Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Photizo, Nov 29, 2009.

  1. milkweed Valued Senior Member

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. milkweed Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Now we have a chief business adviser to the Australian Government, Maurice Newman, saying (May 8, 2015):
    "This is not about facts or logic. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN"
    "Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule, according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser."

    Any one serious about dealing with global climate change hasn't got a hope with the sort of confusion these sorts of crazy statements can cause.
    Photizo likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I don't see anything for heat content except air temperatures.

    Looks like a statistical artifact of the air temperature blip around 1998 and an unexplained truncation of the data.

    So what's your answer to the question of what happened to the global air temps around 1998, and not before or since?

    Or if you want an easier one, that you might in fact be able to answer: why do these repostings from your chosen sources so often begin just after 1996, and focus on air temps only?
    Last edited: May 8, 2015
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Agreed. Best to ignore the insane statements and focus on the science. Good example:
    03.05.2015 07:46 Age: 5 days

    Gravity data shows that Antarctic ice sheet is melting increasingly faster, according to a new paper by Princeton scientists.

    by Morgan Kelly, Princeton University

    During the past decade, Antarctica's massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent's ice cap is melting ever faster.

    The researchers "weighed" Antarctica's ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be more than a mile high — more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Warmest years on record: (year/anomaly)
    2014 +.69
    2010 +.66
    2005 +.65
    1998 +.64

    You were saying?
  11. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Here is how to weigh things from satellite (Same way we recently learned SW US was mining much more water than was thought by summing up reported use.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    " The accelerating ice shelf loss is due to warm ocean currents that have encroached on West Antarctica's ice shelves, melting them from below."

    Above quote is from:

    Billy T explains: Why there is a "buoyant melt plume" (Shown under the ice flowing up and out, as a lighter blue (hard to see against the darker blue). This is exposing more of the lower ice surface to warmer water that replace the rising to surface, "buoyant melt plume." I. e. There is now an active bouancy driven flow bring warmer water into contact with the lower surface of the ice - Accelerating its melting, which then increase the buoyant flow.
    I lost count, but think this is new, now known, positive feed back number 32.

    Although most things contract as they cool, and water does too, but only as the temperature falls down to 4C. As 4C water cools to say 2C, it expands - becomes less dense or is "buoyant" compared to 4 or 5C water. Zero C water, from the just melted ice, is even more buoyant than the 2C water.

    Also interesting to note (scary perhaps): The average surface of the ocean (winds & currents neglected) is "level" or more correctly stated: all at the same gravitational potential. The shape of this equal potential surface depends up on the distribution of mass. For example a big important mass that moves wrt to the earth, is the moon. The moon's movement, even though far away causes the "equal potential surface" to move up and down RWT some part of the "solid earth" - like the shore line. I. e. makes "tides"

    A much smaller but much closer mass can make "tides" too if it moves. The inverse square gravitational law "helps" amplify the effect of the smaller /closer moving mass. All that Antarctic ice is currently "pulling water" into the southern hemisphere. If some (or all) of it were to melt, the greater mass of now liquid water, would be higher everywhere than it is now but, and this is the point, no longer be pulled towards the South Poll.

    The sea level rise will be greater in the North Atlantic than any were else when some Antarctic ice melts. - Sort of just, don't you think?
    US and Europe were the main sources of the already released by man, CO2 that now for first time has had a month long average above 400 ppm.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 8, 2015
  12. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    The Pause:

    The recent pause in warming

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    July 2013

    And finally:

    LOL. No guarantee the real world will cooperate with our models.....

    And so it goes...
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    From this link's 2nd paper:
    "... Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role."

    That is the "why" of an AIR TEMPERATURE rise pause, I think. There is no reason to think that IR radiation to space has increased, causing air temperature to pause or rise significantly more slowly, and good reason to think IR radiation to space has decreased as Earth's Green House Gases "blanket" grows thicker. - Last month was first time the average of CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm for a full month average.

    A small part of the air temperature pause may be due to sun's 11 year cycle being in a lower sunspot count phase recently (very slightly less solar energy coming to earth than when sunspots were more numerous), but that tiny variation in intensity can not explain the pause by its self. Also it is a measured fact that the deeper ocean is now warming faster than the surface ocean. This is quite typical of thermal conduction - a time lag.*

    * In fact native houses in US's SW made of adobe usually are nearly perfect in their wall thickness. I.e. the heat absorbed during the day is a "thermal wave pulse" that reaches the inner wall about 12 hours later when the night air is cold. I.e. the heat of ocean surface when sun spots were in max of their cycle is a thermal wave propagating into the deeper ocean now and warming it.

    Those natives have not solved the thermal surface step function in temperature's propagation into interior equation as I have - but the required adobe wall thickness for a 12 hour time lag was empirically learned generations earlier.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2015
  14. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    What you forgot is "The second suggests"... and it ends with ..."the Pacific Ocean may play a key role."

