Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 Next
Comments 49101 to 49150:
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:01 PM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
uknowispeaksense... And what's fascinating is how completely unaware they are of it.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 12:00 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"...maybe Richard is not realizing that DLR (photon energy) also goes into the oceans, primarily the skin layer I'd imagine"
See my Question 3) Jose. We've yet to determine what the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf process actually is and whether it includes DLR and their response to question 3) before debating the respective merits of the radiative cases.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:48 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
So, I'm curious if Gordon Fulks, Robert Knox and David Douglass also ready to reject 150 years of basic radiative physics, as Richard seems prepared to do.
-
Jose_X at 11:47 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
More could have been said on the cherry-picking: The "skeptics" did not just cherry-pick in looking at the atmosphere and not at the oceans. They also did in starting with 1998. If we start with 1997 or 1996 or further back (ie, 17 years, 18, etc, or whatever the new number), then we see more warming towards the present. A non-cherry-picked standard entity might look at natural decades. 2000s were warmer clearly than 1990s .. than 1980s, etc. It's only if you start in a particular year that you get the only mild atmosphere warming.
An analogy: If we try to improve our golf, chances are that our best score won't be our current game, but instead will be a game not too long ago. That doesn't mean we aren't improving, generally. We are as seen in our running average over say the last 10 or 50 games. The odds are high that the best point won't be the last one, so if we are foolish, we will frequently believe that we stopped improving rather than recognizing that there are many variables and reasons why our best game of all time won't be our current one even as out average steadily improves (maybe we got a bad night's sleep or were more distracted with something else on a given day).
And yes, as goes the cherry-pick mentioned in the article, we should average the oceans and the atmosphere weighted with respective masses and not just look at one and ignore the other. If two people throw darts at each other, to know who is hitting the other more, you want to look at the total darts on each body and not just the total darts on each neck. I might only get you twice in the neck vs the 3 stabs I took from you, but I might be outscoring 20 to 10 across our whole bodies. We have to average across the entire planet to know the effect the sun is having from increased insulation of CO2. -
Jose_X at 11:28 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
[..let me clarify.. cont.. did not mention that convection in the house also and primarily keeps the objects inside the house at a similar temp.]
-
uknowispeaksense at 11:25 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
WUWT, own-goaling all the way.
-
Jose_X at 11:19 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob, Dana, Richard, maybe Richard is not realizing that DLR (photon energy) also goes into the oceans, primarily the skin layer I'd imagine. Some of that energy transfer later results in evaporation, some leads to convection into the deeper ocean, and some radiates at least back into the atmosphere. If this is all correct, then thermodynamic analysis has to include DLR analysis and not just convection/conduction at the atmosphere/ocean boundary. [DLR stuff is covered decently in SoD as stated above already]
Richard, there is no magic. There are more photons bouncing around and keeping the average temperature higher near the earth's surface than there would be if all the original photons leaving the earth had simply left into space as happens basically on the moon. Inject heat on a continual basis partly towards the center of an oven (via grill), sweater (via human body), house (via radiator), planet (via sun bypassing gases exterior of planet), and the insulatative effect of the outer shell will lead to a warming effect and higher average temp inside in all of these cases vs if there was no insulatative effect. At any given point in time, the interiors have not just the energy added within the last second or so, but a fraction of the energy added minutes back and even hours or days or years back. This is why, for example, it takes a while to heat an oven. You have to accumulate energy over many seconds, and then why cooling after the energy source is removed also takes a while. Temperature is just an average of concentration of energy. If we had perfect insulation and kept adding energy at a slow rate, the temp would approach infinity. As for the sun/earth case, the sun is basically "off" half the time. We can liken this to a well insulated house that has the heater turned on only half the time (or even 1% of the time). When off, the temp drops only a little. This small loss (because much of the energy "headed out" must take a longer path throughout the