Remember me
▼ Content

Proffessor Brian Cox vs Conspiracy theorist Australian Senator



Page 2 of 4<1234>
24-08-2016 03:29
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Your math is incorrect. Water from melted ice added to the oceans should be calculated against the volume of the ocean, not its surface area.


Wait, what?
24-08-2016 03:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Leafsdude wrote:
Your math is incorrect. Water from melted ice added to the oceans should be calculated against the volume of the ocean, not its surface area.


Wait, what?

Yes, not the sharpest tool in the box, is he?
24-08-2016 03:37
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Yes, not the sharpest tool in the box, is he?


I'm just trying to wrap my head around exactly why he thinks that's the case.

I mean, if you calculate it against the volume of the oceans...you're not really going to calculate anything, since calculating volume against volume is going to give you a percentage added to the oceans, a number which won't give you a sea rise without then considering ocean surface area.

It'd just be adding a completely unnecessary step to the calculation.
Edited on 24-08-2016 03:38
24-08-2016 03:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
The formula would be:
(volume of added water / volume of the ocean) * average depth of the ocean
24-08-2016 03:40
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
The formula would be:
(volume of added water / volume of the ocean) * average depth of the ocean


ETA: Actually, I was incorrect...

The calculation is basically the same as the one that's been made, as calculating by dividing by ocean volume and then multiplying by average depth is the same as simply just multiplying by surface area, as you get volume by multiplying depth by surface area.

You're still just basically adding an unnecessary step to the calculation.
Edited on 24-08-2016 03:50
24-08-2016 03:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Leafsdude wrote:
The formula would be:
(volume of added water / volume of the ocean) * average depth of the ocean


That's always going to give you the volume of added water...

I mean, you're not really dumb enough to think the volume of the ocean and the average depth of the ocean are different numbers...are you?


No, you START with the volume of the added water. The volume of the ocean and the depth of the ocean are different numbers.


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2016 04:03
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Here, let's just do your calculation to show that you get basically the same number (assuming tons is metric tons):

(263 trillion litres = 263 km3 / 1 347 000 000 km3) * 3.7 km = 0.000000722 km or 0.722 cm.
Edited on 24-08-2016 04:08
24-08-2016 04:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Leafsdude wrote:
The formula would be:
(volume of added water / volume of the ocean) * average depth of the ocean


ETA: Actually, I was incorrect...

The calculation is basically the same as the one that's been made, as calculating by dividing by ocean volume and then multiplying by average depth is the same as simply just multiplying by surface area, as you get volume by multiplying depth by surface area.

You're still just basically adding an unnecessary step to the calculation.


Ceded. You are correct after all. My mistake.


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2016 04:21
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Wow. An actual admittance of being incorrect. Maybe there is hope for you after all...

So you agree that the calculation means about 0.7cm of sea level increase per year from Greenland melt, based on estimates?
24-08-2016 04:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Leafsdude wrote:
Wow. An actual admittance of being incorrect. Maybe there is hope for you after all...

So you agree that the calculation means about 0.7cm of sea level increase per year from Greenland melt, based on estimates?


IF the melt is happening at rate you claim is happening, and IF the rate remains the same, y.


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2016 11:43
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Leafsdude: You've got the right idea, but you've gotten a bit confused with your math and units and have ended up a factor of 10 out. The actual rise in sea level due to this volume of melting ice is 0.75 mm, not 0.7 cm.

ITN: As well as being unnecessarily complicated (surface area is easier to determine than volume and average depth), your formula only works for straight-sided vessels, such as a measuring cylinder or swimming pool. It gives an answer that is too high when the surface area increases with volume, as with the oceans. The answer (0.722 cm) that Leafsdude obtained by using it is just coincidentally close to the figure (0.7 cm) that he obtained using the correct method but which was out by a factor of 10 due to math errors.

The actual figure, as I calculated earlier, is 0.75 mm.
Edited on 24-08-2016 12:05
24-08-2016 16:46
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Ah, you are correct. When converting from km to cm, I missed a factor of 10. It should be 0.0722 cm or 0.722 mm.

