What Do We Think About Climate Change

debates over
you guys are just practicing your Agnotology skills

 

Hey! the man, not the ball, again...

IPCC, the forth assesment report, Oceanic blabla..
quote:

"For the period 1993 to 2003, the Levitus et al. (2005a)
analysis has a linear global ocean trend of 0.42 ± 0.18 W m–2,
Willis et al. (2004) has a trend of 0.66 ± 0.18 W m–2 and Ishii
et al. (2006) a trend of 0.33 ± 0.18 W m–2. Overall, we assess
the trend for this period as 0.5 ± 0.18 W m–2. For the 0 to 700
m layer and the period 1955 to 2003 the heat content change
is 10.9 ± 3.1 × 10e22 J or 0.14 ± 0.04 W m–2 (data from Levitus
et al., 2005a)."​

unquote.

Now, who wrote that crappy piece of paper?

Turns out:
Again quote:

"Observations:
Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Nathaniel L. Bindoff (Australia), Jürgen Willebrand (Germany)
Lead Authors:
Vincenzo Artale (Italy), Anny Cazenave (France), Jonathan M. Gregory (UK), Sergey Gulev (Russian Federation), Kimio Hanawa (Japan),
Corrine Le Quéré (UK, France, Canada), Sydney Levitus (USA), Yukihiro Nojiri (Japan), C.K. Shum (USA), Lynne D. Talley (USA),
Alakkat S. Unnikrishnan (India)
Contributing Authors:
J. Antonov (USA, Russian Federation), N.R. Bates (Bermuda), T. Boyer (USA), D. Chambers (USA), B. Chao (USA), J. Church (Australia),
R. Curry (USA), S. Emerson (USA), R. Feely (USA), H. Garcia (USA), M. González-Davíla (Spain), N. Gruber (USA, Switzerland),
S. Josey (UK), T. Joyce (USA), K. Kim (Republic of Korea), B. King (UK), A. Koertzinger (Germany), K. Lambeck (Australia),
K. Laval (France), N. Lefevre (France), E. Leuliette (USA), R. Marsh (UK), C. Mauritzen (Norway), M. McPhaden (USA), C. Millot (France),
C. Milly (USA), R. Molinari (USA), R.S. Nerem (USA), T. Ono (Japan), M. Pahlow (Canada), T.-H. Peng (USA), A. Proshutinsky (USA),
B. Qiu (USA), D. Quadfasel (Germany), S. Rahmstorf (Germany), S. Rintoul (Australia), M. Rixen (NATO, Belgium), P. Rizzoli (USA, Italy),
C. Sabine (USA), D. Sahagian (USA), F. Schott (Germany), Y. Song (USA), D. Stammer (Germany), T. Suga (Japan), C. Sweeney (USA),
M. Tamisiea (USA), M. Tsimplis (UK, Greece), R. Wanninkhof (USA), J. Willis (USA), A.P.S. Wong (USA, Australia), P. Woodworth (UK),
I. Yashayaev (Canada), I. Yasuda (Japan)
Review Editors:
Laurent Labeyrie (France), David Wratt (New Zealand)
This chapter should be cited as:
Bindoff, N.L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A, Cazenave, J. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, C. Le Quéré, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, C.K. Shum, L.D.
Talley and A. Unnikrishnan, 2007: Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S.,
D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA."​

Ok, I kinda believe in their statement, quoted by myself, just above here. Give or take a few joules.

I repeat:
Quote

"For the 0 to 700
m layer and the period 1955 to 2003 the heat content change
is 10.9 ± 3.1 × 10e22 J"​

Unquote...

109 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Joules....

Thats some amount of energy.

In -45 Hiroshima received approx 6 x 10e13 Joules, that was also a lot of energy. Though in a very short timespan.

You could of course take the first number here, divide with the no from -45 and figure out a number, divide that again in no of years. You'll then get a quantity of the Hiroshima disaster. Divide that again on Km2 land area on this globe. Or total area, whatever. That amount of energy input is something that pretty well may do something with our climate. Then tell me that this "extra" energy input is not worth considering to at least try to (partly?) steer away from...?
(to simplyfy; every 13 km2 of this earth's surface gets an extra energy equivalent to that 6 x 10e13 Joules, each year... approximately, If we heard it, it would be very clear to us...).

Or you could of course go for the man, not the ball, again...I have attached some of the team list above here.... Even a lady from Norway. (Now THAT should do the trick, keep you kinda occupied..).

Well, come to think of it, some of them, probably, actually got paid for that report. Does that mean their view is biased?

And, with regards to the disaster 1945 in Japan; I do not mean any insults there. That should never have happened. I belive Oppenheimer said "for a brief moment the gates of hell were wide open...". and the actual size of the first bomb dropped on Japanese civilains, in -45 is debated, but 6 x 10e13 Joules seem to be an average estimate.

 

So in theory, we should be just burning up right now. So why have we not had a year warmer than '98? And since '98 was a spike year and therefore not statistically significant, why have we not warmed since 1994? The aerosols/sulphates/particulates hypothesis won't cut it; already debunked by the actual numbers; the hemisphere with the most particulates/sulphates warmed, while the other one cooled, (and cooled enough to result in flat/slightly cooling global trend over the time period in question) just the opposite of theory. How curious that reality does not agree with theory! Not to worry, we'll just 'pretend' a new reality, rather than admit the error in the theory

Jimbo

 

sounds like the Agnotologysts got to you
cause when 97% of the actual scientists in a field agree
its a bloody miracle

could be your letting that pesky 3% confuse you
at least its far more likely that than that 97% got it wrong
although nothing is absolute
the sheer numbers of independent researchers coming to common conclusion is pretty strong evidence
rather than the rare few ( mostly paid by industry ) who hold a contradictory view

its like saying the earth is flat
oh there are people who believe it
but not many
they to claim science backs em up
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

 

Jimbo; Warming, not burning.

Reality pretty much agrees with theory.

I've hammered this issue for a couple of years now. It started with a stupid radioreporter, doing an interview on a scientist from Flodevigen (Marine station, not far from here). I was a bit "Oh, Christ, notthin' new here, where's the detailed information, if there is any?" So, I got pissed, armed myself with the phone, tracked up one of these fellows in flodevigen, talked, next man, same place, talked. Got directed to the marine station in Bergen, new man, talked, got access to data bases, over sea temperatures over a larger part of the world. Contacted a fellow on the oposite part of the world, got some similar information there. My lack of understanding how a different time zone works, actually screwed up the first part of the conversation...

What I pulled of verbal info from these fellows, were pretty much the same. Water's warming up. Period.

They were curious to who I were, my motives, so I told them the truth; I had no motives, I was just irritated by the lack of details in the ongoing debate.

I had no motives then, I admit that have more or less changed.

So; My conclusion was; water has heated. How much? Well the data I had collected was not detailed enough. So I made some (A zillion) assumptions, simplifications. If I recall correctly, the first time I did that exercise, I came up with the number:

2 900 000 000 000 000 000 000 Joules....

To me this sounded way too fu***ng far out... I did some checking of numbers, but no real improvement, just something similar. I just felt kinda scared shitless and worried.

Now; IPCC have came up with the number for the change in the heat input in the oceans:

109 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Joules.... +/- some numbers,
3 x my first estimate....? Well, I certainly belive their numbers over mine.

Not too much disagreement though, they are probably more brightheaded than me, they are more persons in their sheer quantity of number of persons, they have better access to measurements, dept, surface, anything.

And, as Boston have pointed out; they have actually reached a kind of agreement on their numbers. Whats the odds for that?

Oh, and yea, there must be some energy input over land areas too....

Come to think of it; I should've received some funding capital by now....

 

hey Knuts did you read the article in the BBC on Antarctic warming confirmed
pretty convincing stuff

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7843186.stm

 

Boston, I agree with you.... anyway, I was hoping for a cooling over the land areas down there....

Well, 2008 was the coolest year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786060.stm

Turns out that it actually was the coolest single year of the 10 warmest years...

 

Just a quick pop up to say I'm pretty busy these days and I have not time to actively participate in the forums, but I'm still with Jimbo here. Don't desperate with all these guys, man! We are on the right track!

Best to all.

 

Right track? Or the right road??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQXsuAey-NE

 

dont you believe it Jimbo
Guillermo is about to crack



he's just out on another bender and will back once he runs out of money
or goes completely round the bend
whichever comes first

B

 

By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

2008 ranked 15th coldest of the thirty years of records for the University of Alabama MSU based lower tropospheric temperatures (right in the middle of the pack). It was the coldest year since 2000. It continues the downtrend of the last 7 years. This compares with the Hadley Center data which (together with the equally alarmist WMO) claims 2008 will rank 10th warmest since 1850. (159 years!). How can an “average year” in one data base appear be a “top 6%” warmest year in another?

Well the global data bases of NOAA GHCN, NASA GISS and Hadley CRUT3v are all contaminated by urbanization, major station dropout, missing data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment and black box and man made adjustments designed to maximize warming (Steve McIntyre found more urban areas had their temperatures adjusted up then down). Also ocean temperatures are an issue with a change in the methods of measurement and incomplete coverage. Hadley uses their own merchant ship data and that covers some heavily travelled routes but has no coverage of the vast southern oceans (the oceans cover 70% of the world’s surface).

The biggest issue is station dropout. 2/3rds of the world’s stations, many rural areas in the FSU stopped reporting around 1990. Climatologist David Legates at the University of Delaware are prepared this animation. See the lights go out in 1990. The below plot of the NOAA/NASA station count (blue line) and average annual temperatures (brown columns). It clearly shows the big dropoff of rural stations. The animation above shows that Siberia is one area with the biggest change.

Average temperatures for the station categories jumped when the stations dropped out, suggesting that it was mainly the colder stations that were no longer in the record. The global data bases all set up grid boxes globally and populate the temperatures for the box using data from within that box or now with many empty boxes using the closest stations weighted by distance in nearby boxes. Thus a box which had rural stations, will find temperatures now determined by urban areas in that box or distant boxes. This is why the global data bases suggest the greatest warming has been in Siberia.

Also a factor is that in the FSU era, the cities and towns temperatures determined allocations of funds and fuel, so it is believed that the cold was exaggerated in the past introducing an artificial warming.

The Hadley monthly and UAH MSU monthly lower tropospheric temperatures are shown. Both show cooling (0.2C (0.3F)) for MSU and (0.15C (0.25F)) for Hadley. Note the significant NEGATIVE correlation of temperatures with CO2.

Anomaly differences come from the base period to compare to and compute anomalies. The Hadley used 1960 to 1990 and the satellite centers 1979-1998. Satellite microwave sensing is not subject to any of these problems and provides full global coverage. It integrates local warming due to urbanization. It is as a result is the most reliable and trustworthy. Unfortunately the data extends only back to 1979. Nonetheless, you can use the above to conclude this past year was not the 10th warmest year as the alarmists are claiming.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpr...-2000-and-clearly-not-a-top-ten-warmest-year/

 

if all those organizatins got it wrong along with the 97% of scientists who actually study climate
then how can all that ice be melting if its cooling off

 

Who cares, when with only 30 years of data on that ice, we have NO IDEA if this is even anomalous? I may have happened 70 years ago the same way, or even more recently than that; NOBODY EVEN KNOWS.

Meanwhile, the tropics continue NOT to warm as the AGW crowd predicted. Remember the moment in the middle of "An Inconvenient Truth" where Big Al points to the tropics on a map globe, and declares "Right here; that's where the greenhouse effect will be felt first". But is has not happened that way.

If we were warming due to changes in the greenhouse effect, the tropics should show (according to the predictions by the AGW alarm gurus) 2.5-3X the warming seen globally. So if the global average temp goes up 1*, we should see 2.5-3* increase in the tropical troposphere. So where did all that warming go? Why has that conspicuous piece of warming gone missing? Basic greenhouse theory dictates that prominent warming occurs in the tropics; all the GCM's are programmed to predict this as well. A tropical warming of 1 or 1.2 degrees is not going to cut it; that connotes a global average anomaly of only ~.3-.5*. Now with the last 10 years of flat to slightly cooling temps, we might say that 1.2* in the tropics is right on target, but the corollary of that is a global warming of a mere .3-.5*, which is not anything to worry about at all.

Once again, the AGW via CO2 hypothesis has failed to explain any weather or climate events of the past or present as the poles warm instead of the tropics as they predicted. Not to worry, they'll just change the predictions to match what we now observe; no one will even notice

Jimbo

 

science can make some pretty good guesses as to what happened in the past


not sure why they call em drop stones
we learned it as zenolyths

 

AiiiAhhhuuuurrrr In winter EXPECT colder temperatures over land and at night particularly if the winds/storms come from nearer the polar regions and over land - Please learn some of the basics of meteorology (You are not up to climate change skills yet)....

Recent information and analysis of Antarctica leads CSIRO (Australia's research organization who is effectively more independent than anyone else on earth researching climate..... Expectation is land ice will melt faster than expected.... and is confirmed by ocean temperatures as the drivers......

Anyhow other events will determine that this debate is not really relevant in the global survival of humanity as many other things will preempt any real need to take action starve, freeze or loose mobility take your pick