|
Post by icefisher on Mar 10, 2017 14:22:53 GMT
Trees rings are a very reliable proxy for temperatures .... provided the thermometer used is calibrated correctly? provided the thermometer used is repeatedly recalibrated correctly Uh would that be a self calibration or a supervisor calibration?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 10, 2017 15:13:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 10, 2017 17:54:26 GMT
Or more likely ... provided the scientist is calibrated correctly. Indeed. If a scientist can't see what side of his bread is buttered how can he possibly do anything else right? Perhaps so. We must expect each to competently look out for themselves. Yet, the scientist who pays more attention to his or her butter than to his or her duty, has little professional honor, and deserves not the title. There is a fine line (fuzzier for some than others) for which we must all answer.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 13, 2017 10:54:20 GMT
They are Fighting for Their Lives and the Ocean May be the Last Great Battlefield - One More Model to Save the Cause www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/10/the-worlds-oceans-are-storing-up-staggering-amounts-of-heat-and-its-even-more-than-we-thought/?tid=pm_business_pop&utm_term=.ae1abfbc4200The new study, which was led by Lijing Cheng of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and included other scientists from that institution, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, employs a new methodology for using both the recent Argo measurements and past observations from ships to produce a continuous series of estimates from 1960 to 2015. The scientists incorporated an updated database of pre-Argo measurements that have been corrected for certain biases, as well as information from climate models, and extended existing observations of ocean conditions taken at specific locations to larger areas of the sea. They then conducted a comparison of recent Argo data with measurements created using their new methodology and found that the method produces true-to-life results. The results suggest that the ocean has been sucking up more heat than previous research has indicated. In fact, according to Trenberth, the new estimates help explain observations of global sea-level rise that scientists have had difficulty accounting for until now. ... The results also come at a sensitive point for ocean and climate research, just a week after The Washington Post revealed a proposal from the Trump administration that calls for significant budget cuts for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including a 26 percent cut for its Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. It’s the primary research arm of NOAA, Trenberth pointed out, and such drastic cuts to the program could mean even basic observations programs like Argo may no longer continue.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2017 13:23:52 GMT
Help me understand. NOAA will still have billions of dollars. Yet, ARGO will be gone. Must not be showing what some would like it to show.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 13, 2017 16:24:41 GMT
Help me understand. NOAA will still have billions of dollars. Yet, ARGO will be gone. Must not be showing what some would like it to show. That was precisely my thought too. Yet ARGO is already out floating about, the running costs must be low. As you said it may not be showing the runaway hidden heat warming (unless particular models are run aka thumb on scales )
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 13, 2017 16:42:07 GMT
Argo is not showing those rises ... although their ready explanation has been, I believe, that the increases are deeper than Argo can see. Convenient. The warm bubbles are riding the deep-rail express and will surprise us somewhere soon. I assume they have done whatever adjustments needed to be done prior to Argo (aka the pause buster) ... and they dare not go back beyond 1960 or they would have to explain another warm ocean cycle. They are stuck between a cycle-bottom rock and a paused-out / declining hard place. How long till they get that golden parachute???
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 13, 2017 16:58:45 GMT
Yep, it is in the deep oceans where we can't measure it. Heck, we don't even understand the ocean currents yet.
YET...we know that there is a humongous increase in heat in the DEEP oceans. How do we know this? Scientists have said so.
Have we measured this? NOPE!
Call me a skeptic, but I have just had too many snake oil salesmen come to the farm.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 13, 2017 21:39:50 GMT
I hear it's good for arthritis.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Mar 14, 2017 0:50:55 GMT
I hear it's good for arthritis. Heat? Or snake oil? Personally, I like masseuses.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 14, 2017 6:16:37 GMT
I hear it's good for arthritis. Heat? Or snake oil? Personally, I like masseuses. Three choices .... all good.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 17, 2017 17:08:06 GMT
During the past two decades there has been considerable discussion about the relative contribution of different factors to the temperature changes observed now over the past 142 years. Among these factors are the “external’ factors of human (anthropogenic) activity, volcanoes and putative variations in the irradiance of the sun, and the “internal” factor of natural variability. Here, by using a simple climate/ocean model to simulate the observed temperature changes for different state-of-the-art radiative-forcing models, we present strong evidence that while the anthropogenic effect has steadily increased in size during the entire 20th century such that it presently is the dominant external forcing of the climate system, there is a residual factor at work within the climate system, whether a natural oscillation or something else as yet unknown. This has an important implication for our expectation of future temperature changes. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000GL006109/full
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 17, 2017 17:54:58 GMT
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616302401Highlights • The global temperature anomalies associated with ENSO and QBO in the UTLS are investigated. • The temperature variations over high and mid latitudes are closely related to the QBO. • A new robust index is developed to describe the strength of the ENSO and QBO signal.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 17, 2017 20:44:01 GMT
We examine mid-tropospheric temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere using the 500 mb pressure surface from reanalysis data as a representative level. This standard analysis level is significant meteorologically (i.e. for frontal identification and jet stream dynamics) and climatologically (e.g. changes in long term front and jet structures would be expected to extend throughout the troposphere as would tropospheric warming). We find that 500 mb temperatures are bracketed between about –42°C and –3°C with very few excursions beyond these brackets suggesting a limiting physical process or processes. In this paper we update the data for the –42°C limit which we have proposed in previous papers, document the –3°C limit for the first time, and briefly discuss the possible physical mechanisms responsible for this observed temperature bracketing concluding that the limits on both maximum and minimum temperatures are due to convective processes. This self-regulation of tropospheric temperatures constrains changes in jet stream and baroclinic storm dynamics and therefore constrains changes in climate variability. www.esciencecentral.org/journals/bracketing-climatological-midtropospheric-temperatures-in-the-northernhemisphere-an-observational-study-19792013-2332-2594-1000131.php?aid=58102
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Mar 19, 2017 22:36:53 GMT
youtu.be/vc6CHHrCV7gThis guy is hilarious, you may see where he's going with it about half way through.... Great take on AGW.
|
|