That said, considering I can point to exactly why the numbers are the same (volume * depth = surface area, therefore dividing by volume and multiplying by depth will give you the same as just multiplying by surface area), I'm not sure why you think I got the same numbers "coincidentally". *shrug*

It should be noted, as well, that the slight difference in numbers would be due to rounding of the numbers being used, and the difference is less than 1% anyway.
Edited on 24-08-2016 16:49
24-08-2016 17:02
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Leafsdude wrote:
Ah, you are correct. When converting from km to cm, I missed a factor of 10. It should be 0.0722 cm or 0.722 mm.

That said, considering I can point to exactly why the numbers are the same (volume * depth = surface area, therefore dividing by volume and multiplying by depth will give you the same as just multiplying by surface area), I'm not sure why you think I got the same numbers "coincidentally". *shrug*

It should be noted, as well, that the slight difference in numbers would be due to rounding of the numbers being used, and the difference is less than 1% anyway.

Ah yes, sorry, you're quite right (though you obviously mean volume / depth = surface area). However, since you need to know both the surface area and volume in order to work out the average depth, there seems little point in doing it this way. The obvious way to work it out is simply:

Rise in sea level = Volume of meltwater / Surface area of oceans.

There is no need to determine the volume or average depth of the oceans.
24-08-2016 17:18
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Yes, sorry, I do mean volume / depth = surface area.

I've been arguing the facts of the rest of your post to ITN myself, so I agree with it.


The only reason why I did ITN's calculation was because ITN was refusing to accept his calculation was the same as ours, just longer. Clearly he needed more than just reasoned arguments to finally accept that as true.
Edited on 24-08-2016 17:20
24-08-2016 19:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
Leafsdude wrote:
Yes, sorry, I do mean volume / depth = surface area.

I've been arguing the facts of the rest of your post to ITN myself, so I agree with it.


The only reason why I did ITN's calculation was because ITN was refusing to accept his calculation was the same as ours, just longer. Clearly he needed more than just reasoned arguments to finally accept that as true.


The reasoned argument was enough. That's why I responded to the reasoned argument.


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2016 20:21
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
1) We would have to use maths, do you imagine nobody has ever done this before? assuming your figures are correct (that would surprise me) what's the surface area of the ocean, how much water does 269 billion tonnes of ice make?


2) I don't think anyone sane imagines that all the ice comes from one place leaving a hole.

Here's where some of it came from; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU

The ice loss is detected whether you personally believe it does not make any difference.


You can manage to look up nice dramatic videos on utube but you cannot manage to find out the area of the world's ocean's?????

360 milliom km2.

Now can you manage to find out how much that would raise sea levels by. It's easy.

Then tell me where the much larger loss of altitude over Greenland has actually happened. It also should be easy but you will be unable to actually foind a relief map of Greenland showing what it was at and what it is at. So why do you think that is?

Edited on 25-08-2016 20:22
25-08-2016 20:27
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
1) 269 billion tons of ice a year melts to produce 269 billion tons of water a year, which is roughly 269 billion cubic metres of water a year. The total surface area of the oceans is 361 million square kilometres, or 361 trillion square meters. Greenland's melting ice therefore contributes 269 x 10^9 / 361 x 10^12 = 7.5 x 10^-4 m or about 0.75 mm per year. By itself, Greenland's melting ice would therefore raise the sea level by 84 x 0.75 = 63 mm by 2100 at its current rate.

However, it's not just Greenland's ice that is melting; Antarctic ice is also melting and contributing to sea level rise. These are not currently the main cause of sea level rise though; the main contribution to the currently observed sea level rise of about 3.4 mm / year is the thermal expansion of sea water. Note also that the melting rate of Greenland's ice isn't constant, but has been accelerating rapidly over the last couple of decades and is likely to continue accelerating.

2) The ice lost from Greenland shows up as a drop in the height of the ice covering the continent. Indeed, the rate of ice loss is actually derived from satellite measurements of the height of Greenland's ice plateau. Note again though that Greenland hasn't been losing this much ice for the last 20 years; the rate of ice loss has accelerated during that time and is expected to continue to do so.

So, no surprises there. I was already aware that thermal expansion of sea water is currently the main contributor to sea level rise, but that melting ice is likely to make an increasingly large contribution in the future.


Given your ability to do basic maths, rare in a AGW proponent in my experience, I am somewhat shocked by your lack of understanding of the thermal expansion part.

The way a body of liquid heats up is well understood and is a subject of long standing in mechanical engineering. Tha IPCC paid for a report on this expecting a nice big number but was disapointed when the figure of 7cm per degree of warming of the air above the ocean per century came out. I wish I had book marked the paper, but you will be able to find that the IPCC does not see thermal expansion as causing significant sea level rise according to it's 5th report.
25-08-2016 20:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
1) 269 billion tons of ice a year melts to produce 269 billion tons of water a year, which is roughly 269 billion cubic metres of water a year. The total surface area of the oceans is 361 million square kilometres, or 361 trillion square meters. Greenland's melting ice therefore contributes 269 x 10^9 / 361 x 10^12 = 7.5 x 10^-4 m or about 0.75 mm per year. By itself, Greenland's melting ice would therefore raise the sea level by 84 x 0.75 = 63 mm by 2100 at its current rate.

However, it's not just Greenland's ice that is melting; Antarctic ice is also melting and contributing to sea level rise. These are not currently the main cause of sea level rise though; the main contribution to the currently observed sea level rise of about 3.4 mm / year is the thermal expansion of sea water. Note also that the melting rate of Greenland's ice isn't constant, but has been accelerating rapidly over the last couple of decades and is likely to continue accelerating.

2) The ice lost from Greenland shows up as a drop in the height of the ice covering the continent. Indeed, the rate of ice loss is actually derived from satellite measurements of the height of Greenland's ice plateau. Note again though that Greenland hasn't been losing this much ice for the last 20 years; the rate of ice loss has accelerated during that time and is expected to continue to do so.

So, no surprises there. I was already aware that thermal expansion of sea water is currently the main contributor to sea level rise, but that melting ice is likely to make an increasingly large contribution in the future.

Your math is incorrect. Water from melted ice added to the oceans should be calculated against the volume of the ocean, not its surface area. I would say it's reasonably fair to use the average depth of the ocean for this case.

Here you would be using the ratio of total volume of water in the oceans to that added by the melted ice, then converting that to sea level rise by applying the average depth of the ocean.

The formula would be:
(volume of added water / volume of the ocean) * average depth of the ocean


No you are wrong.

The additional water will add a layer onto the top of the oiceans. Thus it's the surface that matters.

The volume of the existing ocean will be unchanged only the altitude of the top of the water will change.
25-08-2016 20:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
@Spot:

The first question of 1) can be answered easily: 360 million square kilometers is the estimated surface area of all of Earth's oceans. That would be about ~223.5 million square miles.

The second one is harder because it's not clear if the tonnes here are metric or imperial/short. If it's metric, 269 trillion tons would make about 263 trillion litres. If it's a short ton, it's about 239 billion litres.

Using metric, this becomes a pretty simple calculation: 1 trillion litres becomes 1 cubic kilometre, so, using these numbers, the estimate would be about 263 or 239 km in distance covered, or about 0.0000007 km (or 0.7cm) plus or minus about 0.00000005 km (or 0.05cm) of sea level rise over the 360 million cubic km ocean surface.

I think I made an error or two here, but I'm pretty sure the majority are one or two factors of 10 in my metric conversions (I'm too lazy to check it, and besides, I'm sure someone else will see them faster than me).


Stick to metric and don't confuse yourself and it's easy. 0.75 mm/year.
25-08-2016 20:35
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.

Edited on 25-08-2016 20:36
26-08-2016 01:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
Tim the plumber wrote:
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.


Sorry you did not like the dramatic video I posted but the video helps explain where the ice is going, I think showing what is better then telling. You can see it turning from glaciers to icebergs, icebergs will inevitably turn into water.

You say it's basic physics that the melt should be slowing down, I have to call into question your understanding of basic physics. As far as I can make out this hasn't happened. What has happened is that the melt has accelerated and is expected to accelerate further; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/16/greenland-has-lost-a-staggering-amount-of-ice-and-its-only-getting-worse/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.01a152c1c134

Considering the fact that CO2 levels are increasing and it's getting warmer as shown in the graph that Brian Cox showed Malcolm Roberts, you seem to be making a bold assertion, I don't expect you can find any evidence to back it up. I also expect Brian Cox understands basic physics as do the scientists referred to in the Washington post article better then you or I.
26-08-2016 03:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.

Hot from the presses, with maps and everything!

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance

You can see that most of the ice loss is from the western side of the ice sheet, where the ice level has dropped by over a metre in some places. There's your hole!
26-08-2016 04:26
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.

Hot from the presses, with maps and everything!

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance

You can see that most of the ice loss is from the western side of the ice sheet, where the ice level has dropped by over a metre in some places. There's your hole!


Very interesting study. Thanks for posting that.
26-08-2016 14:39
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.

Hot from the presses, with maps and everything!

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance

You can see that most of the ice loss is from the western side of the ice sheet, where the ice level has dropped by over a metre in some places. There's your hole!


Well done you have presented information I have not seen before. I stand corrected.

I still am not worried by a 0.74mm per year sea level rise though.
26-08-2016 19:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.

Hot from the presses, with maps and everything!

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance

You can see that most of the ice loss is from the western side of the ice sheet, where the ice level has dropped by over a metre in some places. There's your hole!


Well done you have presented information I have not seen before. I stand corrected.

I still am not worried by a 0.74mm per year sea level rise though.

That's just Greenland; there are still contributions from thermal expansion of sea water and melting ice in Antarctica. It all adds up to a current rate of about 3.4 mm per year. That's not all, though. As you'd expect, this rate is accelerating since the warmer it gets, the faster the ice melts.

While rising seas may not be a big problem for us, we're leaving a massive headache for our children and grandchildren as coastal cities and fertile plains vanish under the waves. What sort of a legacy is that?
26-08-2016 19:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
Also rising sea levels are not the only effect of climate change. droughts, coral bleaching, for example.
26-08-2016 21:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
spot wrote:
Also rising sea levels are not the only effect of climate change. droughts, coral bleaching, for example.


An ant drowned in the rain today. Must be 'climate change'.

You stupid moron.

Weather happens. Ocean currents move around a bit. Some tornado takes out another trailer park in Texas.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on Global Warming.

'Climate change' itself is a nonsense term. Why don't you call your church for what it is?


The Parrot Killer
26-08-2016 21:41
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Also rising sea levels are not the only effect of climate change. droughts, coral bleaching, for example.


An ant drowned in the rain today. Must be 'climate change'.

You stupid moron.

Weather happens. Ocean currents move around a bit. Some tornado takes out another trailer park in Texas.

You can't blame EVERYTHING on Global Warming.

'Climate change' itself is a nonsense term. Why don't you call your church for what it is?

Time for your pills, ITN.
27-08-2016 12:38
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.


Sorry you did not like the dramatic video I posted but the video helps explain where the ice is going, I think showing what is better then telling. You can see it turning from glaciers to icebergs, icebergs will inevitably turn into water.

You say it's basic physics that the melt should be slowing down, I have to call into question your understanding of basic physics. As far as I can make out this hasn't happened. What has happened is that the melt has accelerated and is expected to accelerate further; https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/16/greenland-has-lost-a-staggering-amount-of-ice-and-its-only-getting-worse/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.01a152c1c134

Considering the fact that CO2 levels are increasing and it's getting warmer as shown in the graph that Brian Cox showed Malcolm Roberts, you seem to be making a bold assertion, I don't expect you can find any evidence to back it up. I also expect Brian Cox understands basic physics as do the scientists referred to in the Washington post article better then you or I.


Your appeal to authority is noted.

The climate has not warmed significantly since 1998. Thus the ice on Greenland which is beyond the equilibrium point of stability should have been melting away and coming slowly to it's new point of stability. (Yes I know there generally is no such thing as stability in glacial systems but you get the idea.)

What mechanism would explain the acceleration in melt rate with stable temperatures?
27-08-2016 12:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.

Hot from the presses, with maps and everything!

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance

You can see that most of the ice loss is from the western side of the ice sheet, where the ice level has dropped by over a metre in some places. There's your hole!


Well done you have presented information I have not seen before. I stand corrected.

I still am not worried by a 0.74mm per year sea level rise though.

That's just Greenland; there are still contributions from thermal expansion of sea water and melting ice in Antarctica. It all adds up to a current rate of about 3.4 mm per year. That's not all, though. As you'd expect, this rate is accelerating since the warmer it gets, the faster the ice melts.

While rising seas may not be a big problem for us, we're leaving a massive headache for our children and grandchildren as coastal cities and fertile plains vanish under the waves. What sort of a legacy is that?


Last century the sea level increased by 180mm or so.

Ths century is likely to be twice as bad.

Did you notice the sea level rise last century?

Millions of people die due to the use of food as fuel.
27-08-2016 12:42
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
OK, thanks everybody for the maths thingy. It's good to get stuff on that we can actually have a conclusion on.

Next fun maths thingy; The melt rate as quoted of 200Gt/yr or there abouts has been presumably the same for the ast 20 years*. So that's 4,000 cubic kilometers of ice mow missing from Greenland.

Given that you all have been so good at the first maths bit the challenge is now to find the 4,000 Km3 hole! Good hunting!

P.S. * the rate of ice melt should be slowing due to the system coming into balance with the new conditions not accelerating. Basic physics.

Hot from the presses, with maps and everything!

A high-resolution record of Greenland mass balance

You can see that most of the ice loss is from the western side of the ice sheet, where the ice level has dropped by over a metre in some places. There's your hole!


Well done you have presented information I have not seen before. I stand corrected.

I still am not worried by a 0.74mm per year sea level rise though.


Do we know what the change in altitude due to tectonic action has been in Greenland over the same period?
27-08-2016 13:47
spot
★★★★☆
(1231)
Tim the plumber wrote:


Your appeal to authority is noted.

The climate has not warmed significantly since 1998. Thus the ice on Greenland which is beyond the equilibrium point of stability should have been melting away and coming slowly to it's new point of stability. (Yes I know there generally is no such thing as stability in glacial systems but you get the idea.)

What mechanism would explain the acceleration in melt rate with stable temperatures?


Are you really that arrogant that you think you know more about physics then the 'Authorities' that I referenced?

You obviously have a little knowledge from a pamphlet or something but you seem very confused, you claim that the climate has not warmed since 1998, I have started threads about this subject and you have commented on them so I know that you read them. I assume you are either stupid or just trying to wind me up.

Then you go on about some sciency sounding gibberish about balance points, even if it was the same temperature as 1998 it would not be stable because 1998 was warmer then it has been for thousands of years.
27-08-2016 13:55
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Tim I'm curious as to what data you are using when you say the temperature has not risen since 1998?
27-08-2016 14:43
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Hank wrote:
Tim I'm curious as to what data you are using when you say the temperature has not risen since 1998?


http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2017

There are a lot of options the one I have chosen is the second I clicked on. It shows no warming at all whilst the first showed a bit of warming.

That's why I used the word significant.

Given that we are unable to measure world wide temperature all that accurately and the natural variability of such a complex system will create a lot of noise making any statement that it has warmed since 1998 in a definate case is plainly lying. It might of a bit but not so as it can be confidently measured.

Given that this period has seen the most amount of CO2 added to the air ever (by humans) if the AGW hypothesis was correct at it's upper levels then it would be expected to produce rapid warming not stable climate temperatures.

If the hypothesis is correct on the lower end of the IPCC's predictions then we would still be expecting much more warming than even the highest data sets show but the natrual noise of the climate system is likely to be very able to obscure this. So it could still bo OK.

If there is no such noise and what we see is to be taken as a clear refelection of the effect of CO2 then CO2 has very little effect and the warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes.

Whatever, the influence of CO2 on the world's temperature is clearly in the lower half of the IPCC's predictions at most. Thus absolutely nothing to worry about.
27-08-2016 15:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim I'm curious as to what data you are using when you say the temperature has not risen since 1998?


http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2017

There are a lot of options the one I have chosen is the second I clicked on. It shows no warming at all whilst the first showed a bit of warming.

That's why I used the word significant.

Given that we are unable to measure world wide temperature all that accurately and the natural variability of such a complex system will create a lot of noise making any statement that it has warmed since 1998 in a definate case is plainly lying. It might of a bit but not so as it can be confidently measured.

Given that this period has seen the most amount of CO2 added to the air ever (by humans) if the AGW hypothesis was correct at it's upper levels then it would be expected to produce rapid warming not stable climate temperatures.

If the hypothesis is correct on the lower end of the IPCC's predictions then we would still be expecting much more warming than even the highest data sets show but the natrual noise of the climate system is likely to be very able to obscure this. So it could still bo OK.

If there is no such noise and what we see is to be taken as a clear refelection of the effect of CO2 then CO2 has very little effect and the warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes.

Whatever, the influence of CO2 on the world's temperature is clearly in the lower half of the IPCC's predictions at most. Thus absolutely nothing to worry about.

Top trolling, Tim!

Yes, if you use an obsolete dataset and carefully choose a sufficiently short period that begins with a powerful El Nino and ends just before another El Nino, it's possible to get a flat line. Look, see how easy it is:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/57610ab18a65e2414e2f561f/t/5772fec9f7e0ab1cc5f495b9/1467154141852

You're not fooling anybody though. Any hope that the globe may have stopped warming ended with the record hot years of 2014, 2015 and, quite probably, 2016.
Edited on 27-08-2016 15:57
27-08-2016 17:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim I'm curious as to what data you are using when you say the temperature has not risen since 1998?


http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2017

There are a lot of options the one I have chosen is the second I clicked on. It shows no warming at all whilst the first showed a bit of warming.

That's why I used the word significant.

Given that we are unable to measure world wide temperature all that accurately and the natural variability of such a complex system will create a lot of noise making any statement that it has warmed since 1998 in a definate case is plainly lying. It might of a bit but not so as it can be confidently measured.

Given that this period has seen the most amount of CO2 added to the air ever (by humans) if the AGW hypothesis was correct at it's upper levels then it would be expected to produce rapid warming not stable climate temperatures.

If the hypothesis is correct on the lower end of the IPCC's predictions then we would still be expecting much more warming than even the highest data sets show but the natrual noise of the climate system is likely to be very able to obscure this. So it could still bo OK.

If there is no such noise and what we see is to be taken as a clear refelection of the effect of CO2 then CO2 has very little effect and the warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes.

Whatever, the influence of CO2 on the world's temperature is clearly in the lower half of the IPCC's predictions at most. Thus absolutely nothing to worry about.

Top trolling, Tim!

Yes, if you use an obsolete dataset and carefully choose a sufficiently short period that begins with a powerful El Nino and ends just before another El Nino, it's possible to get a flat line. Look, see how easy it is:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/57610ab18a65e2414e2f561f/t/5772fec9f7e0ab1cc5f495b9/1467154141852

You're not fooling anybody though. Any hope that the globe may have stopped warming ended with the record hot years of 2014, 2015 and, quite probably, 2016.


Learn the difference between truth and lying or **** off.

It is true to say that the world has warmed since 1979.

It is true to say that the world has not warmed since 1998 in any significant way.
27-08-2016 17:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim I'm curious as to what data you are using when you say the temperature has not risen since 1998?


http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2017

There are a lot of options the one I have chosen is the second I clicked on. It shows no warming at all whilst the first showed a bit of warming.

That's why I used the word significant.

Given that we are unable to measure world wide temperature all that accurately and the natural variability of such a complex system will create a lot of noise making any statement that it has warmed since 1998 in a definate case is plainly lying. It might of a bit but not so as it can be confidently measured.

Given that this period has seen the most amount of CO2 added to the air ever (by humans) if the AGW hypothesis was correct at it's upper levels then it would be expected to produce rapid warming not stable climate temperatures.

If the hypothesis is correct on the lower end of the IPCC's predictions then we would still be expecting much more warming than even the highest data sets show but the natrual noise of the climate system is likely to be very able to obscure this. So it could still bo OK.

If there is no such noise and what we see is to be taken as a clear refelection of the effect of CO2 then CO2 has very little effect and the warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes.

Whatever, the influence of CO2 on the world's temperature is clearly in the lower half of the IPCC's predictions at most. Thus absolutely nothing to worry about.

Top trolling, Tim!

Yes, if you use an obsolete dataset and carefully choose a sufficiently short period that begins with a powerful El Nino and ends just before another El Nino, it's possible to get a flat line. Look, see how easy it is:

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/57610ab18a65e2414e2f561f/t/5772fec9f7e0ab1cc5f495b9/1467154141852

You're not fooling anybody though. Any hope that the globe may have stopped warming ended with the record hot years of 2014, 2015 and, quite probably, 2016.


Learn the difference between truth and lying or **** off.

It is true to say that the world has warmed since 1979.

It is true to say that the world has not warmed since 1998 in any significant way.

Heh, it's funny how wound up you deniers get when your lying is challenged.

You lied about the temperature of the Antarctic, and you're lying about this. The HadCRUT3 dataset that you referred to is obsolete - the last data point was April 2014. HadCRUT4 is the current dataset. Take a look at it. Any fool can see that warming has continued unabated under the noise.

You might also look at the latest GISS dataset, which is in close agreement with HadCRUT4 and, likewise, shows unabated warming.

No matter how much you scream and stamp your feet, the evidence is there for all to see.
27-08-2016 18:16
Hank
★☆☆☆☆
(77)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim I'm curious as to what data you are using when you say the temperature has not risen since 1998?


http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2017

There are a lot of options the one I have chosen is the second I clicked on. It shows no warming at all whilst the first showed a bit of warming.

That's why I used the word significant.

Given that we are unable to measure world wide temperature all that accurately and the natural variability of such a complex system will create a lot of noise making any statement that it has warmed since 1998 in a definate case is plainly lying. It might of a bit but not so as it can be confidently measured.

Given that this period has seen the most amount of CO2 added to the air ever (by humans) if the AGW hypothesis was correct at it's upper levels then it would be expected to produce rapid warming not stable climate temperatures.

If the hypothesis is correct on the lower end of the IPCC's predictions then we would still be expecting much more warming than even the highest data sets show but the natrual noise of the climate system is likely to be very able to obscure this. So it could still bo OK.

If there is no such noise and what we see is to be taken as a clear refelection of the effect of CO2 then CO2 has very little effect and the warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes.

Whatever, the influence of CO2 on the world's temperature is clearly in the lower half of the IPCC's predictions at most. Thus absolutely nothing to worry about.


Tim in order to determine the rate of temperature increase it's necessary to compare apples to apples. I'm sure you know that 1998 was probably the strongest el Nino on record. So it needs to be compared to other strong el Nino's, like 2015, in order to do the apples to apples comparison. When you do that you get about 0.012 C/year if using the HadCRUT4 data (HadCRUT3 doesn't have 2015 data) or slightly higher when using NASA data. That's because HadCRUT is the only reporter that doesn't use a statistical calculation for the extreme northern area. They just ignore that area and it's well know that the northern areas are warming faster than other areas. Hence there is a slightly lower bias in the HadCRUT data. You get pretty much the same rate when comparing the normal years and when comparing the la Nina years. At that rate the earth will add another degree by 2100 above the present which has already increased about a degree above pre-industrial temperatures. And with CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere at a higher rate the concern is that rate may increase. That will result in major changes in the weather which is why the military and insurance companies are so worried about global warming.

In your reply you talked about warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes. What other causes were you talking about?
27-08-2016 18:45
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Hank wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim I'm curious as to what data you are using when you say the temperature has not risen since 1998?


http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2017

There are a lot of options the one I have chosen is the second I clicked on. It shows no warming at all whilst the first showed a bit of warming.

That's why I used the word significant.

Given that we are unable to measure world wide temperature all that accurately and the natural variability of such a complex system will create a lot of noise making any statement that it has warmed since 1998 in a definate case is plainly lying. It might of a bit but not so as it can be confidently measured.

Given that this period has seen the most amount of CO2 added to the air ever (by humans) if the AGW hypothesis was correct at it's upper levels then it would be expected to produce rapid warming not stable climate temperatures.

If the hypothesis is correct on the lower end of the IPCC's predictions then we would still be expecting much more warming than even the highest data sets show but the natrual noise of the climate system is likely to be very able to obscure this. So it could still bo OK.

If there is no such noise and what we see is to be taken as a clear refelection of the effect of CO2 then CO2 has very little effect and the warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes.

Whatever, the influence of CO2 on the world's temperature is clearly in the lower half of the IPCC's predictions at most. Thus absolutely nothing to worry about.


Tim in order to determine the rate of temperature increase it's necessary to compare apples to apples. I'm sure you know that 1998 was probably the strongest el Nino on record. So it needs to be compared to other strong el Nino's, like 2015, in order to do the apples to apples comparison. When you do that you get about 0.012 C/year if using the HadCRUT4 data (HadCRUT3 doesn't have 2015 data) or slightly higher when using NASA data. That's because HadCRUT is the only reporter that doesn't use a statistical calculation for the extreme northern area. They just ignore that area and it's well know that the northern areas are warming faster than other areas. Hence there is a slightly lower bias in the HadCRUT data. You get pretty much the same rate when comparing the normal years and when comparing the la Nina years. At that rate the earth will add another degree by 2100 above the present which has already increased about a degree above pre-industrial temperatures. And with CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere at a higher rate the concern is that rate may increase. That will result in major changes in the weather which is why the military and insurance companies are so worried about global warming.

In your reply you talked about warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes. What other causes were you talking about?


0.012 C/year

Yes. As I said not significant. Lost in the noise. Easy.

Understand what honesty is.
27-08-2016 19:34
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Hank wrote:
Tim I'm curious as to what data you are using when you say the temperature has not risen since 1998?


http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to:2017

There are a lot of options the one I have chosen is the second I clicked on. It shows no warming at all whilst the first showed a bit of warming.

That's why I used the word significant.

Given that we are unable to measure world wide temperature all that accurately and the natural variability of such a complex system will create a lot of noise making any statement that it has warmed since 1998 in a definate case is plainly lying. It might of a bit but not so as it can be confidently measured.

Given that this period has seen the most amount of CO2 added to the air ever (by humans) if the AGW hypothesis was correct at it's upper levels then it would be expected to produce rapid warming not stable climate temperatures.

If the hypothesis is correct on the lower end of the IPCC's predictions then we would still be expecting much more warming than even the highest data sets show but the natrual noise of the climate system is likely to be very able to obscure this. So it could still bo OK.

If there is no such noise and what we see is to be taken as a clear refelection of the effect of CO2 then CO2 has very little effect and the warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes.

Whatever, the influence of CO2 on the world's temperature is clearly in the lower half of the IPCC's predictions at most. Thus absolutely nothing to worry about.


Tim in order to determine the rate of temperature increase it's necessary to compare apples to apples. I'm sure you know that 1998 was probably the strongest el Nino on record. So it needs to be compared to other strong el Nino's, like 2015, in order to do the apples to apples comparison. When you do that you get about 0.012 C/year if using the HadCRUT4 data (HadCRUT3 doesn't have 2015 data) or slightly higher when using NASA data. That's because HadCRUT is the only reporter that doesn't use a statistical calculation for the extreme northern area. They just ignore that area and it's well know that the northern areas are warming faster than other areas. Hence there is a slightly lower bias in the HadCRUT data. You get pretty much the same rate when comparing the normal years and when comparing the la Nina years. At that rate the earth will add another degree by 2100 above the present which has already increased about a degree above pre-industrial temperatures. And with CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere at a higher rate the concern is that rate may increase. That will result in major changes in the weather which is why the military and insurance companies are so worried about global warming.

In your reply you talked about warming between 1979 and 1998 was due to other causes. What other causes were you talking about?


0.012 C/year

Yes. As I said not significant. Lost in the noise. Easy.

Understand what honesty is.

You obviously don't understand the difference between noise and a trend. You'd best learn some basic statistical analysis before you make yourself look any more of an idiot.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Proffessor Brian Cox vs Conspiracy theorist Australian Senator:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Record Australian heat shows soaring cost of climate change126-02-2019 18:16
Radio Ecoshock - John Mashey lays out the conspiracy, and names names - Feb 20122816-12-2017 03:28
No AGW Conspiracy?122-09-2017 09:16
So how exactly does this Evil Liberal Governmental Science Conspiracy do... anything?8030-11-2016 20:04
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact