New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere [W:152]

[Earthling]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

The reality is that, the sea level will do whatever it is going to do, regardless of Human activity.
The current tide gauge average from NOAA is between 0 to 3 mm per year, without any clear sign of accelerating.
The best Humans can do, is adapt.

Do you mean move the towel an extra inch or two away from the water's edge?

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Moderator's Warning:

Folks, let's concentrate more on discussing the topic and less at throwing little snipes at each other

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Moderator's Warning:

Folks, let's concentrate more on discussing the topic and less at throwing little snipes at each other

Great!

It would be nice to discuss stuff.

 

[longview]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

The thing that is strange about this paper, is that Sherwood claims to have found something
that does not show up in the empirical data.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/5/054007/pdf/erl_10_5_054007.pdf

First, tropical warming is equally strong over both the 1959–2012 and
1979–2012 periods, increasing smoothly and almost moist-adiabatically from the surface (where it is
roughly 0.14 K/decade) to 300 hPa (where it is about 0.25 K/decade over both periods), a pattern very
close to that in climate model predictions.

There is RSS data covering the tropics at the 30,000 foot altitude (300 hPa), and for the 1987 to 2012
time period. (You have to select the TTS channel, and tropics region.)
RSS / MSU and AMSU Data / Time Series Trend Browser
The RSS trend for that altitude range, tropics region, for 1987 to 2014 show a trend
of .008 K per decade.
Sherwood claims to have found by using multiple linear regression of the data,
a trend of 0.25 K/decade from 1979 to 2012, 31 times greater than the data recorded by the RSS.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

How often do I have to ask a question for any of you to answer it???

If person A asks a question and person B gives an answer, but person A refuses to accept that answer no matter how right it is, then what sense does it make for person B to continue to give that answer if he can see that person A is not going to accept that answer regardless of how right it is? One does get tired of banging one's head on the brick wall of obstinance, you know.

To what degree do you think solar varibility has reduced the heat recieved by the Earth?

If this is the case what evidence do you see that shows that the period 1970 to 1998 where warming took place was the result of human activity and not solar fluctuations. I am assuming that you understand that there will be a lag between the changes in solar activity and temperature here on Earth.

Please answer this. It should be easy if you know as much as you say you do.

AGW didn't start in 1998. It started when the Industrial Revolution took off. It doesn't take much to realize that - metaphorically speaking - if we continually crap our crib, sooner or later that's going to make life in that crib a bit more difficult.

I don't know the answers to these questions. I don't debate the finer points of such things. I just point out that the worst case scenarios were never, in my view, scary and now after the last 18 years of data the worst case scenarios must have been reduced in heating. So I expect that it is untenable to argue that there can be any sort of temperature rise beyond 1 degree by 2100. Do you agree with that? Please answer at least one of these question.

If you don't know the answers to these questions, then do what I do and listen to those who DO know the answers to these questions - the freaking climate scientists and the vast majority of other scientists on the planet, many of whom can see the effects of AGW in their own research e.g. oceanographers, botanists, zoologists...basically almost any real scientist doing real earth science research today.

You've got a choice - you can either listen to the vast majority of scientists...OR you can listen to those relatively very few scientists, several of whom are funded by those who have a financial stake in convincing people that AGW doesn't exist. OR you can just tell yourself that "well, they're liberals, and if they're liberals, they must be wrong."

 

[code1211]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

\\

your lack of ability to construct a rebuttal (with available evidence)
is noted.

Your lack of ability to accept data that is presented as collected from the leading agencies in the world is likewise noted.

Is rejecting data an essential part of the support of AGW?

 

[code1211]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

takes a whole lot of joules... Probably a few hundred years of a serious energy budget imbalance.

So the odds are that we might see it coming?

 

[code1211]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

If person A asks a question and person B gives an answer, but person A refuses to accept that answer no matter how right it is, then what sense does it make for person B to continue to give that answer if he can see that person A is not going to accept that answer regardless of how right it is? One does get tired of banging one's head on the brick wall of obstinance, you know.



AGW didn't start in 1998. It started when the Industrial Revolution took off. It doesn't take much to realize that - metaphorically speaking - if we continually crap our crib, sooner or later that's going to make life in that crib a bit more difficult.



If you don't know the answers to these questions, then do what I do and listen to those who DO know the answers to these questions - the freaking climate scientists and the vast majority of other scientists on the planet, many of whom can see the effects of AGW in their own research e.g. oceanographers, botanists, zoologists...basically almost any real scientist doing real earth science research today.

You've got a choice - you can either listen to the vast majority of scientists...OR you can listen to those relatively very few scientists, several of whom are funded by those who have a financial stake in convincing people that AGW doesn't exist. OR you can just tell yourself that "well, they're liberals, and if they're liberals, they must be wrong."

AGW may have "started when the Industrial Revolution took off", but warming, apparently of a different sort, was already under way.

How do you tell the difference between garden variety Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming? Is there a trade mark on the warming? Is there a trademark on the current pause?

What is the difference between the the different kinds of warming?

Is it possible that whatever caused the warming before the Industrial Revolution just continued to cause it?

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

If person A asks a question and person B gives an answer, but person A refuses to accept that answer no matter how right it is, then what sense does it make for person B to continue to give that answer if he can see that person A is not going to accept that answer regardless of how right it is? One does get tired of banging one's head on the brick wall of obstinance, you know.



AGW didn't start in 1998. It started when the Industrial Revolution took off. It doesn't take much to realize that - metaphorically speaking - if we continually crap our crib, sooner or later that's going to make life in that crib a bit more difficult.



If you don't know the answers to these questions, then do what I do and listen to those who DO know the answers to these questions - the freaking climate scientists and the vast majority of other scientists on the planet, many of whom can see the effects of AGW in their own research e.g. oceanographers, botanists, zoologists...basically almost any real scientist doing real earth science research today.

You've got a choice - you can either listen to the vast majority of scientists...OR you can listen to those relatively very few scientists, several of whom are funded by those who have a financial stake in convincing people that AGW doesn't exist. OR you can just tell yourself that "well, they're liberals, and if they're liberals, they must be wrong."

Deniers are gonna deny.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

If person A asks a question and person B gives an answer, but person A refuses to accept that answer no matter how right it is, then what sense does it make for person B to continue to give that answer if he can see that person A is not going to accept that answer regardless of how right it is? One does get tired of banging one's head on the brick wall of obstinance, you know.



AGW didn't start in 1998. It started when the Industrial Revolution took off. It doesn't take much to realize that - metaphorically speaking - if we continually crap our crib, sooner or later that's going to make life in that crib a bit more difficult.



If you don't know the answers to these questions, then do what I do and listen to those who DO know the answers to these questions - the freaking climate scientists and the vast majority of other scientists on the planet, many of whom can see the effects of AGW in their own research e.g. oceanographers, botanists, zoologists...basically almost any real scientist doing real earth science research today.

You've got a choice - you can either listen to the vast majority of scientists...OR you can listen to those relatively very few scientists, several of whom are funded by those who have a financial stake in convincing people that AGW doesn't exist. OR you can just tell yourself that "well, they're liberals, and if they're liberals, they must be wrong."

1 You have not at all answered the question; How much heating do you think might happen? The most extreme case. And by what date.

2 Cite some science which takes into account the last 18 years of warming and still says that we face more than a 1 degree warming by 2100. If you can't do that you are not listening to the scientists you are just into your religion of doom.

3 If it is the science you follow you must link to it to show that you are actually doing so. You must also have a basic grasp of it. At least the bit you are talking about. That I find easy. The reason is that I don't talk about the way light is absorbed and re-emitted I look at the projections of the IPCC etc and look at the temperature numbers. I can understand these. I can then make up my own mind about the impact of these. If you can't then you value your own intelligence less than I value mine.

4 I am a liberal.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

1 You have not at all answered the question; How much heating do you think might happen? The most extreme case. And by what date.

That depends on a lot of variables. From NASA:

2 Cite some science which takes into account the last 18 years of warming and still says that we face more than a 1 degree warming by 2100. If you can't do that you are not listening to the scientists you are just into your religion of doom.

Really? You can't find the science? There are freaking THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed climate articles out there...and less than 1% of them deny AGW. Do I really need to start posting each and every one of them for your personal satisfaction? You've already made up your mind, so by dragging out what's so doggone easy to Google, it's just a waste of my time.

3 If it is the science you follow you must link to it to show that you are actually doing so. You must also have a basic grasp of it. At least the bit you are talking about. That I find easy. The reason is that I don't talk about the way light is absorbed and re-emitted I look at the projections of the IPCC etc and look at the temperature numbers. I can understand these. I can then make up my own mind about the impact of these. If you can't then you value your own intelligence less than I value mine.

Are you really sure you have a basic grasp of science? Here's something you said in reply #85 of this other thread:

My bafflement is that we are supposedly measuring the altitude of the entire ocean surface at once to mm accuracy. Well I've been to the sea side and I can't say that I would be able to measure the sea level at any poin at any time to an accuracy of 10cm. The thing has waves an it.

They are also putting this mm data next to the historic sea level data from harbour masters records which were used for navigation. They aired on the side of caution, they did not want ships hitting rocks. They also did it by looking out of the window.

