Climate change

[Daniel1960]

For simplicity, I am going to go to Wikipedia. Here's what they have to say about Argo:

 

 

 

Or, if you prefer, the actual Argo site:

 

 

 

Simply put, you chose to cite a meaningless statistic. Even the most cursory examination of the Argo data starts with a disclaimer that this should not be used to analyze global climate change.

 

Another great example of your spewing *****...

hrothgar,

Yesterday, you claimed that articles containing Argo data showed that the deep ocean was warming. Today, you are claiming that the data is meaningless. If you are goin to make exaggerated claims, you should at least have enough confidence in your data. This seems to be a repeated meme among many political activists.

 

Additionally, there are a few who agree with the spewing of volcanic ash leading to a reduction in global temperatures, but this is still largely uncertain.

[mike777]

IN the news, carbon tax:

 

The European Parliament this week voted 334-315 (with 60 abstentions) against a controversial "back-loading" plan that aimed to boost the flagging price of carbon, which since 2008 has fallen from about 31 euros per tonne to about 4 euros (about $5.20). Since the vote, the price has fallen even farther, to 2.80 euros. The collapsing market is hardly the kind of firm foundation needed for building a clean-energy economy. (Related: "Renewable Energy Not Growing as Fast as Necessary," and "IEA Outlook: Time Running Out on Climate Change")

 

"Now, the market is dead, as far as I can see," said Steffen Böhm, director of the Essex Sustainability Institute at Britain's Essex Business School.

 

What will be the aftermath of the ETS collapse? Here's a quick primer on what happened, and what it could mean elsewhere, particularly in California, which inaugurated a new carbon market at the start of this year.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/04/130418-europe-carbon-market-crisis/

[Al_U_Card]

Well, the Chicago Carbon Exchange presciently worked it down to a wooden nickel before they closed up shop....

 

Australia has a set price of $23 per tonne so they may need some quick moves to keep the speculators away.

 

It is a lesson-in-kind of how well-meaning ideas can and will be ripped-off by the unscrupulous profiteers. No surprises there. What California is up to seems totally inane and, based on previous attempts to profit from the green movement, it would seem to be hell bent for doom.

 

Other than that, we have had no spring so far, up here, and I am producing prodigious amounts of CO2 from the extra wood-burning to stay warm. Hopefully this will also help to warm the planet a bit......sure it will. :P

[hrothgar]

hrothgar,

Yesterday, you claimed that articles containing Argo data showed that the deep ocean was warming. Today, you are claiming that the data is meaningless. If you are goin to make exaggerated claims, you should at least have enough confidence in your data. This seems to be a repeated meme among many political activists.

 

Additionally, there are a few who agree with the spewing of volcanic ash leading to a reduction in global temperatures, but this is still largely uncertain.

 

Liar liar pants on fire

 

Lets review what actually happen (I encourage folks to look back at the last couple days worth of posts)

 

I made the following statement:

 

With this said and done, the most plausible explanation for the leveling off in atmospheric temperature is the corresponding dramatic increase in the temperatures of the oceans (particularly deep water)

 

During a later post I stated

 

Feel free to google temperature deep ocean climate change for any number of articles

 

At this point in time YOU introduced the Argo data set to the conversation

 

THe Argo data does not show the rise you indicate. Some researchers have added correction factors to the data to achieve higher [lower] changes than the raw data.

 

I then responded by noting that the Argo data set has a bunch of qualifiers related to the length of the sample.

 

Simply put: Learn to read, jackass...

[PassedOut]

Liar liar pants on fire

 

Lets review what actually happened (I encourage folks to look back at the last couple days worth of posts)

Last night I did exactly that in case I had missed something you posted earlier. But no. Seems that Daniel1960 has non-reading skills similar to those of a former poster here, lukewarm. Hmmm.

[Daniel1960]

Liar liar pants on fire

 

Lets review what actually happen (I encourage folks to look back at the last couple days worth of posts)

 

I made the following statement:

 

 

 

During a later post I stated

 

 

 

At this point in time YOU introduced the Argo data set to the conversation

 

 

 

I then responded by noting that the Argo data set has a bunch of qualifiers related to the length of the sample.

 

Simply put: Learn to read, jackass...

Obviously you are unaware to which you refer. You asked me to google deep ocean climate change, which I did. All the references were to ARGO data. Hence, my previous post stands as written. Perhaps, when it comes to your own references, you need to use less rhetoric, and "learn to read."

 

That applies to PassedOut also.

[Winstonm]

Daniel960, did you read these articles? From the first article that came up when I Googled temperature deep ocean climate change: (emphasis added)

 

Most estimates of ocean warming have been limited to the upper 700 meters of water, owing to the limited availability of ocean-temperature data below that depth. Since about the turn of the millennium, the Argo array, an international system of robotic profiling floats, has massively increased ocean sampling to 2,000 meters, and allowed scientists to show conclusively that ocean warming extends below 700 meters.

 

 

However, the ocean is also warming near the bottom, in the coldest waters of the abyssal zones. Oceanographers measure the abyssal ocean to depths of 6,000 meters by lowering accurate recording thermometers and other instruments to the ocean floor on long cables from research vessels. During the 1980s and 1990s, an international program called the World Ocean Circulation Experiment collected thousands of such profiles around the globe.

 

Another article stated:

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model's ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures

 

Nothing about Argo in that computation.

 

Here is the link to the site for the data used for the most recent paper on deep ocean warming.

[Al_U_Card]

Daniel960, did you read these articles?

 

Nothing about Argo in that computation.

 

ECMWF

 

ECMWF's current ocean reanalysis uses a sophisticated data assimilation methodology which includes a model bias correction.

 

Key Strengths

Improved high quality data assimilation method and model

Improved surface forcing and quality control in-situ observations (XBT corrected, Argo blacklists...)

Retrospective use of Argo information via bias correction

 

Say what? :blink:

[Daniel1960]

ECMWF

 

ECMWF's current ocean reanalysis uses a sophisticated data assimilation methodology which includes a model bias correction.

 

Key Strengths

Improved high quality data assimilation method and model

Improved surface forcing and quality control in-situ observations (XBT corrected, Argo blacklists...)

Retrospective use of Argo information via bias correction

 

Say what? :blink:

I found the same thing. It seems that several people are unaware of the references to which they link.

[Al_U_Card]

Since ClimateScientology can blame warm, cold, wet, dry or any other weather conditions on atmospheric [CO2], it is really easy to sift through data and fulfill the narrative.

 

Now, if only we would care about the planet and how we are leaving it for our grandchildren, we wouldn't worry about facts or costs and we would just fall in line and do as we are told by the zealots and the alarmists... <_<

[hrothgar]

Obviously you are unaware to which you refer. You asked me to google deep ocean climate change, which I did. All the references were to ARGO data. Hence, my previous post stands as written. Perhaps, when it comes to your own references, you need to use less rhetoric, and "learn to read."

 

That applies to PassedOut also.

 

Here are the search results when you google deep ocean climate change

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=deep+ocean+climate+change&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs

 

The first page is: http://tcktcktck.org/2013/03/deep-ocean-warming-adds-evidence-that-climate-change-is-accelerating/49174

 

This page, in turn references the following article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

 

And here is the abstract for the article in question

 

The elusive nature of the post-2004 upper ocean warming has exposed uncertainties in the ocean's role in the Earth's energy budget and transient climate sensitivity. Here we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009 from a new observational-based reanalysis of the ocean. Volcanic eruptions and El Niño events are identified as sharp cooling events punctuating a long-term ocean warming trend, while heating continues during the recent upper-ocean-warming hiatus, but the heat is absorbed in the deeper ocean. In the last decade, about 30% of the warming has occurred below 700 m, contributing significantly to an acceleration of the warming trend. The warming below 700 m remains even when the Argo observing system is withdrawn although the trends are reduced. Sensitivity experiments illustrate that surface wind variability is largely responsible for the changing ocean heat vertical distribution.[/quote]

 

While it is correct that the article references the Argo data set, they are also very careful to establish that results hold true when the Argo data set is excluded.

Do I need to repeat the exercise for other links?

 

If you don't like: "Learn to read", perhaps "Reading comprehension is not your strong suit" is more acceptable?

[Al_U_Card]

Once again, those KlimateKlowns at the sKeptiKalscience blog are busy changing the past...

 

Thankfully, records and facts DO exist

 

SkS quietly withdraws allegation

 

Last week I ribbed Dana Nuccitelli and Gavin Schmidt over the former's comparing the mean of the Aldrin paper to the mode of Lewis's.

[hrothgar]

Well, we can always go back to the "bucket adjustment" that stayed with the Hadley Centre sea-surface temperatures for 20 years and failed to account for the difference between over-the-side bucket samples versus engine inlet measurements...

Thousands of state-of-the-art ARGO probes taking millions of measurements...(and not just in shipping lanes etc.)

 

http://i54.tinypic.com/eu4pzq.jpg

 

I wonder who is paying for all this "unreliable" errrrr data?

 

Another clear example that Al is too stupid to engage in these sorts of discussions.

 

The warnings about using the Argo data set are not based on the data being unreliable. Rather, the length of the sample is not long enough to be used to model long term trends. Simply put, there isn't enough data available for reliable inference. (As I recall, several posts earlier in this same thread noted the futility of modelling long term trends using short samples. I'm too lazy to go back and search for the precise length of the sample needed, but I seem to recall that it was 17 years or so.)

 

If we wait a few years, I expect that the Argo data set should become a valuable source of information.

 

BTW Al, I really miss the World Trade Center "truther" threads. Any chance that you can be convinced to explain once again how the government blew up the World Trade Center?

[Daniel1960]

 

While it is correct that the article references the Argo data set, they are also very careful to establish that results hold true when the Argo data set is excluded.

Do I need to repeat the exercise for other links?

 

If you don't like: "Learn to read", perhaps "Reading comprehension is not your strong suit" is more acceptable?

 

First, I will not stoop to your level of insults. Secondly, one paper does not constitute acceptance within the scientific community.

 

The lack of warming observed recently (also referred to as a pause, plateau, hiatus, etc.) has been the subject of much debate and research. One of the possibilities is the absorption of the heat into the deep oceans. Should this be the case, then the release of that heat should result in rapid warming of the Earth's surface. Other possibilities would not require a similar outcome. I know many scientists are struggling to find this "missing heat" (to quote Trenberth), while others are scrambling to explain possible causes (Chinese aerosols - Hanson, Solar minimum - Lean, ENSO - Nielsen-Gammon, Water vapor - Solomon, Volcanoes - Neely). Regardless, it is generally accepted that the warming has not continued as predicted based on the 1979-1998 rates.

 

Let me state for the record that I am not rejecting the theory that the "missing heat" has been concentated in the deep ocean. Rather, I feel that it is one of the less likely explanations for the recently observed temperature trend.

[Daniel1960]

Another clear example that Al is too stupid to engage in these sorts of discussions.

 

The warnings about using the Argo data set are not based on the data being unreliable. Rather, the length of the sample is not long enough to be used to model long term trends. Simply put, there isn't enough data available for reliable inference. (As I recall, several posts earlier in this same thread noted the futility of modelling long term trends using short samples. I'm too lazy to go back and search for the precise length of the sample needed, but I seem to recall that it was 17 years or so.)

 

If we wait a few years, I expect that the Argo data set should become a valuable source of information.

 

BTW Al, I really miss the World Trade Center "truther" threads. Any chance that you can be convinced to explain once again how the government blew up the World Trade Center?

 

The length of the sample needed is not fixed. Many people refer to a 17-year timeframe, but that was specific to the RSS temperature data. Extending that to another dataset would be inappropriate. Once the ARGO data has been sample for sufficient duration to enable scientifically significant trends to be calculated, then the data will likely received wide-spread acceptance. This would be similar to the UAH and RSS satellite temperature data, which required several years of data collection (and several satellite adjustments) prior to being accepted as global temperature measurements.

[Daniel1960]

The IPCC has released their analysis of why they maintain that cloud feedback is positive. This has potentially large implications has the effect from doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations is +4 W/m2, will the total cloud effect is -17 W/m2. Acknowledging large uncertainties, and that the results come mostly from modeled simulations, the IPCC has stated that the cloud feedback parameter comes predominatly from a reduction in low-level clouds (models show a near-cancellation of LW and SW effects fro mid- and high-level clouds). This modelled reduction would lead to an increase in downwelling radiation, resulting in increased temperatures. An additional slight positive feedback occurs due to a modelled pole-ward shift in circulation. Observational data is still lacking to confirm or refute these claims.

 

 

http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ch7_clouds-aerosols_wg1ar5_sod_ch07_all_final.pdf

[Winstonm]

I found this quote amusing in a bittersweet way:

 

And of course, the usual suspects are already trying to decry this new study, but as they always do they have to resort to twisting reality into a Möbius strip. But this is nothing new when it comes to denier claims. Their methods are always the same: cherry-picking data that supports their argument but ignores huge amounts of evidence refuting them, displaying misleading graphs, and out-and-out witch hunts and attacks. If you can’t attack the science, don’t worry, just keep attacking anyway

 

Methinks they read the WC.

[Al_U_Card]

I found this quote amusing in a bittersweet way:

 

And of course, the usual suspects are already trying to decry this new study, but as they always do they have to resort to twisting reality into a Möbius strip. But this is nothing new when it comes to denier claims. Their methods are always the same: cherry-picking data that supports their argument but ignores huge amounts of evidence refuting them, displaying misleading graphs, and out-and-out witch hunts and attacks. If you can’t attack the science, don’t worry, just keep attacking anyway

 

 

 

Methinks they read the WC.

 

Ah, that would be people that don't take things on faith or belief and question results?

 

A Mobius strip that is needed to follow the peregrinations of the alarmist claims?

 

Not new, because the CAGW meme just keeps repeating the same old crap.

 

Cherry-picking is necessary to make a cherry pie, according to D'Arrigo...

 

Huge amounts of... ah yes, cherry-picked data including lone trees in Yamal or bristlecone pines etc. etc. etc.

 

Witch hunts and attacks? Like wanting to dehumanize skeptics by using the pejorative term denier? Pot, meet kettle.

[Winstonm]

Ah, that would be people that don't take things on faith or belief and question results?

 

A Mobius strip that is needed to follow the peregrinations of the alarmist claims?

 

Not new, because the CAGW meme just keeps repeating the same old crap.

 

Cherry-picking is necessary to make a cherry pie, according to D'Arrigo...

 

Huge amounts of... ah yes, cherry-picked data including lone trees in Yamal or bristlecone pines etc. etc. etc.

 

Witch hunts and attacks? Like wanting to dehumanize skeptics by using the pejorative term denier? Pot, meet kettle.

 

requote:

just keep attacking anyway

[hrothgar]

Ah, that would be people that don't take things on faith or belief and question results?

 

A Mobius strip that is needed to follow the peregrinations of the alarmist claims?

 

Not new, because the CAGW meme just keeps repeating the same old crap.

 

Cherry-picking is necessary to make a cherry pie, according to D'Arrigo...

 

Huge amounts of... ah yes, cherry-picked data including lone trees in Yamal or bristlecone pines etc. etc. etc.

 

Witch hunts and attacks? Like wanting to dehumanize skeptics by using the pejorative term denier? Pot, meet kettle.

 

Project much?

[hrothgar]

Witch hunts and attacks? Like wanting to dehumanize skeptics by using the pejorative term denier? Pot, meet kettle.

 

Does anyone else appreciate the irony in posting this line item on the same page that you post

 

Once again, those KlimateKlowns at the sKeptiKalscience blog are busy changing the past...

[mike777]

just read somewhere that c02 emissions down to a 20year low in usa

 

if true this seems to be a good first step.

granted it seems China is choking on basic air/water pollution...today.

---

I also read that solar panel companies are crashing in usa, china, etc....due to crash in pricing.

 

With all of that said I still predict next ten years will be considered the golden years when it comes to solar energy and innovation. Many will fail and that is ok, a few will become rich...very rich and that is ok. This will result in inequality.

 

My main wish is that those that take the risk to win or fail are those that gain the benefits. I hope gov't will not try and transfer risk onto others such as taxpayers in the name of equality so that a few others may gain the benefits.

[Daniel1960]

requote:

Those quotes could be applied to either extreme in the climate debate. They both seem to cherrypick the data to suit their needs (one would think that the temperature record started in either 1979 or 1998), use misleading graphs (particularly those that use "corrections" to the data), and accuse their opponents of being "antiscience" or having a hidden agenda. Stick to reading the science, and read the politic claims with a grain of salt (or an entire shaker).

[Winstonm]

Those quotes could be applied to either extreme in the climate debate. They both seem to cherrypick the data to suit their needs (one would think that the temperature record started in either 1979 or 1998), use misleading graphs (particularly those that use "corrections" to the data), and accuse their opponents of being "antiscience" or having a hidden agenda. Stick to reading the science, and read the politic claims with a grain of salt (or an entire shaker).

 

Read the science? Like this?

 

"Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records...."

[Winstonm]

Study finds link between conspiracy ideation and science denial.