    What you deny is that these same things are also inline with natural variability, including (by some estimates) 40% to 60% of the observed past warming (ie 75-97). And that is the most generous (when thinking agw). Others put it at 60-80% of the 75-97 warming as natural variation.

    We have already translated Ocean Heat Content from Joules to temp in past discussion. .06 (6/100ths) degree Celsius in approx 60 years in the top 2000 meters and if I remember correctly 9/100ths of a degree in the top 700 meters. Which is also calculated in the Pause via sst.

    Further reading on "the Oceans ate my Global Warming":

    63 excuses for the pause (note how many are unrelated to AGW-ie natural variability)
  15. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    To milkweed:My start of post 2370 also ends with "the Pacific Ocean may play a key role" So have no idea what fist line of your post 2371 is about.

    I am not denying natural varibality, but point to one cause of AIR TEMPERATURE varying form ten year trend of a few years ago: More of the every greater solar heating of Earth (due to the strong trend of CO2 and other green houses making Earth's "thermal blanker" thicker every year has been heating the deeper ocean, not the air, you focus on.

    You are posting confused non-sense when you speak of "translated Ocean Heat Content from Joules to temp" as they are different thing. Just as you can not translate MPH into feet. Or for example ice at 0C has less heat /joules than 0C water does. (by 80 calories /gram). I. e. heat content is not in any simple way related to temperature.

    I did not read your "ocean ate my global warming" links as, yes I think that is mainly what has caused the "pause" in AIR TEMPERATURE rise as Earth's total heat content continues to increase each year as the thermal blanket for IR radiation grows thicker.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  16. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Yeah. Refuse to read anything that contradicts your belief.

    If you cannot translate Joules into temp then you better tell that to the people analyzing argo data.
    REPEAT of Post 267 Jan 24 2015.

    lol OMG .06 of a degree (c) CCC (TM)

    lol I cannot imagine how hard my doctor would laff If I came in with a fever of .06 degree (c). I believe he would recommend a placebo and diagnose a case of hypochondria. You should think about that BillyT.
    Billy T likes this.
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yep. You'd probably "laff" at anything your doctor said, since he is a member of the "consensus scientific community." And as we all know - THERE'S NO CONSENSUS!

    I can just see it now -
    "Sir, you have pancreatic cancer. Your biopsy shows malignant cells."
    "But has my body temperature changed?"
    "Yes, that's one of the reasons you are running a fever."
    "But has the temperature of my eye changed?"
    "Well, that has changed very slightly, but the temperature of your eye isn't really . . . ."
    Last edited: May 10, 2015
  18. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    No problem to convert a change in heat content to a change in temperature IFF you specify ,as argo people did, the nature and mass of the object with increased heat content. In there case they said: "the upper 700m of the ocean"

    Your error was to think there was some universal conversion between joules added and temperature rise. I even noted that 80 calories (334.72 joules) could be added to a gram of ice with no temperature rise.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    It's called "science", not "mathematics", for a reason - one of the implications of the uncertainty, btw, is that the warming trends and problems might be worse than the models predict. We have seen that with the ice melt in the Arctic and Antarctic, for example, where the models missed way low. The assumption that the science will be wrong only in the direction the unscientific and politically motivated prefer is not a safe one.

    So you think that's a small number?

    What is it with you guys that anything to the right of a decimal point, regardless of scale or units or measurement accuracy or consequences, is somehow trivial or tiny in your view?

    Remember when the standard denialist honk was to tell everyone how small a fraction of the atmosphere was CO2? That it was a "trace gas" and therefore trivial? You might have learned from that experience.
  20. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Last edited: May 15, 2015
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Peiser? Ah yes, I remember him. He's the one who claimed "THERE'S NO CONSENSUS!" and claimed that all the figures about the consensus were inaccurate. When he was asked to prove this, he listed 34 papers in a study of 928 peer reviewed papers that he claimed did not agree with the consensus. When people started asking him more questions, he started to back down: "I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay." When the pressure mounted, he admitted he could only find ONE paper that refuted the consensus - thus proving that there was, in fact, a consensus.

    I expect the same thing to happen here. In a year or so he'll publish an apology when his deceit is exposed, hoping no one will notice. This is common among climate change deniers. The pattern usually goes like this:

    Denier: "There's no warming!"
    Science: "Here's the proof."
    Denier: "The numbers were doctored!"
    Science: "Here's the trend without the adjustment and the trend with the adjustment. They both show warming."
    Denier: "Well, look, it might be warming a little bit, but why did you have to change things?"
    Science: "Because we reviewed the instrumental data, and realized that there were systemic errors in this list of stations due to the type of thermocouple they were using. Since the errors were nonlinear, the adjustment was made . . . "
    Denier: "Well that's all very confusing; I certainly don't understand it. Why is there a discrepancy? WHY IS THERE NO TRANSPARENCY?"
    zgmc likes this.
  22. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

  23. milkweed Valued Senior Member


Share This Page