Register to Comment
Like Tree9160Likes
  1. #17441
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,903

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    This isn't a blog and I'm not a blogger.
    It's not an "opinion" either, it's a bet.

    Get back to me when you wake up.
    Ever the Master of the inane and stupid retort.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #17442
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,556

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    AFAIK the error bars are at 0.15 W/m (Watts per square metre)
    Doesn't say that on Trenberth's chart.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    You're talking about the imbalance of earth's global energy budget.
    What has that to do with ocean heat content?
    The claim from your side of the coin is that Reflected Solar Radiation of
    101.9 Wm and Outgoing Longwave Radiation 238.5 Wm add up to 340.4 Wm
    which is 0.9 Wm short of the 341.3 Wm from Incoming Solar Radiation.
    And that the Net absorbed 0.9 Wm is what's warming up the ocean.

    I'm telling you that your side has no way of actually measuring the 340.4 Wm
    outgoing value. I'm telling you that they made it up. They needed 0.9 Wm to
    make their model work so that's what they put down on paper, they didn't
    measure a damn thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    And what else would cause the rising heat content if not an imbalanced
    global energy budget?
    Because they aren't really measuring a rising heat content. The ARGO
    data has been compromised by Dr. Josh Willis to show an increase when
    the floats initially said the opposite, and the IPCC tells us in their
    AR4 report that ocean temperatures went up 0.1C from 1961 to 2003.
    Do you really think anyone actually measured that?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #17443
    Earthling Earthling is offline
    Earthling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    7,840

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    A handful of papers by discredited scientists
    Are they all discredited?

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    have found a low value for climate sensitivity to doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    Please explain why you believe the figure is too low?

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    The vast majority of estimates find a value ~3C, possibly higher.
    How many is the vast majority?

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    You go with the dubious handful, because otherwise your political neanderthal beliefs would be challenged.
    Is there no limit to you inane insults?

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Anytime you are faced with a contradiction, you can hide behind the defence: "If it doesn't agree with I want politically[sic], then it must be fraud". Obviously, you learned nothing from the Republicans' incompetent predictions of election victory on Nov 6th. Magical thinking just does not work.
    Grow up, grandpaw.

    FYI, Climate sensitivity is unpredictable, and it's still being discussed, so you can bet your boots it's not settled science.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #17444
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,556

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C08013, 15 PP., 2010: Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks
    Authors: Manfred Wenzel, Jens Schrter
    ...
    Amazing all the different estimates that people get from the same data.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #17445
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,556

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    I know where you are coming from.
    Actually, you seem to have forgotten. I look at the empirical
    record and note that CO2 has gone up 40% and temperature has
    gone up about 3/4C. That doesn't add up to the 3.2 claimed
    by the IPCC.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    A handful of papers by discredited scientists have found a low
    value for climate sensitivity to doubling carbon dioxide in the
    atmosphere.
    The vast majority of estimates find a value ~3C, possibly higher.
    See above.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    You go with the dubious handful,
    I go with the empirical record, see above.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    because otherwise your political neanderthal beliefs would be challenged.
    Yes, I know, you regard free enterprise and personal freedom as a threat
    to your existence,

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Anytime you are faced with a contradiction, you can hide behind the defence:
    "If it doesn't agree with I want politically, then it must be fraud".
    See above, I look at the empirical evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Obviously, you learned nothing from the Republicans' incompetent predictions
    of election victory on Nov 6th. Magical thinking just does not work.
    You are entitled to gloat. U.S. President Obama has every opportunity to lead
    the country to prosperity.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #17446
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    6,801
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #17447
    barry schwarz barry schwarz is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,414

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Case View Post
    The ARGO data has been compromised by Dr. Josh Willis to show an increase when the floats initially said the opposite
    You are assuming that the raw data is a better reflection of actual temp change than the adjusted data. Why?

    the IPCC tells us in their AR4 report that ocean temperatures went up 0.1C from 1961 to 2003.
    Do you really think anyone actually measured that?
    Could you detail the data and methods they use to make that estimate?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #17448
    Trainwreck Trainwreck is offline

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    6,801

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    You are assuming that the raw data is a better reflection of actual temp change than the adjusted data. Why?



    Could you detail the data and methods they use to make that estimate?
    For a start, once adjusted it is not longer data.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #17449
    Steve Case Steve Case is offline
    Steve Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,556

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    You are assuming that the raw data is a better reflection of actual
    temp change than the adjusted data. Why?
    Here's what Wikipedia says:

    Argo data result errors
    During 2006, the Argo Network was thought to have shown a declining
    trend in ocean temperatures.[9] In February 2007, the author of the
    paper, Josh Willis, discovered that there were problems with the data
    used for the analysis.[10] After eliminating incorrect data, the trend
    to that time remained cooling, but below the level of statistical
    significance.[3]

    Data results from year 2008 and after
    Takmeng Wong and Bruce A. Wielicki published a paper on the Argo data
    corrections in the NASA journal "The Earth Observer, 20(1), 16-19".[11]
    Josh Willis, in an article published on the NASA Earth Observatory web
    site states that after correcting the errors in the Argo thermometer
    measurements, the results show that the world's oceans have been absorbing
    additional energy and have been warming.[3][10]Rebecca Lindsey
    (November 5, 2008). "Correcting Ocean Cooling". NASA.
    You're assuming Dr. Willis had reason to change the data that was better
    than his mere dislike of the results. His dislike of the results is why
    he did his investigation. Had the results shown that the ocean heated up
    more than he expected, he would have accepted it without further question.
    There's a pattern here that is as obvious as the neon signs in Las Vegas.
    You don't seem to be able to see it or even consider the possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by barry schwarz View Post
    Could you detail the data and methods they use to make that estimate?
    It's not an estimate, it's a flat statement of fact. Here's what the
    Chapter 5 of the IPCC's AR4 says:

    The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature
    has risen by 0.10C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. Consistent with
    the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0–3,000 m) has
    increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate
    of 0.21 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface. Two-thirds
    of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m. Global
    ocean heat content observations show considerable interannual and inter-decadal
    variability superimposed on the longer-term trend. Relative to 1961 to 2003,
    the period 1993 to 2003 has high rates of warming but since 2003 there has
    been some cooling.

    "...since 2003 there has been some cooling." I assume that's the ARGO data
    before Dr. Josh Willis decided he didn't like the raw results.

    You want a detail of the data and methods? People in hell want ice water.

    By the way, the IPCC says in that first line that the temperature rise is 0.10C.
    They don't say 0.1 That second zero means they're claiming accuracy to 0.01C.
    Just imagine, they are claiming they measured ocean temperature over that 42 year
    period accurate to one hundredth of a degree Celsius.

    I've pointed all this stuff out to you before and as I recall you just blow it off.
    You seem to think that the people running your "Global Warming" religion are above
    reproach and don't engage in any of the sorts of things that dishonest people in
    other segments of society come up with.
    Last edited by Steve Case; 12th November 2012 at 03:23 PM. Reason: wording
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #17450
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,867

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    Illiterate bumpkin.
    Lost your dictionary? Are you not taking a risk in presuming spelling mistakes that are not there. That you cannot spell intelligent does not surprise me given your obvious lack of acquaintance with intelligence.

    Is there no limit to you(sic) inane insults?


    Grow up,(sic) grandpaw.

    Grammatically challenged again?
    Last edited by Agnotologist; 12th November 2012 at 04:34 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment