Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 16521 - 16540 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
Oct 6, 2014 - 05:46pm PT
Oceans Getting Much Colder


http://www.climatecentral.org/oceans
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 6, 2014 - 07:35pm PT
Norton did you read your alarmist link?

If you had, surely you would have noticed that they were claiming ocean warming for several decades prior to 2005.

When was Argo fully deployed Norton?

Not in those decades they are claiming catastrophic accelerated warming.

How did they determine this catastrophic warming Norton? Was it the result of model output that isn't worth the electrons expended on the runs since they are nearly universally tuned to be oversensitive to CO2 forcing and ignore or under value natural processes?

What I get out of this little pile of steaming press release excrement is that actual observations show no warming since 2005.

By 2005 the effects of reduced short wave solar radiation and magnetic flux didn't allow for the warming of the vast mass of the ocean. Sure, there was a little surface warming from long wave radiation backscattered from water vapor and CO2 but it doesn't penetrate more than a few centimeters.

The only thing currently keeping us from a distinct cooling of the upper levels of the ocean and land surface is the weak double peak of solar cycle 24. Within months this should conclude and the cycle will dropoff over a period of years to a deep and prolonged minimum not seen in over a 150 years.

There will be a severe winter in large parts of the NH this season. The Arctic ice melt for 2015, starting from a higher total extent and thickness, will be less than 2014. The Antarctic will continue to add more land ice mass, as some satellite measurements show, and the sea ice will again reach new records. The El Nino of 2014/2015 will be weak. The climate liars will be even less credible in sept. 2015 than in 2014.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
Nature Climate Change PUBLISHED ONLINE: 5 OCTOBER 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2389
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html

Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming

Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor

The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming1–4. Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data sparse regions5–7. We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modeled results. These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1  10²² J 35yr⁻¹) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:02pm PT
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html

Nature Climate Change
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 5 OCTOBER 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2387

Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade

W. Llovel, J. K. Willis, F.W. Landerer and I. Fukumori

As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change. Here, we infer deep-ocean warming in the context of global sea-level rise and Earth’s energy budget between January 2005 and December 2013. Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise. Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77±0.28 mm yr⁻¹ in sea-level rise and agree with the upper-ocean estimate to within the estimated uncertainties. Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes -0.13±0.72 mm yr⁻¹ to global sea-level rise and -0.08±0.43 Wm⁻² to Earth’s energy balance. The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64±0.44 Wm⁻² from 2005 to 2013.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:08pm PT
Complete B.S. paper Ed.

Likely underestimated-typical weasal wording. Suite of models- as I suspected. Heat hiding in the southern oceans where monitors are sparse- how typically convenient, where is Cowtan and Way?

EDIT: your second offering has a better title at least

Question Ed; how much has sea level risen in your local seas of SF bay over the last 35 years?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:13pm PT
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf

Nature Geoscience PUBLISHED ONLINE: 22 JANUARY 2012 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1375


Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty

Norman G. Loeb, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard P. Allan, David R. Doelling, Takmeng Wong, Brian J. Soden and Graeme L. Stephens

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2 . Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm⁻² (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:15pm PT
your reading skills have declined substantially, rick...

you forgot to see, or perhaps you didn't understand, that the first paper is driven by satellite data...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:32pm PT
What does a large suite of climate models mean to you Ed? Don't be so quick to assume I am addled and you are not.

Now , about your local sea levels, in fact the whole west coast? Isostatic rebound is not likely the cause of the west coast lack of sea level rise, nor is it likely that uplift uniformly along the entire subduction zone is the cause. So why is it that we have disagreement between tide gauges and satellite and even between different satellites?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 6, 2014 - 10:55pm PT
addled? well I read the paper...
and the supplementary material.

But I guess your brilliance need not be so constrained as to actually respond to what was written, substituting instead what you imagine was written.

Pretty typical of your responses, rick, even when you can read the papers you don't understand them, nor do you feel you need to, but you can always give us your opinion.

Nature doesn't print B.S.... by the way.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 7, 2014 - 06:55am PT
Yes that might be true,The Chief.

But it is not,and you and yours[that article,opinion] are full of that fantasy.

You are right,you are not a denier.



wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 7, 2014 - 07:17am PT
"Maybe that is what is missing in climate science — the lack of any sort of tradition of the maverick being righter than the entire body of established work"


Truly Laughable,though you wish it were true.


edit;What is a click? ...lol
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 7, 2014 - 07:48am PT
How so?

It reads like a deniers wish list.

Back to Work,thanks for the laughs,with two broken ribs from a recent trials mtb fall,that hurt.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:04am PT
Here's an piece I though found interesting.
    Sketch


Nothing like mind-bending intellect.



