September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Nick
    September 27, 2013

    #90…

    If you listen to “sceptics”, ECS is below 1.5C

    And it’s taken a decade for them to “allow” even that, miserable dead weights that they are. As for rejectionists like Kaz….

  2. #2 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    So, Bileeee, OHC means nothing, surface temps have been flat or declining for 15/17 yrs and ECS is below 1.5C

    :)

  3. #3 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    So how is progress on the quiz question. This exercise in basic Physics and arithmetic seems to be taking an awfully long time for all you learned types.
    No reply yet from the great Stu-pid, you know the one who likes to brag about their alleged debunking of the work of Spencer, Christy, Lindzen etc.
    You can fone a friend if you like.

    I made it easier by pointing you in the right direction but if you dont like the info on Motls site use NASA, Wiki whatever.
    .

    Here it is again, in case you have forgotten.

    What is the ratio of OHC estimated increase for the last 40 odd years to the total OHC.

    Just an order of magnitude calculation is required to get a general idea of the ratio of the two amounts.

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    September 27, 2013

    “who likes to brag about their alleged debunking of the work of Spencer, Christy, Lindzen etc”

    Debunking their garbage isn’t hard, Rednose. It should also be telling that the denial industry has depended on the opinions of the same old scientists for years. Why are there not a huge number of young, new climate scientists joining the ranks of the deniers who are primarily made up of a veritable bunch of semi-retired old farts?

    You and Karen also rely on climate denial blogs run by embittered non-climate scientists for much of your ‘information’ if one can call it that. Anybody with half a brain wouldn’t touch these sites with a ten foot barge pole, but you consistently do.

    Gigs up Rednose. Take your stupidity elsewhere.

  5. #5 Jeff Harvey
    September 27, 2013

    Note how Karen has shied away from her/its/his PR comment. That alone was a howler of gigantic proportions, and could only be made by someone who is utterly clueless about the way in which the world works.

  6. #6 Nick
    September 27, 2013

    #2,…why I recognise that call! It’s the droning sound of the mounting of an argument from incredulity…

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013

    I just lost a whole bank of lie detectors.

    I stopped buying those years ago. On this kind of forum the mean time to failure is on the order of a couple of minutes. Even buying in bulk it was far too expensive.

  8. #8 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013

    Speaking of lie detectors failing, note how we get a new page and Karen repeats a lie that has been pointed out to her over and over, complete with several graphs (some showing even her cherry-pick of the surface temperature doesn’t support her claim).

    Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies.

  9. #9 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    Well how about you Jeff? You willing to give the question a go?
    Should be no trouble for someone who has had all these science papers published.

    As a retired old fart myself, its interesting to see how basic standards in Physics and numeracy are faring present day.
    Not too well it seems.

  10. #10 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    #2 Rednoise

    Stop asking silly diversionary questions and look at the data.

    Anything strike you about the relationship between total net forcing and OHC?

  11. #11 BBD
    September 27, 2013
  12. #12 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013
  13. #13 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Now that is bizarre. Give me a minute with the firewall.

  14. #14 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Let’s see if that helps:

    OHC vs total net forcing

  15. #15 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Nope, can’t get it to work. Which is irritating.

  16. #16 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    #8 So what’s your point? “Sceptics” asking stupid questions are tedious. Develop your argument.

  17. #17 bill
    September 27, 2013

    Now 95% confidence.

    Analysis at the ABC includes Mann and Nuccitelli.

    When 97 per cent of climate scientists agree with 95 per cent certainty that climate change is caused by humans, you can be damn sure it is.

    Quite.

    Those concerned for their stock of irony meters beware:

    In a statement, Environment Minister Greg Hunt welcomed the report and reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to meeting Australia’s 2020 emissions reduction target.

  18. #18 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    #15
    Following on with the theme that the OHC increase is due to a very small 0.065C increase in temperature, I wondered whether any here had the wit and numeracy to use basic information to compare the OHC increase with Total OHC, to get some idea of the orders of magnitude involved and put them into some sort of context, something Physicists do every day.l
    Apparently not. Does this reflect the lack of expertise of the defenders of the faith on this blog.

    I work the answer to be approximately:
    OHC increases are 2×10^-4 of total OHC
    Or the OHC increases are 2/10000 of total OHC
    Pity there seems to be no one else here capable of doing a similar calculation to check these figures.

  19. #19 Nick
    September 27, 2013

    #17…yep, there is the dumbfuck argument from incredulity. Close the door on your way out.

  20. #20 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    “Or the OHC increases are 2/10000 of total OHC”

    You can’t say that! Billions of people will die!
    Aaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrr sookie sookie cry cry ………….lol

  21. #21 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Oh FFS Rednoise. Explain the ~25 x 10^22 J increase since 1955. What caused it? We know. GHG forcing caused it. That is the relevant issue here. Once again, you are desperately trying to distract from what is important – the ongoing accumulation of energy in the climate system as a result of TOA radiative imbalance arising from increasing GHG forcing.

    What you are doing is a crude exercise in intellectual dishonesty.

  22. #22 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Fuck off Sunny!

    You stupid, pointless little bore!

  23. #23 bill
    September 27, 2013

    SunSpam, I’ve found things in my socks after a long day in the field that were smarter than you.

    And then there’s the similar level of retardation exhibited by your little Friend With Benefits, RedNoisome. Haven’t I heard this lack-of-argument before? Ah, yes, ‘let’s all plot the temperature increases against absolute zero – see, there’s nothing happening!’

    Equilibrium / disequilibrium, petal. I know it’s hard.

    The incredulity of the genetically lobotomised. Now, there’s an argument…

  24. #24 FrankD
    September 27, 2013

    I have a quiz question for David Duff. Now, some of our more recent arrivals won’t recognise that name, but I’m pretty sure Rednose is just another sock puppet, so (as with Karen-Sunspot and Boris-WhothefuckknowshesgotmorepersonasthanSybil) I really should call him by his right name.

    So David, given you have never displayed any good faith engagement here, why the hell would you think anyone would give a toss what you claim to want to know?

    Supplementary notes:
    Home viewers will note that David (probably on the strength of Jeff Id’s latest post at WTFIUWWAW), thinks he is so cleverly baiting a trap for the unwary. Will David show good faith by simply stating his case? The smart money says no, but now is David’s opportunity to prove me wrong.

    Good faith hint, David: Jeff’s maths may or may not be right (I haven’t checked), but his conclusions are barse-ackward either way. If you decide to show good faith for once, and state your case, you might want to think about that.

  25. #25 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    Explain the ~25 x 10^22 J increase since 1955

    Hardly worth the effort BBD
    let me know when it doubles or something in about 5000 years.

  26. #26 bill
    September 27, 2013

    Ignoramus, ignoramus, ignoramus.

    Complacent, addled, dumb. And arrogant to boot. If you sympathize with him, you’re just the freakin’ same.

    To think these fools have already done irreversible harm, and will only go out of their way to cause more.

  27. #27 Nick
    September 27, 2013

    #17,#19 , tiny fractions mean tiny effects in tiny minds, especially when earth system knowledge is tiny and the intention of improving it is vanishingly small. We already knew what you’d attempt Redfarce,and,incredibly,we already knew that the Karen the village idiot emeritus would drool along.

  28. #28 FrankD
    September 27, 2013

    Ahh, Mr Duff added another while I was typing. So:

    Does this reflect the lack of expertise of the defenders of the faith on this blog.

    Non sequitur and Petitio principii in the one sentence. Good job, laughing boy.

    Pity there seems to be no one else here capable of doing a similar calculation to check these figures.

    Non sequitur. Nobody was prepared to indulge your pathetic bad faith.

    I’d already done them. But here is the question for you, David.

    So what? How much increase would be required, in your opinion, before we should be concerned? State your case. Or fuck off. I couldn’t really care either way…

  29. #29 Nick
    September 27, 2013

    #24 Don’t know, don’t care know-nothings are always right. And are absolutely useless.

  30. #30 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    #24

    OHC 0 – 2000m increased by ~25 x 10^22J since 1955. Why do you think it will take 5ka to double? I think you may have a problem with your arithmetic there.

    And if it turns out you are yet another fucking sock puppetter, then fuck you for your dishonesty.

  31. #31 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    Frank D
    Without a link, your first post is confusing, though you seem to be confused yourself.
    I am not Mr Duff, though i do find his interjections amusing.

    I’d already done them.

    Easy to say.
    Still laughing
    Had no dealing with you previously but as you appear to be rather rude.
    Fuck off yourself

  32. #32 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    .HC 0 – 2000m increased by ~25 x 10^22J since 1955. Why do you think it will take 5ka to double? I think you may have a problem with your arithmetic there.

    If you agree this amount represents 0.0002 of the total, then…

  33. #33 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    On reflection BBD, there is a problem with my arithmetic. As this change took place over 50 years not 1, it should be nearer 250,000 years not 5,000. Mea Culpa

  34. #34 Lionel A
    September 27, 2013

    Aha! All this noise about Luboš ‘Reference Frame’ Motl who’s own internal reference frame, or cognitive framework, is somewhat distorted.

    Motl’s damage trail runs through Skeptical Science, Rabett Run and his own field of string theory to which this article concerning Lee Smolin’s book ‘The Trouble with Physics’ [1] opens another door.

    I have more but that would break the single post link limit.

    [1] I have this book on my shelf and have been reading it, slowly,for the second time having romped through it the first time. The book is quickly recognised by the title being ‘concitant’ on the cover.

    I have read Lisa Randall’s book ‘Knocking on Heaven’s Door’ on the LHC, as well as a number by Roger Penrose on this area of theoretical physics, but found her style repetitive and lacklustre. She, clever no doubt, could take stylistic lessons from Richard Dawkins whose books, all read more than once, grace my shelves. I am on about my fifth copy of ‘The Selfish Gene’ , no bad thing in itself as the latest has had many additions and a few revision, the others having been borrowed by my children and passed on to their friends with who has what forgotten.

  35. #35 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    As this change took place over 50 years not 1, it should be nearer 250,000 years not 5,000. Mea Culpa

    Still thrashing around in a puddle of irrelevance and intellectual dishonesty I see.

    What you ignore – or rather what you are ignorant of – is paleoclimate behaviour. You need to consider the major changes in OHC in the past that coincided with hyperthermals (the PETM being the best known, but by no means the only one). Look up ocean anoxic events. Interestingly, the hyperthermals and OAEs seem to be associated with elevated levels of CO2 and/or CH4.

    On reflection BBD, there is a problem with my arithmetic. As this change took place over 50 years not 1, it should be nearer 250,000 years not 5,000. Mea Culpa

    Don’t be a fucking tool. Under increasing forcing relative to the 1955 – 2012 period, OHC 0 – 2000m will rise by more than 25 x 10^22J in less than 57 years.

  36. #36 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    #34

    If you want the forcing increased by a factor 10, from 2.6 x10^22 to 25 x 10^22 then we are talking about 25,000 years.
    Whatever

  37. #37 Lionel A
    September 27, 2013

    Whilst the angle of recent BBC reporting ahead of the new IPCC report may puzzle some, and certainly annoy others, maybe there is a clue in this old report by Roger Harrabin, David Shukman’s colleague, Climate sceptics rally to expose ‘myth’ following a visit to a Heartland Institute shindig. Now we know where the ‘contamination’ came from.

    Last evenings report by Shukman Man-made climate change causes ‘even more certain’ which includes several attempts at emphasising ‘uncertainties’ and even brought up that old chestnut about the last IPCC report’s error with a date for melting glaciers – without describing what that error was and how it was a mere typo. That, in a word, is dishonest. It also ignores the fact that total loss of some such glaciers within the foreseeable future is going to be catastrophic, not least for those living downstream of the run off who rely upon this for their very living.

    In short the BBC is still being dishonest and cavalier about the future of civilisation. Not quite in the same ball park as those rags that RedNoise appears to feed from The Daily Fail, Torygraph, etc.

    SunKrank with your #19, you are sick, ask Boorish about his med’s, you need some too.

  38. #38 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    #36 Lionel A,
    BBD can help you out regarding the “melting glaciers” issue.

    He was also confused.

  39. #39 Lionel A
    September 27, 2013

    SunKrank @ #37

    Explain yourself.

  40. #40 Lionel A
    September 27, 2013

    Some more signal for RedNoise.

  41. #41 Harry
    September 27, 2013

    Assuming without question the benefit of having, say, Innamincka undergo something in the way of a botanical boom, and, utilising your patented technique of expressing no skepticism whatsoever over the result of any single paper whose conclusions you feel you can bend to advantage – whereas thousands of papers saying much the same thing is a travesty of science, apparently, and calls forth the most passionate of principled denunciations – please enlighten as as to: one, how eternal this situation may or may not be; two, how geographically confined; three, how we can know with confidence that the associated ongoing rise in temperatures – and perhaps declines in rainfall – cannot overwhelm any benefit, and; three, since I assume, opportunistic mealy-mouthed hand-wringing notwithstanding, you don’t give a shit about the welfare of the Eyrean Grass-wren, whether the negative implications of temperature rise for humanity as a whole may be safely assumed to have been completely overwhelmed by it?

  42. #42 Lionel A
    September 27, 2013

    It would seem that Josh and Montford have excelled themselves again, no I refuse to link to the Cardinal’s Puff piece, suffice to say that Curry has pickled herself again and quotes some hack at the BBC and…and…and…. – all the sound of desperation from these shills, Curry is really ‘out’ now, no doubt about it.

    If you really wish to link to Bishop Shill then see the Hank_ (familiar to we who have been to Desmog) reply here:

    Understanding the pre-IPCC Anti-Climate Science Misinformation Blitz.

    SunKaren and RedNoise are the spanner wielders that help the bombers get airborne. What else does that make them?

  43. #43 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    If you want the forcing increased by a factor 10, from 2.6 x10^22 to 25 x 10^22 then we are talking about 25,000 years.

    What the fuck are you on about?

  44. #44 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    And what about paleoclimate behavoir, Skippy?

  45. #45 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    #37

    He was also confused.

    I say you are a fucking liar, Sunspot.

    Disagree? Prove it by relevant quotation demonstrating exactly how I was confused, when, and were.

    Get on with it, liar.

  46. #46 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Rednoise, I have a feeling you are profoundly confused about something. Rather than waste further time on this, here is what I am thinking of when quoting the ~25 x 10^22J figure above:

    Levitus et al. (2012):

    We provide updated estimates of the change of ocean heat content and the thermosteric component of sea level change of the 0–700 and 0–2000 m layers of the World Ocean for 1955–2010. Our estimates are based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, and bathythermograph data corrected for instrumental biases. We have also used Argo data corrected by the Argo DAC if available and used uncorrected Argo data if no corrections were available at the time we downloaded the Argo data. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–2000 m layer increased by 24.0 ± 1.9 × 10^22 J (±2S.E.) corresponding to a rate of 0.39 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09°C. This warming corresponds to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 per unit area of earth’s surface. The heat content of the World Ocean for the 0–700 m layer increased by 16.7 ± 1.6 × 10^22 J corresponding to a rate of 0.27 W m−2 (per unit area of the World Ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.18°C. The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955. The 700–2000 m ocean layer accounted for approximately one-third of the warming of the 0–2000 m layer of the World Ocean. The thermosteric component of sea level trend was 0.54 ± .05 mm yr−1 for the 0–2000 m layer and 0.41 ± .04 mm yr−1 for the 0–700 m layer of the World Ocean for 1955–2010.

  47. #47 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    #41

    Your increase in OHC over 57 years is 0.0002 of the total OHC.
    So Skippy, you work out at that rate warming how long it would take to double total OHC. Can you manage that.
    Give it a go.
    Wake me up when you have done it, or its happened, whichever comes first.

  48. #48 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013

    Since Rednoise apparently thinks that the doubling of ocean heat content is somehow necessary before it raises concern, perhaps he could calculate what a doubling of heat content of the atmosphere would mean for surface temperatures. No need for a full atmospheric profile, just a very rough and simple model will do.

    I shall await his answer with bated breath…

  49. #49 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Your increase in OHC over 57 years is 0.0002 of the total OHC.

    So what? It’s the upper ocean that counts for short-term climatological effects. You are desperately wriggling and it’s not working.

    And what about paleoclimate behaviour?

  50. #50 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    I still don’t think Rednoise gets it.

    The rate of ocean heat uptake is modulating the rate of tropospheric (and so surface) temperature warming. A very slight increase in the rate of OHU has resulted in a brief slowdown in the rate of tropospheric/surface warming.

    Given that the atmospheric fraction of CO2 is increasing and given that the concomitant radiative forcing is increasing then for the so-called hiatus to continue, ocean heat uptake will have to increase continuously from now on.

    Exactly nobody thinks that can happen, so at some point fairly soon, OHU is going to fall slightly again and the strong surface warming trend will resume.

    And then there is El Nino, steadily winding up to deliver massive amounts of energy back to the atmosphere in pulses. Remember 1998? A super EN that caused step change upward in GAT. Why won’t that keep on happening as the century progresses? With a warmer ocean to tap for energy?

    This is how physical climatology works, Rednoise. You live in a world of denial and evasion enabled and underpinned by pig-ignorance of the basics.

  51. #51 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    September 27, 2013

    And so, as we few, we brave few, gather together here today on this auspicious occasion celebrating the publication of the master work of the renowned, nay, revered, railway engineer, Mr. Rajendra Pachauri. let us all form a circle, er, or a triangle as there’s only three of us, and holding hands let us chant – AS LOUD AS WE CAN in order to drown out the snorts and sniggers of the unbelievers – our famous mantra:

    Weeeee Belieeeeeeeeeve!
    Weeeee Belieeeeeeeeeve!

  52. #52 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013

    As David Duff so beautifully illustrates, it’s always projection.

  53. #53 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Weeeee Belieeeeeeeeeve!
    Weeeee Belieeeeeeeeeve!

    Sigh. Once it’s over the page it’s as if it never was… So as the deniers repeat their projections, we have to repeat the facts:

    Faith-based assertion is what deniers do, David. Science operates by hypothesis testing and falsification and any emergent scientific consensus arises only from scientific evidence and is *always* provisional.

    Science is not a faith nor a cult, nor is it opinion. In very stark contrast, what deniers do is faith-based and cultish and entirely based on scientifically unsupported opinion.

    The pseudo-sceptic discourse on sensitivity is a perfect example. The vast majority of the evidence points to a value for ECS/2xCO2 of around 3C. The lowball results so adamantly endorsed by “sceptics” are in fact rather problematic.

    These so-called observationally-derived estimates (eg Otto et al. 2013) are based on short time-series subject to large uncertainties and include significant assumptions about aerosol negative forcing which have a major influence on their results. If you listen to what actual climate scientists are saying, you quickly grasp that these results are not considered robust. If you listen to “sceptics”, ECS *is* below 1.5C. Fact. End of.

    Now that’s faith, not science.

  54. #54 chek
    September 27, 2013

    Remember 1998?

    This is the whole problem for thick-as-shit deniers paddling about in areas they have no competence or concern in.

    Redarse might like to consider that the OHC in the data I linked previously has doubled since 1998.

    Which of course means nothing to his flatulent smugness, just as it all sails over Duffer’s head with nary a ripple.

  55. #55 FrankD
    September 27, 2013

    And just like magic, when invoked, the sockless Duffster appears right on cue.

    Well, its like magic, but a naturalistic explanation is not far away. Occams razor and all that.

  56. #56 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    #53

    Yes, that was most interesting. It would be nice if the various sock puppeteers here abandoned their dishonesty and simply posted under a single screen name. As the rest of us do.

    Good faith, and all that.

  57. #57 FrankD
    September 27, 2013

    Lotharsson @46:

    Since Rednoise apparently thinks that the doubling of ocean heat content is somehow necessary before it raises concern, perhaps he could calculate what a doubling of heat content of the atmosphere would mean for surface temperatures.

    Exactly the point I anticipated Redsock missing in my #23 above. The mouthbreathers wibbling about this are all talking about it through the frame of how many degrees of atmospheric warming a given amount of ocean warming would defray. The issue is exactly the opposite. Anyone here surprised the deniers now have to look through the wrong end of the telescope to avoid seeing the problem?

  58. #58 chek
    September 27, 2013

    Just to clarify in case Redarse goes all literal on #52
    5 x 10^22J in 1998 to 10.5 x 10^22J in 2012 (0-700m OHC)
    and
    5 x 10^22J in 1998 to 16 x 10^22J in 2012 (0-2000m OHC)

  59. #59 Stu
    September 27, 2013

    As a random aside, let me pre-empt any of the resident clowns claiming that wind and solar are not viable and are too expensive. Sorry, that’s right in my wheelhouse, and you’re wrongity-fucking-wrong. I see reference buildout projections every working day, and let me tell you — the people that actually have a financial stake in this (i.e. energy companies) know which way the wind is blowing (double pun intended). Expect massive increases. The only thing that needs to happen is grid upgrades. Now if only this were a time in the world economy where a massive government investment in infrastructure would be a good idea…

  60. #60 luminous beauty
    September 27, 2013

    I would be curious if rednose has calculated what temperature the oceans would be if total OHC were doubled. My guesstimate is they would scarce exist as liquid water as total OHC is energy required to raise sea water from 0K to approx. 277K.

  61. #61 Stu
    September 27, 2013

    DON’T BOTHER ME WITH YOUR “NUMBERS”, LB!

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    September 27, 2013

    Heh, luminous beauty asks the question for the ocean that I ask for the atmosphere. (On the atmosphere I’d settle for total energy required to raise each gaseous component from its lowest temperature in gaseous state to current temperature, in order to simplify the problem a bit. And then double that amount of energy and calculate the new temperature.)

    Bet rednose doesn’t touch either question with a bargepole. The answers are going to make him look ridiculous.

  63. #63 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Everything he says makes him look ridiculous.

    Note the blanking of the teeny issue of paleoclimate behaviour, specifically hyperthermals and OAEs.

  64. #64 Boris
    September 27, 2013

    luminous beauty, what do you think would happen if OHC would quadrupled? Would sea level decrease or airborne CO2 fraction increase above 2000ppm??? Would this also have any influence on methane concentration???

  65. #65 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    Too late with the explanations and quips now LB. That little game is over. where were you when the great debunker Stu-pid needed a friend No one here at the time could provide the calculation.

  66. #66 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    Still calculating BBD?

  67. #67 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    #64

    Still not reading the thread, Rednoise?

  68. #68 Turboblocke
    September 27, 2013

    Rednose: why not ask for the total heat content of the whole Earth? Then you can make the increase in OHC look even smaller.

  69. #69 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    TB#66

    Well one could ask TB, but would anybody here be able to calculate it. Got to make the questions easier as it is.

  70. #70 Turboblocke
    September 27, 2013

    The question is what do you think you can prove? I rather think Nick nailed it in #18

  71. #71 luminous beauty
    September 27, 2013

    ,/i>I took a look at Motl’s calculations. He isn’t calculating total Ocean Heat Content at all. He is only calculating the energy to raise the average ocean temperature by 1K, i.e., Ocean Heat capacity. Doubling of which would, by definition, raise the average ocean temperature by 2K.

    My calculations indicate that, were the energy required to raise the world’s oceans by 1K added, instead, to the world’s atmosphere it would raise the average temperature of the atmosphere by something on the order of a thousand degrees Kelvin.

  72. #72 Rednose
    September 27, 2013

    #68
    Nothing. It was a little challenge which apparently no one was able to take up.

  73. #73 Lionel A
    September 27, 2013

    What units is OHC quantified in RedNoise?

  74. #74 chek
    September 27, 2013

    “It was a little challenge which apparently no one was able to interested enough [due to my previous form here] to take up”.

    Corrected that for you Redarse.

  75. #75 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    Ho hum.

    What about the boring old physical climatology? The OHC of the upper ocean determines decadal – millennial scale climate change.

    Enough deep sea red herrings already.

    See “paleoclimate: hyperthermals; ocean anoxic events”.

  76. #76 BBD
    September 27, 2013

    And #69.

    FFS

  77. #77 Karen
    September 27, 2013

    #47 ” Your increase in OHC over 57 years is 0.0002 of the total OHC.

    So what? It’s the upper ocean that counts for short-term climatological effects. You are desperately wriggling and it’s not working. ”

    this from wg1ar5
    “It is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during 2003–2010 than during 1993–2002″

    “It is about as likely as not”………………. lol….<5% confidence by the looks of it!

  78. #78 Karen
    September 28, 2013

    Oh dear me, perusing the page above indicates that you all now realize that the piddly, minute, infinitesimal, microscopical and diminutive amount of temperature rise in the ocean have will do nothing.

    Nothing !

  79. #79 Nick
    September 28, 2013

    #75,so OHC content increased 1993-2010. Thanks for catching up!

  80. #80 Nick
    September 28, 2013

    #76…well,you haven’t caught on on this point,though…baby steps. Do you need a nap?

  81. #81 Karen
    September 28, 2013

    Nickie, it looks like the new ipcc report is just a cover up of the failure for the co2 meme to manifest…

    “The Global Warming Policy Foundation is criticising the IPCC for its deliberate attempt to obscure the reality of an ongoing temperature standstill and its failure to come clean about the failure of its models.

    The IPCC has decided to discount the global warming standstill since 1997 as irrelevant and has deleted from its final document its original acknowledgement (in its 7 June draft) that climate models have failed to ’reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10-15 years.’

    Not only has the IPCC failed to predict the ongoing temperature standstill, its climate models actually predicted accelerated warming due to the increase of CO2 emissions.”

  82. #82 BBD
    September 28, 2013

    And the GWPF is what, exactly?

    On what basis does it make this claim? How many credentialled climate scientists does it bring to the table?

    FFS.

  83. #83 Nick
    September 28, 2013

    #79 “failure of the CO2 meme to manifest”….a nonsense construct, and a false claim…..yawn

    The final draft indeed deletes that line and goes for nuance, observing that some models may over-estimate response to increased GHGs and other anthro forcings. The IPCC has not discounted, implicitly or explicitly, the ‘global warming standstill’ as ‘irrelevant’….GW’PF’ fantasy. Models in 2007 predicted accelerated warming over coming decades:as that period has not run, the GW’PF’ will just have to hold its powder LOL. Fake assessment from a fake ‘policy foundation, as a matter of course.

    Of course you’re upset ,Kaz. Nap?

  84. #84 chek
    September 28, 2013

    the failure for the co2 meme to manifest…

    Blimey, what subterranean wonk thought that one up?

  85. #85 Andrew Strang
    September 28, 2013

    Frustration and despair notwithstanding, the result of a discussion with Karen could be a more polished game for his wranglers; and my understanding of AGW certainly benefits from the forthright clarity and measured responses of most contributors here. But that individual seems to be by turns deceitful, petty and intellectually gutless; without an ability for sincere human expression outside the mental constraint of his political, anger/fear shell. Can a sly old fart evolve into a gracious opponent? And isn’t it a pity Tim is no longer able to set and moderate the agenda here?

  86. #86 Robert Vincin Emission traders
    Sydney
    September 28, 2013

    From 1996-02I sat on UNCTAD UNFCCC helping set up IPCC)the goal/action then was to lower CO2e,restart the carbon cycle by replicating Nature by mass planting of that 2-6% of vegetation that sequesters CO2e (equivalent, such vegetation sequestration far more than CO2. E g Clover extracts r nitrogen from such sequestration along with a host of other elements! Albedo effect over the past 300years is the prime atmospheric heat build-up. Yes Industry has added serious gas emissions (de facto volcanoes) and yes they can capture these gases (some up 20,000 times of CO2. No report covers a well planned protocol to restart the carbon cycle back to deserts to grow soil and vegetation to not only capture CO2e but to grow food fodder and in time forestry (trees rice cotton most grains vegetables and grasses are a 100% source of CO2e and not a sink)
    So Smithsonian can under its charter lead teach and actual the lowering CO2e. The sad fact is the revolving doors of government’s attending a UN assembly is the problem cause effect and the simple solution are not applied. Under UNFCCC 98 carbon trading will fund those nation capable of lowering CO2e.Should you have time view Robert Vincin Google and wwwemissiontraders.com.au to study how we are implementing CO2e sinks growing soil food fodder into deserts and retarding albedo. God help the historians of tomorrow if we don’t all jointly restore the baseline assets of man and all living mater. The assets soil-water-vegetation-atmosphere, all else (all) are but commodities.
    Australia stands to be the CO2e sink for the develope world nation especially EU who have no way to lower CO2e. UNFCCC is a high cash flow “industry addressing every issues the government “promised to fix” jobs restore the land and create 1 million jobs. With just a fraction of lateral thinking Australia can be the global sink funded by CO2e trading and become the most famed leader of the millennium

    If you are keen to spend a short time to learn and lead in r estoring the baseline assets and your government supports climate change BAU until we have clean energy setion of lateral and me a message! Robert Vincin.

  87. #87 Karen
    September 28, 2013

    Hey Andie, thank you for the kind words, that really was so sweet :)
    Here is a little something for you honey.

    How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/how-climate-models-dismiss-role-of-sun.html

    ps. Andie, not so much of the “old” thank you :)

  88. #88 Nick
    September 28, 2013

    #84 It’s IPCC report time, so any old codswallop is recycled for your crusade, Kaz…

    <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/how-large-were-the-past-changes-in-the-sun/&quot; This discusses the Shapiro et al paper cited by your source,and puts it into perspective. Perspective notably lacking at your source.

  89. #89 Nick
    September 28, 2013
  90. #90 Lotharsson
    September 28, 2013

    How climate models dismiss the role of the Sun in climate

    Remember, Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies.

  91. #91 Jeff Harvey
    September 28, 2013

    Just after Andrew appropriately describes Karen, she reinforces his description by linking to one of the most abhorrent climate denier blogs.

    One thing you can say about deniers: they are patently STUPID.

  92. #92 Jeff Harvey
    September 28, 2013

    … and a few posts above that she quotes one of the most egregiously anti-science organizations, the GWPF.

    Grist for the mill.

  93. #93 Karen
    September 28, 2013

    #86

    Not very con Vincin, but it is interesting that you post your spam in here, these bums in here have not done anything to cut their co2 emissions, so why would they start now?

  94. #94 Karen
    September 28, 2013

    They all lost interest when the carbon markets went down the gurgler and
    took their spare cash with it…..

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    September 28, 2013

    …these bums in here have not done anything to cut their co2 emissions…

    Remember, Karen’s purpose here is to disseminate lies.

  96. #96 Karen
    September 28, 2013

    wot did you do Lothie?

  97. #97 Jeff Harvey
    September 28, 2013

    “Not very con Vincin, but it is interesting that you post your spam in here”

    Its SPAM to Karen because she’s intellectually and academically illiterate and has not got a clue about the emerging field of ecological economics. You see Vincin, Karen is the kind of person who makes up the ranks of the anti-environmental ‘denier’ amongst the general public. Essentially, most of them have no relevant educational background in anything remotely scientific, and instead base their views on their libertarian political beliefs. What is even more embarrassing is the ritual humiliation they endure when they espouse their beliefs,. only they are so patently stupid they cannot see it. Karen’s comment on the PR industry and her quip about ecosystem services being proxies for ‘farming’ are cases in point. Both comments are so patently ignorant that it is actually difficult to counter them. I would have to denigrate myself by going into a sub-benthic level of discourse. In other words, both comments reveal a completely blank slate in Karens’ brain. Hence why she is completely incapable of seeing how profoundly vacuous she is.

    Actually, Vincin’s post captures the idea of internalizing the costs of burning fossil fuels in terms of costs to the natural and material economies. As I have said many times, and most Deltoid commentators understand it perfectly well (Boris, Karen, Luke et al. notwithstanding), the ecological costs of extracting, refining, transporting and using fossil fuels are externalized. Hence they are borne on the public who have little choice but to accept them. As we already know, as a result of a range of anthropogenic processes, humans are simpifying natural systems and in turn these are rebouding on the material economy whose productivity and efficiency is underpinned by the material economy, Vincin’s approach and that of steady-state economists – Daly, Viedermann, Gowdy, Heal and many others – is feasible and at least addresses this important point. Most importantly, it acknowledges the utter dependence of human society on ecological services.

  98. #98 Jeff Harvey
    September 28, 2013

    I should have said ‘underpinned by the natural economy’. My apologies!

  99. #99 Boris
    September 28, 2013

    Lotharsson

    you have some talent as phraseologist:

    “…bla bla bla …. here is to disseminate lies”

    “… bla bla bla …. it’s always Lotharsson”

    etc.

    Why?

  100. #100 Boris
    September 28, 2013

    The IPCC reunion took place in the Brewery of Stockholm, Torkelstreet (translated to English: where ethanol addicts live) and Thomas Stocker admitted that there are still many climatology questions open and that global temperature did not rise since 15 years.