Western Antarctica Melting

[blink138 (Pat)]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

No define it as YOU see it and understand it.
Don't obfuscate and bow down to wikipedia.

i think every view and comment here is bowing down to someone!
pat

[blink138 (Pat)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Im not a betting man but if anyone one wants to take even odds,
I've got a thousand bucks on 2014 global average temperatures being above the pre-1976 average....

For the denialistas; If you're not prepared to have a punt on that, why do you expect the rest of humanity to risk its entire future when you lack the strength of your convictions even to that extent?

clive i will bet you that after the the 26,000 year spin axis precession plus the 71,000 year earth orbit precession that the average temperature is going to be exactly the same as it is today
i do not think i can lose this bet, can i?
pat

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Retrograde

Wrong - Murdoch own 142 different mastheads across the country. hardly a small number.



You mean like The Australian which hasn't made a profit for many, many years but is kept on as a political propaganda vehicle?


You've clearly missed Paul Sheehan and Chris Berg for starters.


Lachlan Murdoch runs (or up until recently ran) Channel 10. He is of course Rupert Murdoch's son.



Wrong - it is part of the Seven West Media group run by Kerry Stokes.


You mean a cherry-picked bunch of out-of-context canards deliberately selected to give a one-sided view of the AR5 in order to maintain the company's ongoing misrepresentation of science?

Sorry but your reasoning is both hilarious and convoluted and in no way refutes the report.

As for Bob Carter he's a geologist who shills for the fossil-fuel industry and has perpetrated what amounts to scientific fraud: http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4968
If you believe him over actual climate-scientists then you really have disappeared down the rabbit hole and no amount of reasoning will convince you of the facts. I see in your response you are steadfastly refusing to accept the peer-reviewed scientific paper cited by Andy despite pretending to be in favour of 'real science'.

Hi Pete,
Ummm - you are counting those freebie local papers that they give away for nothing - that tell you what's happening at the local council and local high school, as fair dinkum newspapers? As part of Murdoch's supposed strangle hold on the media?

The Australian - the newspaper where Murdoch did once try to become a king-maker, when he used it to get Gough Whitlam over the line 1972. But Gough didn't bother with him afterwards, and Rupert learned the error of his ways.

And Rupert Murdoch - the guy who said the planet should be given the benefit of a doubt, and supports action on climate change - is hardly the skeptic that you infer. One of his columnists, Andrew Bolt, has publicly stated that he has had argument's with him about climate change, but that to his credit, Rupert has never interfered with Bolt's columns.

Thanks for pointing out my error about WA News. I sold my shares in WA News and Channel 7 before they joined up in 2011, and hadn't kept abreast of that.

As for your assertion about my supposedly "out of context" citations from AR5, feel free to put any of them into whatever context you feel. It wont change the facts of what I cited.

Bob Carter - when the facts are against you, smear the person. Smear him all that you wish, the fact remains he went to print in 2006 that the world had stopped warming. And in 2013, the IPCC agreed there was an Hiatus.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by graham.hobart

I still don't understand, why, even if there is 10% doubt or 90% doubt about the figures, that we would continue to blindly follow the same path when there is a chance we are wrecking our only planet for our children.
Oh yes!- it's the Dollar isn't it.
Like other posters have said, what are we going to tell our children and our children's children?
You can argue about a hiatus or 2'c rise or 100 years before we feel the global effect of GW (irreversible) but it's like running a (petrol) car until bits start to fall off and the engine blows, then handing it to your offspring- "here kids, here's your car I looked after for you"
Entrenched views seem immoveable and meanwhile a soft violin was heard as Rome burned.
Look your kids in the eye and say " I am willing to take the gamble on your future because this is what I believe NOW."
Only the potent smell of money could make so many vested interests so stubborn.
There is a word I don't often use and it's Procrustean- it means rigidly inflexible and was derived from an ancient Greek (I think) criminal who was put on the rack and refused to spill the beans.
Yep- rigidly inflexible-Procrustean should be the IIS word of the day.
Graham
with regards to all who have taken part in this illuminating and sometimes funny debate

Hi Graham,
You are correct - it is the money. If you are going to spend trillions of dollars playing at being planetary engineers, and keep billions of people around the world in poverty, and impoverish you future descendents, you would want to be pretty sure that what you are acting on is correct.

You are probably unaware that there are dissenting warmist scientists and economists who fully accept what the IPCC predict, but who disagree with what to do about it. They point out that the cost of mitigation for climate change is far lower than trying to control it. They suggest that the current course of action is akin to paying yearly insurance premiums for you car that are ten times its value, when it is plainly cheaper just to fix the car if it has an accident.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Amaranthus

It's looking increasingly likely that we are moving towards a 'super' El Nino this year and next (http://science1.nasa.gov/science-new.../19may_elnino/), which, stacked up on top of 16 years of incremental warming since the 1997/1998 event, should set a lot of records.

Most of the 'missing' heat/energy seems to be moving into the deep oceans at a more rapid rate than was previously assumed, as revealed by the ARGO data and other monitoring: http://www.nature.com/news/climate-c...g-heat-1.14525

This is part of my day job.

Hi Barry,
That's an interesting article in Nature, but I think it is more highly speculative than than the something definitive that the title suggests.

At the end of the day, what is offered is after the fact simulations and explanations that heat must gone into the deep oceans - where there are no measurements - because they don't know where else it could have gone. And as skeptics like to point out, the upper ocean should have gotten a lot hotter in order to bring about that heat transfer to the deep ocean.

Anyhow, as this issue is in its infancy, I suspect it will be a long time before it is sorted out.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by andyc

Dead right. Every time I mention total heat content gain, of which >90% goes into the oceans, you ignore it. You've done that many times now, including on the Sun thread you hijacked. You pretend that ocean heat measurement doesn't exist, so you can push some denier memes about heat within 2% of the Earth system.

I'll ask again. Did Earth gain more energy from 2000-2011 than when compared to similar periods prior to 2000?
In your answer, you can use the copious references in the IPCC chapter I highlighted previously (and the figure), after all you're fond of the IPCC when you think it supports your position .

Even in the tiny part of the system that is surface temperature, you cherry pick noise over signal. If I played your game, I could look at the 16 year trend between 1992 and 2007. It's almost double the long-term trend, and yet greatly overlaps the period you like to quote. Did warming 'double' up to 2007? If not, why not? Could there be a reason climatologists use 30-year trends?

Hi Andy,
Yes all that extra heat content, most of which has gone into the deep oceans, where there are no measurements taken. A huge negative feedback which wasn't predicted in any of the first four assessment reports. I guess I just lack faith.

Oh - and darn that Hiatus that the IPCC (not me) must have cherry picked. I think you had better complain to them.

Regards,
Renato

[Peter Ward]

While this has been an interesting, if not frustrating, discourse, the elephant in the room was the Nature article that clearly states:
"..... there has been no evidence for recent magmatic activity".

In other words the Cryosat data showing significant melting has no currently ( read in the last 8000 or years ) observed magmatic link.

In short, volcanism is clearly not the cause.

doh!

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Hi Renato,
I think you have missed the significance of a couple of very important points in the discussion.

* There seems to be some confusion around the terms 'heat' and 'temperature' they are related but not the same thing. Heat is a measure of the total energy in a substance. If you imagine a glass full of water and a bathtub full of water and both are at the same temperature, the bathtub has hundreds of times more energy. Similarly if you have a bathtub full of air and a bathtub full of water and you apply 10 joules of energy to both, you will see a huge difference in the change in relative temperature of the air compared to the water. If you have a bathtub half full of air and half full of water and apply 10 joules to the system, nearly all of the heat will end up in the water once the temperature stabilises. Implicitly.. air temperature alone is not a good measure of the total heat in the planet's biosphere, so to use it as a means to infer what is going in to the oceans is specious in the most generous interpretation of things.

*When we talk about the impact of any given step change in atmospheric CO2, it really is important not to get seduced into thinking that global average temperatures respond immediately. The system takes multiple decades before it even approaches equilibrium. If we take a measure of global average temperatures today and they are 1 degree above the pre-industrial average (the average derived over several decades) It is possible to estimate that the Earth will be around 2C warmer once the oceans catch up assuming no additional CO2 is added to the system. Similarly, it may be comforting to select a time period of 10 years or so and point to the trend evident in 'that' particular slice of time, but it really isn't meaningful when the time domain selected preferentially amplifies the noise and suppresses the signal.

*In the example you quoted above you have made the error of extrapolating the impact of our CO2 emissions based on an unrealistic best case scenario using cyclical noise instead of data derived from long term trends and applying a linear function to those misleading numbers instead of the exponential function that accurately describes it.


*You are most likely correct with respect to the BRICS. I think considering the resources we have at our disposal, and the manner in which the example we set influences them, it should actually be a source of shame for us.


Basically the point being; any rational estimate of the risk we face on this issue cannot be derived using an inappropriate mathematical function, it cannot be based on a dataset dominated by noise and it must not ignore the inertia in the system. Anything less is just folly.

Hi Clive,
That Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity figure isn't is just about temperature, it is derived from all the heat flows in and out of the system. It is meant to encompass everything, heat flows from space, heat flows back into space and into the oceans. And it should be a pretty robust figure, because try as we might, it takes quite some time to double the CO2 content in the atmosphere.

The whole point of the ECS figure is to be able to extrapolate using it.

The Observational ECS figure extrapolates to a less troublesome short term scenario than the Computer Model ECS.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by clive milne

Im not a betting man but if anyone one wants to take even odds,
I've got a thousand bucks on 2014 global average temperatures being above the pre-1976 average....

For the denialistas; If you're not prepared to have a punt on that, why do you expect the rest of humanity to risk its entire future when you lack the strength of your convictions even to that extent?

Hi Clive,
That's not a reasonable bet because the more skeptical climate scientists are actually in agreement that if one doubles CO2 content, the black body radiation effect is to increase temperature 1C.

So there are now three schools of thought relating to that 1C.

Computer modellers -
Positive feedback turns that 1C to between 3C or 4.5C

Observational ECS measurers -
Positive feedback turns that 1C to between 1.5C to 2C

Skeptical Climate Scientists -
Negative feedback turns that 1C to 0.5C or less.

So everyone agrees the temperature will go up.

A better bet is to say take a bet on whether in ten years time, the temperature - as measured by a moving average, has or has not increased by 0.2C, as predicted by the modellers.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Nikolas

No define it as YOU see it and understand it.
Don't obfuscate and bow down to wikipedia.

I think Wikipedia do a sterling job.
Though I'd add the secular humanists to the mix.
Regards,
Renato

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

While this has been an interesting, if not frustrating, discourse, the elephant in the room was the Nature article that clearly states:
"..... there has been no evidence for recent magmatic activity".

In other words the Cryosat data showing significant melting has no currently ( read in the last 8000 or years ) observed magmatic link.

In short, volcanism is clearly not the cause.

doh!

Hi Peter,

"Two seismic swarms were recorded in January 2010 and March 2011 , near the Executive Committee Range , about fifty km. south of Sidley and Waesche mts . Located 25-40 km . beneath the surface , these earthquakes DPLs - Deep , long-period - are linked to outbreaks of magmatic fluids, or other, fracturing the rocks and opening new avenues to the surface."

I guess it depends on what one defines as the area.
Regards,
Renato

[AndrewJ]

They suggest that the current course of action is akin to paying yearly insurance premiums for you car that are ten times its value, when it is plainly cheaper just to fix the car if it has an accident.

Just gotta hope you are still alive after the accident i guess

Andrew

[andyc (Andy)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

... where there are no measurements taken

I guess I could have relied on you not to read the references supplied and make unfounded aspersions, so here's a link to Levitus et al. You might want to revisit your favourite source, the IPCC AR1 ch3 if you think there are no observations of heat content below 700m depth. But apparently observations don't exist if you say so!! Maybe you have a peer-reviewed source disputing the IPCC's ocean summary you'd like to share? Or are you parroting some random fool from an Internet blog?

Speaking of sources, what is your source for:

Observational ECS measurers -
Positive feedback turns that 1C to between 1.5C to 2C

Because it sure as sunrise isn't the broad view of the peer-reviewed literature from a wide range of methods. Go have a read of Knutti and Hegerl 2008, especially Figure 3, which will give you a good idea of sensitivity ranges (typically 2-4C, in line with IPCC).

And how on Earth would you get Quaternary glacial cycles with a climate sensitivity much less than 2? The forcing from orbital variations is tiny! I'd like multiple references please, after all palaeoclimate is my professional training. A good starter is Richard Alley's fantastic presentation a few years ago at AGU.

You don't appear to know what you're talking about. Your only citation is the IPCC, which tends to say the opposite to you ... so what do you rely on for your climate "knowledge"??

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by andyc

I guess I could have relied on you not to read the references supplied and make unfounded aspersions, so here's a link to Levitus et al. You might want to revisit your favourite source, the IPCC AR1 ch3 if you think there are no observations of heat content below 700m depth. But apparently observations don't exist if you say so!! Maybe you have a peer-reviewed source disputing the IPCC's ocean summary you'd like to share? Or are you parroting some random fool from an Internet blog?

Speaking of sources, what is your source for:

Because it sure as sunrise isn't the broad view of the peer-reviewed literature from a wide range of methods. Go have a read of Knutti and Hegerl 2008, especially Figure 3, which will give you a good idea of sensitivity ranges (typically 2-4C, in line with IPCC).

And how on Earth would you get Quaternary glacial cycles with a climate sensitivity much less than 2? The forcing from orbital variations is tiny! I'd like multiple references please, after all palaeoclimate is my professional training. A good starter is Richard Alley's fantastic presentation a few years ago at AGU.

You don't appear to know what you're talking about. Your only citation is the IPCC, which tends to say the opposite to you ... so what do you rely on for your climate "knowledge"??

Hi Andy,
Perhaps if you actually read the article, you'd see
"Although observational data are relatively sparse
from depths exceeding 2000 m in the World Ocean, several
recent studies have appeared that estimate the change in
ocean heat content in this layer".

If this issue of the deep oceans supposedly containing all the missing heat from the non-warming of the atmosphere were fully addressed by the 2012 paper which goes down to only 2000m that you cite, well, there wouldn't be an issue would there? They wouldn't have had to scrounge around with the sun and with aerosols.

Also from the Argo site, it's objective
"It will provide a quantitative description of the changing state of the upper ocean"
and goes on to state that the instruments go down to 2000m every few days. If Argo think they are measuring the upper ocean, why do you think they are measuring the deep ocean?

You are welcome to provide a link to some system that measures the temperature/heat of the deep oceans, which you keep asserting exists.

The recent studies with the lower ECS observational estimates are listed in Table 2 and in the references in this paper.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploa...r-download.pdf

Curiously, they are all later than your 2008 paper.
Regards,
Renato

[Retrograde (Pete)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

in this paper.
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploa...r-download.pdf

That's not a scientific journal you've linked to (as I expected) but an op-ed from a fossil-fuel industry funded think-tank opposing action on climate-change.

Oh dear.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by Retrograde

That's not a scientific journal you've linked to (as I expected) but an op-ed from a fossil-fuel industry funded think-tank opposing action on climate-change.

Oh dear.

Sic him Pete....

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by AndrewJ

Just gotta hope you are still alive after the accident i guess

Andrew

Well, if I wipe off a $40,000 car without insurance, and am still alive, I'd be annoyed that I lost $40,000.

But if I wiped of a $40,000 car after paying a $400,000 insurance premium, and I am still alive - I'd be out of pocket $360,000, and I'd wish I was dead.

Which reminds me of my old boss, who did the same thing, yet the rules were different then and he found a novel way of making money from insurance. Back in the days before Medicare (late 60s/early 70s), he took out health insurance with 20 companies, and then got his wife pregnant. When the Doctor wanted to discharge her early, after giving birth, my old boss suggested it might be better if she stayed there and rested a few days longer. The Doctor got out of his seat and shook his hand, saying he'd never met such a considerate husband.

Of course, my old supervisor pocketed 19 times the amount of money spent on the hospital stay. And then he claimed the 20 premiums on his tax return. the Tax Office rejected the claim, but he appealed and won.
Cheers,
Renato

[Retrograde (Pete)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Hi Pete,
Ummm - you are counting those freebie local papers that they give away for nothing - that tell you what's happening at the local council and local high school, as fair dinkum newspapers? As part of Murdoch's supposed strangle hold on the media?

I don't count any of Murdoch's papers as 'fair-dinkum' "news" papers because they don't print real news on serious topics but 70% of papers sold + channel 10 & Foxtel and you have a large media platform. Add Rinehart/Stokes to that and you have a monopoly.

I see with your single supposed example of bias you've missed out where Murdoch's own journalists went on strike because they couldn't stomach the anti-Gough bias or where only last year the Tele photo shopped the sitting Labor PM as a Nazi on the front page.

Originally Posted by Renato1

And Rupert Murdoch - the guy who said the planet should be given the benefit of a doubt, and supports action on climate change - is hardly the skeptic that you infer.

Hahaha! He also said that his company in the UK didn't hack phones or pay off police, and that it was just one rogue journalist, and that his appearance at Leveson was the most humble day of his life. Oh the hilarity.

Originally Posted by Renato1

Bob Carter - when the facts are against you, smear the person.

The facts are that Carter & co removed the measured global warming signal from their data by taking the derivative (you know what doing that means right?) and then claimed that they proved there was no global-warming signal! It's not even subtle and it's academically dishonest.

Originally Posted by Renato1

the fact remains he went to print in 2006 that the world had stopped warming.

Please provide details so we can have a look (& probably a laugh).

[Renato1 (Renato)]

Originally Posted by Retrograde

That's not a scientific journal you've linked to (as I expected) but an op-ed from a fossil-fuel industry funded think-tank opposing action on climate-change.

Oh dear.

Perhaps, had you taken the time to read what I wrote, and then to have actually read the bits I pointed to - Table 2 and the References - you would have seen that the papers cited within that paper are indeed from scientific journals.

And that one of the authors has had one of his papers cited several times within the 5th Assessment Report.

And that the range for ECS of 1.5C to 4.5C is in the IPCC 5th Assessment report.

If you don't want to know the story behind that increased range by the IPCC, then don't read the paper. Ignorance is bliss.
Regards,
Renato

[Nikolas (Nik)]

Originally Posted by Renato1

I think Wikipedia do a sterling job.
Though I'd add the secular humanists to the mix.
Regards,
Renato

Not good enough
Define leftist in YOUR eyes not wikipedia.
Come on you claim you are smart enough you can do it.