• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moderated Global Warming Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Except that that there has been no rise in sea temperatures beyond the noise floor.
Click to expand...

gotta love the blanket statements without a shred of support. :dl:

Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg


care to counter with some real data instead of .....well...nonsense :rolleyes:
 
Mikemcc said:
I've been totally disgusted by the magazine of my supposedly professional body, the IET. (http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2012/11/debate.cfm). They have dredged up Johnny Ball to put the case against AGW, and he has produced the usual gish-gallop of rubbish. To say that I have expressed my disappointment is putting it mildly...

Anotherv disappointing event:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20454757

A specially re-inforced LNG tanker going through the NE passage.
Click to expand...

Grr

I tend to not read the magazine, but usually it has been fairly reasonable IIRC
 
Alec is right. If you don't want to inadvertently boost the Google PageRank of garbage sites by linking to them, there is a BB Code tag that you can use to do this: No Follow URL (nfurl). Here is an example:

[nfurl]www.climateaudit.org[/nfurl]

In the HTML that is produced from this, there will be a rel="nofollow" attribute in the link (here I didn't escape the nfurl tags):

[nfurl]www.climateaudit.org[/nfurl]

This instructs search engines like Google to ignore this link when calculating the popularity of the page :-)
 
Last edited:
macdoc said:
gotta love the blanket statements without a shred of support. :dl:

[qimg]http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m269/macdoc/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg[/qimg]

care to counter with some real data instead of .....well...nonsense :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Argo_floats_measurement_of_ocean_temperature_from_2003_to_2012.png
 
Eight years is not long enough to identify any underlying trend.

If the warming trend was visible over a period as short as that we would be completely buggered, as it would mean it was happening considerably faster than even the most pessimistic models predict.
 
balrog666 said:
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Argo_floats_measurement_of_ocean_temperature_from_2003_to_2012.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Cherry picked data from Wikipedia isn’t very convincing. (Also note that it’s hotlinked, something the mods don’t like)

Look at the images on NOAA web site I linked to, for a real picture of what’s going on with ocean heat content.
 
indeed cherry picked - he;s covered off 4 La Nina and two neutral years with 2011 a notably strong La Nina and back to back La Nina recently which will of course make a covenient denier talking point.
Burying it in the ocean

ScreenShot2012-11-26atNov26201214530PM.jpg


Doesn't change the reality

It's getting warmer
we're responsible

when will they learn.
 
Last edited:
balrog666 said:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nt_of_ocean_temperature_from_2003_to_2012.png
Click to expand...

Thank you for detecting the addition of garbage in the wikipage about Argo. That home made image was uploaded last october 18th by user Leobond (who writes mainly about home computing, but also about Keynes and a pot-pourri of subjects). It's just an orphan image, probably a made-up one. How do I know? First, I looked up using Google special image searching feature and it knows only that image and its thumbnail. Secondly, for that image to aspire to fool anyone it would have to be consistent not only with data, other images developed by other authors, but also it would have to be consistent with how the Earth works. For instance, you placed there a jump of 2.7 . 1022 J from Southern Autumn 2011 to Southern Winter 2011 -it's the only available interpretation of the X-axis, so, don't insist otherwise-. That jump means a net radiative mean absorption of 6.8 W/m2, that is almost 3% of the sun energy the planet gets that is not reflected as shortwave radiation (Calling deep ocean waters to justify this would be even more ludicrous). If you take a closer look to the graphic -an authoritative one- provided by macdoc you might appreciate that changes as large as 2.7 . 1022 J occur during longer periods of time, consistently with an Earth as it really works.

You have to find yourself the way to the other obvious mistakes in the image you hotlinked. For that, you may be interested in answering these questions first as they leave you one step away from those mistakes:

Does ocean, land, atmosphere -and all together- contain the same "heat" during July and January? Why? Take averages if you want, the answer is pretty obvious.

Do representations regarding heat content of masses need some kind of "deseasonalization"? Why? If so -or other process is involved-, explain how is it done.
 
Last edited:
aleCcowaN said:
For instance, you placed there a jump of 2.7 . 1022 J from Southern Autumn 2011 to Southern Winter 2011 -it's the only available interpretation of the X-axis, so, don't insist otherwise-. That jump means a net radiative mean absorption of 6.8 W/m2, that is almost 3% of the sun energy the planet gets that is not reflected as shortwave radiation (Calling deep ocean waters to justify this would be even more ludicrous).
Click to expand...

Agreed. A 2.7*10^22J change in energy content in such a short period is improbable. For comparison sake that’s equivalent to the energy of ~50 000 Krakatoa sized or ~500 Toba sized supervolcano eruptions.
 
Lennart Hyland said:
Any thoughts on this guys?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/...ased-on-ipcc-errors-and-omissions/#more-74852
Click to expand...
It is some guy's opinion on a climate change denier blog. Usual stuff:
The IPCC report is the IPCC actually running climate models!
The IPCC report points out the limitations of the models so the models are wrong.
Politics is science, e.g. Chris Landsea resignation letter from the IPCC.
Unsupported assertions, e.g. "In 2006 Landsea co-authored a paper showing there was no link between hurricanes and global warming." He may be thinking about Landsea 2007 which supported the lack of increase in hurricane frequency which is still an unsettled question. The link between hurricane strength and global warming is fairly well established:
What is the link between hurricanes and global warming?

More informally there is the analysis by Tamino of natural catastrophe data published by re-insurer Munich Re
Catastrophes — How Many More?
Unnatural Catastrophes
 
Lennart Hyland said:
Any thoughts on this guys?
Click to expand...
One thought I've had for a good while : what is it with some people and hurricanes? Like polar bears they are really not a major issue, even though they can sometimes be found in the US and make great TV.

Changes in rainfall - where, when and how much - is the major issue, and for an example of why you can consider the US mid-West's corn fields this year. Imagine if that became the norm - and it's very likely to.
 
lomiller said:
Cherry picked data from Wikipedia isn’t very convincing. (Also note that it’s hotlinked, something the mods don’t like)

Look at the images on NOAA web site I linked to, for a real picture of what’s going on with ocean heat content.
Click to expand...


Read it again - that is NOAA data. :rolleyes:
 
It's cherry picked - that you don't understand ENSO is your problem not ours. You or someone who has an agenda picked years with substantive La Nina events.

It's the same crap that goes on using the outlier 1998 ( an extreme El Nino year ) to claim AGW has stopped.

It's hasn't and you have no point other than showing how ENSO works over a short term.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom