Where's the Heat, Cooling Oceans

[northsphinx]

Apr 24, 2010 13:56:46 GMT socold said:

The premise of AGW is four simple points:

1. Greenhouse gases warm the earth

2. Human activity is raising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere

3. The rise in greenhouse gases dominates the total effect humans have on global temperature

4. The human warming impact is large enough to be the most important factor in temperature changes over the next 100+ years

In summary
Anthropogenic Global Warming - that man is warming the globe, is based on 4 evidence based points. No extrapolation.

1 I believe it is the sun that heat the earth.

2 Among other things

3 Really questionable and I have still not seen that peer reviewed paper.

4 Don't agree because of 1.

[icefisher]

Apr 24, 2010 16:43:18 GMT nautonnier said:

It is also notable that Bangladesh has _gained_ land area in the last few years and areas on the coast of southern India the sea has dropped exposing villages that had previously been under the sea.


you can carry on with your straight line trends based on global averages but the world environment is not a controlled environment and does not appear to be obeying the models.

There you go!

If on average major land masses are subducting, sea level will rise and the measured rate of rise would be larger than actual since the calibration of instruments would be affected as well.

One would have to presume they are either rising or falling you might have a 50% chance of having erroneous data right out of the box.

Not sure how one would test for that. We are observing land masses rising and falling relative to everything else but how do you get to a baseline?

Triangulating off of other planets would seem to pose some major precision issues. Seems you to pin it down one would have to first figure out the other variables via heat content variation water expansion physics, long term ice melt rates rather than turning the science on its head and determining causes of sea level rise based upon the assumption plate teutonics has nothing to do with it.


commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png

Bottom line is when you look at the sea level rise estimates for the past 130 years and compare it to the temperature record, it doesn't show hardly any sensitivity to temperature change with sea level rise just plowing through the flat temperature period from 1944-1976 with hardly a burp.

[glc]

Apr 24, 2010 16:16:24 GMT hilbert said:

Apr 24, 2010 13:31:49 GMT glc said:

...
Would anyone like to guess/estimate/calculate the probability of getting less than 4000 heads from 10000 tosses?

sigma = sqrt(n*p*q) = 50 (for a fair coin); expected value is 5000, so you're 20 s.d.'s out.

Always good to use proper statistics--you're probably a big fan of Climate Audit, eh? :-)

hilbert

Your calculation is correct. Perhaps you should have mentioned that q=1-p for the non-statisticians. The odds of getting below 4000 heads are astronomical which is a slightly surprising result.

As for Climate Audit. Yes, I am a "big fan". In one of Steve McIntyre's first posts he mentioned an "exchange of views" that I had with Michael Mann on the Realclimate site (see climateaudit.org/2005/02/20/bring-the-proxies-up-to-date/ ). The post refers to a question put to Mann by a civilian (me) about lack of proxy data from ~1980 (See 7th paragraph).

I was also mentioned in this post: climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%e2%80%99s-nature-trick/ . The reference to me is in the paragraph which begins "Back in December 2004...". From this you may notice that I was one of the few people who was challenging Mann about the 'hide the decline' trick at that time. I've also exchanged emails with Steve McIntyre on a couple of occasions.

[hairball]

Here's the missing heat in action:



Since Global Warming can apparently stealthily evade our sensors to hide under the oceans perhaps the 1980-1998 warming was the MWP coming back to haunt us. Or the RWP coming back to haunt us. Or maybe the Ice Age is coming back to haunt us. Or maybe climatology is full of crap.

[magellan]

Apr 24, 2010 13:56:46 GMT socold said:

Apr 23, 2010 21:54:59 GMT magellan said:

The entire premise of AGW is based on extrapolation of trends and even single events into the distant future.

