This article argues that ocean heat provides a good correlation for the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis and that since ocean heat has declined in the past 6 years that we ought to take another hard look at that hypothesis
Good pick, Bill. I can't say I followed it 100%, but assuming everything about the paper was accurate the conclusions are pretty damning. I particularly liked this part:
Hidden Heat. A few explanations have been proposed for the change in ocean heat. One popular suggestion is that there is “hidden” or “unrealized” heat in the climate system. This heat is being “masked” by the current cooling and will “return with a vengeance” once the cooling abates.
This explanation reveals a fundamental ignorance of thermodynamics and it is disappointing to see scientists suggest it.
Heck I'd say it violates the principle of conservation of energy, which any high school science student should be able to pick up on.
This explanation of "hidden heat" came about to account for the fact that global average temperature has either been stable or dropping for the last 10 years, even though CO2 concentration has continued to go up. This contradicted the main theme AGW adherents had been promoting which is that rising CO2 results in higher global temperatures. So they said the heat had to be "hidden" for the time being, but was still building up energy, which would eventually be released "with a vengeance"...
I was hearing this explanation a few years ago that CO2 buildup was causing the oceans to warm. The problem with this is that it takes a LOOOONG time for ocean water to change temperature, as I understand it, on the order of a hundred years or more (of course depth and current flow have something to do with it as well). This gets to what DiPuccio talks about with heat vs. temperature, since heat takes mass and specific heat (rate of heating required to raise temperature by a certain temperature interval) into account. What I've heard about the oceans is they have what is called in climatology a "memory" of temperature. The ocean warmth that was seen by scientists 10+ years ago was probably the result of external warming (added energy to the system) that began near the beginning of the 20th century, or perhaps farther back than that.
But like DiPuccio said about the media and public policy, "Never mind the science. Push forward!" The Obama Admin. just recently released their report on climate change, and just in time, too. His cap and trade legislation is coming up for consideration by congress soon. The author of the blog post I linked to has also done a series of posts on the Obama Admin. (GCCI) report. The blog is Climate Skeptic.
The graph you show only covers the period 2003-2008. Over the period 1955-2007, there has been a fairly consistent upward trend in sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. This is shown for example at http://tinyurl.com/m9nbds There is considerable noise on the plot and the reduction over the past 5 years is consistent with that noise
I think you're misreading the graph you referred to. If you take a look at it again you'll see that the Y axis goes from -0.4 degrees C to +0.4 degrees C. The zero for the graph is in the middle. So what you see for the red line plot is from 1955-1979 the combined land and sea surface temperature (the SST data) is falling, but at a decreasing rate. Thereafter, from 1980 onward, the temperature in this data set increased fairly consistently.
If you look at the web page for the SST data you'll see this more clearly. In the upper right-hand corner they show 3 graphs of temperature increases and decreases from 1850 to 2005. During most of that time the combined temperatures were decreasing. The large rise in the combined temperature began in 1980.
If you look at just the "upper ocean" plot (the OHC data), it does not show a consistent upward trend, but rather oscillation. From 1955-1967 temperature increases. From 1967 to 1972 it decreases. From 1972 to 1980 it increases. From 1980 to 1990 it decreases. And then from 1990 to 2002 it increases.
Yes, this is because they chose to normalise to the 1961-1990 mean, it has no significance beyond that.
Likewise the SST data are normalised to around 1980, the base year is arbitary.
"graphs of temperature increases and decreases"
If you are saying that the graphs are of annual temperature change then I think you are misinterpreting them, they are of annual temperature compared with an arbitary base year.
If you are referring to short term fluctuations within a long term trend then I think that you should look at the longer term trent with data which is so noisy.
Universities as Tentacles of the Police State
-
“Have you no sense of decency?” The recent Congressional hearings leading
to a bloodbath of university presidents brings back memories from my
teen-age y...
Monday: Hili dialogue
-
Welcome to the top o’ the week: Monday, April 29, 2024, and National
Shrimp Scampi Day, a dish I’ve never had. It looks good, though: It’s also
Internati...
Whale Song Code
-
During the Cold War, the US Navy tried to make a secret code out of whale
song.
The basic plan was to develop coded messages from recordings of whales,
...
Feud-Limiting Norms
-
In this post I want to suggest an explanation for two sets of related
puzzles. The first puzzle is why protestors go out of their way to do
illegal things,...
Monday Message Board
-
Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion
and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the
sandpits,...
Coral Bleaching. What They Don’t Tell You
-
There was significant coral bleaching this last summer. It was remarkable
at the Keppel Islands. But because scientists have been falsely calling it
e...
Week Notes 16-24
-
I started the week with several days of headaches, thinking I might have
caught what E had the days before. I stayed at home mostly because of it.
In the s...
Using IBM Event Automation with Azure Event Hubs
-
IBM Event Automation helps companies to accelerate their event-driven
projects wherever businesses are on their journey. It provides multiple
components (E...
The non-existence of economic laws
-
from Lars Syll In mainstream economics, there’s — still — a lot of talk
about ‘economic laws.’ The crux of these laws — and regularities — that
allegedly e...
The Ghetto-ization of American Life
-
*Behind the facade of normalization, even high-income lifestyles have been
ghetto-ized.*
*Consider the defining characteristics of a ghetto:*
1. The res...
Syndicate Science – The Definition
-
This is what we identify as Syndicate Science. Ironically, amidst our focus
on external threats, a more insidious danger has evolved from within the
corrid...
Chibitronics is Presenting at ISTELive2024!
-
Venture into the future of learning with Chibitronics! Details This summer,
Chibitronics is excited to be presenting a hands-on workshop at ISTELive24
in...
Lies, Damned Lies, and AI
-
In which I rant about tech companies marketing chatbots that are not fit
for purpose. People keep telling me this tech can only improve, so I gave
it the b...
My Passover press release
-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – From the university campuses of Assyria to the
thoroughfares of Ur to the palaces of the Hittite Empire, students across
the Fertil...
Struggling with a Moral Panic Once Again
-
I have to admit that it’s breaking my heart to watch a new generation of
anxious parents think that they can address the struggles their kids are
facing by...
The world’s economic myths are hitting limits
-
There are many myths about energy and the economy. In this post I explore
the situation surrounding some of these myths. My analysis strongly
suggests that...
Agent-Based Models (Part 8)
-
Last time I presented a class of agent-based models where agents hop around
a graph in a stochastic way. Each vertex of the graph is some ‘state’
agents ca...
AERA 2024 trip report: blight and belief
-
[image: Two imposing marble columns, a dimly lit hallway, and a hundred
attendees swarming.]The imposing main entrance to the conference.
Although I’ve alw...
Avi wins the Turing, TCS for all
-
Avi Wigderson has won the Turing award. I just can’t find the words on how
happy this makes me, so won’t even try to write a post, beyond what I wrote
on T...
A response to “The legacy of 1968”
-
Platypus Review 165 | April 2024 On June 24, 2023 at Trades Hall in
Melbourne, Australia, the Platypus Affiliated Society hosted a panel on the
legacy of 1...
Return to 4th grade Code Club
-
One of my high school seniors wanted to do a service project teaching
coding to elementary students. He loved our field trip to the elementary
school that ...
Predictions Scorecard, 2024 January 01
-
[You can follow me on social media: @rodneyabrooks.bsky.social] This is my
sixth annual update on how my dated predictions from January 1st,
2018 concernin...
Wellness: Bad Stress: Philosophy – Stoicism
-
In a previous post, I mentioned that I started researching wellness a few
months into the pandemic when I noticed my physical and mental health
declining. ...
CMK23
-
Constructing Modern Knowledge returned to Manchester, New Hampshire this
summer and it was awesome! I posted a Twitter thread but Gary badgered me
to ex...
Languages for Learning
-
As recommended and used at Constructing Modern Knowledge Language Use URL
Turtle Art 2D art and Logo geometry – also exports SVG files. Great first
progr...
40 Inspirational Paulo Coelho Quotes On Success
-
A s 1. “It takes huge effort to free yourself from memory.” Paulo Coelho
2. “No one can lie, no one can hide anything when he looks directly into
someone’s...
UnconsciousModel
-
This is a graph of the exponential growth (note the logarithmic ordinate)
of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT taken from here.
As I type these...
What is ChatGPT?
-
ChatGPT is a large-scale language model developed by OpenAI. It uses a deep
learning algorithm called a transformer network to generate human-like
response...
Domes are over-rated
-
Part of my series on common misconceptions in space journalism. It is an
unwritten rule of space journalism that any article about Moon or Mars
bases needs...
5 comments:
Good pick, Bill. I can't say I followed it 100%, but assuming everything about the paper was accurate the conclusions are pretty damning. I particularly liked this part:
Hidden Heat. A few explanations have been proposed for the change in ocean heat. One popular suggestion is that there is “hidden” or “unrealized” heat in the climate system. This heat is being “masked” by the current cooling and will “return with a vengeance” once the cooling abates.
This explanation reveals a fundamental ignorance of thermodynamics and it is disappointing to see scientists suggest it.
Heck I'd say it violates the principle of conservation of energy, which any high school science student should be able to pick up on.
This explanation of "hidden heat" came about to account for the fact that global average temperature has either been stable or dropping for the last 10 years, even though CO2 concentration has continued to go up. This contradicted the main theme AGW adherents had been promoting which is that rising CO2 results in higher global temperatures. So they said the heat had to be "hidden" for the time being, but was still building up energy, which would eventually be released "with a vengeance"...
I was hearing this explanation a few years ago that CO2 buildup was causing the oceans to warm. The problem with this is that it takes a LOOOONG time for ocean water to change temperature, as I understand it, on the order of a hundred years or more (of course depth and current flow have something to do with it as well). This gets to what DiPuccio talks about with heat vs. temperature, since heat takes mass and specific heat (rate of heating required to raise temperature by a certain temperature interval) into account. What I've heard about the oceans is they have what is called in climatology a "memory" of temperature. The ocean warmth that was seen by scientists 10+ years ago was probably the result of external warming (added energy to the system) that began near the beginning of the 20th century, or perhaps farther back than that.
But like DiPuccio said about the media and public policy, "Never mind the science. Push forward!" The Obama Admin. just recently released their report on climate change, and just in time, too. His cap and trade legislation is coming up for consideration by congress soon. The author of the blog post I linked to has also done a series of posts on the Obama Admin. (GCCI) report. The blog is Climate Skeptic.
The graph you show only covers the period 2003-2008.
Over the period 1955-2007, there has been a fairly consistent upward trend in sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. This is shown for example at http://tinyurl.com/m9nbds
There is considerable noise on the plot and the reduction over the past 5 years is consistent with that noise
I agree tony that the longer term trend is more important
Since your link goes to an earlier (2007) blog on the same site then this site is providing the broader overview (even though I didn't)
By my reading the article was more critique of an alarmist prediction by Hansen et al, not an outright denial
@Tony:
I think you're misreading the graph you referred to. If you take a look at it again you'll see that the Y axis goes from -0.4 degrees C to +0.4 degrees C. The zero for the graph is in the middle. So what you see for the red line plot is from 1955-1979 the combined land and sea surface temperature (the SST data) is falling, but at a decreasing rate. Thereafter, from 1980 onward, the temperature in this data set increased fairly consistently.
If you look at the web page for the SST data you'll see this more clearly. In the upper right-hand corner they show 3 graphs of temperature increases and decreases from 1850 to 2005. During most of that time the combined temperatures were decreasing. The large rise in the combined temperature began in 1980.
If you look at just the "upper ocean" plot (the OHC data), it does not show a consistent upward trend, but rather oscillation. From 1955-1967 temperature increases. From 1967 to 1972 it decreases. From 1972 to 1980 it increases. From 1980 to 1990 it decreases. And then from 1990 to 2002 it increases.
Mark "The zero for the graph is in the middle."
Yes, this is because they chose to normalise to the 1961-1990 mean, it has no significance beyond that.
Likewise the SST data are normalised to around 1980, the base year is arbitary.
"graphs of temperature increases and decreases"
If you are saying that the graphs are of annual temperature change then I think you are misinterpreting them, they are of annual temperature compared with an arbitary base year.
If you are referring to short term fluctuations within a long term trend then I think that you should look at the longer term trent with data which is so noisy.
Post a Comment