hey Reality,
As always, I can show solid math for my points:
Water vapor absorbs 98% thermal radiation, CO2 4%.
Water Vapor is 50x more concentrated than CO2.

The heat released by use is 20% of the Solar, climate effecting flux.
CO2 is 0.04% of the atm and has changed 0.013%
W V is 2% of the atm and changed 0.04%.

Water Vapor can be 80x more concentrated, and that is at the equator, where it is Hot.

Water vapor does not change climate, mate, neither to does CO2.

Wind and mixing effects far overwhelm radiation effects.

You can not show me one strong relation between CO2 and warming. Just arguments-shall we try again?

Heat (fossil fuels release) warms, CO2 insulates, poorly.

The net state you mention above obviously is more affected by heat than CO2.

Then there's data:
Temperature changes with fossil fuel burning and Solar cycles directly.

These are all direct correlations, mate, do you have a single one?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
My theory has the advantage of the data fits the theory fits the observed fits the facts.
And it is pretty obvious.

Heat causes climate change.

But it does not actually cause a significant warming, because the Earth is well buffered against changes in air temperature, like they've been snowing you with.

Ice holds 333x more heat energy than water, which holds 80x more heat energy than air.
Ice melts to maintain temperature, but recedes causing climate change.

Once ice has retreated far enough, ocean temperatures begin to be affected.

And that gentle readers is what HAS happened to the Earth.

What's next?

Actually it's predictable as well.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
WaterBowl/Alche said:
Hey Reality,
As always, I can show solid math for my points:
Water vapor absorbs 98% thermal radiation, CO2 4%.
Water Vapor is 50x more concentrated than CO2.


Would you please explain to us how water vapor absorbs 98% of thermal radiation?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
Are you grading them on effort or results?


Both - it is an incredible feat - that millions of hours of work - have provided us with that information. I admire both the tenacity of work, and the results - quite spectacular.


Especially the proxy data that shows the MWP was global.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
thermo!
Sure if any honest person asks.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
Waterdummy/Alche said:
thermo!
Sure if any honest person asks.


So, Alche, you can't tell us how water vapor absorbs 98% of thermal radiation. I didn't think so since that is nonsense. You, once again, demonstrated how ignorant you are of radiant heat transfer.
JoeBlue
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
I think it's amusing that everyone in the world just jumps on this being caused by CO2 forcing of some kind, which has never been proven in any conditions to transfer heat.

Let's just ignore that the bottom of the ocean is loaded with volcanoes though.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
Especially the proxy data that shows the MWP was global.


And your point is?


Mann's proxy data was mostly BS.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
No thermo, like I said, if any honest person asks. But I already marked all your sockpuppets, so you'll have to create yet another to get any kind of credit.

I know I hit "ignore" for ignoramus. Let's try it again.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2015
WaterDummy/Alchemist said:
No thermo, like I said, if any honest person asks. But I already marked all your sockpuppets, so you'll have to create yet another to get any kind of credit.

I know I hit "ignore" for ignoramus. Let's try it again.


First, I have no sockpuppets. Just one more delusion for Alche...

Second, he has just been caught claiming:
As always, I can show solid math for my points:
Water vapor absorbs 98% thermal radiation, CO2 4%.


Which shows he has no "solid math" since his claim that water vapor absorbs 98% of "thermal radiation" is wrong. Since he can't back up his claim he makes accusations about sockpuppets and admits to ignoring the question. If anyone else wants to see how ignorant he is, just follow up with the question since he knows better than to try to answer it when I ask.
JoeBlue
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
JoeBlue
Let's just ignore that the bottom of the ocean is loaded with volcanoes though.


Well Joe - I guess you better get on the ball, and do some research on this stuff. Maybe you can become famous - show the world how the whole science community overlooked something so obvious - but you know better than they do - and you can prove it - right?


It doesn't need to be proven that there are volcanoes on the bottom of the ocean. That is an already known fact.

Perhaps they could go through the effort and prove IN a REAL LIVE LAB, that CO2 forcing can cause a heat exchange through thousands of feet of salt water. I've never seen the proof that this can occur, but certainly plenty of people speculating about it, and demanding the world stop living to listen to them and give them funding.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Which shows he has no "solid math" since his claim that water vapor absorbs 98% of "thermal radiation" is wrong. Since he can't back up his claim he makes accusations about sockpuppets and admits to ignoring the question. If anyone else wants to see how ignorant he is, just follow up with the question since he knows better than to try to answer it when I ask.


It actually isn't wrong, and the IPCC's own work states this. If you are going to claim knowledge in this field at least be able to demonstrate it.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Yeah, thermy, that's right.
As if your idiotic claims haven't already been answered by me a thousand times. So why keep playing?

OK, fine, we all know that absorption is exponentially related to concentration.
All of us can look at the absorption spectrum of water and see that it is non-zero just about everywhere in the IR. That means it absorbs at least weakly "everywhere" in the IR.

That distance argument you always use for CO2, works about exp(50/1) times better for water vapor as it is 50x more concentrated on average. So that weakly absorption, compounded properly, becomes a strong effect.

That looks like math to me, sorry thermo. That's it, your counter arguments, will be as inane as always.
As does just about everything else I posted above.

Feel free to whine, complain and say "no fair," or actually, more likely, play the misconstrue, misunderstand, misdirect, etc. game. Then claim victory.

But again, everything I say above is causal, obvious, measurable.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2015
JoeBlue said:
Which shows he has no "solid math" since his claim that water vapor absorbs 98% of "thermal radiation" is wrong. Since he can't back up his claim he makes accusations about sockpuppets and admits to ignoring the question. If anyone else wants to see how ignorant he is, just follow up with the question since he knows better than to try to answer it when I ask.


It actually isn't wrong, and the IPCC's own work states this. If you are going to claim knowledge in this field at least be able to demonstrate it.


OK, Joe, since you are going to proxy for Alche, please show us where
water vapor absorbs 98% of "thermal radiation"


I contend that statement is wrong. You contend it is correct and that the IPCC states that, as you claim. Just show us the IPCC statement and I will be glad to have learned something. However, if you can't, will you concede? Do you want me to explain why it is wrong?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2015
Hi JoeBlue. :)
...bottom of the ocean is loaded with volcanoes
I just posted re sun and volcanism heat versus atmospheric effects in... http://phys.org/n...amo.html
The main culprit in "Little Ice Ages" most likely volcanism. Similar thing happened to lesser degrees more recently in 1800s, involving Mt. Tambora and Krakatoa; by which time there were witnesses/instruments to record events/effects...
From Wiki: The eruption caused global climate anomalies that included the phenomenon known as "volcanic winter": 1816 became known as the "Year Without a Summer" because of the effect on North American and European weather. Crops failed and livestock died in much of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in the worst famine of the 19th century. Just goes to show what atmospheric Ash/Sulfur OR CO2 content can do either way....despite variable sun activity/inputs! Atmosphere determines 'net' global average temps.
Note last sentence. :)
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015

I contend that statement is wrong. You contend it is correct and that the IPCC states that, as you claim. Just show us the IPCC statement and I will be glad to have learned something. However, if you can't, will you concede? Do you want me to explain why it is wrong?


So you basically want me to give you a run down of a field that you claim greater knowledge of than the rest of us. Gotcha. Go read the IPCCC's work, just because I am unwilling to spend the time pointing it out for you doesn't change that the IPCC themselves released work that stated this themselves.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Note last sentence. :)


Congratulations, you discovered something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. Great job, would you like a fucking cookie now? Too bad, you don't deserve credit for shit work.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
JoeBlue-thanks,
Yeah, actually that is what they always do... claim superior knowledge, then make you demonstrate it, then criticize, like any orangutan can do.

Good job avoiding that trap. I, as you can see, have fallen for it again. At least we can look forward to no quantification, and a lot of blathering in the response. Care to wager?
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
JoeBlue-thanks,
Yeah, actually that is what they always do... claim superior knowledge, then make you demonstrate it, then criticize, like any orangutan can do.

Good job avoiding that trap. I, as you can see, have fallen for it again. At least we can look forward to no quantification, and a lot of blathering in the response. Care to wager?


It's called "Critical Theory". Progressives and SJW's try to apply it to everything.
Water_Prophet
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
Isn't it amazing that an innocuous gas, that only diffuses, not absorbs about 2% of the IR is blamed for this sky is falling temperature effects.

When temperature is hardly changing but so many other aspects of the climate are...
I mean 2%.
Icecaps decreased, a "state secret" amount.
We've deforested, 80%? of forest.
We've "paved paradise." 10%?
We've burned yesterday's sunshine 20% annually?

etc., etc., but it's the CO2 that's doing the damage.
Ah me.
leetennant
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2015
Dear Water_Prophet,
Air temperatures are increasing at record rates.
The End
Love, everybody
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2015
Hi JoeBlue. :)
Note last sentence. :)
Congratulations, you discovered something that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying. Great job, would you like a fucking cookie now? Too bad, you don't deserve credit for shit work.
Huh? Did you miss where it related to the contributions from volcanoes you wanted acknowledged? I pointed out that, whatever the inputs from volcanoes (or any other sources), it is what is in our atmosphere that has 'the last word' on what happens to that heat. In other words, your original remarks...
I think it's amusing that everyone in the world just jumps on this being caused by CO2 forcing of some kind, which has never been proven in any conditions to transfer heat. Let's just ignore that the bottom of the ocean is loaded with volcanoes though
...were partially informed, sarcastic and incorrect; so much so as to miss 1) real importance of atmospheric CO2 levels/effects and 2) that volcanism is already factored in. Ok? :)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Lee

Air temperatures fluctuate yearly, when they dip they loose any "momentum" they might have had. If as we do now, we have a cold July around the world, it nullifies any "gains" you may have had in previous years.

Here imagine a balloon. Heat it up, cool it down... it does not store temperature. Temperature is random kinetic energy. This is why, temperature, like CO2, is not a good indicator of climate change.

So what are good indicators of climate change?
Changing ocean currents. The Nin-ya's follow the Sun mostly, but energy in general will change them.
Melting ice, this represents a real change in the state of the Earth. You can measure the additional energy the Earth has absorbed by melting ice.
Changing prevailing weather patterns, those tornado force winds that were whipping through the mid states.
More but less intense tropical storms.
Actual changes in climates!

Etc., etc..

Are you with me, or are you going to claim I have no physics basis again?
leetennant
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2015
Your ENTIRE ARGUMENT is based on the assertion that

Premise: we're seeing the impacts of climate change without a corresponding increase in air temperatures
Conclusion: Therefore increasing greenhouse gas emissions cannot be the cause of climate change.

Even if your logic stood up, air temperatures are increasing - and at a record rate - so the main premise of your hypothesis is incorrect.

Like I said, the end. I'm not going to argue with someone who has to deny observational evidence to make their pet theory work.

And that's all before we deal with the fact that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases does cause energy to build up in the system. And, yes, this is pretty basic physics.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2015
OK, to close the circle on the comment from Waterdunce:
water vapor absorbs 98% of "thermal radiation"
I will start with this URL:

https://en.wikipe...by_water

And I will add this URL (that I have cited many times before):

http://hitran.org/

The reason the statement you have both (Waterdummy and JoeBlue) made is wrong is that the 98% absorption of IR holds only for specific bands (and then it is still generally lines with broadening) and it is more prevalent for liquid water and ice. It does not hold for water vapor. The reason it does not is that there is a region known as the IR window (from astronomy):

https://en.wikipe...d_window

That IR window corresponds to part of the region of the earth's emissions.

If either of you need me to translate any of the URLs I passed on just let me know.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
just because I am unwilling to spend the time pointing it out for you doesn't change that the IPCC themselves released work that stated this themselves
@joeblew
actually, logically speaking, you've only made a claim (like ALCHIE), thus, because it is unsubstantiated by any proof, then said claim is (like ALCHIE) no different than the claims of "faerie snot causes tidal waves"

Please note that actual scientific claims are usually substantiated with references, like the links/references given above by Thermodynamics
That means: they are corroborated and can stand up as valid under the evidence

otherwise you (like ALCHIE or dung) are simply posting personal conjecture

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://jspp.psych...443/html

http://web.missou...ange.pdf
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
2) that volcanism is already factored in. Ok? :)
.....and I see the smiley face so that must be a joke right? They just discovered the new volcanism in recent weeks, so the smiley must be you're way of just looking away because you forgot before you spoke (wrote).
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jul 14, 2015
Lee, your logic is flawed. Respectfully, now, it seems you've thought it through, therefore I believe you'll be able to iron it out and see the discrepancies. My pet theory is that fossil fuel released heat is the primary driver. Most of the other things I said, are neutral toward my pet theory.

