Rebuttal to typical Trump science expert, folks

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled
First off, she is not very switched on but then that arsehole asking the questions isn't any better. So let's look at this in terms of climate forcing or temperature rise. Here is a brilliant analysis done by a really clever guy called Lubos Motl.



The ocean heat content is defined as[FONT=MathJax_Math]
5c3d3b46b35bf84280a1693ff87caad10e2f8cd2
[/FONT]

​
where [FONT=MathJax_Math]ρ[/FONT] is the water density, [FONT=MathJax_Math]
77463f4fbb953a6f1fe19d83708e553f6d21457f
[/FONT] is the specific heat capacity, and [FONT=MathJax_Math]T[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]z[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main])[/FONT] is the temperature profile from the top depth [FONT=MathJax_Math]h[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]1[/FONT] to the bottom depth [FONT=MathJax_Math]h[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]2[/FONT]. The additive shift is a bit ambiguous; we want to talk about the changes of the ocean heat content only.

Now, in the first graph, 0-2000 meters, the change between 1968 and 2013 was the difference between [FONT=MathJax_Main]+[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]17[/FONT] and [FONT=MathJax_Main]−[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]9[/FONT] "units" used in the graph. That's [FONT=MathJax_Main]26[/FONT] units. Looking at the [FONT=MathJax_Math]y[/FONT]-axis, you see that the unit is [FONT=MathJax_Main]10[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]22[/FONT] joules. So the change of the ocean heat content of this layer during the last 45 years was[FONT=MathJax_Main] 2.6[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10^[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]23[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]J[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main].[/FONT]

​
That's nice. How much is it? We want to translate it to the average temperature change of this layer of water. To do so, we have to know the volume of the layer and multiply it by the heat capacity.

The total volume of the world's oceans is about [FONT=MathJax_Main]1.4[/FONT] billion cubic kilometers which is[FONT=MathJax_Main] 1.4[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]^8[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main] m³ [/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main][/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]→ [/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]1.4[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]^21[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]k[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]g
[/FONT]
where the mass in kilograms was obtained by the multiplication by [FONT=MathJax_Main]1[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main],[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]000[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]k[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]g[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]m³[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main][/FONT] and one cubic kilometer was translated to one billion cubic meters, OK? The heat capacity of the world's ocean is this number multiplied by [FONT=MathJax_Main]4[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main],[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]200[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]J[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]k[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]g[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]⋅[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]K[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main])[/FONT] which is[FONT=MathJax_Main] 5.9[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]^24[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main] J[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]K[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main].
[/FONT]
The same page tells us that the average depth of the ocean is [FONT=MathJax_Main]3.8[/FONT] kilometers. The layer we consider is slightly more than one-half of that but this layer will carry more water than one-half of the world oceans' water simply because at many/most places, the restriction that the layers beneath 2 kilometers of depth are omitted is inconsequential. (Or did I get it backwards and the deep places are more relevant for the nonlinearity?) So I estimate the heat capacity of the layer between 0 and 2 kilometers of depth to be around 4 [FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]^24[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]J[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]K[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main].
[/FONT]
Plus minus 20 percent. I am just calculating an estimate. The last step is a simple division. We take the change of the ocean heat content from the NOAA graph, [FONT=MathJax_Main]2.6[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]^23[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]J[/FONT], and divide it by the figure above. We obtain[FONT=MathJax_Main] 2.6[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]^23[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]J[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/4[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]^24[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]J[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]K[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]=[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]0.065[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]K [/FONT]plus minus 20 percent. In the last 45 years, the average temperature of that layer of the ocean increased by [FONT=MathJax_Main]0.065[/FONT] Celsius degrees only! That would give you 0.14 °C per century, about 20 times smaller temperature difference than the changes of the global mean temperature predicted for the surface.

(Update: Paul Matthews informed me via Twitter about this ARGO page where they confirm that since the 1960s, the warming of that layer was 0.06 °C [search for 0.06 on that page]. Just to be sure, the zero following the decimal point is not a typo.)

If you include the oceans up to the depth of 2 kilometers, oceans' message is unequivocal: the change of the temperature in the recent decades is completely negligible – a whopping sixteenth of a degree per half a century.

You might rightfully object that the ocean heat content primarily changes because of the changes in the surface layers while the deeper layers mostly keep their temperature. You would be partly right. We may consider a thinner graph, the water between 0 meters and 700 meters of depth. I estimate its heat capacity as one-half of the layer at 0-2000 meters i.e. as [FONT=MathJax_Main]2[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]×[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]10^[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]24[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]J[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]K[/FONT] due to the same nonlinear bias.

The NOAA graph for the 0-700 meter layer gives us a jump from [FONT=MathJax_Main]−[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]7[/FONT] to [FONT=MathJax_Main]+[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]11[/FONT] units, so the ratio [FONT=MathJax_Main]2.6[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]4[/FONT] from the previous calculation is replaced by [FONT=MathJax_Main]1.8[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]2[/FONT] and you get [FONT=MathJax_Main]0.09[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]K[/FONT], a larger amount than before (by about 50 percent). However, it's still a completely negligible amount.

The depth 700 meters is already relatively low and circulation at the decadal scale is able to transfer much of the heat to this depth. Nevertheless, we still obtained the averaging warming just by [FONT=MathJax_Main]0.2[/FONT] Celsius degrees per century! Even if you were assuming that only the upper 350 meters "do something" while the temperature of the lower 350 meters "remains the same", you could justify a trend by at most [FONT=MathJax_Main]0.4[/FONT] Celsius degrees per century.

