Mosh
I think you were around when I expressed my scepticism of boreholes here a year or so ago. They lack resolution and the results vary according to the continent and era. Which is why I conversed with Huang and posted the comments here.
They are as legitimate as tree rings which get a lot of attention here (take that whatever way you want)
As such they probably need an article to explore the current state of research.
tonyb
I see Judith took down my comment, yoey. No need anyway. Everyone can see that you are lying about what I said.
Don
Did you see this?
From this article at Iceagenow.info:
“During his commencement address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, President Barack Obama warned that it’s a “dereliction of duty” to deny the existence of climate change”
Perhaps it has a different meaning over there but in the UK dereliction of duty is a court martial offence. Is he seriously saying that coastguards are not allowed to be sceptical or there is a risk to their job?
tonyb
Hi Steven
Hope all’s well. Funny, yep, nearly on the par with calling the concoction of numbers the ‘BEST’, which is more than just funny, it’s comic;
but then I ‘do climate’ strictly for my own personal amusement, so I’m pleased that you also find it entertaining.
“Confidence intervals require random samples from the entire population, which in this case is the whole earth.”
read what you just wrote
vuk read what you wrote.
ask your yourself… how did you judge the records as reliable?
think.
I think you are wrong…. :-)
I make no judgement as to the veracity of boreholes or the reliability of the technique but the idea with boreholes is that the temperature gradients are trapped by layers of snow. They don’t “diffuse” down or anything like that. The fresh snow serves as insulation and is it builds up over time the temp gradient is preserved layer by layer.
I have to say, I have often struggled with this intuitively. How can temp gradients in even the best insulators be preserved for such a long time? I know that there is a logarithmic effect for heat between objects of different temps to equilibriate, but I really struggle to imagine how that could extend meaningfully over such a long period of time.
Yet, they use very sensitive thermometers, they can reliably reproduce results in the same area so they must be seeing something. The resolution must be very course of curse and I don’t know how they would allow for variability in precipitation.
Actually, the prehistoric CO2 levels are measured in much the same way, since the snow traps atmospheric properties layer by layer, year by year. But just like the heat, it appears they do diffuse especially in the early years, so they can be a little unreliable for that sort of detection.
Every hot event in one hemisphere is balanced by a cold event in the other refer to our regular summer winter cycles in the hemispheres.
In a ice age,it appears Ice does not melt in the summer in either hemisphere but just keeps growing until they advance and recede from the terminal moraines, so the hot events are in the middle area. Not much of a summer in either pole when the ice age is here compared to the summers when it is not. Since the whole world does not appear to freeze during a ice age, the must be massive ice making going at the pole driven by heat lifting oceans of water to the sky from the equator where it is pushed by the expanding air and vapor to the poles areas where it returns to the surface and follows cold land like a culvert between warmer expanding ocean air back down to the equatoral region.
So yes, I agree the poles ice should advance and recede at the same time like your website shows.
“No, ice core data shows Antarctic and Greenland coming out of the last major ice age at the same time.”
However, the energy source of the ice age has not shown up yet and looking around with our satellites nothing seems to out of the ordinary except the changing R value of the atmosphere….
And if, ” You would need to melt most of Greenland and much of Antarctic, first, to get enough water in the oceans to create another major ice age.” then it would make sense that we would see ocean levels drop alot instead of rise. Then all those underwater temples would be above the oceans again. Only in a ice age or maybe a changed R value age….
[a little added clarity after having “slept on it”… If the REAL numbers from 1940 to 1960 go from 300 ppm to 315 ppm, then the numbers early on get skewed upward (but progressively less so as time goes on) by smoothing. The numbers later on, closer to 1960, are brought lower (this time progressively more so) by smoothing. The end result being an apparent hiatus…]
Hi again
Thinking is a time consuming process, I have no time or the patience for such frivolities.
There are no reliable past or present temperature data, it is just that some of them are much worse than others; hence there are no the ‘best’, perhaps only the Cautiously Estimated Temperature data.
Good point, I have wondered if some of our gases which are never found in nature might be wild carding the show.
and like with the cigarette debate in the 60’s and 70’s, it’s not Can you prove Cigarettes are harmful, it’s can you prove that they are NOT harmful.Those companies said it was too expensive to prove that. OK, take it as a given our pollution is doing this. What are we going to do? Our whole World currently runs on unimaginable amounts of fossil oil. Taxing it really won’t cut down on our use, it will only make it more expensive. And the Oil companies probably want to pay off the billion dollar rigs by drilling and selling existing stocks of know oil. Biomass and sewage currently is not being manufactured into bio oil so it looks like the answer is to look out the window or on the news to see just how big the weather, earthquakes and volcanos are being energized to be. Maybe when all the oil is sold off, things might be different. If it does not break our infrastructures on such a large scale that burning that much oil becomes impossible and sales plummet, breaking the backs of the giants, and then we may develop like the 3rd world going 1st world with no access to oil. Bio fuels and renewables are their path and it may more and more become ours wether we like it or not. But on the bright side, our troops can stay home and work at doing that.
It was covered by Ice?
Steven Mosher: The issue isnt confounding. the issues are
A) collecting good estimates of all the forcings.
B) assuming they combine in a linear fashion.
C) assuming that internal forcing nets to zero over the period of interest.
When the forcings have been changing during the period that has been measured, then confounding is in fact a serious issue. Why do you say otherwise? Confounding prevents the attainment of good estimates of all the forcings, and prevents appraisal of B and C.
tonyb, thank you for the link to Huang’s later work.
Steven Mosher,
Your lot are always saying “Just wait, you’ll see.”
You can’t tell when, where, what, how much, or any specific consequences. Mainly because you are all clueless about the future – although if I saw facts to demonstrate otherwise, I’d change my mind.
I’ll let others do the laughing. I wonder what Warmists have against directing their efforts to reducing the death toll from preventable deaths in US hospitals, for example. Have you any got any good reasons for avoiding worthwhile pursuits?
Cheers.
JCH | November 17, 2015 at 6:52 pm |
The sea beneath cools exactly how? In major EL Nino events there can be a temporary drop in OHC. It comes right back. in most El Nino events OHC continues to go up.
As for the abyssal, Wunsch says he can’t prove he’s right, and he can’t prove they’re wrong. Call it a draw. Wunsch did find significant warming in the actual deep water of some basins.
Anyway, with October, the pause has started coding. The DNR clipboard is hangin’ on the bed.
One would expect the dismal ocean to cool in an El Nino since the upwelling is less. Because the upwelling is less the ocean surface is warmer.
Not an expert on El Ninos – but the ocean loses most of its heat to evaporation and that is dependent on wind speed as hurricanes often demonstrate.
El Nino with less upwelling and less trade wind warms the upper ocean, La Nina with more upwelling and stronger trade winds cools the upper ocean.
Unless you are measuring between ONI neutral points (the midpoint of the roller coaster) playing the whole warming/cooling game during a strong El Nino/La Nina is the factual equivalent of a drive by shooting.
climate reason,
Thanks, also, for the link.
It looks suspiciously like somebody pointed out their early paper was more enthusiastic than scientific.
From your link –
“The database contains more than 24,000 entries, of which a little more than half come from measurements in boreholes on the continents. While it is true that these data were derived from temperature measurements in boreholes, the database does not include the actual temperature vs. depth measurements. For some entries (more than 6,000), there was additional information about the depth range over which the heat flux determination was made.”
It now seems that temperature readings from boreholes at specific depths don’t actually exist, so clams of “cooling” signals moving downwards is just specious nonsense.
The authors state –
“We then extend this temperature-depth profile downward from 300 m to 2000 m, making use of the heat flux vs. depth data of HPS97. The steps to convert heat flux over a depth interval to temperature change over that interval involves integration of Fourier’s equation of heat conduction.”
This is somewhat miraculous, given that they state the data doesn’t actually exist. They try to paper over this minor difficulty by implying they calculated the temperature profile from measured heat flux. Of course, this won’t wash either, because calculating heat flux requires temperature measurement(s), which don’t exist, apparently. Maybe Phil Jones lost them.
The authors will no doubt defend their paper as vigorously as Mann, Schmidt or Hansen defended some of their more ludicrous efforts.
No wonder real scientists avoid “climate science” like the plague. I do feel sorry for the poorly advised who believed that involvement with “climate science” would be a good career move in the long term.
It’s all good fun, isn’t it?
Cheers.
mathew read his latest. its hilarious
