tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post4829583946516967228..comments2024-03-19T07:10:27.303-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: More Warming: Latest Data for Ocean Heat ContentDavid Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-14552999571307585702016-07-28T15:48:07.411-07:002016-07-28T15:48:07.411-07:00DiC provided this reference:
NOAA argues that the...DiC provided this reference:<br /><br /><i>NOAA argues that the transition to buoys introduced a spurious cooling bias into the record. ERIs tend to warm the water a bit before measuring it (ship engine rooms being rather hot), whereas buoys do not. They identify a bias of around 0.1 C between buoys and ERIs and remove it by adjusting buoy records up to match ERI records in ERSST v4, as well as use NMAT readings to calibrate the differences across ships. </i><br /><br />Aren't the buoys referred to in the above statement are these:<br /><br />http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/<br /><br />Those are not ARGO buoys.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-19064864038032421232016-01-31T16:36:44.433-08:002016-01-31T16:36:44.433-08:00Oops. The time interval above was 45 years, not 55...Oops. The time interval above was 45 years, not 55 years, so the projection works out to be 15.0 cm. Still pretty good. I just wrote a post on this:<br /><br />http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-first-assessment-reports-projection.htmlDavid Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-54324793667952514392016-01-31T15:45:56.872-08:002016-01-31T15:45:56.872-08:00"My point is that the rate of rise is hard to..."My point is that the rate of rise is hard to project."<br /><br />Of course. Everything is hard to project. <br /><br />But don't forget that can lead to underprojection (Arctic sea ice) as well as overprojection.<br /><br />Consider this: the IPCC's First Assessment Report includes projections of sea level rise for the period 1985-2030 (Ch9 Table 9.10 pg 276):<br /><br />High: 28.9 cm<br />Best estimate: 18.3 cm<br />Low: 8.7 cm<br /><br />According to Aviso data, the average rate of change over the 22+ years of their data (starts in 1993) is 3.34 mm/yr.<br /><br />For the 55 years considered in the FAR, above, that works out to a projecion, if linear, of 18.4 cm.<br /><br />Compare to their "best estimate." Pretty good. <br /><br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-84436078428729665572016-01-31T15:35:49.224-08:002016-01-31T15:35:49.224-08:00DiC wrote:
"Watts wrote In 2005...."
So...DiC wrote:<br />"Watts wrote In 2005...."<br /><br />So the UNEP was wrong. That doesn't make everyone wrong. Should I point out all the wrong predictions that have appeared on Watts' blog? Here are just two:<br /><br />http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-department-of-oops-case-number-1.html<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/13/when-will-it-start-cooling/David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-42152982430196796242016-01-31T15:32:05.645-08:002016-01-31T15:32:05.645-08:00David in Cal wrote:
"'adequate' means...David in Cal wrote:<br />"'adequate' means large enough, compared to reality."<br /><br />But what does "large enough compared to reality" mean? It's just as nebulous as your use of the word "adequate."David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-33530676820857891152016-01-29T08:01:13.694-08:002016-01-29T08:01:13.694-08:00"Aside from semantics, there's been at le..."Aside from semantics, there's been at least one wrong projection of the rate of sea level rise. Watts wrote In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010.... My point is that the rate of rise is hard to project."<br /><br />You've conflated two very different subjects. One is the rate of sea level rise and the other is the number of climate refugees. UNEP may, or may not, have overestimated the number of refugees (I haven't looked into it enough to know), but this has nothing to do with projections of sea level rise.<br /><br />As we've been discussing, sea level rise due to thermal expansion is rather straightforward to project from the increase in ocean heat content. Given the rate of greenhouse gas emissions one can estimate the earth's energy imbalance. The big unknown is what the contribution of the glacier melt will be. If anything the data shows that short-term projections of sea level rise were too conservative.JoeThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06540568535579405609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-58724719550243418592016-01-29T07:40:44.929-08:002016-01-29T07:40:44.929-08:00"As I understand it, depth of water is affect..."As I understand it, depth of water is affected by both sea level rise and ground subsidence. It's not easy to separate the two effects."<br /><br />Actually it is relatively easy now to separate the two effects. What you're talking about are tidal gauge measurements, which go back to the 1700s. However with satellite altimeter measurements, scientists can distinguish the sea level rise from land subsidence. In fact the comparison of the satellite data to the tidal gauge data is used to determine vertical land motion. (I trust the satellite altimeter data more than I trust the measurement of microwave radiation from oxygen molecules and the subsequent inversion of the radiative transfer equation to calculate the tropospheric temperature).