Thank you. I hope Nic Lewis’ coming post will give an update on the ECS and TCR figures.
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Peter Lang
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #344 | Watts Up With That?
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #344 |
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Dr. Strangelove
Galileo’s work is included in Newton’s laws of motion. Rutherford is a great physicist but I put him in the top chemists since his work overlaps with chemistry. Bohr model of the atom had been replaced by quantum mechanics of Heisenberg, Schrodinger and Dirac, and I’m not a fan of Copenhagen interpretation.
Since the Standard Model in the 1970s, unfortunately no fundamental discovery yet. We still don’t know the true nature of dark energy and dark matter. I have a theory that explains both but I have yet to convince other physicists :-)
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ulric Lyons
Initially incoherent, then wrong about the significance of the AMO. Take the example of the mid latitudes, positive NAO/AO episodes drive short term reductions in cloud cover, but the multidecadal signal with the warm AMO phase associated with less cloud cover, is driven by negative NAO/AO. Elephants trump dogs.
↧
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Ulric Lyons
AMO cloud feedback:
https://patricktbrown.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/786236_1_merged_1459456277.pdf
This is an AMO related signal:
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH
Not much for the Kennedy Monument in DC. Other than his grave at Arlington National Cemetery, there isn’t one.
↧
Comment on Special Report on Sea Level Rise by Het klimaatakkoord is een vergaarbak van deugmensen-onzin geworden – De Dagelijkse Standaard
[…] Ga je enkele jaren later terugkijken naar de modellen dan blijkt geen enkele het ook maar bij benadering te hebben voorspeld en blijken de angstaanjagende doemscenario’s verre van realistisch. Het wrange is dat zelfs […]
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by nobodysknowledge
As I read it over again, I saw that they were writing about LW absorption, and not short wave interactions. So it is not about feedback.
↧
↧
Comment on Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? by ristvan
Well done, Nic Lewis.
An additional point concerning OHC in the ARGO era. I recently guest posted an article at WUWT, “ARGO fit for purpose?” Concerning OHC, the design intent accuracy (given randon ~3 degree lat/lon spacing and the minute water temperature diffences caused by large heat storage differences) was ~10W/square meter. At any of the annual heat deltas Nic references, it takes substantialy more than a decade after full 2005 deployment for ARGO to provide any rigor (the precise design intent term).
And, it will take well more than two decades to reach any rigorous conclusions about the ‘true’ rate of OHC change, since the 2005 baseline from earlier OHC estimation methods is so uncertain.
Therefor ALL the OHC papers cited, not just Cheng, woefully understate the uncertainty in their estimates.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Willard
> Apologies for missing the thread.
You missed more than the thread, RonG.
You missed the whole concept of thermostat.
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Willard
> I simply asked you to articulate why or find where Alley does.
I rather see lots of bait-and-switches, RonG:
[RG1] this reality is the opposite of what was presented as the science by Al Gore’s movie […] This important point is omitted from the SKS M-cycles post.
[RG2] if it were true Alley and SKS would have no problem spelling out why
[RG3] you of all people should be aware that one of the primary rules of climateball is: all analogies fail.
[RG4] You, Alley and SkS need to be more specific
[RG5] I will help you.
By dodging my thought experiment, you’re begging a question that might be more important than you seem to presume. This thought experiment is related to the point I made. Your failure to address it has stretched justified disingenuousness beyond its breaking point.
Alternatively, if you can find Javier’s anti-correlation test, that’d be great.
↧
Comment on Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? by Kip Hansen
ristvan ==> It is possibly the most significant problem in Science today — the over-confidence in numerical values produced from huge data sets, while ignoring the very basic problems of the original accuracy and precision of measurements. For long term trends, the fact that older data in the data set is inadequately accurate (has huge uncertainty bars) is simply ignored (sometimes only downplayed) and the “mean” used as if it were both accurate and precise.
It is similar to “The Epidemiologists’ Fallacy” in which medical/health studies claim to have “corrected for” large numbers of confounders in the data.
↧
↧
Comment on Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? by frankclimate
Thanks Nic. Moreover a development of “qualtity management” in science is remarkable: in earlier days a peer reviewed response in the publishing journal was necessary to get a response from the authors. These days are gone IMO. Your critique relating Resplandy et.al was followed by a quick response by the author(s) and also in this case the exchange was rather quick and well on target. This makes hope: (I)The discussion transferes to the public and doesen’t remain in the comfort zone of pay walled journals and (II) some PR-addicted editor takes more care :-)
↧
Comment on Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? by michaelrath250
Judith, could you comment on the following article? I found it very informative and concise.
https://budbromley.blog/2019/01/15/co2-is-not-causing-global-warming/
↧
Comment on Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? by climatereason
Kip
I would add this to your excellent comment: often there is only one original measurement anyway, so we can’t average out say seven different readings and in the process discarding the highest and lowest.
We also need to know the circumstandes under which they were taken and the accuracy of the instrument, let alone the mind set of the observer. This all means we need to be cautious in according magical status to data, as whilst We can often get a ‘generality’ getting a specific figure accurate to tenths of a degree is problematic.
Whilst modern automatic readings may be more accurate than readings made by people, they still have their problems and in any case, like satellite readings, provide us data covering only the blink of an eye, from which it is dangerous to assert any definitive trends
I think Judith needs to introduce the ‘extrapolation’ monster to her herds of climate beasts, it is a very large one.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? by DMA (@DMA6375)
Why do these papers continue to cite RP ? for changes in warming when there is no correlation of emissions to atmospheric CO2 nor temperature? (https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/14/climateaction/)
(https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/)
↧
↧
Comment on Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? by Ocean Warming | Transterrestrial Musings
[…] No, it’s probably not accelerating faster than we thought. […]
↧
Comment on Ocean Heat Content Surprises by Robert I. Ellison
So positive NAM causes a warm north Atlantic at interannual scales and a negative NAM a warm north Atlantic at decadal scales? And that impacts tropical cloud and global sunshine?
It may be more a case of the parable of blind men and the elephant.
↧
Comment on Is ocean warming accelerating faster than thought? by matthewrmarler
My thanks to Nic Lewis and to the authors ( Lijing Cheng, John Abraham, Zeke Hausfather and Kevin Trenberth) for this contribution to the discussion.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