You can start your personal education about how the scientists accurately measure sea level here. And perhaps it might do you good to realize that if the scientists are telling you something you don't understand, then that's not their fault - it's your own fault for not edjimicating yourself on the subject...especially when (as above) you are depending your own ignorance of a particular scientific fact or process as an excuse to deny what the scientists are telling you about that fact or process.

4 I am a liberal.

Perhaps. I couldn't find anything showing that you were or were not.

 

[longview]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

That depends on a lot of variables. From NASA:

NASA did not provide the variables, and for that graph there is only 1 variable,
How fast will CO2 emissions grow.

View attachment 67185162

My bafflement is that we are supposedly measuring the altitude of the entire ocean surface at once to mm accuracy. Well I've been to the sea side and I can't say that I would be able to measure the sea level at any poin at any time to an accuracy of 10cm. The thing has waves an it.

The Satellites only claim a resolution of 3.3 cm (yes that is 33 mm), it is a wonder how they can claim a change of 3 mm a year.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

NASA did not provide the variables, and for that graph there is only 1 variable,
How fast will CO2 emissions grow.

View attachment 67185162



The Satellites only claim a resolution of 3.3 cm (yes that is 33 mm), it is a wonder how they can claim a change of 3 mm a year.

Um, graph much? There are two variables for the graph itself, and many more variables in the compilation of the data used to make that graph.

And when it comes to resolution of sea level, if you'd really read the article I linked to, you'd have found out how they're able to do that. It's not easy to do, but with the right equipment and the right amount of coverage, and with using the right algorithms in determining the levels, YES, they can determine the change of 3mm per year.

This is called 'science' - and it's pretty math-heavy stuff. These days, conservatives don't seem to like science much...'cause it keeps saying things that liberals have been saying for years. But then, reality does have that hated liberal bias....

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Um, graph much? There are two variables for the graph itself, and many more variables in the compilation of the data used to make that graph.

And when it comes to resolution of sea level, if you'd really read the article I linked to, you'd have found out how they're able to do that. It's not easy to do, but with the right equipment and the right amount of coverage, and with using the right algorithms in determining the levels, YES, they can determine the change of 3mm per year.

This is called 'science' - and it's pretty math-heavy stuff. These days, conservatives don't seem to like science much...'cause it keeps saying things that liberals have been saying for years. But then, reality does have that hated liberal bias....

Please tell me the post in which you linked an article. Thanks.

 

[longview]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Um, graph much? There are two variables for the graph itself, and many more variables in the compilation of the data used to make that graph.

And when it comes to resolution of sea level, if you'd really read the article I linked to, you'd have found out how they're able to do that. It's not easy to do, but with the right equipment and the right amount of coverage, and with using the right algorithms in determining the levels, YES, they can determine the change of 3mm per year.

This is called 'science' - and it's pretty math-heavy stuff. These days, conservatives don't seem to like science much...'cause it keeps saying things that liberals have been saying for years. But then, reality does have that hated liberal bias....

On the graph the different emission scenarios are the primary variables.
The noise around each of the 4 scenarios represent the uncertainty.
The graph itself is based on the the doubling sensitivity of CO2 (without a temporal component)
The temporal component is applied by them predicting how fast the CO2 level will increase.
So the scenario curves are based on IF the sensitivity of CO2 is as high as they think it is,
and IF CO2 will grow like they think they will grow.
The first IF is already broken, CO2 sensitivity is not responding like they predicted.
The second IF, is based on the availability of cheap, easy oil, which is running out.

As to sea level, a gauge in a stilling pool can indeed measure mm/yr accuracy,
The Satellites only have a measurement accuracy of 3.3 cm (yes again 33 mm),
with the hope of achieving 2.3 cm.
https://directory.eoportal.org/web/eoportal/satellite-missions/j/jason-2

The mission objectives call for the provision of the same measurement accuracy of Jason (3.3 cm)
with a goal of achieving 2.5 cm,

Maybe the goal of 2.5 cm has some meaning since they are using 13.575 GHz
as their highest sample frequency.
Let's see, the speed of light 3 X 10^8/13.575 X10^9=.022 meters or 2.2 cm.
This tells us the Poseidon-3 cannot detect the phase of the returning pulse, so has an absolute
accuracy limit just above 1 wavelength.
You can average millions of samples, the accuracy will not improve.

You mistake the type of conservative I am, I like Science and the Scientific method.
The Scientific Method embraces skepticism, has testable theories, and an invalidation criteria.
What goes for Science in AGW, shouts down skepticism, does not have any testable
theories, or an invalidation criteria.

I think this concept of AGW is damaging the reputation of Science.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

NASA did not provide the variables, and for that graph there is only 1 variable,
How fast will CO2 emissions grow.

View attachment 67185162



The Satellites only claim a resolution of 3.3 cm (yes that is 33 mm), it is a wonder how they can claim a change of 3 mm a year.