Not even remotely true. The premise of AGW is four simple points:

1. Greenhouse gases warm the earth
This is scientific fact. Based on physics not at all on extrapolation.

2. Human activity is raising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere
Again this is a scientific fact and is not based on extrapolation. We aren't simply seeing rising co2 levels and extrapolating that rise into the future. We know why it's rising and we expect the rise to continue, not because of extrapolation, but because we understand the ongoing cause of the rise (our emissions which are very likely to continue throughout this century)

3. The rise in greenhouse gases dominates the total effect humans have on global temperature
Understanding the warming caused by doubling co2, or the cooling caused by emitting aerosols is based on physics, not extrapolation. The net effect humans have on global temperature is dominated by our greenhouse gas emissions (co2 and friends). That net effect is positive. Ie humans activitity is having a warming effect on climate and this warming effect is increasing over time.

4. The human warming impact is large enough to be the most important factor in temperature changes over the next 100+ years

At even 1C warming per doubling of co2, that's more than the total warming of the 20th century. And that's only co2, there are other greenhouse gases we are increasing too. So the total temperature change from 2000 to 2200 is going to be significantly impacted by human greenhouse gas emissions.

In summary
Anthropogenic Global Warming - that man is warming the globe, is based on 4 evidence based points. No extrapolation.



Obviously if arctic sea ice starts increasing everyone will accept it. What skeptics are having trouble grasping is the reality of data. You can't claim the multi-decadal sea level rise has ended or multi-decadal arctic sea ice decline has ended based on 2 or 3 years of data.

June 5th, 2009: On Climate Progress, NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, (and the “breathtaking ignorance” for blogs like WattsUpWithThat).

April 4, 2010: Dr. Serreze said in an interview with The Sunday Times: “In retrospect, the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated.” (not breathtakingly ignorant?)

The list is long for these types of statements from the AGW priesthood.

So two wrongs make a right? Despite commenting on the sea ice threads on many occassions, I personally have never made any claims about 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 sea ice based on short term trends. Go back and find an example if you think I have.

Now that you've reiterated your Articles of Faith, isn't it supposed to work something like this?

www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml



So what is the cause and effect? Can you rule out natural causes? Have they been ruled out? Evidence?

[stranger]

Socold seems unable to wrap his mind around two very simple concepts. First, if you cannot measure it, you have no reasonable basis to form a conclusion. Second, excessive accuracy is a red flag in itself.

As it happens, there are quite a number of now disused sewer pipes that run some distance into the ocean and the open end is at considerable depth. Since "water finds its own level," over relatively short distances there is no great problem in measuring the sea surface level in those pipes. Over a relatively short time, an accurate mean - relative to the surface at that point - is absurdly easy to obtain.

Of course, this does not determine "sea level." It only determines the distance from an arbitrary point on the surface to present local sea surface height. For determining whether the sea is rising or falling that is all that is needed. The result?

Measurements at several points seem to show mean sea height has fallen some three sixteenths of an inch in ten years. Within three sixteenths of an inch - meaning an overall change between zero and three eighths of an inch.

Which is about what should be expected considering all factors.

Stranger

[Ratty]

Measurements at several points seem to show mean sea height has fallen some three sixteenths of an inch in ten years. Within three sixteenths of an inch - meaning an overall change between zero and three eighths of an inch.

Got a reference, Stranger?

[socold]

Apr 25, 2010 2:24:56 GMT stranger said:

Socold seems unable to wrap his mind around two very simple concepts.

It's four simple concepts I am having trouble wrapping my mind around. Probably because these concepts contradict each other. I am being told to believe all four by different people.

-Sea level has stopped rising in recent years
-Sea level has never been rising, if anything it's been falling
-Sea level is rising as it always has been since the little ice age
-We don't know what sea level is doing because of measurement inaccuracy.

[magellan]

AGW promoters are preparing the faithful flock for "how to talk to skeptics" for the continuation of non-warming global warming. Easterling is hardly a "skeptic".

Just be ready for the onslaught of "nobody ever said global warming would continue without 20 or 30 years of cooling". Be sure John Cook has put his spin on it the first day the paper was released for public regurgitation

Is the climate warming or cooling?

Yes, it is becoming evident the global warming pimps have read the tea leaves, and while they search for the non-existent missing heat, a new-and-improved AGW storyline is needed.

socold, maybe you should formulate the next line of talking points.

[nautonnier]

Read the abstract from www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

I particularly like the (post normal) scientific language in the abstract:

"We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming."

It does appear that the vague almost political language is preparing 'get out of jail free' cards for an expected drop in temperatures. Yet the AGW proponents are currently strongly arguing, and with some justification, that a temperature drop is NOT occurring.

Hedge your bets anyone?

[icefisher]

Apr 25, 2010 16:27:09 GMT nautonnier said:

Read the abstract from www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

I particularly like the (post normal) scientific language in the abstract:

"We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming."

It does appear that the vague almost political language is preparing 'get out of jail free' cards for an expected drop in temperatures. Yet the AGW proponents are currently strongly arguing, and with some justification, that a temperature drop is NOT occurring.

Hedge your bets anyone?

I am curious where they provided the support for the "or two" since the only examples they gave lasted no more than 7 or 8 years?

The "or two" is old news having been shown by both Don Easterbrook and Syun-Ichi Akasofu showing "or three" exposing an underlying warming of .05C per decade. Here we have an example of speculative keep the blinders on science that adds nothing whatsoever to the debate and extrapolates well beyond any observation they provided.

Trofim Lysenko should be proud of his prodigy.

[glc]

Apr 25, 2010 17:03:11 GMT icefisher said:

Apr 25, 2010 16:27:09 GMT nautonnier said:

Read the abstract from www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

I particularly like the (post normal) scientific language in the abstract:

"We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming."

It does appear that the vague almost political language is preparing 'get out of jail free' cards for an expected drop in temperatures. Yet the AGW proponents are currently strongly arguing, and with some justification, that a temperature drop is NOT occurring.

Hedge your bets anyone?

I am curious where they provided the support for the "or two" since the only examples they gave lasted no more than 7 or 8 years?

The "or two" is old news having been shown by both Don Easterbrook and Syun-Ichi Akasofu showing "or three" exposing an underlying warming of .05C per decade. Here we have an example of speculative keep the blinders on science that adds nothing whatsoever to the debate and extrapolates well beyond any observation they provided.

Trofim Lysenko should be proud of his prodigy.

If the underlying (AGW) trend is 0.2 deg per decade then it's perfectly possible that there will be periods of up to a decade when natural factors will offset the warming. We've been over this dozens of times. For a while the UAH trend since 1998 was negative. It is now positive.

We still haven't managed to find out where Akasofu got his data from. Most of the long-term datasets show a flat trend throughout the 19th century - contrary to what Akasofu shows. However, Akasofu seems a bit reluctant to cite his source. How's Easterbrooks projection of cooling from 2000 doing, by the way?

[nautonnier]

The underlying question here is how long does a cooling period have to extend till the AGW hypothesis is accepted as flawed?

What is being said here is for one two three --- name a number _decades_ the atmospheric and ocean temperatures can cool and STILL "CO₂ causes global warming by trapping heat" is a valid hypothesis.

I put it to you glc that this is an unsupportable position.

The amount of heat required and its concealment are just impossibilities.

The AGW support for CO₂ being responsible for warming was that 'there is no other explanation'. Well the explanation now appears to be fatally flawed - although I am certain you have an excuse.

[socold]

Figure two shows a 15 year period in one of the model runs (labelled 2016-2031)

[glc]

Apr 25, 2010 20:15:29 GMT nautonnier said:

The underlying question here is how long does a cooling period have to extend till the AGW hypothesis is accepted as flawed?

What is being said here is for one two three --- name a number _decades_ the atmospheric and ocean temperatures can cool and STILL "CO₂ causes global warming by trapping heat" is a valid hypothesis.

I put it to you glc that this is an unsupportable position.

The amount of heat required and its concealment are just impossibilities.

The AGW support for CO₂ being responsible for warming was that 'there is no other explanation'. Well the explanation now appears to be fatally flawed - although I am certain you have an excuse.

Why does the explanation appear to be "fatally flawed"?