🚀 go-pugleaf

SaPeIsMa wrote:
> "Surfer" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:m3vqc6tjv2ja47k6emr5aphjpeudbctf03@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:33:21 +1100, Oy rool out a carbon tax
>> <gillard_lies@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> The AGWers were initially blessed with the fortune of increasing
>>>>> temperatures to support (not prove) their hypothesis. Since that time
>>>>> they have been at great pains to cling to their mantra, as
>>>>> temperatures
>>>>> fail to follow the cataclysmic trajectory their "science" predicts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary:
>>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>
>>> No. Not "on the contrary". If that were the case, why would Kevin
>>> Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center
>>> for Atmospheric Research, say to Michael Mann, the director of the Earth
>>> System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University:
>>>
>>> "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment
>>> and it is a travesty that we can't".
>>>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm
>>
>>
>> <Start extract>
>>
>> Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for
>> climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the
>> planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but
>> that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods.
>> This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that
>> our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy
>> flow through the climate system.
>>
>> This has been most commonly interpreted (among skeptics) as climate
>> scientists secretly admitting amongst themselves that global warming
>> really has stopped. Is this what Trenberth is saying? If one takes a
>> little time to understand the science that Trenberth is discussing,
>> his meaning becomes clear.
>>
>> If you read the full email, you learn that Trenberth is actually
>> informing fellow climate scientists about a paper he'd recently
>> published, An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's
>> global energy (Trenberth 2009). The paper discusses the planet's
>> energy budget - how much net energy is flowing into our climate and
>> where it's going. It also discusses the systems we have in place to
>> track energy flow in and out of our climate system.
>>
>> Trenberth states unequivocally that our planet is continually heating
>> due to increasing carbon dioxide. This energy imbalance was very small
>> 40 years ago but has steadily increased to around 0.9 W/m^2 over the
>> 2000 to 2005 period, as observed by satellites. Preliminary satellite
>> data indicates the energy imbalance has continued to increase from
>> 2006 to 2008. The net result is that the planet is continuously
>> accumulating heat. Global warming is still happening.
>>
>> Next, Trenberth wonders with this ever increasing heat, why doesn't
>> surface temperature continuously rise? The standard answer is "natural
>> variability". But such a general answer doesn't explain the actual
>> physical processes involved. If the planet is accumulating heat, the
>> energy must go somewhere. Is it going into melting ice? Is it being
>> sequestered deep in the ocean? Did the 2008 La Nina rearrange the
>> configuration of ocean heat? Is it all of the above? Trenberth wants
>> answers!
>>
>> So like an obsessive accountant, Trenberth pores over the energy
>> budget, tallying up the joules accumulating in various parts of the
>> climate. A global energy imbalance of 0.9 W/m^2 means the planet is
>> accumulating 145 x 10^20 joules per year. The following list gives the
>> amount of energy going into various parts of the climate over the 2004
>> to 2008 period:
>>
>>    *
>>      Land:   2 x  10^20 joules per year
>>    *
>>      Arctic sea Ice:   1 x 10^20 joules per year
>>    *
>>      Ice sheets:   1.4 x 10^20 joules per year
>>    *
>>      Total land ice:   between 2 to 3 x 10^20 joules per year
>>    *
>>      Ocean:   between 20 to 95 x 10^20 joules per year
>>    *
>>      Sun:   16 x 10^20 joules per year (eg - the sun has been cooling
>> from 2004 to 2008)
>>
>> These various contributions total between 45 to 115 x 10^20 joules per
>> year. This falls well short of the total 145 x 10^20 joules per year
>> (although the error bars do overlap). Trenberth expresses frustration
>> that observation systems are inadequate to track the flow of energy.
>> It's not that global warming has stopped. We know global warming has
>> continued because satellites find an energy imbalance. It's that our
>> observation systems need to be more accurate in tracking the energy
>> flows through our climate and closing the energy budget.
>>
>> So what may be causing the discrepancy? As the ocean heat data only
>> goes to 900 metre depth, Trenberth suggests that perhaps heat is being
>> sequestered below 900 metres. There is support for this idea in a
>> later paper von Schuckmann 2009. This paper uses Argo buoy data to
>> calculate ocean heat down to 2000 metres depth. From 2003 to 2008, the
>> world's oceans have been accumulating heat at a rate of 0.77 W/m^2.
>> This higher trend for ocean heat would bring the total energy build-up
>> more in line with satellite measurements of net energy imbalance.
>> However, von Schuckmann's results were published after Trenberth's
>> paper so I look forward to seeing how this plays out in future papers.
>>
>> So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this:
>>
>> "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the
>> moment and it is a travesty that we can't."
>>
>> After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that
>> what he meant was this:
>>
>> "Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating
>> heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep
>> track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't
>> definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the
>> last few years. That's a travesty!"
>>
>> Skeptics use Trenberth's email to characterise climate scientists as
>> secretive and deceptive. However, when one takes the trouble to
>> acquaint oneself with the science, the opposite becomes apparent.
>> Trenberth outlines his views in a clear, open manner, frankly
>> articulating his frustrations at the limitations of observation
>> systems. Trenberth's opinions didn't need to be illegally stolen and
>> leaked onto the internet. They were already publicly available in the
>> peer reviewed literature - and much less open to misinterpretation
>> than a quote-mined email.
>>
>> <End extract>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> Nice apologia
>    Doesn't change a bit that since they can't account for the source and
> destination of all that energy, they have a problem with supporting
> their claim
> In other words, they're saying:
>    -    We don't know what's happening.
>    -    We have no handle on the data
>    -    We don't even have a computer model that works properly
>    -    But we know that our conclusions are good.
> That's NOT the way science is supposed to work

Surfer doesn't understand science. He thinks that he who quotes the most
publications (of any quality or lack thereof) wins.

-- 
Labor-Green open borders plan in action...

Number of illegal aliens in detention:

Jan 2005 __________
Jul 2005 ________
Jan 2006 _________
Jul 2006 ______
Jan 2007 _____
Jul 2007 ____
Jan 2008 ____
Jul 2008 ___
Jan 2009 ___ Rudd stops TPVs
Jul 2009 __________
Jan 2010 _________________
Jul 2010 ______________________________

Where to next?