Climate-gate

The Pause:

the_pause_wood_for_trees.jpg
 
Now we have a chief business adviser to the Australian Government, Maurice Newman, saying (May 8, 2015):
"This is not about facts or logic. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN"
that:
"Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule, according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser."
src: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-adviser-maurice-newman-20150508-ggwuzt.html

Any one serious about dealing with global climate change hasn't got a hope with the sort of confusion these sorts of crazy statements can cause.
 
milkweed said:
The pause hadcrut 4:
Click to expand...
I don't see anything for heat content except air temperatures.

Looks like a statistical artifact of the air temperature blip around 1998 and an unexplained truncation of the data.

So what's your answer to the question of what happened to the global air temps around 1998, and not before or since?

Or if you want an easier one, that you might in fact be able to answer: why do these repostings from your chosen sources so often begin just after 1996, and focus on air temps only?
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Now we have a chief business adviser to the Australian Government, Maurice Newman, saying (May 8, 2015):
"This is not about facts or logic. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN"
that:
"Climate change is a hoax led by the United Nations so that it can end democracy and impose authoritarian rule, according to Prime Minister Tony Abbott's chief business adviser."
src: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...s-adviser-maurice-newman-20150508-ggwuzt.html

Any one serious about dealing with global climate change hasn't got a hope with the sort of confusion these sorts of crazy statements can cause.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Best to ignore the insane statements and focus on the science. Good example:
==================================
03.05.2015 07:46 Age: 5 days

Gravity data shows that Antarctic ice sheet is melting increasingly faster, according to a new paper by Princeton scientists.

by Morgan Kelly, Princeton University

During the past decade, Antarctica's massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent's ice cap is melting ever faster.

The researchers "weighed" Antarctica's ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be more than a mile high — more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.
=================================
 
billvon said:
Gravity data shows that Antarctic ice sheet is melting increasingly faster, according to a new paper by Princeton scientists.
During the past decade, Antarctica's massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent's ice cap is melting ever faster.

The researchers "weighed" Antarctica's ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters.
Click to expand...
Here is how to weigh things from satellite (Same way we recently learned SW US was mining much more water than was thought by summing up reported use.)
ice-shelf-diagram.jpg

" The accelerating ice shelf loss is due to warm ocean currents that have encroached on West Antarctica's ice shelves, melting them from below."

Above quote is from: http://www.livescience.com/50282-antarctica-ice-shelves-rapidly-thinning.html#ixzz3ZZZXMsYH

Billy T explains: Why there is a "buoyant melt plume" (Shown under the ice flowing up and out, as a lighter blue (hard to see against the darker blue). This is exposing more of the lower ice surface to warmer water that replace the rising to surface, "buoyant melt plume." I. e. There is now an active bouancy driven flow bring warmer water into contact with the lower surface of the ice - Accelerating its melting, which then increase the buoyant flow.
I lost count, but think this is new, now known, positive feed back number 32.

Although most things contract as they cool, and water does too, but only as the temperature falls down to 4C. As 4C water cools to say 2C, it expands - becomes less dense or is "buoyant" compared to 4 or 5C water. Zero C water, from the just melted ice, is even more buoyant than the 2C water.

Also interesting to note (scary perhaps): The average surface of the ocean (winds & currents neglected) is "level" or more correctly stated: all at the same gravitational potential. The shape of this equal potential surface depends up on the distribution of mass. For example a big important mass that moves wrt to the earth, is the moon. The moon's movement, even though far away causes the "equal potential surface" to move up and down RWT some part of the "solid earth" - like the shore line. I. e. makes "tides"

A much smaller but much closer mass can make "tides" too if it moves. The inverse square gravitational law "helps" amplify the effect of the smaller /closer moving mass. All that Antarctic ice is currently "pulling water" into the southern hemisphere. If some (or all) of it were to melt, the greater mass of now liquid water, would be higher everywhere than it is now but, and this is the point, no longer be pulled towards the South Poll.

The sea level rise will be greater in the North Atlantic than any were else when some Antarctic ice melts. - Sort of just, don't you think?
US and Europe were the main sources of the already released by man, CO2 that now for first time has had a month long average above 400 ppm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Pause:

The recent pause in warming
globe.jpg

July 2013

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and-implications-of-the-pause/

http://judithcurry.com/2015/01/16/warmest-year-pause-and-all-that/

And finally:
Even so, the highest year could not be distinguished. That is, of course, an indication that the Earth’s average temperature for the last decade has changed very little.
Click to expand...

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf

IPCC AR4 said:
For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. Afterwards, temperature projections increasingly depend on specific emissions scenarios.
Click to expand...

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html

IPCC AR5 said:
Figure 11.9 (a) and (b) show CMIP5 projections of global mean surface air temperature under RCP4.5. The 5 to 95% range for the projected anomaly for the period 2016–2035, relative to the reference period 1986–2005, is 0.47°C to 1.00°C (see also Table 12.2). However, as discussed in Section 11.3.1.1, this range provides only a very crude measure of uncertainty, and there is no guarantee that the real world must lie within this range.
Click to expand...

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

LOL. No guarantee the real world will cooperate with our models.....

Christiana Figueres said:
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.
Click to expand...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/...litical-authority-global-warming-is-the-hook/

And so it goes...
 
milkweed said:
The Pause:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming July 2013 ...
Click to expand...
From this link's 2nd paper:
"... Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role."

That is the "why" of an AIR TEMPERATURE rise pause, I think. There is no reason to think that IR radiation to space has increased, causing air temperature to pause or rise significantly more slowly, and good reason to think IR radiation to space has decreased as Earth's Green House Gases "blanket" grows thicker. - Last month was first time the average of CO2 concentration exceeded 400 ppm for a full month average.

A small part of the air temperature pause may be due to sun's 11 year cycle being in a lower sunspot count phase recently (very slightly less solar energy coming to earth than when sunspots were more numerous), but that tiny variation in intensity can not explain the pause by its self. Also it is a measured fact that the deeper ocean is now warming faster than the surface ocean. This is quite typical of thermal conduction - a time lag.*

* In fact native houses in US's SW made of adobe usually are nearly perfect in their wall thickness. I.e. the heat absorbed during the day is a "thermal wave pulse" that reaches the inner wall about 12 hours later when the night air is cold. I.e. the heat of ocean surface when sun spots were in max of their cycle is a thermal wave propagating into the deeper ocean now and warming it.

Those natives have not solved the thermal surface step function in temperature's propagation into interior equation as I have - but the required adobe wall thickness for a 12 hour time lag was empirically learned generations earlier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
From this link's 2nd paper:
Click to expand...

What you forgot is "The second suggests"... and it ends with ..."the Pacific Ocean may play a key role."

What you deny is that these same things are also inline with natural variability, including (by some estimates) 40% to 60% of the observed past warming (ie 75-97). And that is the most generous (when thinking agw). Others put it at 60-80% of the 75-97 warming as natural variation.

We have already translated Ocean Heat Content from Joules to temp in past discussion. .06 (6/100ths) degree Celsius in approx 60 years in the top 2000 meters and if I remember correctly 9/100ths of a degree in the top 700 meters. Which is also calculated in the Pause via sst.

Further reading on "the Oceans ate my Global Warming":
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/trenberth-debunks-himself-oceans-didnt.html

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-ipcc-exaggerates-greenhouse-forcing.html

63 excuses for the pause (note how many are unrelated to AGW-ie natural variability)

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/07/updated-list-of-29-excuses-for-18-year.html
 
To milkweed:My start of post 2370 also ends with "the Pacific Ocean may play a key role" So have no idea what fist line of your post 2371 is about.

I am not denying natural varibality, but point to one cause of AIR TEMPERATURE varying form ten year trend of a few years ago: More of the every greater solar heating of Earth (due to the strong trend of CO2 and other green houses making Earth's "thermal blanker" thicker every year has been heating the deeper ocean, not the air, you focus on.

You are posting confused non-sense when you speak of "translated Ocean Heat Content from Joules to temp" as they are different thing. Just as you can not translate MPH into feet. Or for example ice at 0C has less heat /joules than 0C water does. (by 80 calories /gram). I. e. heat content is not in any simple way related to temperature.

I did not read your "ocean ate my global warming" links as, yes I think that is mainly what has caused the "pause" in AIR TEMPERATURE rise as Earth's total heat content continues to increase each year as the thermal blanket for IR radiation grows thicker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
I am not denying natural varibality, but point to one cause of AIR TEMPERATURE varying form ten year trend of a few years ago: More of the every greater solar heating of Earth (due to the strong trend of CO2 and other green houses making Earth's "thermal blanker" thicker every year has been heating the deeper ocean, not the air, you focus on.

You are posting confused non-sense when you speak of "translated Ocean Heat Content from Joules to temp" as they are different thing. Just as you can not translate MPH into feet. Or for example ice at 0C has less heat /joules than 0C water does. (by 80 calories /gram). I. e. heat content is not in any simple way related to temperature.

I did not read your "ocean ate my global warming" links as, yes I think that is mainly what has caused the "pause" in AIR TEMPERATURE rise as Earth's total heat content continues to increase each year as the thermal blanket for IR radiation grows thicker.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Refuse to read anything that contradicts your belief.

If you cannot translate Joules into temp then you better tell that to the people analyzing argo data.
REPEAT of Post 267 Jan 24 2015.
Over the past 50 years, the oceans have absorbed more than 80% of the total heat added to the air/sea/land/cyrosphere climate system (Levitus et al, 2005). As the dominant reservoir for heat, the oceans are critical for measuring the radiation imbalance of the planet and the surface layer of the oceans plays the role of thermostat and heat source/sink for the lower atmosphere.

Domingues et al (2008) and Levitus et al (2009) have recently estimated the multi-decadal upper ocean heat content using best-known corrections to systematic errors in the fall rate of expendable bathythermographs (Wijffels et al, 2008). For the upper 700m, the increase in heat content was 16 x 1022 J since 1961. This is consistent with the comparison by Roemmich and Gilson (2009) of Argo data with the global temperature time-series of Levitus et al (2005), finding a warming of the 0 - 2000 m ocean by 0.06°C since the (pre-XBT) early 1960's.
Click to expand...

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html#temp


lol OMG .06 of a degree (c) CCC (TM)

lol I cannot imagine how hard my doctor would laff If I came in with a fever of .06 degree (c). I believe he would recommend a placebo and diagnose a case of hypochondria. You should think about that BillyT.
 
milkweed said:
lol I cannot imagine how hard my doctor would laff If I came in with a fever of .06 degree (c).
Click to expand...
Yep. You'd probably "laff" at anything your doctor said, since he is a member of the "consensus scientific community." And as we all know - THERE'S NO CONSENSUS!

I can just see it now -
"Sir, you have pancreatic cancer. Your biopsy shows malignant cells."
"But has my body temperature changed?"
"Yes, that's one of the reasons you are running a fever."
"But has the temperature of my eye changed?"
"Well, that has changed very slightly, but the temperature of your eye isn't really . . . ."
"HAHAHAHAHAHAH!"
 
Last edited:
milkweed said:
.... If you cannot translate Joules into temp then you better tell that to the people analyzing argo data.
Click to expand...
No problem to convert a change in heat content to a change in temperature IFF you specify ,as argo people did, the nature and mass of the object with increased heat content. In there case they said: "the upper 700m of the ocean"

Your error was to think there was some universal conversion between joules added and temperature rise. I even noted that 80 calories (334.72 joules) could be added to a gram of ice with no temperature rise.
 
milkweed said:
LOL. No guarantee the real world will cooperate with our models.....
Click to expand...
It's called "science", not "mathematics", for a reason - one of the implications of the uncertainty, btw, is that the warming trends and problems might be worse than the models predict. We have seen that with the ice melt in the Arctic and Antarctic, for example, where the models missed way low. The assumption that the science will be wrong only in the direction the unscientific and politically motivated prefer is not a safe one.

milkweed said:
lol OMG .06 of a degree (c) CCC (TM)
Click to expand...
So you think that's a small number?

What is it with you guys that anything to the right of a decimal point, regardless of scale or units or measurement accuracy or consequences, is somehow trivial or tiny in your view?

Remember when the standard denialist honk was to tell everyone how small a fraction of the atmosphere was CO2? That it was a "trace gas" and therefore trivial? You might have learned from that experience.
 
Last edited:
Photizo said:
"One key issue which Dr Peiser claims has caused confusion is a discrepancy between surface temperature data and satellite findings...Dr Peiser told Express.co.uk: “There’s a lack of clarity, a lack of transparency and a growing concern about what is going on."
Click to expand...
Peiser? Ah yes, I remember him. He's the one who claimed "THERE'S NO CONSENSUS!" and claimed that all the figures about the consensus were inaccurate. When he was asked to prove this, he listed 34 papers in a study of 928 peer reviewed papers that he claimed did not agree with the consensus. When people started asking him more questions, he started to back down: "I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay." When the pressure mounted, he admitted he could only find ONE paper that refuted the consensus - thus proving that there was, in fact, a consensus.

I expect the same thing to happen here. In a year or so he'll publish an apology when his deceit is exposed, hoping no one will notice. This is common among climate change deniers. The pattern usually goes like this:

Denier: "There's no warming!"
Science: "Here's the proof."
Denier: "The numbers were doctored!"
Science: "Here's the trend without the adjustment and the trend with the adjustment. They both show warming."
Denier: "Well, look, it might be warming a little bit, but why did you have to change things?"
Science: "Because we reviewed the instrumental data, and realized that there were systemic errors in this list of stations due to the type of thermocouple they were using. Since the errors were nonlinear, the adjustment was made . . . "
Denier: "Well that's all very confusing; I certainly don't understand it. Why is there a discrepancy? WHY IS THERE NO TRANSPARENCY?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top