“For me ( and almost anyone else you care to ask) global warming refers to the increase in global surface temperature anamoly.” Gavin Schmidt
It’s my understanding that Judy agrees with that statement.
OTOH, and now in the vain search to find missing heat in the ocean there seems to be a lot of consensus folks playing detective. If they found some heat there wouldn’t they declare that global warming? So if someone were to care to ask those (it seems most) if the oceans are part of global warming, I wonder what the answer would be? Perhaps that is just fetal warming waiting to be born.
The examples you give here look to me like constructive scientific criticism as opposed to name calling. I didn’t go look at the others. Isn’t that what Judy was pointing out? I guess since Schmidt has Mann he can afford to play ‘good cop’.
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by ordvic
↧
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Montalbano
<i>I guess since Schmidt has Mann he can afford to play ‘good cop’.</i>
Yeah, he merely tortures the data, leaving it alive if maimed.
↧
Comment on Week in review by maksimovich
What part of the solar cycle being inverse to the temperature response do you not understand?
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joshua
Anyway –
Time for me to “hit my sack.”
Thanks for just being you, kim.
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Oh well, as someone mentioned above look at the autopsy. Not running away, charging, AKA bumrushing.
I’ve got you in an uproar, haven’t I? Didn’t know you were quite so needy.
==============
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
@jim2…
AK – The web site has no diagram of the nuclear reactions involved.
So I noticed. Makes me suspicious, although they could just be keeping some secrets.
2. The proton reacts with deuterium to form He-3.
This is where I get left behind. It’s been a long time, but IIRC the probability (cross-section) for reactions like this where there’s no further particle to carry away the energy is pretty small.
If I were doing this as background for a science fiction story, it would be a scam. If I intended it to be real, I’d use lithium hydride.
But, as I say, it’s been a long time, and I didn’t know everything (by quite a ways) even then.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
The Arctic Death Spirit was definitely unprecedented – and still is.
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
Arctic Death SpiriL
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
Heh, surrendering at top speed. Oh, wait, he was running away. With his hands up no less.
C’mon, Joshua, face it; a thug defied a cop and attacked him. Mebbe because he was high as a kite. Note that from the autopsy.
=========
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by jim2
I give up.
↧
Comment on Atlantic vs Pacific vs AGW by Arno Arrak
There is a lot here and I cannot cover it all. So let’s concentrate on Cheng and Tung. I was not much impressed when they brought in the heat lost to the ocean bottom as potentially applying to the hiatus. As to oscillations, they mention a La Nina-like pattern in the Pacific which immediately tells me that they are on the wrong track. You cannot have La Nina like pattern without an accompanying El Nino like pattern for the simple reason that they are always created in pairs. As a consequence, as much warming as an El Nino brings a La Nina takes back again and global temperature does not change. Convince yourself of this and look at the El Nino peaks in the eighties and nineties (before 1998). Use satellite data and remember that local mean temperature is the mid-point between an El Nino peak and its neighboring La Nina valley. There is much confusion in the literature about it even now despite the fact that I made this situation clear in my book “What Warming?” two years ago. We still get mention of fairy tales like an “El Nino like climate” that Hansen assigned to the Pliocene. My copy pf Science was a week late arriving so I did not get to see the Cheng and Dung graphics until Friday. Something very obvious jumps out from these graphics at you. Namely, deep ocean temperature graphs for the Atlantic and Southern oceans show increased warming at a depth of around 1500 meters beginning roughly around the year 2000. There is also a lesser amount of it in the seventies and eighties. At the same time, both the Indian and the Pacific oceans are affected more uniformly and much less. It is pretty obvious that heating at the 1500 meter depth can have nothing to do with global atmospheric temperature. This being the case, it is clear that we are dealing with changes in the thermohaline circulation. We know where it starts – in the Arctic Ocean where warm water brought there by currents cools, sinks, and flows south along the bottom until it reaches West Antarctic. That is a re-staging area from where it turns east (still along the bottom) and continues until it reaches the northern part of the Pacific where it eventually surfaces. This explains why the Southern Ocean is involved. But where does that heat come from if it is not Trenberth’s lost heat? It is actually simple. I proved in my 2011 paper (E&E 22(8):1069-1083) that Arctic warming, currently still under way, is caused by warm Gulf Stream water carried into the Arctic by ocean currents. Direct temperature measurements near Svalbard have shown that water temperature reaching there by 2010 was likely warmer than any time within the last 2000 years. This warming started suddenly at the turn of the twentieth century, prior to which there was