NASA taps ESA satellite Swarm for salty ocean temperature tales Research scientists working at NASA have hit upon a potentially revolutionary way of measuring the heat hidden deep in Earth's oceans: track the subtle shifts in our planet's magnetic field caused by tides, swells, eddies, and even tsunamis. Put simply, the salt in ocean water makes it conductive, and as it ebbs and flows it …
proven repeatedly in multiple peer-reviewed studies
That's an interesting use of the word "proof". I wasn't aware that simply getting a bunch of people to agree on something constituted scientific proof.
Now, before the commentard community howls "heretic - climate change denier!", there's no doubt in my mind that human activity is having an effect, The issue I never see addressed is how much of an effect. Since the climate hasn't exactly been stable for any of the last 4.5 billion years, it seems foolish to assume that all the changes we see now are due to humans.
Does anyone have some scientifically valid figures on how much is natural variation and how much is due to the 7 billion ape-like creatures roaming the planet?
Love it how XKCD has the period 2000-2016 global temps rising 100X more as any medieval or roman warming. Or just that it's displayed as more rapid than two 15 year periods before that. But lets take the drawing until 2000 for science sake and still conclude the large error here is that you cannot truly compare resolutions of measurements 1970-2000 (lets say 1080p True Color video) to the lower granularity of the past (like Sinclair spectrum 256 × 192 8bits color per 8x8 squares). Stitching it together as it's one data domain is just plain unadulterated nonsense and deception. And no scientist would ever draw it -- it's reserved for cartoons and evangelists. But surprising how often it's done!
Apart from growing insights on the more global aspects of the warming periods in the last millennia (1), some decent series would be revealed by ice core studies like GRIP, GRIP2, Vostok and EPICA. And sorry, nothing like cartoon warming in there (2) but yes it's understood it's local but at least the series are consistent and resolutions kept constant.
1) https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4
2) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/figures/doi/10.1029/2011GL049444#figure-viewer-grl28620-fig-0001
This post has been deleted by its author
"whenever humanity can see a slow-moving disaster coming, we find a way to avoid it"
Surely that should read:
"whenever humanity can see a slow-moving disaster coming, we find a way to ignore it until it's too late, and then try and blame someone else for it"
Although if anyone can think of a time when the human race identified a long term problem and then all worked together to solve it, I'd love to be reminded of it.
This post has been deleted by its author
They have been making predictions about the future. Determining how accurate they are will involve waiting for the future to arrive. Since they are making predictions on the scale of decades in the future, that's a long time to wait.
While there are certainly some things about the climate change story that bother me, I feel that given the consequences for acting to reduce CO2 emissions and being wrong versus the consequences for doing nothing to reduce CO2 emissions and being wrong, it is better to act. Perhaps not quite so aggressively as the extremists on that side would like, but more than we (the US) is doing presently.
We need to get off fossil fuels eventually as they won't last forever, so acting sooner is in our long term interest in other ways as well (unless you are an oil company)
@ES
The problem is that all the "attribution" studies trying to calculate how much warming is natural variation and how much is human-caused greenhouse gas driven depend on the global computer climate models. Thus, they are subject to the same problems of uncertain inputs and missing parts of the climate system as are the predictions of future temperature rise as greenhouse gas concentrations rise.
AKAIK the most significant currently-identified problems are (a) apparently the estimates of atmospheric particulate concentrations for the 20th century were too high; to "retro-predict" the correct 20th century temperatures, the models' sensitivity was essentially turned up and (b) nobody yet has much of a scientific clue as to how the many types and locations of clouds figure into things.
Nothing, nada, zilch is ever proved in science. The only thing you can do is to reject a null hypothesis with a given degree of significance. Neither is science a democracy, it is a raw dictatorship of reality. When I see a study that says that the null hypothesis of "The observed warming in the 20th century was due to natural causes" with a 95% or better significance, I will take "Global Money Grubbing" of the Escathological Cargo Cult of the CAGW more seriously. Till then it is simply another exercise in Lysenkoism.
I take it that English and reading to the end of sentences is not a strong point?
If you had you will have understood that what has been (independently) 'proven' by multiple studies is: "the Earth is increasingly experiencing an imbalance its incoming and outgoing solar energy."
The peer review process, should have critiqued the methods used (ie. is the study truely scientific and objective) and that the underlying data collected supports the findings being claimed.
As for climate change; that is all about understanding the reasons for the above in-balance, what is the trend/future projection, what are the implications and is there anything we can do about it. Which is mired in controversy, in part due to the lack of global data. I note that Rik Myslewski has stuck to the issue of the global sea temperature data collection and only identifying some projects that would directly benefit from better data, rather than get diverted by climate change.
" Presumably a conductivity meter" made by Siemens?
Electron Shepherd makes a good point, I haven't seen even best guess figures for the anthropomorphic contribution.
It seems clear that the globe is warming up and that man is at least contributing to it but by how much?
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for improvements in US research on any aspect of global warming for at least the next 4 years, as apparently Tweety Twump thinks somebody made it up to piss him off.
Come on this is very high level boffinry.
I mean, being able to do the conductance of thousands of cubic kilometers of ocean.
From space.
The oceans are huge thermal flywheels so knowing where different parts of them are at regarding temperature at any given time is definitely going to improve GCM climate models.
Excellent work and I hope the results start being incorporated in those models as soon as a near full data set is available.
Yes it is way cool science, but the author just couldn't resist tying it into his AGW religion. Notice that every article of this type always has a section where it's forcefully asserted how the the consensus is sooo overwhelming (so don't be a fool and oppose it).
If AGW were really accepted by virtually all scientists (like Evolution is) then they would not bother to do that, they would just let it be an unspoken truth most of the time. But that's not really an option for AGW because its foundations are so very shaky. Got to hammer the 'truth' down people's throats every chance they get.
I agree that the whole 'overwheling consensus' thing has been harmful. It's really a politeness problem I think: the science abd data is so obviously correct as to make dispute really laughable. But peopke are polite: no-one wants to say out loud that the peopke who dispute it are stupid, uneducated or have a financial stake in doing so, because it's just rude. So we get this whole skirting around the issue thing.
(Of course the situation is very different with evolution: there are no business empires at stake if evolution turns out to be true, so the evolution-deniers are more obviously just religious fruitcakes, because no-one will pay plausible liers.)
"resist tying it into his AGW religion"
Yes but if the research wasn't claiming to have application investigating AGW or it's effects it would never have been funded.
As for oceans being a huge flywheel - their mass is less than 1/4000th of that of the earth.
To me the measurement method seems pretty dodgy, how do you verify or calibrate it? IMO if it gives the answers people want to hear no one will care and if it doesn't it will be adjusted till it does.
> "Yes but if the research wasn't claiming to have application investigating AGW or it's effects it would never have been funded."
Good point. But, I can think of one way to get funding for it outside AGW. It so happens that some areas in the world are affected by large repeating weather cycles such as El Niño in the temperate and tropical western Americas. That fun climate thingy is caused by mysterious deep currents in the Eastern Pacific which seem to stop and start semi-randomly every few years. It has a huge effect on a lot of people in quite a few countries, due to big changes in rainfall over those areas.
If science can get a good handle on that, they could better predict what El Niño is going to do, substantially enhancing several economies. We're talking many billions USD at the least. I can't imagine this ocean science ever approaching that cost.
Of course that's in an ideal world. In the real world the funding is AGW driven as you say.
Just a quick question, Big John — well, three, actually:
First, please disprove the simple and demonstrable physics behind the blockage, absorption, and re-radiation of long-wave (IR) radiation by large, active molecules such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and the like, and how that blockage and re-radiation warms the troposphere in quite easily measurable and quantifiable amounts while concomitantly and measurably cooling the stratosphere, as has been well-demonstrated for many decades.
Second, please explain how it's meaningless that that warming not only correlates quite smoothly with the steep increase in radiative-forcing CO2 in the troposphere in, say, the last century, as well as being mathematically and demonstrably well-fitted through multiple well-sourced and peer-reviewed analyses to prove that such other forcings as volcanoes, solar activity, aerosols, and other niceties can in no way account for the same global temperature increases.
Third, challenge and refute all of the easily correlated temperature measurements, such as those by NOAA, NASA, UK Met Office, BEST, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and others over the past half-century or more.
Or would simply prefer to ignore the well-vetted and carefully analyzed science created — and thoroughly argued over, trust me — by thousands of researchers from a broad range of countries? Or maybe you would go as far as to imply that all of those thousands of scientists' work is somehow an insanely complex and conspiratorial fraud? Might you be one of the "climate science is political" folks who hide behind ludicrous “lib’ruls wanna steal our freedoms ’n‘ guns” arguments? Or might you desperately latch onto crazy ’n‘ unprovable solar-variability theories, or some other non-empirical claptrap?
It's science, dear boy — measurable, testable, and replicable. And the only reason we of scientific training and practice find a need to defend it is because unscientific folks such as yourself — who in your silliness describe our understanding of scientific results, analyses, and recommendations as a "religion" — are so vociferous in your politicized, unscientific, data-starved attacks.
What do you fear?
Rik, your 2nd point is demonstrably wrong. For example, global surface temperatures rose substantially in the quarter-century following WWI, and rose similarly substantially again in the quarter-century starting in the 1970s. However, greenhouse gas concentrations were substantially different during those time periods, with much much lower greenhouse gas concentrations in the earlier period. If greenhouse gases were really responsible for most of the 1970s warming, as alarmists claim, then what caused the 1920s warming? It seems likely that natural variation was responsible for most of the earlier warming; however, a similar magnitude of natural variation in the later warming is ruled out by alarmists without good scientific basis -- why?
As a quick closing note, the use of epithets like "denier" is associated with religion, not science.
If it sounds too good to be true...
There are simply far too many variables in this - the adjustments required are so tortured to deal with real world physical processes that any "measurement" will simply not be trustworthy and will require physical validation.... - imho it's BS on a stick.
It's a fishing expedition for funding using the BS baffles tactic.
I love the science behind the methods of collecting data. Humanity at its finest. What I can't stand, however, is the unending beating that we are being subjected to of it being proven, settled, etc.I'm sorry, but the scientific method doesn't work that way. We are collecting data and trying to make sense out of it. We haven't proven anything other than that temperatures fluctuate. Genius. Come back in a thousand years when we have a good sampling and then prove the point. Until then, it is still just speculation driven by politics and the dollar.
In the mean time, please lets continue to reduce our emissions and pollution. I'm all for it. Look at Beijing. Dang. That place is out of control. When the snow is toxic you know something has to be changed.
There is no such thing as "science by consensus". Whether you look at the last 50 years or the yesterday, both are appx the same % of time in the history of this world. The world has been much warmer and much colder. I am still not convinced that we are still simply warming from the last ice age. To me, the rapid decline in the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean is the most visible "proof" that something is happening that is not normal, and I am not convinced that what IS happening is necessarily bad.
Whatever may, or may not, be happening, it makes sense not to sh*t in our only bed. To that end, doing whatever we can reasonably do to lower our impact is probably a good thing. But when you see where the money goes when attempting to regulate behaviour, I become very cynical about the whole process. Additionally, if India/China/the 3rd world are not all-in with the rest of us, I become doubly cynical.
Science -- obscure, weird, honest to pete boffinry. Kudos to the team if they get it all figured out.
as to climate change: Its January, -6C outside, just a dusting of snow. We had 8 separate 30C+ days this summer. Yup. Changing it is. Certainly in the last 40 years there has been a change. When I were younger it was colder this time of year, and there was *lots* more snow about this time of year, and summer days could get hot, but not *that* hot that often.
Is it AGW? - I'll concede that the physics indicates that it could be anthropogenic. Is AGW absolutely proven? Not in my books. There is too much fuzz in the model. And they've not yet made a single correct projection.
Hell yes, lets stop dumping so much crap in our atmosphere. It is fairly well concluded that the output from the industrial revolution is not good for peoples to breathe in quantity.
If we can get better data, more accurate data, and more precise modelling, go get it. It may just show that this is part and parcel of what our planet does over millennia. It could prove that the most critical output to put a stop to is the bullshit that falls out of most politicians. It could prove that methane as produced by ducks is the cause. But, until we have proof and a model that makes accurate predictions, keep looking.
And since we know where the worst CO2 outputs come from, lets try to stop using that, and find something that can do the same thing without spewing (CO2/CO/Methane/Nitrogen oxides etc) because the *physics* tells us that it is POSSIBLE that these could be contributing.
As an engineer, reading the details I call bullshit on this.
"have demonstrated – at least at the proof-of-concept level"
"while conductivity varies with salinity and temperature in a regional way, conductance really varies primarily..."
..but not exclusively...
"with only the depth-integral of temperature (heat content)"
How much does conductance vary with fractions of a degree? That's what we're talking about here.
And you only end up with the integral of the heat profile, no details of the heat at different depths.
"which theoretically could determine heat content throughout the oceans' depths. His work is still in its early stages"
"Describing his model's development"
MODELS, not raw data any more, should ring alarm bells.
"If – when – Tyler and his team succeed in precisely discerning signal from noise in the cavalcade of Swarm data"
IF, EVER.
Rik Myslewski above asks "What do you fear?"
I fear $1.5 trillion being pissed up the wall on this instead of suppling clean drinking water to the world's population.
It's put quite well at the end of this article...
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/ocean-acidification-yet-another-wobbly-pillar-of-climate-alarmism/
"To those of us who have been studying the global warming scare in some detail, the answer is depressingly obvious. It’s because in the last decade or so, the climate change industry has become so vast and all encompassing, employing so many people, it simply cannot be allowed to fail.
According to a report last year by Climate Change Business Journal, it’s now worth an astonishing $1.5 trillion — about the same as the online shopping industry. If the scare goes away, then all bets are off, because the entire global decarbonisation business relies on it. The wind parks, the carbon sequestration projects, the solar farms, the biomass plantations — none of these green schemes make any kind of commercial sense unless you buy into the theory that anthropogenic CO2 is catastrophically warming the planet and that radical green measures, enforced by governmental regulation, must be adopted to avert it."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
