I wonder how much you would thank him if you found out he was a previously banned member. ... And should be rated accordingly...
He steamrolls the arguments you believe in and therefore you try to discredit his character and get him voted down.
Anyone who has a rational mind on their shoulders and had the patience to read this entire thread would be soundly convinced that MMGW is real.
quote
Originally posted by Arns85GT: ...but is a thread to discuss the fact that CO2 and mankind's use of fossle fuel is not the cause of the long term warming trend. In fact when the science community finally acknowledged that there has been no net global warming in 15 years, Flyinfieros immediately attacked it....In short he is just a PITA and a troll, not a legitimate Fiero enthusiast
He attacked it because the 15 year window isn't sufficient to conclude that MMGW is false (as multiple members have pointed out, multiple times).
A troll exists only to upset people without contributing to the argument - something avengador would fit into, since he only seems to poke his head in to make incendiary comments with no substance (like above).
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 11-10-2013).]
I would love it if you were right and I've been barking up the wrong tree. What if you are wrong and we ignore it leading to a catastrophic climate change? How will you feel then?
If the human race and the majority of life on the planet could progress for another 10,000, 20,000, 50,000 or 100,000 years- is that not something to hold on to? Imagine for a second what we've accomplished in the last 300 years. We've gone from cutting people open for them to 'bleed out the bad stuff' to heart transplants. We put men on the moon. We put a car sized robot on Mars. Imagine what existence will be like in 1,000 years.
I'm sorry but I cannot understand to your incredibly short sighted pessimistic views. This planet is a miracle. It deserves our protection.
You're hoping for something that can never happen. You're choosing to ignore millions of years of history in favor of this delusion that we can somehow halt the natural process of the planet. Again, if we outlawed every single source of pollution today, it would make no difference. Also again, I don't deny that what we're doing may be influencing the rate, but I would argue that we can't possibly accelerate (or decelerate) the process enough to make a difference. If our species is intended to survive the next global warming event, we will. If not, we won't. You accuse me of being "short sighted" and pessimistic. I would argue that I'm just a realist and don't delude myself that we can stop the planet from following it's natural course of events. You say that the planet is a miracle and should be protected. You don't "protect" the planet by trying to prevent it from going through a phase that is in fact a part of its natural cycle. You're not worried about the planet, you're worried about our species. I got news for you, our species ain't worth saving. The planet will agree when despite your jumping up and down protesting greenhouse grasses with your little sign and Internet arguing and ignoring it's history, it warms anyway, and wipes us out. If you were covered with fleas, even if they weren't biting you and defecating all over your flesh, I bet you would still wash them off once in a while.
... the extreme rightwing has never been correct on science
from the flat earthers to anti-evolution the con's pick the anti-science side
Don't forget the "sound science" vs. "junk science" red herring that originated as a cynical tactic during the political wars over the health "benefits" of tobacco.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 11-10-2013).]
I understand your "flea" reference. I too am of the opinion that the planet itself would be way better off without our species. That being said I still would like to see us survive and I do think that we can without killing the planet. We just have to reconsider our belief that everything here is ours to exploit regardless of the consequences. Nature has been able to compensate for many of our extravagances, but there is a limit, and the more of us that there are and the more rapacious polluting we do the more we test the limits of nature to clean up our mess.
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
You're hoping for something that can never happen. You're choosing to ignore millions of years of history in favor of this delusion that we can somehow halt the natural process of the planet. Again, if we outlawed every single source of pollution today, it would make no difference. Also again, I don't deny that what we're doing may be influencing the rate, but I would argue that we can't possibly accelerate (or decelerate) the process enough to make a difference. If our species is intended to survive the next global warming event, we will. If not, we won't. You accuse me of being "short sighted" and pessimistic. I would argue that I'm just a realist and don't delude myself that we can stop the planet from following it's natural course of events. You say that the planet is a miracle and should be protected. You don't "protect" the planet by trying to prevent it from going through a phase that is in fact a part of its natural cycle. You're not worried about the planet, you're worried about our species. I got news for you, our species ain't worth saving. The planet will agree when despite your jumping up and down protesting greenhouse grasses with your little sign and Internet arguing and ignoring it's history, it warms anyway, and wipes us out. If you were covered with fleas, even if they weren't biting you and defecating all over your flesh, I bet you would still wash them off once in a while.
I would love it if you were right and I've been barking up the wrong tree. What if you are wrong and we ignore it leading to a catastrophic climate change? How will you feel then?
I'd feel a lot poorer, and so will you. We recently posted a link to a site that shows it will cost 50 times more to try to prevent the temperature change of a few degrees than to adapt.
I'm not confident that our government will fix the problem and I could easily see the government awarding a ton of money in crony capitalism to the wrong people doing the wrong thing. So you could be correct in the cost of dealing with the situation. At least to some degree. I can't ignore science though and just hope that it goes away. I recognize the problem. I don't have a handle on the solution.
If you had read most of the 77 pages of this thread, you would have seen the proof printed over and over, and disregarded, ridiculed and ignored over and over.
In short, it does not matter a hoot to a troll, whatever you post. He doesn't care about the truth or your point. He just wants to create havoc.
Fierobear gets into trouble when he talks back to the troll or attempts to defend his posts.
This is a form of bullying and not welcome at all, and not respected a bit. This is the reason I refer to Flyinfiero's " junk science"
People have the nasty habit of giving their opponents names. Those who are convinced that humans are wrecking the world by burning fossil fuels call those who don’t believe them “denialists.” It implies that they are close to the Holocaust deniers, and so are clearly beyond the pale.
I have come to the conclusion that they are wrong. The true denialists are those who believe in global warming, and who will go to any lengths to deny the evidence against that position.
For instance, the final draft of the Fifth Assessment Report of IPCC’s Working Group 1 concerns itself with observations of the climate and how it might change in future. Within minutes of it being released, skeptics had noted that a key figure, which compared predicted temperatures to measurements, had been drastically altered after the second draft had been approved.
In the second draft, the observations lay below the lowest range in the predictions, and seemed to be getting further from the predictions as time went by. In the final version, the measurements had been pushed up and the predictions had been pushed sideways and Voila! the revised measurements now fell within the range of the changed predictions. Really! Grown men did this! Consciously! And honestly thought that no-one would notice.
That’s the trouble with calling people names. Before you know where you are, you have convinced yourself that they are stupid, too.
And there were lots of similar examples. In the Summary for Policy Makers, the scientists had said “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.” The politicians did not like this, so they added a juicy version “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Suddenly “more than half” had morphed into “dominant cause.” That way, no one might be left with the idea that the scientists had actually said there was a reasonable chance that quite a lot of the warming was entirely natural.
My own contribution concerned the warming of the upper troposphere. In the previous Assessment Report, the IPCC had said “Upper-tropospheric warming reaches a maximum in the tropics and is seen even in the early-century time period. The pattern is very similar over the three periods, consistent with the rapid adjustment of the atmosphere to the forcing. These changes are simulated with good consistency among the models.” They even had a figure (WG1 Figure 10.7) to show just what they meant:
(See original article for the graphic)
These are sections through the atmosphere, from the South Pole on the left to the North Pole on the right. Instead of altitude they give the pressure in ‘hectoPascals” which is sort of unfamiliar to most people, but 400 is around 8km up and 200 around 12km. “Good consistency” is shown by the stippling – Stippling denotes regions where the multi-model ensemble mean divided by the multi-model standard deviation exceeds 1.0 (in magnitude) reads the caption.
You can clearly see the flattened ‘bubble’ getting hotter as the century goes by. The models predict that, in that region, the atmosphere should warm at about 0.6 degrees Centigrade per decade, far faster than on the surface of the Earth.
Weather balloons have flown into that region for 60 years. Airliners have carried commuters at those altitudes for 40. The temperature can be inferred from satellite measurements. None of these methods have managed to find any evidence of warming at anything like 0.6 degrees Centigrade per decade. The thermometers suggest slight cooling; the satellites slight warming.
This huge discrepancy between model and measurement has been the subject of intense discussion since the 2007 Assessment. When I reviewed the first draft of the latest report, I said “Heh! You haven’t mentioned the problem!” Along came the second draft – same difficulty. This time I read out to the IPCC the actual papers from the peer-reviewed literature that they should have been using: -
Allen, Robert J. and Sherwood, Steven C. (2008) Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Nature Geosci 1 (6), 399- 403, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo208;
Lanzante, John R., Melissa Free, 2008: Comparison of Radiosonde and GCM Vertical Temperature Trend Profiles: Effects of Dataset Choice and Data Homogenization. J. Climate, 21, 5417–5435. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2287.1;
Singer, S Fred, (2011). Lack of Consistency Between Modeled and Observed Temperature Trends Energy & Environment, 22, 375-406 DOI – 10.1260/0958-305X.22.4.375 ;
Douglass, D. H., Christy, J. R., Pearson, B. D. and Singer, S. F. (2008), A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. Int. J. Climatol., 28: 1693–1701. doi: 10.1002/joc.1651
Titchner, Holly A., P. W. Thorne, M. P. McCarthy, S. F. B. Tett, L. Haimberger, D. E. Parker, 2009: Critically Reassessing Tropospheric Temperature Trends from Radiosondes Using Realistic Validation Experiments. J. Climate, 22, 465–485. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2419.1
(I mean, how pedantic do you have to be?)
I concluded my review saying “not even the satellite data comes near the predictions that were made in AR4 – the discrepancy between ALL the data and the models is wide. This debate MUST be reflected in the text.” So the IPCC had been told where to look – it is their job to review the peer-reviewed literature – and had been told that there was a debate because the measurements disagreed with the models. What did they do?
Nothing! Absolutely nothing (apart from quoting Titchner in a different context). The Summary for Policy Makers says:
“It is virtually certain that globally the troposphere has warmed since the mid-20th century. More complete observations allow greater confidence in estimates of tropospheric temperature changes in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere than elsewhere. There is medium confidence in the rate of warming and its vertical structure in the Northern Hemisphere extra-tropical troposphere and low confidence elsewhere.”
Section 2.4.4 says:
“In summary, assessment of the large body of studies comparing various long-term radiosonde and MSU products since AR4 is hampered by dataset version changes, and inherent data uncertainties. These factors substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences from such studies about the true longterm trends or the value of different data products.”
So the data were apparently wrong!
There is a Table 2.8 headed:
“Trend estimates and 90% confidence intervals (Box 2.2) for radiosonde and MSU dataset global average values over the radiosonde (1958–2012) and satellite periods (1979–2012). LT indicates Lower Troposphere, MT indicates Mid Troposphere and LS indicates Lower Stratosphere”
Notice that? No Upper Troposphere – none, silence! Likewise, there is a Figure 2.24 which shows some Lower Troposphere trends, but is equally silent on the Upper Troposphere.
And that is the full extent of the discussion of the problem in the latest Report. The previous Assessment made a great song and dance about warming in the intratropical upper troposphere, the present Assessment completely avoids the issue.
Now you could well ask “So what?” The significance is that this goes to the heart of the physics on which all the models used to make predictions are based. If you have watched “The Great Global Warming Swindle,” you will have seen the critic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, speaking about how the Upper Troposphere should be warming. The physics of the atmosphere, as generally understood by all scientists of whatever global warming persuasion, require it should be warming faster than the surface of the earth. There is consensus – but the data show the consensus to be wrong.
Therefore the models are wrong. It only takes one clearcut observation to destroy the integrity of a scientific thesis. The physics underlying all the models is wrong – and we don’t know why. Moreover, the IPCC is demonstrably skirting the issue, telling us that “the observations substantially limit the ability to draw robust and consistent inferences.” What utter nonsense!
By any measure, the IPCC and its supporters are the true denialists, but it would be wrong of me to use such a word to describe them. So let’s just say they are attempting to deceive, and have done with it.
I understand your "flea" reference. I too am of the opinion that the planet itself would be way better off without our species. That being said I still would like to see us survive and I do think that we can without killing the planet. We just have to reconsider our belief that everything here is ours to exploit regardless of the consequences. Nature has been able to compensate for many of our extravagances, but there is a limit, and the more of us that there are and the more rapacious polluting we do the more we test the limits of nature to clean up our mess.
You're missing the point. The bottom line is, and no amount of argument or "science" can negate this: the Earth is going to continue to warm. It's going to happen. Period. There is millions of years of verifiable historic data to support that pattern of warming and cooling, and in absolute perfect alignment with that history, we are coming out of an ice age. It's fixing to get hot over the next few centuries.
Besides, who's to say that we've reached the epitome of our evolution anyway? Who's to say the earth we have today and ecology that we have is the way it's supposed to be? How do we know that increased global temperatures aren't going to produce an eco system that's far superior? Granted, we may not be a part of that system, but that's irrelevant in the grand scheme.
Originally posted by Taijiguy: Besides, who's to say that we've reached the epitome of our evolution anyway? Who's to say the earth we have today and ecology that we have is the way it's supposed to be? How do we know that increased global temperatures aren't going to produce an eco system that's far superior? Granted, we may not be a part of that system, but that's irrelevant in the grand scheme.
The point is that humans are forcing change more rapidly than we can adapt to it.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
You confuse your own lack of understanding for any failure on my part to prove my points....
...New paper shows ocean ‘acidification’ was naturally about the same during the last interglacial period as today – Published in Quaternary Science Reviews http://www.climatedepot.com...ary-science-reviews/
Remember this on page 76?
You posted this link to a paper as "evidence" even though it concludes the exact opposite of what you say it does. This happens over and over - you post something that is completely bogus, it gets called out as BS, you ignore the criticism and continue to throw sh*t at the wall.
I would have no problem with Global Warming if it was true. All of the predictions by these so called scientists have failed to come true
The oceans have not risen more than a fraction of an inch. The Global Temperature has risen only .75 degrees The much cited decimation of the polar bears has not occurred. The disappearance of Arctic Ice has not occurred. The increase in frequency of hurricanes and tornadoes has not occurred
None of their fear mongering predictions have come true
And yet every year they change their story and make believe they didn't say what they are on record to have said. They change the terminology to buffalo the ill informed. ei. Global Warming becomes Climate Change They doctor the computer generated projections
In short it is outright fraudulent representation.
All the repeating of the various permiantations of the hockey stick graph, the failed computer projections, the doctored data, and the outright falsehoods......like...... "2013 had the smallest arctic ice ever" keep coming forward.
And the deniers of the truth finally resort to defamation and ridiculing those who disagree with them as their last refuge, the refuge of the unscrupulous.
You posted this link to a paper as "evidence" even though it concludes the exact opposite of what you say it does. This happens over and over - you post something that is completely bogus, it gets called out as BS, you ignore the criticism and continue to throw sh*t at the wall.
No it doesn't, it supports the refutation of the original theory.
I would have no problem with Global Warming if it was true. All of the predictions by these so called scientists have failed to come true
The oceans have not risen more than a fraction of an inch. The Global Temperature has risen only .75 degrees The much cited decimation of the polar bears has not occurred. The disappearance of Arctic Ice has not occurred. The increase in frequency of hurricanes and tornadoes has not occurred . . .
Don't know where you get some of your data.
Not too long ago, I was considering SLR (Sea Level Rise) and looked up some sources.
I think the commonly accepted estimate is that sea levels around the world have risen by an average of about 23 centimers or 9 inches since the late 19th century, when widespread fossil fuels consumption started to enter the picture. The same source said that it is generally thought that there had been no significant SLR before that, going back for at least 2000 years.
Even with the latest satellite instrumentation, it is not at all straightforward to measure incremental SLR from year to year or even decade to decade--which I didn't appreciate until an article that I came upon last night.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-11-2013).]
I might have missed the point that you were making. I like some of the points that you make in this post too. You have a different way of looking at things and I admire that.
quote
Originally posted by Taijiguy:
You're missing the point. The bottom line is, and no amount of argument or "science" can negate this: the Earth is going to continue to warm. It's going to happen. Period. There is millions of years of verifiable historic data to support that pattern of warming and cooling, and in absolute perfect alignment with that history, we are coming out of an ice age. It's fixing to get hot over the next few centuries.
Besides, who's to say that we've reached the epitome of our evolution anyway? Who's to say the earth we have today and ecology that we have is the way it's supposed to be? How do we know that increased global temperatures aren't going to produce an eco system that's far superior? Granted, we may not be a part of that system, but that's irrelevant in the grand scheme.
What if you are wrong and we ignore it leading to a catastrophic climate change?
If I am wrong it won't matter. We will all be long gone by the time this science is settled. Someone might have even figured out how to make a machine to control or weaponize the weather by then. The truth is that this "catastrophic climate change" you talk about is nowhere near close to happening anytime soon nor within the next few centuries.
I would have no problem with Global Warming if it was true. All of the predictions by these so called scientists have failed to come true ... The much cited decimation of the polar bears has not occurred.
You repeat this even though its nonsense. Nobody claimed polar bears would be extinct currently. They are claiming that polar bears WILL be endangered in the near future at the current climate pattern. Stating that polar bears are not "decimated" now means nothing. The source YOU used even says that climate change is the biggest threat to polar bears!
quote
The disappearance of Arctic Ice has not occurred.
2 standard deviations below the 1981-2000 "normal" is pretty drastic (even only considering surface area, not volume). Does all of it have to melt for AGW to be real? Or is 3 standard deviations enough?
No it doesn't, it supports the refutation of the original theory.
This is your one-line summary of the paper: "New paper shows ocean ‘acidification’ was naturally about the same during the last interglacial period as today – Published in Quaternary Science Reviews"
The paper's conclusion actually states "This study confirms the findings of laboratory studies, showing enhanced shell dissolution and reduced calcification in living pteropods when surface ocean carbonate concentrations were lower. Results also demonstrate that oceanic pH levels that were less acidic and changing less rapidly than those predicted for the 21st Century, negatively affected pteropods during the Late Pleistocene."
In other words, that ocean acidification is actually a big problem and more severe than ever before, despite your misleading statement that says otherwise.
Not too long ago, I was considering SLR (Sea Level Rise) and looked up some sources.
I think the commonly accepted estimate is that sea levels around the world have risen by an average of about 23 centimers or 9 inches since the late 19th century, when widespread fossil fuels consumption started to enter the picture. The same source said that it is generally thought that there had been no significant SLR before that, going back for at least 2000 years.
Even with the latest satellite instrumentation, it is not at all straightforward to measure incremental SLR from year to year or even decade to decade--which I didn't appreciate until an article that I came upon last night.
This is what Fierobear posted to start the discussion
quote
I'm sure you've heard the statements that "the debate is over" or "the science is settled" on anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming (AGW). The IPCC, the international body that is pushing for worldwide action against AGW, and politicians are trying to convince you that the issue is settled. Al Gore and the news media are hyping this as a worldwide disaster in the making, that drastic action must be taken "NOW!" or it will be too late. Lost in all of this is the fact that science is NEVER settled, and that debate should NEVER stop. Even worse is the idea that science can be decided by vote - referring to this nonsense about "scientific consensus" and "2000 scientists agree" and so on. Consensus is *meaningless* in science. It only takes *one* scientist with a viable theory (that can be tested and proven) to overturn an entire branch of science. The number of scientists doesn't matter, only what can be reasonably proven.
In this thread, I will be posting the evidence *against* man-made global warming. I will stick mostly to scientific papers and sources, although I will occasionally post articles from the news media, or even blogs, on the subject. However, I will try to stick to articles and blogs that cite scientific sources whenever possible. This is about valid proof, not hype, not bullshit.
I'll start with a couple of good links for those who wish to do their own reading and research. And I'd encourage you to do so. Don't believe me, don't believe everything you hear, do your own reading and make up your *own* minds.
This thread started in 2008. An Inconvenient Truth was authored in 2006.
In that film Gore stated the case for the major ice fields in Greenland and Antarctica melting, and raising the ocean levels approximately 20 feet. (He received world wide acclaim and a Nobel Prize for this work so somebody thought he was an authority to listen to. )
Has the Antarctic ice field melted? No it has expanded.
Has the ocean level risen 20 feet? Not even close
If you look up the EPA records, (bear in mind they are beholding to Obama for their funding) you will see that they say
quote
When averaged over all the world's oceans, absolute sea level increased at an average rate of 0.07 inches per year from 1880 to 2011 (see Figure 1). From 1993 to 2011, however, average sea level rose at a rate of 0.11 to 0.13 inches per year
They also say
quote
While absolute sea level has increased steadily overall, particularly in recent decades, regional trends vary, and absolute sea level has decreased in some places. 2 Relative sea level also has not risen uniformly because of regional and local changes in land movement and long-term changes in coastal circulation
So what has the actual ocean rise been since 2008 when the discussion started ? 0.7"
Did the Antarctic ice field melt (the largest ice field in the world btw) No
NASA reported that the current year in the Antarctic is a record year
quote
This winter, the maximum total Antarctic sea ice extent was reported to be 19.47 million square kilometres, which is 3.6% above the winter average calculated from 1981 to 2010. This continues a trend that is weakly positive and remains in stark contrast to the decline in Arctic summer sea ice extent (2013 was 18% below the mean from 1981-2010).
Recently NASA reported that this year's maximum wintertime extent of Antarctic sea ice was the largest on record, even greater than the previous year's record.
This is your one-line summary of the paper: "New paper shows ocean ‘acidification’ was naturally about the same during the last interglacial period as today – Published in Quaternary Science Reviews"
The paper's conclusion actually states "This study confirms the findings of laboratory studies, showing enhanced shell dissolution and reduced calcification in living pteropods when surface ocean carbonate concentrations were lower. Results also demonstrate that oceanic pH levels that were less acidic and changing less rapidly than those predicted for the 21st Century, negatively affected pteropods during the Late Pleistocene."
In other words, that ocean acidification is actually a big problem and more severe than ever before, despite your misleading statement that says otherwise.
The point being, it happened in the past without mankind's help. Which also means it might not be us. THATS the point you missed.
Good god, I have to explain EVERYTHING to you.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-11-2013).]
National Geographic has an interesting interactive map out - "If all the ice melted"
Now this is a prime example of GW fearmongering. First it represents an image to enforce it's contention that oceans will rise 20' (remember the "Inconvenient truth"?)
They then tell you there is a study that this will happen or could happen. If you don't read it carefully you could be persuaded that we all "going to hell in an handbasket" as the old adage goes.
But the truth doesn't support the premise of the story. All of the ice fields, glaciers, and packs are not going to melt any time soon, if ever.
No amount of such propoganda supports their position. The actual rise in ocean levels is nowhere near their projections.
The world's net ice level remains.
And just so you don't misunderstand the spin put on by the Global Warming advocates, saying the current Arctic ice level is low due to low volume, consider this.
Have you ever watched a pond freeze? It freezes thin, on the surface first. You can't walk on it. But as the winter progresses, it thickens by hundreds of increments to become, in our area up to a foot or even 18" deep.
Above the Arctic Circle this becomes freezing down to the permafrost level on land, or down in the ocean for up to 15 feet (Corrected by Ray B). We do not know how deep the Arctic ocean will freeze this year. We do not know how much it wll melt next spring. We don't control it. It is a function of the earth's weather and climate fluctuations.
I am waiting to see what happens next summer. I am betting the cycle is turning again, because of the dramatic increase in ice coverage so far.
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-11-2013).]
interesting article, however it is a little over-simplified.
If you look at this you will see that the ocean fluctuates in temperature depending on the time of year, the latitude and the plankton activity.
The Thermohaline circulation moves water as on a conveyer belt through the various oceans. the temperatures vary from ocean to ocean and from latitude to latitude.
I do not understand how such a complex system can be boiled down to single observation on one ocean. There doesn't seem to be any accounting of which location(s) they measured. There is no indication of their methodology either.
To be fair though, they do say this
quote
While multiple analyses, including this new study, have found heat rapidly accumulating in the oceans, the rate in the rise of global surface temperatures has slowed over the last 15 years or so. An emerging hypothesis is that the relatively slow rate of surface temperatures reflects the oceans removing heat from the atmosphere.
