A Single Challenge for the Denier Community

[Edgetho]

Let's face it guys and gals; people with advanced degrees in science have difficulty finding gainful employment.

Physics? Not much going on there. Higgs Boson, M Theory (a complete waste of time) and re-hashing Einstein's, too often flawed, views of the Universe.

Get a PhD in Chemistry and you'll have people knocking on your door. Get a PhD in Aeronautics Engineering and they'll be having fist fights to hire you.

But most PhDs are rather useless. About all they're good for is to get a job standing on a podium in front of a bunch of slack-jawed, stoned-out kids at some Diploma Factory talking shit.

In fact, PhDs are so useless that the Universities might as well give a Food Stamp application with the award of a PhD and save everybody a lot of time.

Think I'm kidding? Better think again.

Then along comes 'Global Warming'.

If 'scientists' were to tell the truth and admit that 'Climate Change' is what it is and there ain't shit we can do about it, guess how many Research Grants they'd get?

Try, 'none'.

If they were to be even more honest and tell us that they don't have the first fucking clue..... Same result.

But here's the deal....... commies, socialists and dimocrap scum (same thing really) saw an opportunity to grab more control, more power, for themselves and they JUMPED at it.

You control energy and you control everything. EVERYTHING.

So commies, socialists, dimocrap scum and worthless PhDs are selling this load of shit to the usual suspects, the gullible, Pop Culture driven, stupid and ignorant dimocrap voter.

You know who they are. They're in here every day, all day.

The DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM got on board because they are THE main purveyors of Pop Culture and are also too busy fellating dimocrap politicians like Al Gore (who made over $200,000,000 on this load of shit) and too lazy to do anything but what they're doing.... Pushing the Big Lie. As usual.

Is there Global Warming or "Climate Change"? Of course there is.

Sometimes the Jet Stream moves. So does the Gulf Stream.

Sometimes there is Solar Activity (for you dimocraps, that's the big yellow ball in the sky you see right before you go to bed)

Sometimes there are shifts in our Magnetic Field and sometimes our Planet tilts ever so slightly on its Axis. Which would explain the warming of the Northern and the cooling of the Southern Hemispheres.

And NONE of those things are affected in the least by Man's activity.

But people with useless PhDs need jobs. And the only way they can get them and keep them is to get grants from socialist, commie, dimocrap scum who want to Rule The World because, well.... Only they are smart enough to rule.

Just ask them, they'll be happy to tell you.

Recognize this hoax for what it is people.

Wake up.

Going through life gullible and stupid is no way to live

 

[flacaltenn]

Global heat content is rising as fast as it ever did. The imbalance will remain nearly constant.

That's an assertion.. You think your chart PROVES THAT???

There is no historical evidence for a full 3D audit of Ocean heat that would be accurate enough to FIND those small numbers. NOTHING AT ALL before 1940s or so..

Proxy studies for SPECIFIC REGIONS in the mid ocean find MUCH HIGHER WARMING in the past 1000 yrs, but neither you or I are gonna be able to convince folks that we can compare a few isolated studies to a MODERN audit of Ocean heat..

Unless your brain is OWNED by skepticalscience that is..

Too bad your climate heroes only RECENTLY discovered that Oceans store heat.. Guess they were busy for the first couple decades giving interviews and writing IPCC fictions..

And what the fuck have your heroes discovered lately - working deep in the secret labs at WUWT or is it the bat caves under Monckton Manor or on whatever scratchpad McIntyre adds his naughts and naughts.?

I think you'll find I quote the IPCC and the scientists whose material they use a great deal more often than I do Skeptical Science. And I'd still put Cook and Nuccitelli head and shoulders above ANYONE you've brought forward in this argument.

Here's 90% of it. If you think the whole has leveled off, we'd better have dove deep into an ice age with the remaining 10%.

You didn't comment at all on your own OP.. Or support the graphic you originally posted.. And OHContent is a whole nother animal from radiative heat budgets.. Don't know why you're flailing to defend your own thread.. You're the one that CALLED THIS MEETING.. Better get it under control...

But if you want to ignore the topic you originally posted --- we can just mock the concept that only the last 15 years of that OHeat went hidden from the atmospheric heat budget.. Because I don't see anyone claiming that the rise in OHC from 1970 --- 1998 should be used to explain the surface temperature deficits during that period.. It only works as a juvenile and unworkable excuse for the current flat warming trend..

