tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post7831455924295582482..comments2024-03-11T09:29:31.793-07:00Comments on Quark Soup by David Appell: Singer: I Don't Like Saying They're Fraudulent, But...David Appellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-52332180389489245582013-10-26T15:38:49.708-07:002013-10-26T15:38:49.708-07:00Strange. I don't recall anyone "knowing&q...<i>Strange. I don't recall anyone "knowing" this until recently, when the surface warming had undeniably diminished.</i><br /><br />I don't know if your recall is accurate, but before the recent pause there was probably less emphasis on ocean warming (though many people were working very hard to measure it accurately -- see the work of Sydney Levitus). In the '80s and '90s, it was easier to detect the global warming signal, as Trenberth noted in what I quoted a little earlier, primarily because it was going in the same direction as the PDO (warming), and no large ENSOs got in the way.<br /><br />Since then science has done what it ALWAYS does -- if observations do not agree with expectations, it looks around and sees what's different and what else might explain, or falsify, the expectations. <br /><br />In this case it is ocean warming -- it clearly indicates the Earth has an energy imbalance. Singer choosed to ignore that fact, and that makes his conclusions wrong and probably dishonest.<br /><br />This is just science doing what science has always done, and when all the new evidence is considered, there is no reason to think that the enhanced greenhouse effect has diminished in any way. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-7746881557784612962013-10-26T15:25:55.723-07:002013-10-26T15:25:55.723-07:00"These large changes in ocean content reveal ..."These large changes in ocean content reveal that the Earth’s surface is not a great place to look for a planetary energy imbalance. “This means this heat is not being sampled by the global average surface temperature trend,” he [Roger Pielke Sr] says. “Since that metric is being used as the icon to report to policymakers on climate change, it illustrates a defect in using the two-dimensional field of surface temperature to diagnose global warming.”<br /><br />http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-71005518307907330592013-10-26T15:25:03.047-07:002013-10-26T15:25:03.047-07:00“One of the things emerging from several lines is ...“One of the things emerging from several lines is that the IPCC has not paid enough attention to natural variability, on several time scales,” he [Kevin Trenberth] says, especially El Niños and La Niñas, the Pacific Ocean phenomena that are not yet captured by climate models, and the longer term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which have cycle lengths of about 60 years.<br /><br />"From about 1975, when global warming resumed sharply, until the 1997-98 El Niño, the PDO was in its positive, warm phase, and heat did not penetrate as deeply into the ocean. The PDO has since changed to its negative, cooler phase.<br /><br />“It was a time when natural variability and global warming were going in the same direction, so it was much easier to find global warming,” Trenberth says. “Now the PDO has gone in the other direction, so some counter-effects are masking some of the global warming manifestations right at the surface.”<br /><br />http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-23284513401308986042013-10-26T11:45:25.830-07:002013-10-26T11:45:25.830-07:00"the true measure of global warming is the oc..."the true measure of global warming is the ocean"<br /><br />Strange. I don't recall anyone "knowing" this until recently, when the surface warming had undeniably diminished. I guess nobody was a "competent scientist/historian" until a couple of years ago. Your remark certainly makes James Hansen and all his epigones, what with their pretensions to foretell surface warming, look both naive and irrelevant. And I suppose the entire dendro field will never have anything to tell us about global warming, since trees can't possibly take the "true measure" thereof. Science funding bodies will certainly be relieved now that they can trim *that* fat.<br /><br />Have you run this revelation of yours past, oh, Michael Mann, David?Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-63172728249633325932013-10-26T07:36:18.442-07:002013-10-26T07:36:18.442-07:00Because Singer is wrong. Especially if he is only ...Because Singer is wrong. Especially if he is only referring to surface temperatures. Any competent/honest scientist should know that the true measure of global warming is the ocean, which captures over 90% of the extra heat. The surface is subject to a lot of variation due to internal ocean cycles. The ocean as a whole isn't, and it is warming strongly. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-16404600207194080142013-10-26T04:36:41.012-07:002013-10-26T04:36:41.012-07:00Having read Singer's remarks in situ I'm n...Having read Singer's remarks in situ I'm now even more confident in calling your "oceanic" criticism meritless. The context of the interview makes it unmistakably clear to any reasonable reader that they're specifically talking about the Earth's surface. <br /><br />Why elect to perseverate in this, David? Do you actually expect historians to look kindly on you for it?Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-27231956440423945632013-10-25T22:12:30.104-07:002013-10-25T22:12:30.104-07:00"Brad: Singer didn't restrict his remark ..."Brad: Singer didn't restrict his remark to the "surface.""<br /><br />That restriction is implicit in all declarations about "temperature" in the climate context, and has been for decades. (The surface is where the climate is.)<br /><br />I don't understand why you are sticking to this criticism. It's obviously invalid. Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-39972516714998795582013-10-25T18:02:55.999-07:002013-10-25T18:02:55.999-07:00You are doing numerology, not physics.
In physics...You are doing numerology, not physics.<br /><br />In physics, you first decide what you want to know, and then you calculate.<br /><br />If you want to know about trends in "climate," you figure out what such a period would be, and THEN calculate the trends in all relevant parameters -- including, in this situation, ocean warming.<br /><br />You are doing the reverse -- calculating trends first, without deciding if they are representative of climate, and ignoring ones that do not meet your preconceived notions.<br /><br />That's numerology and pseudoscience, not physics. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-83497176073546582602013-10-25T17:46:06.855-07:002013-10-25T17:46:06.855-07:00From Werner Brozek from an article in WhatsUpWithT...From Werner Brozek from an article in WhatsUpWithThat:<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/05/has-global-warming-stalled-now-includes-january-data/<br /><br />For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.<br />For RSS: +0.127 +/-0.134 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990<br />For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.<br />For UAH: 0.146 +/- 0.170 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994<br />For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.<br />For Hadcrut3: 0.095 +/- 0.115 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994<br />For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.<br />For Hadcrut4: 0.095 +/- 0.110 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995<br />For GISS the warming is not significant for over 17 years.<br />For GISS: 0.111 +/- 0.122 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1996Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17290500857584738932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-64852330336877010582013-10-25T17:36:22.792-07:002013-10-25T17:36:22.792-07:00Also, Joe Bastardi, HadSST2 has been replaced by H...Also, Joe Bastardi, HadSST2 has been replaced by HadSST3. Since Jan 1999 (a short interval more representative of oceanic weather and not climate) it shows a warming of 0.09 +/- 0.04 C.David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-17320896249696975392013-10-25T17:06:21.064-07:002013-10-25T17:06:21.064-07:00Joe Bastardi: HadCRUT3 is an inferior dataset to H...Joe Bastardi: HadCRUT3 is an inferior dataset to HadCRUT4.<br /><br />Learn to calculate. Since Jan 1990, HadCRUT4 shows 0.10 +/- 0.06 C of warming. GISS shows 0.13 +/- 0.06 C of warming. David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-38891770283931582652013-10-25T17:02:43.971-07:002013-10-25T17:02:43.971-07:00Brad: Singer didn't restrict his remark to the...Brad: Singer didn't restrict his remark to the "surface."David Appellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03318269033139447591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-14468787872757054062013-10-25T16:30:26.106-07:002013-10-25T16:30:26.106-07:00"Of course, it's also false because it ig..."Of course, it's also false because it ignores the strong ocean warming over that time."<br /><br />Your criticism defies logic, Mr Appell. The ocean warming has no bearing at all on the truth-value of statements about the surface temperature. Think.<br /><br />"When historians of the year 2200 write the history of climate change, is anyone going to come out worse than Fred Singer?"<br /><br />Yes.Brad Keyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12154595019913023703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-18468702532967863522013-10-25T15:44:12.183-07:002013-10-25T15:44:12.183-07:00Lets see, how has the temp behaved since the supe...Lets see, how has the temp behaved since the super nino of 1997<br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/1-s2-0-s0921818112001658-gr11.jpg<br /><br />Wow, thats interesting, since the super nino, sure looks like temps have leveled off. But co2 continues up, and it seems that air temp is moving in tandem with the ocean temps! Now lets do a close up.. how have they behaved since the PDO flipped<br /><br />http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_recent.png<br /><br />actually looks like its starting down.<br /><br />Isnt that special.<br /><br />Oh and about that missing heat in the ocean...Bill Gray explained this 35 YEARS AGO with his thermohaline ideas. You can read his latest here,<br /><br />http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf<br /><br />You guys love to discover something that is a known to people believing in natural climate cycles, and then blame co2 even though it was a known before. That is fraudulent, not Dr Singer<br /><br /><br /><br />Your attack on Dr Singer is without basis, and typical of the Alinsky tactics of the AGW people now.. isolate demonize, destroy. Wont work if people can see the truth<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02290944502271431407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28837843.post-4265470343950262112013-10-25T14:34:27.680-07:002013-10-25T14:34:27.680-07:00When historians of the year 2200 write the history...When historians of the year 2200 write the history of climate change, is anyone going to come out worse than Fred Singer?<br /><br />Michael Mann comes to mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com