New Improved Hockey Stick?

[skookerasbil]

And here's another idiotic rant from SSoooDDuuumb that is once again based solely on his own ignorance. Plus a huge helping of stupidity and denier cult insanity.

Clueless as usual, but thanks for coming round to demonstrate your abnormal psychological reaction to having your faith questioned. Interesting that you would deny the standard historical temperature as stated by the IPCC.

You got your moronic nonsense debunked, as usual. Period.

 

[Saigon]

No offense but I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

Fantastic post, I feel exactly the same way.

It just baffles me that we have posters here who claim to be interested in science or have a background in science - and whose main point is that we must ignore each and every piece of scientific research and dismiss the position of all of the world's leading scientific bodies.


btw - Does this forum have a rule on posting material without links? I appreciate it is one way posters can get away with using sources that would otherwise simply be laughed at - but it doesn't show a lot of integrity.

 

[IanC]

it will be interesting to see what sort of proxies were chosen for this study. and the method for choosing them. and how they were combined.

It is in the journal Science.

as usual the actual proxies dont stand out supporting the paper in any clear cut way. h/t Nullius in Verba


edit- doesnt look like many series show a 20th century spike. why is it OK for climate science to graft a different type of information on to the end as if it was connected?

 

[IanC]

for comparison purposes. gotta love those confidence intervals eh?


edit- please note the y axis. the proxies range from 4C to minus 4C. the Marcott reconstruction runs from 0.8C to minus 1.2C

 

[SSDD]

it will be interesting to see what sort of proxies were chosen for this study. and the method for choosing them. and how they were combined.

Right out of the gate Watts has pointed out that one potential problem is that the pollen data median sampling of 120 years, which is 4x the 30 year climate normals periods used today. He notes that that's pretty low resolution for a study that is focusing on 2000 years and leaves lots of opportunity to miss data. He also notes that when they say the last 100 years was the warmest (with higher resolution data) they really aren’t comparing similar data sets when the other data has a 120 year median sampling.

As they get into the methodology, it is a sure bet that it will be even more flawed than mann's hockey stick. They are blatantly ignoring some pretty big obstacles to their being right. The new hockey stick shows temperatures 10,000 years ago to have been within 0.1C of the holocene maximum. Such a mass of ice would have kept the planet very cool. In addition to that, the latent heat of such a large mass of ice melting would have actually created a very large, and global cooling effect. Then there is the fact that such a large quantiy of ice melting and flowing into the ocean would have further compounded the cooling effect by bringing the ocean temperatures down.

They completely ignore the physical reality of that much ice melting. More junk science courtesy of those intrepid "heroes" of climate science.

 

[SSDD]

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

That would be because you don't have the first clue as to the actual science. Those of you who have blind faith in climate science do so because you are unable to see even the most blatant flaws in the science. You believe as a matter of faith, not even a basic grasp of the science. It is good of you to point out that your position is one of faith and not knowledge.

It just baffles me that we have posters here who claim to be interested in science or have a background in science - and whose main point is that we must ignore each and every piece of scientific research and dismiss the position of all of the world's leading scientific bodies.

I am interested in the science which is why I have asked you, and others repeatedly for any actual evidence that the trenberth energy budget and resulting model is correct. There are glaring problems with it and it is the basis for all climate science today. If it is correct, then I will most certainly change my mind...if it is incorrect, then none of climate science can be correct as it all stems from that energy budget.

Prove to me that the trenberth energy budget is correct and as someone who respects the scientific method, I will have no choice but to change my mind.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Firstly, you might look a little bit smarter if you attributed quotes to the people who actually posted them.

Secondly, it makes little sense for you to claim interest in climate change on this thread - and then insist that droughts are not consistent with climate change on another.

Repeating the same old myths on thread after thread after thread does not hide the fact that you have no interest in anything here but politics - which is why you have more than once used politicians as sources.

 

[Saigon]

Prove to me that the trenberth energy budget is correct and as someone who respects the scientific method, I will have no choice but to change my mind.

Nonsense.

You need to be honest with yourself here. You refused to look at research conducted by the British Antarctic Survey because you found their conclusions incoveniant - you will do the same here.

The fact that you flail away at Trenberth says one hell of a lot more about you than it does anything or anyone else.

btw. More up-to-date measurements show warming is consistent within observational uncertainties. Heat is continuing to build up in the subsurface ocean. Go and check. We both know you won't.

 

[Saigon]

And here is the proof you asked for...peer-review and published.

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

Those measurements are at the heart of a puzzle climate scientists have been trying hard to crack: why, as greenhouse gas emissions rose and satellite data showed an increasing amount of energy trapped in the planet’s atmosphere, the amount of heat absorbed by the world’s oceans — a major heat sink — wasn’t rising as quickly.One answer to the puzzle came from climate scientists Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who coined the term “missing heat” — and later suggested it may be stored in the deep ocean, where there are few measurements to track the energy’s path.But new research, published yesterday in the journal Nature Geoscience, argues that what Trenberth and Fasullo dubbed “missing heat” isn’t missing, after all — that the amount of radiation trapped in Earth’s atmosphere, as measured by satellite sensors, is consistent with measurements of heat absorbed by the ocean.Any discrepancy falls within the margin of error on those measurements, say the study’s authors, led by NASA climate scientist Norman Loeb.“Given that there’s a lot of uncertainty in the ocean measurements, given that there was this transition from XBT to Argo right around the time that satellite data and ocean data deviated, it raises a lot questions in my mind about whether you can say there is missing energy,” Loeb said.His analysis examining the amount of solar radiation entering and leaving the atmosphere estimates the heat content of the upper ocean using three different data sets.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/01/24/missing-heat-isnt-missing-after-all/

 

[SSDD]

Secondly, it makes little sense for you to claim interest in climate change on this thread - and then insist that droughts are not consistent with climate change on another.

I said that drought isn't consistent with the model predictions of a warmer wetter world. Drought is a symtom of less moisture in the air, not more. A warmer world will have less drought as the paleo records have shown us.

Repeating the same old myths on thread after thread after thread does not hide the fact that you have no interest in anything here but politics - which is why you have more than once used politicians as sources.

It is you who is not answering the questions being asked regarding the basic science. Again, you don't know enough to see the problems that arise from basing an entire field of study on flawed initial research that is simply assumed to be true.

 

[editec]

Which part of my OP do you think is faith based?

That's a fair complaint in your case, SSDD.

I apologize for including you in the lot of the know-nothings who are, let's face it, anti-science.

I applaud your attempt to engage this board in discussing Climatology using science, too.

A gentlemanly reply. Kudos. Some tiny little rep is forthcoming.

But your post still ducks the questions just posed to you by SSDD.

I "duck" the question for the very reason I posted in my initial response.

... I'll go with the majority of climatologists when trying to understand the nature of the climate.

I do not deny they might all be wrong, but I have far more reason to bet on the scientific experts POV than on their faith based detractors.

Basically, unless you are a climatologist, debating this is merely playing the game of dueling experts.

As I acknowledge that I am no expert, I am left choosing between the recognized MAJORITY of "experts", or choosing to believe the MINORITY of "experts".

I am not, and I suspect neither are you, really capable of reading the scientific data and finding its flaws -- either flaws in fact, or flaws in logic.

Does that explain my position regarding this issue clearly enough?

I acknowledge that I am NOT expert enough to debate the merits of scientific debate.

Are you?

 

[SSDD]

You need to be honest with yourself here. You refused to look at research conducted by the British Antarctic Survey because you found their conclusions incoveniant - you will do the same here.

Which has jack to do with the foundational errors upon which climate science is based. Prove that the trenberth energy budget and resulting model are correct.

The fact that you flail away at Trenbath says one hell of a lot more about you than it does anything or anyone else.

It says that I recognize the origin of the error cascade that is cliamte science today.

btw. More up-to-date measurements show warming is consistent within observational uncertainties. Heat is continuing to build up in the subsurface ocean. Go and check. We both know you won't.

That isn't what argos says. How stupid is the idea that warm water is sinking to the depths. Argos would have noted warm water decending to the depths and it hasn't.

 

[Saigon]

Prove that the trenberth energy budget and resulting model are correct.

Already done - check post #29.

 

[Saigon]

Secondly, it makes little sense for you to claim interest in climate change on this thread - and then insist that droughts are not consistent with climate change on another.

I said that drought isn't consistent with the model predictions of a warmer wetter world. Drought is a symtom of less moisture in the air, not more. A warmer world will have less drought as the paleo records have shown us.

Right - so once again you prove beyond any possible doubt that you do not understand the basis of what climate scientists are saying.

How can you rebut something without knowing what it is you are rebutting?

Do you HONESTLY not get this? Or is it just some kind of theatrical game for you?

 

[SSDD]

And here is the proof you asked for...peer-review and published.

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

Tell me, how do you suppose that warm water is sinking because that is what would have to be happening since radiation only penetrates the ocean slightly. And how do you explain that more, not less IR radiation is escaping from the earth. If you want to find the missing energy, look to where it is going, not the depths of the ocean. Here, some observed evidence that the AGW hypothesis is wrong. According to the hypothesis, atmospheric CO2 should have reduced the outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere by 0.93W/m2 since 1975. Instead outgoing long wave has increased by 1.3 W/m2.

That predicted decrease is what was suppose to cause the smoking gun, AGW signature hot spot which still has not materialized and never will. Rather than simply acknowledge that they were wrong, they claim that warm water is sinking to the ocean depths unbeknownst to argos which measures temperatures to a depth of 500 meters.... and that crap actually passes peer review and the fact that it is complete bullshit slips right past uneducated dupes like you.

 

[Saigon]

btw. More up-to-date measurements show warming is consistent within observational uncertainties. Heat is continuing to build up in the subsurface ocean. Go and check. We both know you won't.

That isn't what argos says. How stupid is the idea that warm water is sinking to the depths. Argos would have noted warm water decending to the depths and it hasn't.

 

[Saigon]

And here is the proof you asked for...peer-review and published.

Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2. Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm−2 (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1375.html

Tell me, how do you suppose that warm water is sinking because that is what would have to be happening since radiation only penetrates the ocean slightly. And how do you explain that more, not less IR radiation is escaping from the earth. If you want to find the missing energy, look to where it is going, not the depths of the ocean. Here, some observed evidence that the AGW hypothesis is wrong. According to the hypothesis, atmospheric CO2 should have reduced the outgoing long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere by 0.93W/m2 since 1975. Instead outgoing long wave has increased by 1.3 W/m2.

That predicted decrease is what was suppose to cause the smoking gun, AGW signature hot spot which still has not materialized and never will. Rather than simply acknowledge that they were wrong, they claim that warm water is sinking to the ocean depths unbeknownst to argos which measures temperatures to a depth of 500 meters.... and that crap actually passes peer review and the fact that it is complete bullshit slips right past uneducated dupes like you.

SSDD -

Please listen carefully, because this is important.

You asked for proof.

I presented it.

NOW READ IT.

 

[skookerasbil]

June 6, 2008, 7:13 pm

How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion

By JAMES KANTER

The International Energy Agency today put a figure on the amount it will cost to go green, and it’s a lot: $45 trillion. Even when you spread that amount over the next 42 years, it’s still more than $1 trillion annually, or more than the GDP of many industrialized nations.

Nobuo Tanaka, the agency’s executive director, gave the figure as part of a report calling for “a global energy revolution.” He called for “immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale.” The world needed to “completely transform the way we produce and use energy.”

The question is how to get there.

The agency hints that the answer might lie in a global treaty, saying member nations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the parent treaty of the Kyoto Protocol, must negotiate ways of encouraging governments and businesses to lower emissions.

John Hay, a spokesman for the UNFCCC, told me that markets operating under the Kyoto treaty that put a price on carbon pollution, such as Europe’s Emissions Trading System, already were playing an important role in driving investment. But analysts I spoke to said global agreements, while potentially helpful, were unlikely to hold the key to raising such vast sums.

Robert LaCount of Cambridge Energy Research Associates said governments would have to bite the bullet and bear much of the cost. Only nations with their deep pockets could take the risks required to turn risky technologies from pipe dreams into reality.

Pierre Noel of the European Council on Foreign Relations said the key was sustained high oil prices. With the prices of gas and oil reaching record levels (and coal prices heading upwards too), energy entrepreneurs might be ready to help the planet take the leap described in the IEA report.

What do you think is the key to raising $45 trillion?



How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion - NYTimes.com

 

[skookerasbil]

I FRIGGIN' LOVE THIS FORUM!!!!

 

[Saigon]

Skooks -

PLEASE do not spam the thread with gibberish.

Show a little respect to your fellow posters by allowing them to discuss the actual topic. No one is interested in your children's cartoons and jokes.