Now that they've "discovered" Heat Storage on the planet --- they'll need another couple of decades to discover how to use that knowledge.. They're kinda slow with systems analysis and modeling and physics..

 

[flacaltenn]

Give us your view of what has been happening to the Earth's climate for the last 150 years and your best forecast what will happen in the next, taking into account the lack of any significant change in the Top of Atmosphere radiative imbalance (~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2). That is, take into account that the rate at which the Earth is accumulating solar energy has not changed significantly since at least 1985.

A few handy references if you'd like to familiarize yourself with the issue. When researching this, keep in mind that "radiative forcing" is not the same thing as the "Top of Atmosphere (ToA) radiative imbalance":

An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 - Murphy - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/24731/2009/acpd-9-24731-2009-print.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

What matters is the radiative imbalance | Wotts Up With That Blog

And there are many more out there, including articles disagreeing with the IPCC observations and conclusions.

What TRENDS do you THINK you're seeing in those charts? The charts cover such a small period of time that I couldn't detect a crisis there..

If there's a 1.1W/M2 imbalance over that period -- I'll accept SOME of that. But the accounting really sucks.. What matters is -- if the TOA leakage rate to space is NOT rapidly going DOWN for LongWave radiation ---- it's NOT a CO2 problem.. Because CO2 content continues to GO UP !!!

The only trend I see is a LOWER contribution of ShortWave radiation over the last few years. THAT --- implies the cause in the principle incoming Solar irradiation.. ((For the record -- I don't see how the IPCC got a POSITIVE NET anomaly out of that --- DO YOU??? ))

And if the Earth contains MASSIVE STORAGE in the oceans and delays to establish a new thermal equilibrium temp --- from those charts alone --- I would be predicting a cooling period for the next couple decades..

Whatz the point here? You need to go back to the SOURCE of that plot

((http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/fig/figure3-23-l.png)) IPCC AR4 Fig3.23.1 and tell us what the IPCC is trying to assert..

To assert that you can determine the radiation balance just from observing LW and SW forcings would be to ignore the format of the Trenberth Energy diagram. The 1.1 is a MINISCULE fraction of the energy balance which includes OTHER STUFF like convection and conduction and STORAGE. (The storage part is what Trenberth MISSED --- in his original diagram)..

You can't AUDIT all this by just looking at the TOA measurements anyway. Because if the ocean is EATING your warming -- it's NOT going anywhere in terms of RADIATIVE heating ---- is it??

I bumped this to help you get your "meeting" back on track.. If you want to salvage the thread --- try responding to this post.. If you just want another running "stream of bullshit" thread" --- do ignore your own topic...

 

[bripat9643]

It is a value for the NET amount of radiant energy entering the Earth's atmosphere: the difference between what comes in and what goes out. In an equilibrium state, it would be zero. If the nomenclature is confusing: the tilde means "approximately". I put that there - my source did not use it. The value is 1.1, plus or minus 0.4. The units are watts per square meter (or watts per meter squared) . So...

Approximately one point one (plus or minus 0.4) watts per square meter.

How was this measured before they had a satellite to measure it?

It can be calculated from the rate of change of the total global heat content. You can get a good approximation just using ocean heat content changes - that's how large a percentage of global warming goes in to the ocean. That surface temperature increases should have slowed is trivial.

And you think they can accurately measure the total global heat content?

 

[flacaltenn]

How was this measured before they had a satellite to measure it?

It can be calculated from the rate of change of the total global heat content. You can get a good approximation just using ocean heat content changes - that's how large a percentage of global warming goes in to the ocean. That surface temperature increases should have slowed is trivial.

And you think they can accurately measure the total global heat content?

Oh FerSure BriPat.. They merely need adequate spatial sampling of ALL areas of the globe, down to 1000meters of ocean and at least thru the first 50meters of crust. Say sampling on a 100 sq mile grid with varying depth dimensionality (that can fixed with a couple lines of modeling code) -- with thermometers accurate to 0.0001deg --- and then --

The answer would be in the rightmost decimal places.. 291468642846492003272329864944293264329XXX times 10 ^23 Joules

X marks the "global warming contribution" since 1960...

No problem converting the measured temperatures to actually heat content for all those different materials.. That's what the CRC Handbook is for.. Just look them all up and compensate for the "salt content"...

 

[Abraham3]

Funny that the world's climate scientists don't agree with you at all.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is really sad.. I actually feel sorry for you.. Youre flailing so hard to find a coherent scientific sounding OP, but have failed to produce one.. Youve got amcollection of disjointed factoids with no way to relate them or put them in true historical context.. You produce an estimate of a radiative imbalance based NOT ON THEORY, but on the observed dissapointingly slow temperature rise. An estimate that is MUCH LESS than model calculated projections of the IPCC. Then you drag in the heat hiding in the oceans, but cant relate the timing or magnitude of that observation to surface temps. And we know from recent studies that the ocean has been WARMER in just the past thousand years. The OHC curves suggest that that amount of absorption hasnt changed in 60 years ---- yet the surface temps have BOTH increased then stalled during this run up in hidden joules.. You might want an OP on how the surfaces have gotten hotter, but the ocean rate of heat uptake has remained the same or stalled out.. BOTH observations occurring while the same amount goes yearly into the seas.

What youve presented is virtual skeptic banquet.. Because youre not confused, youre heroes are dumbfounded by all of this. Because they havent been really studying the climate to see how all this relates... The OHC studies ARE a can of worms because there are HUGE holes in our understnading of heat transfers, time constants, transport mechanisms and boundary interactions...

The only REAL efforts to hang all of this on a frame of a climate science using ALL of the scientific analysis tools ive been talking about is the group of researchers under Judith Curry at GA Tech. They are getting traction understanding the thermal paths that define climate temperatures.. We need FAR MORE OF THAT and a lot less hysterical press releases from the priesthood designed for the masses and the morons in the media and public policy...

Thanks for the feast.. Maybe you and Tinkerbelle can get together and figure out what part all those interesting factoids play in forecasting climate change.. I think the fairy believes that heat retention is related to font size... What do you think of that assertion?

 

[Abraham3]

You made an awful lot of claims involving studies there. Where are your links?

You produce an estimate of a radiative imbalance based NOT ON THEORY, but on the observed dissapointingly slow temperature rise.

The bulk of that data were measured directly by satellite. It was only data prior to satellites which were calculated from changes in global heat content. I find it a little odd that you would complain data were based on observations rather than calculated from theory. Is that what you actually meant to say?

An estimate that is MUCH LESS than model calculated projections of the IPCC.

I'd like to see a link so that we all know to what "model calculated projections of the IPCC" you refer. If you actually are talking about projections, then the problem is obvious. These are historical data. Projections would be forecast values for some point in the future, when GHG levels are even higher than they are today. And three guesses what higher GHG levels do to the radiative imbalance... and the first two don't count.

Then you drag in the heat hiding in the oceans, but cant relate the timing or magnitude of that observation to surface temps.

The timing of the rapid acceleration of deep ocean heating ties in quite nicely with the observed slowdown in surface heating. That point has been made repeatedly. I made no other attempt to relate timing or magnitude, so when you say that I "cannot" relate these things, you are just making things up.

And we know from recent studies that the ocean has been WARMER in just the past thousand years.

Link please.

The OHC curves suggest that that amount of absorption hasnt changed in 60 years

Link please

---- yet the surface temps have BOTH increased then stalled during this run up in hidden joules.

Link please

You might want an OP on how the surfaces have gotten hotter, but the ocean rate of heat uptake has remained the same or stalled out.. BOTH observations occurring while the same amount goes yearly into the seas.

Link please

What youve presented is virtual skeptic banquet.. Because youre not confused, youre heroes are dumbfounded by all of this. Because they havent been really studying the climate to see how all this relates... The OHC studies ARE a can of worms because there are HUGE holes in our understnading of heat transfers, time constants, transport mechanisms and boundary interactions...

When I take you as an expert of what climate scientists are doing, you can take me to the ER as I will have OD'd on something nasty. I might also suggest that you try to keep in mind that when attempting to quantify CHANGE, it is not necessary to know absolute values, simply consistent relative ones.