house bouncing around objects via "blackbody radiation" and to and fro warm walls that pass energy through them via conduction only very slowly) is quickly made up in a short time by a hot heater (hot sun). If the insulation is better, the loss during the time the heater is off will be even less and then the heater will add more heat raising the temp until equilibrium is reached at a higher temp, that higher gradient between the new inside temp and outside temp then drives more heat out of the house faster until it matches what the part-time radiator was adding (remember that in many scenarios the rate of heat flow is proportional to the difference in temp). Improve the insulation further and the equilibrium temp will rise again. That is what CO2 does to the planet (which has any given side being heated part-time by the very hot sun). Add more insulation and the equilibrium temp will rise. Note that the oceans slow turnover and very large mass means the equilibrium temp in the atmosphere may not be reached for a while even when CO2 additions stop. [let me clarify, stronger insulation means the constant that is proportional to the diff in temp becomes smaller, meaning that a greater diff in temp is required to achieve the same prior total rate.. As an analogy, if I hold on to photons leaving my body a little better, then you have to fire more photons (aka, higher temp) in order for me to allow the same number as before to escape. Until this new number is reached, there will be more energy coming in than going out. Adding CO2 means that the atmosphere catches more photons leaving and so a higher temp is needed in order to again balance the large number of photons arriving from the sun.]
Hopefully, this explanation helps those of us who are not learned physicists/scientists in the subject. Sorry for the length. -
Richard C (NZ) at 11:05 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"You mean besides the fact that it's been measured?"
OHC has been measured/calculated but the relevant question is 2)a) and that is wrt major (by implication) atm => ocean heat transfer across the interface. That is not tha same as ARGO measuremets of ocean surface and below say.
>"Your question seems akin to asking how we know gravity exists."
I have 6 questions, 1), 2)a), 2)b), 3), 4)a), and 4)b). It is the answers to those one-by-one that myself and a number of others a looking for given the quotes in my initial comment from prominant climate scientists and those associated with the Nuccitelli et al 2012 paper and SkS that convey a distinct impression that the heat transfer process in question is a verified phenomenon. Gordon Fulks, Robert Knox and David Douglass have the link to this thread for example so now is an opportune time to state your case in detail with citations in response to each question individually.
If your case is rock solid there should be no problem responding to those 6 questions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:21 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Dana said... "Your question seems akin to asking how we know gravity exists."
Um, Richard, this is pretty much the point I was making which you responded to so irrationally. This all sounds like you're questioning basic physics.
If that's what you're doing, then let's be upfront about it.
-
dana1981 at 08:59 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
"They're taking as given that a majir atm => ocean heat transfer exists. I'm asking for the documented basis for it as per the question list."
You mean besides the fact that it's been measured? Your question seems akin to asking how we know gravity exists.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 08:27 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"Dana & Schmittner aren't proposing any ocean heat transfer process"
Exactly. They're taking as given that a majir atm => ocean heat transfer exists. I'm asking for the documented basis for it as per the question list.
>"Your Rahmstorf quote does not appear to be on topic for this particular post."
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. -
Richard C (NZ) at 08:19 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob Honeycutt at 07:14 AM>"Richard... Correct me if I'm wrong..."
I'm questioning EXACTLY what the questions ask, not what you think I'm questioning.
Moderator Response: [DB] Please cease being obtuse and clarify your question appropriately. -
Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard C (NZ) - Stockwell and "solar accumulation theory" are off-topic on this thread, as it is discussing the interpretation of ocean heat content, not claims against climate based on thermodynamics.
I would recommend taking any such discussion to Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming, and in particular to Tom Curtis's dissection of Stockwells errors.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed links; agreed on removing the off-topic items to the linked threads. -
Composer99 at 08:03 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard C:
Dana & Schmittner aren't proposing any ocean heat transfer process, merely correcting mistaken claims about empirically-observed phenomena. Your Rahmstorf quote does not appear to be on topic for this particular post.
So as far as I can see the trap you are falling into is (2) - running afoul of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:14 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard... Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're just questioning the thermodynamics behind the greenhouse effect.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:51 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"...the only explanation which adds up (har!) is the energy accumulating in the Earth system due to the GHG-caused radiative imbalance at top-of-atmosphere"
Solar accumulation theory by the oceanic heat sink is another explanation. See Dr David Stockwell's documentation of it.
>"As far as I am aware, the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases - even on the oceans - is that it slows down energy transfer out of the system."
You're subscribing to the Minnett solar accumulation - GHG isulation effect. As I've noted, that is not the subject of my questions. I'm questioning the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf GHG => ocean heat transfer process.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:41 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"Richard - we have been over this many times before on other blogs"
We have been over the Minnett solar accumulation - GHG insulation efffect. We have not been over the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf GHG => ocean heat transfer process. They are quite different, the latter rather more radical (going against the prevailing thermal gradient) and taking precedence lately hence my questioning of it.
I note Stefan Rahmstorf said the same as in my 2013 quote in the 2010 BBC documentary 'Earth Under Water". I'm curioius as to why that process is talked about as scientific fact when there's a paucity of documentation for it.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:26 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
My response at The Oregonian,
Moderator Response: [RH] hot linked url. -
Martin Lack at 05:50 AM on 6 February 2013We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
"The activity of the sun can be assessed by looking at proxies... One of these is the formation of the radioactive isotope Carbon-14 in the atmosphere... By measuring carbon-14 in tree rings... we can estimate how active the sun was at the time."
Can you please clarify if so-called skeptics do this? If they rely on proxy data to establish history of solar activity, how can they reject it (proxy data) for temperature?
-
Jonas at 04:20 AM on 6 February 2013Icy contenders weigh in
I donated to http://darksnowproject.org/ even before the research article on the importance weighting between Greenland and Antarctica melting became known: it's important to know if humanity can buy some time by reducing industrial soot and combatting wildfires more fiercly.
-
Daniel Bailey at 04:01 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
The most concise response to that, KR, is
"All The Way"
-
New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Considering the title of the latest paper,
Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation
I would have to say that the current response in the denial blogosphere is simply recursive. I wonder how deep, how many iterations, they are going to go?
-
New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
hank_ - I've read the new Lewandowsky, Cook, et al paper (pre-copy edited), I've looked over the comments at WUWT, and I have to say that the reaction to the new paper only supports the conclusions, that:
The overall pattern of the blogosphere's response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science...
(Emphasis added)
They just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. Rather astounding, actually, in terms of the lack of self-perception displayed in stacked conspiracy theorization, claims of persecution, and fact-free claims that their critics somehow Must Be Wrong.
The denialists are incredibly in need of a good mirror. But they would likely refuse to look at it, or claim that the image on it was painted by the Illuminati...
-
Eric Grimsrud at 03:24 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Hank, I would like to weigh in at WUWT as you suggest, but Watts has a long list of professional scientists who are now blocked out of his SHOW and I am on it. As my story reveals (see it at ericgrmsrud.wordpress,com, November archives), Mr. Watts has moved way beyond any pretense of discussing real science. If he lets you in, please tell him that quickly before he kicks you our also. Eric
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:23 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
It's really hard to avoid going off the rails when you have a one-track mind...
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:14 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
They are all welcome to take their concerns directly to the source: Stephan has a post up on the paper on his blog, here:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html
Being civilized people interested in getting the science right, I'm sure that will be their next step...
...any day now. Aannnyyy day... (-whistles, aimlessly-)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:59 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Went over and read the comments. Lots of complaining and ad hom (starting with Tony's opening sentence) but I don't see that anyone there has yet made a substantive statement. It's more like the Keystone Cops all running around bumping into each other.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:48 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Hank... They go off the rails regardless of what we or anyone else says. Not quite sure they were ever on the rails in the first place.
-
hank_ at 02:35 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Just a heads-up guys; SKS is being crucified over at WUWT (and other blogs) regarding Lewandowski and Cook's new paper(?). You may want to get out in front of this one before it goes off the rails!
H
Response: [JC] Actually Hank, what WUWT is doing is repeating all the same conspiracy theories we outline in our Recursive Fury paper. WUWT is proof of concept. I suggest reading our paper, then reread the WUWT post to gain a keener insight into the mindset over there. -
Eric Grimsrud at 02:20 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
For any party interested in this topic, I will call attention here to a "short course" on climate change that I have also created on my website, ericgrimsrud.com. It contains numerous power point slides along with narration. It is the result of numerous presentations I have given to various university and lay public organizations in Montana and the Northwest. It is presently in a first draft form to be continuously fine-tuned. Please provide feedback, if you wish, to ericgrimsrud@gmail.com. Thanks
-
johnenglander at 01:15 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
This is great. I wholeheartedly agree. More facts and intelligent points are not going to make the difference. We have enough information about climate change. That was the basis of my new book, HIGH TIDE ON MAIN STREET. I use a simple case about sea level rise, based on solid geologic history to get people's attention, to explain unambiguously that we have entered a new era, that will slowly but surely move the shoreline inward century after century. It is too late to stop, but what we do now will slow or speed up the devastating effects. My presentations over the last three months show high levels of effectiveness. I have been told I stumbled on the pathway to get past our primitive reptilean brain, which acts as the gatekeeper to our sophisticated human neocortex. The trick is to get their attention with something important -- like a moving shoreline -- that does not scare them to panic, but gives them a way out, delivered in a calm voice. It works.
-
DSL at 00:53 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard (non-entity), this has been hashed out over at SoD ad nauseum.
If you are suggesting that DLR does not result in ocean warming, could you provide a mechanism that does account for the current warming trend of both oceans and lakes in the absence of a TSI trend strong enough to account for such warming? If DLR does not provide the at-skin thermal barrier theorized, then at night shallow lakes (<6m) should lose most of their daytime heat and become much colder than the local 10m trop temp, even on very warm nights. Does this occur?Help advance the science, by all means.
-
Composer99 at 00:34 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob Painting:
Assuming that you are referring to a debunking of Richard C's leading questions, those of us who've not seen his particular claims before would appreciate a link, especially if it involves cites & technical stuff (although there is always your article here on SkS). :)
However, for the layman (like me), I suspect the argument Richard C is making (but appears to conceal in questions) falls on one or more of three points:
(1) Richard C has made a definitional error with regards to heat/energy whereby what he is talking about is not what the people he attempts to rebut are talking about.
(2) First Law of Thermodynamics. The extra energy accumulating in the oceans has to come from somewhere - and the only explanation which adds up (har!) is the energy accumulating in the Earth system due to the GHG-caused radiative imbalance at top-of-atmosphere.
(3) Bass ackwardness. Richard C states in his question #1:
If say, 40 yr heat accumulation in the ocean (18x10^22 J approx) is not solar-sourced, but energy sourced from the atmosphere (low specific heat) from GHG energy entrapment and moved to the ocean (high specific heat) against the predominant thermal gradient [...]
As far as I am aware, the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases - even on the oceans - is that it slows down energy transfer out of the system. They don't warm because something else is adding extra energy. They warm because the extra energy can't escape as easily as before.
-
DSL at 00:03 AM on 6 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG, you did read the article, yes? Do you accept what de Freitas did? The Wegman affair is another example--perhaps the richest in irony. When we say "pal review," we don't mean getting one's friends to check one's math. We mean getting one's friends to pass one's work through the peer-review process with just a glance.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:59 PM on 5 February 2013Glaciers still shrinking in 2011, how have contrarians claimed the opposite?
"we have delayed the onset of the next glacial by who knows how much"
Scientists have looked into that. Per Tzedakis et al 2012:
“glacial inception would require CO2 concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv”
For reference, we are at about ~394 right now…and climbing, so we can be relatively sure the next glacial epoch won't be happening in our lifetimes.
• http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nature-geoscience-ice-age.pdf
But what about further down the road? What happens then? Per Dr Toby Tyrrell (Tyrrell 2007) of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton:"Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them.
The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."and
"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."
So no ice ages and no Arctic sea ice recovery the next million years...
• http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/141.full.pdf+html
Also covered by Stoat, here:
• http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/11/09/carbon-dioxide-our-salvation-from-a-future-ice-age/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Given the radiative imbalance at the TOA is still present and that CO2 levels are still increasing (and that human emissions are not ending anytime soon), it is reasonable to presume that the impacts of a warming planet will increasingly impact the most vulnerable aspects of our remaining cryosphere: the Arctic sea ice (a goner), the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
We are, through our own actions, effectively locking-in a world of another 8-12 meters SLR above present. Unless we can magically arrest our emissions and also initiate methods to draw-down atmospheric concentrations of CO2. -
Tom Curtis at 21:50 PM on 5 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG @1, in the early days of science, anyone recognized as able to contribute could ask to present a paper to a learned society, and would do so. Their paper would then be published in the societies proceedings. This system worked because there were so few scientists that, even with this all comers approach, any interested person could read all the new papers in a given year, at least for a given country. As the number of scientists grew, the system broke down and peer review was introduced. The need that peer review satisfied, and hence its purpose, was to restrict publication so far as was possible to those papers that were worth reading. Above all else, peer review is a mechanism to ensure that scientists are able to devote their attention to papers of merit. It is a mechanism for filtering out scientific spam.
A paper can have merit without being correct, or indeed, without being free from error. But it must be free from obvious error. Further, a paper can be without error and correct, and lack merit; either because the subject has been covered many time before and the paper adds nothing new, or because the question addressed by the paper is simply of no scientific interest.
The problem with pal review is that it subverts the system as a filter of scientific spam. Your pals may do you a favour in getting your publications up even though they think the paper is without merit. More troubling, if they are politically (or has happened, religiously motivated) they may conspire to ensure the publication of your paper because it says the right things, from their perspective, and without regard to the actual scientific merit of the paper. Certainly some creationist papers have been published by this means, and the evidence is fairly clear that papers that would not otherwise have been published, have been published by pal review simply on the basis that they are critical of the concensus.
IMO, that AGW deniers have so conspired is a tacit admission that their work lacks merit. Had they been confident of their works merit, they would have spurned pal review in favour of the genuine article. But they appear to have decided it was more important politically to have the various papers in press than that they should be good enough to go through the normal rigours of peer review. (Please note, there are some skeptical papers that have gone through normal peer review. Those papers deserve the same respect that any other paper that goes through peer review deserves.)
-
MartinG at 20:05 PM on 5 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
I think this is somewhat misleading. We dont use Peer Review in science to prove that what we write is correct. No peer reviewer can do that. No - what peer review is for is to ensure that the conclusions given in the paper are properly supported by the evidence presented. A peer reviewer cannot be expected to go behind the scenes to check from the raw data. ( I myself have published papers with errors which a peer review process did not detect). The point of publishing is to air your views and allow others, who may have different conclusions to refute your work. This is what scientific debate is all about. By polarizing peer review using words such as "pal review" we are missing the point. I see no problem in a "pal review" - thats just asking your friends to check your paper and ensure its based on sound logic. Let them publish thier stuff - and then others (opponents) can publish why they are mistaken. Lets keep the debate where it belongs - on the technical issues.
-
Rob Painting at 20:03 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard - we have been over this many times before on other blogs. I find it hard to believe you are suffering from anterograde amnesia.
-
Kevin C at 20:03 PM on 5 February 2013No warming in 16 years
Yes, it seems probably that the aerosol cooling effect has been increasing. Unfortunately the effect is geographically dependent and not well measured.
The point of the video is that at this point I don't think we can detect that effect in the instrumental temperature record with any confidence. (There's an update coming which will show a small change, but still in the noise range.)
-
Richard C (NZ) at 19:38 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Nuccitelli - "heat is accumulating in the Earth's climate system due to the increased greenhouse effect"
Skeptical Science blog (Nuccitelli et al, 2012) - "90% of global warming goes into the ocean"
Schmittner - "Most heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other gases added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans"
Rahmstorf - ”heat penetrates faster into the oceans in a warmer climate”
OK, so given the use of the word "heat" I assume that the process is convective/conductive sensible heat transfer (or maybe not - see below). This begs a few questions for the above-named to answer:-
1) If say, 40 yr heat accumulation in the ocean (18x10^22 J approx) is not solar-sourced, but energy sourced from the atmosphere (low specific heat) from GHG energy entrapment and moved to the ocean (high specific heat) against the predominant thermal gradient then there must be documentation of this process somewhere with accompanying thermodynamic calculations - what reference is there to this in scientific literature?
2)a) Given the amount of energy involved, someone must have noticed the transfer occurring at the ocean/atmosphere interface and measured the heat transfer in order to quantify it and therefore verify both the phenomenon and enable calibration of global climate models - what reference is there to this in scientific literature?
2)b) I note, possibly unfairly, that NASA's GISS ModelE wildly overestimates ocean heat uptake in the ARGO era - is it possible that the phenomenon has not been verified empirically and that particular model say (and maybe other models) is not configured realistically (i.e. no GCM V&V has been done re anthropogenic ocean heat uptake)?
3) If I've misconstrued the process and it is actually a radiative energy transfer process (or a radiative/sensible heat combination), what reference is available to spectroscopy studies of radiation/sea water interaction to support the contention?
I note a number of spectroscopic radiation/water studies e.g. Hale and Querry 1973 (1989 citations to date), indicate that such a process is highly unlikely in view of only about 10 microns penetration in the IR-C range of GHG emittance.
4)a) If the process subscribed to by climate scientists such as the above-named is valid and fully understood, why has the IPCC not actually detailed the process with citations of relevant literature?
4)b) I note IPCC AR4 was very vague about an anthropogenic ocean heating process, WGI TS.4.1:-
“Formal attribution studies now suggest that it is likely that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to the observed warming of the upper several hundred metres of the global ocean during the latter half of the 20th century {5.2, 9.5} ”
They only "suggest" and then it is only "likely", no process is found at 5.2 and 9.5. If AR5 WGI is unable to firm up validity of the above process and detail it with citations, what expectation can there be of credence being given to it by anyone using the report for policy purposes, or any purposes for that matter?
Note that the process as described above is not the GHG insulation effect of solar-sourced ocean energy accumulation proposed by Peter Minnett at Real Climate as a result of a single study by NIWA's MV Tangaroa i.e. Minnett's posited effect competes with the above as yet undocumented process (as far as I know) to provide a credible anthropogenically driven ocean heat accumulation mechanism neither of which have been adopted by the IPCC to date.
Cross posted at The Oregonian (Nuccitelli letter linked at SkS), Skeptical Science (Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian) and Climate Conversation Group (Open Threads, Ocean heat content). -
william5331 at 17:32 PM on 5 February 2013No warming in 16 years
As I understand it, aerosols include particulate matter. Over the past couple of weeks we have seen news about air pollution in China as they close down factories and limit automobiles in the capital. Today, Japan is complaining about the air pollution coming over from China. How much of the aerosol load which is wafted up into the atmosphere is from this source and do we have any information on whether the load of aerosols in the upper atmosphere has been increasing along with China's increased manufacturing. I have heard an estimate that if we stoped the production of all aerosols, we might have as much as a 20C rise in temperature. A sobering thought if China (and the rest of us) cleaned up our act. Was the temporary flattening of the temperature record following the 40's due to American air pollution which they then cleaned up,
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/aerosol.htm
-
Doug Hutcheson at 17:27 PM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
Paul D @ 31 I must admit to not having used Micro$oft Window$ for a long time, so I cannot comment on mouse gesture assignments. I am using Linux (Fedora 17) with a BlueTooth mouse having a central wheel and the default mouse behaviour in a web page under Firefox 18 is quite interesting:
Left and right buttons as you would expect.
