@BrianK

I made a round up by nation of fertility figures a while back. In most European countries (Stable, afluent) there was decline rather than growth. The exception was France but the growth came from the large immigrant population. India has experienced a huge drop in fertility (children per fertile woman) but it is still large compared with many other countries. In China 40% of young women refuse to have children, or say they refuse! In NZ fertility is above replacement but in our family looking through three generations it is exactly replacement, although just 4 of the women have had 4 children each? In other words the situation is not smooth. There is also the decreasing male fertility world wide, affecting animals too. Antibiotics have been blamed. Do our excesses inspire reaction?

Noel

@BrianK

The one graph of ocean heat content I can see is interesting.

Quote:

Looking at the different datasets and translations I think scientists have another 5-10 years working to tighten and refine the science on Ocean Heat Content.

Quite apart from proving the technologies deployed!

I've been through this myself with instrumentation. We made lots of load cells to track loads in a large concrete structure under construction. I took leave but instructed a technician to shield each transducer from the water falling from above during concrete pours. I came back from leave to discover he had shielded them from water below, not above, so each strain guage resided in its own private lake. Panic! Zeroes had drifted everywhere. I took loadcells back to the laboratory to recalibrate and did field recalibrations and zeroes every day, then had to endure the engineer watching closely as we did every lab calibration. The load cells always did exactly as specified but the loads in situ were manifestly too light. What was this an artifact of? The situation was not resolved but the structure is still standing and carrying heavy loads so the engineering was right.

Ugh! I hated that situation and spent many unpaid hours in the lab battling drift and trying for ultimate voltage stability while dealing with miniscule currents, now translate all this to a thermal power station where they keep switching turbines with concommitant huge shifts in electric fields.

ARGO is not the only instance where automation and sophisticated instrumentation has had its downside in tracking global warming. I marvel at the intelligence evidenced in extracting usable data in spite of the problems.

Noel

Last edited by NoelFuller on 10-May-2009 at 04:09 PM.

@NoelFuller

Quote:

Pielke Sr's quote is an interpretation or emphasis.

An interpretation of what, exactly? His opinion "it is the change in ocean heat content that provides the most effective diagnostic of global warming and cooling" is also shared by Hansen, Schmidt and other alarmists because it is scientifically sound not because Argo data do not fit the AGW hypothesis.

Quote:

(a) thermal expansion is rather smaller than it was but is still occuring - not quite the same as cooling implies is it?

Not different of what I wrote given the plot from Argo data by Willis: "With the ARGO data Willis found essentially no ocean thermal expansion (measured by sea level) and a very slight decrease in upper ocean heat content." The second author (Loehle) using same data with an more accurate methodology shows a slight cooling.

Quote:

(b) a lot of heat is being currently absorbed in melting ice (latent heat*). I did read up on glacier melting and noted that most of the contribution comes from smaller glaciers, concerning which there are a number of reports and predictions this being indicative. So the IPCC underestimated the contribution of ice melt to ocean mass but then they said they did not have enough data to evaluate this. But either way heat is being absorbed and stored as evidenced in increased ocean mass and related sea-level rise.

So now that sea ice on the planet is above the 30 year mean the new scare is glacier melting But I for once agree with IPCC that there is lack of data relative to glaciers and contribution to sea level. Nevertheless not all glaciers are retreating and when they are, the recession began some centuries ago and has been shown to be part of natural variability. Also Jason data show no sea level rise since 2005-2006:

Even if it were (it were before 2005-2006), sea level has been rising monotonously and slightly since a few thousands years:


Anyway heat transfer between ocean-land-atmosphere is a natural process. So What?

Quote:

Climate scientists say to the contrary that the current cooler years were predicted by the big climate models which factor in AGW.

Easily refuted with a plot of all IPCC's models and observed temperatures which shows that simulated model's and model's mean temperature have not projected any cooling since 2000:


Quote:

I am also rather taken by this remark in a BBC report regarding arctic research from Spitzbergen:

Ah the BBC science! Seems Pr Strom has forgotten his basic in Science: not drawing conclusion when there is no correlation between 2 variables:


Quote:

Here in NZ our eastern glaciers are in retreat while our western glaciers are advancing, due it is said to increased precipitation from a warmer Tasman Sea from whence all of the moisture in the affected area comes.

