[Al_U_Card]

And this "blast from the past" about that "model" man himself, Ben Santer: (Yes, THE Ben Santer that wanted to punch-out Pat Michaels for his skeptical views on anthropogenic climate change...)

The IPCC's Climate Change 1995 was reviewed by its consulting scientists in late 1995. The "Summary for Policy Makers" was approved in December, and the full report, including chapter 8, was accepted. However, after the printed report appeared in May 1996, the scientific reviewers discovered that major changes had been made "in the back room" after they had signed off on the science chapter's contents. Santer, despite the shortcomings of the scientific evidence, had inserted strong endorsements of man-made warming in chapter 8 (of which he was the IPCC-appointed lead author):

There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols ... from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. ... These results point toward a human influence on global climate. [ch.8 p.412]

The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [ch.8 p.439]

Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

"While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data - an issue of primary relevance to policy makers."

"Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

"While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification."

"When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. "'


Santer single-handedly reversed the "climate science" of the whole IPCC report--and with it the global warming political process. The "discernible human influence" supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the "stopper" in millions of debates among nonscientists.

Source

[Gerben42]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-April-18, 06:38, said:

The problem is that most of the models were "verified" using the data from 1979-1998. The resulting predictions are now 0.5C too high, indicating that modelled predictions out to 2100 coudl be several degrees too high. Hopefully, rational thinking will prevail, and a more accurate scenario will be presented. This will probably play out in the science, but I am not too sure about the political arena.

Well it COULD be of course that the current lack of warming has something to do with the current lack of solar activity. The current solar maximum is falling WAY behind the previous ones. So we might be having a positive and negative effect counteracting eachother. So if this keeps up for some time, warming won't continue with CO2 way up there. Then when the sun activity goes back to normal... climatic Chernobyl.

[Al_U_Card]

Let's recall that one of the tenets of catastrophic anthropogenic warming is that the sun's variation is small and of little effect on terrestrial climate change... (This coming from the "forcing" in Watts/sq. m attributed to incoming solar radiation.)

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-April-20, 11:18, said:

Let's recall that one of the tenets of catastrophic anthropogenic warming is that the sun's variation is small and of little effect on terrestrial climate change... (This coming from the "forcing" in Watts/sq. m attributed to incoming solar radiation.)

As usual, Al is completely incapable of providing an accurate narrative.

There is a remarkably large difference between "the sun's variation is small and of little effect on terrestrial climate change" and "solar forcing is insufficient to explain the increase in temperature over the last 50 years".

With this said and done, the most plausible explanation for the leveling off in atmospheric temperature is the corresponding dramatic increase in the temperatures of the oceans (particularly deep water)

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-April-20, 11:56, said:

As usual, Al is completely incapable of providing an accurate narrative.

There is a remarkably large difference between "the sun's variation is small and of little effect on terrestrial climate change" and "solar forcing is insufficient to explain the increase in temperature over the last 50 years".

With this said and done, the most plausible explanation for the leveling off in atmospheric temperature is the corresponding dramatic increase in the temperatures of the oceans (particularly deep water)

That would be fine, except that the oceans are displayed the same general lack of warming as the land. Although the solar effect is not sufficient to explain the entire temperature increase, it could explain a significant amount.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-April-20, 14:03, said:

That would be fine, except that the oceans are displayed the same general lack of warming as the land.

Unadulterated Bullshit

Feel free to google temperature deep ocean climate change for any number of articles

[Al_U_Card]

Especially that deep water

Here we analyse observations of heat uptake into the deep North Atlantic. We find that the extratropical North Atlantic as a whole warmed by 1.45±0.5×1022 J between 1955 and 2005, but Lower North Atlantic Deep Water cooled, most likely as an adjustment from an early twentieth-century warm period. In contrast, the heat content of Upper North Atlantic Deep Water exhibited strong decadal variability. We demonstrate and quantify the importance of density-compensated temperature anomalies for long-term heat uptake into the deep North Atlantic. These anomalies form in the subpolar gyre and propagate equatorwards. High salinity in the subpolar gyre is a key requirement for this mechanism. In the past 50 years, suitable conditions have occurred only twice: first during the 1960s and again during the past decade. We conclude that heat uptake through density-compensated temperature anomalies will contribute to deep ocean heat uptake in the near term.

Bob Tisdale has an interesting take on the available data and how it is (or is not) reported and analyzed.



NODC Numerology

Figures don't lie but...

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-April-20, 14:10, said:

Unadulterated Bullshit

Feel free to google temperature deep ocean climate change for any number of articles

THe Argo data does not show the rise you indicate. Some researchers have added correction factors to the data to achieve higher [lower] changes than the raw data. Your reference to puirified animal excrement has no bearing on the water temperature. Choosing data which supports your own beliefes and denying that which does not shows bias.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-April-21, 12:46, said:

THe Argo data does not show the rise you indicate. Some researchers have added correction factors to the data to achieve higher [lower] changes than the raw data. Your reference to puirified animal excrement has no bearing on the water temperature. Choosing data which supports your own beliefes and denying that which does not shows bias.

For simplicity, I am going to go to Wikipedia. Here's what they have to say about Argo:

Quote

It is not yet possible to use Argo data to detect global change signals, as the dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.[9]
Argo data result errors

During 2006, the Argo Network was thought to have shown a declining trend in ocean temperatures.[10] In February 2007, the author of the paper, Josh Willis, discovered that there were problems with the data used for the analysis.[11] 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".[12] 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][11]Rebecca Lindsey (November 5, 2008). "Correcting Ocean Cooling". NASA. Archived from the original on 30 June 2011. Retrieved 18 July 2011.

Or, if you prefer, the actual Argo site:

Quote

How well is Argo able to observe global ocean changes?

A key objective of Argo is to observe ocean signals related to climate change. This includes regional and global changes in ocean temperature and heat content, salinity and freshwater content, the steric height of the sea surface in relation to total sea level, and large-scale ocean circulation.

The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 7-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data.

Simply put, you chose to cite a meaningless statistic. Even the most cursory examination of the Argo data starts with a disclaimer that this should not be used to analyze global climate change.

Another great example of your spewing *****...

[Al_U_Card]

Well, we can always go back to the "bucket adjustment" that stayed with the Hadley Centre sea-surface temperatures for 20 years and failed to account for the difference between over-the-side bucket samples versus engine inlet measurements...
Thousands of state-of-the-art ARGO probes taking millions of measurements...(and not just in shipping lanes etc.)



I wonder who is paying for all this "unreliable" errrrr data?

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-April-21, 14:15, said:

For simplicity, I am going to go to Wikipedia. Here's what they have to say about Argo:



Or, if you prefer, the actual Argo site:



Simply put, you chose to cite a meaningless statistic. Even the most cursory examination of the Argo data starts with a disclaimer that this should not be used to analyze global climate change.

Another great example of your spewing *****...

hrothgar,
Yesterday, you claimed that articles containing Argo data showed that the deep ocean was warming. Today, you are claiming that the data is meaningless. If you are goin to make exaggerated claims, you should at least have enough confidence in your data. This seems to be a repeated meme among many political activists.

Additionally, there are a few who agree with the spewing of volcanic ash leading to a reduction in global temperatures, but this is still largely uncertain.

[mike777]

IN the news, carbon tax:

The European Parliament this week voted 334-315 (with 60 abstentions) against a controversial "back-loading" plan that aimed to boost the flagging price of carbon, which since 2008 has fallen from about 31 euros per tonne to about 4 euros (about $5.20). Since the vote, the price has fallen even farther, to 2.80 euros. The collapsing market is hardly the kind of firm foundation needed for building a clean-energy economy. (Related: "Renewable Energy Not Growing as Fast as Necessary," and "IEA Outlook: Time Running Out on Climate Change")

"Now, the market is dead, as far as I can see," said Steffen Böhm, director of the Essex Sustainability Institute at Britain's Essex Business School.

What will be the aftermath of the ETS collapse? Here's a quick primer on what happened, and what it could mean elsewhere, particularly in California, which inaugurated a new carbon market at the start of this year.
http://news.national...-market-crisis/

[Al_U_Card]

Well, the Chicago Carbon Exchange presciently worked it down to a wooden nickel before they closed up shop....

Australia has a set price of $23 per tonne so they may need some quick moves to keep the speculators away.

It is a lesson-in-kind of how well-meaning ideas can and will be ripped-off by the unscrupulous profiteers. No surprises there. What California is up to seems totally inane and, based on previous attempts to profit from the green movement, it would seem to be hell bent for doom.

Other than that, we have had no spring so far, up here, and I am producing prodigious amounts of CO2 from the extra wood-burning to stay warm. Hopefully this will also help to warm the planet a bit......sure it will.

[hrothgar]

 Daniel1960, on 2013-April-21, 19:57, said:

hrothgar,
Yesterday, you claimed that articles containing Argo data showed that the deep ocean was warming. Today, you are claiming that the data is meaningless. If you are goin to make exaggerated claims, you should at least have enough confidence in your data. This seems to be a repeated meme among many political activists.

Additionally, there are a few who agree with the spewing of volcanic ash leading to a reduction in global temperatures, but this is still largely uncertain.

Liar liar pants on fire

Lets review what actually happen (I encourage folks to look back at the last couple days worth of posts)

I made the following statement:

Quote

With this said and done, the most plausible explanation for the leveling off in atmospheric temperature is the corresponding dramatic increase in the temperatures of the oceans (particularly deep water)

During a later post I stated

Quote

Feel free to google temperature deep ocean climate change for any number of articles

At this point in time YOU introduced the Argo data set to the conversation

Quote

THe Argo data does not show the rise you indicate. Some researchers have added correction factors to the data to achieve higher [lower] changes than the raw data.

I then responded by noting that the Argo data set has a bunch of qualifiers related to the length of the sample.

Simply put: Learn to read, jackass...

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2013-April-22, 08:38, said:

Liar liar pants on fire

Lets review what actually happened (I encourage folks to look back at the last couple days worth of posts)

Last night I did exactly that in case I had missed something you posted earlier. But no. Seems that Daniel1960 has non-reading skills similar to those of a former poster here, lukewarm. Hmmm.

[Daniel1960]

 hrothgar, on 2013-April-22, 08:38, said:

Liar liar pants on fire

Lets review what actually happen (I encourage folks to look back at the last couple days worth of posts)

I made the following statement:



During a later post I stated



At this point in time YOU introduced the Argo data set to the conversation



I then responded by noting that the Argo data set has a bunch of qualifiers related to the length of the sample.

Simply put: Learn to read, jackass...

Obviously you are unaware to which you refer. You asked me to google deep ocean climate change, which I did. All the references were to ARGO data. Hence, my previous post stands as written. Perhaps, when it comes to your own references, you need to use less rhetoric, and "learn to read."

That applies to PassedOut also.

[Winstonm]

Daniel960, did you read these articles? From the first article that came up when I Googled temperature deep ocean climate change: (emphasis added)

Quote

Most estimates of ocean warming have been limited to the upper 700 meters of water, owing to the limited availability of ocean-temperature data below that depth. Since about the turn of the millennium, the Argo array, an international system of robotic profiling floats, has massively increased ocean sampling to 2,000 meters, and allowed scientists to show conclusively that ocean warming extends below 700 meters.


However, the ocean is also warming near the bottom, in the coldest waters of the abyssal zones. Oceanographers measure the abyssal ocean to depths of 6,000 meters by lowering accurate recording thermometers and other instruments to the ocean floor on long cables from research vessels. During the 1980s and 1990s, an international program called the World Ocean Circulation Experiment collected thousands of such profiles around the globe.

Another article stated:

Quote

To track where the heat was going, Meehl and colleagues used a powerful software tool known as the Community Climate System Model, which was developed by scientists at NCAR and the Department of Energy with colleagues at other organizations. Using the model's ability to portray complex interactions between the atmosphere, land, oceans, and sea ice, they performed five simulations of global temperatures

Nothing about Argo in that computation.

Here is the link to the site for the data used for the most recent paper on deep ocean warming.

[Al_U_Card]

 Winstonm, on 2013-April-22, 14:14, said:

Daniel960, did you read these articles?

Nothing about Argo in that computation.

ECMWF

ECMWF's current ocean reanalysis uses a sophisticated data assimilation methodology which includes a model bias correction.

Key Strengths
Improved high quality data assimilation method and model
Improved surface forcing and quality control in-situ observations (XBT corrected, Argo blacklists...)
Retrospective use of Argo information via bias correction

Say what?

[Daniel1960]

 Al_U_Card, on 2013-April-22, 15:47, said:

ECMWF

ECMWF's current ocean reanalysis uses a sophisticated data assimilation methodology which includes a model bias correction.

Key Strengths
Improved high quality data assimilation method and model
Improved surface forcing and quality control in-situ observations (XBT corrected, Argo blacklists...)
Retrospective use of Argo information via bias correction

Say what?

I found the same thing. It seems that several people are unaware of the references to which they link.

[Al_U_Card]

Since ClimateScientology can blame warm, cold, wet, dry or any other weather conditions on atmospheric [CO2], it is really easy to sift through data and fulfill the narrative.

Now, if only we would care about the planet and how we are leaving it for our grandchildren, we wouldn't worry about facts or costs and we would just fall in line and do as we are told by the zealots and the alarmists...