Thermo-I did what you asked. You didn't ask for anymore, you couldn't find any way to refute what I said, and, oh, look, your usual misconstrue. Of course the links you cited are correct. Your inference that it contradicts what I said is pathetic.

What I said is true, your links are true, your inference is your usual game. The 98% is not true "for some bands," you idiot. You obviously have no conception how to apply absorption. So either you're willfully misconstruing, or far too ignorant for me to educate you, come back when you're done high school.

(That's the danger of the misconstrue, I can always pretend you were being honest and definitize your ignorance as a QED)
QED
leetennant
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2015
Water - I was just dealing with your own argument. You literally made it, like, 45 minutes ago.
Just scroll up. It's right there.

I know what your pet theory is. It's clearly wrong. Based on your premises, based on basic physics and based on observational evidence.

The. End.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Lee, as to GHG being GHGs, that's a weak position. Say I doubled the amount of CO2, does that mean the it's GHE has doubled?

No.
Take it in your own mind.
1 ppm becomes 2ppm.
200ppm becomes 400ppm.

Etc..

You see it is the ppm bit that the propagandists use. 1/1000000 is very small, negligible.
If you look at activity and concentration effect 400/1000000 is also very small and needs something very active to make it relevant.
CO2 is very weak, as stated above it only diffuses about 2% of the thermal spectrum-not even absorbs. Diffuses means the radiation still travels through the atmosphere, whereas absorbs means it makes it's surroundings hotter.

So yes, it is a GHG, but it does not have necessary concentration or thermal properties to be significant.
Respectfully,
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2015
One thing that most don't include in their premises - lag time...
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (17) Jul 14, 2015
Hi Benni. :)
2) that volcanism is already factored in. Ok? :)
.....and I see the smiley face so that must be a joke right? They just discovered the new volcanism in recent weeks, so the smiley must be you're way of just looking away because you forgot before you spoke (wrote).
Hehe, you know it's my style to indicate no malice and just pointing out the reality check with a smile. Better than frowning, hey mate? Anyway, point is, volcanic activity/heat input varies, just as solar activity/heat input varies. Irrespective, heat from any source or in whatever rates it comes into the system/dynamics, it still has to go though the atmosphere if it is to escape that system/dynamics. And the atmospheric constituents from time to time is what makes for the 'net net' effects and heat balance in the various circumstances. Irrespective of volcanic, solar or combustion heat inputs in known ranges. As I explained.

Like it or not we're all in the same boat on this one. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
CO2 is very weak,... thermal properties to be significant.
@ALCHIE
and again, this ASSumption is only valid in environments sans any other factors

you are completely ignoring the influence of WV to the CO2, which causes a cyclical feedback that must be taken into consideration (something the water-bowl doesn't do)

if you would actually READ some of the links i left you, such as Lacis et al, you would have understood that... you also would have learned a little about CO2 and absorption which Thermodynamics so easily schooled you on historically

but you will ignore all of it because you don't want to follow the evidence
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

http://jspp.psych...443/html

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 14, 2015
PS @Benni.

Which "discovery" were you alluding to, mate? They just found a series of 'long extinct' volcano craters just off Sydney (OZ). And they just measured actual volcanic/geothermal heat levels under some of the ice sheet in Antarctica; but they didn't "discover new volcanoes", merely finally measured their heating rates/levels under that ice from known volcanic features/activities there). Cheers, mate. :)
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Fuck me, there are a lot of idiots here.

You could use a reality check.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Stumpy-
LOLOLOL
It causes a CYCLICAL feedback does it? So like the tides it is? Sometimes W V makes CO2 stronger, sometimes it makes it weaker? HoHo!

Nah, I'm just doing what squirmydynamics would do to you.

Feedback, does not work like that. The magnitude of the effects would create an immediate runaway greenhouse effect. CO2 (weak effect) --> more WV (strong effect-as we both have agreed), but more WV causes more WV, which causes more WV.

The solution, as it is to all feedback effects, is the systems constraints. The effect of WV is so much larger than CO2, that although CO2 does act as a GHG, the effect is so small on WV GHE, that it is overwhelmed. Other >> effects are winds, thermals and more. CO2, even with your feedback would be minuscule.

I've read your links many times, they are as self-serving as ever. Will it never occur to you that someone as idiotic as yourself, but in the denier camp, can present the same validity of proofs with opposite conclusion?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2015
It causes a CYCLICAL feedback does it?... HoHo!
@ALCHIE/TROLL
sorry. that was MY mistake for not proof reading the spellcheck
it causes a feedback cycle
can present the same validity of proofs with opposite conclusion?
lets see... your conclusions, to date, have all contained speculations, personal conjecture and links to blogs... (just like your post to mine- i gave a validated paper reference, you give speculation)

you refuse to accept source material (or use it unless it is self serving) and you've made claims that you've debunked all the links i've left you

i say again: IF you've debunked anything, then how come there are NO changes, alterations, retractions or edits/posts/notices which show this in ANY journal?

you have nothing but your own personal conjecture
you have YET to give any of "the same validity of proofs" equivalent to a peer reviewed validated study like i have posted to you

therefore- you are a blatant liar

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (18) Jul 14, 2015
Hi JoeBlue. :)

Fuck me,
No thanks, mate. I'm good. :)

there are a lot of idiots here.
An astute observation from you. But before you proceed, step (as it were) outside yourself for a moment, and look at it from others' perspective; then recheck who those idiots actually are, in objective fact. :)

You could use a reality check.
You are free to supply one such to me; and it would be most welcome if it was an actual reality check, and not just another uninformed, sarcastic and incorrect repetition of already rebutted assertions. Thanks. :)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
Stumpy, I don't use references, I use physical constants and formulae, they make your peer-reviewed journals as irrelevant as you, yourself. The heat capacity of water, can not be over-ruled by a study with constraints, and if 333j/g over-rules a peer study, water wins. As I do now.

Ah, Stumpy, discourse with you tonight has finally made me realize the appropriate level at which to communicate with you. I am confident you will understand me after I tell you this:

I am rubber, you are glue,
anything you say bounces of me,
and sticks to you.

Sleep well.
JoeBlue
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2015
You could use a reality check.
You are free to supply one such to me; and it would be most welcome if it was an actual reality check, and not just another uninformed, sarcastic and incorrect repetition of already rebutted assertions. Thanks. :)


Nice script.

The reality is that the title is misleading, and none of you addressing the issues with the claims. It pushes one cause without evidence that cause is actually linked statistically or otherwise.

Enjoy your reality, because it isn't real.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2015
I don't use references
@ALCHIE-TROLL
i know, i already said that
I use physical constants and formulae
and as it's been pointed out already- you aren't very good at applying those, nor comprehending when or how to use them (need i remind you of your epic failure with Thermo... again?)
discourse with you tonight has finally made me realize
and let me share this with you:
http://jspp.psych...443/html

and this: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

and this: http://web.missou...ange.pdf

anyone with common sense, realizes that talking to you is like talking to an epileptic parrot with tourette's while in a disco with strobes on high:
you keep repeating the same thing over and over, despite the FACT that you've been proven wrong so many times it's pathetic!

nice religious cult you have there.
how's the pay?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
Stumpy-
Why do you so desperately need to talk to an epileptic parrot with tourette's while in a disco with strobes on high?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
the ocean layers do mix


Not much below 2000m, where most of the ocean's water exists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
"Below the thermocline, water is very cold, ranging from −1 °C to 3 °C. Because this deep and cold layer contains the bulk of ocean water, the average temperature of the world ocean is 3.9 °C "
"The deep zone usually begins at depths below 3,300 feet in mid-latitudes. The deep zone undergoes negligible changes in water density with depth. The deep zone represents approximately 80% of the total volume of ocean water. The deep zone contains relatively colder and stable water."
https://en.wikipe...ki/Ocean
Vietvet
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
"The thermohaline circulation of the ocean results primarily from downwelling at sites in the Nordic and Labrador Seas and upwelling throughout the rest of the ocean. The latter is often described as being due to breaking internal waves. Here we reconcile the difference between theoretical and observed estimates of vertical mixing in the deep ocean by presenting a revised view of the thermohaline circulation, which allows for additional upwelling in the Southern Ocean and the separation of the North Atlantic Deep Water cell from the Antarctic Bottom Water cell. The changes also mean that much less wind and tidal energy needs to be dissipated in the deep ocean than was originally thought"

http://www.nature...7a0.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
"The thermohaline circulation of the ocean results primarily from downwelling at sites in the Nordic and Labrador Seas and upwelling throughout the rest of the ocean. The latter is often described as being due to breaking internal waves. Here we reconcile the difference between theoretical and observed estimates of vertical mixing in the deep ocean by presenting a revised view of the thermohaline circulation, which allows for additional upwelling in the Southern Ocean and the separation of the North Atlantic Deep Water cell from the Antarctic Bottom Water cell. The changes also mean that much less wind and tidal energy needs to be dissipated in the deep ocean than was originally thought"

http://www.nature...7a0.html


Says nothing about water below 4000m.
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
Fuck me, there are a lot of idiots here.


Watch it - Bennie the profanity police will ticket you. I do agree with the part about the idiots.


I (don't) wonder whether Benni, on second look, is struck by the incongruity of the above statement .... On this a science site.
That an anti-science Troll considers him/herself to be a non-idiot here and the rest are..

I am reminded of the saying "There's many an inmate of the asylum who considers himself the only sane one in there", often here.

Think about it Bennie .... I know you wont.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
ryggesogn2 "Below the thermocline, water is very cold, ranging from −1 °C to 3 °C. Because this deep and cold layer contains the bulk of ocean water, the average temperature of the world ocean is 3.9 °C "

And we know this how? The same way we knew that energy from CO2 would go into oceans for 19 years to depths of 1 thousand feet or more? The same way we knew that the PDO was a cycle? ARGO floats do 30% of the ocean and don't include shallow as well as deep areas. I find your statements about what you know ARROGANT. You don't know these things. Stop it. Scientists don't talk like this. They talk about what they don't know. They caveat what they think according to a theory or refer to specific experiments which suggest. You guys act like we did a 6 sigma study on all this and it is proven. It isn't. None of it is proven as evidenced by the fact that the models are off by 0.5C and nobody even knew that the oceans could do what this article says happened.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
leetennant: And that's all before we deal with the fact that increasing emissions of greenhouse gases does cause energy to build up in the system. And, yes, this is pretty basic physics.

JM: It would be if there wasn't an escape hatch. Maybe we should reanalyze the data for escaping energy into space.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
It's beyond amusing to see the AGW Chicken Littles not only pretending to know science, but branding the heretics as anti-science. Tell me pretenders.
- Why is CO2 not warming the Atlantic at any depth and only warming the Pacific below 10meters?
- Where is the thermal expansion from all this heat?
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2015
Fuck me, there are a lot of idiots here.
This is not my post.....better look again

Watch it - Bennie the profanity police will ticket you. I do agree with the part about the idiots.


I (don't) wonder whether Benni, on second look, is struck by the incongruity of the above statement .... On this a science site.
That an anti-science Troll considers him/herself to be a non-idiot here and the rest are..

I am reminded of the saying "There's many an inmate of the asylum who considers himself the only sane one in there", often here.
First you need to get your facts straight, then post an apology for ascribing a post to me that I never made, I only quoted someone else's post.

Think about it Bennie .... I know you wont.


.......and this is the best defense you can put up for Stumpy? Or did you have someone else in mind?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (16) Jul 15, 2015
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
"Below the thermocline, water is very cold, ranging from −1 °C to 3 °C. Because this deep and cold layer contains the bulk of ocean water, the average temperature of the world ocean is 3.9 °C "
"The deep zone usually begins at depths below 3,300 feet in mid-latitudes. The deep zone undergoes negligible changes in water density with depth...
Thanks for confirming my earlier observation that deep water hardly expands or changes density even if temp rises a few degrees more above freezing.

Hence why any small increase in DEEP water temp does not affect sea levels until that heat is transported to upper/surface layers.

