Global warming traps scientists in ice

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

I think you misunderstand lawrocket. He not actually interested in science whatsoever. He's simply in it to "win" an argument.

unlike other noblemen, here.

(snicker)

[brenthutch 388]

DanG

Quote

And note the next and newest explanation. The missing heat isn't missing but in the western pacific, where it's there but just not detected. Or, it's in the western Pacific, where they didn't put stuff to find it because nobody predicted it.

For someone who claims to be interested in the science, you seem to have distain for how science works. Those "explanations" are called hypotheses. The scientist creates a hypothesis, then either conducts experiments to gather data to prove or disprove the hypothesis, or, in the case of something like climate, looks for raw data in the natural environment to do the same thing. A hypothesis is not an "explanation" that is presented as fact. It is simply a starting point to look for the explanation of the underlying physical process.

I don't see anything here that proclaims, "we found the heat!" I see hypotheses that try to determine where the heat has gone.

Would you entertain the possibility of: "the reason we can not find the missing heat, is because we were wrong about AGW, and there is no heat to be missing"? If you can not wrap your brain around that potential, you need to go back to the eighth grade and bone up on science.

[brenthutch 388]

Exactly, CO2 spikes to unprecedented levels, yet the trends of global warming, sea ice, and sea level rise remain remarkably consistent. They are clearly not significantly influenced by CO2.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Would you entertain the possibility of: "the reason we can not find the missing heat, is because we were wrong about AGW, and there is no heat to be missing"? If you can not wrap your brain around that potential, you need to go back to the eighth grade and bone up on science.

I can wrap my head around that possibility.

Can you wrap your head around the possibility that the vast majority of professional scientists aren't lying?

- Dan G

[brenthutch 388]

DanG

Quote

Would you entertain the possibility of: "the reason we can not find the missing heat, is because we were wrong about AGW, and there is no heat to be missing"? If you can not wrap your brain around that potential, you need to go back to the eighth grade and bone up on science.

I can wrap my head around that possibility.

Can you wrap your head around the possibility that the vast majority of professional scientists aren't lying?

I have not claimed that they are lying, I just have demonstrated that they are wrong.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I have not claimed that they are lying

I'm pretty sure you have. At least with regards to Mann and the IPCC.

Quote

I just have demonstrated that they are wrong.

No, you certainly haven't.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 388]

Your are correct, I have not demonstrated that they are wrong, NOAA has.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

And note the next and newest explanation. The missing heat isn't missing but in the western pacific, where it's there but just not detected. Or, it's in the western Pacific, where they didn't put stuff to find it because nobody predicted it.

For someone who claims to be interested in the science, you seem to have distain for how science works. Those "explanations" are called hypotheses. The scientist creates a hypothesis, then either conducts experiments to gather data to prove or disprove the hypothesis, or, in the case of something like climate, looks for raw data in the natural environment to do the same thing. A hypothesis is not an "explanation" that is presented as fact. It is simply a starting point to look for the explanation of the underlying physical process.

I don't see anything here that proclaims, "we found the heat!" I see hypotheses that try to determine where the heat has gone.

From the post I replied to:

Quote

No, according to a new study, which says the missing heat is being blown into the western Pacific Ocean by extraordinarily powerful and accelerating trade winds.

"No" - a statement of fact.
"Which says the missing heat is being blown..." - an assertion of facy
"Extraordinaruly powerful and acceleration trade winds" - opinion of intensity of fact.

Whay didn't it say? It didn't say, "Scientists are sure, but hypothesize that that missing heat is being blown into the western Pacific Ocean. They theorize that the trade winds are accelerating and becoming more powerful."

See the difference? I do. I smell what they're shoveling.

If they quit stating as fact which is hypothesis, then I'll be more appreciative.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Here's the abstract of the actual paper:

Quote

Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less steady since 2001. A variety of mechanisms have been proposed to account for this slowdown in surface warming. A key component of the global hiatus that has been identified is cool eastern Pacific sea surface temperature, but it is unclear how the ocean has remained relatively cool there in spite of ongoing increases in radiative forcing. Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake. The extra uptake has come about through increased subduction in the Pacific shallow overturning cells, enhancing heat convergence in the equatorial thermocline. At the same time, the accelerated trade winds have increased equatorial upwelling in the central and eastern Pacific, lowering sea surface temperature there, which drives further cooling in other regions. The net effect of these anomalous winds is a cooling in the 2012 global average surface air temperature of 0.1–0.2 °C, which can account for much of the hiatus in surface warming observed since 2001. This hiatus could persist for much of the present decade if the trade wind trends continue, however rapid warming is expected to resume once the anomalous wind trends abate.

Not quite as definitive as you're trying to characterize it.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

DanG

Um, yeah. We know you've never believed in climate change. So what?

I believe in climate change. I believe it is one of many normal cycles for the planet. I belive humans are having some kind of influence on that cycle. Like most things influenced by humans, it is probably not a good thing.

I have no idea how much of what we are seeing is the normal cycle. I have no idea how much humans influence it. I have no idea how much capacity the planet has to offset our influence.

I don't believe anyone else knows these things either.

I think it is clear that planets are a finite resource. By extension, all resources on that planet are finite. So, good stewardship would seem to be a reasonable thing for everyone to be invovled in.

I also think that any party using it for political gain tends to automatically turn the other part 'con'.

Not really a very healthy way, is it?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[DanG 1]

I pretty much agree with you.

It's the people like brenthutch and, increasingly, lawrocket who I disagree with. To them, any suggestion that man can influence the environment is ridiculous. I honestly don't understand the intense resistance to any science that doesn't fit with their financial and political positions.

- Dan G

[davjohns 1]

I've been pretty much ignoring this topic as I think people are fighting over something nobody should be fighting over. So, I hate to speak for Jerry (Lawrocket), but I find him to be ordinarily quite reasonable and agreeable. I think his issue is the 'chicken little' effect and the money/politics that is connected to it.

I suspect (again...I don't presume to speak for Jerry) that an argument along the lines of "We could all do better...here's an issue to kick us in the butt" would be more palatable to Jerry and many others. Of course, I haven't actually been reading much. It's always possible Jerry hates the planet and would like to leave his kids a toxic wasteland. Who doesn't?

That's just my humorous way of saying we are using up the planet. Arguing over which hell / handbasket we are heading for and how fast seems counter-productive.
We are all on this sled ride together.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

I pretty much agree with you.

It's the people like brenthutch and, increasingly, lawrocket who I disagree with. To them, any suggestion that man can influence the environment is ridiculous. I honestly don't understand the intense resistance to any science that doesn't fit with their financial and political positions.

I have said repeatedly for years that I believe that global warming is real. I believe human activities play a role in it. However, I believe that global warming and it's effects will be mild, contrary to the consensus position of climate scientists.

I also believe that this position continues to be borne out as a lot more accurate that either the denier position or the alarmist position. Like Dave, I find myself in the middle on this topic.

Also, it's a breath of fresh air to find an abstract straight up say that the climate models didn't predict something. I've reiterated through the years that it's ridiculous to suggest that GCMs are "accurate." They have missed all kinds of things. I have insisted that GCMs are hypotheses that are being tested with actual observations, despite what is said about them.

My hypo - global warming and its effects will be mild. Am I wrong?

Final note: billvon denies there is a "pause" in global warming. Because the global temperatures are only flat compared to the predictions (an assertion that is not wholly unreasonable). What are your thoughts on his position? This paper you've cited is based upon the premise that there actually is a "pause" to begin with.

Why are you calling me a denier? I'm questioning the press releases about the science.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

davjohns

I've been pretty much ignoring this topic as I think people are fighting over something nobody should be fighting over. So, I hate to speak for Jerry (Lawrocket), but I find him to be ordinarily quite reasonable and agreeable. I think his issue is the 'chicken little' effect and the money/politics that is connected to it.

I suspect (again...I don't presume to speak for Jerry) that an argument along the lines of "We could all do better...here's an issue to kick us in the butt" would be more palatable to Jerry and many others. Of course, I haven't actually been reading much. It's always possible Jerry hates the planet and would like to leave his kids a toxic wasteland. Who doesn't?

That's just my humorous way of saying we are using up the planet. Arguing over which hell / handbasket we are heading for and how fast seems counter-productive.
We are all on this sled ride together.

I am very close to you on this as well
Although I think our impact maybe less than mild
In any event, you brought up something here I think is worth thinking about


Just as the day we are born we start down the path to our death
Everything we are associated with follows this same path
Including this planet we are on
Nothing can stop this
That said, we dont have to hurry it up any if we can help it

Oh, and I want dirty air and poluted water for my grand kids
Dont you?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

[Quote]I think his issue is the 'chicken little' effect and the money/politics that is connected to it.

Absolutely. In the climate arena, politics and science have become adjuncts for each other. On both sides. They are inseparable for now. My failure to believe that we are destined for fire and brimstone by 2100 is met with accusations of heresy - just because I don't agree with the severity of the negative predictions. Meanwwhile, brenthutch doesn't know much of what he's talking about, but does post some things that poke some holes in the consensus thought.

There's a reason why the consensus is losing its hold. And it ain't anti-science. It's that people are understanding the politics of it. The climate alarmists greatly overplayed their hand. They had some good science and some pretty good reasons. Then they went out on a limb and made predictions.

And the people remembered. When the scientists are not being scientific but are "based on science" then we have a problem.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[davjohns 1]

Well, isn't that nice?

We all agree:

Only one planet;
We're pretty fond of it;
We don't take care of it as well as we could;
We should do something about that.

Everyone happy.

GROUP HUG!

The mods may now dismantle SC. We don't need it anymore.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[turtlespeed 212]

davjohns

Well, isn't that nice?

We all agree:

Only one planet;
We're pretty fond of it;
We don't take care of it as well as we could;
We should do something about that.

Everyone happy.

GROUP HUG!

The mods may now dismantle SC. We don't need it anymore.

But what about Gay Marriage, Terrorists, Billary Clinton, and all the evil Republicans?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[DanG 1]

Quote

Final note: billvon denies there is a "pause" in global warming. Because the global temperatures are only flat compared to the predictions (an assertion that is not wholly unreasonable). What are your thoughts on his position? This paper you've cited is based upon the premise that there actually is a "pause" to begin with.

I'm not really versed in Bill's position. As I understand it, the paper is based on the "pause" in global surface temperature readings, which is not the same as a "pause" in global heat. It makes sense to me that one reason we aren't seeing the predicted temperature rise is that the heat is currently being stored where we don't have thermometers. Sure, it is also possible that we are actually seeing a pause in global heating. That is one hypothesis. In order to test that hypothesis, you have to propose either a physical mechanism, or conduct empirical studies to measure temperatures more widely. You can't just be a brenthutch and say, "I told you so."

Quote

Why are you calling me a denier? I'm questioning the press releases about the science.

I've read a lot of your postings over the years. I agree with your general position that climate science has become politicized, and is widely misreported in the media for various reasons. I've notice recently, and maybe I'm wrong, that you're starting to conflate the science and politics yourself. In other words, you're starting to misrepresent the science just like the media and activists are.

- Dan G

[brenthutch 388]

DanG

Sure, it is also possible that we are actually seeing a pause in global heating. That is one hypothesis.

That is not a hypothesis, it is an empirical observation.

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

I'm not really versed in Bill's position. As I understand it, the paper is based on the "pause" in global surface temperature readings, which is not the same as a "pause" in global heat. It makes sense to me that one reason we aren't seeing the predicted temperature rise is that the heat is currently being stored where we don't have thermometers.

That's my problem. That's not a testable hypothesis. To respond that the heat is where nobody can find it - and where nobody will be able to find it - is anathema to the scientific process. "The ocean is trapping more heat." Drop thermometers and you can't say, "see?" This is because there's nothing to compare the readings.

It's the equivalent of brenthutch saying, "I told you so." It's being forwarded as a conclusion when there is no empirical evidence. (It also, logically, suggests that the heat has been insulated from the atmosphere for in excess of 15 years, meaning "climate change" has not been happening during that time. Which runs counter to the consensus narrative - and to the IPCC.)

[Quote]Sure, it is also possible that we are actually seeing a pause in global heating. That is one hypothesis. In order to test that hypothesis, you have to propose either a physical mechanism, or conduct empirical studies to measure temperatures more widely. You can't just be a brenthutch and say, "I told you so."

I have proposed a mechanism. The mechanism is that temperature sensitivity to CO2 is less than half of what has been postulated. Plug in a lower climate sensitivity into the models (1 degree C for doubling of CO2) and the numbers make a lot more sense. And predictably, I then project that climate change will happen and will be mild, within natural variability and within human adaptation capabilities.

To me, this is a simpler and more easily testable solution than, "the heat is where God is - you just can't find it." I don't trust a climate scientists saying, "I told you so." I say, "show me the data." They say, "there is none. But it has to be where we can't detect it and where it's insulated from the atmosphere."

That makes sense to me. A competing mechanism that is testable. And provides a fairly good lay explanation for the CO2 forcing being overpowered by natural variability. And this is not the first time I've mentioned this.

Quote

I've notice recently, and maybe I'm wrong, that you're starting to conflate the science and politics yourself. In other words, you're starting to misrepresent the science just like the media and activists are.

I am getting fed up with things like the heat is where we can't detect it. Especially since it cannot be reconciled with the claims that climate change is causing recent past and present catastrophes. It cannot be reconciled BECAUSE the theory is that the ocean is sequestering the heat.

The theory is only valid if all the maths and the physics leading to it are accurate. If CO2 sensitivity is 2.2 degrees, then we would expect a lot more heat. Unless it's trapped in the ocean. But climate sensitivity is an OPEN QUESTION. Most models suggest in excess of 2 degrees and up to 4.5 degrees (thus, the consensus looks at a range in excess of 100%). I say it's even lower - perhaps under 1 degree.)

The IPCC increased its own range of climate sensitivity. And then increased its confidence. Yes, that is right. They increased uncertainty and confidence at the same time.

This is called science. Those like me who say, "time out" are viewed as anti-science, for some reason. I've got you telling me I'm misrepresenting the science.

I disagree. I'm saying we have rhetoric misrepresented as science. I'll reiterate that I find nothing scientific at all about a theory that heat is being sequestered someplace where it can't be detected and a hypothesis that cannot be proven or even disproven. How much heat? They don't even know how much to look for.

I have a VERY big problem calling that science. If you can explain how it fits within science (which is a process. And you have conceded that there's no process for it now because there's no empirical observation) then I'm all ears.

Can you at least understand the frustration I have with unfalsifiable conclusions being put out there are science? Then the issue beccomes, "why are scientists doing this?"

My wife is hotter than your wife.

• Quote

[davjohns 1]

turtlespeed

***Well, isn't that nice?

We all agree:

Only one planet;
We're pretty fond of it;
We don't take care of it as well as we could;
We should do something about that.

Everyone happy.

GROUP HUG!

The mods may now dismantle SC. We don't need it anymore.

But what about Gay Marriage, Terrorists, Billary Clinton, and all the evil Republicans?

Gay marriage: Let 'em! Why should straight people be the only ones who are miserable and need a judge to get out?

Terrorists: Aren't we all?

Billary: Ran her first horse into the ground; went further on foot. She's done.

Evil Republicans: Give them all the ammo the DHS has hoarded. They'll be so busy at the range, the Dems can do what they want and we'll see how it turns out. If it goes well, great. If not, the Reps have all the ammo and they'll try something different. They'll at least get rid of the current terrorists.

Next, please?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 1,653]

lawrocket

That's my problem. That's not a testable hypothesis.

Lots of things aren't directly testable, but science is very confident about their explanation.

We can't test what's happening in the center of a star going supernova, but consistency with known laws makes astophysicists pretty confident about what's going on.

Your "problem" is not a real one.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

kallend

***

That's my problem. That's not a testable hypothesis.

Lots of things aren't directly testable, but science is very confident about their explanation.

We can't test what's happening in the center of a star going supernova, but consistency with known laws makes astophysicists pretty confident about what's going on.


AND
therfore predictions about what will be seen can be made. Those predictions can then be compared to observations and data

When this is done in the AGW alarmist world, predictions have not and are not being seen in the observations

YOUR problem here IS real

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***

That's my problem. That's not a testable hypothesis.

Lots of things aren't directly testable, but science is very confident about their explanation.

We can't test what's happening in the center of a star going supernova, but consistency with known laws makes astophysicists pretty confident about what's going on.

Your "problem" is not a real one.

I think you are being ridiculous with this example. We can detect black holes. We can detect dark matter. And dark energy. Even if we can't observe them we can absolutely observe their effects.

Now compare that to, "we can't see it. Can't detect it. We don't see any hint that it's there. But we know every assumption we make is correct, and thus it must be there. Where we can't see it."

I also pointed out that climate science estimates the climate sensitivity at anywhere from 2 to 4.5 degrees. Think of it like saying, "the tensile strength of this steel alloy is between 200MPa and 450 MPa." If it fails at 150 MPa, do you go looking for the missing strength and say, "it must be in the slag?" No. We say, "tests show it failing at 150 MPa. It's not strength missing, your assumptions were off."

And finally - supernovae provide detectable evidence of exactly what happened. "All that carbon and iron and uranium." What would be a travesty is to say, "we know that stars are hydrogen that turns to helium. Our calculations show there must be loads of helium and hydrogen that we can't detect. It's hidden in the iron and carbon and uranium. The missing hydrogen and helium are there, we just can't find it."

Fortunately, four guys wrote a paper in the 1950s explaining that the hydrogen and helium weren't missing. They just had become something else. That iron can carbon and uranium and everything else. Kinda nice when people challenge assumptions and figure out hat happened as opposed to saying the helium is just hiding.

[kallend 1,653]

Apparently you have also drunk of the deniers' Kool Aid with respect to the "disappearing" heat. It hasn't disappeared. Even the author of the study that the deniers keep crowing over says as much.

There is NO hiatus.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.