A dismantling of one of the last bastions of climate-change deniers

[dphantom]

I see nothing that allows you assume a temperature anomaly for the troposphere can be directly compared the surface, or to the stratosphere, or ocean for that matter. Not without knowing which datasets and whether they are using: TLT T2 T3 T4 ( BTW did you ever find the link to sea level rise plot I asked you for?)

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. The UAH/RSS temp chart is TLT. I stated that quite clearly. And the anomalies can be compared against HADCRUT and other surface temp datasets.

As for sea surface rise, there is a very good paper from 2011 linked below.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

In case you do not want to actually read the whole thing (it is a short peer reviewed paper with not too much math), below is the conclusions section.

CONCLUSIONS​

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.
tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each
time period we consider, the records show small decelerations
that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of
worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain
are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less
than the​

​

​

​

+0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to
reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf
(2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an
increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this
worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration
of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why
global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last​

80 years.

 

[dphantom]

You know I'm actually starting to come around a little bit

Now if only we could see the error bars on the doom & gloom predictions.

The error bars typically exceed the instrument accuracy.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

lol Of course they have. Because knowing you don't know something is just like knowing it.

The level of scientific understanding (LOSU) is low to very low regarding quite of number of significant radiative forcing mechanisms.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html#table-2-11

 

[dphantom]

The level of scientific understanding (LOSU) is low to very low regarding quite of number of significant radiative forcing mechanisms.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html#table-2-11

For example, GCM models assume that water vapor places a positive forcing on temperature. Some of the most recent research indicates water vapor is actually a negative forcing. If this new research stands up to further review, it means climate sensitivity to CO2 is significantly lower than currently assumed.

GCM models cannot take into account very well cloud mechanisms. The calculations are too complex and not at all understood.

 

[Paratus]

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. The UAH/RSS temp chart is TLT. I stated that quite clearly. And the anomalies can be compared against HADCRUT and other surface temp datasets.

As for sea surface rise, there is a very good paper from 2011 linked below.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

In case you do not want to actually read the whole thing (it is a short peer reviewed paper with not too much math), below is the conclusions section.

CONCLUSIONS​

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S.
tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each
time period we consider, the records show small decelerations
that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of
worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain
are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less
than the​

​

​

​

+0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to
reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf
(2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted,
Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an
increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.
It is essential that investigations continue to address why this
worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration
of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why
global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last​

80 years.

You stated it was TLT but without a link to the article bshole got it from or a citation we are both guessing. If it was from a more reputable site I'd be more inclined to believe it was even though it looks like T2 to me. (I've seen more accurate charts about a competitors GPU performance from AMD and NV than that plot)

I'll look at the link you provided, but based on the conclusion a four year old analysis of historical US tidal gauges doesn't necessarily strike me as being a great proxy for global sea level rise.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

For example, GCM models assume that water vapor places a positive forcing on temperature. Some of the most recent research indicates water vapor is actually a negative forcing. If this new research stands up to further review, it means climate sensitivity to CO2 is significantly lower than currently assumed.

GCM models cannot take into account very well cloud mechanisms. The calculations are too complex and not at all understood.

There have been a number of studies in recent years reflecting lower climate sensitivity to CO2 than previously thought. This is good news.

 

[dphantom]

There have been a number of studies in recent years reflecting lower climate sensitivity to CO2 than previously thought. This is good news.

Stokes published a paper last year or early this year on ECS. Showed it to be around 1.5C. Well under the assumed IPCC of 3.2C. Others have published ranging from just over 1C to 2C. I suspect (speculating here) that as we understand water vapor and other forcing mechanisms we do not fully comprehend in terms of their interactions, ECS will drop under 1C.

In simple terms, it is no big deal at that level.

The science is far from settled.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Stokes published a paper last year or early this year on ECS. Showed it to be around 1.5C. Well under the assumed IPCC of 3.2C.

1.5C is actually the low end range limit of the IPCC's current estimate (which is surprisingly wide). The lower range limit was lowered from 2.0C to 1.5C in their most recent report.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report

“The equilibrium climate sensitivity. . . is likely to be in the range 2°C to 4.5°C with a best estimate of about 3°C and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5°C. Values higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded.”

IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence)."

There have been several recent studies where ECS has been estimated to be lower that 1.5C with some coming in below 1.0C. The science is settled indeed!

 

[Moonbeam]

To all you Spocks, how do you feel: Ponder this from the mind of a woman:



Joni Mitchell – Both Sides, Now Lyrics





Rows and flows of angel hair
And ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere,
I've looked at clouds that way.

But now they only block the sun,
They rain and they snow on everyone
So many things I would have done,
But clouds got in my way.

I've looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It's cloud illusions I recall
I really don't know clouds at all

Moons and Junes and Ferris wheels,
The dizzy dancing way that you feel
As every fairy tale comes real,
I've looked at love that way.

But now it's just another show,
You leave 'em laughing when you go
And if you care, don't let them know,
Don't give yourself away.

I've looked at love from both sides now
From give and take and still somehow
It's love's illusions I recall
I really don't know love at all

Tears and fears and feeling proud,
To say "I love you" right out loud
Dreams and schemes and circus crowds,
I've looked at life that way.

Oh but now old friends they're acting strange,
They shake their heads, they say I've changed
Well something's lost, but something's gained
In living every day.

I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all

I've looked at life from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all

It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life
I really don't know life at all

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/july-2015-was-hottest-month-on-record-globally/

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

To all you Spocks, how do you feel: Ponder this from the mind of a woman:

That song was for you, but you don't seem to realize it. I'm optimistic that one of these days you're going to figure out that it's actually OK for other people to be quite different than you as it seems to bother you fiercely.

 

[dphantom]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/july-2015-was-hottest-month-on-record-globally/

No it was not. It was warm but no one can say it was THE warmest. The margin of error is too high and other datasets show quite different results.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/july-2015-was-hottest-month-on-record-globally/

Satellites say 'no'...but this type of news does make for great headlines every few months. It appears that all gatekeepers of the terrestrial global temperature record have now adopted the "sea bucket" temperature adjustment. Terrestrial data is now (for the first time) beginning to significantly diverge from the satellite data. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a few years.

RSS Satellite

NOAA

 

[shira]

Satellites say 'no'...but this type of news does make for great headlines every few months. It appears that all gatekeepers of the terrestrial global temperature record have now adopted the "sea bucket" temperature adjustment. Terrestrial data is now (for the first time) beginning to significantly diverge from the satellite data. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in a few years.

RSS Satellite

NOAA

The need for an adjustment to the historical temperature record wasn't something just dreamed up in recent years. For example, there was this article from 22 years ago that identified a way (insulated sea buckets) to correct the biases associated with historical methods for collecting sea-surface temperatures. As the first sentence of the summary states:

We describe a physically based empirical technique for correcting historical sea surface temperature measurements for time-varying biases.

Accepting your charts and statement at face value, have you considered the possibility that what's happening is that more and more of the excess heat attributable to climate change is getting stored in the oceans as compared with the atmosphere? If so, that might represent an even more dire situation with respect to rising sea levels.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The need for an adjustment to the historical temperature record wasn't something just dreamed up in recent years. For example, there was this article from 22 years ago that identified a way (insulated sea buckets) to correct the biases associated with historical methods for collecting sea-surface temperatures. As the first sentence of the summary states:

I understand what the "sea bucket" adjustment is...not sure why you felt compelled to tell me...after all, I was the one who mentioned it in the first place.

Accepting your charts and statement at face value, have you considered the possibility that what's happening is that more and more of the excess heat attributable to climate change is getting stored in the oceans as compared with the atmosphere? If so, that might represent an even more dire situation with respect to rising sea levels.

The data for July is the data for July...so you don't have to take my word for it that we're starting to see some fairly significant divergence.

 

[werepossum]

The level of scientific understanding (LOSU) is low to very low regarding quite of number of significant radiative forcing mechanisms.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html#table-2-11

This is true. We build models based on historic data, pat ourselves on the backs for how well our models' data fit the records from which they were crafted, then invent reasons why the new data diverge - or just adjust the old data to fit the curve we all know is correct.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is true. We build models based on historic data, pat ourselves on the backs for how well our models' data fit the records from which they were crafted, then invent reasons why the new data diverge - or just adjust the old data to fit the curve we all know is correct.

You didn't say this because it fits a model that has been inculcated into your head and corresponds exactly to how you want to see things?

