Climate Science Is Not Settled

[boomerang]

I posted that yesterday, it's on the previous page.

What that headline fails to explain, is that the "Ocean Abyss" is below 2,000 meters... below Argo measurements. It says nothing about the part we are measuring... that is warming.

Carry on then.

 

[dphantom]

Carry on then.

The paper quoted does show a recent slight decrease in deep water temperature as well as a decrease in rising ocean levels on the east and west coasts of the Americas. However, as Jaskalas points out, the data is spotty so I would hesitate to draw any conclusions.

 

[Paul98]

Livermore scientists suggest ocean warming in Southern Hemisphere underestimated

Another new study on ocean warming.

 

[dphantom]

Livermore scientists suggest ocean warming in Southern Hemisphere underestimated

Another new study on ocean warming.

yep read that earlier today

 

[Paratus]

Livermore scientists suggest ocean warming in Southern Hemisphere underestimated

Another new study on ocean warming.

Apparently they found the measurements were off because the models suggested there should be more heat in the south pacific than was measured.

When a model disagrees with an observational dataset, it’s usually the model’s problem—but not always. Measurements were much more sparse in the Southern Hemisphere, so it wouldn’t be a shock to learn that something was missed. The fact that the discrepancy shrank as Argo floats began deployment at the end of this time period is also suspicious; previous studies had already suggested that Southern Hemisphere estimates were low, as well.

To investigate, the researchers turned, once again, to sea level. They compared the simulated sea level rise in the models to our satellite observations of sea level rise, which go back to 1992. There was no mismatch, not even in the Southern Hemisphere. The sea level rise resulting from the expansion of warming water implies that the models are right about the greater Southern Hemisphere ocean warming.

 

[Paratus]

I think that is reasonable. By 2030, we will have 50 years of satellite data and 25 years of ocean temp data to work from plus seeing a couple of PDO/AMO cycles. That should give us good data to give a better estimate of how much man is contributing to GW as opposed to natural cycles.

Based on everything I have been able to read, and biased towards more natural cycles than man, a contribution of .05 to .1C per decade by man is what I expect to see in a few years.

I'd be interested in being directed towards which natural cycles you are referring to. Do you have some links I could checkout?

 

[Paratus]

Why should I post things that have already been posted and that you've already acknowledged.

I care not whether you agree with them or not. That isn't the issue, the issue is that conflicting evidence exists. What you do with it is up to you.

orignally posted by:Mr. Strickland

You're a slacker Biff!

 

[OverVolt]

Wow you puss out a lot don't you.

Mmm oddly enough I felt like you saw it anyway.

 

[Paratus]

Mmm oddly enough I felt like you saw it anyway.

I did. Even had a reply started but it was late, so I waited until morning to answer. By that time it was a ..

I'll be frank. Insults won't change my mind, (& in P & N they don't bother me much). I need data, theories and peer review before I'll significantly change my mind about MMGW.

However, I am still open to different potential solutions.

 

[chucky2]

Sweet. Now we just need to start implementing real targeted MMGW reductions that actually matter, rather than just "matter". Once we start seeing all non-essential flights banned (and by non-essential, that is, non-medical or humanitarian in nature), or in the absence of a ban, a boycott by Believers, we'll know the Science that is to be Believed in is actually being taken seriously, given the World Calamity of the issue. Joke suggestions of carbon taxes/credits will simply not get us there.

Let me guess though...that can't be done because...iToo?

 

[Paratus]

The one area that I don't think gets enough debate is mitigation measures.

I found this chart the other day. It sort if suggests things that have worked in the past to reduce CO2 emissions:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21618680-our-guide-actions-have-done-most-slow-global-warming-deepest-cuts


Thoughts?

Chucky, you probably missed this post earlier. Here's a bunch of things that have already been done that have reduced carbon. Do you have any rationale thoughts on the matter?

 

[dphantom]

I'd be interested in being directed towards which natural cycles you are referring to. Do you have some links I could checkout?

Well, longer term we would look at Milankovitch cycles, on a shorter time frame there are the PDO/AMO cycles, ENSO a few examples.

 

[Paratus]

Well, longer term we would look at Milankovitch cycles, on a shorter time frame there are the PDO/AMO cycles, ENSO a few examples.

I thought those were what you were referring too. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.


Thanks!

 

[chucky2]

Chucky, you probably missed this post earlier. Here's a bunch of things that have already been done that have reduced carbon. Do you have any rationale thoughts on the matter?

1. Don't know about the Montreal Protocol so can't comment on it. With such as large impact on your graph though, I'm skeptical of the number. We know how bad predictions are of the Global Warm, er, Global Cool, er, Climate Change crowd, so trusting their numbers would be like trusting the numbers on the number of illegal invaders in the US: Insanity. I will look though to see what that is and if it's plausible the numbers could be believed.

2. Hydro power, needlessly destructive to the environment unless that number includes, and is mostly represented by, ocean based power...land hydro never should be done.

3. Nuke...terrible byproducts, never should be done unless Gen III+ or IV, and even then, with a real plan for waste storage.

4. China one child policy. A great start but since, relative to China, TRoTW isn't doing it, not near enough. Can't get that passed here in the US because both sides will support a woman to pump out as many babies as she wants.

The rest: Too small to really matter.

As for the entirety of your graph:

None of it matters, you understand that right? The fact of the matter is, if your graph and the Science can be believed, Gaia is still dying despite those efforts. We need to save Gaia! And I know, know, that Believers - true Believers, not "Believers" who just want to expand the reaches of Gov in their jizz down the pants fantasy of Gov Everything - will do what needs to be done now to help save Gaia. Which means I'm quite sure these Believer non-hypocrites will massively scale back their energy and goods consumption, to combat the insidious Denier threat. Blue states won't wait for Red states to Believe, they'll do what is necessary to save Gaia.

So it would seem to me that air traffic would be a prime candidate they could immediately cut out. In the world of video conferencing, it serves no other logical purpose but for pleasure (save for the small amount of medical and humanitarian traffic), and as such, is needless massive waste of energy. These flights can be stopped immediately, with complete justification (the Science is settled after all). We simply cannot afford Denier assholes jetting around on pleasure and wasteful business trips (which could all be done by video conferencing) to massively add to our CO2 problem because they personally feel the need to fly.

I know you agree with this, because the Science is settled and you're a Believer (remember: Gaia is dying!). In a few days when you respond (no one needs to be on the Internet every day, wasting energy, so I'm sure you'll be back on at an appropriate time, a few days from now), I know you'll confirm this. I thank you for your Belief in the settled Science, and not being a massive hypocrite like all these other fake selfish "Believers", who want to suggest 'Cap and Pass Tax Down to Consumers Who Will Keep Consuming Thus Still Consuming Energy And Not Effectively Combating The CO2 Problem But It Gets Gov More Money' policy. We don't need scum lawyer morality applied when it comes to saving Gaia! :thumbsup:

 

[OverVolt]

Livermore scientists suggest ocean warming in Southern Hemisphere underestimated

Another new study on ocean warming.

IF you look hard enough for the result you want with bad tools... :\

 

[dphantom]

Very interesting paper regarding sensitivity to CO2, water vapor, solar. lots of math in this one so fair warning. recommend reading the entire paper. I think you can skip over the math and still get the meaning.

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/recent

"The objective of this paper was to examine and to quantify the influence of GH-gases on our climate.
Based on the HITRAN-2008 database [4] detailed spectroscopic calculations on the absorptivities of water
vapour and the gases carbon dioxide, methane and ozone in the atmosphere are presented.
The line-by-line calculations for solar radiation from 0.1–8 mm (sw radiation) as well as for the
terrestrial radiation from 3–100 mm (lw radiation) show, that due to the strong overlap of the CO2 and
CH4 spectra with water vapour lines the influence of these gases significantly declines with increasing
water vapour pressure, and that with increasing CO2-concentration well noticeable saturation effects are
observed limiting substantially the impact of CO2 on global warming."

 

[Jaskalas]

That the new paper suggesting 0.6c per doubling?

renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about [0.6C]

 

[dphantom]

That the new paper suggesting 0.6c per doubling?

that is what their research shows.

 

[fskimospy]

That the new paper suggesting 0.6c per doubling?

Oh good, quoting denier blogs with a reputation for dishonesty still I see. For someone who claims to be open minded the sources you link to are awfully telling.

Professor Harde is a fairly well known climate change denier already and he's made papers in the past that have similar results with similar methodological flaws. Simply put, he uses a two layer model that's an extremely poor proxy for our atmosphere, thus missing a lot of the effects.

This paper is an improvement over their previous model however, which didn't even bother to incorporate feedback effects. So shoddy science has become less shoddy, but is still unfortunately quite poor.

EDIT: It appears that this paper was "published" in a non-peer reviewed, open access journal. This is not surprising, as it appears that it would have been unable to withstand peer review. It's also notable that none of the denier blogs happen to mention this rather important fact, instead choosing to continue to mislead their audience.

 

[bshole]

EDIT: It appears that this paper was "published" in a non-peer reviewed, open access journal. This is not surprising, as it appears that it would have been unable to withstand peer review. It's also notable that none of the denier blogs happen to mention this rather important fact, instead choosing to continue to mislead their audience.

Ummm.... no.... just no.... The above statement was uninformed at best, duplicitous at worst.

From their publication ethics statement:

SOP helps to propagate the scientific results and maintains peer-review strictly along with ethical standard. Peer review plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly submission. The process depends on trust, and requires that everyone involved behave responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process. SOP has a group of senior experts as reviewers all round the world.

As an Open Access publisher, SOP also keeps the principle of Creative Commons. All the academic submissions on SOP are free to all. People can read, copy, distribute and even download the latest research outcome on various devices, including smart phones, notebooks, pads, Kindles, desktop PC, etc. SOP welcomes every individual researcher and institution to submit or read the first-hand scientific information.

SOP follows the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to keep peer review. What is more, SOP also respects the COPE’s definition and guideline of academic misconduct, and makes decision of punishment accordingly.

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/pes

 

[fskimospy]

Ummm.... no.... just no.... The above statement was uninformed at best, duplicitous at worst.

From their publication ethics statement:

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/pes

The peer review for open access journals is so shoddy that there have been cases where a fake paper that was nothing more than scientific technobabble generated by a computer was accepted at one of these journals. You pay the journal to publish your paper, so they have an economic incentive to publish it. They are not subject to the normal peer review process.

Look, we already know your perspective. Any research that supports what you want to believe, no matter how shoddy, is accepted. It's part of your faith.

EDIT: It's also interesting that when you look on the internet for this journal the only thing you see are links to climate denier sites, it seems to have published little else. When you read their "ethics" statement it's rife with typos or grammatical errors despite being based in the US.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Oh good, quoting denier blogs with a reputation for dishonesty still I see. For someone who claims to be open minded the sources you link to are awfully telling.

Professor Harde is a fairly well known climate change denier already and he's made papers in the past that have similar results with similar methodological flaws. Simply put, he uses a two layer model that's an extremely poor proxy for our atmosphere, thus missing a lot of the effects.

This paper is an improvement over their previous model however, which didn't even bother to incorporate feedback effects. So shoddy science has become less shoddy, but is still unfortunately quite poor.

EDIT: It appears that this paper was "published" in a non-peer reviewed, open access journal. This is not surprising, as it appears that it would have been unable to withstand peer review. It's also notable that none of the denier blogs happen to mention this rather important fact, instead choosing to continue to mislead their audience.

Dr. Harde has never denied that fact that our climate is changing and that CO2 is a variable affecting this change. To call him a "climate change denier" is Lie #1.

 

[fskimospy]

Professor Harde has never denied that fact that our climate is changing and that CO2 is a variable affecting this change. To call him a "climate change denier" is Lie #1.

Nope. There are many types of climate change deniers that run a spectrum from "it's not changing at all" to "it's changing but we shouldn't do anything", to more. This type of obfuscation is fairly typical of deniers, but it's all part of the same general movement.

So no more lying from you about this, ok?

 

[dphantom]

Look, we already know your perspective. Any research that supports what you want to believe, no matter how shoddy, is accepted. It's part of your faith.

One could say the same for you. There has been terribly shoddy work done on the AGW side as well.

This paper appears to be well done clearly identifying assumptions and sources of data and the open access journal also seems legitimate. If you have factual data to refute either or both, I would be interested in hearing it.

 

[dphantom]

Nope. There are many types of climate change deniers that run a spectrum from "it's not changing at all" to "it's changing but we shouldn't do anything", to more. This type of obfuscation is fairly typical of deniers, but it's all part of the same general movement.

So no more lying from you about this, ok?

now if that is not obfuscation I do not know what is. Among scientists, I am not aware of any who deny climate changes, that our climate since the end of the LIA has in fact warmed. None. If you know of any list them.

I am aware of many who do want to do additional research before implementing wealth transfer programs amounting to trillions over the coming decades. I think that is prudent. There is so much we do not understand about how the variables that make up climate interact.