Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Nature Climate Change PUBLISHED ONLINE: 5 OCTOBER 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2389
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2389.html
Quantifying underestimates of long-term upper-ocean warming
Paul J. Durack, Peter J. Gleckler, Felix W. Landerer and Karl E. Taylor
The global ocean stores more than 90% of the heat associated with observed greenhouse-gas-attributed global warming1–4. Using satellite altimetry observations and a large suite of climate models, we conclude that observed estimates of 0–700 dbar global ocean warming since 1970 are likely biased low. This underestimation is attributed to poor sampling of the Southern Hemisphere, and limitations of the analysis methods that conservatively estimate temperature changes in data sparse regions5–7. We find that the partitioning of northern and southern hemispheric simulated sea surface height changes are consistent with precise altimeter observations, whereas the hemispheric partitioning of simulated upper-ocean warming is inconsistent with observed in-situ-based ocean heat content estimates. Relying on the close correspondence between hemispheric-scale ocean heat content and steric changes, we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modeled results. These adjustments yield large increases (2.2–7.1 10²² J 35yr⁻¹) to current global upper-ocean heat content change estimates, and have important implications for sea level, the planetary energy budget and climate sensitivity assessments.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2387.html
Nature Climate Change PUBLISHED ONLINE: 5 OCTOBER 2014 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2387
Deep-ocean contribution to sea level and energy budget not detectable over the past decade
W. Llovel, J. K. Willis, F.W. Landerer and I. Fukumori
As the dominant reservoir of heat uptake in the climate system, the world’s oceans provide a critical measure of global climate change. Here, we infer deep-ocean warming in the context of global sea-level rise and Earth’s energy budget between January 2005 and December 2013. Direct measurements of ocean warming above 2,000m depth explain about 32% of the observed annual rate of global mean sea-level rise. Over the entire water column, independent estimates of ocean warming yield a contribution of 0.77±0.28 mm yr⁻¹ in sea-level rise and agree with the upper-ocean estimate to within the estimated uncertainties. Accounting for additional possible systematic uncertainties, the deep ocean (below 2,000 m) contributes -0.13±0.72 mm yr⁻¹ to global sea-level rise and -0.08±0.43 Wm⁻² to Earth’s energy balance. The net warming of the ocean implies an energy imbalance for the Earth of 0.64±0.44 Wm⁻² from 2005 to 2013.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Complete B.S. paper Ed.
Likely underestimated-typical weasal wording. Suite of models- as I suspected. Heat hiding in the southern oceans where monitors are sparse- how typically convenient, where is Cowtan and Way?
EDIT: your second offering has a better title at least
Question Ed; how much has sea level risen in your local seas of SF bay over the last 35 years?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~sgs02rpa/PAPERS/Loeb12NG.pdf
Nature Geoscience PUBLISHED ONLINE: 22 JANUARY 2012 | DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1375
Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty
Norman G. Loeb, John M. Lyman, Gregory C. Johnson, Richard P. Allan, David R. Doelling, Takmeng Wong, Brian J. Soden and Graeme L. Stephens
Global climate change results from a small yet persistent imbalance between the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the thermal radiation emitted back to space1. An apparent inconsistency has been diagnosed between interannual variations in the net radiation imbalance inferred from satellite measurements and upper-ocean heating rate from in situ measurements, and this inconsistency has been interpreted as ‘missing energy’ in the system2 . Here we present a revised analysis of net radiation at the top of the atmosphere from satellite data, and we estimate ocean heat content, based on three independent sources. We find that the difference between the heat balance at the top of the atmosphere and upper-ocean heat content change is not statistically significant when accounting for observational uncertainties in ocean measurements3, given transitions in instrumentation and sampling. Furthermore, variability in Earth’s energy imbalance relating to El Niño-Southern Oscillation is found to be consistent within observational uncertainties among the satellite measurements, a reanalysis model simulation and one of the ocean heat content records. We combine satellite data with ocean measurements to depths of 1,800 m, and show that between January 2001 and December 2010, Earth has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of 0.50±0.43 Wm⁻² (uncertainties at the 90% confidence level). We conclude that energy storage is continuing to increase in the sub-surface ocean.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
your reading skills have declined substantially, rick...
you forgot to see, or perhaps you didn't understand, that the first paper is driven by satellite data...
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
What does a large suite of climate models mean to you Ed? Don't be so quick to assume I am addled and you are not.
Now , about your local sea levels, in fact the whole west coast? Isostatic rebound is not likely the cause of the west coast lack of sea level rise, nor is it likely that uplift uniformly along the entire subduction zone is the cause. So why is it that we have disagreement between tide gauges and satellite and even between different satellites?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
addled? well I read the paper...
and the supplementary material.
But I guess your brilliance need not be so constrained as to actually respond to what was written, substituting instead what you imagine was written.
Pretty typical of your responses, rick, even when you can read the papers you don't understand them, nor do you feel you need to, but you can always give us your opinion.
Nature doesn't print B.S.... by the way.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Yes that might be true,The Chief.
But it is not,and you and yours[that article,opinion] are full of that fantasy.
You are right,you are not a denier.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
"Maybe that is what is missing in climate science — the lack of any sort of tradition of the maverick being righter than the entire body of established work"
Truly Laughable,though you wish it were true.
edit;What is a click? ...lol
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
How so?
It reads like a deniers wish list.
Back to Work,thanks for the laughs,with two broken ribs from a recent trials mtb fall,that hurt.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:04am PT
|
Here's an piece I though found interesting.
 Sketch
Nothing like mind-bending intellect.
Maybe he's full of sh#t. I don't know. What I do know is this piece rang true.
Don't try to follow this logic unless you want to hurt yourself.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:22am PT
|
What's wrong with the piece Sketch?
Well, it's a long-winded rand that isn't based in reality. The intro says that it was edited for clarity, here's a small excerpt:
Think coral reefs — many of them are thriving, some of them are not, those that are not may not be thriving for many reasons, some of those reasons may well be human (e.g. dumping vast amounts of sewage into the water that feeds them, agricultural silt overwashing them, or sure — maybe even climate change.
First, this is false--the overall percentage of coral reefs are not "thriving." And the article fails to mention the real reason--acidification of the oceans (which is caused by what, Sketch?). Second, the "editor" is nonexistent.
I tried to read more, but the article is so full of itself, inaccuracies, and such that it hurts to read more than a few paragraphs.
I couldn't get far enough to see what the actual point is. But that's OK, I don't really need to waste my time reading an opinion piece about debating science from an anti-science blog.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:26am PT
|
Odd, you quote my whole post that basically says you don't know what you're talking about.
Instead of putting me in my place by showing us you do know what you're posting, you attack me.
Telling.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:41am PT
|
many of them are thriving
What does the word "many" mean to you, Sketch? To me it means a "significant portion."
Got something of substance to talk about?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
many of them are thriving, some of them are not
So sketch, how do you interpret that combination of many and some?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 08:51am PT
|
Boy do I feel insulted--look who's calling me an idiot:
Here's an piece I though found interesting.
Sketch
Maybe he's full of sh#t. I don't know. What I do know is this piece rang true.
Sketch |
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
interesting that we're deflected from discussing the papers onto the questioning the papers' legitimacy.
Dr. Robert G. Brown makes many statements that are complete speculation, yet they are taken as "true." Who knows what may have occurred if Einstein were working "today," in fact, we don't have any idea of what the state of science would be. And it is not as if Einstein himself were the essential intellect without whom all our physics would have halted.
The idea of the "lone genius" is pretty much a myth, a way we used to understand the process, but not much of an actual description of the social aspects of doing science.
And while we may debate science, we do it in a scientific manner, as Prof. Brown knows, by identifying the errors in the arguments, or the interpretation of experimental results and observations. What I find among practicing scientists who often make comments regarding the state of climate science is that they actually have never walked over to the Geology departments to have a discussion with their colleagues who are practicing the science; that is, they don't actually know what is going on.
This was Mueller's problem, he thought he knew, and in the end worked it out for himself, good for him, but what he found was not surprising to the climate science community who had worked it out much earlier.
So let's get back to the papers, what they say is our observations of the southern ocean heat content was underestimated because we didn't have a lot of observation points in that ocean. Once we did, we found the heat content was higher. To verify that, satellite measurements of the ocean surface altitude were used, along with models, to constrain the actual heat content. Water changes it volume when heated, so the surface altitude contains information about this heat content.
The measurements take into account the changes in the crust as it rebounds from the last glacial maximum, and other systematic issues.
The Northern hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere are treated "separately" and the criteria in the analysis for matching requires both to be explained using the same methods. Since the NH is better measured, it can be compared to the observations. When the SH is treated in the same way, the resolved heat content from this method is used to correct the data coverage deficiencies.
rick thinks that's bullshit because he doesn't like the conclusion, but he can't argue the science.
apparently Sketch would rather discuss what is happening in science.
Science isn't about how to do science... it's about how to predict observation and experiment, and the process of getting there isn't straight forward, and often has nothing to do with where we eventually end up.
Those discussion can be taken to other threads.
If you've got a problem with science, show where the science is "wrong." And that doesn't mean plotting a particular time series normalized to some special point and jumping up and down that the data doesn't match the models.
It's a bit more than that.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
I am curious about what you want and how you want to discuss your copy and past post.
The first very long part is about the funding of science. A subject that you know nothing about. Are you going to believe what other people tell you?
The next part is very long section about modeling with a lot of assertions that is way above your level of knowledge. It is clear that you don't understand anything at all about the details in that section. He neither give any details. It reads mostly as a name dropping some terminology that might or might not be applicable to the climate models. I also believe that it is completely useless to try to explain what he says and why it is correct or incorrect to you.
One thing is that he seems to suggest that we cant model chaotic systems with enough accuracy. Tell that to people modeling for example airplanes in flight and see if they agree.
So what do you want to discuss and how? Are you going to listen to other people that you disagree with?
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
I'd really like to see what some of the regulars think about the piece.... without the discussion devolving into another childish sh#t storm.
“I do not intend to imply by the above that all science is corrupt, or that scientists are in any sense ill-intentioned or evil.”
The sentence has adds nothing to the essay. The piece is already long, any half-competent editor would have deleted this.
Or does it have a function?
As in, when Nixon said “I am not a crook” that put the association of Nixon and being a crook in the public’s mind. Is Brown is trying to associate the idea of scientists and corruption, scientists and ill-intentioned, scientists and evil?
All through, there's awkward phrasing and a smattering of long words so that a non-specialist scientist will stumble, can't quite understand the nuances of exactly what he's trying to say without re-reading several times or actually looking at a dictionary or a google search.
Which is stupid because he's writing for a non-technical, non-scientific audience. The idea he's trying to get across--"I reject something that is accepted by most of my colleagues. I'm right, therefore they are wrong, here's why..."--is a simple enough concept. Poor writing for a tenured professor.
Unless it's written with the deliberate intent to confuse by the use of long words and jargon. Which is the very definition of BS.
As for the content, as Raymond Phule says, the first part is about funding science and suggests that the availability (or lack) of funding can corrupt and distort findings.
Deciding what research to fund is a public policy decision. NASA has a large budget in part because it's seen as a way to train and keep scientists and engineers who maintain US superiority in space travel and rocket technology. Rocket/satellite/robotic technology in turn ensures continued US superiority in current and any future warfare. So, the needs of homeland security is a big driver of science funding. The future of the climate is also a pretty important issue for future security. Rising temperatures, drought, rising sea levels. Coupled with rising population. Huge potential stresses on the environment and on our own security.
Brown complains that current models don't work well enough to be relied on for expensive future policy decisions. So what? If we can't predict future climate we for sure can't predict the accuracy /precision of future climate models, either.
Learning what changes will happen and when they might appear (e.g., how long will CA suffer the ongoing drought? Will all of Greenland melt out? Will rising sea temps decimate fish?) is an urgent public policy issue with billions of dollars at stake.
Scientists may figure out that future climate change is far slower than earlier thought, and that effects on humans will be small and not appear for many centuries. Who knows. I think we still want to try to figure these things out.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 09:22am PT
|
Think coral reefs — many of them are thriving, some of them are not,
"It’s a real tragedy," says Dustan. "But over the past twenty years, we’ve seen a rapid decline in the vitality of coral reefs and their ecosystems worldwide." ... Since the late 1970s, reefs across the world have been dying at an unprecedented rate, and it only seems to be getting worse.
How do you get "many of them are thriving, some of them are not" from the facts?
This is just one in a long list of inaccuracies in the article. But go ahead Sketch, stand your ground.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!