nothing there except for two thousand years of slow, linear cooling. It was caused by a rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the twentieth century which started carrying warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. That is the source of this heat. Greenhouse warming is ruled out as a cause because there was no increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide when the warming started. Such an increase is required by the laws of physics if you want to start a greenhouse warming from scratch. I might add that it is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for that. Unfortunately those big shots who write reports like the AR5 either do not understand this or simply did not bother to read the scribblings of a denier, and still keep babbling about Arctic warming caused by human actions. Now that the thermohaline circulation has shown definite signs of life there is one more hypothesis I want to tie to it. I would not do this if I had not doped out the explanation and cause of the ENSO oscillation in the Pacific. It is basically a back and forth sloshing of equatorial Pacific water from side to side along the equator. Judging by the data from the eighties and nineties its resonant frequency is about five years. A couple of years back BEST from Berkeley came out with a newly improved global temperature data set. They proudly showed their temperature curve going back to 1750, a record at the time. They also claimed to have discovered a couple of volcanoes that nobody had heard of by identifying appropriate volcanic coolings. I looked at it and realized that these were not volcanic coolings but part of a global temperature oscillation starting in the 1700-s and continuing to 1900, after which it petered out. What was unusual about it was that the oscillation was a perfect example of a damped harmonic oscillator with a period of 25 years. That is five times the length of an ENSO cycle. If this is water oscillating its path length would need to be five times that of ENSO, meaning five tomes the width of the Pacific. That sounded too ridiculous to me so I forgot about it. Except that I remembered. When observations by Cheng and Tung showed that the thermohaline circulation, at least the stretch from the Arctic to Antarctic, was doing something, I started speculating again about the possibility of that damped oscillation doing something as well. It is something created by a giant disturbance sometime in the 1700s, it had a long path through the oceans, and was losing energy every time it traversed that path. It should really be Müller’s job to follow up but if he is not interested some other interested party ought to do it.
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by GaryM
Let’s leave Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsburg out of this.
↧
Comment on Partisanship and silencing science by Faustino
So it was about manipulating laymen rather than about science? Well, what a surprise.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Closer examination of more cycles shows it is in phase. One way to see this is with the derivative of the 10-year filtered temperature that is highest just as the sunspots are increasing. It is easier to see in the derivative because otherwise the large warming trend dominates.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Mike Flynn
jim2,
You have obviously succumbed to the infamous Climate Death Spral! My commiserations to you.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
Jim D: <i> 3% is about two years of growth in GDP, so instead of having a certain GDP in 2100, </i>
If you invest more money in alternative energy than in the economy, but get the same energy output, then gdp will not grow.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
jim2: Helion Energy has announced that its fourth prototype nuclear fusion system is operational.
Sorry for the ambiguity: I meant a prototype of a unit that could be sold to produce, rather than consume, electricity.
Of course you could invest. Walk up to them with your investment money and negotiate with them.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by kim
The spiral of life. Hey, wait a minute, I’m not sure I like ice expanding at both poles. Enough is enough.
=====================
↧
Comment on Week in review by Joseph
<blockquote>There is also an asthema issue related to Indoor Air Quality, mainly molds.</blockquote>
I am not sure how that is relevant because we <b>know</b> pollution from coal fired power plants can cause health related problems and therefore they can estimate the effect of reducing this pollution will have on the health care related to these problems.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Matthew R Marler
Fernando Leanme: “The cost of PV modules has dropped by 80%, to the point where solar is cheaper than daytime retail power prices in increasingly large swathes of the world. The cost of wind power has dropped by 15%, making it the lowest-cost form of new electricity generation in many places.”
Where is the falsehood? They don’t say everywhere, just in many places. There are places in the world where deliveries of fuel and performance of the grid are less reliable than sun and wind, and the resultant power more expensive. For powering schools in Tucson Arizona, solar is worth considering, especially if you expect natural gas prices to increase in the future. With nearby California sucking up increased amounts of natural gas without developing its own supplies, that is a likely scenario.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