Heat transport dynamics/mechanisms connect deep water with surface layers BOTH ways. Coriolis effect causes swirling currents/vortices. Also long distance warm/cold conveyor currents span ocean basins, cross Equator, upwell/downwell when striking sea mounts etc, give rise to El Nino etc local temp variations between continents/seas etc. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (16) Jul 15, 2015
HI antigoracle. :)
Why is CO2 not warming the Atlantic at any depth and only warming the Pacific below 10meters?
The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans are influenced a lot by their proximity to their respective north/south polar ice/winds/currents features. Southern oceans have clear span for wind/water currents around Antarctic , hence the cold effect is more contained within the polar vortex as compared to the Northern currents/winds which are disrupted by land masses and channel more cold air/water/bergs into Atlantic. Hence countering some of the heating of Atlantic system while no such counter is present in Pacific system to same level of effect.
Where is the thermal expansion from all this heat?
Ask your fellow denier ryggesogn2 about that if you don't trust me. He just confirmed, via his own information, what I pointed out already; ie: that deep water under such pressures hardly changes density even if a few degrees warmer than usual. See my previous post. :)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
Reality, I'll get into your BS later, but first.
What is DEEP water?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
even if a few degrees warmer than usual.


What is 'warmer than usual' for water below 4km? Which is ~ half of all the water in the oceans.

Returners
2 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
Have they even tried looking for volcanoes down there?


They would need to find about 30,000 volcanoes worth of unknown geologic heating in order to explain the alleged rate of forcing.
Returners
1 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
I'm assuming mid-ocean ridges are accounted for in global climate models, because if they aren't I'd laugh my ass off at climatologists.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 15, 2015
@ antigoracle. :)
Reality, I'll get into your BS later, but first. What is DEEP water?
What BS. It's known and recorded science which even ryggesogn2 just used in his post as reference. Don't you read ryggesogn2's posts or his own references? Not very supportive or flattering to ryggesign2's intelligence/credibility if even fellow deniers don't take any notice of what he says, hey? Go read his post now. The answer to your "deep" question is in ryggesogn2's referenced quote therein.

@ ryggesogn2. :)
even if a few degrees warmer than usual.
What is 'warmer than usual' for water below 4km? Which is ~ half of all the water in the oceans.
Any portion of the water body being heated from below by volcanic vents/eruptions and mantle heat via floor surface; plus any currents deepwelling carrying some heat from surface waters. Thanks again for confirming my earlier point that the density of water warmed slightly under such extreme pressures hardly changes. Cheers. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
pressures hardly changes.


How do you know it warms, even slightly, if you don't measure the temperatures all over the globe below 4km?
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2015
john_mathon
It would be if there wasn't an escape hatch. Maybe we should reanalyze the data for escaping energy into space.


Are you saying that the system is not getting warmer?

Well, john_mathon wrote a web page (he linked to it above) that contains a lot of crappy analysis. But one of the things that he does on his web page is link to a recent paper that shows that indicates the models are doing ok and that there is no evidence of a "hiatus" (http://www.nature...9957.pdf and the lead author discusses it here: http://www.realcl...e-study/ ). Of course, since john is MIT and Stanford trained, he already knows that analysis of the energy going into space shows that the earth continues to gain heat due to greenhouse gases. ;)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 15, 2015
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
Thanks again for confirming my earlier point that the density of water warmed slightly under such extreme pressures hardly changes.
How do you know it warms, even slightly, if you don't measure the temperatures all over the globe below 4km?
The point was in answer to deniers demanding to know why the sea level did not rise if warming was going into deep ocean waters. The answer was that there would be no sea level rise noticeable from deep water temp increases because no significant expansion occurs in deep waters. The only stage at which warmed deep water would affect sea level rise via its expansion would be when it was finally conveyed to upper/surface layers where pressures no longer overwhelmed the warmed water expansion forces.

I made no comment on ongoing scientific efforts at measuring such deep water temps at all locations below 4kms. That is what studies/article such as of this thread will enlighten the public about. Bye. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
"squeeze hard enough and water will compress—shrink in size and become more dense ... but not by very much. Envision the water a mile deep in the ocean. At that depth, the weight of the water above, pushing downwards, is about 150 times normal atmospheric pressure (Ask the Van). Even with this much pressure, water only compresses less than one percent."
http://water.usgs...ity.html

So RC doesn't know if water below 4km is warming.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (15) Jul 15, 2015
Hi ryggesogn2. :)

You've got it backwards mate, and still confirms the point I made to you regarding deep water pressures and little expansion until it surfaces. You just made my point 'in reverse fashion' from top to bottom rather than from bottom to top. Thanks again, mate.

So RC doesn't know if water below 4km is warming.
I never said I did. I only pointed out the insignificant effect on sea levels of deep water warming unless that water makes its way back to the upper/surface layers. The studies being conducted/reported will treat and quantify the question/extent of such deep ocean warming.

Do you need to have it spelled out one more time? Two different issues-

1) I answered the first re insignificant immediate effect of deep water warming on sea levels...until waters rise to upper layers.

2) The effort to map/quantification the amount of deep waters warming is ongoing and I have no comment to make on it until fuller results/picture emerges.

Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 15, 2015
Hi greenonions. :)
zz5555
Of course, since john is MIT and Stanford trained, he already knows that analysis of the energy going into space shows that the earth continues to gain heat due to greenhouse gases. ;)
But then why would he use a term like 'escape hatch?' That implies to me that he is suggesting that additional heat energy is being dissipated into space - and of course that would require the global system to not be increasing in heat content. But every graph I have seen - indicates that the system is increasing in heat content.
I don't know what john has in mind, but the only 'escape hatches' which may arise as the atmospheric dynamics gets more violent/energetic, due to increasing energy in the system, may be that cyclones/hurricane vortices/updraughts will become so 'tall' that they intrude further into upper layers and radiate/convect heat/energy load into upper layers and space more directly, avoiding some of CO2 lagging below. My two cents. :)
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
But then why would he use a term like 'escape hatch?' That implies to me that he is suggesting that additional heat energy is being dissipated into space - and of course that would require the global system to not be increasing in heat content. But every graph I have seen - indicates that the system is increasing in heat content. Such confusion!!

Well, technically john_mathon has indicated above that he has little or no knowledge of science, so it might be wise to ignore what he posts. His link above purports to show that the TCR sensitivity is ~.6. But when you use actual data, his method shows that TCR is ~1.9 and ignores other drivers which cause an increase in TCR. His link also indicates that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of science. He actually claims that
The climate models are based on the idea that CO2 is the only long term climate driver of significance

Which is obviously false. But his analysis ignores all other climate drivers.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
Seriously Reality, do any of you Chicken Littles have a brain.
This "study" claims, global warming went into hiatus because all the heat went into the Pacific between 10-300 m. So, I'll repeat my question.
Where is the thermal expansion?
https://sealevel....azenave/
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 15, 2015
Hi goracle. :)
Seriously Reality, do any of you Chicken Littles have a brain.
This "study" claims, global warming went into hiatus because all the heat went into the Pacific between 10-300 m. So, I'll repeat my question.
Where is the thermal expansion?
https://sealevel....azenave/
Those 10-300 m layers are what they could measure and/or have information on with confidence. They acknowledge that below that the layers exchange heat and may show different dynamics of heat spread/absorption/flows etc. Also the heat is being absorbed differently in different parts of the basins/oceans/global ocean system, not just in static/simplistic patterns. They have not yet got the full picture of how deep the heat is being shuffled to by vast vertical/temporal mixing dynamics. I'll wait until more data for deeper layers, global coverage/timing effects analysis etc, before I conclude anything on 'sea levels'. :)
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2015
You know, the baffoonery of the Reich-Wing AGW denier trolls never ceases to amaze me. If climate change was a cold fish slapping them against their face, they would deny being slapped. So one of the reichwing asks "Where is the thermal expansion?" He then sites a NASA research project that states they are measuring ocean thermal expansion as one of the contributors of sea level rise, along with several scarry graphs showing global sea level rise and all of it's component causes.

Did you include the URL just to appease the scientists reading your tripe, or did you not read the URL you posted?
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2015
But then why would he use a term like 'escape hatch?' That implies to me that he is suggesting that additional heat energy is being dissipated into space - and of course that would require the global system to not be increasing in heat content.

To be fair, without greenhouses gases that is pretty much what would happen. But, of course, it's not that simple when greenhouse gases are involved (http://www.realcl...rgument/ and http://www.realcl...-part-ii ).
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2015
Reality, this study is claiming that the global warming hiatus is because that enormous amount of heat went into the Pacific. Yet, for the period of this study, 2003-2012, thermal expansion essentially flat lined as shown here - https://sealevel....zenave/.
It does not matter if they could not determine any warming beyond 300m, the fact is there should be a significant increase in thermal expansion, yet there was essentially none.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
How do you know it warms, even slightly, if you don't measure the temperatures all over the globe below 4km?

I made no comment on ongoing scientific efforts at measuring such deep water temps at all locations below 4kms. That is what studies/article such as of this thread will enlighten the public about. Bye. :)


"The recent decadal warming of the abyssal global ocean below 4000 m is equivalent to a global surface energy imbalance of 0.027 (+/-0.009) W m2 with Southern Ocean deep warming contributing an additional 0.068 (+/-0.062) W m2 from 1000 to 4000 m. The warming contributes about
0.1 mm yr to the global SLR. However, in the Southern Ocean, the warming below 1000 m contributes about 1 mm yr locally. Thus, deep-ocean warming contributionsneed to be considered in SLR and global energy
budgets."

http://uwpcc.wash...2010.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
The average depth of all the oceans is 3.688 Km.
I rounded down to 4km.
But if it makes feel better, half the water in the world's oceans is below 3.688 km.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
OT:

http://www.aol.co...058&

The ignorance of scientific principles among the general public is appalling! I see a whole bunch of educational $$$ going right down the drain-----Sluuuurppp!
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
The recent decadal warming of the abyssal global ocean..

Oh, the AGW Cult, there is no depth they won't go to bury their abyssal lies.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
Once again Ryggy - the fact that the average depth of the ocean is 3.4 Km, does not mean that half of the water is below that depth. Keep digging.

Look a bit closer at the histogram.

Depth, in meters times surface area of the earth is volume.
From the chart, the cumulative frequency curve shows the percent area that is ocean, ~40% to 100%.
At the 70% mark, move up to the curve, then left to the histogram which is ~4000m.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
greenonions : what I believe is based on facts such as the CO2 capturing IR and data that I've seen showing increasing temperatures in a number of places.So, I would say we know with pretty good certainty that the system has gotten warmer.However, in the last 18 years it is not AS clear.The oceans getting warmer could be from any number of causes including things we have not measured or know about.According to satellites the energy escaping the earth is out of balance with what is coming in but that is a calculation depending on a lot of things I haven't fully looked at.There was a study I saw (yes peer reviewed) that showed declining water vapor in upper atmosphere which has been seen in balloons would allow enough heat to escape into space as has been generated by CO2.It is an alternate explanation to some mechanism to store the heat in the ocean. It is clearly preferable for CAGW to believe the heat hasn't been lost.That would really put a crimp in the worry factor. I don't know.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
ZZ5555 name calling is the pathetic approach of the weak minded and why climate sciologists are always screaming DENIALIST. If TCS=1.9 then temps would have risen > twice the rate that has been observed over the last 70 years. Latest NASA report on the RECORD BREAKING 2014 temps (proof of agenda driven science) admits that the overall temp change rate is <0.113/decade = 1.13C / century. So even they are admitting TCS way way way less than 1.9 or 2.5 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 9 or 10 as was claimed by our "climate scientists". The idea TCS=3 is in the trashbin of obviously false and failed theories of Climate Theory.You like your other cohorts seem to think we will forget what you said was certain, what was proved beyond all doubt that only idiots would disbelieve. If you guys believed that all the energy from CO2 somehow magically perfectly disgorge into the oceans suddenly in 1997 I would like to know why 1997? How exactly? When is it coming out? Why? and more
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
ZZ5555 you do realize we have gotten 1/2 of a doubling of CO2 and the data is in. TCS = 1.3 * (the temp change over the first half of doubling) = 0.6C. That's simply a mathematical fact not a climate fact based on the following:
It assumes you can ascribe all the heating between 1945-2015 to CO2.
It assumes we accept the adjusted temperature record
which assumes that thermometers in the past and the people who used them were
systematically overestimating the temperature.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
Rygg2: I want to say I am pleasantly surprised by the reference you have given. It is one I have not seen before and it is informative. Thank you for being constructive.
barakn
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 16, 2015
Why soggyring2 is incorrect: Imagine the planet had only two oceans of equal area (1000 km^2 each), one with a constant depth of 1 km and the other a constant depth of 2 km. The average depth is (1 km + 2 km)/2 = 1.5 km, but the total volume of water above 1.5 km is 1 km x 1000 km^2 + 1.5 km * 1000 km^2 = 2500 km^3 whereas the total volume below 1.5 km is (2 km - 1.5 km) * 1000 km^2 = 500 km^3. In other words, there's 5x as much water above the average depth as below. The flaw in soggyring2's reasoning? Forgetting that even parts of the ocean where the bottom is below average depth still contribute to the water volume above average depth, because at those points there is water both below and above the average depth.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
I am interested in the expansion of compressed water. I didn't see any numbers earlier so I went to WolframAlpha and checked on the behavior of the cubic expansion coefficient for water at various pressures. I was surprised by the answers so I went back and used Mathematica to compute the same quantity using the IAPWS 1997 water approximations and it agreed with the numbers from WolframAlpha. The reason I was surprised is that the expansion coefficient goes up with pressure not down. Not only does it go up, but it goes up considerably. What that implies is that the deep ocean is not heating yet (which is logical since it should take a long time to convey heat to the depths of the oceans).

Does anyone have any input on these observations (other than Anti and WaterDummy screeching that the numbers can't be right because they know better than IAPWS and Rygg2 calling me a socialist for looking up numbers).
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
Clarification: I asked for the coefficient of "thermal expansion" not combined pressure and thermal expansion. I was not clear about that in the earlier post.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
We are told the 1930s have to be adjusted to cooler than today when half of all temperature high records were set then and remain today and which saw dustbowl in the American west when we don't see that today.

Climate "scientists" insisted that northern europe was degrees warmer than the rest of the world for centuries somehow.Now disproven by study after study.

How historical records of agriculture in areas Greenland show that the melting was far MORE than we see today and agriculture extended far more ... that graphs still show MWP < todays temps. Climate "scientists" still have no explanation for how the temps could possibly have been higher then. CO2 was the same.

There is so much unproven unknown crap in this "science" and yet we are told they know everything even as their theories have become jokes.They have consistently refused to acknowledge the previous errors.They're acting like this makes complete sense and knew all along the oceans suck up CO2.What was the worry?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
JM makes unsupported claim:
We are told the 1930s have to be adjusted to cooler than today when half of all temperature high records were set then and remain today and which saw dustbowl in the American west when we don't see that today.


Please show us references that show the adjustment of temperatures in the 1930s to make them cooler. As opposed to data refinement procedures that make estimates more accurate. I have to correct data from measuring devices all the time in accordance with standard methods.

If you have your claimed physics background do you correct measurements - or do you just take them raw and call it good.

Please show us references that show us how the dust bowl era was a globally warmer time.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
greenonions: your point is exactly how the IPCC looked at it. Look, there are a lot of unknowns. We will ignore them and make predictions, tell people they are crazy for believing anything else for having any theory or idea different than ours.

This flies in the face of the facts. There is no explanation for any of the climate record that is consistent. There is no way using the factors they consider "known" to account for the variations. So, let's ignore all that. Let's just show people that we can finely tune models to show that all the heating from 1975-1998 was from CO2. Then we will extrapolate from the heating during this short period like Malthus and assume that temperatures will continue going up at that rate and accelerate. We will assume like Malthus did that humans will consume exponentially forever. That will eventually put us into a crisis which will justify our being a UN agency and the funding to feel like self-important scientists saving the world.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
JMs next unsupported claim:
Climate "scientists" insisted that northern europe was degrees warmer than the rest of the world for centuries somehow.Now disproven by study after study.


References please?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
JMs next unsupported claim:
How historical records of agriculture in areas Greenland show that the melting was far MORE than we see today and agriculture extended far more ... that graphs still show MWP < todays temps. Climate "scientists" still have no explanation for how the temps could possibly have been higher then. CO2 was the same.


Real or your conjecture? References please?
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
JMs next unsupported claim:
There is so much unproven unknown crap in this "science" and yet we are told they know everything even as their theories have become jokes.They have consistently refused to acknowledge the previous errors.They're acting like this makes complete sense and knew all along the oceans suck up CO2.What was the worry?


Can you please elaborate on the specific "unknown crap." References please?

As an example, I think everyone was aware that oceans suck up CO2 (since they have been talking about acidification since the concept was taught in my chemistry classes in the 1960s). Please show us references that show no one thought of acidificaiton early on?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
"The oceans getting warmer could be from any number of causes including things we have not measured or know about."

JM if the rate of sea warming was increasing, as it must be if the earth is gaining heat but the temps are not rising, wouldn't the rate of sea level rise also be increasing due to expansion?

But that rate is also constant or decreasing. Also if the polar land ice was melting faster as claimed the rate should be increasing from that. I'm sorry but the claims just don't add up.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
Saying we don't know is not useless. It does not mean that you have to construct models on what you think you know and believe them.Not knowing is a perfectly acceptable scientific position. We don't know what Dark Matter is.No physicist would disagree with that statement.We have ideas of what Dark matter could be.We have some constraints and some scientists are working theories and ideas and some are doing experiments but nobody is claiming it has to be neutrinos because neutrinos are all we know about that are dark so it must all just be neutrinos.We don't do that in science.We are perfectly willing to admit we don't know.

Some astronomers noticed 80 years ago that galaxies were not spinning correctly.One astonomer said that he believed we would discover something "dark" that would explain the phenomenon.It took 70 years for most of the physics community to pay attention.Nobody said he was denialist.

It's hard to politicize unknown things.That's the real problem. Isn't it?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
John
there are a lot of unknowns. We will ignore them and make predictions,


Which unknowns are being ignored John - please be specific.


Green: It is pretty clear that JM just spouts nonsense (like we should know what any unknowns are and since we don't we must be wrong).

So, according to JM we should just stop science and engineering because there could be unknowns - which by definition we can't know.

So, JM, does that mean that we can't calculate the orbit of Pluto (hence our probe never got there) because there are probably cosmic unknowns?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
Mr says:
JM if the rate of sea warming was increasing, as it must be if the earth is gaining heat but the temps are not rising, wouldn't the rate of sea level rise also be increasing due to expansion?

But that rate is also constant or decreasing. Also if the polar land ice was melting faster as claimed the rate should be increasing from that. I'm sorry but the claims just don't add up.


As usual, no references from Mr and here is my reference that shows sea level is rising and the rise is accelerating.

https://en.wikipe...vel_rise

Mr, please show your reference that refutes this?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
JM digs his hole deeper by saying:
We don't know what Dark Matter is.No physicist would disagree with that statement.We have ideas of what Dark matter could be.We have some constraints and some scientists are working theories and ideas and some are doing experiments but nobody is claiming it has to be neutrinos because neutrinos are all we know about that are dark so it must all just be neutrinos.We don't do that in science.We are perfectly willing to admit we don't know.


Please elaborate how dark matter is unknown in the sense that it interferes with cosmic calculations (since they seem to know its gravitational effect even though they don't know what it is.

Once you have answered that please show us how not knowing what the nature of dark matter affects the climate models?

As Green noted, JM should elaborate on specifically how the unknowns should affect the GCMs.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 16, 2015
thermodynamics:I have a day job in computers.I expect climate "scientists" to explain how it makes sense to "adjust" the 30s in spite of the common sense perception that the 30s were the hottest time in america that it wasn't.How did the dust bowl happen without warmer temps?Prove the adjustments make sense.Half of the rise from CO2 seems to have been fabricated from adjustments.Prove these adjustments make sense.When we adjust for what appears bad data can we go to some of the sites and look and figure out why the thermometer reported bad results that had to be thrown out and document?Since half the total CO2 effect is these adjustments it is critical that they be exposed, studied and proven.If laymen didn't notice this would the climate community simply kept the facts hidden.

Laymen appear to be critically important.this science isn't self-policing.The "scientists" in this discipline are always right.When things don't fit they retrofit history.Splice data till it looks good.
john_mathon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
thermo: mistype on the oceans sucks up CO2.I meant that the oceans would do what the article says.I am perfectly aware the oceans suck and disgorge co2 as they heat and cool.

MWP is documented in literally hundreds of studies. Many physical on site visits to greenland show that ice extent today is larger than was existant in the MWP. Plants cannot be grown today which were commonly grown then. Yet we are told its cooler now than the MWP.

We have never seen the Thames freeze over in living memory ever. Yet in the LIA it is shown to be frozen in drawings and accounts. They even held faires doing pig roastings on the Thames. It was obviously a LOT colder than any time in recent history.Yet climate "scientists" claimed it was regional for centuries.How does some part of the world get colder or hotter than other parts of the world for centuries anyway?No climate "scientist" could explain that to me.Yet they insisted it was regional end of story.

This is crap science.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
thermo green: I am not saying you can't do science just that the approach taken is unscientific. Scientists don't go around saying things they don't know whereas that is standard fare in climate "science." Real scientists tell us what they don't know up front. They consider those the INTERESTING problems. They don't try to deflect from problems or unknowns. They don't overstate what they know. They state the assumptions they make. Climate "scientists" don't do any of these things. Everything I've ever read from real-climate and other climate "scientists' is this happens then that happens, here is the formula for this, then you see X which we see corresponds exactly with the models.Models proven to work well again.Models work well.

Well, then how come the models didn't know about PDO/AMO? How come the models didn't know you could store 18 years of CO2 heat in lower layers of the ocean? How come they didn't predict this would happen in 1997? This is crap crap and more
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
MR166 you point out a good point. Sea levels depend on land ice changes, antarctic ice changes and temperature of the oceans. If ocean is heating then it would imply the land and antarctic ice is melting even slower than they said before.

PDO is a cyclic phenomenon. It is not understood how or why ENSO happens but the PDO and AMO have been observed to be cyclic for at least 200 years. There could be many sources. Possibly deep ocean "weather" currents or waves of temperature that propogate over years that may be self-reinforcing or possibly there is a deep leak of heat from the mantle or there is some sun interaction with chemical or biological processes that produces heat. It doesn't have to be = to CO2. It seems to me if they can't explain PDO then they are not in a position to state things categorically about the heat above. We clearly don't have a clue about ocean processes. No surprise. We didn't have any data.Theyre trying again to say things they dont know
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
JM: Did you even try to do a simple search on "adjustments to temperature data?"

http://www.skepti...ata.html

http://judithcurr...re-data/

https://www.ncdc....ring.php

The interesting thing is that the raw data are available and no one has been able to show bias in the adjustments used to "improve" the raw data. You are welcome to try, but rest assured that there are a lot of ambitious deniers who have tried and failed to show the adjustments are not improvements to the data set. If you really work with computers and know science, you can become famous by showing how the data adjustment is fraud and changes the results. Of course if you couldn't look up something as simple as the reason for changes and the impact of changes you can't be expected to really analyze the data.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
Rate of sea level rise:

http://www.worldc...ng-down/
john_mathon
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
green: your point about unknown is certainly correct.Some things we know more about.One of my pet peeves is statements about nutrition.This suffers many of the same problems as climate "science."Every article on nutrition coming from a nutritionist looks as if facts were in play. We know drinking soda is bad, we know fats are bad, we know cholesteral is bad, we know ... THEY DONT KNOW SH.... It is really hard to know anything in that field.Whenever I see these articles I get bent out of shape.Well, the same with climate crap.Obviously a lot is unknown.We can't explain the ice ages, their frequency, existence, magnitude,... We can't explain the MWP and LIA more recently.I propose we study to figure it out instead of talking out our backside pretending like we know what is going on.I also see climate "scientists" engaged in outright forms of deceit. The hockeystick splice. Concealing MWP, PDO/AMO denial. Adjustments. They consistently avoid being open.This is not science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
Nutrition research and climate science have the same challenges: emergent systems, the impossibility of controlled experiments and thousands of unknown variables.
john_mathon
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
thermo:on adjustments.They may be fine.It was only recently that they opened up this.I have 2 points.1) The adjustments are a huge part of the total effect. They need to be seriously studied as much as CO2 in some sense because half the entire phenomenon is being attributed to errors in stuff we thought was fine.I think there are serious questions in how the adjustments are done. The TOD adjustment is suspect to me.We do adjustments that affect things majorly without corroborating that the presumed reason is valid.2) The adjustments and historical record seem to be being manipulated for a purpose.The history of climate "scientists" for errors in data discovered by laymen is attrocious.They don't self-police.They constantly diminish or ignore anything that counters their thesis that CO2 is the only factor that really matters. So, the MWP goes away, the LIA goes away.The PDO goes away.It's only when forced to confront facts many times by laymen that they then pretend like knew it.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
ryggesogn2. EXACTLY RIGHT. With big data we have a possibility of doing something about nutrition science.

