Climate Change Deniers Using Same Methods as Tobacco Industry, Says Physicist

[Zaap]

more accurate:

 

[jruchko]

 

[MongGrel]

Its pretty easy to explain how we can measure something, but not understand it enough to predict it.

I'm going to use some of the same data that I used in a previous thread, but here we go.

Here we see a trend of the avg temp rising at a rate over the past 200 years that is not consistent with other historical trends. We do see changes more extreme, but those are preceded by natural events.

We can measure things pretty well at this point, but that is far easier than prediction. That is because prediction requires not only measurements but models. The models would require an understanding of very complex variables that we have only started to really look into. So yes, you can see global warming, and not be able to predict it. Just like you can see when a person has died, but you may not be able to predict it.

You have provided no data in reality.

First thing you should do is learn the definition of empirical evidence and scientific methodology I'd imagine.

:hmm:

*edit* you must have been looking for that while I was posting, but still weak.

VICE on HBO Debrief: Greenland is Melting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bxk64kbM30

 

[werepossum]

Here's a simpler analogy between Global Warming and modeling the climate:

A glass of ice water in the sun:

What's the temperature of the water 4 hours ~ Is Global Warming occurring?
What's the temperature distribution of the water starting now and propagating forward. ~ How will the climate change in future.

The climate scientist answers the first by saying it will reach steady state with the ambient temperature after the ice melts

He answers the second by saying it requires quite a bit of modeling, experimentation and analysis to determine exactly how the flows of warm and cold water will occur.


The skeptic answers by saying, "Warming! what warming, my glass is still cold and has ice, dumbfuck. In fact before I had 2 pieces of ice and now I have 3! Ice is increasing"

Actually, today the climate scientist says "As you can see, the ice in the glass has melted, proving that- well, m'kay, the glass has actually frozen solid, but if you'll turn your attention to the PowerPoint slide of my model you'll see that the temperature of the glass has actually increased by my calculations. It's science, bitches, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

 

[Paratus]

Actually, today the climate scientist says "As you can see, the ice in the glass has melted, proving that- well, m'kay, the glass has actually frozen solid, but if you'll turn your attention to the PowerPoint slide of my model you'll see that the temperature of the glass has actually increased by my calculations. It's science, bitches, and pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"

Werepossum

The energy contained in the ocean, land, and air has increased, since 1960 by 20×10^22J.

That's equivalent to 40% of the impact energy of the Chicxulub meteor that killed the dinosaurs:

The impactor had an estimated diameter of 10 km (6.2 mi) and delivered an estimated energy equivalent of 100 teratons of TNT (4.2×10^23 J).[21] By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of only 50 megatons of TNT (2.1×10^17 J),[22] making the Chicxulub impact 2 million times more powerful. Even the most energetic known volcanic eruption, which released an estimated energy equivalent of approximately 240 gigatons of TNT (1.0×1021 J) and created the La Garita Caldera,[23] delivered only 0.24% of the energy of the Chicxulub impact.

Now you may feel that a dinosaur killer does not have enough energy to change the climate in a major way but I think most scientists and archeologists would not agree.


So if you still want to explain how that amount of energy doesn't equal global warming or you want to prove that our analyses are off by 22 orders of magnitude, or explain where the 40 teratons of TNT equivalent energy naturally came from feel free but you have your work cut out for you.

 

[Jaskalas]

Werepossum

The energy contained in the ocean, land, and air has increased, since 1960 by 20×10^22J.

That's equivalent to 40% of the impact energy of the Chicxulub meteor that killed the dinosaurs:

Sensationalism instead of science.

All that "energy" in the ocean, amounts to a measured increase of 0.06c. Given the "quality" of our deep ocean data... there really isn't a measurement at all. Not to within 6 hundredths of a degree of accuracy.

Argo data is only 10 years old. It's going to take more time to rely on that. Hell, the surface pause is almost 20 years old and you guys keep telling us to piss off when referencing it. As if 20 years isn't good enough. In that case, 10 years of Argo is nothing.

And another thing... why all of a sudden? I want a reasonable explanation for why the oceans DID NOT stop surface temperatures from rising in the 80s and 90s. If the surface stopped warming due to ocean absorption, why did that mechanism take effect in the 2000s?

 

[Paratus]

Sensationalism instead of science.

All that "energy" in the ocean, amounts to a measured increase of 0.06c. Given the "quality" of our deep ocean data... there really isn't a measurement at all. Not to within 6 hundredths of a degree of accuracy.

Argo data is only 10 years old. It's going to take more time to rely on that. Hell, the surface pause is almost 20 years old and you guys keep telling us to piss off when referencing it. As if 20 years isn't good enough. In that case, 10 years of Argo is nothing.

And another thing... why all of a sudden? I want a reasonable explanation for why the oceans DID NOT stop surface temperatures from rising in the 80s and 90s. If the surface stopped warming due to ocean absorption, why did that mechanism take effect in the 2000s?

I know it's amazing how much energy water can retain. But you agree that we've increased energy in the water by that much? (7x the energy content of all known fossil fuel reserves)

You know that's also equal to an extra 4000 hurricane days. :hmm;

But I've got it. You picked the "we're off by 22 orders of magnitude answer." Did you remember to click like on Judith's blog!

So according to you now and in other threads we can't accurately measure the heat content of:

• The ocean
• The atmosphere
• Ice loss
• Incoming solar energy
• Outgoing radiative energy

So I have no answer for you. It's impossible to answer your question without agreeing on measurements.


I am curious. So how many dinosaur killers would need to be dumped into the system before you would accept that the earth is warming?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Its pretty easy to explain how we can measure something, but not understand it enough to predict it.

I'm going to use some of the same data that I used in a previous thread, but here we go.

Here we see a trend of the avg temp rising at a rate over the past 200 years that is not consistent with other historical trends. We do see changes more extreme, but those are preceded by natural events.

We can measure things pretty well at this point, but that is far easier than prediction. That is because prediction requires not only measurements but models. The models would require an understanding of very complex variables that we have only started to really look into. So yes, you can see global warming, and not be able to predict it. Just like you can see when a person has died, but you may not be able to predict it.

You understand how science works...right? Falsifiable predictions are the name of the game last time I checked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.

 

[Paratus]

I've got good news Jasklas!

I took a look at your link and I think I can help!

Well, I haven’t worried very much about this sequestered heat. Without having done the arithmetic, I figured that the actual temperature increase when averaged over the global ocean is probably pretty small. Further, with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is not easy to get much of that heat back to surface.
Well, Lubos Motl has done the arithmetic in this post Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible. This is a good post, check it out. The punchline of his calculations: the heating in the layer 0-2000 m translates to 0.065 C +/- 20%. His calculations are essentially confirmed from this ARGO page where they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 °C.
So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land? Or is sequestering heat in the ocean a fortuitous ‘solution’ to the global (surface) warming problem?

Well since she couldn't be bothered to do the arithmetic, I did. Using the average ocean temperature, average ocean depth, Lubos .06C increase, total volume of water, and taking the percentage between 0-2000m I did a sanity check on the amount.

I came up with ~5x10^22J. Basically same order of magnitude of increasing energy the IPCC came up with

So now lets look at her idiotic statement about the 2nd law:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy.....

.....The concept of energy in the first law does not, however, account for the observation that natural processes have a preferred direction of progress. The first law is symmetrical with respect to the initial and final states of an evolving system. But the second law asserts that a natural process runs only in one sense, and is not reversible. For example, heat always flows spontaneously from hotter to colder bodies, and never the reverse, unless external work is performed on the system. The key concept for the explanation of this phenomenon through the second law of thermodynamics is the definition of a new physical quantity, the entropy.

So energy and heat move from high concentrations to low concentrations until everything is mixed and homogenous.

As Judith mentioned " Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible" so the ocean will never be homogenous. There will always be mixing transferring heat. That mixing is not one way, top to bottom, but much more complex.

Thermohaline circulation

Thermohaline circulation simply refers to global density-driven circulation of the oceans. Heat (thermo), and haline (density) are the two main factors determining the density of seawater. As you may remember, temperature and density share an inverse relationship so when the surface currents (i.e. the Gulf Stream) flow towards the poles from the equatorial Atlantic Ocean, they are cooled and flow downhill into deep water basins forming the North Atlantic Deep Water. These currents resurface in the northeast Pacific Ocean 1,200 years later. Ocean water from all of the ocean basins mixes thoroughly, carrying heat energy and matter in the form of solids and gases, making Earth's ocean a global system. As you can see, the state of this thermohaline circulation, sometimes called the global conveyor belt, can have an enormous impact on the climate of our planet.

Impacts on global climate

Thermohaline circulation is responsible for much of the distribution of heat energy from the equatorial oceans to the polar regions of the ocean. It is also the return flow of the sea water from the surface North Atlantic Drift and Gulf Stream currents.
Interestingly, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet is suspected to be the cause of a major disruption in the deep water formation and variation in the North Atlantic, previously causing an entire climatic period in Europe known as the Younger Dryas.

So we are dumping massive amounts of energy into the ocean and potentially changing how heat is transported around the planet...

Seems like a big deal for the climate.


But hey don't worry. She believes that there's been a 0.06C rise in ocean temperature which you said ," isn't a measurement at all. Not to within 6 hundredths of a degree of accuracy." So she's full of shit too, just like me.

Why did you even quote her article since she's full of shit?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I'm waiting until they just get back to calling it "Weather".

Yelling "Weather denier!!" will be such an effective tactic.

The cover with the date 1977 under it happens to be from 2007 but has been photoshopped.

The original:

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070409,00.html

Try again?

 

[Paratus]

The cover with the date 1977 under it happens to be from 2007 but has been photoshopped.

The original:

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20070409,00.html

Try again?

That's awesome. :biggrin:

 

[Jaskalas]

I know it's amazing how much energy water can retain. But you agree that we've increased energy in the water by that much? (7x the energy content of all known fossil fuel reserves)

More sensationalism, check.

The claim is we've increased OHC by 0.06c since the 60s... 50+years ago. Argo data is only 1/5th of that time. So real measurements could only verify... ~0.012c of that.

AND of that 0.012c, it's only in the Southern Hemisphere that Argo has measured increased OHC. This energy imbalance is apparently not global. Or... get this... our 10 years of measuring IS NOT NEARLY enough. OHC is not reliable until it becomes a more mature data set. Until it becomes old enough to measure "Climate", and not "Weather".

But I've got it. You picked the "we're off by 22 orders of magnitude answer." Did you remember to click like on Judith's blog!

Attack the messenger, check.

So according to you now and in other threads we can't accurately measure the heat content of:

• The ocean
• The atmosphere
• Ice loss
• Incoming solar energy
• Outgoing radiative energy

So I have no answer for you. It's impossible to answer your question without agreeing on measurements.

Our long standing measurements of temperature show a pause in warming. This is not a question of IF we can measure it, but a matter of the data turning against the alarmists, so they change which data they're going to use.

Now instead of Atmosphere, they'll rely on Ocean Heat Content, for which an actual record of quality is only 10 years old. Changing how and what you're measuring changes the game, it requires resetting and board and starting over. If Argo and OHC are to determine the extent of Global Warming, then we'll at least need to wait for a 30 year record. Then we can be certain it recorded half the PDO and AMO ocean cycles.

If Argo records half a cycle, but only measures increases in OHC with no signs of slowing down, then our contribution to OHC would be definitive, and actionable.

I am curious. So how many dinosaur killers would need to be dumped into the system before you would accept that the earth is warming?

I already laid out my challenge weeks ago. Everyone is welcomed to take me up on it, that the temperature increase during the "pause" of 2000-2030 will indicate no greater than 0.5c Climate Sensitivity. If such empirical evidence shows Climate Sensitivity is greater than that, then I will forfeit my position and advocate action to stop it.

By 2020 it should be quite clear.

And no, it is not measured in "dinosaur killers".

 

[Jaskalas]

I've got good news Jasklas!

Yes... you've gone off the deep end.

Well since she couldn't be bothered to do the arithmetic...

That's why Dr. Curry quoted someone who did...

I came up with ~5x10^22J. Basically same order of magnitude of increasing energy the IPCC came up with

In other words, they converted the IPCC's J into C... and you converted that C back into J... Yeah, thanks...?

As Judith mentioned " Ocean heat content: relentless but negligible" so the ocean will never be homogenous. There will always be mixing transferring heat. That mixing is not one way, top to bottom, but much more complex.

That pretty much explains why Argo only found warming in the Southern Oceans. Because a 10 year record is simply is not long enough to filter out these "complexities". AKA, it's still completely unreliable until we get more data.

Yeah?

So we are dumping massive amounts of energy into the ocean and potentially changing how heat is transported around the planet...

Seems like a big deal for the climate.

But hey don't worry. She believes that there's been a 0.06C rise in ocean temperature which you said ," isn't a measurement at all. Not to within 6 hundredths of a degree of accuracy." So she's full of shit too, just like me.

Why did you even quote her article since she's full of shit?

They took the IPCC's number of Joules and converted it to temperature. You got a problem with that? Do we need stories of ~5x10^22J so we can scare people?

And no, not for one second do I believe we've been accurately measuring Ocean Heat Content since before Argo. Go on, show us where those temperature sensors were. That mighty grid of temperature readings... 2,000 meters blow... 50+ years ago... While you're at it, grid it out on a map. So we can appreciate the wide berth of global ocean coverage... before the space era...

Cause frankly, I adamantly believe it does not exist. Not as any sort of reliable temperature record. What, you got some readings from a few ships on the surface? One here... two there... throw in a submarine for a bonus! That's no global temperature measurement of the deep oceans.

OHC starts with Argo, and that's what I believe.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Finding one person that confirms a bias isn't enough unfortunately.

 

[Jaskalas]

Finding one person that confirms a bias isn't enough unfortunately.

We 'skeptics' are legion, thanks for your concern though.

 

[xBiffx]

You really can't argue with someone who uses "settled" and "science" together to describe something.

They've already demonstrated such complete ignorance about a trivial concept within science that to argue something more involved on the subject would prove to not only be fruitless but also a gigantic waste of time and resources.

"Who would dare assert that we know all there is to be known?" -Galileo

 

[fskimospy]

The ownage of the climate change deniers that's going on in this thread is pretty epic, I'd have to say.

 

[Jaskalas]

The ownage of the climate change deniers that's going on in this thread is pretty epic, I'd have to say.

Would you like to demonstrate for us, the "quality" of Ocean Heat Content down to 2,000 meters depth, back in 1960?

Alarmists claim hundredths of a degree difference, and wish to use THAT terribly small measurement via terribly spotty data and use this as their crowning jewel after the atmospheric record turns against their beliefs.

 

[fskimospy]

Would you like to demonstrate for us, the "quality" of Ocean Heat Content down to 2,000 meters depth, back in 1960?

Alarmists claim hundredths of a degree difference, and wish to use THAT terribly small measurement via terrible spotty data and use this as their crowning jewel after the atmospheric record turns against their beliefs.

You have been presented with reams of data on this by numerous other people. There's a reason you guys are called climate change deniers.

 

[manimal]

The ownage of the climate change deniers that's going on in this thread is pretty epic, I'd have to say.

I came in here for lulz.!


thread delivered!


Never underestimate the power of the echo chamber!


but but but dr curry sais so!

 

[Jaskalas]

You have been presented with reams of data on this by numerous other people. There's a reason you guys are called climate change deniers.

Okay, you claim the data is already presented, readily available. Go on then. Show us a global map of ocean temperature, down to 2,000 meters back in 1960.

 

[realibrad]

You understand how science works...right? Falsifiable predictions are the name of the game last time I checked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Wow, I had forgotten about this thread.

I fully understand the scientific method. Part of it is to observe and draw conclusions from your observations. Looking at the graph I posted, you can see a trend. These are empirical measurements. Could they be flawed, yes. The likelihood is reduced by the fact that the more we measure, the more the measurements seem to point to the same thing. There are for sure variations and so it may go up and down over a period of time. Could this recent historical trend be a random variation, maybe. Climate science is working on establishing predictions that give more quantifiable predictions. It could turn out that they were wrong, and global warming is not going to be a trend for the long term.

The fact of the matter is, that the earth is warming. The data I provided shows this. Man made or otherwise, if it continues we are in big trouble.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wow, I had forgotten about this thread.

I fully understand the scientific method. Part of it is to observe and draw conclusions from your observations. Looking at the graph I posted, you can see a trend. These are empirical measurements.

You give us the hockey stick, I raise you additional studies.

 

[realibrad]

You give us the hockey stick, I raise you additional studies.

So, the graph you just posted was for Tibet tree rings. It does show a uptrend at the end, but I think your point was the spikes historically. The problem with a regional graph, is that it does not show the global trends. What you would need to do, is smooth out all the data over different regional data.

An example would be Roman Warm Period where regionally, Europe was warmer. When you look at North American, it went through a cooling period. On avg, the global temp was actually lower.

 

[dphantom]

The fact of the matter is, that the earth is warming. The data I provided shows this. Man made or otherwise, if it continues we are in big trouble.

No one disagrees with the statement the Earth is warming. I happen to disagree we are in big trouble if the Earth continues to warm. A few more degrees rise will do more good than a few degrees of cooling.

The question is really how much man is contributing to the increase in temperature we have seen over the last 200 years or so. Based on my review of all the science presented in layman's terms, I conclude man has a small role. How much man generated CO2 is a direct contributor to warming is yet to be determined. GCW models are not at all predicting trends accurately.