Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[aleCcowaN]

More on the "Know Your Planet Challenge":

Here is the graphic illustrating
Global Mean Sea Level Time Series (seasonal signals removed) at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Raw data (for the graphic; seasonal signals are still removed) is available here.

I'm taking from the table a value (an orange triangle in the figure) for October 2nd 55.295mm and comparing it with the value about a year before on October 1st which was 63.32mm. That is, in a calendar year the planetary sea level dropped more than 8mm.

We know that glaciers and ice sheets melting contribute yearly some 1mm or more to the sea level rise. So, why did it drop some 9mm? Let me guess, the ocean cooled; that should be the reason. Let's get data about it and go to this source. Let's go to the bottom and click on world 0-2000 all months and check the ocean heat content. By the end of September 2012 it was 15.346 x 10E22 J. By the end of September 2013 it has dropped to ... 16.297 x 10E22 J. Wait a minute, it hadn't dropped at all! In fact ocean heat increased more than 9 zettaJoules!

How is this possible? Are all the data the fruit of contrivance, as most denialists like to denounce?

Again, the answer is easy and based in elements discussed here at forums.randi.org in recent years.

 

[Trakar]

Denial has a price

Big Carbon’s Big Liability

Environmental groups have warned directors of fossil fuel companies that they may be held personally liable for misleading the public about climate change.
http://www.thenation.com/article/180051/big-carbons-big-liability#

A new and potentially potent weapon is being unleashed in the climate wars. Yesterday, three major international environmental organizations warned the corporate executives of some of the largest fossil fuel companies that they could be personally liable for damages for funding climate change denialists and working against efforts to slow climate change.
(...)
The letters ask whether Big Carbon’s corporate officers are covered in the event they are found to have misled regulators or the public about the inherent climate risks of their fossil fuel products—liabilities some experts think could amount to many billions of dollars that have gone unmentioned in the energy industry’s annual reports, SEC statements and other filings. The three NGOs warn that “dissemination of false, misleading or intentionally incomplete information about the climate risks associated with fossil fuel products and services to regulators, shareholders and insurers could pose a risk to directors and officers personally.”

Carbon Costs and class action product liability civil suits?!

 

[Trakar]

http://whyfiles.org/2010/how-much-water-is-in-the-atmosphere/

 

[Trakar]

If this was posted here, rather than in the U.S. House Science Committee...

It would quickly, and rightfully be consigned to the Conspiracy theory thread for proper discussion.

http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/sst2014/FC052914.wvx
(House Science panel session video)

Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) accused the IPCC of creating data to serve a predetermined political agenda—who somewhat hypocritically summarized the hearing's conclusions a day before it even began.

 

[Trakar]

Belated DVR warning!

New Video: Neil deGrasse Tyson Destroys Climate Deniers
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/cosmos-tyson-sagan-climate-change-episode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

Watch, record and share
Cosmos

 

[DC]

Belated DVR warning!

New Video: Neil deGrasse Tyson Destroys Climate Deniers
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/05/cosmos-tyson-sagan-climate-change-episode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

Watch, record and share
Cosmos

it is minblowing how such a pretty standard science docu like Cosmos can cause controversy and outrage among some people.

saw some classy comments on Tyson. Did you know he is a shill, just repeating the governments view on AGW?
and that after he "slandered" christian and god....
sad to see in the 21th century.

 

[a_unique_person]

http://whyfiles.org/2010/how-much-water-is-in-the-atmosphere/

Is this the answer to Alecs' question? If so, I was wondering what the answer was. Interesting.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Is this the answer to Alecs' question? If so, I was wondering what the answer was. Interesting.

I don't think it was.

Besides that page contains errors. The volume of water cited is about ten times the correct one -or worse, if "million billions" is not 10E15-. Besides Madison, WI having to have an electric consumption about a fourth of the national average in order to get the 144.5 million years -ridiculous precision for such an idle comparison-.

Can any of you answer the following question? How much time is required to generate the mass of water vapour the atmosphere contains, expressed in terms of energy coming to the Earth from the Sun? Only two data required: atmospheric water vapour amounts to about an inch of rain all over the Earth at any given time and 240 watts per square metre is the average solar energy that reaches the planet and it is not reflected back into space in its original form. The rest is arithmetics and a two or three data or unit conversion/s easily gotten via Google.

That reply has certain relevance to some questions discussed here.

 

[aleCcowaN]

No replies?

How about just spotting one big fat error in this 150-word paragraph?

Besides, almost 2 years have passed since I posted this image regarding awful mistakes in this NSIDC webpage.

No one has told here what the blunders are yet -there was only a ridiculous series of post by r-j regarding this- nor anyone has written them to correct the page.

 

[DC]

No replies?

How about just spotting one big fat error in this 150-word paragraph?

Besides, almost 2 years have passed since I posted this image regarding awful mistakes in this NSIDC webpage.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=907&pictureid=6638[/qimg]

No one has told here what the blunders are yet -there was only a ridiculous series of post by r-j regarding this- nor anyone has written them to correct the page.

i did not understand your question at all.

and did you email NSIDC?

 

[Trakar]

Is this the answer to Alecs' question? If so, I was wondering what the answer was. Interesting.

Actually, it was not intended to be "the" or even "an" answer to the gentleman's game, but you are welcome to think of it more as a hint or clue as to the types of issues that he may be considering.

Increases of precipitation events temporarily lower and raise sea levels (occasionally by quite significant amounts). People often don't realize how much moisture is carried in the atmosphere and how even minor fluctuations in atmospheric temperature can cause huge shifts in the amount of water the atmosphere can hold in suspension.

 

[aleCcowaN]

i did not understand your question at all.

The question is rather simple: there are eight mistakes -four of them horribly awful- in plain sight within the page area in the snapshot.

and did you email NSIDC?

Not my language. Not my taxes what goes to fund them. Not my call.

It's a wide lack of scepticism and critical thinking at forums.randi.org what worries me. And the consequent kind of characters that colonize thread after thread.

 

[Trakar]

No replies?

How about just spotting one big fat error in this 150-word paragraph?

Before getting into other issues, why does TRMM register the "tropics" as between 37°N-37°S? I was always taught that the tropics exist between the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer and lie between 23.5°N/S (roughly 2/5 of the Earth's surface area -> (2 sin(23.5°))r = 0.398) so while 40% isn't far off, there is a big difference between the swath between 37° N/S and the swath between 23.5° N/S. In fact the TRMM website lists 23.5° N/S as the bounds of the tropics as well, so this may indeed be one of the errors you are referring to, but while they say 37° their numbers say that they are using 23.5° in their calculations.

Overall, its a wiki "answers" webpage, anyone expecting rigorously accurate details on such are probably fooling themselves about the purpose and effort put into such websites.

Oh, U.S. clarification

1,000,000 Million
1,000,000,000 Billion
1,000,000,000,000 Trillion

 

[aleCcowaN]

There is no reason that science cannot be presented or considered in the form of a game. In fact, I would consider guessing games to be one of the most effective methods of explaining and teaching science as it engages participants, helps participants to explore and discover information for themselves, and leads everyone to a more open-minded consideration of the things they know and don't know.

"Science games" is not a phrase I would consider an oxymoron.

Ditto

Actually, it was not intended to be "the" or even "an" answer to the gentleman's game, but you are welcome to think of it more as a hint or clue as to the types of issues that he may be considering.

Increases of precipitation events temporarily lower and raise sea levels (occasionally by quite significant amounts). People often don't realize how much moisture is carried in the atmosphere and how even minor fluctuations in atmospheric temperature can cause huge shifts in the amount of water the atmosphere can hold in suspension.

You are right about the atmosphere "borrowing" 5 mm of ocean every "now" and then; and you didn't mention the soil, water tables and all the hydrological system that acts as a buffer. But the question is, was it the cause of those 9 mm in the question? Probably one of the two most important contributors to it. I bet, it's the second in importance, but I may be wrong. It not complicated to test: was it October 1st 2013 wetter than September 30th 2012 on a global scale? Were the previous quarters one muchrainier than the other? Do both elements add, cancel or what? Were snow covers different? There are good reanalysis tools online.