For climate science we need to discard models. We don't know enough to do models. It would be like a nutritionist making a model of the human body and food. I have a feeling if they did that the model would be about as accurate as climate models.

We need to greatly expand the ARGO fleet and increase its abilities. We need to do what britain did recently and have deep ocean measurements on a consistent basis in fixed locations.We need to do this for decades.We need to build satelites to measure more accurately energy factors at all levels of the atmosphere and in all places, figure out if we can measure humidity, wind speed somehow.We need to study the sun more and try to understand its variations and cycles. We need to study the geographical and biological interactions. We need to reset this science back to the basics. The end of these self-serving martyrs
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
JM said:
Obviously a lot is unknown.We can't explain the ice ages, their frequency, existence, magnitude,...


Really? Just because you don't understand anything does not mean that climate scientists don't. For instance, we know a lot more about the orbital characteristics, rotational behavior, and precession of the Earth than we used to. We do know the impact of Milankovitch cycles.

https://en.wikipe...h_cycles

http://www.scienc...kovitch/

Where are your references that say we don't know anything about ice ages?

So far all you have done is push your conjectures (based on your own ignorance) without a single reference for your rants.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
"thermo:on adjustments."

That's a 10 star post JM!
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
JM says:
I expect climate "scientists" to explain how it makes sense to "adjust" the 30s in spite of the common sense perception that the 30s were the hottest time in america that it wasn't.


So I gave you examples of where climate scientists explained the adjustments. You never even bothered to look into the adjustments. Where do you get the idea that this is being kept a secret from you? All you need to do is dig and you can get everything from the raw data to the specific reasons for every adjustment. You are just too lazy to do anything except accuse climate science of being "crap." Can you give us your analysis of why the adjustments are "wrong?" I didn't think so. All you can do is denigrate the scientists who are working their asses off to better understand this complex system. What is your contribution by calling it "crap?"
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
JM said:
1) The adjustments are a huge part of the total effect."


Again conjecture. How much of the total effect are they? Please quantify it. Please give us a reference.

They need to be seriously studied as much as CO2 in some sense because half the entire phenomenon is being attributed to errors in stuff we thought was fine.


Are you saying the adjustments are not being studied?

Where is the reference that shows "half of the entire phenomenon" is attributed to errors?

I think there are serious questions in how the adjustments are done.


Does this mean you have now (finally) read some of the references on the adjustments and have specific questions?

The TOD adjustment is suspect to me.


Finally one specific from you. Why do you call this out as "suspect?"
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
JM displays his bias agan:
2) The adjustments and historical record seem to be being manipulated for a purpose.


Since you just said that the reasons for the adjustments have been kept a secret from you (until I did a simple google search to show the reasons are public) how did you immediately come to the conclusion that the data are being "manipulated for a purpose" instead of being adjusted to improve the data set?

Were you just born knowing that or did you hear it on FoxNews? Now that you have the raw data available, dazzle us by showing it is being manipulated for some nefarious purpose.

The history of climate "scientists" for errors in data discovered by laymen is attrocious.


I know of only two instances of "laymen" discovering errors. That is in the entire history of climate science and it was in statistics (hardly a layman). Please correct me with specifics.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
JM once again shows his bias:
They constantly diminish or ignore anything that counters their thesis that CO2 is the only factor that really matters.


Please show where this statement is shown in a peer reviewed paper.

Also, please show us how the GCMs only consider CO2?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
Mann's proxy data was mostly BS.

Not to mention they were Mann-ipulated.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
John-but there is a good correlation, a simple explanation:

Look at our burning of fossil fuels by year.
Not look at global temperatures.
Match it against solar fluctuations.

The 18 year pause is because, although we are burning mucho fossil fuels, that mucho has plateaued.

Now you may wonder why temperatures haven't increased in this time of unprecedented burning of fossil fuels.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
It's simple, the Earth is buffered against great temperature changes in the atmosphere: By specific heat capacity-Ice absorbs 333xmore heat energy than water, water 80x more than air.

So since temperature is changing slowly vs thermodynamics, you can assume equilibrium, at least year-to-year. That means energy is being partitioned between those three, in those ratios.

That's why despite major climate change, there is very little temperature change.

The other effect is ice recession, which affect the poles near the loss and areas away by not being cooled by the ice melt.

There are more subtle effects from warming water.

Greegonions-Skeptiscience is a propaganda site, by all means use it, it does have some truth to it, but it mixes it with lies, so can't be used as a serious reference.
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
ZZ5555 you do realize we have gotten 1/2 of a doubling of CO2 and the data is in. TCS = 1.3 * (the temp change over the first half of doubling) = 0.6C.

Umm, no. You have (at least) 3. Errors in your calculation. First, you claim we have half of a doubling. But you only include the warming since 1945. Which means (if you're going to be honest) you can only include the CO2 rise since 1945. In 1945, CO2 levels were ~310, so the increase is ~90 - much less than the 155 for half a doubling. The change in forcing is ~ln(C/C0) and plugging in the numbers shows that a rise of ~90 from ~310 is ~36% of the doubling value - not the 70% that you claim. (Actually, plugging in the numbers for half a doubling gives 60%, so I don't know where you got 70%.)

Cont.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
I... in computers.I expect climate "scientists" to explain
@john_m
1- having a job in computers doesn't make you a specialist in physics, or even scientifically literate any more than standing in a church makes you a messiah, a pew, or even a candlestick

2- the comprehension problem doesn't seem to be the scientists, but you: try this link- http://ocw.mit.ed...=physics

just because you don't understand doesn't mean they/we don't

3- if you are literate enough to read the studies, you should have all the information you need

but as i've read above, you are NOT reading your information from primary sources at all... you are getting your info from political or other sites: see also-
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://jspp.psych...443/html

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
@john_m cont'd
Scientists ...saying things they don't know ...standard fare in climate "science"
the laws of physics are the same for climate as for aeronautical engineering (or anything else)

the problem, again, is your source of info... try reading what IS known, and forget getting your info second hand (or specially interpreted for you) through non-original sources
They need to be seriously studied as much as CO2 ... half the entire phenomenon is being attributed to errors in stuff we thought was fine
oh right... because scientists around the world have conspired to forget about every other influence and GHG because there is a conspiracy, right?
did elvis tell you that? [sarc/hyperbole]

this highlights your ignorance re: scientific data

just going to google scholar should enlighten you as to the scope of climate science
I think ... serious questions
you should publish a paper on the subject then
don't forget your references for peer review
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
You're 2nd mistake is in your claim that Hadcrut4 data increased only .4C from 1945 to 2015. You did that by taking the value in 2015 and subtracting the value from 1945. But temperature data is noisy and, as someone who's been trained at MIT and Stanford, I'm sure you'll agree that just picking the end points of noisy data is about as good a way of lying as any. For noisy data, you must use statistical analysis to determine the trend. Statistics shows that the trend from 1945 to 2015 is .098C/decade. So that's a .69C increase over 7 decades. So .69C accounts for .36 of a doubling and that gives you 1.9C for a doubling. It's just math. But remember, that's just 2 of your (at least) 3 errors.

Cont.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
but you all have a hissy fit when we use a site like Skeptical Science - who support their information
@green
it really is simple: the fear the truth
exposure to facts simply makes them run away to delusional land- see ALCHIE/profit and all the above deniers of validated studies, because they are the subjects being studied in publications like the following:

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://jspp.psych...443/html

http://web.missou...ange.pdf

https://www.psych...-sadists

basically, they can't accept reality, so they lash out in any way they can.
one way to combat that is to use strictly primary sources, like the ones on SkeptSci site, instead of their article link.... just link the studies

they won't read them anyway
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
Your 3rd error is an ironic one considering your claim that models only look at CO2 for long term drivers. That's because your 3rd error is that you only consider CO2 for long term drivers. There are other drivers affecting temperature. For example, the sun has a big effect on the climate and you ignore it completely. Solar TSI has dropped since ~1950, meaning we get less energy from the sun and, without CO2 increases, would be cooling. So you not only need to include the .69C increase for .36 of a doubling, but you also need to include the additional warming that CO2 is responsible for in overcoming the cooling from the natural drivers. Your simple analysis is incapable of capturing that. But your analysis does show that TCS is likely to be above 1.9. If you want to get more of an idea on how to do a sensitivity analysis, you might check out http://scienceofd...art-one/ (there are 3 parts).

Cont.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
thermo you obviously have no idea. I have studied this for years. Milankovich cycles do NOT explain the ice ages. The sun changes provide less than 10% of the required energy. This is climate science 101. The periodicity also doesn't match. The cycles changed dramatically in length 3 million years ago and the specific curves are unexplained. We don't know jack. The more you learn about this thermo the more you will understand how these people deceive you. It is thought the LIA is caused by the Maunder minimum but the MWP is completely unknown.

They still have no idea why there is a PDO and so they can't put it in the computer models because there is no known cause. The temp rose for 400 years since the LIA. Why did it stop in 1900? That's what the climate community want us to believe. Otherwise that heat wave could have been part of the warming in the 20th century not CO2.
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
You claimed above that scientists should be happy to have errors pointed out to them. Will you? Will you fix the errors in your website? Will you correct your value for TCS? Will you note that climate models do look at other climate drivers, but your simple analysis ignores them? Will you acknowledge your erroneous beliefs in what models do (and don't do)? It will be interesting to see if you will be honest and correct your mistakes, or continue with claims you know are false.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
Captain Stumpy:I am a graduate of MIT in math physics and computer science.I have studied physics at Stanford.No.Im an idiot.I am simply pointing out the facts CS.They said X it was WRONG.They said Y.It was WRONG.They said Z. It was wrong.They said A.It was wrong. They said B.It was WRONG.It's crap science.More important there is nothing wrong with being wrong, but you have to admit you were wrong and you have to tell us you don't know when you don't know. They have said over and over that anyone who questioned them was a denialist. They have said over and over that anyone who didn't accept every last sentence of their theories is a denialist. Do you know why research papers in this area start off or end with sentences "confirming the CO2 is the major factor influencing the climate and that man is causing damaging and dangerous rises in temperature and that the climate models work well." otherwise they won't get published. Im exaggerating but this is not how science is done.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
thermo:my contribution here is that the science is being run by non-scientist arrogant people who have lied to us, who are consistently wrong and who don't operate according to standard scientific methods.If you think otherwise you are not paying attention or have no idea how real science is done.Read some physics articles.Read some materials science or articles in genetic research.These scientists are very clear about what we know, what we don't know, what we want to know.What the problems are because that's how real science is done not by proclaiming they have the answers and then hiding the emails where you conspired to hide the facts.Why is it laymen are the ones finding the problems in this field, have to demand openness?You don't find that in other sciences.Why do laymen have to question the methods and the data and the science and discover some scientist pasted data over another or copied one month into another to make temps go higher?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
Sorry green I forgot any animosity-that's what happens when you get old.
Gloves off, the only game you skeptigoong have is talk.

As John is finding out now. You have the ability to criticize and pontificate and parrot. But when face with contradictory views, you drown.

No, I'll put you on ignore again, with the other skeptigoons.

John_M- good luck arguing with the skeptigoons. (thermo, stumpy, darklordkelvin, others- possibly greenonions?) many of them are the same person, if not all. Even if you come up with something that completely bolluxes them, or they do, they don't change.

One of their tricks is to pretend two or more people are saying you are wrong. It is just one.

I caught therrmy answering stumpy's account, DLK claiming thermy's model, and so on.

A pathetic band of cyber bullies, or one really pathetic cyberbully.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
JM says:
my contribution here is that the science is being run by non-scientist arrogant people who have lied to us, who are consistently wrong and who don't operate according to standard scientific methods.


That is a very good summary of your paranoid delusions and the garbage you spout here. You have given us zero reason to believe this conspiracy theory. Instead, you rant about crooked scientists and can't cite any papers to back up your delusional claims. Are we just supposed to accept your conspiracy theories at face value? I require proof and I have given you reference after reference that you discount because it is "crap" and a world-wide conspiracy of scientists. Really? Do you actually expect anyone with an ounce of sense to believe that?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
And waterbowl/Alche is back on his rant:
good luck arguing with the skeptigoons. (thermo, stumpy, darklordkelvin, others- possibly greenonions?) many of them are the same person, if not all. Even if you come up with something that completely bolluxes them, or they do, they don't change.


You forgot to add Runrig, RC, ZZ555, and anyone else who sees through you inane model of global climate using a brass bowl, water, floating ice, and a candle. I use only one account. Can you say the same? You used "The Alchemist" until that title was completely disgraced with your lack of understanding of simple finite element modeling. Now you are WaterProphet (and who knows how many other monikers). So, you are accusing others of using sock puppets when you are the one who has admitted to two logins here? Give it up with your water bowl. Who do you really think believes you can model the global climate with your bowl?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
JM says:
thermo you obviously have no idea. I have studied this for years. Milankovich cycles do NOT explain the ice ages. The sun changes provide less than 10% of the required energy. This is climate science 101.


Then please just supply the links to the climate science 101 course you must have taken. Or anything else to back up this claim that the Milankovich . Show where Milankovitch cycles are insufficient to initiate glaciation.

Did you forget that albedo change due to glaciation is a feedback mechanism for the changes in insolation from the Milankovitch cycles?

Just show us your sources.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (12) Jul 16, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)

Ocean/landmass/atmosphere system globally still shuffling heat about, into all sorts of 'sinks', so deeps can't contribute much 'rise' even as heat conducted/transported lower down. Surface water volume into which heat is being absorbed/distributed is huge, so 'local' expansions slight. As for how heat can go deep, in addition to what I have already mentioned, consider also:

- polar/glacier/mountain etc ice absorbs heat from atmosphere and melts and sends cold water into ocean which is sunk or current -transport along way down and across global basins.

- Equatorial/other waters warmed and increase evaporation rate and so increase salt concentrations and also sunk/current transported down and across global basins.

Only more global warming will significantly increase surface layers expansion globally; then noticeable contribution to sea level rise mainly from melting snow/ice sheets and glaciers on land increasing ocean water global quantity.

Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 16, 2015
Hi ryggesogn2. :)

Others have pointed out the 'annulus' of ocean water volume above the average depth is much, much greater than the 'annulus' of ocean water volume below the average depth.

Add to this the fact that the 'land' of continental Shelves, Sea Mounts and Ocean Ridges 'slope' and intrude more into the ocean water body the deeper they go, then the ocean water volumes in the upper 'annulus' is even greater than the lower 'annulus' volume.

Beware simplistic 'analyses' and 'statistics'. It's more complex than one may think. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 16, 2015
Hi john_mathon. :)

No-one is claiming any/all 'models' are perfect. Like in any complex scenario, it is always better to 'cross-check with all models, then consider what may be 'lacking', then combine all that into a 'synergistic synthesis' understanding of what may be happening around us in reality, then check again against the overall picture 'updated/refined' by current news/events globally, then check again against the overall 'trends' discerned by all that cross-checking and refining. I do all that with every 'problem' in whatever 'field/discipline' I am researching. It pays to do all that because it leads to better appreciation of the reality, irrespective of piecemeal/historical aspects so far. In short, look at the cross-checked trending indications, not just individual models/factors in 'pedantic' but 'misleading' details/isolation.

Keep up the researching/thinking, but don't forget to look around and cross-check and see the trending bigger picture! Cheers. :)
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Jul 16, 2015
They said X it was WRONG.They said Y.It was WRONG.They said Z. It was wrong.They said A.It was wrong. They said B.It was WRONG.

The claims you've made about what the scientists said have been shown to be wrong over and over again. You haven't been able to back up your claims with any science. You've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of science and how science is done. You shouldn't be ashamed of being wrong, but after seeing just how wrong you've been you'd think you might show a little humility and stop with the arrogant claims. Maybe if you learned just a littlest bit about climate models your comment so would be useful. But as it is right now, you just spout a bunch of nonsense.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
Others have pointed out the 'annulus' of ocean water volume above the average depth is much, much greater than the 'annulus' of ocean water volume below the average depth.


BS.

You can't read a histogram either.

TehDog
5 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
@WP
"John_M- good luck arguing with the skeptigoons. (thermo, stumpy, darklordkelvin, others- possibly greenonions?) many of them are the same person, if not all."
Oi! you forgot me :(
(I'm supposedly a SP of one or more of the above)
PS, maths, etc...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
I am a graduate of MIT ... pointing out the facts CS...It's crap science
@john_m
ok, so you claim an MIT degree

so, if you graduated in math and physics, then why are you not referencing studies, using primary sources or at least writing your own study to debunk or make a change in the science?

that would mean getting published in a reputable peer reviewed journal, right?

IF you have the degree, then you can explain why you've only promoted your own personal conjecture & are arguing your OPINION on a pop-sci site?

taking your last few sentences in your reply to me, it appears more to (any) readers that you are promoting conspiracy ideation over actual logical discourse... let alone providing any science or reputable evidence to support your "claims" that you made

is that how you were taught? even Stanford should have taught you better than to assume conjecture is equivalent to empirical evidence or validated studies...i know MIT does
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2015
@john_m cont'd... then you pop off to Thermo with
my contribution here is that the science is being run by non-scientist arrogant people who have lied to us, who are consistently wrong and who don't operate according to standard scientific methods
you mean to tell me that you can't tell that this is conspiracy theory and delusional thinking?
you are not showing evidence, nor pointing to any studies, nor do you actually give any refuting studies... and especially not giving the requisite evidence that would demonstrate a "worldwide conspiracy" as you intimate in the above quote... or didn't you know that climate science is being done worldwide?

your posts are equivalent to: "look at me. i am smart because i say so- there is a worldwide conspiracy because i watch political commercials and read poli-sci sites against global warming"

i suggest you go back and ask Professor Lewin to teach you about the scientific method ... what constitutes evidence in science
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
@john_m says;
I am a graduate of MIT in math physics and computer science.I have studied physics at Stanford.No.Im an idiot.I am simply pointing out the facts CS.
If your that well educated, one would expect to see some concern expressed about CO2 levels, anthropogenic global warming, and mankind's fate when global average surface temperature are 5C higher than current levels. Instead I see you pitch the same old denier false flag factoids the prove you a phoney.

If I was an MIT grad, or a Stanford PhD guy, I would be awefully ticked off that you drug my schools name into the mud with your BS anti-global warming statements.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2015
If I was an MIT grad, or a Stanford PhD guy, I would be awefully ticked off that you drug my schools name into the mud with your BS anti-global warming statements.
@howhot2

http://audit.mit....ome.aspx

.
don't worry... they're already aware of him
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
@WP
"John_M- good luck arguing with the skeptigoons. (thermo, stumpy, darklordkelvin, others- possibly greenonions?) many of them are the same person, if not all."
Oi! you forgot me :(
(I'm supposedly a SP of one or more of the above)
PS, maths, etc...


Damn, Tehdog, I left you/me off the list. It was not intentional, as I normally don't forget all of my sock puppets. (sarcasm for those who can't figure out this was a sarcastic comment).
Vietvet
5 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
@JM

Why don't you read State of the Climate in 2014, digest the 240+ pages, and then present your critique. Dazzles us with your brilliance.

http://www2.amets...in-2014/
leetennant
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 16, 2015
@JM

Why don't you read State of the Climate in 2014, digest the 240+ pages, and then present your critique. Dazzles us with your brilliance.

http://www2.amets...in-2014/


Several variations of "it's just not true, 'cause".
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2015
@JM

Why don't you read State of the Climate in 2014, digest the 240+ pages, and then present your critique. Dazzles us with your brilliance.

http://www2.amets...in-2014/


Several variations of "it's just not true, 'cause".


leetennant: Is that me/you? I forgot to mention you as one of my sock puppets when WaterBowl/Alche called you/me out. It was not intentional. JM will get back to you soon to explain how you are one of the conspirators. Now WaterBowl will also know I/you/etc are all sock puppets because we know he is full of BS (just cause).
Vietvet
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
@JM

Why don't you read State of the Climate in 2014, digest the 240+ pages, and then present your critique. Dazzles us with your brilliance.

http://www2.amets...in-2014/


Several variations of "it's just not true, 'cause".


@leetennant

The "cause" will be "scientist don't know" along with his conspiracy crap.
leetennant
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2015
@JM

Why don't you read State of the Climate in 2014, digest the 240+ pages, and then present your critique. Dazzles us with your brilliance.

http://www2.amets...in-2014/


Several variations of "it's just not true, 'cause".


leetennant: Is that me/you? I forgot to mention you as one of my sock puppets when WaterBowl/Alche called you/me out. It was not intentional. JM will get back to you soon to explain how you are one of the conspirators. Now WaterBowl will also know I/you/etc are all sock puppets because we know he is full of BS (just cause).


I notice I got left off the sock puppet list. Maybe that's because I'm just so much more awesome and they're scared of me ;-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2015
@JM

Why don't you read State of the Climate in 2014, digest the 240+ pages, and then present your critique. Dazzles us with your brilliance.

http://www2.amets...in-2014/


Several variations of "it's just not true, 'cause".


leetennant: Is that me/you? I forgot to mention you as one of my sock puppets when WaterBowl/Alche called you/me out. It was not intentional. JM will get back to you soon to explain how you are one of the conspirators. Now WaterBowl will also know I/you/etc are all sock puppets because we know he is full of BS (just cause).


I notice I got left off the sock puppet list. Maybe that's because I'm just so much more awesome and they're scared of me ;-)

wait... which one of us/i/you/me/we is talking?
he has called us so many different people i can't keep up!
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
Another common theme of the skeptigoons/ is they desperately want to engage me in conversation. Lee, you aren't one because you haven't suggested you are one of the skeptisockpuppets. Do you endorse .skepticlalscience .com?

The great bit about skepti is that it's author, John Cook is a nobody. His opinions are worthless, and if his opinions are worthless, how much more so are those that use him as a referent authority? Assuming it is not Naziwannabe John posing as so many people-

You think I'm kidding with this Nazistuff-

http://www.popula...nce.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
Ryggy -
You can't read a histogram either.


Well - maybe you can read a histogram - but you can't do basic math. Just because the average depth is 4 km, does not mean that half the water is below 4 km - damn you are stupid Ryggy - and in the field of science - rounding up, just because you feel like it - is not OK.

The histogram shows that ~50% of the area of the earth is 4km or lower. Area times depths is volume.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
The great bit about skepti is that it's author, John Cook is a nobody. His opinions are worthless, and if his opinions are worthless, how much more so are those that use him as a referent authority? Assuming it is not Naziwannabe John posing as so many people-

Ah, yes. The old ad hominum argument. Since you can't find anything wrong with the science discussed on Skepticalscience, that's pretty much all you have left, isn't it?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
Hey onions, in what kind of "basic math" is volume measured in sq ft?
Of course your fellow ignorant AGW Chicken Littles gave you 5s for that.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
Hey onions, you are welcome.
By the way, thanks for the 1. You Chicken Littles truly have no idea how you amuse me with that.
However, you should have that condition checked.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
Where am I wrong below:
WRONG about attribution of heat 1910-1940
WRONG about attribution of declining temps 1940-1970
WRONG about attribution of heat 1970-2000
WRONG about temperature change 2000-2015
WRONG about temperature change 1880-1910
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2015
My bad.

~20% of the ocean volume is below 4km.
The median depth, which is what I have been trying to find and which the histograms helped calculate, is ~2km.
~50% of the ocean water is below 2km.

Wonder why no one seemed to care enough to make it readily available. Mean is easy to find, but not median.

And then, looking at the thermocline, at 2km, the temp is ~5C and drops from there. So ~50% of the ocean is below 5 deg C.
Vietvet
5 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015


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.


@JM

Okay, you read a science magazine but you didn't provide a link, not even the name of the journal. Post the link and let us read the paper so we can compare what it it says and what you think it says.

You have yet to reference anything that supports your feeble arguments let alone provide any links.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
zz5555, since there's a pretty good chance you are or are good buds with the skeptinazi, it is not surprise you defend him.

It's been a long time since I point out and laughed uproariously at the misconstrue and omissions of skeptigarbage. Let's see it I can remember-nope looking.

Most of the arguments presuppose a false, as if it were an argument against AGW, then go ahead and prove it is false as a way of showing AGW is happening. Asserting deniers are wrong because of heat island effect, etc..

It's a joke, just like anyone who would follow Cook. Any educated person will see more and more of the arguments are wrong, then say, if I know these three are wrong, the rest of these are BS to...
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (14) Jul 17, 2015
Hi rygg-2. :)
My bad.
No sweat, mate, nobody's 'perfect', hey? Perhaps you'll be more tolerant of others/models which are not 'perfect' either? :) To get an idea of the geometric factors involved, draw two concentric circles (larger circle representing ocean surface, smaller circle representing ocean bottom). Then draw another concentric circle in the 'annulus' space formed between the first two, and equidistant from both (this will be your mid-depth point between the surface and bottom). See how the divergent radials tell you that any volumetric SEGMENT above the middle will be a geometric factor LARGER than the one below it? Extrapolate to spherical SHELL geometry; see that the geometric difference will be even LARGER between upper/lower annuli volumes. Then factor in that undersea 'continental shelves' etc land masses slope/ intrude more voluminously into the lower annulus, displacing the water volume more there than in upper annulus. See it clearer now? :)
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 17, 2015
Hi Water_Prophet. :)

No-one is arguing against the existence of a feedback dynamics involving water liquid, solid vapor phases and cycles. It's like any other factor feeding into the overall dynamics in a regional/temporal variation way which causes the various local/regional weather events. But the overall global system also has an 'overarching' trending longterm dynamics/trajectory which is effectively separate from the usual feedback 'events/variations'. While the feedback dynamics may determine short term extremes, pauses and global shuffling into and out of heat/water cycles and 'sinks', the atmospheric CO2 levels from time to time determine what the overall global trending trajectory will be for those feedback mechanisms, sinks and cycles. That's the difference between the short term variability/feedback aspects/factors of global warming, and the overarching longterm trending changes driven by the ubiquitous and 'always on' forcing effect of CO2 levels. Ok? Cheers. :)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Reality, feedback dynamics are simple enough, show me, mathematically, even under ideal conditions, how it works.
I am far too stupid to make it work. I greatly appreciate your interest in the matter, as no amount of effort on my part has allowed me to derive the effect you speak of under any circumstance.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
How do you come up with that number?


Do the math.

Calculate the volume of water from sea level down until you get to 50% of the total volume.
This data is more coarse, but easy to use:

http://topex.ucsd...gram.gif
Water_Prophet
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted.
-Popular Technology

Does this remind you of anyone on THIS site?

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.

-John Cook, Self employed cartoonist and foolmaker.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 17, 2015
i have a list of 28 things these climate "scientists" have been wrong about that proves to anyone that they don't know what they are talking about, that they are not scientists, that they've lied about what they knew, what they said was certain, that have all been proved beyond any doubt that they don't know what is happening and can't possibly be providing us with any conceivable certainty.

I have pointed out that in fact the facts are clear.We have 70 years of data on climate and even though there may be small disagreements about a couple of tenths of a degree we've seem fully 1/3 of the doubling of CO2. So, if we don't know what the result will be after this much information something is wrong.With 1/3 of the CO2 in we have 50% of the effect we will see to a doubling. So, the total effect will be double the effect we have seen so far.We don't need climate models. If they differ from this calculation then THEY are wrong.They do differ so they are wrong. End of story
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
green you do understand that the fact the models match is damning because the reasons they match are all wrong. That's the rub. They ascribed all the wrong reasons which means they couldn't possibly be right in anything.

In any case irrelevant. I have pointed out that models are superflous at this point. How good could their science be that after 1/2 the data they can't admit they are wrong. After BILLIONS of dollars and incredible number of meetings all over the world to discuss things and using a significant amount of the raw supercomputer power in the entire world their models are worse than a+bx and attributed things to all the wrong reasons and are off by 50%.

The outrage is building. They better come clean and start acting like scientists or lawsuits will be the least of their worries and they are going to discredit science and permanently set us back in understanding the climate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2015
Ryggy
Do the math.


You go ahead and show us the math. You have globe that is about 24,000 miles circumference - with a highly irregular surface - mountains going up to about 9 Km, and trenches down to about 11 Km. Show how you calculated that 50% of the ocean water is below 2 Km.


Can't read the histogram, eh?

70.8% of earth's surface is at sea level or below.
The surface of the earth is 510e6 km2 so 361,080,000 km2 is covered with water. The first 1km depth contains ~361080000 km3 of water. This is ~25% of the volume from the total vol of ocean, 1.4e9 km3.
62.3% is 1km or more below sea level => 317730000 km2 => 317730000 km3 => 23%.
The first two km depth of ocean has ~48% of the oceans water.
TehDog
5 / 5 (7) Jul 17, 2015
"i have a list of 28 things these climate "scientists" have been wrong about...[snip]"
"green you do understand that the fact the models match is damning because the reasons they match are all wrong."
"They ascribed all the wrong reasons which means they couldn't possibly be right in anything. "
I tried to make sense of this, but I failed.
About those models.
Assuming you're employed as a web dev, writing code rather than just layout design, you should be able to examine them, and expose their flaws.
Here you go :)
http://www.easter...-models/
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
Where am I wrong below:
WRONG about attribution of heat 1910-1940
WRONG about attribution of declining temps 1940-1970
WRONG about attribution of heat 1970-2000
WRONG about temperature change 2000-2015
WRONG about temperature change 1880-1910

You haven't said enough about any of these to be right or wrong. You say the models are wrong (and no one disagrees with this). You say the models don't replicate the PDO correctly (and no one disagrees with this). But nowhere do you discuss how far off the models are. Is the inability to capture the PDO/ENSO relevant to the long term results? No. Climate models produce long term projections so cycles like PDO/ENSO cancel out over long periods. Nowhere have you done any numerical work to show that the errors are relevant. Basically, you say that there are errors (again, no argument), but that you have no idea how bad they are so you don't know if the errors are meaningful or not.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
TehDog, trying to talk to JM or WaterBowl seems to be useless. They are both incredibly ignorant and arrogant. That is an amazing combination. It is a wonder they have survived this long in the real world. For instance, JM says:
i have a list of 28 things these climate "scientists" have been wrong about...


I looked at just this comment sections and he states:
There are 5 thermometers for all of antarctica which is the 5th largest continent.


An easy claim to check. All he has to do is a simple search:

http://www.wunder...tml?MR=1

Does that look like 5 thermometers to you? That was just one of his many claims that can be debunked with a simple search.

JM is pathetic.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2015
So you add exactly nothing useful to the conversation. In fact, your comments detract from the conversation since you make claims like "oceans are modeled in 2-3 layers" (which is wrong), "models assume only CO2 drives long term climate" (dramatically untrue), or "IPCC/scientists claimed CO2 would eliminate variability" (which is an incredibly silly argument to make and shown to be wrong. All your arguments seem to have been based on the same level of willful ignorance.

The only place you've attempted to put numerical results is on your website. I've noticed you've updated it, but still maintain some of the same silly errors. I also note you've added the RSS data which is especially silly since you know that RSS doesn't (can't) measure surface temperatures and includes a number of cooling biases. But it gets the answer you were looking for, so I suppose it serves your purpose. Your other errors help you keep the TCR low, but it doesn't make your analysis correct.
TehDog
5 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2015
"TehDog, trying to talk to JM or WaterBowl seems to be useless."
Agreed, they simply cannot allow the facts to interfere with their worldview. I really can't understand it. Present them with evidence, "It's manipulated data, it's only a subset, this blog proves them all wrong, only 5 thermometers on Antarctica, we didn't land on the moon"
(Actually, I think they ignore any references provided, just in case they make sense)
Nice link, made me chuckle :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2015
Too bad you can't do the maths, greenie.

The point is that about half the oceans water is below 2km and at temperatures less than 5C.

How much historical data is available to show how water below 2km has been warming?
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
ZZ the debate is over. We have 1/3 of the CO2 in the system. That is enough to see exactly what is going to happen because it is 1/2 of the total effect. There can be no debate of this point. Everyone agrees that this is the way CO2 would work. There is no evidence of non-linearity.

Look at whatever dataset you prefer. The fact is that the change between 1945-2015 was between 0.3 and 0.6 for the 1/3 of CO2 we've put in. The total additional temperature cannot be more than 0.6C to 600ppm. Even if we were to exceed 600ppm the logarithmic effect would say that any overage would be minimal. We are debating between 0.3 and 0.6 end of story. As far as I am concerned that is no longer worth anybodies time or money. If we spent gazillions of dollars to reduce CO2 so we didn't hit 600 or whatever the temperature change impact would be measured in hundreths or thousands of a degree C. The debate is over. The climate models lost. Total TCS = 0.6-1.2C far less than the 3,4,
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
I don't believe any climate "scientist" can any longer justify spending on these models or the high TCS they include. We spent billions on these models and they produced results which are provably way off. At least twice what happened. The models also ascribed heating and cooling to wrong things. They overestimate the impact of albedo and suns radiation as well as CO2. They don't include it turns out at least one major major factor. The oceans. They have been unable to model PDO/AMO which turns out to be the major reason for the failure of the models. They ignored the oceans and the cycles in the ocean (weather). Kinda funny for climate "scientists" to be denialists of ocean weather. They are still denying further cycles which obviously exist from the MWP and LIA which makes the current climate "group" less than useful. We need cliamte people who will look at the real issues and unknowns. Stop with the alarmism. It's over. Now it is just science.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
john_mathon:
You state:
I have pointed out that models are superflous at this point.

In some ways I agree. One of the main outputs of climate models is the climate s
ensitivity. But there are also a number of empirical ways to determine the climate sensitivity. And they all point to a sensitivity similar to that from the IPCC: 2 to 4.5C (http://www.skepti...nced.htm ). That the models agree with these analyses is just another validation of the models, but it doesn't really influence what the empirical results are.

By the way, I'll post a comment later about your numerous errors in the current incarnation of your webpage. Basically, you don't really disagree with the IPCC numbers.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
the reasons they match are all wrong
John_m boy
this is called, in scientific circles: "personal conjecture without evidence"
you've not been able to demonstrate, with empirical evidence, that this is true. i know this because i've not seen a study (especially not one which has been validated) written by a "John mathon" in the literature.. that means your posts and belief are, in your own words
In any case irrelevant
now when you say
they can't admit they are wrong
you are doing what is called "transference" because (again) of the above. this is most evident because of your "attack" at the end..."lawsuits will be the least of their worries" and "they are going to discredit science"
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2015
john_mathon-
At the risk of being annoying, we can model the oceans.
The oceans are in good equilibrium with the surface to about 40 feet, if memory serves, radiation transparency, blackbody effects.
The icecaps are in poor equilibrium with the Earth, but good with local waters.

The heat of fusion of ice is 333j/gram (colossal!) water is the norm, and 80x stronger than the atmosphere.

We can measure sea level rise and calculate energy from that-area x delta x 333, that gives us a metric. Ocean warming provides us another metric, and air temperature goes up and down so uselessly that it is a poor metric.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2015
https://logiclogi...e-learn/

This article gives many of you who are young in this area the context to understand the process we have gone through to get to this point.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2015
https://logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com/
This article ...to this point.
@john_m boy
lets examine that for a minute:
1- it is an ARTICLE, not a study
2- where are the links to references?
3- it starts out with "I believe the Climate debate is over"... notice the term "i believe" in there?
that means something specific, especially WRT what i've been saying for a long time: PERSONAL CONJECTURE IS NOT VALIDATED SCIENCE

now, considering your claims and past posts, you say you are scientifically literate
what would YOU do if some alarmist posted an article that claims "i beleive" right at the outset?

there is a difference between a conjecture, a belief, and validated studies, which are supported not only by empirical evidence, but repeated and validated (in case you missed the FIRST validated)

your article starts as conjecture, and fills gaps with conjecture
THAT IS NOT SCIENCE

get that point yet?
john_mathon
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
I am much less interested in what you think you know than what you don't know. You say the oceans are well modeled. It is well known climate models do not model ocean temperatures or air temperatures over ocean. They have no clue about PDO/AMO or ENSO. I wonder what your definition of "well" modeled is?
TehDog
5 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
" It is well known climate models do not model ocean temperatures or air temperatures over ocean."
So, as expected, you ignored this link;
http://www.easter...-models/
On that page is this link;
http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/
"NEMO (Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean) is a state-of-the-art modeling framework for oceanographic research, operational oceanography seasonal forecast and climate studies."
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
john_mathon:
Since you've been having problems figuring out how to calculate your own analysis, I'll go through it rather completely. Hopefully, this will help you to see the numerous errors in your work. First of all, the sensitivity lambda is defined as dT = lambda * dF, where dT is the change in temperature and dF is the change in forcing. You only looked at the contribution from CO2 for your forcing, which is wrong and not how science does it, but for your rudimentary analysis we'll go with that and deal with the other forcings in the caveats at the end. For CO2, dF = 5.35 * ln (C/C0), where C is the concentration of CO2 and C0 is the reference concentration. I haven't included any units, but you can look for them at https://en.wikipe..._forcing .

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
Combining these equations you get dT = K * ln (C/C0), where I've combined lambda and 5.35 into the term K. So what your analysis is trying to do is solve for K at the current temperature/CO2 level and then figure out what dT would correspond to a doubling of CO2. I hope this is all clear - it's not exactly rocket science (and I should know since that's my training and profession). But if you're confused somewhere, let me know and I'll try to clear it up.

Now, for the period of 1945 to 2015, C0 is 310 and C is 400. (I know you keep wanting to use 290, the pre-industrial value, but that would be unethical and something of a lie since you're talking about the warming since 1945.) That means that K = dT/ln(400/310) = dT/.25

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
So, for any temperature set, you can plug in the value of the temperature rise over the 70 years from 1945-2015 and out pops K. And once you have that, the formula for calculating the doubling is just dT = K * ln(2) = K * .69
Now let's look at some datasets. HadCRUT4 shows a trend of .098 C/decade during
that period, so dT is .69C and K = 2.76

For GISTEMP, the trend is .124 C/decade, dT is .87C, and K = 3.48

For Berkeley, the trend is .103, dT is .72, and K is 2.88

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (4) Jul 18, 2015
RSS is, as you point out, something of a problem. How do you determine dT when you have no data? To do so would be dishonest, so you can't use the 1945-2015 period with RSS. I'll repeat this analysis using the 1980-2015 period for RSS (I use 1980 rather than 1979 to simplify things - I doubt it would change the results). Since we're calculating the temperature change for any doubling, it doesn't matter. For this period, C0 is 340 and, as always, C in 2015 is 400. The trend for RSS is .122 C/decade, dT for the 3.5 decades is then .43, and K is 2.67

Now we have a value of K for a number of datasets. Let's see what the doubling is. Recall that the doubling value is dT = K * ln (2) = .69 * K.

HadCRUT4: dT(doubling) = 1.9C
GISTEMP: dT(doubling) = 2.4C
Berkeley: dT(doubling) = 2.0C
RSS: dT(doubling) = 1.84C

So even RSS is nowhere near your tiny value.

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
But you're not done yet. Recall that your analysis is very rudimentary and only takes into account the forcing due to CO2. But reality is much different from your simple analysis and if you want to be honest with your readers (and yourself), here are some caveats that you really need to include on your webpage:
1. The analysis contained herein attempts to only examine the temperature increase due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, but there are other drivers for climate change that also affect the temperature. In particular, long term drivers of climate change (like orbits and solar TSI) have been decreasing during the period examined here. These decreases result in a drop in temperature that CO2 must overcome. To account for these decreases, the TCR calculated in this analysis would need to be adjusted upward substantially.

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
2. It is understood that climate cycles (like ENSO or PDO) cannot contribute to long term climate change. However, for the analysis period included here a PDO cycle started ~1945 and ended ~2000. After that, another PDO cycle began with the negative phase of the PDO, which would tend to lower global temperatures than they would be without the PDO. Since this occurs at the end of the analysis period, this may have a substantial affect on the global temperature trend. Therefore, to account for this partial PDO cycle, the TCR calculated herein needs to be adjusted upward, possibly substantially.

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
3. Similarly, there has been an increase in volcanic activity since ~2000 which is known to have suppressed global temperatures (http://citeseerx....type=pdf ). (It's well known that CO2 from volcanoes is an insignificant source of CO2 when compared to anthropogenic sources.) Since this analysis is looking at just the influence of CO2, this means that the TCR calculated herein needs to be adjust upward to account for this.
4. In addition, the choice of temperature records has some caveats. Satellite records have built in cooling biases. The models used to generate the satellite temperatures attempt to correct these biases, but it's well understood that some of these cooling biases remain in the satellite temperature record. To correct for these cooling biases, the result from the satellite temperature record will need to be adjusted upward substantially.

Cont.
zz5555
5 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2015
5. The choice of HadCRUT4 for the surface temperature record is also problematical due to inadequate coverage of the polar regions. Since it's well known that the polar regions have been warming the fastest, this introduces a cooling bias in the HadCRUT4 record, leading to a required upward adjustment in TCR from this analysis. Better choices would have been to use GISTEMP or Berkeley, but HadCRUT4 was chosen, so suck it.

There you go. There's nothing really complicated about this, so I'm hopeful you can understand it. There are a lot a caveats, but that's always the case when you simplify to this extent. I'd also remove all the comments you have about climate models and PDO since it's apparent that you know very little about either.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. It's possible I've made a math error, but the basic technique shouldn't have errors. I've been traveling a lot recently, so I may respond slowly, but I will try to respond.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
zz5555, apologize for snooping:

the concentration of CO2 is of course NOT 400, it is 400ppm or 0.0004.

This is important, because 1ppm and 2ppm generate the same effect, essentially 2x0, even though you have doubled it.

I know, I know, but everyone usually makes the mistake of saying, for intuition, that the effect doubling concentration has the same effects. Obviously if CO2 were 1ppm, 2ppm would have negligible effects. Just as 200 vs 400ppm have negligible effects, now say doubling 5000ppm, you could see where increasing concentration would start to be meaningful.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
ZZ many problems with your analysis. First there is a common sense fact you have to think about. Just look at what your calculations say. 1.9C means you expect another 1.3C from the 0.6 that we've gotten (with the adjusted land data) and 1.6C from the RSS data. Besides the obvious fact that these are GREATER than the amount of T we've gotten so far it is inconceivable.How exactly do you expect this extra 1.6C to happen in the next 80 years? That's 0.2C / decade for 8 consecutive decades. Even NASA admitted that the current rate is 0.113 / decade.How or why would the rate of temperature rise double and then do so for 8 consecutive decades without pause when we know there will be another PDO/AMO cycle which will erase 3 decades.During the up decades the rate will have to be 0.4C / decade which is 4 times the fastest we've ever seen. Besides this completely denies the obvious point that CO2s effect diminishes with the remaining percentage.Your numbers are stupid.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
Ah, john_mathon, you are absolutely right, they are misapplying that constraint/model.
I have pointed this out them before, that it doesn't work, try zero concentration, but despite reality disagreeing with them, they quote references.

I'm glad you caught it so quickly, and weren't driven away by the drivel. You look like a player.

But the skeptigoons, if indeed there are more than one or two, are about to rain down on you. Remember, even if it is more than one username, they all have the same opinion. Only the demeanor changes.

Well done.
john_mathon
1 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
Also, my numbers take into account all the factors that have affected the temperature between 1945-2015 including PDO, volcanoes, sun, humidity, effects for clouds, changes in albedo due to ice loss or anything else. Yes, my analysis assumes no major changes in what we saw during that period but it does NOT just include CO2 forcing it includes everything the models include and more. It includes the CORRECT tuning for all the effects and it includes all effects that the models don;'t include. If you are suggesting you know what these other forcings will be during the next 85 years that's impressive. I didn't know crystal balls came with this profession. As far as the PDO/AMO you are correct they have no idea which is the big problem. What makes you think the PDO/AMO is going away? This is what I heard from LLL who was wrong obviously. You don't even know why there is a PDO so how can you predict it's going to end? Because you want it to end?
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
Also, my numbers take into account all the factors that have affected the temperature between 1945-2015 including PDO, volcanoes, sun, humidity, effects for clouds, changes in albedo due to ice loss or anything else.

This is trivially easy to disprove. Your method looks at only the temperature increase from 1945 to 2015 and the forcing change due to CO2 during that period. There is no question that without some other driver to warm the climate that the changes from the sun would have cooled the climate. Since you only look at the temperature change, you totally miss the extra warming that was required to overcome the cooling due to the sun. Therefore, your method cannot possibly include the sun. (The same for those other drivers, though most aren't drivers.)
If you are suggesting you know what these other forcings will be during the next 85 years that's impressive.

I don't know and they don't matter in this analysis. Why did you think they did?
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
Just look at what your calculations say. 1.9C means you expect another 1.3C from the 0.6 that we've gotten (with the adjusted land data)

Your reading comprehension needs some work. We've gotten .69C so far from HadCRUT4, so we only need 1.21C for the remainder of the period. Note that we started with 310ppm of CO2 in 1945 and have only gotten ~29% to a doubling of 620ppm. According to your webpage, that's over 100 years from now. Remember that heating will continue to accelerate, so even at your current ".113C/decade", this won't be a problem. And keep in mind that, according to NASA, the warming trend since 1975 is .174 +/- .036 C/decade. So it make no sense to claim that this is an issue.
TehDog
5 / 5 (7) Jul 18, 2015
Oh FFS.
"Also, my numbers take into account all the factors that have affected the temperature between 1945-2015 including PDO, volcanoes, sun, humidity, effects for clouds, changes in albedo due to ice loss or anything else"
Show us those numbers. And show us how the "PDO, volcanoes, sun, humidity, effects for clouds, changes in albedo due to ice loss or anything else" interact with each other.
Show us the methods you used to derive those relationships.
You may work in IT, but you're no coder, complete lack of analytical skills and logic.
Graphics designer?
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
How or why would the rate of temperature rise double and then do so for 8 consecutive decades without pause when we know there will be another PDO/AMO cycle which will erase 3 decades.

Keep in mind that we're in the negative phase of the PDO and still warming. Your claims about the PDO don't really match reality. You should also keep in mind that evidence shows that the strength of the PDO is dependent on the temperature. So claiming "it's the PDO" ignores the evidence that shows that the PDO is dependent on the CO2 warming.
Besides this completely denies the obvious point that CO2s effect diminishes with the remaining percentage.

Hmm. According to my calculations, we've currently experience 36% of the warming from 29% of the CO2. So apparently you are wrong in this claim, as well.
Your numbers are stupid.

And, yet, you're unable to find an error in the numbers. Do you disagree with the physics? Or just hate the results?
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
What makes you think the PDO/AMO is going away?

Who said it's going away? It's sticking around for the foreseeable future (i.e., thousands of years). The PDO is closely related to ENSO and the data shows that ENSO has been around for (at least) thousands of years. There is absolutely no reason to believe it will disappear.
This is what I heard from LLL who was wrong obviously.

You keep saying this nonsense, and we've shown that it's nonsense and I'm wondering how you could ever have come to believe it. Climate variability (like PDO, ENSO, etc) are just noise on the long term climate signal. That noise will never disappear. I'm guessing that someone once said that in the future we'll no longer see a drop in temperature during the negative phase of the PDO (sort of like this negative phase), and you misinterpreted it.

Do you have a reference to this quote? Otherwise, we'll think you made it up like your claims about ocean models.
zz5555
5 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2015
You may work in IT, but you're no coder, complete lack of analytical skills and logic.

I don't know. I've seen this sort of thing over and over again in software development. The person might be unbelievably great at software development and then go all Dunning-Kruger on something completely unrelated to their field. I knew a brilliant software architect that actually believed evolution violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I've seen this in other areas, but it just seems exceptionally strong in the software development field.

As for Mr. Moran, I'm not sure why he's so reluctant to attempt the solutions on his own. What about the physics that I presented does he think is wrong?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 18, 2015
Hi j_m, W_P. :)

Again, beware simplistic extrapolations/connections. The warming from earlier increases in CO2 work their way slowly into the previous patterns/cycles/distributions of weather/heat/cold 'events' and atmospheric/oceanic etc 'transport mechanisms' and 'sinks', so the earlier warming would be 'hidden' for a while within the periodicity/swings already existing prior increased CO2 era. It is the subsequent increased emissions which have made the warming/extremes in patterns/swings more obvious now. And also the further increases in CO2 will cause greater 'partial pressure' diffusion further upwards; also transported to higher altitudes by ever more extreme cyclonic events intruding into upper atmos layers. So further increase means further distribution of a CO2 'blanket' upwards, and hence multiply the effective 'thickness' of the CO2 forcing zone. More CO2 will only exacerbate/accelerate Greenhouse irrespective of sun, volcanoes, PDO etc variability. Complex. :)
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2015
Yeah, Reality, further increases in CO2 will increase all those things. I estimate about 30,000ppm should begin to affect climate in a noticeable way.
Thought the fact that CO2 begins it's work inn the upper atmosphere, where it protects the Earth from heating of this kind. The black body (BB) spectrum of the Sun has much more, by magnitude infrared radiation than the Earth.

This should help:
http://www.spectr...body.php
The Earth's BB: ~293K
Suns's: 4778K
Wavelength that CO2 DIFFUSES: 4.2 micometers
Magnitude of Earth: 9.6 Watts/m/s/um
of Sun: >>10,000 Watts/m/s/um

MYTH BUSTED

Add to this, CO2 competes with water vapor on Earth.