tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4742086189169540923..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Gotta give WUWT deniers credit...Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22989540628827473572013-05-22T00:25:59.652+10:002013-05-22T00:25:59.652+10:00"was only 0.09 C" well that is one whopp..."was only 0.09 C" well that is one whopping number. Do you know that the oceans' heat content is about 1,000 times that of the atmosphere? cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49643814134708207962013-05-21T06:20:34.649+10:002013-05-21T06:20:34.649+10:00But lets put this in perspective, all the "he...But lets put this in perspective, all the "heat" that Kevin Trenberth was looking for and"found" in the deep oceans, was only 0.09 C. <br /><br />So go ahead, make fun of people for pointing things out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-54400129785828645642013-05-20T19:55:43.593+10:002013-05-20T19:55:43.593+10:00Dan
Read about sea ice from someone who knows:
h...Dan<br /><br />Read about sea ice from someone who knows:<br /><br />http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/the-four-charts-that-really-matter.htmlIan Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59663708965471937062013-05-19T14:55:34.267+10:002013-05-19T14:55:34.267+10:00Maybe what Dan is saying is that sea ice extent th...Maybe what Dan is saying is that sea ice extent this year is approaching that of last year for this date. He's reminding us that last year was a record low in summer. <br /><br />Doesn't mean it will be another record this year. However, with ice volume decreasing year on year, even if the ice happens to be spread out at first it's easily melted come summer.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39969466585413829412013-05-19T14:23:57.054+10:002013-05-19T14:23:57.054+10:00Wow, I thought you were at least going to try Dan....Wow, I thought you were at least going to try Dan. Even for a denier this is feeble.<br /><br />The trend for SIE in May (note cherry picking period when ice near maximum extent) STILL shows a trend of -2.3% loss per decade.<br /><br />What scientists look at more seriously is the September extent data. Hey guess what? When you look at this the trend shows a loss of -13% per decade.<br /><br />Sea ice volumes shows larger losses.<br /><br />Funny thing sunspots...they make idiots look like, well, idiots... Ian Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2103799874793590762013-05-19T03:30:03.214+10:002013-05-19T03:30:03.214+10:00I have not been able to find where I said in 2009 ...I have not been able to find where I said in 2009 that Arctic SIE would increase. A link would help.<br /><br />Arctic SIE is now near the top of the range since 2007. See for yourself at http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic or http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent_prev.htm<br />Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33003235375042606992013-05-19T01:44:59.096+10:002013-05-19T01:44:59.096+10:00Still waiting or your explanation of the Arctic SI...Still waiting or your explanation of the Arctic SIE, given your 2009 comments about how much it was going to grow in subsequent years. Pony up Champ.<br /><br />Ian Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24475177476300903872013-05-18T03:46:10.266+10:002013-05-18T03:46:10.266+10:00In the next few years. In the next few years. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69471938923894577992013-05-18T03:31:30.233+10:002013-05-18T03:31:30.233+10:00Isn't anyone willing to answer? "when do ...Isn't anyone willing to answer? "when do you expect the average global temperature trend to start going up again?"<br />Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-11327368577593516842013-05-18T03:13:00.270+10:002013-05-18T03:13:00.270+10:00C'mon China, SIE prediction made in 2009. Next...C'mon China, SIE prediction made in 2009. Next ice age remember. How's that all going?Ian Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16547688708541591932013-05-18T01:11:52.316+10:002013-05-18T01:11:52.316+10:00No problem with 'limited understanding'. P...No problem with 'limited understanding'. Problem is with the apparent unwillingness to learn and the arrogance with which total ignorance is presented. That is the world upside down and it needs to be smacked back in upright position. Where ignorance + interest spurs learning motivation and some respect for professionals on the subject. cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-36036356514161032132013-05-18T00:21:36.259+10:002013-05-18T00:21:36.259+10:00Just so, as pointed out to DP just above.
DP *tot...Just so, as pointed out to DP <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/gotta-give-deniers-credit.html?showComment=1368732980518#c1687075991107508697" rel="nofollow">just above.</a><br /><br />DP *totally ignored* the comment and references. DP is another time-waster with a big mouth and a limited understanding of the topic.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35687900514226794102013-05-17T19:02:12.538+10:002013-05-17T19:02:12.538+10:00"The atmospheric CO2 level continues to go up..."The atmospheric CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature doesn’t." (Dan)<br /><br />Energy content of the climate system, this is oceans + cryosphere + atmosphere, is going up exactly on par with the rise of CO2.<br />So if global air temperature rise stagnates you KNOW either the seas are warming up more OR land and sea ice are melting more OR both. <br /> cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35294761580230745722013-05-17T15:32:00.991+10:002013-05-17T15:32:00.991+10:00Dan the level of scientific knowledge and maths ab...Dan the level of scientific knowledge and maths ability was fine until you came along :)<br /><br />Have you read BBD's post and the papers he kindly pointed you to? Have you read the BoM booklet?<br /><br />Yes, your curve fitting is just that - curve fitting. You've ignored most major climate forcings and feedbacks altogether (water vapour and most CO2 and other GHGs; albedo; volcanic activity etc). You don't seem to think incoming solar radiation has any impact, you only refer to outgoing radiation - which for some reason you measure by sunspots (a bit weird in itself).<br /><br />You haven't explained why it's never got this hot since the Holocene Climatic Optimum. <br /><br />You attribute 58.2% of the change to outgoing radiation, which for some reason you seem to measure by a proxy for incoming radiation (sunspots). Of this, you've said 7.5% is from increased CO2. The rest seems to be clouds, though it's hard to know what you think here - you've got two different papers going at the same time and they don't interlink too well. <br /><br />You've given no evidence that clouds have changed this past few decades or what would cause them to do so. Cosmic rays don't explain a change - and it's yet to be shown they actually influence cloud formation. But even if they do, there's no reason to think the amount of cosmic radiation has changed over the Holocene or had any major influence over the past few decades. Certainly not one that would cause temperatures to rise.<br /><br />So, apart from your 7.5% CO2, there is nothing that's changed enough to explain any change in outgoing radiation compared to the rest of the Holocene.<br /><br />You reckon 41.8% of change is from ocean cycles. You haven't explained what if anything has made the ocean cycles this past 100 years any different from those of the rest of the Holocene. So there goes that hypothesis.<br /><br />So that leaves the 7.5% of the change that you attribute to CO2. Which makes no sense at all. What about the other 92.5%?Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24399593801592416272013-05-17T12:48:30.923+10:002013-05-17T12:48:30.923+10:00The lack of science knowledge and math ability at ...The lack of science knowledge and math ability at this site is appalling. However the skill at berating is bountiful.<br /><br />The atmospheric CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature doesn’t. I wonder how wide this separation will need to get for some people to realize that they haven’t understood the science very well.<br /><br />So you think that the equation that has calculated the average global temperature since before 1900 with 90% accuracy is wrong. Then when do you expect the average global temperature trend to start going up again?Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10737039199913390322013-05-17T09:40:48.418+10:002013-05-17T09:40:48.418+10:00Dan, I can see you put a lot of your time and effo...Dan, I can see you put a lot of your time and effort into justifying your position. I get it that for some reason you are unwilling to accept science, I really do. There are others like you. You don't need to try to justify it. <br /><br />You must know that you give the game away when you quote David Rose as a source of information. Especially on a board where people are well aware David Rose makes a habit of distorting the facts. Most people know that in the case you quote, David was so wrong that the Met Office issued a statements correcting his disinformation. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/ <br /><br />I get the distinct impression that you are more interested in showing "it's not CO2" than in understanding climate. But more than that, you like playing with numbers. <br /><br />You haven't explored the science much if at all. You've just found a couple of bits and pieces of trivia to build your formulae around. Take a PDO, toss in a cloud and a cosmic ray and umpteen co-efficients and ignore everything else saying - Oh, I've left 10% for the other bits. They can sort it out for themselves.<br /><br />If I were you I'd take some time out. Read up on the carbon cycle. It's not difficult to grasp and might open up new horizons for you.<br /><br />This little booklet is a good place to see if it gets you interested in earth system science as a whole.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/info/GreenhouseEffectAndClimateChange.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Greenhouse Effect and Climate Change</a> - Bureau of Meteorology booklet<br />Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16870759911075086972013-05-17T05:36:20.518+10:002013-05-17T05:36:20.518+10:00So in addition to your other topic knowledge defic...So in addition to your other topic knowledge deficiencies, you do not understand the difference between <i>atmospheric temperature</i> and the climate system as a whole. Whenever I encounter someone peddling contrarian views making very basic errors like this, I know it is time to switch off.<br /><br />More than 90% of the energy that has accumulated in the climate system since the mid-C20th is in the oceans <a href="http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf" rel="nofollow">(Levitus et al. 2012).</a><br /><br />A slight increase in the rate of energy diffusion into the ocean is sufficient to account for the temporary slow-down in the rate of atmospheric warming (<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract" rel="nofollow">Balmaseda et al. 2013</a>; <a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n7/full/nclimate1229.html" rel="nofollow">Meehl et al. 2011</a>).<br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76998457047532870132013-05-17T04:22:37.385+10:002013-05-17T04:22:37.385+10:00CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (part...CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 24.67 ppmv (an amount equal to 27.56% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; March, 2013, 395.8 ppmv).<br /><br />The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat. (Some agencies say flat since 1997 see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml )<br /><br />That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 24.67 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001. <br />Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42117628001984700922013-05-16T23:37:18.074+10:002013-05-16T23:37:18.074+10:00I guess that is a rule for any topic. If "you...I guess that is a rule for any topic. If "your party" is in power or things are moving in the right direction for "your topic", you start focussing on other things. <br /><br />Politically it is important to implement a carbon tax in a revenue neutral way and reduce other taxes (best on labour) simultaneously. That way it is clear that it is not about raising more revenue, but about reducing CO2 emissions and increasing employment.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77390913389847349822013-05-16T23:01:15.085+10:002013-05-16T23:01:15.085+10:00Always remember that back around 2009, poor old me...Always remember that back around 2009, poor old mechanical-engineer-not-climate-scientist Dan stated that the Arctic SIE was going to grow in a big way in the years to come. <br /><br />Fast forward to 2013...how is that prediction going champ? <br />Ian Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-65110294683851277562013-05-16T20:17:35.439+10:002013-05-16T20:17:35.439+10:00Yes, Victor. Your article was interesting.
If ...Yes, Victor. Your article was interesting. <br /><br />If the USA ever gets serious about a carbon price the denier blogs will probably pick up again. They'll be filled with comments like "CO2 is plant food and I don't like taxes and Tim Flannery said it would never rain again (of course he said nothing of the sort) therefore climate science is a hoax". At least that's what happened here in Australia. <br /><br />Most of the people that were vocal before the legislation was passed have since disappeared, leaving only those for whom science denial is a hobby.<br /><br />Depends on the weather to some extent as well.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81662558845404700172013-05-16T18:25:10.097+10:002013-05-16T18:25:10.097+10:00The problem is not Dan. There will always be peopl...The problem is not Dan. There will always be people with fringe ideas, that is fine and once in a while they turn out to be right.<br /><br />The problem are the masses that take the Dans more seriously as scientists. Fortunately these <a href="http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2013/05/readership-of-all-major-sceptic-blogs-going-down.html" rel="nofollow">masses are dwindling</a>; if I may plug my latest post.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67369828463632646382013-05-16T18:06:26.281+10:002013-05-16T18:06:26.281+10:00Mirrors, Dan: be careful with them.Mirrors, Dan: be careful with them.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37093344882945947842013-05-16T15:39:04.339+10:002013-05-16T15:39:04.339+10:00Dan's a dickDan's a dickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41571266831406221032013-05-16T09:07:26.962+10:002013-05-16T09:07:26.962+10:00"None are so blind as those who refuse to see..."None are so blind as those who refuse to see".<br /><br />Dan made the irony meter exlpodeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07604184699513441116noreply@blogger.com