[The other clear cause is there, somewhat suggested in the very same post where the question is asked, though in a tricky way]

 

[DC]

The question is rather simple: there are eight mistakes -four of them horribly awful- in plain sight within the page area in the snapshot.



Not my language. Not my taxes what goes to fund them. Not my call.

It's a wide lack of scepticism and critical thinking at forums.randi.org what worries me. And the consequent kind of characters that colonize thread after thread.

i meant your first question about warming / cooling planet.

and your excuse to not send an email pointing out their error is pretty lame.

it is a source very wildly used on this topic, and it doesn0t matter what country they are in or who funds them, when they have such big errors as you suggest, it might weaken the case for AGW, yet you seem to see no need to point out their errors to them?
very strange to put it mildyl.

 

[aleCcowaN]

i meant your first question about warming / cooling planet.

and your excuse to not send an email pointing out their error is pretty lame.

it is a source very wildly used on this topic, and it doesn0t matter what country they are in or who funds them, when they have such big errors as you suggest, it might weaken the case for AGW, yet you seem to see no need to point out their errors to them?

Have you detected them? No? So, I have to take that mini-admonition of yours as a distraction. Why don't you provide the right answer, then I might send the letter.

very strange to put it mildyl.

I'm not using such medication

 

[CapelDodger]

it is minblowing how such a pretty standard science docu like Cosmos can cause controversy and outrage among some people.

saw some classy comments on Tyson. Did you know he is a shill, just repeating the governments view on AGW?
and that after he "slandered" christian and god....
sad to see in the 21th century.

Three centuries of Enlightenment and what do we have? Religious wars and trouble in Central Europe. It's obviously what people are comfortable with so I guess we'll just have to work around it.

 

[Trakar]

Ditto

You are right about the atmosphere "borrowing" 5 mm of ocean every "now" and then; and you didn't mention the soil, water tables and all the hydrological system that acts as a buffer. But the question is, was it the cause of those 9 mm in the question? Probably one of the two most important contributors to it. I bet, it's the second in importance, but I may be wrong. It not complicated to test: was it October 1st 2013 wetter than September 30th 2012 on a global scale? Were the previous quarters one muchrainier than the other? Do both elements add, cancel or what? Were snow covers different? There are good reanalysis tools online.

[The other clear cause is there, somewhat suggested in the very same post where the question is asked, though in a tricky way]

Actually, I wasn't trying to answer your question, so much as give others a nudge in how to think about and consider the topics of your questions. How and where that moisture comes back out of the atmosphere is an important consideration with regards to sea-level fluctuations. Rain versus snow, continental interiors versus coastal flushes, etc.,.

 

[DC]

Have you detected them? No? So, I have to take that mini-admonition of yours as a distraction. Why don't you provide the right answer, then I might send the letter.



I'm not using such medication

why don't you simply point out what you believe to be errors on their webpage?
I will then gladly write an email to them, pointing out their errors if there are errors.

so what are the errors?

 

[aleCcowaN]

Before getting into other issues, why does TRMM register the "tropics" as between 37°N-37°S? I was always taught that the tropics exist between the tropics of Capricorn and Cancer and lie between 23.5°N/S (roughly 2/5 of the Earth's surface area -> (2 sin(23.5°))r = 0.398) so while 40% isn't far off, there is a big difference between the swath between 37° N/S and the swath between 23.5° N/S. In fact the TRMM website lists 23.5° N/S as the bounds of the tropics as well, so this may indeed be one of the errors you are referring to, but while they say 37° their numbers say that they are using 23.5° in their calculations.

Overall, its a wiki "answers" webpage, anyone expecting rigorously accurate details on such are probably fooling themselves about the purpose and effort put into such websites.

A shoddy website doesn't justify for us to lower our standards on critical thinking.

I have no problem with that definition of tropics -I live in the tropics now and the 20°C outside right now (sponsored by the incoming Niño) during the winter quarter confirms it-. Besides, those 2/3 are given based on that definition so, no problem with it.

About the error, you sprinted well but you are getting to a new one. You have a world with just one hemisphere, besides it being kinda cylindrical. Give it a thought. We are all here to both teach and learn. I've just chosen an antagonistic approach because it looks the only way to get most of the participants interested. There are thousands of post to prove it.