One may also convert the temperature changes to forcing and one gets less than 0.5 watts per squared meter, almost an order of magnitude less than the forcing 3.7 watts per squared meter commonly associated with the CO2 doubling.

I would like to point out that these are the temperature changes that the greenhouse effect in principle predicts for the land, too. While the land's temperature is more variable due to the shortage of water with a high capacity, the equilibrium climate sensitivity (temperature increase after reaching equilibrium caused by a doubling of CO2) should be the same above the land and above the ocean because the greenhouse effect only considers the temperature profiles of the atmosphere and the absorption/emission by the atmosphere, not any modifications on the surface. For the quantification of the greenhouse effect itself, it doesn't really matter what the surface is.

(In this treatment, I subtract the ice-albedo feedback and similar feedbacks and the justification is that they're local in character. We're talking about the temperature change at places without these special feedbacks.)

So I think that the ocean heat data are pretty cool, convincing, and show a rather uniformly increasing total heat. But the same data also seem to imply that the climate sensitivity is well below one Celsius degree per CO2 doubling.

Corrections welcome. I challenge you to find any global ocean heat data, from any layer (but considered globally), that would support the idea of a warming trend exceeding 1.5 (or at least 1) °C per century in any decade of the 20th or 21st century.
Click to expand...

https://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html
 
Last edited:
Shape Shifter said:
First off, she is not very switched on but then that arsehole asking the questions isn'te soon. So lets look at this in terms of climate forcing or temperature rise. Here is a brilliant analysis done by a really clever guy called Lubos Motl.



https://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html
Click to expand...
McAwful's thread has an idiot politician asking an equally idiot politician appointee an irrelevant question based on a completly false assumption.
Good example of why politicians and lawyers have no business even discussing climate.
 
aloysious said:
McAwful's thread has an idiot politician asking an equally idiot politician appointee an irrelevant question based on a completly false assumption.
Good example of why politicians and lawyers have no business even discussing climate.
Click to expand...

Yes agreed, that's why McAwful will never be allowed into a climate thread of mine, the man is a complete numskull.
 
Shape Shifter said:
First off, she is not very switched on but then that arsehole asking the questions isn't any better. So let's look at this in terms of climate forcing or temperature rise. Here is a brilliant analysis done by a really clever guy called Lubos Motl.



https://motls.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html
Click to expand...

The truth about Keith Trenberth's missing heat is pretty simple, it was mostly irradiated into space!

[h=3]New paper finds world's oceans have warmed only 0.09°C over past 55 years[/h]
A paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters finds the oceans have warmed only
0.09°C over the 55 year period from 1955-2010. According to the authors, this resulted in a sea level rise of 0.54 mm per year [only 2.12 inches per century] and corresponds to 0.39 Watts per square meter of the ocean surface. However, the IPCC claims the increase in CO2 from 1955-2010 'should' have warmed the oceans by 1.12 Watts per square meter [5.35*ln(389.78/312) = 1.12 W/m2]. Thus, even if one assumes all ocean warming is due to increased greenhouse gases, the IPCC has exaggerated climate sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of almost 3 times [1.12/0.39]. [This is why Trenberth can't find his "missing heat"-it never existed in the first place]. In reality, greenhouse gases cannot warm the oceans at all because they radiate infrared which only penetrates the surface of water a few microns to cause evaporative cooling. ​

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/new-paper-finds-worlds-oceans-have.html
 
Last edited:
Shape Shifter said:
Surprised that Sailor hasn't made a comment here.
Click to expand...

What you posting falls into line with actual, physical data and observations given to NOAA and other ocean, atmospheric entities by ships at sea, fisherman etc. All ships that report are required to do so with calibrate equipment. This is all public record. For some reason all of that data ( thousands of ships recorded data) never seems to quite match the relatively few buoys that NOAA and others rely on for their data. A catch-22 as it were. As far as Micabwer, why bother? The lying about being a lawyer and being successful wannabe does nothing other than regurgitate whatever link he comes across that knows more than he does. In other words, he will post things completely wrong because he knows no better. Keep up the good work here Shape Shifter.
 
Sailor said:
What you posting falls into line with actual, physical data and observations given to NOAA and other ocean, atmospheric entities by ships at sea, fisherman etc. All ships that report are required to do so with calibrate equipment. This is all public record. For some reason all of that data ( thousands of ships recorded data) never seems to quite match the relatively few buoys that NOAA and others rely on for their data. A catch-22 as it were. As far as Micabwer, why bother? The lying about being a lawyer and being successful wannabe does nothing other than regurgitate whatever link he comes across that knows more than he does. In other words, he will post things completely wrong because he knows no better. Keep up the good work here Shape Shifter.
Click to expand...

I have asked him and others which of the four RCP scenarios described by the IPPC AR5 document does he agree with. Naturally not one of them even understands the question never mind giving a cogent answer.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...nsus%92-Climate-Science&p=2080579#post2080579
 
Last edited:
Shape Shifter said:
I have asked him and others which of the four RCP scenarios described by the IPPC AR5 document does he agree with. Naturally not one of them even understands the question never ming giving a cogent answer.
Click to expand...

The he/she/it is just poser. Why bother with it?
 
Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.

Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations, we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.

A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused the global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot, and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/s...eleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/amp/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top