Looks like the world didn't get the AGW memo...

[Jccarlton]

Another interesting post from Watts, by a geologist, on ocean heat and observations at first hand on the Turks and Caicos Islands:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/20/t ... ng-effect/

[Schneibster]

It doesn't matter how many times you quote him, he's still an actor and he still doesn't have a degree of any kind he's willing to publicly share.

We're talking about climate physics, not oil company public relations.

Maybe you forgot.

[JLawson]

Then don't look, Schneibs.

From the 'About' at WUWT

"I’m a former television meteorologist who spent 25 years on the air and who also operates a weather technology and content business, as well as continues daily forecasting on radio, just for fun.

Weather measurement and weather presentation technology is my specialty. I also provide weather stations and custom weather monitoring solutions via http://www.weathershop.com (if you like my work, please consider buying a weather gadget there, StormPredator for example) and http://www.tempelert.com, and turn key weather channels with advertising at http://www.viziframe.com

Q. Were you always a climate skeptic?

A. No, actually in June 1988 I recall watched the newsfeed at KHSL-TV of Dr. James Hansen’s address before congress telling of the issues of CO2 and its effects and that we a as nation had to do something about it. That moved me, and I though we needed to do something. I had wondered what I could do and in 1990 I came up with an idea that combined my emerging talents in computer graphics for television weather with doing something about the global warming problem. I approached the National Arbor Day Foundation in Lincoln Nebraska about an idea which was to provide TV weather-casters nationwide a series of computer graphics slides and animations that would tell the global warming story, and explain how planting trees could help offset CO2. Then president John Rosenow granted me the greenlight, and the production was put into motion. With the help of CBS Newsfeed’s Steven Ackerman, the graphics presentation was sent via their satellite newsfeed to all CBS affiliate stations and through an announcement on AP newswire, non CBS stations were told how to tune in and capture the video feed for use on their station. The program ran on TV stations during weathercasts in the week leading up to Earth Day 1990 and was dubbed “Arbor Day Weather Week”. 174 TV stations participated, and about 250,000 trees were planted (according to National Arbor Day’s logged requests for free Colorado Blue Spruce Seedings) as a result of the program. The program was repeated in 1991.

Clearly, I was fully engaged in the idea that global warming was a serious problem. It wasn’t until the mid 1990′s that I began to question the issue. My questioning started due to a professional friendship that came about with Jim Goodridge, who was the State Climatologist of California, and had retired to Chico. He had showed me some of his investigations into California’s temperature and precipitation records that didn’t quite add up to some of the claims about warming I was reading about. In a short essay published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1996, Mr, Goodridge demonstrated that California counties warming rates varied with population, and when I saw this graph from his BAMS paper, that was the moment when I really began to question if the observed surface warming was really a signal of CO2 or an artifact of UHI and population growth.

(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... county.jpg)

------------------------------------

Seems to me you can't be measuring the weather for long before you notice that it's not matching the models.

At which point you've got to decide what's more important - the models or the reality?

But, but - isn't he a shill for Big Oil!?!?!?!?!?

From his own words, he stands condemned!!!!! Or not. Actually...

"As a skeptic of AGW, I and many of my peers are often subjected to scrutiny and accusations of being in the employ of “big oil”. It’s a standard line used by warmists, almost as effective at denigration as playing the race card in an argument that has nothing to do with race.

“Oh, don’t pay any attention to him, he (insert one) /works for/is paid by/is supporting/is a shill for/ big oil” is how it usually goes when warmists want to shut down a conversation.

---------------

But yet...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/d ... l-and-gas/

There's so many things people 'know', that they never bother to even look at. Like the Yamal 'hockey stick' that proved warming... when they took one core from one tree and tried to pass it off as representative of the whole. SOME were completely taken in by that.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/30/m ... -roadkill/

http://web.archive.org/web/201107201132 ... e_v12a.pdf

When someone starts shouting down opposition with 'The science is settled!' - and won't show their work to prove it, at some point you're going to look at those who say the science isn't settled and are willing to show why they think so.

[Stubby]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/20/a ... d-to-melt/

If the ice doesn't melt according to the models - then there's something wrong with the models.

Comparing theory to reality - if the theory doesn't match observed reality it ain't the reality that's wrong.

There was also an interesting little bit on the ideal gas law - PV=nRT

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/10/13 ... n-pivnurt/

A warmed gas expands. A cooled one contracts. (Volumes staying more or less equal.) If the atmosphere is warming, then it should be expanding. If it's warming due to heating, we should be seeing that in increased orbital decay rates... which I can't find any reference to.

1.watts is cherry picking one glacier (there are others in Norway and New Zealand that are not shrinking/growing)
what is the global trend for glacial ice? is there a net gain, net loss or equilibrium of the volume of glacial ice?
The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005)


2.are they also measuring the ice thickness and density or just area coverage? if the coverage is the same but half as thick and half as dense? Just asking since Watts' info doesn't say. One would think that ice volume would be a better indicator.



3. perverts never reach for testicles aka PV=nRT
interesting idea. certainly worth looking at.

A major cause of orbital decay for satellites in low Earth orbit is the drag of Earth’s atmosphere. During solar maxima the Earth's atmosphere causes significant drag up to a hundred kilometers higher than during solar minima.

If this is accurate, then would the deltaT required to melt the glaciers even make a measurable difference of the atmospheric volume?

[paperburn1]

On the orbital drag thing , if there was more CO2 in the upper atmo, There would be less drag as CO2 should shed heat collisions and break down into carbon monoxide and O2 due to the action of ultraviolet light. It should take a huge increases in temp before that become a factor to the satellites. So the upper reaches of our atmosphere should be colder if more CO2 is present. Radiating more heat than what is in the system the upper layers should contract and less orbital disruption.

[JLawson]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/20/a ... d-to-melt/

If the ice doesn't melt according to the models - then there's something wrong with the models.

Comparing theory to reality - if the theory doesn't match observed reality it ain't the reality that's wrong.

There was also an interesting little bit on the ideal gas law - PV=nRT

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/10/13 ... n-pivnurt/

A warmed gas expands. A cooled one contracts. (Volumes staying more or less equal.) If the atmosphere is warming, then it should be expanding. If it's warming due to heating, we should be seeing that in increased orbital decay rates... which I can't find any reference to.

1.watts is cherry picking one glacier (there are others in Norway and New Zealand that are not shrinking/growing)
what is the global trend for glacial ice? is there a net gain, net loss or equilibrium of the volume of glacial ice?
The map shows the average annual rate of thinning since 1970 for the 173 glaciers that have been measured at least 5 times between 1970 and 2004 (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005)

Since what he was referring to was this year's ice cover in the Antarctic, I'm not sure glacier coverage from 2005 would be applicable. I could be wrong, though.

2.are they also measuring the ice thickness and density or just area coverage? if the coverage is the same but half as thick and half as dense? Just asking since Watts' info doesn't say. One would think that ice volume would be a better indicator.

I'd think you'd need coverage before you'd get thickness. Coverage is WAY above the norm for the Antarctic, which makes me think it's cold down there, which means the thickness will definitely increase by next year.

3. perverts never reach for testicles aka PV=nRT
interesting idea. certainly worth looking at.

A major cause of orbital decay for satellites in low Earth orbit is the drag of Earth’s atmosphere. During solar maxima the Earth's atmosphere causes significant drag up to a hundred kilometers higher than during solar minima.

If this is accurate, then would the deltaT required to melt the glaciers even make a measurable difference of the atmospheric volume?

Good question - I tossed that out because I'm wondering also. It certainly seems like a reasonable assumption.

[JLawson]

On the orbital drag thing , if there was more CO2 in the upper atmo, There would be less drag as CO2 should shed heat collisions and break down into carbon monoxide and O2 due to the action of ultraviolet light. It should take a huge increases in temp before that become a factor to the satellites. So the upper reaches of our atmosphere should be colder if more CO2 is present. Radiating more heat than what is in the system the upper layers should contract and less orbital disruption.

But even then, we're only talking 100 PPM or so. If the entire atmosphere warms, the volume should increase - and so should the drag.

If drag lessens, then you're faced with a rather odd situation.

[choff]

Found this about a researcher named Ernst Beck, he did a meticulous study of CO2 air samples by various researchers from the early 19th century to present. Apparently their are prior measurements from the past just as high if not higher than today.

http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-b ... deceivers/

[JLawson]

Found this about a researcher named Ernst Beck, he did a meticulous study of CO2 air samples by various researchers from the early 19th century to present. Apparently their are prior measurements from the past just as high if not higher than today.

http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-b ... deceivers/

Plus the MWP was 'adjusted' out of the record at one point.

Change the data to fit the narrative, not the narrative to fit the data...

[Jccarlton]

Found this about a researcher named Ernst Beck, he did a meticulous study of CO2 air samples by various researchers from the early 19th century to present. Apparently their are prior measurements from the past just as high if not higher than today.

http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-b ... deceivers/

I've always been concerned that CO2 counts were based on one measurement on the top of an active volcano in the hands of one scientist and his family who won't reveal his techniques and refuses to license his equipment so that his measurements are repeatable. That has always struck me as the wrong way to do science. The fact that the chart always shows that nice curve fit parabola has always bothered the hell out of me because large co2 releasing event like significant volcanic eruptions and huge wild fires don't seem to show up in the data curve like you would expect.

[paperburn1]

On the orbital drag thing , if there was more CO2 in the upper atmo, There would be less drag as CO2 should shed heat collisions and break down into carbon monoxide and O2 due to the action of ultraviolet light. It should take a huge increases in temp before that become a factor to the satellites. So the upper reaches of our atmosphere should be colder if more CO2 is present. Radiating more heat than what is in the system the upper layers should contract and less orbital disruption.

But even then, we're only talking 100 PPM or so. If the entire atmosphere warms, the volume should increase - and so should the drag.

If drag lessens, then you're faced with a rather odd situation.

True but it is a factor that's being studied not the only cause.
Most heating of the upper atmosphere comes in the form of solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) create large currents and associated magnetic fields in our upper atmosphere, and much like running a current through a curling iron, the upper atmosphere heats up.
Where your going to get your another increases is from bottom heating but not as predominantly so. The upper and lower atmosphere behave differently to the same situations. For the lack of a better descriptor they are two different climates. Most of the orbital drag is by upper atmosphere heating up from CME and pushing the upper atmosphere into the paths of the satellites.
of course there is a lot more to this but this is the layman explanation. and I am just a layman when it comes to this.

[JLawson]

On the orbital drag thing , if there was more CO2 in the upper atmo, There would be less drag as CO2 should shed heat collisions and break down into carbon monoxide and O2 due to the action of ultraviolet light. It should take a huge increases in temp before that become a factor to the satellites. So the upper reaches of our atmosphere should be colder if more CO2 is present. Radiating more heat than what is in the system the upper layers should contract and less orbital disruption.

But even then, we're only talking 100 PPM or so. If the entire atmosphere warms, the volume should increase - and so should the drag.

If drag lessens, then you're faced with a rather odd situation.

True but it is a factor that's being studied not the only cause.
Most heating of the upper atmosphere comes in the form of solar coronal mass ejections (CMEs) create large currents and associated magnetic fields in our upper atmosphere, and much like running a current through a curling iron, the upper atmosphere heats up.
Where your going to get your another increases is from bottom heating but not as predominantly so. The upper and lower atmosphere behave differently to the same situations. For the lack of a better descriptor they are two different climates. Most of the orbital drag is by upper atmosphere heating up from CME and pushing the upper atmosphere into the paths of the satellites.
of course there is a lot more to this but this is the layman explanation. and I am just a layman when it comes to this.

Wouldn't you need to have a CME actually hit to have such an event?

[Schneibster]

Then don't look, Schneibs.

...

When someone starts shouting down opposition with 'The science is settled!' - and won't show their work to prove it, at some point you're going to look at those who say the science isn't settled and are willing to show why they think so.

I spent a whole thread on it just now. Discussing the science that is.

You pop out a bunch of links and from the looks of Stubby's response they're a bunch more of Watts' lies; certainly they're more links to his site.

This is really simple: Watts is not a climate physicist, he's not qualified to talk about climate physics, and his last job was shilling for big tobacco. He's a professional shill, is what he is. If we're discussing Watts we're not discussing science, period.

And I note that you accused me of shouting someone down; I'm sorry, did you think I was shouting about CO2 vibration modes? Maybe you thought the little colored lines on the spectral pictures were too "loud." And of course all those loud equations.

So, like all climate deniers, eventually you find a way to stop talking about science and start talking about me.

[Schneibster]

He had showed me some of his investigations into California’s temperature and precipitation records that didn’t quite add up to some of the claims about warming I was reading about.

You can't tell anything about global warming claims from temperature and precipitation records from California.

This is so transparent. This Watts guy lies like a rug.

In a short essay published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society in 1996, Mr, Goodridge demonstrated that California counties warming rates varied with population, and when I saw this graph from his BAMS paper, that was the moment when I really began to question if the observed surface warming was really a signal of CO2 or an artifact of UHI and population growth.

(http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... county.jpg)

The UHI effect has been shown to be insufficient to account for observed heating by orders of magnitude, a decade ago. Here's a common-sense rebuttal; they show a composite satellite picture of the Earth at night, which merely by the light of the cities shows where the urban concentrations are. Then they show a global temperature anomaly map. There simply is no correlation. The article is from 2006, but the data sources used are four or five years old at that time. This has been known for over a decade. Watts is well aware of it. He's lying. Not only that but this really puts a stake through the heart of his BS about California climate having anything to do with it.

Seems to me you can't be measuring the weather for long before you notice that it's not matching the models.

It works fine here.

And BTW, you know, Watts used all the weather model data he could get, for his whole career as a meteorologist. It was the most consistently accurate data stream he had. But of course he "doesn't trust models."

At which point you've got to decide what's more important - the models or the reality?

What models? Weather is not climate, and climate models are not weather models.

But, but - isn't he a shill for Big Oil!?!?!?!?!?

Well, yes, that is what his tax returns say.

From his own words, he stands condemned!!!!! Or not. Actually...

"As a skeptic of AGW, I and many of my peers are often subjected to scrutiny and accusations of being in the employ of “big oil”. It’s a standard line used by warmists, almost as effective at denigration as playing the race card in an argument that has nothing to do with race.

“Oh, don’t pay any attention to him, he (insert one) /works for/is paid by/is supporting/is a shill for/ big oil” is how it usually goes when warmists want to shut down a conversation.

So did anyone notice the one thing he didn't do there?

He didn't deny it.

And he won't.

There's so many things people 'know', that they never bother to even look at. Like the Yamal 'hockey stick' that proved warming... when they took one core from one tree and tried to pass it off as representative of the whole. SOME were completely taken in by that.

The "hockey stick" is from a paper by Mann, not Nuccitellis, or Yamal, or any of these other people.

Mann, if you will recall, was cleared of even a hint of controversy by five separate investigations including by the DoJ and his university, and is currently busily engaged in suing for defamation. I believe a number of your colleagues are in some serious trouble over this. Filing false accusations before a federal court is a felony, so there could be criminal repercussions as well. Most uncomfortable.

When someone starts shouting down opposition with 'The science is settled!' - and won't show their work to prove it, at some point you're going to look at those who say the science isn't settled and are willing to show why they think so.

40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

Number 34 from the Crackpot Index.

[Schneibster]

2.are they also measuring the ice thickness and density or just area coverage? if the coverage is the same but half as thick and half as dense? Just asking since Watts' info doesn't say. One would think that ice volume would be a better indicator.

This is one of the standard lies. Yes, they're only using coverage, and they try to shut you up or ignore you if you ask questions about thickness.

A major cause of orbital decay for satellites in low Earth orbit is the drag of Earth’s atmosphere. During solar maxima the Earth's atmosphere causes significant drag up to a hundred kilometers higher than during solar minima.

If this is accurate, then would the deltaT required to melt the glaciers even make a measurable difference of the atmospheric volume?

Well, it's accurate, but it's not caused by heating. It's caused by increased solar wind and magnetic field, interacting with the ionosphere, which is charged particles. It makes them push each other apart more.

When you say deltaT, remember that there are two factors: a) latent heat of liquefaction and b) heat necessary to raise the ice's temperature to zero before it starts absorbing the latent heat.

Given water's enormous specific heat, added to the enormous amount of latent heat needed, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot more global warming than the human race could physically survive (unprotected on the surface) could occur without affecting the temperature of the ocean a lot. However, remember this: that is one hell of a lot of heat. It will take a long, long time to get rid of it.