Uh.. WOW.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
1 You have not at all answered the question; How much heating do you think might happen? The most extreme case. And by what date.

That depends on a lot of variables. From NASA:

View attachment 67185162



Really? You can't find the science? There are freaking THOUSANDS of peer-reviewed climate articles out there...and less than 1% of them deny AGW. Do I really need to start posting each and every one of them for your personal satisfaction? You've already made up your mind, so by dragging out what's so doggone easy to Google, it's just a waste of my time.



Are you really sure you have a basic grasp of science? Here's something you said in reply #85 of this other thread:

My bafflement is that we are supposedly measuring the altitude of the entire ocean surface at once to mm accuracy. Well I've been to the sea side and I can't say that I would be able to measure the sea level at any poin at any time to an accuracy of 10cm. The thing has waves an it.

They are also putting this mm data next to the historic sea level data from harbour masters records which were used for navigation. They aired on the side of caution, they did not want ships hitting rocks. They also did it by looking out of the window.

You can start your personal education about how the scientists accurately measure sea level here. And perhaps it might do you good to realize that if the scientists are telling you something you don't understand, then that's not their fault - it's your own fault for not edjimicating yourself on the subject...especially when (as above) you are depending your own ignorance of a particular scientific fact or process as an excuse to deny what the scientists are telling you about that fact or process.



Perhaps. I couldn't find anything showing that you were or were not.

OK. I will assume from that, a total lack of anythinmg that could not have been posted in 1998, that you consider that the science was settled back then and the lack of any apreaciable warming since has not at all changed your thinking.

You must surely understand however that I do take on board the notion that the data since 1998 should be considered and the top half of the above predictions can be ignored. Thus there is no problem.

Your denial of the data since 1998 is noted.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

OK. I will assume from that, a total lack of anythinmg that could not have been posted in 1998, that you consider that the science was settled back then and the lack of any apreaciable warming since has not at all changed your thinking.

You must surely understand however that I do take on board the notion that the data since 1998 should be considered and the top half of the above predictions can be ignored. Thus there is no problem.

Your denial of the data since 1998 is noted.

There was no hiatus, no pause.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

There was no hiatus, no pause.

False.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

False.

Ah. So you're skeptical of AGW because you think the scientists got it wrong...but when the scientists do point out an error on their point, you're skeptical that they committed the error?

BTW, what the report stated about the difference between the surface temperature of ocean water and the water temp taken in by the engine room is quite true - except for the lower latitudes, the intake temperature in the engine room is generally somewhat higher (which is why the higher water can freeze, but the deeper water never does) - I've taken the reading many, many times (main condenser inlet, main seawater pump inlet, and several others), since that was a normal part of my duties.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Ah. So you're skeptical of AGW because you think the scientists got it wrong...but when the scientists do point out an error on their point, you're skeptical that they committed the error?

BTW, what the report stated about the difference between the surface temperature of ocean water and the water temp taken in by the engine room is quite true - except for the lower latitudes, the intake temperature in the engine room is generally somewhat higher (which is why the higher water can freeze, but the deeper water never does) - I've taken the reading many, many times (main condenser inlet, main seawater pump inlet, and several others), since that was a normal part of my duties.

Judith Curry et al make short work of this.

Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? | Climate Etc.

". . . My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Judith Curry et al make short work of this.

Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? | Climate Etc.

". . . My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."

Yeah...Judith Curry. Mm-hmm. She's got problems of her own. She can deny, deny, deny all she wants...but all she's doing is cherry-picking, saying, well what about this, what about that...but does not take into account the whole picture.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Judith Curry et al make short work of this.

Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? | Climate Etc.

". . . My bottom line assessment is this. I think that uncertainties in global surface temperature anomalies is substantially understated. The surface temperature data sets that I have confidence in are the UK group and also Berkeley Earth. This short paper in Science is not adequate to explain and explore the very large changes that have been made to the NOAA data set. The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on."

And that's why I said what I said about the difference between the surface temp (which was taken from buoys and buckets) and the intake temperature taken in ships' engine rooms. She insists on believing the surface temps which are by nature generally cooler than the deeper intake temps which had been the way the temps had been taken for many decades beforehand.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

Yeah...Judith Curry. Mm-hmm. She's got problems of her own. She can deny, deny, deny all she wants...but all she's doing is cherry-picking, saying, well what about this, what about that...but does not take into account the whole picture.

Curry, btw, is an AGW believer. She does not, however, believe the end justifies the means in science. That is why she is regularly smeared.

 

[jpn]

Re: New study finds a hot spot in the atmosphere

We are long past the point where a health skepticism is a sign of active, well-informed citizenry.

Now we are well into the area of cranks and charlatans. Human-caused global warming now enjoys roughly the same degree of scientific certainty as smoking causing lung cancer.