7 ms·

Considering how strongly your sources disagree with the OP, I find it surprising that the opposing graphs are not all that far off from each other. The graph f

by gruseom 13y ago

Considering how strongly your sources disagree with the OP, I find it surprising that the opposing graphs are not all that far off from each other. The graph from the last article you linked to: http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png http://skepticalscience.com//pics/ProjvsObs.png The graph from the OP: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-mode... In both cases the actuals are at the low end of the predicted range. They disagree as to how low, obviously, but not as much as I expected.

nerfhammer 13y ago
see http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... (courtesy ovis below)
- virtue3 13y ago
  I clicked the comments just to see this. Thank you :). I had a sneaky suspicion something was up when it was just some casual mention of data and not really providing sources or demonstrating a thorough understanding of the data. "If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter." He must be blissfully unaware of how badly the oceans are being affected right now by our impact.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    He must be blissfully unaware of how badly the oceans are being affected right now by our impact. This sentence really needs to cite actual data. "The oceans" are a pretty big place. And "localized" and "average" data are not comparable in any relevant sense given the scale. Even if you could measure the energy in the ocean to that level of precision (unlikely) your time series data would be so limited so as to present caution in its reference, when discussin the context of global climate history. It wasn't that long ago when John Muir was fighting the academic climate orthoxy over the sources of Yosemite valley. Its not a partisian or intellectual issue, its merely that data talks and bullshit walks. Muir did alot of walking to get his data, and argued alot with people that sat around theorizing talked alot of bullshit. Its always worth a little bit of perspective.
    - sanxiyn 13y ago
      We actually do have more than 3000 robots spread across the world's ocean measuring temperature. These robots have clever mechanisms to change their own density so that they can move from shallow depth to deep depth (up to 2000 m). Conceived in 1999, this program has been running for more than 10 years now and we do have precise measurements of the energy in the ocean. We also do have less precise measurements before the program. Sure, it would be better if we had more robots and more observation history, but we do have enough data to do the analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Database_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Database_Project
      - 001sky 13y ago
        While you have to start somewhere, this illustrates the larger point. Some basic facts about the scale of the problem remain: "The total volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres (310 million cu mi)[7] with an average depth of 3,682 metres (12,080 ft).[8]" > 3x10^8 cubic miles vs 3x10^3 instruments > Instrument cannot reach even ~average depth > 10 years of data Certainly, it is a start. But... There is a huge amount about the oceans that we do not know and cannot measure with requisite precision. Understanding the difference between surface temperatures and the actual thermal potential of the earths oceans are two different tasks. EG, due to sub-surface thermal venting there are many areas of the deep ocean that don't at all look like surface temps. {etc} So there is huge potential for the oceans to do unexpected things. For all we know, plate tectonics may be driving huge amounts of thermal energy variation in the deep ocean...and a "proper climate model" would likely need to understand this at some stage. This really goes to the core of the question of the oceans as a heat-sink.
        sanxiyn 13y ago
        Yeah sure. All I am saying is that we now have better handle on the heat content of the upper ocean than before, and not locally so, but globally. I probably shouldn't have omitted "upper" qualifier. I also think, while imperfect, our information is good enough to support "Earth is heating, the heat is mostly(>90%) going to the ocean" claim.

by gruseom 13y ago

nerfhammer 13y ago

see http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... (courtesy ovis below)

virtue3 13y ago
I clicked the comments just to see this. Thank you :). I had a sneaky suspicion something was up when it was just some casual mention of data and not really providing sources or demonstrating a thorough understanding of the data. "If the deep ocean ends up averaging 4.1 deg. C, rather than 4.0 deg. C, it won’t really matter." He must be blissfully unaware of how badly the oceans are being affected right now by our impact.
- 001sky 13y ago
  He must be blissfully unaware of how badly the oceans are being affected right now by our impact. This sentence really needs to cite actual data. "The oceans" are a pretty big place. And "localized" and "average" data are not comparable in any relevant sense given the scale. Even if you could measure the energy in the ocean to that level of precision (unlikely) your time series data would be so limited so as to present caution in its reference, when discussin the context of global climate history. It wasn't that long ago when John Muir was fighting the academic climate orthoxy over the sources of Yosemite valley. Its not a partisian or intellectual issue, its merely that data talks and bullshit walks. Muir did alot of walking to get his data, and argued alot with people that sat around theorizing talked alot of bullshit. Its always worth a little bit of perspective.
  - sanxiyn 13y ago
    We actually do have more than 3000 robots spread across the world's ocean measuring temperature. These robots have clever mechanisms to change their own density so that they can move from shallow depth to deep depth (up to 2000 m). Conceived in 1999, this program has been running for more than 10 years now and we do have precise measurements of the energy in the ocean. We also do have less precise measurements before the program. Sure, it would be better if we had more robots and more observation history, but we do have enough data to do the analysis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Database_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Ocean_Database_Project
    - 001sky 13y ago
      While you have to start somewhere, this illustrates the larger point. Some basic facts about the scale of the problem remain: "The total volume is approximately 1.3 billion cubic kilometres (310 million cu mi)[7] with an average depth of 3,682 metres (12,080 ft).[8]" > 3x10^8 cubic miles vs 3x10^3 instruments > Instrument cannot reach even ~average depth > 10 years of data Certainly, it is a start. But... There is a huge amount about the oceans that we do not know and cannot measure with requisite precision. Understanding the difference between surface temperatures and the actual thermal potential of the earths oceans are two different tasks. EG, due to sub-surface thermal venting there are many areas of the deep ocean that don't at all look like surface temps. {etc} So there is huge potential for the oceans to do unexpected things. For all we know, plate tectonics may be driving huge amounts of thermal energy variation in the deep ocean...and a "proper climate model" would likely need to understand this at some stage. This really goes to the core of the question of the oceans as a heat-sink.
      - sanxiyn 13y ago
        Yeah sure. All I am saying is that we now have better handle on the heat content of the upper ocean than before, and not locally so, but globally. I probably shouldn't have omitted "upper" qualifier. I also think, while imperfect, our information is good enough to support "Earth is heating, the heat is mostly(>90%) going to the ocean" claim.