Ocean Warming Fearmongering Based on "Math Error." AGW Again Reeks of Hoax

a reply to: Phage

To repeat myself:

BTW Phage, where on your graph is the man made global warming? Lol.

Here is your graph again



P

a reply to: pheonix358


The source of that data, Greenland ice cores, goes up to 1855. It does a good job of showing that temperatures had not been rising for the past 12,000 years, as you claim.


But it's warmed up since then. Quite a lot. Even in Greenland.

www.skepticalscience.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358


The source of that data, Greenland ice cores, goes up to 1855. It does a good job of showing that temperatures have not been rising for the past 12,000 years.


But it's warmed up since then. Quite a lot. Even in Greenland.

www.skepticalscience.com...

I quoted your graph for posterity.

Claiming we caused the warming on that graph is just laughable.

Oh, and that is Greenland just as mine is Antarctica.

Neither is good at guessing what is happening to other areas of the planet.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Claiming we caused the warming on that graph is just laughable.

Laugh away. Or you could learn something.

Neither is good at guessing what is happening to other areas of the planet.

And yet, you posted it. Even though it disputes your claim. But there are other proxies.

a reply to: Phage

Well kiddies, I know the graph goes up and down like an out of control missile, but see that tiny, tiny spike at the end? Apparently we caused that! Who would of thunk! Eh!

I wonder if the Dinosaurs caused some of the other massive spikes ... or well ... you know ... perhaps it was Dragons or Pixies ... or ... Magic

Just because I love using humor to teach, listen to an Aussie Girlie, GG she can sing.


P

a reply to: pheonix358

It's not magic.

It's increased radiative forcing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358


The source of that data, Greenland ice cores, goes up to 1855. It does a good job of showing that temperatures had not been rising for the past 12,000 years, as you claim.


But it's warmed up since then. Quite a lot. Even in Greenland.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Your graph shows 1/2 degree C increase in temp since 1855... Does not look like quite a lot to me ? Maybe my eye sight is not to good today ?

youtu.be...


The only entities doing the cherry picking and caught time after time are the global warming alarmist youtu.be...

a reply to: 727Sky


a reply to: 727Sky

Your graph shows 1/2 degree C increase in temp since 1855... Does not look like quite a lot to me ? Maybe my eye sight is not to good today ?

Or maybe it's your math. (-29.5) - (-28) = 1.5
But it's gotten warmer since 2009 too. But those are spot temperatures. Not global averages.

The only entities doing the cherry picking and caught time after time are the global warming alarmist

Wrong thread? No mention of cherry picking here.

a reply to: Phage

Wrong thread? No mention of cherry picking here.

Here 'tis!

P

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Once again we see that "peer reviewed" simply means "peer approved."

Math is hard.

Perhaps their calculators all failed at exactly the same instant?

They tend to be as finicky as Floridian vote counting machines.

a reply to: pheonix358

Do you know what the term cherry picking means?

You claimed the planet has been warming for 12,000 years.

You showed the Antarctic dataset (which doesn't show warming for the past 12,000 years, except for recently) and I showed the Greenland dataset (which doesn't show warming for the past 12,000 years, except for recently).


Do you have evidence that the planet has been warming for 12,000 years? If so, please provide it.

a reply to: Phage

Look over here! Look!!! Look!!!

What is this thread about please?

Diversions? Nit picking?

Not playing your game!

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Over here?

The world has been warming for the last 12,000 years.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: pheonix358

To be fair you diverted/rejected four decades of research by limiting evidence to books specifically printed in the 1970s. If you're comparing what's in your 1975 book to 21st Century satellite imagery there's obviously going to be a smidge of conflict in what you see.

A 1970s book will say Rhodesia is a country.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Yes I did, and yes I do.

Time and time again we see and prove some scientists adding temps for one reason and another and time and time again, they get called out.

I cannot trust climate science for the past three decades. It is that simple.

I was taught that we were heading directly for the return of the ice. Lots of it. Winter is coming!

I have seen nothing since that alters that view.

There is mega money in climate studies, just look at Al Gore and his claims and predictions ... proven by time not to happen.

I can clearly see what is happening.

Why are we only interested in the tiny uptick when the rest is worse than a roller coaster?

P

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, they do make some adjustments because the instruments didn't all read exactly the same. But the instruments are getting better and so is the data.

But do you ever wonder why "sources" like yours have to take statements grossly out of context? Do they think you won't notice?

what worries me more than any of that is that all this was "peer reviewed" and all them smart folk can't do maths. What does "peer reviewed" mean, they glanced over it while on the crapper?

Well here is the latest temperature they have measured now, and if we look at the curve here it goes up, the temperature here goes up. How can that be when I just showed you the other curve where the temperature had been constant, well the reason for that is they include now the ocean, but for 100 years the ocean has not been included. Why do you think they include the ocean? Because it's more accurate or because they can fiddle with the data?

Now lets quickly think about how much energy it would take to raise the temperature of the ocean by just 1 degree Celsius.

The specific heat represents the amount of energy required to raise 1 kg of substance by 1°C (or 1 K), and can be thought of as the ability to absorb heat. The SI units of specific heats are J/kgK (kJ/kg°C). Water has a large specific heat of 4.19 kJ/kg°C compared to many other fluids and materials.

www.engineeringtoolbox.com...

They then provide an equation to calculate the heat energy needed to raise a substance from one temperature level to another. All it requires us to know for our purpose is the mass of the Earths oceans and the specific heat for salt water, which is slightly lower at around 3.9 kJ/kg°C. The total mass of the oceans on Earth is 1.384x10^21 kg but I know someone will complain and say only the surface absorbs most of the heat energy, so we'll just use 1% of that mass, which is 1.384x10^19 kg. Our result in kilojoules is basically obtained by multiplying these values together:

3.9 x 1.384e19 = 5.3976e19 kJ = 14,993,333,330 GWh (gigawatt-hours)

If we look at this list of countries by electricity production from Wikipedia it states that the total electricity production of the entire world in 2017 was estimated to be around 25,551,300 GWh. That is more than 500x less than the amount of energy required to heat the top 1% of the ocean by 1°C. In other words we could pump all of our energy directly into the ocean and it would still take at least 500 years to make the surface warm even 1°C.

The purpose of peer reviewed journals is to critically review published findings.

If the research or paper is flawed as this one was, then peers in the field will point out the errors.

This is what happened. So the scientific method was once again upheld.

So no scam.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

That is more than 500x less than the amount of energy required to heat the top 1% of the ocean by 1°C. In other words we could pump all of our energy directly into the ocean and it would still take at least 500 years to make the surface warm even 1°C.

Good start. But I don't think the theory has much to do with power produced by humans heating the ocean. It has to do with something else.

How much power does the Sun provide in comparison to the power produced by humans? Lots more, right?

Now, how much of that power escapes back into space and how much is retained? How much does the increasing amount of CO2 (and associated feedback) change that number?

So, given all these factors and their range of errors, what’s the answer? The current level of radiative forcing, according to the IPCC AR4, is 1.6 watts per square meter (with a range of uncertainty from 0.6 to 2.4). That may not sound like much, Prinn says, until you consider the total land area of the Earth and multiply it out, which gives a total warming effect of about 800 terawatts — more than 50 times the world’s average rate of energy consumption, which is currently about 15 terawatts.

news.mit.edu...

How much of that heat does the ocean absorb?

a reply to: Phage

Radiative forcing? Baby steps, Phage.

Soon you’ll be spelling out the ablative effect compounding negative feedback loops...before we ‘know’ it you’ll be forced to explain albedo effects, the potency of water vapor w.r.t. radiative forcing, and leave out the simple stuff, like the Carbon Cycle...Oy Vey!

Best of luck.

At least the peer-review/refereeing process was shown to be flawed; a study that makes it to publication only to have a confidence interval error uncovered due to the original researchers providing their data to be scrutinized. Oh, the humanity! Time to hide your results, hide your data — scrutiny is on the loose.