|
Post by hilbert on May 7, 2009 12:30:08 GMT
"Observed Ocean Heat. A comparison of these projections to observed data is shown below. Despite expectations of warming, temperature measurements of the upper 700m of the ocean from the ARGO array show no increase from 2003 through 2008. Willis calculates a net loss of -0.12 (±0.35) x 1022Joules per year (Pielke, Physics Today,55) from mid-2003 to the end of 2008 (Dr. Pielke received permission from Josh Willis to extend the ARGO data to the end of 2008). "
Please note the parenthetical.
|
|
|
Post by gridley on May 7, 2009 14:27:10 GMT
You left out all the more realistic cases. Such as: AGW is real, AGC is possible, No steps are taken, AGW was never a threat of a disaster. and my favorite more typical government scenario: AGW is real, AGC is possible, despite that the wrong steps are taken, so economic damage results and nothing ecologically happens anyway because AGW will be taken care of naturally. Perhaps I should have been clearer in my definitions (I thought "oceans will rise..." was enough; guess not). The first four cases assume that AGW is strong enough, if unchecked, to cause a disaster. The four AGW- cases would include non-damaging GW, stable temperatures, and global cooling. I'll grant your second case is essentially outside the initial 8 cases.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 7, 2009 15:25:24 GMT
"Observed Ocean Heat. A comparison of these projections to observed data is shown below. Despite expectations of warming, temperature measurements of the upper 700m of the ocean from the ARGO array show no increase from 2003 through 2008. Willis calculates a net loss of -0.12 (±0.35) x 1022Joules per year (Pielke, Physics Today,55) from mid-2003 to the end of 2008 (Dr. Pielke received permission from Josh Willis to extend the ARGO data to the end of 2008). " Please note the parenthetical. In my lab, failure to properly caption a figure is a capital offence, as is failure to include error bars . He has a line marked "possible lower limit" when it is no such thing as it excludes any reasonable assessment of natural variability.
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on May 7, 2009 18:48:48 GMT
"In my lab, failure to properly caption a figure is a capital offence, as is failure to include error bars "
I don't think I've seen a single AGW graph meeting your criteria. Maybe you could have a word.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 7, 2009 20:34:20 GMT
"Observed Ocean Heat. A comparison of these projections to observed data is shown below. Despite expectations of warming, temperature measurements of the upper 700m of the ocean from the ARGO array show no increase from 2003 through 2008. Willis calculates a net loss of -0.12 (±0.35) x 1022Joules per year (Pielke, Physics Today,55) from mid-2003 to the end of 2008 (Dr. Pielke received permission from Josh Willis to extend the ARGO data to the end of 2008). " Please note the parenthetical. In my lab, failure to properly caption a figure is a capital offence, as is failure to include error bars . He has a line marked "possible lower limit" when it is no such thing as it excludes any reasonable assessment of natural variability. Josh Willis always has that problem - perhaps you could talk to him too However, there IS a divergence that is getting larger between the AGW expected/forecast OHC and the observed OHC -- I note that you are not really explaining that
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 8, 2009 9:53:26 GMT
"In my lab, failure to properly caption a figure is a capital offence, as is failure to include error bars " I don't think I've seen a single AGW graph meeting your criteria. Maybe you could have a word. Well I've just flicked through my copy of the WG1 Summary for Policy makers, and all the plots were captioned. I did have a student who, in an appeal to authority, showed me a text book where the figures were not captioned, and basically I stood my ground and said the book was wrong and I was right - with the subtext that you cannot always trust what you read in books. I think he was quite impressed by that! Actually, he's probably one of you sceptical lot who've just taken things too far ;D
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on May 8, 2009 16:27:23 GMT
This might be a silly question, but, if the ocean is in a La Nina "giving up cold", wouldn't that mean that one would expect the ocean to be taking up net heat? Vice-versa for El Nino?
|
|