The only REAL efforts to hang all of this on a frame of a climate science using ALL of the scientific analysis tools ive been talking about is the group of researchers under Judith Curry at GA Tech. They are getting traction understanding the thermal paths that define climate temperatures.. We need FAR MORE OF THAT and a lot less hysterical press releases from the priesthood designed for the masses and the morons in the media and public policy...

I find Ms Curry more of a media hound than anyone on my side of this argument. And how would you know what analysis tools the world's climate scientists are and are not using? And are you actually trying to suggest that she is using tools which no one else uses? Has she invented a new math? Get a grip.

 

[flacaltenn]

No links BullWinkle.. Weve been thru EVERY ONE OF THOSE POINTS somewhere in this forum.. Dont task me because of your learning disabilities. If you believe im wrong, pick any ONE of those gaps in your subject knowledge and I will show you where YOU were part of the discussion on USMB...

If youre that lazy -- please ignore my posts.. On the other hand, if youre just that learning challenged, find a new forum and we can all wait for capable warmers to show up....

 

[Abraham3]

If I'M lazy?

Get your own goddamned links.

 

[asterism]

Funny that the world's climate scientists don't agree with you at all.

What's the point of debating if you keep on using appeals to authority?

You should think about that one a bit before you answer. You're trying to make a point using charts and links to studies but then when that fails to convince people you talk about the climate scientists' opinions.

Why even post anything else if you are convinced based on their words alone?

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's just take a small fraction of your intentional or actual ignorance -- just for fun..
Here's part of what I said....

Then you drag in the heat hiding in the oceans, but cant relate the timing or magnitude of that observation to surface temps. And we know from recent studies that the ocean has been WARMER in just the past thousand years. The OHC curves suggest that that amount of absorption hasnt changed in 60 years ---- yet the surface temps have BOTH increased then stalled during this run up in hidden joules.. You might want an OP on how the surfaces have gotten hotter, but the ocean rate of heat uptake has remained the same or stalled out.. BOTH observations occurring while the same amount goes yearly into the seas.

Apparently you've never really questioned what the BTK study means -- else you would have understood PERFECTLY what I said.. You been TOLD what it means by press releases and your data manglers at skepticalscience.

Thus you replied ----

The timing of the rapid acceleration of deep ocean heating ties in quite nicely with the observed slowdown in surface heating. That point has been made repeatedly. I made no other attempt to relate timing or magnitude, so when you say that I "cannot" relate these things, you are just making things up.

... to the first sentence of mine and then obnoxiously asked for Link? Link? Link? to the rest of the paragraph.

The OHContent curves I've seen show NO RAPID ACCELERATION of deep ocean heating. The show a damn near LINEAR increase in heat over a 60 year span.. A system storage component for heat will respond with a linear increase of heat content for A CONSTANT VALUE OF CHARGING. Meaning that the "heat imbalance" or the mechanism CAUSING this rise has been a CONSTANT VALUE for that ENTIRE 60 year period. Same number of JOULES/YEAR going in for that whole time period. QUESTIONS?????????

Kirchoff is the guy who developed the circuit equations for voltage and current. They have an EXACT analogy for heat transfer and storage and they show up in every advanced textbook on thermo. If you apply a constant charge to a capacitor the voltage will ramp linearly.. Just like the Ocean Heat Content seems to do.. THUS the forcing function hasn't CHANGED in 60 years.

This presents a HUGE problem (the aforementioned worms in the can).. Since the surface temp slowdown has only occurred over the later 15 years of that 60 year period.. And the only thing CHARGING the thermal content of the ocean is the surface temps.
((NOTE: Thats the working AGW assumption based on GLOBAL AVERAGING. Meaning that transfers of Arctic waters to the tropics and back thru known means of circulation have a MAJOR IMPACT on the climate, but sadly have no impact on a stone stupid "GLobal average" of the entire ocean heat content. Very sad -- but BTK doesn't give a shit how the climate ACTUALLY works, they just need to find the missing heat TODAY))

So we don't know how to relate the Ocean Storage to the surface temps. Nobody has a clue as to times of heat transit to depth, or when if ever it will ever add back to the radiative balance at the surface. I said YOU CANNOT explain this --- because NOBODY HAS EXPLAINED IT.. Yet it's now accepted GOSPEL that the heat has been found and all is well. Isnt' it? There are obviously DELAYS as well as the storage that have to be explained in order to find the meaning of the missing heat. Anyone who expects that heat at 700meters of ocean depth all got there within a year --- put up your hand. So NOBODY knows for any particular year on the BTK data curves when it left the surface. Could have been a year, could have been a decade. So simply laying the curves over one another is a fools errand.

Not only that --- but the surface temp records clearly show that the both the land and oceans HAVE gotten hotter over those 60 years -- so that the charging rate SHOULD have gone superlinear and accelerated the storage -- but that's not really apparent in the data is it?

I posted a simple equation worked out in a few minutes at my desk ESTIMATING the amount of ocean heating over those latter 15 years.. Curiously, the numbers I posted are VERY CLOSE to the BTK observed values. Meaning that BTK found pretty exactly the "heat missing" from the surface during those 15 years. I find that "convienient".. Especially since -- As I just showed you above --- The SAME AMOUNT OF HEAT was being added each year for the past 60 years and there is NO ACCOUNTING for the LACK of surface heating that represents in the 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s surface temperature record.

If the same amount of heat charging has been occurring for 60 years, why does the "missing heat" only show up in 2000s?

In addition, I doubt that the equation I posted several months ago predicting the BTK values would actually manifest that simplistically. Since the IR radiative imbalance at the surface boundary is EXTREMELY INEFFICIENT at charging water with heat. It penetrates less than a couple millimeters of surface at longwave IR. So the actual charging number has to be much less than the 1.5W/M2 radiative imbalance at the surface.

Add to all that the recent proxy study showing GREATER AMOUNTS of OHC at midlevels in the past 1000 years and you have another handful of worms. Since THEN you gotz to 'splain how THAT HEAT got there in the recent past without an IR radiative imbalance at the surface. (Hint) CLEARLY direct solar irradiation is VASTLY more efficient at pumping heat into water than just longwave IR..

If you're STILL UNCLEAR about that paragraph -- I cant' and WONT help you further. If you think you understand what BTK has left UNEXPLAINED -- by all means --- let's hear it. I have no interest in your other comments to my original post near the top of this page.

But dont tell me that you needed any links to any of that or that I'm simply making shit up.
Because I aint responding to that anymore.

 

[westwall]

Funny that the world's climate scientists don't agree with you at all.

Appeals to authority, especially to those losers, doesn't help your case.

 

[orogenicman]

Funny that the world's climate scientists don't agree with you at all.

Appeals to authority, especially to those losers, doesn't help your case.

Right, let's appeal to former DJs and message therapists.

 

[Abraham3]

Think how marvelously we could advance the world if no one with post grad work were allowed to participate. We could throw out a waiver for retired PhDs with clinical evidence of Alzheimers or dementia.

 

[Abraham3]

Funny that the world's climate scientists don't agree with you at all.

Appeals to authority, especially to those losers, doesn't help your case.

We've had this out before. Appeals to authority are perfectly valid if the "authorities" really are the experts in the field and if their really does exist a consensus.

Where are your authorities? Where is your consensus?

 

[skookerasbil]

kinda funny.......the "authorities" in the field ALWAYS cite the most extreme data!!! Doesn't matter to the climate k00ks.......they don't want you seeing graphs like the ones above.


Citing models is gay. Always has been......always will be. Real scientists know that they are of no use in predicting future climate.


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/18/the-ensemble-of-models-is-completely-meaningless-statistically/




You never, ever see this stuff presented by the msm.

 

[orogenicman]

National Weather Service in (insert location) - The National Weather Service has issued a tornado warning. If you are in the path of this tornado, take shelter immediately...

Skookerasshat - the "authorities" in the field ALWAYS cite the most extreme data!!!

 

[westwall]

Funny that the world's climate scientists don't agree with you at all.

Appeals to authority, especially to those losers, doesn't help your case.

Right, let's appeal to former DJs and message therapists.

Well if you're an example of the sort of PhD's they have working I would do that in a heartbeat. You have proven your math skills are worse than a 5th grader. Thanks for playing.

 

[westwall]

Think how marvelously we could advance the world if no one with post grad work were allowed to participate. We could throw out a waiver for retired PhDs with clinical evidence of Alzheimers or dementia.

Think how wonderful it would be if all climatologists were required to take a high school level calculus test and were required to pass it. Hell, they can't do simple algebra, who am I kidding!