Wheel forward and backward scrolls the page, as you would expect.
Pushing the wheel to the left is the same as clicking the browser Back button.
Pushing the wheel to the right is the same as clicking the browser Forward button.
Following your idea, I have just tried pressing the mouse wheel (ie: the middle button) while over a hyperlink and, as you said, the link opens in a new tab (thanks for the tip!).
-
william5331 at 16:41 PM on 5 February 2013Glaciers still shrinking in 2011, how have contrarians claimed the opposite?
Of course, the contrarians are correct. We are heading into a glacial. (they call it an ice age not realizing that we are in the middle of an ice age that has lasted about 2.5 million years so far). As soon as an interglacial establishes itself, various carbon sinks start to reduce atmospheric Carbon dioxide and we are on the way to another glacial. The only thing they miss is that we have delayed the onset of the next glacial by who knows how much and may well be headed for a period like the carboniferous. Nothing wrong with that if we hadn't evolved our civilizations during an unusually stable period of climate and put a large amount of infrastructure in harms way from rising sea level. Oh! and developed our agriculture to prosper in the present climate regime and allowed our population to rise to use up each advance in food production. Just wait until our climate lurches instead of creeping as we continue to push on the light switch. Thirty or fourty days of stored food and a few years with vast crop failures!! At what point in this sequence will the deniers become convinced. If they are like the creationists - possibly never.
http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/carbon-sinks.html
-
chriskoz at 16:33 PM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
Updated Comments Policy... link is now contains somewhat outdated:
HTML Tips section.
Especially, follow this advice link at the end of the page is really obsolete now.
I propose to rid of this relly obsolete stuff and also remove/reduce the
HTML Tips
section and place the link to this page instead.
-
dana1981 at 15:35 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Son of Krypton @7 - that's awesome, thanks for letting us know! Who's the professor in the climate modeling course?
-
Son of Krypton at 13:27 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Well Dana, thanks for taking the good fight to all possible mediums.
While off topic, you may be interested to learn it seems the SkS team has some fans among the faculty at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. Nuccitelli et al (2012) was referenced quite prominently today in a 4th year Climate Modeling course I am enrolled in, and the arguments page was referenced in a first year geography course for which I am a TA.
-
Son of Krypton at 12:08 PM on 5 February 2013Glaciers still shrinking in 2011, how have contrarians claimed the opposite?
@1 Elmo
Amen to that. Their logic seems to mimic a gem of a quote of Homer Simpson`s from some time ago
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."
P.S. I like the new comments system -
dana1981 at 10:50 AM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
JasonB @5 - indeed, unfortunately they edited the letter prior to publication. The original version I sent them is in this blog post.
-
JasonB at 10:11 AM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
They may have published it, but unfortunately they removed "and the energy is equivalent to detonating four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, every second over the past 15 years", which is a very powerful image, and the link to SkS.
-
Composer99 at 08:00 AM on 5 February 2013WYSIWYG Comments Feature
For what it's worth the "bold" command in Basic mode publishes the way SkS handles the html strong tag.
If it could be revamped without too much effort, would it be possible to change it to publish the way SkS handles the html b tag? IMO the strong tag is disproportionately visually dominating, even taking into consideration that one is bolding the text to draw special attention to it or for special emphasis.
Prev 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 Next