It is great to have physical explanations for natural phenomenons. In the real paper about past glaciers changes in NZ: Quote:

[they] suggest that atmospheric circulation changes in the southwest Pacific were one important factor in forcing high-frequency Holocene glacier fluctuations in New Zealand

Quote:

"Heat absorbed or released as the result of a phase change is called latent heat. There is no temperature change during a phase change, thus there is no change in the kinetic energy of the particles in the material. The energy released comes from the potential energy stored in the bonds between the particles."

A correct statement (from The Physics Hypertextbook).

Edit: added some scientific references

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 10-May-2009 at 04:50 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

I made a round up by nation of fertility figures a while back. In most European countries (Stable, afluent) there was decline rather than growth.

Europe indeed appears to be stablizing. It does appear the growth in Europe is from immigration. Population growth Predictions are ~2010 Europe will begin on a steady downward slide. The USA is likely to follow by a few years.

The decrease in population comes with it's own problems. Aging workforce and aging non-workforce is amongst these.

Quote:

Do our excesses inspire reaction?

I think they do. We no longer need 10 kids because many will die off and can't support the family. 1-3 will do. Having a societies based on the necessity of 2 parents working gives us all less time for child rearing. Then of course longer life spans influence things. In the 1900s the average age of death in the USA was 47. Now it's 72. 100 years ago having kids in the late 30s to early 40s was mostly unheard of. It has become much more common. Part of the reason I think is people need more years to better ensure economic security before they have kids.

@HenryCase

Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio (continuation from part III in this post)

Part IV

Quote:

Projected Ocean Heat. Since observed heat accumulation is derived from measurements in the upper 700m-750m of the ocean, an “apples to apples” comparison with model projections requires some adjustments. Eq. #1 (see part III), used by the GISS model, assumes that nearly all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans (80%-90% according to Willis, U.S. CLIVAR, 1, citing Levitus, et. al.). Based on modelling by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al., (page 1432) upper ocean heat is thought to comprise 80% of the total as shown in the illustration. So, the calculated heat must be multiplied by 0.8 to subtract deep ocean heat (below 750m) and heat storage by the atmosphere, land, and cryosphere (see discussion on deep ocean heat and melting ice below). Another method for calculating heat accumulation is shown in Eq. #2 (see part III). This method assumes that only 71% (i.e., the fraction of the earth covered by oceans) of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is absorbed by the oceans. Hence, the net global anthropogenic radiative flux is scaled to ocean surface area. To compare to upper ocean measurements, deep ocean heat must be subtracted by multiplying the results by ~0.85. As shown in the illustration above, the deep ocean absorbs about 0.11 W/m^2 of the total ocean flux of 0.71 W/m^2 (estimates vary, see discussion on deep ocean heat, below). Since this equation is not used by climate models, it is not included in the following tables. But, it is displayed in the graph below as a possible lower limit of projected heat accumulation. In his blog, “Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions” (climatesci.org, Feb. 9, 2009), Pielke projects heat accumulation based on an upper ocean mean net anthropogenic radiative imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2 as shown below (see Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., 1432). This is only a slight variance from his 2007 blog and affords the best opportunity for the GISS models to agree with observed data. A failure to meet this benchmark would be a robust demonstration of systemic problems.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@NoelFuller

Quote:

My answer is that warming, unfortunately for us continues.

What is paradoxically funny is that warming is definitively a good trend is all possible directions for me: better crops, more rains, better weather, more tourists, etc. I failed to find an adverse effects of slight warmer temperatures herein.

Still that does not answer the following embarrassing questions about temperature and CO² (AGW hypothesis):

1/ Earth had no acid oceans and no runaway greenhouse when the atmospheric CO² was hundreds of times higher than now, why?

2/ if CO² increases temperature, why were there past ice ages when the atmospheric CO² content was many times greater than at present?

3/ if natural forces drove warmings in Roman and Medieval times, how do we know that the same natural forces did not drive the late 20th-century warming?

4/ given that a 1% change in the amount of cloudiness could account for all the changes measured in the past 150 years, why has the role of clouds been ignored?

When such unanswered questions left aside by alarmists will be given convincing responses, things will be clearer and this thread will lose its raison d'être.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio

Part V

Quote:

Observed Ocean Heat. A comparison of these projections to observed data is shown below. Despite expectations of warming, temperature measurements of the upper 700m of the ocean from the ARGO array show no increase from 2003 through 2008. Willis calculates a net loss of -0.12 (±0.35) x 10^22 Joules per year (Pielke, Physics Today, 55) from mid-2003 to the end of 2008 (Dr. Pielke received permission from Josh Willis to extend the ARGO data to the end of 2008). According to a recent analysis of ARGO data by Craig Loehle, senior scientist at the Illinois-based National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, the loss is -0.35 (±0.2) x 10^22 Joules per year from mid-2003 to the end of 2007 (see Loehle, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.″ Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4)). Loehle used a more complex method than Willis to calculate this trend, enabling him to reduce the margin of error. My calculations for observed global heat, shown below, are based on observed upper ocean heat. Since upper ocean heat is calculated to be 80% of the global total (Eq. #1, see part III), observed global heat equals approximately 125% (1/0.8) of the observed upper ocean heat.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @HenryCase Quote: Yes there is consensus in science, it is just of a different kind from politics. Let me put it to you a different way, all those scientists you mentioned before, did any other scientists attempt to follow their work and check it's accuracy, and if they did check it's accuracy did they believe in the conclusions presented? If you don't believe in consensus in science what do you think the peer review process in scientific journals is for? I am sorry but you are digging your own grave here. Scientists do not believe. Scientists are convinced by evidences. Belief is for laymen, consensus is for politicians and evidence is for scientists. Period. ...

So the following quote makes clear that Albert Einstein never was a scientist, as Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:

Quote:

... So, the quick answer to the question is that Einstein did not believe in a personal God. It is however, interesting how he arrived at that conclusion. In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." ...

Seems to be in blatant contradiction to your claim that "Scientists do not believe"...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Thread

Huge Bolivian glacier disappears

Obviously this (yet another) example of melting ice that has been in place for tens of thousands of years (18,000 years in this case) has nothing at all to do with the world getting hotter. Its all just a massive coincidence.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Scientists in Bolivia say that one of the country's most famous glaciers has almost disappeared as a result of climate change.

Great research: "I don't know why, so it can't be wrong to say it is climate change."

Let summarize.

Glaciers melting consistent with climate change.
Glaciers advancing consistent with climate change.
Antartica warming consistent with climate change.
Antartica cooling consistent with climate change.
More rain consistent with climate change.
Drought consistent with climate change.
AGW consistent with climate change.
Current cooling consistent with climate change.
Warm summer consistent with climate change.
Cold winter consistent with climate change.
(Put here your own worries about climate: the power of climate change will make it consistent with climate change.]

It is reassuring to know you can count on climate change. A theory law that will never be wrong. Unbelievable. Scientists have now an universal theory law to explain and predict/postdict climate. Climate change is even consistent with itself (priceless in climate research). Must be true. A scientific and physical breakthrough by climate scientists. Impress I am. Science at its best.

Bye
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio

Part VI

Quote:

Heat Deficit. The graph below shows the increasing deficit of upper ocean heat from 2003 through 2008 based on GISS projections by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. Actual heat accumulation is plotted from observed data (using ARGO) and shows the overall linear trend (after Willis and Loehle). Seasonal fluctuations and error bars are not shown. The projection displays a range representing the two ways of calculating heat accumulation discussed above. The upper limit assumes that virtually all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans (Eq. #1, see part III). The lower limit scales the total radiative imbalance to the surface area of the oceans (Eq. #2, see part III). The upper limit represents the actual GISS model projection. The 5.5 year accumulated heat deficit for GISS model projections (red line) ranges from 6.48 x 10^22 Joules (using Willis) to 7.92 x 10^22 Joules (Loehle, extrapolated to the end of 2008). Pielke is more conservative in his calculations, given the substantial margin of error in Willis’ data (±0.35). Accordingly, he assumes zero heat accumulation for the full 6 year period (2003-2008), yielding a deficit of 5.88 x 10^22Joules (Pielke, “Update…”). Loehle’s work, which was not yet known to Pielke in February of 2009, has a much smaller margin of error (±0.2). These figures reveal a robust failure on the part of the GISS model to project warming. The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO². Indeed, the radiative imbalance was negative, meaning the earth was losing slightly more energy than it absorbed. Solving for Ri in Eq. #1 (see part III), the average annual upper ocean radiative imbalance ranged from a statistically insignificant -.07 W/m^2 (using Willis) to -.22 W/m^2 (using Loehle). As Pielke points out (”Update…”), in order for the GISS model to verify by the end of 2012 (i.e., one decade of measurements), the annual radiative imbalance would have to increase to 1.50 W/m^2 for the upper ocean which is 2.5x higher than the .6 W/m^2 projected by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. (1432). This corresponds to an annual average accumulation of 2.45 x 10^22 Joules in the upper ocean, or a 4 year total of 9.8 x 10^22 Joules. Using Loehle’s deficit, the numbers are even more remarkable. Assuming that heating resumes for the next 4.5 years (2009 to mid 2013), the annual average accumulation of heat would need to be 2.73 x 10^22 Joules in the upper ocean, for a 4.5 year total of 12.29 x 10^22 Joules. The derived radiative imbalance for the upper ocean would increase to 1.7 W/m^2, or nearly 3x higher than the projected imbalance.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Loehle's reconstruction of the MWP is junk. I hope Loehle's ocean temp reconstruction is better than his past work. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

EDIT: clarity..

Last edited by BrianK on 13-May-2009 at 04:22 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 13-May-2009 at 04:21 AM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Quote: Scientists in Bolivia say that one of the country's most famous glaciers has almost disappeared as a result of climate change. Great research: "I don't know why, so it can't be wrong to say it is climate change."

Do you know why I got angry the last time I posted? Your attitude to anything that goes against your opinion. It really doesn't matter what the BBC website says regarding the cause. The FACT is the glacier that has been there for 18,000 years has melted. And if you read the whole story you'll see what a dramatic effect it is having on the people who depend utterly on the glaciers in that region for their basic survival. This loss is in no way trivial.

You can pour over all your graphs and argue the toss over minute details but the giant elephant in the room is melting ice that has been around for tens of thousands of years. Even if that cause is not related to mans activities or even global warming, the FACT is that dramatic melts and shifts in climate are happening in all areas of the world simultaneously. SOMETHING is causing it.

You constantly use language and smileys that tries to ridicule the evidence that is posted here rather than using evidence of your own (You wrote off all the articles I linked to claiming them to have been discredited when they had only just come to public attention). You have made numerous claims that various things have been discredited whereas in fact they have been disputed - thats a MASSIVE difference.

The VAST MAJORITY of scientists both in the fields of climate research and outside where climate plays a factor (like in the coral and tree refs I provided in my earlier post) support the view that humans accelerated climate change is occuring. There is massive amounts of evidence to back them up with that claim. A MINORITY of scientists with SOME evidence are calling them to account on certian claims which seem to have some merrit to them, but by themselves do not disprove the theory.

Given the situation, it is entirely unjustified for you to behave in the manner that you have. Yes, it is possible that mans effects have been overstated and it is possible that you are right, however given the balance of evidence you have no right nor foundation to treat the evidence that contradicts your view with the contempt that you have.

You have CLEARLY lost the ability to examine evidence on its own merrits. You have a fixed opinion and are only interested in evidence that supports that one view. Anything else is subject to ridicule which only ridicules your own arguments (I for one can not take you seriously anymore. You have lost all credability in my eyes).

Myself, I am perfectly prepared to accept either side of the argument when the scientific principle is used. At the moment, the theory that can explain the observable changes happening around me in this planet with the strongest case is the popular one which you don't share. There are some areas where contradictions occur, but not to the point that rubbishes the whole theory like you have.

I shall continue to provide links to any interesting articles I find on the subject to the thread for general consumption. You'll understand when I ignore any of your future posts as they will be entirely unscientific and instead will seek to dismiss them using cheap gimmicks based on your own unbending view.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@HenryCase

Quote:

HenryCase wrote: @TMTisFree ... Let's say we successfully manage to master terraforming in the next 780 years, and transform the Moon, Mars and Europa (probably the three most likely places for human colonies in our solar system) into objects habitable not just for life but for human life in less than that time. ...

Hmmmmm - I'm still waiting for "terraforming" offering a solution to the absence of a magnetic field protecting a potential atmosphere and potential life on the celestial bodies you mentioned.

It is well known that neither Moon nor Mars have rotating iron cores that generate such a protecting field (not sure about Europa) - and humans don't have the technologie (and most likely won't have it in the nearer future) to artificially generate such fields - how does Terraforming want to overcome this obstacle?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

It is well known that neither Moon nor Mars have rotating iron cores that generate such a protecting field

If earth has an iron core is under dispute as a hypothesis of abiotic oil. The hypothesis says that oil is formed with magma and extreme pressures. As the center of the earth is most extreme it is likely to be a creamy nugget of oil. This in turn will always produce endless oil and therefore peak oil is the myth.

@BrianK

Quote:

Loehle's reconstruction of the MWP is junk.

His methodology was correct at least when compared with Mann's wrong data and statistics. Even if his data was limited, there is enough evidences elsewhere to support a MWP. So all in all correct Science will always be better than wrong one's.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

Do you know why I got angry the last time I posted? Your attitude to anything that goes against your opinion.

It is not about opinion, yours or mine. It is about attribution of cause without science-based evidence. This is no Science but guesswork. Your last one is one more great in this category.

Quote:

It really doesn't matter what the BBC website says regarding the cause. The FACT is the glacier that has been there for 18,000 years has melted. And if you read the whole story you'll see what a dramatic effect it is having on the people who depend utterly on the glaciers in that region for their basic survival. This loss is in no way trivial.

You are obviously wrong here. I have no problem with the fact itself. But attributing cause without any support is neither a scientific nor a journalistic acceptable practice. So it matters a lot. It is the root of the problem indeed. Your failure to understand that is demonstrative of the difference between popular culture and scientific culture.

Quote:

You can pour over all your graphs and argue the toss over minute details but the giant elephant in the room is melting ice that has been around for tens of thousands of years. Even if that cause is not related to mans activities or even global warming, the FACT is that dramatic melts and shifts in climate are happening in all areas of the world simultaneously. SOMETHING is causing it.

Data are agnostic and causes induce effects. The hard part is differentiating the two and extracting the causality (the mechanisms) from the data. This is also not trivial.

Quote:

You constantly use language and smileys that tries to ridicule the evidence that is posted here rather than using evidence of your own (You wrote off all the articles I linked to claiming them to have been discredited when they had only just come to public attention). You have made numerous claims that various things have been discredited whereas in fact they have been disputed - thats a MASSIVE difference.

The very example you provide is symptomatic of the yellowed journalism by certain media affiliated with [insert here your favourite lobbyist, green organization, fear monger zealot or agenda-driven political entity] to promote disinformation instead of objective facts/observations only. If you want discussing facts/observations choose objective media, not the ones having lost deontology. Or better stick with scientific papers. This will save time food-fighting on nothing interesting for every one.

Quote:

The VAST MAJORITY of scientists both in the fields of climate research and outside where climate plays a factor (like in the coral and tree refs I provided in my earlier post) support the view that humans accelerated climate change is occuring. There is massive amounts of evidence to back them up with that claim. A MINORITY of scientists with SOME evidence are calling them to account on certian claims which seem to have some merrit to them, but by themselves do not disprove the theory.

Back to the consensus argument again: it is a circular principle with believers. Already discussed to death with the non-scientists here. Science is not a democracy: one scientist right will always win over all the wrong others. So your consensus view has nothing to do with Science: it is a political Lysenkoist-like position devoiding the Science paradigm itself. About your 'massive amount of evidences' of climate change, I will not bother to respond to such self-redundant and always-consistent-with-all unscientific oxymoron: my previous post is sufficient.

Quote:

Given the situation, it is entirely unjustified for you to behave in the manner that you have. Yes, it is possible that mans effects have been overstated and it is possible that you are right, however given the balance of evidence you have no right nor foundation to treat the evidence that contradicts your view with the contempt that you have.

What situation? Me pointing out the pseudo-science or pseudo-evidences? It is justified: subjective journalism or back-to-the envelop scientist are no journalism/science either: it is promoting disinformation, the opposite of journalism/science. Anyway my view has no importance here. It is about deontology and scientific integrity. If you support such practices I understand your indignation. But rest assured I will not refrain to point it out.

Quote:

You have CLEARLY lost the ability to examine evidence on its own merrits. You have a fixed opinion and are only interested in evidence that supports that one view. Anything else is subject to ridicule which only ridicules your own arguments (I for one can not take you seriously anymore. You have lost all credability in my eyes).

Evidences have merits now? Evidence are convincing or not. Posters set up the level of seriousness (or lack of) themselves, with what they put in their respective posts; you have not demonstrated you have in the scientific field. Anyway I am completely amorphous to your judgement.

Quote:

Myself, I am perfectly prepared to accept either side of the argument when the scientific principle is used.

The last BBC article you provide does not follow the 'scientific principle' you are referring to (attributing cause without any evidences). Finding real scientific data is not that difficult.

Quote:

At the moment, the theory that can explain the observable changes happening around me in this planet with the strongest case is the popular one which you don't share. There are some areas where contradictions occur, but not to the point that rubbishes the whole theory like you have.

You are confused: at the moment there is no theory. There is an hypothesis that is supported neither by real world observations nor by physical laws. Try to find scientific responses to the unanswered questions asked in this post and then go back explaining the physics behind your so-called 'theory'.

Quote:

I shall continue to provide links to any interesting articles I find on the subject to the thread for general consumption. I shall continue to provide links to any interesting articles I find on the subject to the thread for general consumption. You'll understand when I ignore any of your future posts as they will be entirely unscientific and instead will seek to dismiss them using cheap gimmicks based on your own unbending view.

You clearly have indicated you don't have a clue of what the science paradigm means: it will not be hard to refrain commenting on your 'scientific' BBC-based 'information' then.

Keep it popular and enjoy the interglacial.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Falsifying AGW hypothesis by Dr W. DiPuccio

Part VII

Quote:

Improbable Explanations for the Failure of Heat Accumulation Hidden Heat. A few explanations have been proposed for the change in ocean heat. One popular suggestion is that there is “hidden” or “unrealized” heat in the climate system. This heat is being “masked” by the current cooling and will “return with a vengeance” once the cooling abates. This explanation reveals a fundamental ignorance of thermodynamics and it is disappointing to see scientists suggest it. Since the oceans are the primary reservoir of atmospheric heat, there is no need to account for lag time involved with heat transfer. By using ocean heat as a metric, we can quantify nearly all of the energy that drives the climate system at any given moment. So, if there is still heat “in the pipeline”, where is it? The deficit of heat after nearly 6 years of cooling is now enormous. Heat can be transferred, but it cannot hide. Without a credible explanation of heat transfer, the idea of unrealized heat is nothing more than an evasion. Deep Ocean Heat. Is it possible that “lost” heat has been transferred to the deep ocean-below the 700 meter limit of our measurements? This appears unlikely. According to Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., model simulations of ocean heat flow show that 85% of heat storage occurs above 750 m on average (with the range stretching from 78 to 91%) (1432). Moreover, if there is “buried” heat, widespread diffusion and mixing with bottom waters may render it statistically irrelevant in terms of its impact on climate. The absence of heat accumulation in deep water is corroborated by a recent study of ocean mass and altimetric sea level by Cazenave, et. al. Deep water heat should produce thermal expansion, causing sea level to rise. Instead, steric sea level (which measures thermal expansion plus salinity effects) peaked near the end of 2005, then began to decline nearly steadily. It appears that ocean volume has actually contracted slightly. Melting Ice. Another possibility is that meltwater from glaciers, sea ice, and ice caps is offsetting heat accumulation. Perhaps the ocean temperature has plateaued as the ice undergoes a phase change from solid to liquid (heat of fusion). This explanation sounds plausible at first, but it is not supported by observed data or best estimates. In a 2001 paper published in Science, Levitus, et. al. calculates that the absorption of heat due to melting ice amounts to only 6.85% of the total increase in ocean heat during the 41 year period from about 1955 to 1996: Observed increase in ocean heat (1955-1996) = 1.82 x 10^23 J Observed/estimated heat of fusion (1950’s-1990’s) = 1.247 x 10^22 J This work is quoted by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. and further supported by their calculations (1432), which are even more conservative. Given a planetary energy imbalance of approximately +0.75 W/m^2, their simulations show that only 5.3% (0.04 W/m^2) of the energy is used to warm the atmosphere, the land, and melt ice. The balance of energy is absorbed by the ocean above 750 m (~0.6 W/m^2), with a small amount of energy penetrating below 750 m (~0.11 W/m^2). The absorption of heat by melting ice is so small that even if it were to quadruple, the impact on ocean heat would be minuscule. Cold Biasing. The ARGO array does not provide total geographic coverage. Ocean areas beneath ice are not measured. However, this would have a relatively small impact on total ocean heat since it comprises less than 7% of the ocean. As mentioned above, quality controlled water temperature below 700m is not available, though the floats operate to a depth of 2000m. Above 700m, the analysis performed by Willis includes a quality check of raw data which revealed a cold bias in some instruments. This bias was removed (Willis, CLIVAR, 1). Loehle warns that the complexities of instrumental drift could conceivably create such artifacts (Loehle, 101), but concludes that his analysis is consistent with satellite and surface data which show no warming for the same period (e.g., see Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: “Limits on CO² climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth.” Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 178-189 (13)). So it is unlikely that cold biasing could account for the observed changes in ocean heat. In brief, we know of no mechanism by which vast amounts of “missing” heat can be hidden, transferred, or absorbed within the earth’s system. The only reasonable conclusion-call it a null hypothesis-is that heat is no longer accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer a radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing. This not only demonstrates that the IPCC models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

His methodology was correct at least when compared with Mann's wrong data and statistics. Even if his data was limited, there is enough evidences elsewhere to support a MWP. So all in all correct Science will always be better than wrong one's

Interesting. You were the one claiming that tree rings are one of the best evidence we have for past temperatures. Yet Loehle incorrectly discards the data. More 'correct' science would be tightening up of the data, again you claimed this was one of the most correct evidences we have of the past.

Follow Loehle's logic on why trees were ignored in his analysis. You find that other things, coral and pollen for example, are kept and their problems are even much greater than tree rings. He's inconsistent on his methodology.

Loehle 'fixes' some, but not all, of his problems. He doesn't include treerings. He fixes some of his math. But, he in turn introduces another problem. The 2008 graph he provides no longer runs to 2000 but only 1950. Yet Loehle retains the claim that the MWP is warmer than today? We're hotter than 1950 and he doesn't go to today. This isn't correct science. This was hedging his bet hoping no one would notice he dropped the last 60 years out of his graph.

What'd he find a MWP? Nothing new there Mann found that before Loehle. Loehle corrected some maths in 2008, original was 2007 if memory serves, it lowered his graph and puts his numbers within Mann's boundaries of certainity.

Saying Loehle's was good science is a strech at best, good luck with that.

EDIT: Now Loehle's failure in the past doesn't mean his current work is a failure. But, as it's new (2009 right?) it'll be a couple of years before people can really kick it around and suss out any problems.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-May-2009 at 12:40 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

nteresting. You were the one claiming that tree rings are one of the best evidence we have for past temperatures. Yet Loehle incorrectly discards the data. More 'correct' science would be tightening up of the data, again you claimed this was one of the most correct evidences we have of the past.

It seems you have memory problem. I suggest you go back in time and in this and the 2 other threads to check that I have numerous time (related mostly to Mann, Amman, and recently with Austrialia/NZ trees' works) made it clear that tree rings are not proxy for temperature. So most of your post is irrelevant.

Quote:

Loehle 'fixes' some, but not all, of his problems. He doesn't include treerings. He fixes some of his math. But, he in turn introduces another problem. The 2008 graph he provides no longer runs to 2000 but only 1950. Yet Loehle retains the claim that the MWP is warmer than today? We're hotter than 1950 and he doesn't go to today. This isn't correct science. This was hedging his bet hoping no one would notice he dropped the last 60 years out of his graph.

Instead of repeating the self-response by the Master of Pseudo-Science to his own question on Yahoo Answer, himself repeating UnRealClimate pseudo-analysis, better check the paper by yourself: it is not that difficult to find and you will at least appear a little bit more serious.

Quote:

Saying Loehle's was good science is a strech at best, good luck with that.

I was comparing the methodologies. Loehle recognized his data was limited. Nothing remotely approaching with UnRealClimate Team statwistics (neologism).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".