this post was submitted on
4 points (60% like it)
12 up votes 8 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

3
4

Decimals of Precision – Trenberth’s missing heat (wattsupwiththat.com)

submitted ago by AlyssaMoore

all 11 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]bluegarlic 3 points4 points ago

My dog "did something" with my homework/heat. Same old stuff. "We know is there, trust us! We or you just can't measure it...can't detect it...it's hiding so well because is in love with petroleum products."

[–]nuclear_is_good -1 points0 points ago

It's shit like this Willis, it's shit like this:

  • more than half of the post is about some crappy story on defrauding casinos ;

  • when getting to the actual part you say:

If our precision is plus or minus a tenth (± 0.1) and we want to know the answer to one more decimal, plus or minus one hundredth (± 0.01), we need one hundred times the data to get that precision.

but you somehow forget to mention in the article that the actual accuracy of the Argo for temperature is 0.005 to start with (but you manage to remember that many pages below when pressed in a comment);

  • you conveniently forget to mention that the standard error of the mean goes down quickly even without many measurements and goes down even quicker if you have a very small standard deviation;

  • then you engage in a little mathurbation but again 'conveniently forget' that each float makes on average 200 measurements (for at least temperature and salinity) in each profile - which of course provides all the 'mysterious missing data' that you were trying to sell :)

[–]bluegarlic -1 points0 points ago

Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "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."

thanks Kevin, yes, it's a matter of what question one is asking. to argue that the observed global mean temperature anomalies of the past decade falsifies the model projections of global mean temperature change, as contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. but that doesn't mean we can explain exactly what's going on. there is always the danger of falling a bit into the "we don't know everything, so we know nothing" fallacy. hence, I wanted to try to clarify where we all agree, and where there may be disagreement,

mike

[–]nuclear_is_good 1 point2 points ago

  1. Quoting stuff out of the full scientific context where it was made will not score you points with me.

  2. Are you trying to suggest that the subject of this thread - Argo confidence interval - is a very good explanation for the infamous 'missing heat'? Since in that case you could just link directly to the peer-reviewed paper and then lobby for more funds to the Argo system in order to make that more accurate! Of course that as we speak there are also two other alternative theories on that subject in actual peer-reviewed published papers - one suggesting that the 'missing heat' is already deeper in the oceans (and to measure that well would require extending the Argo system at bigger depths) and one suggesting that we need a more accurate estimate of the negative feedback from aerosols.

[–]butch123 2 points3 points ago

Just to recap... Trenberth was concerned because he claimed additional heat was not being accounted for.

Fine...let him determine the amount exactly and how it is being expended/stored in the Earth's system through true experimental processes. Not climate models which provides results based in part on the biases of the user.

Trenberth himself posited this extra heat content, then used it as a reason to claim we should worry about global warming occurring ever faster. Had he not taken an alarmist position in relation to this proposed missing heat, no one would have been terribly concerned. Had he simply stated his belief that the heat was missing and the truth of this should be investigated further to see if it was true, no one would have been alarmed. What he did was to claim it was true, to disregard the null hypothesis of true science and proceeded to look for it hiding in unknown places.

The one place that it could not be measured was the deep ocean so that is where he assumed it was located. The Argo measurements showed no such transit of heat to the deep ocean.

Finally he did admit that it might have escaped to space.

[–]nuclear_is_good -2 points-1 points ago

I am still waiting for your clear answers from:

http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/ourr5/it_seems_that_some_climate_scientists_have_been/c3knqhw

Until that is clarified I will just consider you a clueless troll - and any further trolling will be reported to the moderator.

[–]butch123 2 points3 points ago

And there is a reason you trolled over to another thread to make this statement? You were not replied to because your post was inane, you could have used the dates I cited to make your linear trend more sloped to show the effect you wanted to show. If you cannot determine why I did not reply to the first two items I suggest you go to woodfortrees and try them out. I am not your physics professor.

[–]bluegarlic 1 point2 points ago

The biggest problem you have is the lack of warming during the last decade. Just wasn't supposed to be like that according to all those models.

[–]nuclear_is_good -2 points-1 points ago

The biggest problem you have is the lack of warming during the last decade. Just wasn't supposed to be like that according to all those models.

You probably wanted to say that the biggest problem is that like 95% of the warming expected during the last decade was already measured, and about 5% of the warming expected does not appear in the current measurements - which could be from the margins of errors in those measurements, from warming of deep ocean or from underestimating aerosol forcing - as discussed by the 3 peer-reviewed papers that I did mention.

However instead of that I see from you just a very strange regurgitation of what you might have heard from certain ignorant blogs.

[–]bluegarlic 2 points3 points ago

Next time please address your "hurt feelings" complaint to the gentleman mentioned below.

Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "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."

[–]nuclear_is_good -1 points0 points ago

Next time please address your "hurt feelings" complaint to the gentleman mentioned below.

Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "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."

The gentleman above has made very clear for many times now that in that short message in a very specific context he meant precisely the things that I have described above (and which are detailed by the 3 peer-reviewed papers I mentioned and generally have little connection with my original very factual comment regarding the shit from Willis) - but which got seriously distorted by the craposphere and now regurgitated by people that have no clue.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 8982 on app-21 running 30e6d1a.