[Coral-List] Climate Change
douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 20:31:17 EDT 2015
Check out the two graphs on this page to see if the model predictions are
They look dead on to me.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Douglas Fenner <
douglasfennertassi at gmail.com> wrote:
> I find the Michaels short essay on the Watts website that you point to
> quite interesting.
> First, the statement that "The longer that they wait to admit their
> overheated forecasts were wrong, the more they are going to harm all of
> science." Really?? So if they don't admit their forecasts were wrong,
> that will harm scientists who study cane toads, or pi mesons, or organic
> chemistry, or anything else? How? Seems pretty over blown claim to me.
> Doesn't seem like the author is working hard to make sure what he says is
> actually true.
> Second, what is the evidence that climate scientists have ever said
> that there was no gap between model predictions and how the climate has
> changed during the "hiatus"?? I thought that was widely acknowledged by
> scientists. I thought that was puzzling for them. Does the author have a
> better model? My understanding is that everybody knows that there are a
> few important parts of the climate system that are particularly hard to
> model. One is clouds. They move around, and are very ephemeral, yet water
> vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. The motion of fluids is particularly
> hard to capture in a simple equation, I thought. That also applies to
> ocean currents. Water has the highest heat capacity of any known material,
> I once read. The oceans average, what, about 3 miles deep? Any heat
> adsorbed at the surface may not stay there, currents could take it down
> into deeper water, just as has been reported for the North Atlantic and the
> Pacific. Vast amounts of energy have been sucked down from the ocean
> surface into the depths. That can remove huge amounts of energy. The heat
> capacity of the oceans is vastly larger than the air. The models surely
> don't have a way of accounting for that. The basic physics as little as I
> understand it, is that the increase in greenhouse gases means that there is
> a net increase of energy captured. Where it goes and how much temperature
> increase that energy causes, depends on convection and heat capacity and
> volumes of things like oceans and the atmosphere. The larger the volume
> and the higher the heat capacity, the less the temperature rises from the
> same amount of energy added. Greenhouse gases trap energy, not temperature.
> He uses an interesting selection of temperature data from 4 balloon
> data sets and 2 satellite data sets. How do I know he isn't cherry picking
> as so many of his denier colleagues do routinely? The temperature curves
> he presents don't look like the ones I've seen, including the one I pointed
> to the other day. The ones I've seen show much stronger temperature
> His final sentence: "It’s impossible, as a scientist, to look at
> this graph and not rage at the destruction of science that is being wreaked
> by the inability of climatologists to look us in the eye and say perhaps
> the three most important words in life: we were wrong." is so hugely
> ironic. Look who's talking! The climate deniers have proposed over the
> years a huge long list of different arguments which have been proven
> wrong. Check out the "Skeptical Science" website:
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/ They have a laundry list of all the
> things the deniers have tried claiming:
> http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php There 176 arguments there, all
> refuted. Ulf just used the first on the list, "Climate's changed before."
> Gene used the second one "It's the sun" a few years ago, noting that the
> sunspot cycle had not begun on time, so maybe something is wrong with the
> sun. But then the sunspots started as usual, and Gene didn't bring that up
> again. Ulf just used the third one, "It's not bad." The Michaels essay on
> the Watts web page uses number 6, "the models are unreliable." The
> fossil-fuel industry funded deniers supply an unending stream of excuses
> for all their friends to use, put them on websites (where you can say
> anything, true or not, unlike in newspapers which are in trouble if they
> print outright lies) and update them regularly to keep their opponents busy
> trying to find out how they massage the data to mislead people. It works
> really well to spread doubt, but then some of them are well practiced at
> it. You see, some of them were paid by the tobacco companies to spread
> doubt that cigarettes are addictive and cause cancer. They were very good
> at spreading doubt, and delayed legal action against the tobacco companies
> for decades, during which those companies made billions of dollars and
> millions of smokers died. But someone in the tobacco companies leaked
> documents that proved that the companies knew that the cigarettes were
> addictive and caused cancer, and then they started loosing lawsuits and
> settling for many billions of dollars to pay to states to compensate them
> for health care the states had to provide for smoker ailments. Those
> people have deep ethical values?
> So, yes, this web page looks really bad for climate scientists, just
> as it was intended by the author who receives money from the fossil fuel
> industry. But the deniers have never admitted that they were wrong about
> any of the 176 arguments that they put out about why the climate science is
> So, have the climate scientists refused to admit that their models
> don't fit the recent temperature data? Or have the deniers refused to
> admit that their 176 arguments are wrong??? You be the judge.
> Cheers, Doug
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:27 AM, Eugene Shinn <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>> Below list readers can find data relating to the contentious 18 year
>> warming pause. The data from the University of Alabama obtained by
>> satellites that to my knowledge has not been "adjusted" to remove the
>> pause. As near as I can tell there is no Washington politics involved in
>> this data. Nevertheless I suspect die hard warmest will find some reason
>> to reject the data.
>> The second website is a discussion of the Alabama data by a well known
>> climate blogger.Gene
>> No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
>> ------------------------------------ -----------------------------------
>> E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
>> University of South Florida
>> College of Marine Science Room 221A
>> 140 Seventh Avenue South
>> St. Petersburg, FL 33701
>> <eugeneshinn at mail.usf.edu>
>> Tel 727 553-1158
>> ---------------------------------- -----------------------------------
>> Coral-List mailing list
>> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> Douglas Fenner
> Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
> PO Box 7390
> Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
> phone 1 684 622-7084
> "belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
> Much-touted global warming pause never happened.
> Has global warming taken a rest? Not so fast, study suggests. (check out
> the graph)
> Climate change deniers love to talk about a recent "pause" in global
> warming. A new study says it didn't happen.
> website: http://independent.academia.edu/DouglasFenner
> blog: http://ocean.si.edu/blog/reefs-american-samoa-story-hope
Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
phone 1 684 622-7084
"belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
Much-touted global warming pause never happened.
Has global warming taken a rest? Not so fast, study suggests. (check out
Climate change deniers love to talk about a recent "pause" in global
warming. A new study says it didn't happen.
More information about the Coral-List