G oog le BadWeB | Login/out | Topics | Search | Custodians | Register | Edit Profile

Buell Forum » Quick Board » Science, Climate, and Winter is Coming » Archive 2012 - 2018 » Archive through December 04, 2015 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alchemy
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 07:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Sifo, can you run your graph representation of what you term as "missing heat" data from the RSMSS site starting in 1999 or 2000?

If there has been no global warming for the last 18 years 3 months then there should be no global warming for the last 15 years either. Maybe we can confirm something.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 11:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Funny you should ask. I did a lot of that sort of plotting for these sorts of discussions on another board about 10 years ago. My links for data have gone stale, but if I can find downloadable data, I'll post up some graphs. Assuming I can still figure out graphing in my current Excel version. I've got some things to take care of, but this discussion had me wanting to get a graph with the latest data anyway. Be sure to check back.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 11:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate -change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alchemy
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 12:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Regarding fossil fuel subsidization and carbon subsidies, Elon Musk characterized the present situation according to the data from the IMF saying, "hidden carbon subsidy of $5.3 trillion per year,"

He favors a revenue neutral, gradually applied carbon tax to accelerate the shift from an economy driven by fossil fuels to one driven by sustainable energy.

I think there is a carbon tax coming in some form. It will be interesting to see how it is worked out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ducbsa
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 12:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

It is interesting that the progs call corporate income tax deductions "subsidies". That is the mindset that your money belongs to our masters in government and you get to use a portion of it if the master is feeling generous that day.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alchemy
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 01:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Not very interesting really... pick your terms freely. $5.3 trillion annually is interesting if it is accurate but that is likely global if it is from the IMF.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 02:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"Hidden" means it only exists in his mind. I've got a whole lot of respect for Mr. Musk, but I think he's smoking something on this one. The entire US budget is 4.something trillion, and it's one of the largest in the world, so 5.3 in 'hidden subsidies' (whatever those are) seems outlandish.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alchemy
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 06:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Musk seems to be taking his numbers from the IMF. They may be wrong of course or probably are wrong but I would bet it is still a jumbo pot of money worldwide.

Nothing I read indicated that this number was solely related to the US which I agree would be VERY suspect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 07:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

I don't know how much the oil companies get.

You should notice when "alt energy" companies... heck, any company, gives a politician a "donation" and then gets special protection, ( laws restricting new business ) or big contracts, ( classic bribe reward ) but that's a bit harder to figure out. I'm sure that Exxon pays it's politicians well. So did Solyndra, and so do the companies that do wind farms.

A pity, but until we can get a press that wants to bust any politician for bribe taking, and a people who care, it's the way it's going to stay.


 five day forecast
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 08:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Cute, but inaccurate. The expansion of the sun as it transitions from middle age to red giant starts in 1 billion years. The first three planets will be destroyed long before the official end of middle age in 5 billion years.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tod662
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 09:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

So can it be generally agreed "we have a energy problem" ??

And that fossil fuel companies are subsidized at way to much money? The main point of the conference is to spur innovation and get us off fossil fuels. So whats wrong with that??

Simple economics of about any school say tax something that is bad, thus a carbon tax makes sense, right? What better way to incentivize companies to do better.

Not calling anybody a republican but people like cheepereep (dont worry all names have been changed to protect the guilty) have bitched about........ so many things at the drop of a hat!! (but i had to erase a great rant I don't want to get off topic, though I already wish i would of just plopped it somewhere else.

OK back to the issue at hand. The only real evidence I have heard against man made climate change is the supposed stop of warming, it has not stopped (nobody says anything about every year being the hottest on record, or are all of today's thermometers lying?) but it has slowed recently (what is the current solar cycle??). If you have science that disputes whats below, lay it on me, but if these links are true, well there ya go.


Here is a quote from the link I added from the co2/ temperature graph that talks about the lag.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-clima te-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-t emperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-war ming/

"The ice ages show that temperature can determine CO2 as well as CO2 driving temperature. Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.
To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect. And while the rises in CO2 a few hundred years after the start of interglacials can only be explained by rising temperatures, the full extent of the temperature increases over the following 4000 years can only be explained by the rise in CO2 levels.
What is more, further back in past there are examples of warmings triggered by rises in greenhouse gases, such as the Palaeo-Eocene Thermal Maximum 55 millions years ago (see Climate myths: It’s been far warmer in the past, what’s the big deal?).
Finally, if higher temperatures lead to more CO2 and more CO2 leads to higher temperatures, why doesn’t this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature, so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat loss catches up with heat retention."





GLOBAL WARMING HAS NOT STOPPED, THE RATE HAS SLOWED. FOR NOW.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/t he-pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/14 0211-global-warming-pause-trade-winds-pacific-scie nce-climate/

http://www.rmets.org/weather-and-climate/climate/h as-global-warming-stalled


whoever keeps saying "why cant we show where the heat is going with satellites", doesn't this explain it? Its like a conveyor belt, have you guys taken this deep circulation into consideration?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circula tion
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/deep_o cean.html
http://science1.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanograph y/physical-ocean/salinity/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_current specifically the part about "Downwelling of deep water in polar regions"



"The global conveyor belt includes both surface and deep ocean currents that circulate the globe in a 1,000-year cycle. The global conveyor belt’s circulation is the result of two simultaneous processes: warm surface currents carrying less dense water away from the Equator toward the poles, and cold deep ocean currents carrying denser water away from the poles toward the Equator. The ocean’s global circulation system plays a key role in distributing heat energy, regulating weather and climate, and cycling vital nutrients and gases."




im not trying to point fingers, just pokin fun, and i did say someone "LIKE" ; )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Aesquire
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 10:33 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

(nobody says anything about every year being the hottest on record, or are all of today's thermometers lying?)

You deliberately ignore the multiple reports that the lying is taking place at NOAA & NASA. When you actually look at the DATA it shows no warming. The "adjustments" are done to make a point to make money. Pure and simple.

Read the Scientific American article I posted above. In 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was predicting that if emissions rose in a “business as usual” way, which they have done, then global average temperature would rise at the rate of about 0.3 degree Celsius per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 degree C per decade).

So, the IPCC, which is based on the idea that we are going to get warmer, says the temperatures will rise, or fall. Duh. They never mention the fall part, because it doesn't get them more money, but it is there in black and white. ( blue in this case )

Climate Data from NOAA is dishonestly manipulated. They changed the past numbers to make the current ones come out the way they wanted them to. That's fraud. I used to do statistical analysis for a living. I noticed. This isn't my first Rodeo.

cut too long rant.


(Message edited by aesquire on December 03, 2015)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 11:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)


quote:

The main point of the conference is to spur innovation and get us off fossil fuels. So whats wrong with that??




If they have lied about everything to get up to this point, why on earth would you assume their goal is to get us off fossil fuels?

The Federal Government makes more profit off of a gallon of gasoline than anyone else in the supply chain.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tod662
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 11:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

So every record keeping body in the world is lying???????

THE WHOLE WORLD IS AGAINST THE BWBT??????

Come on, look at the frequency and severity of bad weather(sic) recently, is all that been manipulated too, is it a friggin weather machine????

Show me some real info to disprove my post above, the conciseness was that the "missing" heat was the issue.

If your only argument is stumping your feet, pouting and saying "they cheated" then why have you ever thrown up any other defense.

Come on, theres some good goll damn evidence right there, dispute that. Im sure the club for growth has to have some made up cockamamie explanation for this, or are you now going to switch to the argument "its to late we cant change it" bs?

Like ive said before please explain to me the end game. OK if its all a power grab how does it work????? And how the F is it that only you and the gop see the truth, EVERY other politician in the world (pretty much) is in on the take then.


PLEASE PLEAAaase PLEASAE explain to me what ALL THE WORLDS POLITICAL LEADERS (over 140 countries and in most the opposition party to) AND ACADEMIC LEADERS (97% of climate scientists and over 90 % of most scientists) ARE GOING TO DO EXACTLY. and the oil companies to now, they are all admitting its real.

Ive put up with lotsa bs give me some real arguments against the points above

1. the 420,000 year graph shows a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature,(corilation does not equal causation but 420,000 years of data is hard to dispute) I think people have shown enough to see that as good science.

2. The location of the misplaced heat is pretty well explained by cold dense water dropping deep.

like I've said before if it was just in America ok possible manipulation. but this is pretty well everybody.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tod662
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 11:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

ok so the angle is they are faking and ...... what???

gimme some answers please

(Message edited by tod662 on December 03, 2015)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tod662
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2015 - 11:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

and um where does that money in government go????????????????

(wow my search says that gas companies probably make about the same as taxes I was sure bp was way ahead)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ducbsa
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 04:41 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"tax something that is bad" and who decides what is bad? The voters or the politicians who want more taxes to fund more staff and more opportunities for graft. Amazing how Harry Reid is so wealthy after starting from nothing and never had a job outside of government.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ducbsa
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 04:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"ok so the angle is they are faking and ...... what??? "

And... our energy bills are going up, coal industry jobs are disappearing, and subsidies are being handed to the Solyndras by borrowing and generating $19T in debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 07:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Tod, you keep screaming that no one is giving you answers. I gave you a partial answer. About a 90% answer if you understand it. Part of that answer though, is a question. Which temperature record are you talking about when you keep saying warmest years on record? It's a very important detail if you want any sort of detailed answer.

You talk of 140 or so UN countries being on board with a carbon tax. Of course they are. The answer to you question about where will the money go explain why too. Most of the UN countries will be the receivers of the tax money. It's only a very few developed countries that are going to pay. It's the classic story of two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for breakfast.

I really thought we were past the missing heat issue. I will address it later when I have more time. Meanwhile though, the ideas that a 1000 year conveyor belt suddenly moving heat from the oceans surface is ridiculous. The speed of the conveyor vs. the speed of temperature "removal" are simply at odds with each other. Furthermore, there was a clear change about 20 years ago. The conveyor theory simply fails to explain any change. Beyond that, the heat that is claimed to be in the conveyor system was never measured in the atmosphere by our daily satellite measurements. That's where the heat is missing. It was never in the atmosphere to transfer to the ocean's surface, to be moved to deep ocean water by a very slow moving ocean current so that it could hide at an incredibly slow pace.

Finally, if the UN conference is about alternate energy sources, why did they name it the "global warming" conference instead of the "alternate energy" conference? The simplest answer is that it isn't about alternate energies. It's also the correct answer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 08:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)


quote:

Come on, look at the frequency and severity of bad weather(sic) recently, is all that been manipulated too, is it a friggin weather machine????




You can find the "corrections", and it's really interesting to plot "how much the historical data was fudged" versus "how much current warming was claimed" for that same time interval.

What would you say if the "pretend historical temperatures measured must have been too high and just change them to pretend they were lower" adjustment closely tracked the "current warming" figure?

In other words, what if most of the current claimed warming was really a result of historical measurements being revised down?

What conclusion would that lead you too?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Reepicheep
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 09:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Here are a couple nice plots to consider. First, here are the reported historical temperatures for two years running. Which would be fine, but how did the temperature reported for year 1995 change between 2014 and 2015? Did someone travel back in time and warm it up?



Next, here is a comparison of a measured temperatures over time, versus the adjusted temperatures over time.



Until we reject outright actions based on poor scientific practices, we will never be able to "fix something".
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 09:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

"So every record keeping body in the world is lying???????"

They're all getting their data from the same two source. As shown above...they're fudging the numbers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alchemy
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 09:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Aesquire says,

"You deliberately ignore the multiple reports that the lying is taking place at NOAA & NASA. When you actually look at the DATA it shows no warming."

This is not supported by the larger more complete data. Sifo presented a graph which was labeled as showing no global warming in 18 yrs 3 months. The data comes from a remote sensing data collection organization RSMSS.com.

There is more data than just that specifically selected data presented by Sifo. I have asked Sifo for a different look at the data and he has agreed to produce it (I think that is correct). It has not showed up yet but I trust it will.

RSMSS provides some of the data that NASA and NOAA may use. And RSMSS is interested in and trying to understand the data they get from orbit and how it can improve the models.

I don't think RSMSS is saying that there is no evidence of global warming in their collected data.

By selecting a data group that starts with a warm year in terms of ocean temperature (a hugh El Nino event'97-'98), it affects the fitted trend of the following years.

Surely there is a lot to understand here but it would not be fair to say someone is ignoring the data when the data likely supports their position.

Again, there is a lot to understand here.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hootowl
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 09:59 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

El Ninos are a localized event. The sum of the heat in the oceans is the same in strong and weak years. It's a matter of concentration.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 11:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

There is more data than just that specifically selected data presented by Sifo. I have asked Sifo for a different look at the data and he has agreed to produce it (I think that is correct). It has not showed up yet but I trust it will.

Well... I don't have access to that exact data set. I will get what you asked for from HadCRU data and compare that to those same years from HadCRU. It's turned into a bit of a PITA. I'm still trying to figure a few things out with the current version of MS Excel I've got now. I found some files from the last time I did this. It was back in 2009. I was wanting to play with this again to answer some questions for myself anyway, so a couple of charts you asked for is not much extra. It is coming.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 11:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

BTW, HadCRU was among the first to come under fire for "adjusting" their data, and when pressed for details on what they were doing, they wound up having to admit that after the adjustments, they had deleted the original raw data. To say that I'm suspect of using their data would be correct, but it's easily available to a normal person such as myself.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Alchemy
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 11:52 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Sifo,

The 18 yr chart is listing the source as from REMSS.com and the data seems to be available there all the way back to 1979. You can look at:

http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_time_series/RSS_ Monthly_MSU_AMSU_Channel_TTT_Anomalies_Land_and_Oc ean_v03_3.txt

If you visit www.remss.com/data it is pretty easy to navigate their data.

I am not trying to make this difficult so please don't take it like that at all. I had thought you were able to do this monthly so it would be pretty easy.

I have not looked at HadCRU yet. I went straight to the data source at REMSS.

Hootowl, yes El Ninos could be looked at as localized but I think they are also related to warm water at the surface in particular. If you are looking at temperatures from orbit this warming at the surface may be more evident in data than what is happening at deeper depths.

They are doing very interesting things from orbital observations but they have to understand how looking at a column of temperature data through the various levels of the atmosphere to the ocean surface and perhaps even deeper into the water. Lots to learn about how this data works where a tenth of degree is a big change. Pretty exciting and challenging science.

But I think at the end of the day a lot of the interesting data will be found in the polar regions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 12:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Alchemy, here's what I come up with for your request. First a couple of comments. You commented that starting with a year with a known high point is not a good thing. I forget your exact wording, but I get your meaning of how it can skew the data. It can be argued either way (and is argued both ways). The chart I initially provided started in 1997 though. 1998 would have skewed it far more. The point being made by the maker of the chart though was how long of a period could be determined with no warming, not to show a minimum trend line.

My data is yearly, not monthly data. The difference should be obvious in the charted line, but the trend line is essentially the same, except that I'm not starting/ending on a month in the middle of a year. The data I'm using is HadCRUT3 data which has land and sea surface data combined.

So I charted for plots, one each starting in 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. Pay attention to the legend for the trend lines. They are out of order from the legend for the plots. A quirk in Excel that I didn't take time to work around. Being a different data set, the trend is slightly different than the chart I gabbed earlier. I'm sure Tod will jump on the warming trend shown, but I'll get to that later. It's a pretty minimal warming trend. As expected, starting in 1998 shows the least warming. Starting in 1999 show the most. The trends starting in 1997 and 2000 are actually very close.

So, let's show the chart...



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 12:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Alchemy,

No, I never thought you were trying to be difficult. Sorry if you took my comment that way. My biggest PITA is getting the data formatted so I can import it into Excel and learning to use the current version of Excel. When I worked with data professionally, the formatting was easy. I had a text editor that back then could run a macro that would do the formatting for a large data set very quickly. These days, it's a manual process for me. The REMSS data looks to be in a compressed format. I haven't looked into what I need to decompress it, much less what formatting it might need. If someone wants to do the leg work on that, I might be interested in playing with their data too. I think the HadCRU data is more than usable for these sorts of discussions though.

Regarding El Nino, years ago I read a paper that discussed that when that warm water is brought to the surface, it tends to stay there for a very long time, though it obviously dissipates over the years. The heat is still there at the surface though. The point of this paper though was that after a strong El Nino, that heat stays around for many years, and what you will see in the temperature record is a step change. Basically mostly flat before and after the step change. I think the paper was done by Tisdale. I'm sure Tod can explain how he's funded by Exxon.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Sifo
Posted on Friday, December 04, 2015 - 01:14 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Move Post (Custodian/Admin Only) Ban Poster IP (Custodian/Admin only)

Here's kind of what I was talking about with the step change around the El Nino. Probably pretty poor data selection to make the point though starting the data in 1980. The first earlier trendline will flatten out as you go back to earlier data rather than starting it very near the last ice age warnings.



« Previous Next »

Topics | Last Day | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Rules | Program Credits Administration