This is worth having a look but, if the Pacific is warming rapidly then what about the Atlantic, (north and south) and the Antarctic Sea which faces both?
This is worth having a look but, if the Pacific is warming rapidly then what about the Atlantic, (north and south) and the Antarctic Sea which faces both?
It's already being looked at....by scientists and experts instead of internet hacks!!!
Good God the Steven Mcintyre blog is proof against the study.
The deniers never fail to try and prove a study wrong as soon as it is released. Not suspicious at all.
He is a mathematician, and does an exhaustive analysis of the DATA. Tell you what, genius, if you can find his math error, then point it out and THEN you can Until then, STFU. He showed his math, you show yours. If you can't, your point is INVALID.
Edit, add the specific information from the link: In the reconstructions, the temperature change is converted to Pacific Ocean Heat Content change by multiplying the estimated temperature change by 50% of the mass of the Pacific Ocean (they use a mass of Mz=1.12E20 Kg and a specific heat of 4 J/deg C-g.) Watch this carefully: this calculation assumes a temperature change of zero on the rest of the ocean – an assumption that radically contradicts their observations that they are observing global phenomena. And while one can understand the reluctance to extrapolate to the entire ocean, this inability means that the relevant instrumental comparison ought to be to half the Pacific Ocean as well. Watching this pea also shows the absurdity of the “quartiles” in the boxplot. These “quartiles” are nothing more than applying zero to 37.5% and 62.5% of the ocean respectively.
(Table is here in original article)
While this basic assumption of Table S3 and Figure 4 makes no sense, there are other problems as well. Look closely at Table S3. The delta-temperature is less than half (0.11 versus 0.25), but the delta OHC is 50% greater (8.4 versus 5.6). One can “get” the delta-OHC for the reconstruction periods by multiplying the deg C by the Pacific Ocean mass (Mz=1.12E20 Kg and a specific heat of 4 J/deg C-g) and multiplying by 50%. If the same procedure were applied to the instrumental period, one would get a delta-OHC of 2.6E22 joules (as compared to 8.4). Applied to the rate of change, the implication is that the rate of change in the instrumental period would be 2.8 times the average rate of change in the post-LIA period (1600-1950), rather than 15 times. Even if one accepted the Rosenthal et al assumption that one could apply zero to half the reconstruction ocean, there seems to be something wrong with the arithmetic to 8.4E22 joules. There also seems to be an error with the value of 0.032 deg C/century (fifth column fourth row) as this is inconsistent with other columns.
While the calculations in this table seem peculiar – ranging from apparent arithmetic errors to questionable extrapolation from temperature change to ocean heat content, one should not presume that a corrected version of this table necessarily makes sense: the entire enterprise of attempting to compare changes in ocean heat content based on proxy data on Intermediate Water seems both ill-conceived and forced.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 11-12-2013).]
This is interesting stuff and when you look beyond the article, you see what it is based on.
He says
quote
On the far right, I’ve plotted Pacific ocean heat content, converted to deg C anomaly (red), together with its trend line. The two solid yellow lines show trend lines for 1100-1700 AD and 1600-1950 AD, two of the three periods considered in Rosenthal Table S4. It is true that the rate of change over the past 55 years is somewhat higher than the trend over 1600-1950, but it is not “15 times higher”. While I don’t think that one can safely reify the fluctuations in Rosenthal’s IWT reconstructions, on the other hand, these fluctuations appear to me to preclude any strong conclusions that the relatively modest increase is unprecedented.
The first NODC graph is consistent with the right end of the first graph, but the second graph is even more interesting. Notice the rise in mean temp which is at maximum 0.4 degrees C.
This is hardly 15 x the normal fluctuation rate, and well short of extreme Global Warming.
We also know that the oceans have been warming gradually since the last ice age. This appears to be part of that.
Arn
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 11-12-2013).]
I don't claim to have my own proof I only said that it's being studied by actual experts not people who think they know more about such a complex subject but never fail to show their ignorance.
Again I'll trust the expert researchers and not the internet blogger.
