Man Based Global Warming....

I am not "running away" from anything. You are in your knee jerk deference to realclimate and refusal to address the questions I have raised. Since you read realclimate and they apparently have the answers, why don't you enlighten us? Answer the questions I have raised.

I am referring to real world data -- collected by climatologists and climate-related institutions. Realclimate can promulgate all the opinion it wants, but it does not change the underlying fact that nearly all of the major climate metrics (ocean temps, satellite temps, arctic and antarctic ice, etc.) are running against the AGW argument.

Does that disprove a role for CO2? No, I submit it does not. But even if you are convinced that CO2 is the major factor driving climate, doesn't it make you just a little bit curious as to what is now driving global temperatures opposite the direction AGW theory and models predict?

The only person who has provided any thoughtful, serious questions about the data I have presented is F8L. He has raised some valid points and I have acknowleged those and responded with further data and discussion as appropriate.

That is how you advance knowledge and understanding on the subject. Not by simply telling everyone that they should go to realclimate instead of thinking - just for a moment - for themselves, about some obvious AGW discrepancies.

 

This is an interesting idea, that there is significant enough ice melt to in effect "buffer" ocean temperature increases. Unfortunately, based on the calculations I have seen, it does not really hold up. There is simply not enough cool water from ice melt to affect the vast expanse of ocean in any meaningful way.

For instance, Levitus, et. al. (2001) calculates absorption of heat from melting ice amounts to only 6.85% of the total increase in ocean heat (from 1955 to 1996). So it is a dubious proposition that the relatively small water volume from ice melt is by itself large enough to drive recent ocean cooling. There must be another causal factor for recent ocean cooling.

Regardless of what it turns out to be, it is large enough to more than offset the suggested warming effects of CO2.

 

Refer to your previous posts TimBikes. If I were to quote Realclimate.org in answer to your questions, you would brush aside the science as 'coming from alarmists.'

You are living in a circular reasoning loop, and I don't care to get on the treadmill. Face it, you avoid realclimate.org because you cannot argue at a scientist's level. Don't feel bad -- neither can I. The difference between us is that I know I am not an expert, and do not pretend to be one on the internet.

 

Try me. I will not brush aside any comments but will answer them as directly as I can. I am not "pretending to be" a climatologist. I'm not an economist either - but it doesn't mean that as a affected citizen I can't raise legitimate questions about the stimulus bill, for instance.

It seems to me, you are the one with circular logic. Anything that concurs with AGW or realclimate is right on. Anything that doesn't, refer the person to realclimate. Any questions you can't address, refer the person to realclimate. Any logical, intuitive question that is out of alignment with AGW, refer to realclimate. All things lead back to realclimate, whether you have even tried to address the underlying question.

 

For your edification:
Discussion of Ocean Heat Content at realclimate.org
And the requisite graph that you seem to think gives some posture of authority --


This OHC brouhaha (aka, reason for a AGW denialist to masturbate) began with J Willis, a respected oceanographer at the JPL. He has since corrected his 2006 paper after finding data collection biases. The storyline is here. Of course AGW denialists continue to focus on the news that they like, and ignore what they don't.

If you think you have a reasonable scientific question, bring it to the people who can answer it. Why bother picking arguments with laymen ?

 

Thank you sage - now we are getting somewhere.

It is an interesting chart, not the least of which in that it conveniently ends in 2002/3 prior to the latest downturn in ocean temperatures. However, in comparing this chart to the current data (Willis, Loehle) it appears OHC would be down by about 1x10^22 Joules. Based on the scale from the chart you provided, this is not a huge loss. However, as I noted, compared to the modeled GISS OHC of about +5.5x10^22 Joules, it is a significant difference.

And of course, the data prior to ~2003 is somewhat questionable because the argo float network was not in place. Since then, the argo network has enabled much more reliable ocean temperature measures than were possible before so the data has to be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

But even if you believe the data to be reliable, you can pick a dataset from the 3 shown above and see, particularly when you include the current decade, just as many years of falling / flat heat content as there are years of rising heat content, though admittedly there is a net gain. I will review your realclimate link to see if there is any explanation as to why this would be (rise/fall), in light of the fact that CO2 is claimed to be the primary driver of our climate. I would surmise another BIG factor is at play here.

Now we can all learn something instead of calling each other names.

 

A couple of these charts are floating around, all based on the same Domingues article. Each data point is a three year median -- so the data actually is up to 2007. If you take a moment to read the articles you would know this.

Cooling since 2003 ? Not according to Willis (story linked above):

Your argument that oscillations discounts the notion that CO2 is the main driver of AGW calls into question whether you have even a trivial understanding of the subject. CO2 is considered the main driver of the *TREND*, not of natural variation.

I wish to say, once again, that I am not arguing with you. In fact, I don't have an opinion of AGW of my own; I simply defer to the experts, and bring you *their* analyses since you seem incapable or unwilling to get it yourself.

Enjoy the last word if you want, I am done with this waste of time. I fully expect you to now bunker down until the next anomalous data comes along, ignore the preponderance of evidence accumulated, and spend another two years singing the denialist song until even casual laypeople take the time to debunk it. The cycle has repeated multiple times thus far with heat islands, volcanoes, cosmic radiation and now OHC, to name a few.

 

As far as I can tell if one AGW proponent claims that the earth will self destruct in 100 years, the proponent who claims that it is going to self destruct in 10 years calls the 100 year guy the "denialist" for ignoring all the evidence that we are doomed in 10 years. Where does it end? (Note - I'm fully committed to sustainable energy and lifestyles and measures to achieve it.)

Seriously, the answer to "What will be the climate 200 years from now?" is not completely known by any expert or group, so continuously examining and questioning the data is not something to criticize, but to welcome. Nobody has to agree with Tim, but the name calling is getting a little strange.

I'll repeat I point I've made before and will make again. If "climate correction" active measures (including iron seeding of the oceans, manipulating the Carbon Market for profit, and invoking active weather changing technologies) get out of control, it will be due to too few questioning the need for such aggressive changes.

 

Not at all - I acknowledged that the chart you provided brought out some interesting information, namely that the magnitude of the current decline in ocean heat content may not be that significant. Not enough to "disprove" global warming, if that will make you happy - but certainly enough to raise some pretty big red flags about GISS modeling.

In addition, I am not sure what to make of the Willis data. At one point, he said the ocean was cooling. Then he looked at the data and said "that can't be right" and apparently "corrected" the dataset. Hmm.

Meanwhile, Loehle has found cooling (2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.″ Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4)):

Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.

In any case, nobody is compelling you to respond - so I won't be offended if you don't.

 

Agreed. Thanks. I am only asking questions.

Maybe this is not the best forum to use for this, but I have found that there are a few thoughtful folks here who disagree with me and bring some knowledge to the discussion. Which is why I am asking questions and presenting data. Just because none of us are certified climatologists does not mean we can't talk about the subject.

I know I may be in the minority here, but I appreciate not being shouted down.

 

Tim,

I don't always agree with you, but it is EXTREMELY important for questions to be raised. Group think will not advance the science. There are many examples from other disciplines where the "settled" science was wrong... dead wrong, but the naysayers had to go to great lengths to get heard... and no, they weren't always published in the beloved peer reviewed journals. Peer review is important, but it needs to be recognized for what it is... a very human endeavour, subject to all of the egos and politics of human organizations.

The name calling is ridiculous and simply detracts from what should be an honest conversation.

My personal view on all of this is that because the error bars are large and we really don't know what's going to happen our risk is quite large. We can deal with things if they can be anticipated. Getting blind sided by something we didn't expect is a far nastier proposition.

 

I think this bears repeating:

 

I can agree with this and I think it is a reasonable perspective to believe that the large error bars could pose a significant risk. I guess you are seeing the upper error bars, I am seeing the lower. In any case, I don't think it is unreasonable to mitigate risk through realistic, cost-effective measures. But I'm against taking extraordinarily costly steps to mitigate a problem that in my view, is highly improbable.

 

I simply think you are wildly wrong in magnitude and certainty - but of course welcome to express your opinion here.

 

Tim certainly doesn't need any help here since he does more than hold his own.

However, I must make a few comments. To default to the IPCC is not really what most people think it is. There is a general (mis)perception that the IPCC's position is rooted in the work of hundreds or thousands of climate scientists. This is not true. It is a political body that forms opinions loosely based on the work of 52 scientists. A little research will show that many of these scientists have worked with each other on research projects and tend to think in like vein. It is also not clear that the peer-review process so often referred to when discussing their work is performed by anyone outside this group since the names of the reviewers are not released. (Please correct me if I am wrong.)

The lead scientists at realclimate include Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt who are regularly found to be antagonistic to those who ask for data they use to reach their conclusions in research papers. When the data are finally disclosed, problems often occur and 'adjustments' are made.

As to there being only a 'handful' of scientists in opposition to the idea that AGW will result in calamity, here is yet another list (regularly updated) of hundreds:

.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :.

 

ufouray, your link is to propaganda from senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. Wow.

Regarding IPCC, you are confusing (or should I say, Inhofe is confusing) that fact that about 50 scientists *wrote* the report, which is not the same as the number of scientists involved as contributors. To quote IPCC (my bolding):

Inhofe loves to attack in limbaugh style the IPCC because he knows he can feed off the republican distrust of anything UN associated, but I challenge you to find a single leading scientific society of any country that disputes AGW. Start with the american NAS just for fun.

TimBikes seeks datums to support his preconceptions while ignoring the other 99% as 'alarmist'. You make do with propaganda, so long as it has been authorized by your favorite politico.

 

No.

That is not what happened at all. Read the links already spoon fed to you. I'm confident in your ability to remain set in your denial no matter the facts.

 

It's not? I'll check out your links. But here is the word from NASA:

According to the float data on his computer screen, almost the entire Atlantic Ocean had gone cold. Unless you believe The Day After Tomorrow, Willis jokes, impossibly cold.

“Oh, no,†he remembers saying.

“What’s wrong?†his wife asked.

“I think ocean cooling isn’t real.â€

Regardless, he ultimately concludes in his paper with Lyman "...no significant warming or cooling is observed in upper-ocean heat content between 2003 and 2006."

Craig Loehle has since further analysed the data from 2003 through to 2008 and found cooling (see here) during that period of -0.35x10^22 Joules / year.

Again, not huge, but unexpected and substantially below GISS projections. At best, you might be able to say that the data may not disprove AGW - but it certainly demonstrates the GISS model's lack of validity.

 

The NAS did not ask for a vote or input or consensus from its members, rather a panel made a determination. Now, it placed great confidence in the IPCC's politicized pronouncements. When great problems were pointed out, they were essentially ignored.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5830

IPPC lead author distorts the science to draw alarmist conclusions and a scientist cannot in good conscience continue.

- Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives

 

Sigh...

You are missing a couple of small details:
1. the cute 'oh no' moment came close to a *year later* when a new dataset was obviously implausible.

2. His correction was in collaboration two other distinct leading scientific groups who had already tipped him off to the possibility of data error based on their tropospheric researches.

I know you are not stupid Tim. You are just blinded by your bias. The recent OHC cooling strikes me as easily explained by the know decadal oscillations -- but once again, check with experts for a worthy answer. You might also want to look at the *trend* over the past 50 years. It's not exactly subtle.