|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 1, 2009 21:41:06 GMT
Not to bother the thread with facts but the 10^22 J every year is an average, not a fixed 10^22 J every year. One year could have 5^22 J and another could have 15 and still meet that average. It could Socold, but in reality that has not happened.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 2, 2009 17:06:49 GMT
Not to bother the thread with facts but the 10^22 J every year is an average, not a fixed 10^22 J every year. One year could have 5^22 J and another could have 15 and still meet that average. (I assume that you mean 0.5x10^22 and 1.5x10^22. ) How does a net forcing change from year to year? In any case, how does one explain away 6 years in a row of 0, when an average of 10^22 J / yr is predicted? At what point does one say, "The projection is not right."
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2009 18:10:00 GMT
Not to bother the thread with facts but the 10^22 J every year is an average, not a fixed 10^22 J every year. One year could have 5^22 J and another could have 15 and still meet that average. (I assume that you mean 0.5x10^22 and 1.5x10^22. ) How does a net forcing change from year to year? In any case, how does one explain away 6 years in a row of 0, when an average of 10^22 J / yr is predicted? At what point does one say, "The projection is not right." If you are a scientist worth your salt, about now Hilbert. We shall see how this all plays out. (Wondering if 10 years would do it? 50 years? When would they realize how silly they look denying reality)
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 3, 2009 0:22:36 GMT
It's already accepted that any particular projection might not be right, what isn't accepted is that the data falsify any particular projection. There is large variation OHC records from year to year. Not as much as in the surface temperature records, but OHC records don't show a nice smooth linear increase in the past 30 years. This is one OHC record: Lots of ups and downs, why? Could be record problems or could be actual variation in OHC from year to year. Either way when no other 6 year period of the past 30 shows a smooth and fixed year by year increase in OHC, there can be no justifiable expectation for the past 6 years to show such a thing. Understanding that earth has a positive energy inbalance leads to the conclusion that OHC will rise over many years, but it's not clear from that alone that it will increase every 6 year period. That's definitely in doubt now for example. In that record above the trend over the past 6 years is as good as flat, but what about the trend over the past 8 years? In that record it looks like there is a trend since 2001 of about 10^22J per year. Is the record wrong to show that large increase in about 2003? Maybe. Maybe one of the other records are correct. But maybe not. And so it isn't so certain that expected rise in OHC is falsified. When the period of contention of the last 6 years is the most volatile record wise - eg data over this period is preliminary, some OHC records don't even cover all this period yet, a number of recent corrections have been made to OHC records, there is still disagreement between what has been published in different records in this period, talk of the sea level/ice cap mass/OHC not adding up over this period - I am not prepared to make strong conclusions that this or that has been falsified. If flat or falling OHC stands the test of time, eg we have 2003-2009 flat established in the records in 2015 and also preliminary 2009-2015 data show no warming either then the expectation of OHC rise will have serious problems.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 3, 2009 0:36:08 GMT
Socold: I don't think anyone is falsifying data. I know that certain prominent scientists have a political agenda they want to see happen, but I still refuse to believe they would put their integrity on the line by falsifying data. They may ignore data that disputes what theirs shows, but I just can't wrap my brain around the idea that they are flat out lying. Svensmarks new paper, his old paper, Christy's paper etc are all advances and what does happen is that certain scientists of fame will totally ignore the NEW DEVELOPMENTS. As Einstein indicated, they have a spinal cord which is serving them well. I will use a piece of machinery as an example, being I am very familiar with metal fatigue. When I see a small crack, I weld it as quickly as I can. IF I let that crack grow, it will affect the structural integrity of that machine to the point of utter failure and total disbandment of it as it is now junk. Worthless. What has happened in the science of those who are so certain, they see those cracks and try to put duct tape on them, rather than grinding them out and fixing them properly to keep that model running with as much precision as passable.
An open mind is what is totally important on climate. Who really cares if co2 doesn't amount to much of an influence. The main thing is to FIND and UNDERSTAND what does influence our climate. That has become an uphill battle but the incline is slowly falling because of the erosion of the present mind set.
I am just a layman, but I sure do love science of all kinds. Climate affects me every day in what I do, so I do try to understand it as well as I can and don't take kindly to people who put out garbage ,and have a hint that it is garbage, yet present it as settled.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 3, 2009 0:51:44 GMT
I don't mean falsified as in fraud I mean falsified as in falsification
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 3, 2009 1:55:25 GMT
Understanding that earth has a positive energy inbalance leads to the conclusion that OHC will rise over many years, but it's not clear from that alone that it will increase every 6 year period. That's definitely in doubt now for example. Now that is just plain stupid! If in any 6 year period it stops warming that means effectively there is no energy inbalance for those 6 years. Proponents of continuing energy inbalance are merely mired in ignorance and are too stupid to realize the full range of implications of what has happened. To have even a shred of an argument for future warming you have to rely entirely upon new forcings or develop an understanding of the mechanism that stopped the warming for those 6 years. If you don't you are purely guessing. . . .which isn't science at all. Now its reasonable that there could be 6 year periods that show up regularly in the data. We do have ocean oscillations for example. Of course they are longer than 6 years, but that doesn't matter we are dealing with a continuing cessation of leveling of warming that could go on much longer. Unfortunately the AGW advocates when they drew their projections for AR4 were ignorant of that. Now the ones that continue to deny it just look stupid. Now indeed the 30 year periodicity of that cycle is not set in stone so one need not embrace it as an explanation for recent non-warming, but it seems as convenient as any. . . .and certainly is at least something in the record with some historical information. Now to the underlying layer of warming not explained by ocean oscillations. . . .the question of that is definitely up in the air. Recovery from the LIA? Hmmmm, maybe. Folks dismissing that are guessing also. Claims that it would have played out now doesn't wash. For instance the record solar cycles of the last half of the 20th century may in fact be the LIA recovery still cranking out new heat. Now the stupid folks, the ones that failed to note any of this before forming their estimates of 3C+ warming based upon historical parameterization of ocean oscillations plus LIA recoveries and whatever else to the extent they exist, blew away solar as too weak. But that was before we heard about the ocean oscillations and how they account for about half to 2/3rds of the warming of the last 30 years. So the solar only needs to be one third as strong. That too much? Well maybe it is. But for the stupid its beyond the realm of possibility the warming of the past century and a half could have been caused by more than one factor, certainly not 3, 4, or 5 . . . . right? After all its such a simplicistic system no way it could be that complicated. . . .right? Stoooooooooopid is as stooooooooopid does!!!! You go right ahead an preach all your nonsense you like, after all there is a chance you could be right, but keep in mind all that jumping to conclusions comes off as stupid nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 3, 2009 2:27:28 GMT
Understanding that earth has a positive energy inbalance leads to the conclusion that OHC will rise over many years, but it's not clear from that alone that it will increase every 6 year period. That's definitely in doubt now for example. Now that is just plain stupid! If in any 6 year period it stops warming that means effectively there is no energy inbalance for those 6 years. I agree, just as if in any 1 minute period it stops warming that means effectively there is no energy inbalance for that 1 minute period. But that doesn't tell us the energy inbalance over a longer period. If a drop in OHC falsifies AGW, does that mean it's falsified by a single month drop in OHC? I see plenty of month drops or even longer in the OHC records. So why is 6 years so special? It's because it's longer. So it's a quantative, not qualative argument. It's not simply that OHC has not risen, it's that it has not risen for a certain length of time. And that's the question, is six years of no rise enough to show that there isn't a long term inbalance? In terms of that graph is the past six years prove an overall rising trend has ended? Not at all. If OHC warming resumes it resumes, irregardless of whether anyone can explain the pause. Or is it that the peak in ocean oscillations is a manifestation of the warming itself? For example if greenhouse gases caused warming of the north atlantic in the past 30 years for example, it would have automatically caused the AMO to go positive. But it cannot then be said that the +AMO caused the warming, it would be circular reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 3, 2009 3:08:23 GMT
Now that is just plain stupid! If in any 6 year period it stops warming that means effectively there is no energy inbalance for those 6 years. I agree, just as if in any 1 minute period it stops warming that means effectively there is no energy inbalance for that 1 minute period. But that doesn't tell us the energy inbalance over a longer period. If a drop in OHC falsifies AGW, does that mean it's falsified by a single month drop in OHC? I see plenty of month drops or even longer in the OHC records. So why is 6 years so special? It's because it's longer. So it's a quantative, not qualative argument. It's not simply that OHC has not risen, it's that it has not risen for a certain length of time. And that's the question, is six years of no rise enough to show that there isn't a long term inbalance? In terms of that graph is the past six years prove an overall rising trend has ended? Not at all. If OHC warming resumes it resumes, irregardless of whether anyone can explain the pause. Or is it that the peak in ocean oscillations is a manifestation of the warming itself? For example if greenhouse gases caused warming of the north atlantic in the past 30 years for example, it would have automatically caused the AMO to go positive. But it cannot then be said that the +AMO caused the warming, it would be circular reasoning. The circular reasoning comes from thinking that co2 caused the Arctic to warm in the past 30 years. The real reason, looking at it historically, is that it does this on schedule about every 30-40 years. Just that plain simple. There is not even a correlation to co2 in the Arctic temps, and I do not know the causation of the warming, I just know historically that it happens.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 3, 2009 4:45:19 GMT
Now that is just plain stupid! If in any 6 year period it stops warming that means effectively there is no energy inbalance for those 6 years. I agree, just as if in any 1 minute period it stops warming that means effectively there is no energy inbalance for that 1 minute period. But that doesn't tell us the energy inbalance over a longer period. If a drop in OHC falsifies AGW, does that mean it's falsified by a single month drop in OHC? I see plenty of month drops or even longer in the OHC records. We know a month or even two year variations are natural as they are repeated throughout the record. We also have good evidence they do not effect the long term trend. But the same cannot be said about 6 year events except to the extent you can match them to longer scale ocean oscillations. Dr Easterbrook accepted the ocean oscillation theory and built a projection of about .5 degree warming over the next century. A nice tidy hypothesis sucking about 85% of the air out of the AGW hype. Perhaps the last 15% will be accounted for by some Grand Maximum solar theory with the Almighty timing a turn around like Jacobs horns bringing down the walls of Jericho. At any rate losing 65 to 85% of a theory before reaching first base is not a real good start. You though are a special case. You have no remaining theory for the 6 years. Or at least you don't have a deductive or inductive logical argument for an alternative. That leaves you guessing. In fact you are kind of like the guy that decides to go shell collecting after the tide goes way out after the big earthquake while those who have studied their history are heading for the hills. And that's the question, is six years of no rise enough to show that there isn't a long term inbalance? In terms of that graph is the past six years prove an overall rising trend has ended? Yeah certainly it did end. You are speculating on it restarting. You are speculating that the end of the trend wasn't a balancing of the books. You are speculating the end of the trend is temporary. You have no idea if thats for another month, another year, another decade, or forever. Thats because you still don't accept it is anything but noise. But it doesn't look anything like the noise we are used to seeing. Not at all. If OHC warming resumes it resumes, irregardless of whether anyone can explain the pause. My o my how imaginative. Another meteor is going to strike earth too Socold. Or is it that the peak in ocean oscillations is a manifestation of the warming itself? For example if greenhouse gases caused warming of the north atlantic in the past 30 years for example, it would have automatically caused the AMO to go positive. But it cannot then be said that the +AMO caused the warming, it would be circular reasoning. We know you are in denial of the history of large scale ocean oscillations, no doubt not because there is no evidence of them but because of how it flattens the heretofore alarmist rhetoric you have been spreading. But thats not a very scientific reason to choose to ignore that which we have seen before like in 1940 when CO2 emissions were much lower.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 3, 2009 5:30:31 GMT
Actually Icefisher: The peak of the last warming cycle in the Arctic appears to have been in the 1944 year range. That is the year that the St Roch sailed the NW passage using the long route.
The peak in this cycle would have been around 2005/2006....so it is right on time. Seems the ice is melting slower and slower now, and the ice minimum is going to be no big deal. Just the normal cyclical events that Canada has recorded for over 300 years.
I always find it amazing how someone says ever recorded.....yet.....they havn't looked at the long term records available.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 3, 2009 8:32:49 GMT
I always find it amazing how someone says ever recorded.....yet.....they havn't looked at the long term records available. Oh but it's GREAT if you're one of those people trying to dupe the public out of millions or one of the alarmist scientists that admits that they tend to "exaggerate" (lie) about climate change to get people to act. All they have to do is just say it and hope nobody thinks to look at the old records.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 4, 2009 12:54:11 GMT
Perhaps we could moderate the tone a bit?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 4, 2009 19:51:39 GMT
We know a month or even two year variations are natural as they are repeated throughout the record. We also have good evidence they do not effect the long term trend. But the same cannot be said about 6 year events except to the extent you can match them to longer scale ocean oscillations. The graph shows more interesting variation than a few months to two years. The particular record above for exmaple shows a large rise in OHC around 2002/2003. The flatness since then negates some of that, but interestingly if the 1990-2000 trend had continued to 2009 we would have lower OHC by now despite no 6 flat years. Don't forget it might be incorrect to simply project patterns seen in the record. I've already given them. One is that the records may be incorrect over this 6 year period. Another is that such 6 year variation can occur. 1995-2001 in that record looks pretty flat to me for example.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Aug 4, 2009 23:26:54 GMT
We know a month or even two year variations are natural as they are repeated throughout the record. We also have good evidence they do not effect the long term trend. But the same cannot be said about 6 year events except to the extent you can match them to longer scale ocean oscillations. The graph shows more interesting variation than a few months to two years. The particular record above for exmaple shows a large rise in OHC around 2002/2003. The flatness since then negates some of that, but interestingly if the 1990-2000 trend had continued to 2009 we would have lower OHC by now despite no 6 flat years. Don't forget it might be incorrect to simply project patterns seen in the record. I've already given them. One is that the records may be incorrect over this 6 year period. Another is that such 6 year variation can occur. 1995-2001 in that record looks pretty flat to me for example. The graph shows more interesting variation than a few months to two years. The particular record above for exmaple shows a large rise in OHC around 2002/2003. The flatness since then negates some of that, but interestingly if the 1990-2000 trend had continued to 2009 we would have lower OHC by now despite no 6 flat years. And you don't see something odd about that one year jump? Explain once again why OHC stopped increasing. How about this: the ARGO system covers a much larger area and is more accurate than the XBT system. if the 1990-2000 trend had continued to 2009 we would have lower OHC by now despite no 6 flat years. I'd like to hear the reasoning for that one. Let's see, it stopped increasing, but would have stopped increasing anyway
|
|