Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by cui bono

January 24, 2012, 3:44 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Girma

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Michael

$

0

0

I dunno why the Ozzies left Britland. Oh, that’s right – we made them.
Look what you’re missing in the old mother country…

We believe that Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday are all good nights for drinking. Sunday daytime is also entirely reasonable.
We’re always half an hour late to work … no-one notices or cares.
Coming to work with a hangover is entirely accepted and indeed expected at least once a week.
We step over a drunk in the tube station rather than offering to help them.
We don’t even bother looking out of the window when we get up in the morning to check what the day is like. We know it is overcast.
We dissolve in laughter when listening to the funny accent of the Aussie international telephone operator (or on TV!). Of course, we don’t have funny accents (unless from Liverpool, Newcastle, Scotland, Wales, Cornwall…)
We can’t remember what ‘customer service’ means.
After a big night we you find ourselves looking for a Curry house
More than three hours sunlight on summer days seems excessive.
We don’t think twice about tipping our hairdresser
We finish every sentence with ‘Cheers’, ‘Yeah’, or ‘Innit’.
We only just realise we have lost our sunglasses, having left them in Greece 2 summers ago.
We’re on our 6th umbrella this year
We bought a disposable baby BBQ from Tesco, and stored it in the garage.
A day at the beach means wearing the warmest clothes we own while standing on golf ball-size pebbles and the thought of swimming doesn’t even enter our head.
We always call soccer football and we have a team and it’s not Manchester United.
We don’t think twice about buying a packaged sandwich.
A sunny lunchtime means searching for a patch of grass and stripping off practically down to our underwear
We’ve accepted queuing as a way of life.
We think there is nothing wrong with France that a spate of neutron bombs wouldn’t put right.

---

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Girma

January 24, 2012, 3:47 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by cui bono

$

0

0

Is the observed mean temperature of the moon 255 or 155 K?
If it is about 155K as Nikolov & Zeller claim, then this fact is another hole in AGW.

May be the missing heat is a miscalculation.

Now the fashionable thing to do is to burry ignorance with uncertainty.
I wish we start to say “I don’t know”.

Unfortunately no one pays for “I don’t know”

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

January 24, 2012, 3:51 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Girma

$

0

0

Martha: Oh, come on. I believe what people like you tell me.

Cap-and-trade legislation, carbon trading, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun, wind and solar energy subsidies, and more. All the “whatever it takes” programs to push CO2 back to 350 ppm.

None of this is mysterious conspiracy thinking on my part.

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by WebHubTelescope

January 24, 2012, 3:54 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Joshua

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

$

0

0

Ouch is right to have your brain hurt like that.
The volume of the ocean involved in the transient uptake is limited to the surface primarily, with the heat diffusing downwards. The average depth of the ocean is 4000 meters. Take a fraction of that as a characteristic diffusion length and you will get a much larger number than 0.0015.

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Joshua

January 24, 2012, 3:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

max -

Wonder why?

Can I guess? Conspiracy to impost a one-world government and destroy capitalism?

Nice to see that you stick to validated estimates of uncertainty, max. If only it would serve as an example for the “realists.”

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

January 24, 2012, 3:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Joshua

$

0

0

Fred Moolten Not to quibble about a minor point but you write: <blockquote>In fairness to him [Trenberth, in his interview], I understand that he has speculated some of his “missing heat” may have escaped to space, which is another way of saying the OLR may have been greater than estimated and the flux imbalance therefore less than 0.9 W/m^2.</blockquote> If you read the interview, you would have seen that he suggested that the <em>"missing heat"</em> may have been reflected out <em>"to space"</em>, with <em>"clouds"</em> acting as <em>"a natural thermostat"</em> (with the <em>"flux imbalance"</em> as observed = 0). This means <em>"an increase of reflected incoming SW radiation from increased clouds"</em> rather than <em>"the OLR may have been greater than estimated"</em>. Just a minor point. Max

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

January 24, 2012, 3:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

$

0

0

When I see someone of your stature go after Hansen and his lunacy

Then you’d be seeing two lunatics going after each other, since I happen to share his lunacy.

What I don’t share (the main thing bringing me to this particular thread) is the problem Oreskes claims to have with the notion that “The public seems to view scientists as the equivalent of the prosecuting attorney trying to prove a case.” You and I, and it seems a great many others here on both sides of the larger AGW question, have less of a problem with that notion: as you point out yourself, the proper role for a scientist should be that of expert witness, not juror.

Notice that Wozniak is not getting a national media or Congressional stage. He is only entertaining a few.

To exactly the same extent as you and I here. I hope you’re right, if I thought this were a larger stage I’d be wording myself more diplomatically.

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

January 24, 2012, 4:02 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Fred Moolten

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

hunter: Thanks!

OT — Over the holidays I reread Philip K. Dick’s The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. That’s the novel about a future earth with a big global warming problem. Still on my recommended list.

---

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Fred Moolten

January 24, 2012, 4:07 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

$

0

0

Kiim, Rob Starkey, and Steven - Below, Max Manacker posted a long <a href="http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/24/missing-heat-isnt-missing-after-all/#comment-162077" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on ocean warming. I would very much appreciate your own careful analysis of his comment and your views on its merits. I say that because when I have declined to respond to repeated claims he makes after having refuted them once, you suggest that I'm evading the issues. In this case, he has made a new claim, and I since generally do respond to these, I'm prepared to give my views. But I'd like yours first to get a sense of your ability to judge climate analysis.

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Don Monfort

January 24, 2012, 4:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by kim

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Fred Moolten

$

0

0

Webbie, it seems that a financial type has taken advantage of your naivete to relieve you of some hurtful amount of your treasure. I doubt that Norm has that talent, and I know it wasn’t me. Unless you are one of the suckers I have taken a lot of money off of, because they were on the wrong side of the Chinese reverse merger scams that have cost naive US pigeons in the neighborhood of $18 billion. But that’s another story.

I am not at all afraid of change and technology. I have been right in the middle of it and have profited handsomely from it. But I don’t bet on losers. Your greenie lot want to confiscate my hard earned filthy lucre and throw it at uneconomical and impractical wind and solar schemes. I am perfectly willing to finance some nuclear plants, but your lot are scared of the atom.

You people are the Luds who want to return to the idyllic times of sails, windmills, and water wheels. The rest of us like to eat and keep warm/cool, all year round. There are a lot more of us than you think. And we are going to continue to burn our carbon, just as fast as we can dig it up. That’s why it is so frustrating to be a naive alarmist troll.

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by kim

January 24, 2012, 4:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by Don Monfort

$

0

0

The sun, the clouds, the water vapor and the sensitivity. Now get with it.
================

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

January 24, 2012, 4:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by kim

$

0

0

cwon14: Dr. Curry is a thoughtful person with her own take and her own agenda. If she doesn’t satisfy your agenda, I’d say that is your problem.

If you disagree with her, make that argument — instead of complaining that she doesn’t live up to your expectations.

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

January 24, 2012, 4:15 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by huxley

$

0

0

WHT

OK.

So the upper ocean only has a mass of 40 million Gt (compared to 1400 million Gt for the entire ocean).

The calculated warming will then be 0.0015*1400/40 = 0.05 degC

I’m still not too worried, WHT.

Convince me that I should be.

Max

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

January 24, 2012, 4:29 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

$

0

0

Ångström believed that CO2 was near or at saturation level, blocking all the lines it was capable of blocking. What he didn’t know was the detailed structure of the CO2 lines. Had he seen them all he would have realized his mistake. Even if our atmosphere were 100% CO2, most of those lines would still be unblocked.

Doubling the total mass of a 100% CO2 atmosphere would block yet more lines, on the order of 200 of them. And if its mass were 100 times greater, the situation on Venus, yet more would be blocked.

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

January 24, 2012, 4:33 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by MattStat

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

markus

I like your Bono song, but for older guys, here’s a “Beach Boy” version (to the tune of “Good Vibration”):

I’m feelin’ that ra-di-a-tion,
Ooh, ooh, ooh, radiation

It’s givin’ me ex-i-ta-tion,
Ooh, ooh, ooh, exitation

I’m guessin’ there’s a cor-re-la-tion
Ooh, ooh, ooh, correlation

That’ll prove C-O-2 cau-sa-tion
Ooh, ooh, ooh, CO2 causation.

Ooh, ooh, ooh, radiation…

---

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by MattStat

January 25, 2012, 11:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

$

0

0

billc, I don’t see how that relates to my post.

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

January 25, 2012, 11:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by MattStat

$

0

0

<i>Some further corrections: the 10 gt of CO2 is not the production but the residual that is not immediately absorbed by plants, soil and oceans (though certain to be absorbed over time)..</i> Two points. First, the residual you speak of is not 10 Gt of CO2 but 40% of 37 Gt or 14.8 Gt. Second, by switching from total CO2 production to the residual you're now comparing apples and oranges because you continue to talk about about total animal production of CO2. The comparison only makes sense when you stick to total production. You complain about cherry-picking and then you go and cherry-pick which data you want to reduce by a factor of 3 or 4. Though it occurs to me I may have misinterpreted your point about cherry-picking as a complaint when you merely meant that everyone does it. If the latter then I could understand why you consider the annual HADCRUT3VGL global land-sea data "grossly biased", and why you see nothing improper in your own cherry-picking. If that's not your idea of "cherry-picked" it would help to know what it is. <i>7 billion people do not weigh 420 Mt – that would be 60 kg/individual, which is way too high, especially counting the proportion of children in the third world.</i> You're just guessing. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight#Average_weight_around_the_world" rel="nofollow">This table</a> shows the average US woman over 20 during 1999-2002 as weighing 74.4 kg. The average male over 20 weighed 86.6 kg. (And obesity is supposedly on the rise.) The reason 60 kg is a reasonable figure is the one you give: the population under 20 worldwide brings the average weight down to around 60 kg. If you have a source for a more precise estimate please give it. I quoted a source for total world animal biomass. All the numbers I gave were from that source, including the 420 Mt figure. You pooh-poohed that source, claiming it was "way too high," and replaced it with numbers you made up off the top of your head. With that approach to debating you can prove anything you want. <i>The ants you refer to are only one of 2 million species of insects</i> You've outdone all your previous inaccuracies with your first number there: it's wrong by a factor of 12,000. You seem pretty confident about your second number, where did that come from? 900,000 species have been described, estimates range from 6 to 10 million for the undescribed species of insects. However I would be amazed if the total mass of all the undescribed insect species in the world came to anything like the total mass of all fish in the world (0.8-2 Gt). Any undescribed species is undescribed because no biologist has a seen an instance, which means their total biomass has to be pretty small. What's the heaviest needle that can remain hidden for long in a haystack? Biologists seek out new species very aggressively.

Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by hunter

January 25, 2012, 11:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Reiner Grundmann

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

Don,
I appreciate your taking the time to explain why you disagree with my points on history.
While I disagree with you that history does not repeat, I do agree with you that the sins of the past should not be hung on people of today. That was not the point I was attempting to make, and if it seems I was, I was possibly not being sufficiently clear.
My point is that each age carries challenges and that in broad outline people, being genetically and often culturally predisposed to certain reactions and views will take similar stands. Eugenics was most assuredly then. AGW, from my perspective, is now. If you were to read a critique of eugenics written during that social mania, you would be amazed at some of the similarities in how eugenics believers approached eugenics and how AGW believers approach AGW. The opinion leaders of eugenics were the intellectual leaders of the day: past presidents of major universities, Nobel prize laureates, progressive intellectuals, etc. Sound familiar?
And the tactics they chose to push the eugenics agenda- scientific consensus, political power, sweeping laws- all have a familiar ring with today’s social mania.
In no way am I implying AGW believers are responsible for eugenics. They have enough to answer for today.
Is that any more clear?

Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Reiner Grundmann

January 25, 2012, 11:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Nature Physics Insight – Complexity by hunter

$

0

0

What strikes me in Oreskes’s piece is the exclusive focus on the US. I wonder how she would react if exposed to European opinions about climate change. How would she react to people telling her that we already see the consequences of climate change, that strange weather is more frequent, that more disasters are on their way, and that we could stop all of this now if only the UN reached a binding agreement to prevent “climatic catastrophe”?

Comment on Missing(?) heat isn’t missing after all by manacker

January 25, 2012, 11:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Open-mindedness is the wrong(?) approach by Reiner Grundmann

$

0

0

bill c

The calculation you propose caught my eye.

In theory, such an approach makes sense.

Where one gets into difficulties is in attempting to put real-time quantitative figures into the slots.

Let me start by trying.

We have the physically observed long-term CO2 temperature response from 1850 to 2010, with two estimates of the solar impact over that period: that of the IPCC (with a conceded “low level of scientific understanding of solar forcing”) and that of several studies by solar scientists (which I have cited).

Using the loigarithmic relation, these estimates calculate out to a long-term CO2 temperature response of between 0.8 and 1.5 deg C (depending on which estimate one takes for the solar portion).

IOW, TCR (per your equation) = 0.8 to 1.5 degC or 1.15+/-0.35 degC.

Now, the “pipeline” concept leaves me a bit cold, as it is based purely on hypothetical deliberations rather than empirical data based on actual physical observations, but let’s play your game.

Using the ratio you propose, we have

TCR (observed) =1.15+/-0.35 degC
“Pipeline” (assumed) = 0.38 deg C
Total (estimated) = 1.53+/-0.35 = 1.2 – 1.9 degC = ECS

This would come out to around one-half of the value being promoted by IPCC AR4 as a “mean” value = 3.2 degC.

Max