Have you any experimental proof, scientifically tested and peered reviewed to back up your claim? What if you were just like me and don't really know anything, except that you had talked yourself into believing you do.

 

[dphantom]

Accepting your charts and statement at face value, have you considered the possibility that what's happening is that more and more of the excess heat attributable to climate change is getting stored in the oceans as compared with the atmosphere? If so, that might represent an even more dire situation with respect to rising sea levels.

unlikely. see post 226 above.

 

[Paratus]

The need for an adjustment to the historical temperature record wasn't something just dreamed up in recent years. For example, there was this article from 22 years ago that identified a way (insulated sea buckets) to correct the biases associated with historical methods for collecting sea-surface temperatures. As the first sentence of the summary states:



Accepting your charts and statement at face value, have you considered the possibility that what's happening is that more and more of the excess heat attributable to climate change is getting stored in the oceans as compared with the atmosphere? If so, that might represent an even more dire situation with respect to rising sea levels.

You won't see anyone address the A bomb per second elephant in the room of ocean heat content. Other than denying it's there or attacking the measurements.

Point out surface temperature measurements are increasing they'll counter with satellite data that shows slower warming because satellites are more trustworthy.

Point out satellite measurements show increasing rates of sea level rise they'll point to a small study of tidal gauges showing no rateof rise.

Point out Antarctic ice loss causing sea level rise from warming and they'll point to undersea volcanoes.

Does it matter that undersea volcanoes causing melting ice would cause sea level rise, of course not.

Does it matter that increasing accuracy of satellites is good but doing the same for ocean and surface data is bad, of course not.

What does matter is nothing man-made is happening. How do we know that because in past reconstructions global temperatures have gone up and down without man due to natural forcings.

Ask about which forcings, who knows. It's impossible to reconstruct the past.

The models can't be verified sure they all point up and the ocean, surface, and atmospheric temps are all going up too but those models say temps could raiseby 1.5 -3C century. They're just all over the place can't trust them



There will never be a coherent explanation of what the earths climate is actually doing for the skeptic crowd. By cherry picking data and disregarding all physical models there's no actual understanding of what's going on.

But what's funny is the only thing that's really required to show warming is natural or not happening is for it to stop and some cooling to happen. That's what should happen with natural variation.

I do get a kick out of watching the spin ramp up to ludicrous levels however.

 

[fskimospy]

You won't see anyone address the A bomb per second elephant in the room of ocean heat content. Other than denying it's there or attacking the measurements.

Point out surface temperature measurements are increasing they'll counter with satellite data that shows slower warming because satellites are more trustworthy.

Point out satellite measurements show increasing rates of sea level rise they'll point to a small study of tidal gauges showing no rateof rise.

Point out Antarctic ice loss causing sea level rise from warming and they'll point to undersea volcanoes.

Does it matter that undersea volcanoes causing melting ice would cause sea level rise, of course not.

Does it matter that increasing accuracy of satellites is good but doing the same for ocean and surface data is bad, of course not.

What does matter is nothing man-made is happening. How do we know that because in past reconstructions global temperatures have gone up and down without man due to natural forcings.

Ask about which forcings, who knows. It's impossible to reconstruct the past.

The models can't be verified sure they all point up and the ocean, surface, and atmospheric temps are all going up too but those models say temps could raiseby 1.5 -3C century. They're just all over the place can't trust them



There will never be a coherent explanation of what the earths climate is actually doing for the skeptic crowd. By cherry picking data and disregarding all physical models there's no actual understanding of what's going on.

But what's funny is the only thing that's really required to show warming is natural or not happening is for it to stop and some cooling to happen. That's what should happen with natural variation.

I do get a kick out of watching the spin ramp up to ludicrous levels however.

This is the depressing conclusion of what o said before. You have crushed them with a huge amount of science and every single one of them is every bit as certain as they ever were.

You said before that they would at least learn something. You still think so?

 

[Moonbeam]

This is the depressing conclusion of what o said before. You have crushed them with a huge amount of science and every single one of them is every bit as certain as they ever were.

You said before that they would at least learn something. You still think so?

The science of the CBD predicts they will be less able now than they were before, that information and facts sharpen the capacity to deflect.

 

[Paratus]

This is the depressing conclusion of what o said before. You have crushed them with a huge amount of science and every single one of them is every bit as certain as they ever were.

You said before that they would at least learn something. You still think so?

Not really but half seriously yes, because I'm relying on the fact that we can't help but pick up things that we hear over and over. Also that no one can be mindful all the time so when we are rushed or tired our minds fall back on things we've heard over and over.

We had a speaker give a class on inclusion and innovation. The guy had a neuroscience background. He gave us a benign example of the effect you can use on your friends.

Ask someone to answer the following question as a fast as possible:

John's mother has three sons; Snap, Crackle and ?

Spoiler

The answer is John but most people say Pop

To save energy by not firing up our big prefrontal cortex all the time our brains will fall back on these types of things. Hence why we practice to learn and advertising works to get you to remember a company and its products.

 

[Jeff7]

Not really but half seriously yes, because I'm relying on the fact that we can't help but pick up things that we hear over and over. Also that no one can be mindful all the time so when we are rushed or tired our minds fall back on things we've heard over and over.

We had a speaker give a class on inclusion and innovation. The guy had a neuroscience background. He gave us a benign example of the effect you can use on your friends.

Ask someone to answer the following question as a fast as possible:

John's mother has three sons; Snap, Crackle and ?

Spoiler

The answer is John but most people say Pop

To save energy by not firing up our big prefrontal cortex all the time our brains will fall back on these types of things. Hence why we practice to learn and advertising works to get you to remember a company and its products.

Predictive processing with a really crappy feedback loop.

Macro-level behavior coming from that brain even mimics it, specifically when stay-the-course is seen as being better than being correct.
"She was wrong, but she really is darn sure of herself all the time. I like that in a leader."

So the answer is definitely Pop. My mind is made up, and there shall be no backtracking.

 

[Paratus]

So for any of you at home who enjoy watching me play climate change skeptic whack a mole let me clear a few things up for you.

Sea level rise:

Satellite and tidal gauge measurements show an increasing rate of sea level rise:

And the physical effects are already being felt. Like saltwater intrusion of drinking water around Miami:

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/blog/2014/10/03/sea-level-rise-in-miami/

The mean sea level has risen noticeably in the Miami and Miami Beach areas just in the past decade. Flooding events are getting more frequent, and some areas flood during particularly high tides now: no rain or storm surge necessary. Perhaps most alarming is that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating.

....In addition to surface flooding, there is trouble brewing below the surface too. That trouble is called saltwater intrusion, and it is already taking place along coastal communities in south Florida. Saltwater intrusion occurs when saltwater from the ocean or bay advances further into the porous limestone aquifer. That aquifer also happens to supply about 90% of south Florida’s drinking water. Municipal wells pump fresh water up from the aquifer for residential and agricultural use, but some cities have already had to shut down some wells because the water being pumped up was brackish (for example, Hallandale Beach has already closed 6 of its 8 wells due to saltwater contamination).

or Pacific Islanders planning to evacuate from low lying islands.

Kiribati was in talks with Fiji to buy land to evacuate its people back 2012

Although National Geographic has some good and bad news on that front.

Some of the islands have actually grown in the last few years as sediment shifts in the rising sea at least on the most uninhabited islands.

But for the areas that have been transformed by human development, such as the capitals of Kiribati, Tuvalu, and Maldives, the future is considerably gloomier. That's largely because their many structures—seawalls, roads, and water and electricity systems—are locked in place.

So as you can see while the study dphantom linked to is maybe ok his interpretation is not.

Ocean Heat Content

The rise in sea level can be partly attributed to the massive rise in ocean heat content.

Which is beginning to show itself in this years potentially record breaking El Niño.

Washington Post 2015 vs 1997 El Niño

El Niño brings up a lot of very warm water which tends to warm the surface and create record breaking years like 97/98 was.

Which brings us to:

2015 has been the hottest year on record

While some people will point to temperatures in the atmosphere that are off their all time highs by a bit the thing to remember is ocean heat content dwarfs atmospheric heat content because:

• The ocean is 272 times more massive than the atmosphere
• Water holds 4.18 times more energy per unit mass

So don't let someone try and convince you that this hasn't been the hottest year on record up until now because a few percent of the Earth isn't quite maxed out while rest of the Earth is well over the record.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

OMG!!!! Houston did not get into the 80's yesterday!!!!