<br /><br />"This land subsidence helps explain why the region has the highest rates of sea-level rise on the Atlantic Coast of the United States."<br /><br />What's being described here is the Chesapeake Bay Region, but in fact the entire eastern seaboard of the US is showing high rates of sea level rise. At least part of that rise is due to the slowdown in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). You can read about this <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21969-sea-level-rise-accelerates-faster-on-us-east-coast/" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/news-app/story.106" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.usclivar.org/research-highlights/extreme-sea-level-rise-event-linked-amoc-downturn" rel="nofollow">here</a><br /><br />BTW, if anyone didn't catch <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/blizzard-jonas-and-the-slowdown-of-the-gulf-stream-system/" rel="nofollow">Stefan Rahmstorf's piece on Blizzard Jones and the Slowdown of the Gulf Stream</a> at realclimate, it's well worth reading.JoeThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06540568535579405609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-77089515282508273342016-01-29T07:29:50.394-08:002016-01-29T07:29:50.394-08:00"adequate" means large enough, compared ..."adequate" means large enough, compared to reality. In the examples I provided, we cannot know what reality was, because real figures are not available.<br /><br />Of course scientists work to separate sea level rise from subsidence. The paper I referenced is one such example. Maybe I'm just quibbling over semantics of what constututes an "adjustment". <br /><br />Aside from semantics, there's been at least one wrong projection of the rate of sea level rise. Watts wrote <i>In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.<br /><br />The UNEP provided a map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.</i> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/<br /><br />Watts goes on to point out that the specified islands actually gained population during the period.<br /><br />These islands are still at risk. Over time, they probably will become uninhabitable as sea level rises. My point is that the <i>rate</i> of rise is hard to project.<br /><br />CheersDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-59035128494101896822016-01-29T00:10:45.649-08:002016-01-29T00:10:45.649-08:00DiC wrote: "As I understand it, depth of wate...DiC wrote: "As I understand it, depth of water is affected by both sea level rise and ground subsidence. It's not easy to separate the two effects."<br /><br />Yes. Do you think scientists don't spend a lot of time trying to understand this? <br /><br />http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/do-you-account-plate-tectonics-global-mean-sea-level-trend<br /><br />http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/what-glacial-isostatic-adjustment-gia-and-why-do-you-correct-it<br /><br />http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/sedimentation-oceans-accounted-gmsl-estimate<br /><br />It's the same as always with you, David -- you ask a basic question that anyone would ask in the first hour of studying a problem, but then you assume no one has ever thought of it before and you don't take the time to go look. This is a major characteristic of deniers.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-74119255210205210712016-01-29T00:05:29.812-08:002016-01-29T00:05:29.812-08:00DiC wrote:
"NOAA recently adjusted past data,...DiC wrote:<br />"NOAA recently adjusted past data, as far back as the 1930's. There is obviously no way to go back in time and prove that these adjustments were appropriate or adequate."<br /><br />What does "adequate" mean here? Compared to what? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-42921084526456689292016-01-29T00:02:13.568-08:002016-01-29T00:02:13.568-08:00DiC wrote:
"Even if the adjusted data is more...DiC wrote:<br />"Even if the adjusted data is more accurate, it cannot be shown how much error remains after adjustment."<br /><br />"Error" compared to what? <br /><br />Are you expecting them to derive an error with respect to the "TRUE" value?<br /><br />The true value isn't known. So how can anything be compared to it? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-50813619245670971432016-01-28T23:59:17.350-08:002016-01-28T23:59:17.350-08:00DiC wrote:
"But, it cannot be proved that the...DiC wrote:<br />"But, it cannot be proved that the adjusted data is more accurate than the original data."<br /><br />What do you mean by "more accurate?" Compared to what? David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-16973043985603128302016-01-28T23:46:42.620-08:002016-01-28T23:46:42.620-08:00Argo doesn't have to measure every cubic meter...<i>Argo doesn't have to measure every cubic meter of the ocean to get a valuable reading of ocean heat gain.</i><br /><br />I agree. Even if the average of the ARGO floats doesn't exactly equal the average of the entire ocean (were such a thing measurable), the trend in some average of the ARGO floats should give a good reading of the warming trend (provided that each year's work was done the same way.)<br /><br />I believe that climate research sometimes adjusts the data in ways that cannot be validated. E.g., it's my understanding that the Berkeley Earth study substitutes model values for some recorded data, based on neighboring weather station readings. But, it cannot be proved that the adjusted data is more accurate than the original data. Even if the adjusted data is more accurate, it cannot be shown how much error remains after adjustment. <br /><br />NOAA recently adjusted past data, as far back as the 1930's. There is obviously no way to go back in time and prove that these adjustments were appropriate or adequate.<br /><br /><i> Sea level rise in a macro-indicator that can be observed without have to cut and adjust any data. </i><br /><br />I wish that were true. As I understand it, depth of water is affected by both sea level rise and ground subsidence. It's not easy to separate the two effects. E.g., see this paper:<br /><i>The southern Chesapeake Bay region is experiencing land subsidence and rising water levels due to global sea-level rise; land subsidence and rising water levels combine to cause relative sea-level rise. Land subsidence has been observed since the 1940s in the southern Chesapeake Bay region at rates of 1.1 to 4.8 millimeters per year (mm/yr), and subsidence<br />continues today.<br /><br />This land subsidence helps explain why the region has the highest rates of sea-level rise on the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Data indicate that land subsidence has been responsible for more than half the relative sea-level rise measured in the region. </i> http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1392/pdf/circ1392.pdf<br /><br />Cheers<br />David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-86308321457945145322016-01-28T19:10:29.980-08:002016-01-28T19:10:29.980-08:00Joe wrote:
"The bigger picture is that there ...Joe wrote:<br />"The bigger picture is that there is a rather nice consilience between the increase in ocean heat content and the sea level rise (due to thermal expansion), measured independently, that doesn't get stressed enough"<br /><br />Good point. Sea level rise in a macro-indicator that can be observed without have to cut and adjust any data. So is global glacier melt. These things can't be faked. Any contrarian has to explain them.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-39239209360161172642016-01-28T18:59:39.913-08:002016-01-28T18:59:39.913-08:00Joe: Great comment above at 9:44 am.
When I was ...Joe: Great comment above at 9:44 am. <br /><br />When I was an undergraduate I worked a couple of summers for a group that did medium energy particle studies at Los Alamos.<br /><br />One of the scientists told me once that 90% of their computer time was spent calculating uncertainties. <br /><br />Scientists take uncertainties VERY seriously. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-25295561322676572192016-01-28T18:49:01.483-08:002016-01-28T18:49:01.483-08:00Paul wrote:
"I wouldn't be surprised if D...Paul wrote:<br />"I wouldn't be surprised if December isn't included."<br /><br />Come on -- no scientist is going to publish 2 months of data that they label as 3 months of data. They would neve live that down.<br /><br />I suspect NOAA was anxious to get out the annual data for 2015, to make its conclusions available to the public.<br />David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-36078910554107528202016-01-28T18:44:49.723-08:002016-01-28T18:44:49.723-08:00DiC wrote: "IMHO it hardly matters whether th...DiC wrote: "IMHO it hardly matters whether the individual ARGO thermometers are accurate to within 0.1 degree or 0.0001 degree."<br /><br />Why do you keep making up numbers when Argo tells us explicitedly the uncertainty of their temperature profiles?<br /><br />"The big uncertainty is how well the sample of ARGO readings represents the entire oceans."<br /><br />We've been through this already. Did you read what I wrote? <br /><br />Argo doesn't have to measure every cubic meter of the ocean to get a valuable reading of ocean heat gain. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-73565536873751251362016-01-28T18:42:31.009-08:002016-01-28T18:42:31.009-08:00DiC wrote:
"Am I right that one can discuss t...DiC wrote:<br />"Am I right that one can discuss the change in temperature or the change in Heat? They're more or less equivalent. That is, one can be converted into the other. If that's right, why are they not making the entire presentation in terms of temperature? That would seem simpler."<br /><br />Yes, either change in temperature and change in heat. They are proportional.<br /><br />The reason for talking about heat instead of temperature is that the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. So while a given amount of heat would cause a certain temperature change in the ocean -- the 0-700 m region has warmed by 0.17 C since 1955 -- it would cause a much larger change if it occurred in the atmosphere, or were released there. <br /><br />The ocean is a huge heat sink. But over time -- centuries and millennia -- much of the added heat does not stay there.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-61413488546567472482016-01-28T14:30:18.618-08:002016-01-28T14:30:18.618-08:00David: How would you calculate the uncertainty of ...David: How would you calculate the uncertainty of an adjustment based on using nearby weather stations? <br /><br />All you can do is state the assumptions that go into your model, and calculate the associated uncertainties as best you can. <br /><br />You can't compare your model to a different hypothetical-but-unknown better model. (If you have a better model, use it! If it's unknown, you can't compare it to anything.) David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-35091380968414000372016-01-28T10:19:53.620-08:002016-01-28T10:19:53.620-08:00In my work as a casualty actuary, I often adjusted...In my work as a casualty actuary, I often adjusted data based on assumptions. My job was to pridict something in the future based on past patterns. The past data included both actual payments and estimates. Sometimes, the data I was using wasn't consistent over time. Maybe there had been a change in accounting procedures, or a change in the method used to get estimates. Unadjusted data would have produced spurious patters. I believed my adjustment amounts were resonable, but they were merely best guesses.<br /><br />I think this is a parallel for some data adjustments used in climate research. E.g., when a particular weather station reading is believed to be invalid and is adjusted to something based on nearby weather stations.<br /><br />cheersDavid in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-91028809595596105872016-01-27T21:23:52.139-08:002016-01-27T21:23:52.139-08:00David, if you're not sure an adjustment is nee...David, if you're not sure an adjustment is needed, why would you make one?<br /><br />Adjustments are scientifically necessary. If you don't know if an adjustment is needed, you don't understand the system well enough to treat it scientifically. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-61857985403434529982016-01-27T17:43:34.882-08:002016-01-27T17:43:34.882-08:00Good example, David. I was thinking of a differen...Good example, David. I was thinking of a different situation. Suppose you think an adjustment is appropriate, but you're not sure if one is needed. Then, there's some chance that the error has been increased by the amount of the adjustment.David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-37933262469619381802016-01-26T12:14:04.884-08:002016-01-26T12:14:04.884-08:00DiC wrote:
"...the need for adjustments shows...DiC wrote:<br />"...the need for adjustments shows a lack of full confidence in the data."<br /><br />*ALL* raw data in science is adjusted (except for very simple cases). There are always things to account for that can bias the raw data. For example, the satellite data for atmo emperatures are heavily adjusted. <br /><br />"If adjustments of 0.1 deg C are being made, it would seem that the uncertainty must be in that order of magnitude."<br /><br />That does not follow -- it depends on the nature of the adjustment. If the parameters that describe the adjustment are well known, the adjustments contribute little uncertainty to the final result.<br /><br />Simple example: You measure a certain distance with a metal ruler. The ruler's length expands with temperature. If you know the coefficient of expansion well, and the temperature, you can account for that with little uncertainty and obtain the "adjusted" length. The uncertainty of the meaured distance them comes from (1) how well you can read the ruler, and (2) statistical variation -- you don't get the exact same value every time you measure it, but values clustered around some mean value.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-68195036785032906602016-01-26T11:10:34.797-08:002016-01-26T11:10:34.797-08:00Layzej -- you were talking about month to month ch...Layzej -- you were talking about month to month changes. My point was that monthly figures are not available. I agree that the trend in the figures is clear.<br /><br />JoeT -- thank you. David in Calhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10222355423128534221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-16510176882147654312016-01-26T10:31:03.620-08:002016-01-26T10:31:03.620-08:00It's the uncertainty in the measurement of the...It's the uncertainty in the measurement of the temperature at any particular location. It includes the calibration of the instrument itself from known sources such as the triple point of water and the gallium melt point and the inherent drift in the sensor. The link above showed that the ARGO sensors, tested AFTER they had already been in use, retained their original calibration.<br /><br />BTW, the reason you want to give the result in joules to measure energy, rather than degrees Kelvin to measure temperature is because of the huge heat capacity of the water as well as the enormous mass. It's what allows David or James Hanson to calculate the net energy imbalance. It's why people say things like this energy imbalance that is warming the oceans is the equivalent of 4 Hiroshima bombs going off every second.JoeThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06540568535579405609noreply@blogger.com