Support For The Implications Of Upwards Revisions In OHC Relative To IPCC AR5

[bluewave]

...

 

[chubbs]

"Based on high precision oxygen and CO measurements" so completely independent of temperature or other measurements.   Link to paper itself below:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8.epdf?referrer_access_token=CaC3iFrPBg-kkAuZwE4xxtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PPM6F5Tw--xUcDaVyo5KYP7_G9gTDd9jkXQCGLmYVcdiHz9wkwN0E6N2nDZlq4WDQgItGi5ylVScf0yzGnaEVfvjiMb4AD29fhh3xQR3z_DrC_cMrTVL7ZhdR6IhWWEdbaBw61pmJWfJX3nlJ6qnYm0eEGF290YDw0L29Qu1D0Zo3ti9EtUV0eTqh8Y9w5-oUx2QwN2d9ZfvrbV8VI76Jac_wGy8vU0HDJC8kZsxCODUxL-v0-LWQnBluUpq-qsDVGV_FnsfWBY3t9eDW5Z4-YAmGWsK7U9CqUBkBPZgcWuym47_1VtxT74CJE_Bl65D2JD9IkLxfX80W9RBKrmEExeZfoxsqBGM592131t1to5g%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.washingtonpost.com

[ORH_wxman]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html

 

[Typhoon Tip]

It's annoying... just how eroded the trustworthiness of the Internet has become.

You know, it more than merely seems, the early Internet days were awesome... So much so that people didn't dare douching it down with their agenda - that level of brazen corruption was probably as much requiring time to evolve, as it might have been predictable to occur, too. And here we are.  You could trust a information you read circa 1998 on the web, much more so than now...It's like the corrupters have put us back to dark pre-Internet days. By submerging the Internet in falsity ...it defeats the purpose almost entirely.

And it's in here, too... You come in here, ...someone puts up an excerpt and/or linkage to some interesting paper, and UP!  immediately... we got to wade through counter-point rangles that are less like science and more like "I hate GW and therefore need to dig up anything," in order to abase.  Meanwhile, only obfuscating fact and truth that much more...because the real sufferer is that the counter-point! It may in fact be entirely valid. ..either way.

And that, right there, is the particularly egregious annoyance: The general populate/consumer/user doesn't have the time. Science is supposed to purpose truth; the Internet invents a new science, to prove there is actually science .   Vet the vetters?  give us a f'n break with the Internet.  Waste of goddamn time!  It may be that the back-and-forth between the Princeton scientists and this mathematician is entirely useful, but the aforementioned gripe ... it's probably indirectly related to sloppy publication practices/immorality of the same ilk. 

Meanwhile, real truth gets bought and sold, both figuratively and literally, behind the scenes...  It's like the whole specter of informatica becomes a plied distraction while those transactions conveying cogency are being carried out between sources, ...and we aren't really part of this latter consortium. 

Oh, we'll get the truth...when our crops fail... the ocean overtakes Washington D.C., Boston, Miami... the Philippines ...  Or not... we'll never know, we'll we!?    

 

[ORH_wxman]

The link isn't meant to muddy the waters with misinformation. It is legitimately a pretty serious error in the paper that the authors have issued a correction for. 

Peer review should still stand for something...we shouldn't ignore the errors even if doing so would be a means to an end in a justifiable cause. 

[Typhoon Tip]

17 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

The link isn't meant to muddy the waters with misinformation. It is legitimately a pretty serious error in the paper that the authors have issued a correction for. 

Peer review should still stand for something...we shouldn't ignore the errors even if doing so would be a means to an end in a justifiable cause. 

No... if your responding to my comments ...my gripe is focused on the general erosion of usefulness of the "information" ... and Internet.

Like i said, the correspondence between Princeton and this other guy may be entirely useful/necessary, but ... why are we here, yet again. I also noted, that the "standards" of review and release is also eroded, as being indirectly part of that.    

It almost seems the internet needs to be partitioned ... gates where one enters vetted, vs the rest of it as caveat emptor.  It's kinda sorta like that?  but ...by and large, it is not.. and it almost is creating a secondary cultural movement toward breakdown in trust in anything ( I might add... different rant heh) .  Dark and deceptive...

[snowlover91]

26 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

It's annoying... just how eroded the trustworthiness of the Internet has become.

You know, it more than merely seems, the early Internet days were awesome... So much so that people didn't dare douching it down with their agenda - that level of brazen corruption was probably as much requiring time to evolve, as it might have been predictable to occur, too. And here we are.  You could trust a information you read circa 1998 on the web, much more so than now...It's like the corrupters have put us back to dark pre-Internet days. By submerging the Internet in falsity ...it defeats the purpose almost entirely.

And it's in here, too... You come in here, ...someone puts up an excerpt and/or linkage to some interesting paper, and UP!  immediately... we got to wade through counter-point rangles that are less like science and more like "I hate GW and therefore need to dig up anything," in order to abase.  Meanwhile, only obfuscating fact and truth that much more...because the real sufferer is that the counter-point! It may in fact be entirely valid. ..either way.

And that, right there, is the particularly egregious annoyance: The general populate/consumer/user doesn't have the time. Science is supposed to purpose truth; the Internet invents a new science, to prove there is actually science .   Vet the vetters?  give us a f'n break with the Internet.  Waste of goddamn time!  It may be that the back-and-forth between the Princeton scientists and this mathematician is entirely useful, but the aforementioned gripe ... it's probably indirectly related to sloppy publication practices/immorality of the same ilk. 

Meanwhile, real truth gets bought and sold, both figuratively and literally, behind the scenes...  It's like the whole specter of informatica becomes a plied distraction while those transactions conveying cogency are being carried out between sources, ...and we aren't really part of this latter consortium. 

Oh, we'll get the truth...when our crops fail... the ocean overtakes Washington D.C., Boston, Miami... the Philippines ...  Or not... we'll never know, we'll we!?    

 

You should read the link first. The authors of the paper made a VERY bad mistake that was discovered by Nic Lewis and the lead authors acknowledged as such. See below from the article.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

[Typhoon Tip]

5 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

You should read the link first. The authors of the paper made a VERY bad mistake that was discovered by Nic Lewis and the lead authors acknowledged as such. See below from the article.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

irrelevant to my points. 

Like I just pointed out to Will... the issue taken is with the uselessness of the web in the first place. I'm not vetting the Princeton scientists or the the counter-point. The standards for review and release are eroded almost as badly as people brazen immorality to use the web for their own agenda... 

But, it is what it is... 

[ORH_wxman]

3 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

No... if your responding to my comments ...my gripe is focused on the general erosion of usefulness of the "information" ... and Internet.

Like i said, the correspondence between Princeton and this other guy may be entirely useful/necessary, but ... why are we here, yet again. I also noted, that the "standards" of review and release is also eroded, as being indirectly part of that.    

It almost seems the internet needs to be partitioned ... gates where one enters vetted, vs the rest of it as caveat emptor.  It's kinda sorta like that?  but ...by and large, it is not.. and it almost is creating a secondary cultural movement toward breakdown in trust in anything ( I might add... different rant heh) .  Dark and deceptive...

I definitely agree the internet in general is filled with garbage and misinformation. In this case however, it was a peer reviewed paper in Nature. Not exactly a fringe journal. I'm not sure if this is evidence of a more lax peer review process though. I haven't heard of a lot of issues recently with Nature and their papers. This particular case is pretty bad though since it was caught so quickly by Nic Lewis who has posted peer review papers of his own on climate sensitivity. 

[snowlover91]

Just now, Typhoon Tip said:

irrelevant to my points. 

Like I just pointed out to Will... the issue taken is with the uselessness of the web in the first place. I'm not vetting the Princeton scientists or the the counter-point. The standards for review and release are eroded almost as badly as people brazen immorality to use the web for their own agenda... 

But, it is what it is... 

There's nothing to be vetted here. It's simply the original paper made a serious mistake that was missed by Nature and then subsequently noticed by Nic Lewis. The researchers admitted it and fixed the problem. Things like this can happen even in the peer review process, it would be another story if this was consistently happening with Nature but I haven't seen that to be the case thus far.

[Typhoon Tip]

26 minutes ago, snowlover91 said:

There's nothing to be vetted here. It's simply the original paper made a serious mistake that was missed by Nature and then subsequently noticed by Nic Lewis. The researchers admitted it and fixed the problem. Things like this can happen even in the peer review process, it would be another story if this was consistently happening with Nature but I haven't seen that to be the case thus far.

Yeah...I just used the entire cinema of that to launch a diatribe... 

I wasn't frankly very interested in reading much further into Bluewave's original post as the content seemed theoreticaly dubious out of the gate. Considering the specific heat of water is several orders of magnitude greater than free Terran atmosphere, I stopped ... heh.  For obvious reason at 60% of one's eyeballs popped out of head.  Then, I saw Will's newspaper article from some ' Tribune' I never heard of and lost patience with the whole thing.  

You're probably right - but, it escaped me because it didn't matter. I wanted to bitch ahaha

[bdgwx]

Yeah, I mean claiming that the IPCC underestimated ocean warming by 60% is a pretty extraordinary claim especially considering that the ocean's account for 90% of the warming. 60% of 90% is a huge discrepancy considering the consensus on the total heat uptake by the planet is confined to a pretty narrow range of possible values already. Typically when you have a result that is an extreme outlier like this you make every attempt to eliminate any possible mistake on your part first. This is especially true when you have a new technique that you're trying out for the first time like was the case with this particular publication. Like Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I'd also like to make the point that this isn't a failure of the scientific process in any way. Peer review is a layered process. The smoke test happens at publication time when a only a smaller number of reviewers weigh in. It's a good first step that works well to vet out egregious mistakes and fraud. But, it's not fool proof. The real peer review process happens after the research is formally published and made public to the broader scientific community. The fact that this mistake was caught within 7 days of publication is a testament to the effectiveness of the process and the consensus building steps.

And of course, this particular mistake in no way refutes the abundance of evidence their clearly and decisively shows that the oceans are warming at an incredibly rapid pace. 

Finally, I commend the authors for finding a novel technique that has never been tried before for quantifying ocean warming. I hope they continue their research and refine and improve upon their method.

[Typhoon Tip]

21 minutes ago, bdgwx said:

Yeah, I mean claiming that the IPCC underestimated ocean warming by 60% is a pretty extraordinary claim especially considering that the ocean's account for 90% of the warming. 60% of 90% is a huge discrepancy considering the consensus on the total heat uptake by the planet is confined to a pretty narrow range of possible values already. Typically when you have a result that is an extreme outlier like this you make every attempt to eliminate any possible mistake on your part first. This is especially true when you have a new technique that you're trying out for the first time like was the case with this particular publication. Like Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I'd also like to make the point that this isn't a failure of the scientific process in any way. Peer review is a layered process. The smoke test happens at publication time when a only a smaller number of reviewers weigh in. It's a good first step that works well to vet out egregious mistakes and fraud. But, it's not fool proof. The real peer review process happens after the research is formally published and made public to the broader scientific community. The fact that this mistake was caught within 7 days of publication is a testament to the effectiveness of the process and the consensus building steps.

And of course, this particular mistake in no way refutes the abundance of evidence their clearly and decisively shows that the oceans are warming at an incredibly rapid pace. 

Finally, I commend the authors for finding a novel technique that has never been tried before for quantifying ocean warming. I hope they continue their research and refine and improve upon their method.

Nnn no.. science evaluation of others by accredited officials in/or of the same discipline is supposed to happen prior to a paper describing the work is then published/journaled.  That's the standard refereeing intent.  Your word choice is stating things backward?  

Bet that as it may ... even if it just sort of "got lucky" (or unlucky) in that it slipped through the cracks in the process -... okay.  But, there is definitely a tendency to "rush" these studies out now. That part is pretty clear as a cultural modality. The fact that the entire publication industry did not benefit by the proficiency of the modern Internet, ...in previous generation, it is not a huge intuitive leap to see how that may have actually helped prevent spurious releases of inflated results. To put it nicely... 

Interesting.  It's as much a sociological concern...

[bdgwx]

4 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Nnn no.. science evaluation of others by accredited officials in/or of the same discipline is supposed to happen prior to a paper describing the work is then published/journaled.  That's the standard refereeing intent.  Your word choice is stating things backward?  

Hmm...something may have gotten lost in translation. The mistake is probably on my end for not articulating the point very well or perhaps using the word "real" when I should have used a more appropriate term like "ultimate". At any rate this is not at all what I meant. And I'm not for a minute confusing the coined term "peer review" which is the step of vetting research prior to publication. My point is that reviewing research for correctness doesn't end once it's published. The ultimate review happens after publication when everyone gets to weigh in; not just a select few. The mistake that slipped through the cracks here isn't proof that the broader process is fundamentally flawed. Should the mistake have been caught by the peer review process prior to publication? Absolutely. Does this mean we should stop trusting the process? Nope.

[Typhoon Tip]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

Hmm...something may have gotten lost in translation. The mistake is probably on my end for not articulating the point very well or perhaps using the word "real" when I should have used a more appropriate term like "ultimate". At any rate this is not at all what I meant. And I'm not for a minute confusing the coined term "peer review" which is the step of vetting research prior to publication. My point is that reviewing research for correctness doesn't end once it's published. The ultimate review happens after publication when everyone gets to weigh in; not just a select few. The mistake that slipped through the cracks here isn't proof that the broader process is fundamentally flawed. Should the mistake have been caught by the peer review process prior to publication? Absolutely. Does this mean we should stop trusting the process? Nope.

yeah all that..  'cept you said, "The real peer review process happens after the research is formally published..." 

no comment - 

my original sentiments were around not trusting the Internet sources.  To that ...the sentiment is hugely justified.  everything is dragging the discourse into a direction I didn't even wanna go. 

[bdgwx]

18 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

my original sentiments were around not trusting the Internet sources.  To that ...the sentiment is hugely justified.  everything is dragging the discourse into a direction I didn't even wanna go. 

Sorry about that. My post wasn't meant to be critical of you. Actually it wasn't even in response to anything you said at all. My post was in response to what I'm seeing in these "internet sources" going crazy right now saying the entire process of publishing in peer reviewed forums is corrupted and broken beyond repair and that everything science produces is now tainted all because of this one mistake. I'm even seeing claims that this mistake proves the oceans aren't even warming at all. So yeah, these "internet sources" are a huge problem right now. This incident is proof that science is self correcting despite the bumps and bruises that happen along the way.

Anyway, back on topic. I still think their method is a pretty cool idea. Though I concede I don't really fully understand it. I read the paper and I have to be honest, that was pretty thick stuff. And from what I understand of the mistake it wasn't with the technique per se. It was with the statistical math used to put error bars around their result. The result itself wasn't really challenged. Though, having larger error bars certainly lowers the confidence of said result. I just thought it was cool that a novel technique which, and despite it having large margins of error, is still consistent (at least broadly speaking that is) with the consensus that the ocean is warming rapidly right now.

[bluewave]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

Resplandy et al. correction and response

Filed under: 

• Carbon cycle
•  
• Climate Science
•  
• Instrumental Record
•  
• Oceans

 — group @ 14 November 2018 

 

Guest commentary from Ralph Keeling (UCSD)

I, with the other co-authors of Resplandy et al (2018), want to address two problems that came to our attention since publication of our paper in Nature last week. These problems do not invalidate the methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based, but they do influence the mean rate of warming we infer, and more importantly, the uncertainties of that calculation. 

 

We would like to thank Nicholas Lewis for first bringing an apparent anomaly in the trend calculation to our attention. We quickly realized that our calculations incorrectly treated systematic errors in the O₂ measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. This led to under-reporting of the overall uncertainty and also caused the ocean heat uptake to be shifted high through the application of a weighted least squares fit. In addition, we realized that the uncertainties in the assumption of a constant land O₂:C exchange ratio of 1.1 in the calculation of the “atmospheric potential oxygen” (APO) trend had not been propagated through to the final trend.

As the researcher in charge of the O₂ measurements, I accept responsibility for these oversights, because it was my role to ensure that details of the measurements were correctly understood and taken up by coauthors. 

We have now reworked our calculations and have submitted a correction to the journal. 

Details

In our definition ΔAPO, we used a default value of 1.1 for O₂:C oxidative ratio (OR) of land carbon. However, a lower ratio is probably more appropriate. Specifically, Randerson et al. (2006) argued for a ratio of around 1.05, based on the composition of stems and wood, given that woody biomass dominates long­term carbon sources and sinks on land. Other recent studies have suggested similar ratios e.g. Clay and Worrall (2015). Our previous calculations did, in fact, allow for a range from 1.05 ± 0.05, consistent with above estimates and typical uncertainty ranges. However, we applied this range only for the ΔAPO_Climate­ to­ ΔOHC ratio but neglected the impact on the APO budget itself, which used a fixed ratio of 1.1. If the actual OR were lower than 1.1, the observed APO decrease (ΔAPO_OBS) would include a contribution from the global land carbon sink, because the ΔO2 term then imperfectly cancels the 1.1 ΔCO2 term. 

In the updated calculations we now also allow apply the OR range (1.05 ± 0.05) to the APO calculation which by itself increases the APO_Climate trend by 0.15 ± 0.15 per meg/y­r relative to an estimate using 1.1.

Bottom Line

We recomputed the ΔAPO_Climate trend and its uncertainty based on the distribution of the unweighted least square fits to each of the 10⁶ ensemble realizations of ΔAPO_Climate generated by combining all sources of uncertainty, with correlated errors now treated as systematic contributions to the trend. The resulting trend in ΔAPO_Climate is 1.05 ± 0.62 per meg/y­r (previously 1.16 ± 0.18 per meg/yr) which yields a ΔOHC trend of 1.21 ± 0.72 x 10²² J/yr (previously 1.33 ± 0.20 x 10²²J/yr), as summarized in the updated Figure 1:

 

 

The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity or carbon budgets based on the APO method alone, but they still lend support for the implications of the recent upwards revisions in OHC relative to IPCC AR5 based on hydrographic and Argo measurements.

References

[bdgwx]

So in a nutshell it from 1.33e22±0.20 j/yr to 1.21e22±0.72 j/yr. The result did actually change some, but the biggest change was with the margin of error.

Assuming I did the math right 1.21e22±0.72 j/yr gives us 0.75±0.45 W/m^2 over the entire Earth. Normalized to the surface area of the ocean only this would yield 1.05±0.63 W/m^2.

The IPCC estimated that the ocean took up 0.55 W/m^2 (ocean area only) from 1971 to 2010. [IPCC AR5 ch. 3, pg. 264]

The IPCC estimated that the ocean took up 0.71 W/m^2 (ocean area only) from 1993 to 2010. [IPCC AR5 ch. 3, pg. 264]

 

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, bdgwx said:

So in a nutshell it from 1.33e22±0.20 j/yr to 1.21e22±0.72 j/yr. The result did actually change some, but the biggest change was with the margin of error.

Assuming I did the math right 1.21e22±0.72 j/yr gives us 0.75±0.45 W/m^2 over the entire Earth. Normalized to the surface area of the ocean only this would yield 1.05±0.63 W/m^2.

The IPPC estimated that the ocean took up 0.55 W/m^2 (ocean area only) from 1971 to 2010. [IPCC AR5 ch. 3, pg. 264]

The IPCC estimated that the ocean took up 0.71 W/m^2 (ocean area only) from 1993 to 2010. [IPCC AR5 ch. 3, pg. 264]

 

A linear trend through the ARGO float data gives 1.05e22 j per year increase for the 0 to 2000m layer. Deeper waters below 2000m add another 10%. So there is good agreement, albeit with large scatter in the corrected Resplandy et. al.  estimate.

[Typhoon Tip]

13 hours ago, bdgwx said:

So in a nutshell it from 1.33e22±0.20 j/yr to 1.21e22±0.72 j/yr. The result did actually change some, but the biggest change was with the margin of error.

Assuming I did the math right 1.21e22±0.72 j/yr gives us 0.75±0.45 W/m^2 over the entire Earth. Normalized to the surface area of the ocean only this would yield 1.05±0.63 W/m^2.

The IPCC estimated that the ocean took up 0.55 W/m^2 (ocean area only) from 1971 to 2010. [IPCC AR5 ch. 3, pg. 264]

The IPCC estimated that the ocean took up 0.71 W/m^2 (ocean area only) from 1993 to 2010. [IPCC AR5 ch. 3, pg. 264]

 

Risking getting involved in this further ... (  ) ..

j/k, but I think the importance of this study is at risk being lost in the din of discrediting ... notwithstanding the veracity of the discredit effort.  I repeat:  not challenging that veracity!  

Focus and attentions spans are exceedingly brief in this day and age, and getting briefer.  Our lives are inundated with so much data, too much so there is no means to organize/vet it appropriately (as a plaguing problem actually). Thus, consequentially people tend to see a headline, ...if they read or even catch a zephyr that there may be a contrarian disputation, they move on.  ... They may even be at that social gathering at some later time, and have the audacity to those glimpses into, "...I was just reading that's bull crap..."  Heads nod in reply, "Yeah...there's soo much fake news."   Virtue ... lost.    

This is a situation in dire need of not moving on. 

And that's directed toward every consumer soul on the planet, save those that are truly, purely preindustrialized ...  As individuals, we change our demand around an awareness scope, the integral takes care of its self   ...not you personally - I mean the royal you.  

Anyway, the atmosphere is heating up... The oceans (intuitively) would gain energy in the coupled state, as you and other's are posting data to point that out.  Since that is the case, that is a bad bad place to play games.  You/we ..the world is poking at a sleeping demon of global power, and everything we covet as a species,...possibly including our very existence, requires(ed) the worst of that monster remain just a snore.  It's not a very difficult science fiction novel to imagine crossing a thermalcline threshold of no return until the entire biosphere is vanquished in lieu of a fresh, scrubbed slate to make a final go... before the sun increases luminosity in all wave-lengths by another 10% and effectively closes the final chapter on Earth as a life creator.   ...talking the next billion years of course, so much fantastically incomprehensible time that it really comes down to whether we want our species to last sooner or later. 

 

 

[chubbs]

38 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Risking getting involved in this further ... (  ) ..

j/k, but I think the importance of this study is at risk being lost in the din of discrediting ... notwithstanding the veracity of the discredit effort.  I repeat:  not challenging that veracity!  

Focus and attentions spans are exceedingly brief in this day and age, and getting briefer.  Our lives are inundated with so much data, too much so there is no means to organize/vet it appropriately (as a plaguing problem actually). Thus, consequentially people tend to see a headline, ...if they read or even catch a zephyr that there may be a contrarian disputation, they move on.  ... They may even be at that social gathering at some later time, and have the audacity to those glimpses into, "...I was just reading that's bull crap..."  Heads nod in reply, "Yeah...there's soo much fake news."   Virtue ... lost.    

This is a situation in dire need of not moving on. 

And that's directed toward every consumer soul on the planet, save those that are truly, purely preindustrialized ...  As individuals, we change our demand around an awareness scope, the integral takes care of its self   ...not you personally - I mean the royal you.  

Anyway, the atmosphere is heating up... The oceans (intuitively) would gain energy in the coupled state, as you and other's are posting data to point that out.  Since that is the case, that is a bad bad place to play games.  You/we ..the world is poking at a sleeping demon of global power, and everything we covet as a species,...possibly including our very existence, requires(ed) the worst of that monster remain just a snore.  It's not a very difficult science fiction novel to imagine crossing a thermalcline threshold of no return until the entire biosphere is vanquished in lieu of a fresh, scrubbed slate to make a final go... before the sun increases luminosity in all wave-lengths by another 10% and effectively closes the final chapter on Earth as a life creator.   ...talking the next billion years of course, so much fantastically incomprehensible time that it really comes down to whether we want our species to last sooner or later. 

 

 

Ocean heat content is a big deal because it is a measure of the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. 0.7 W/m2 in the ocean, plus the energy used to heat the atmosphere and melt ice, indicates that the current heat imbalance is around 0.8 w/m2.  That is roughly 20% of a CO2 doubling. CO2 has increased almost 50% from 280 to 410 ppm, but it hasn't been fully felt yet, because it takes a long time to heat up the ocean. Due to the ocean lag are still in a <350 ppm climate world, close to Hanson's safe level, still in the outer edge of the Holocene. In the next 20-30 years though, we will be in a 400 ppm world, through the Eemian, and into Pliocene conditions.

[Typhoon Tip]

57 minutes ago, chubbs said:

Ocean heat content is a big deal because it is a measure of the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. 0.7 W/m2 in the ocean, plus the energy used to heat the atmosphere and melt ice, indicates that the current heat imbalance is around 0.8 w/m2.  That is roughly 20% of a CO2 doubling. CO2 has increased almost 50% from 280 to 410 ppm, but it hasn't been fully felt yet, because it takes a long time to heat up the ocean. Due to the ocean lag are still in a <350 ppm climate world, close to Hanson's safe level, still in the outer edge of the Holocene. In the next 20-30 years though, we will be in a 400 ppm world, through the Eemian, and into Pliocene conditions.

Yet another in a panoply of examples of how Human activities (if it is indeed because of Human activities... but saneness knows the truth...) is OUTPACING the background capacity of the planetary, both bio to geologic processes and back, ability to compensate.  

Hence the poking of the sleeping monster metaphor.  Not that you don't get that but... waking that demon up is when these surpluses begin instructing a new paradigm - that is probably the greatest gamble in Human history as to what the paradigm will include.

Personal rant: I mean it's like...  denying Human kind as causal, forget that layer of the problem for a moment. How exactly is that a reason not to act?  That's the whopper logical flaw in the denier side of that argument that the scientist and/or activists fail miserably to point out.  

The truth is, they don't want to act, first.  Not healthy skepticism - what's going on now, by and large, is a ruse of the latter. The simple truth is denier's have a faux luxury of GW being invisible to their every day life, such that is easy to choose not admitting to the crisis, over the despair of the reality.  Obviously, because they have special interest (...usually economically...) that are ultimately going to be adversely effected if they do.  It's not complicated - so they and lobbyist and basically self-centered ilk ...they ferret any plausible deniability ...which protects those interests, because they do not see/sense any imminent consequence.  It's not just an empirical crisis - it's a sociological/psychological one!

I have close friends in the doctoral circuits of higher education, in atmospheric sciences, and in social sciences, and THAT is the daunting fear they discuss at their meetings.  And it leads to one inexorable conclusion: there has to be a holocaust before people admit to the problem. 

In a lot of ways...it is really akin to suspension of disbelieve --> living in illusory bubble is being enabled, by the lack of sensible impact in everyday life. 

[chubbs]

1 hour ago, Typhoon Tip said:

Yet another in a panoply of examples of how Human activities (if it is indeed because of Human activities... but saneness knows the truth...) is OUTPACING the background capacity of the planetary, both bio to geologic processes and back, ability to compensate.  

Hence the poking of the sleeping monster metaphor.  Not that you don't get that but... waking that demon up is when these surpluses begin instructing a new paradigm - that is probably the greatest gamble in Human history as to what the paradigm will include.

Personal rant: I mean it's like...  denying Human kind as causal, forget that layer of the problem for a moment. How exactly is that a reason not to act?  That's the whopper logical flaw in the denier side of that argument that the scientist and/or activists fail miserably to point out.  

The truth is, they don't want to act, first.  Not healthy skepticism - what's going on now, by and large, is a ruse of the latter. The simple truth is denier's have a faux luxury of GW being invisible to their every day life, such that is easy to choose not admitting to the crisis, over the despair of the reality.  Obviously, because they have special interest (...usually economically...) that are ultimately going to be adversely effected if they do.  It's not complicated - so they and lobbyist and basically self-centered ilk ...they ferret any plausible deniability ...which protects those interests, because they do not see/sense any imminent consequence.  It's not just an empirical crisis - it's a sociological/psychological one!

I have close friends in the doctoral circuits of higher education, in atmospheric sciences, and in social sciences, and THAT is the daunting fear they discuss at their meetings.  And it leads to one inexorable conclusion: there has to be a holocaust before people admit to the problem. 

In a lot of ways...it is really akin to suspension of disbelieve --> living in illusory bubble is being enabled, by the lack of sensible impact in everyday life. 

As someone with fair skin, its a little like skin cancer. Very slow. No day-to-day changes. Easy to ignore, pretend its not there. Finally you get tired of your wife bugging you to see the doctor. Funny though there is a sense of relief after the diagnosis is finally taken onboard and the treatment begun. Wonder if that will be the case with climate change.

[bdgwx]

I think the inertia lag that creates the difference between transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate response (ECR) is due to the heat flux process between the atmosphere and ocean. TCR and ECR are measures of atmosphere warming...I think. The idea being that the radiative forcing, whatever it may be, is fully incorporated into one of the heat storage mediums in the geosphere immediately. Afterall, it has to go somewhere. The ocean is what takes it up immediately. This creates an imbalance in the temperature between the ocean and the atmosphere. That imbalance takes 20-40 years to equilibriate once the radiative forcing returns to 0. The ECR-to-TCR ratio is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.2 and 1.4 depending on who you ask. This is why 1.0C of warming in the atmosphere means that we are likely already committed to 1.2C (at least) of warming even if all CO2 emissions cease immediately.

The radiative forcing of CO2 should be about 5.35 * ln(410/280) = 2.0 W/m2 right now. However, it isn't constant. Integrating the period of the study in question here from 1991 to 2016 (which is 355 ppm to 404 ppm) gives us a mean radiative forcing of 1.6 W/m2. However, there are other radiative forcing agents in play including other GHGs, aerosols, etc. I think (though I'm prepared to be wrong about this) that all of the non-CO2 forcing agents tend to net out to 0. Sure, there is CH4 and other GHGs to consider but aerosol cooling offsets these...mostly...I think. I guess this is kind of convenient that it works out this way. Trying to infer values from IPCC AR5 the net effect they estimate (after my inference is applied) from 1991 to 2016 looks to be around 1.6 W/m2 total which is right at what the CO2-only forcing is. So even if this study backed by the ARGO data are to be believed we're still missing about 0.7 W/m2 or so of forcing to fill the gap to 1.6 W/m2. I think Pinatubo 1991 can explain some of the difference. And there were I think 15 or so VEI 4+ eruptions during this period which likely played a role at offsetting a lot of the CO2 effect. And I have a suspicion that the severely underestimated Arctic ice melt took up a lot more than expected as well due to the stupidly high enthalapy of fusion (334 j/g) vs the specific heat capacity of oceans (4 j/g).  If someone has an updated breakdown of where the radiative forcing went that would really help me personally. I'll see if I dig some of this information up.

[Vice-Regent]

On 11/27/2018 at 11:26 AM, snowlover91 said:

You should read the link first. The authors of the paper made a VERY bad mistake that was discovered by Nic Lewis and the lead authors acknowledged as such. See below from the article.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

There is no way of quantifying the amount of heat in the deep ocean and it matters alot. Deep ocean warming substantially affects the rate of sea level rise. This doesn't change anything if anything creates more concern that we don't know or understand ocean heat transport.

[Typhoon Tip]

Really ... regardless of all protestation ... or the veracity of those, the over-arcing plot facet of the Global Warming novel being written over the last ....

           (really, discrete science would argue it began prior even to the Industrial Revolution)

   ... hundred years is that Humanity has become a real geological force.  A Terra-forming one, and of paramount importance - quite plausibly dire consequence - unintentionally. 

Stands to reason.. If it was intentional, the 'enforcer' might actually have some idea how whatever it is they are doing is going to actually force the result they want. Philosophically, the goal of Humanity, for any species in the survival vs favorable adaptation model for that matter, has always been to transfer the survival proxy from nature into its own control.  Human kind has done remarkable things to that end ... unfortunately, to their chagrin, not free of taxation to the grander holism.  "Gaia" 

It is true that there are forces in nature that are capable of driving evolutionary changes ... other than those purportedly of Human design-leading causalities. 

I don't know how/why that logically justifies continuing along a harmful course, though. Particularly, if/when there is plausibility for harm; if/and when evidence begins to even argue the course is the cause for said harm. In either case, you stop, until you prove you are not the problem. 

It doesn't logically justify ... period.  Either doing the act, or not compensating when there is power to help at one's disposal  ... both arrive one to the same result.   

That is the fundamental flaw in the "idiocracy's" mantra of defenses (deniers) that it's not Human activity; Oh, these are natural cycles. 

Moreover, Humanity is part of nature - we are therefore very much a natural cycle that is destroying ... Humanity.  Along with the Extinction Event that's golly gee wow, really happening.  Some times it really is okay to actually call someone names, because there can be no constructive definition for that degree of moronic absurdity...  Other than to assume, we must be slated for a Darwinian end-game.