Maybe he's full of sh#t. I don't know. What I do know is this piece rang true.

Don't try to follow this logic unless you want to hurt yourself.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:22am PT
What's wrong with the piece Sketch?

Well, it's a long-winded rand that isn't based in reality. The intro says that it was edited for clarity, here's a small excerpt:

Think coral reefs — many of them are thriving, some of them are not, those that are not may not be thriving for many reasons, some of those reasons may well be human (e.g. dumping vast amounts of sewage into the water that feeds them, agricultural silt overwashing them, or sure — maybe even climate change.

First, this is false--the overall percentage of coral reefs are not "thriving." And the article fails to mention the real reason--acidification of the oceans (which is caused by what, Sketch?). Second, the "editor" is nonexistent.

I tried to read more, but the article is so full of itself, inaccuracies, and such that it hurts to read more than a few paragraphs.

I couldn't get far enough to see what the actual point is. But that's OK, I don't really need to waste my time reading an opinion piece about debating science from an anti-science blog.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:26am PT
Odd, you quote my whole post that basically says you don't know what you're talking about.

Instead of putting me in my place by showing us you do know what you're posting, you attack me.

Telling.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:41am PT
many of them are thriving

What does the word "many" mean to you, Sketch? To me it means a "significant portion."

Got something of substance to talk about?
raymond phule

climber
Oct 7, 2014 - 08:48am PT

many of them are thriving, some of them are not

So sketch, how do you interpret that combination of many and some?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:51am PT
Boy do I feel insulted--look who's calling me an idiot:


Here's an piece I though found interesting.
    Sketch

Maybe he's full of sh#t. I don't know. What I do know is this piece rang true.
    Sketch
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 7, 2014 - 08:57am PT
interesting that we're deflected from discussing the papers onto the questioning the papers' legitimacy.

Dr. Robert G. Brown makes many statements that are complete speculation, yet they are taken as "true." Who knows what may have occurred if Einstein were working "today," in fact, we don't have any idea of what the state of science would be. And it is not as if Einstein himself were the essential intellect without whom all our physics would have halted.

The idea of the "lone genius" is pretty much a myth, a way we used to understand the process, but not much of an actual description of the social aspects of doing science.

And while we may debate science, we do it in a scientific manner, as Prof. Brown knows, by identifying the errors in the arguments, or the interpretation of experimental results and observations. What I find among practicing scientists who often make comments regarding the state of climate science is that they actually have never walked over to the Geology departments to have a discussion with their colleagues who are practicing the science; that is, they don't actually know what is going on.

This was Mueller's problem, he thought he knew, and in the end worked it out for himself, good for him, but what he found was not surprising to the climate science community who had worked it out much earlier.

So let's get back to the papers, what they say is our observations of the southern ocean heat content was underestimated because we didn't have a lot of observation points in that ocean. Once we did, we found the heat content was higher. To verify that, satellite measurements of the ocean surface altitude were used, along with models, to constrain the actual heat content. Water changes it volume when heated, so the surface altitude contains information about this heat content.

The measurements take into account the changes in the crust as it rebounds from the last glacial maximum, and other systematic issues.

The Northern hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere are treated "separately" and the criteria in the analysis for matching requires both to be explained using the same methods. Since the NH is better measured, it can be compared to the observations. When the SH is treated in the same way, the resolved heat content from this method is used to correct the data coverage deficiencies.

rick thinks that's bullshit because he doesn't like the conclusion, but he can't argue the science.

apparently Sketch would rather discuss what is happening in science.

Science isn't about how to do science... it's about how to predict observation and experiment, and the process of getting there isn't straight forward, and often has nothing to do with where we eventually end up.

Those discussion can be taken to other threads.

If you've got a problem with science, show where the science is "wrong." And that doesn't mean plotting a particular time series normalized to some special point and jumping up and down that the data doesn't match the models.

It's a bit more than that.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 7, 2014 - 09:03am PT
I am curious about what you want and how you want to discuss your copy and past post.

The first very long part is about the funding of science. A subject that you know nothing about. Are you going to believe what other people tell you?


The next part is very long section about modeling with a lot of assertions that is way above your level of knowledge. It is clear that you don't understand anything at all about the details in that section. He neither give any details. It reads mostly as a name dropping some terminology that might or might not be applicable to the climate models. I also believe that it is completely useless to try to explain what he says and why it is correct or incorrect to you.

One thing is that he seems to suggest that we cant model chaotic systems with enough accuracy. Tell that to people modeling for example airplanes in flight and see if they agree.

So what do you want to discuss and how? Are you going to listen to other people that you disagree with?
Messages 16521 - 16540 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews