Here: I’ve started a thread. It seems this is not chat.

Zeppelin said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Zeppelin said:

what am i saying that isn’t true?

That the observed warming is less than the models predict.

Here’s the data for the UAH satellite https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

global lower tropospheric trend over the 40 year record >>> 0.13C. The model best guess works out to be 0.33C / decade.

OK. Off topic but just saw it on the news.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-31/parts-of-us-colder-than-antarctica-as-polar-vortex-grips-midwest/10765416

mollwollfumble said:

OK. Off topic but just saw it on the news.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-31/parts-of-us-colder-than-antarctica-as-polar-vortex-grips-midwest/10765416

Why is it off topic?

mollwollfumble said:

OK. Off topic but just saw it on the news.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-31/parts-of-us-colder-than-antarctica-as-polar-vortex-grips-midwest/10765416

Goes to show, it must be bloody hot somewhere else.

so here’s the sat data for lower troposphere
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

0.13C/decade trend

the data for the mid troposphere shows a slower trend (0.09C/decade) as compared to the lower trop, not a faster trend as the greenhouse forcing theory dictates.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt

this proves that, at best, only some of the 0.13C trend is due to gasses, or possibly none of it.

Zeppelin said:

so here’s the sat data for lower troposphere
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

0.13C/decade trend

the data for the mid troposphere shows a slower trend (0.09C/decade) as compared to the lower trop, not a faster trend as the greenhouse forcing theory dictates.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt

this proves that, at best, only some of the 0.13C trend is due to gasses, or possibly none of it.

Step 1. WTF is UAH?
Step 2. How reliable are those trends?
Step 3. What does theory dictate (back of envelope)?
Step 4. What do global climate models say?

Step 1. UAH = University of Alabama in Huntsville
“The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, infers the temperature of various atmospheric layers from satellite measurements of radiance. It was the first global temperature datasets developed from satellite information.”

Step 2. Downloading into Excel

Do you have the name of the datafile for the lower stratosphere?

From https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt Lower troposphere
Temperature rise trend
Global 0.13
Land 0.18
Ocean 0.11 – cooler because of better thermal conductivity of ocean
Northern Hemisphere 0.15
Southern Hemisphere 0.10
Southern hemisphere ocean heated less than northern hemisphere ocean.

From https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt Midlevel troposphere
Temperature rise trend
Global 0.09
Land 0.13
Ocean 0.08
Northern Hemisphere 0.11
Southern Hemisphere 0.07
Temperature increase in the midlevel troposphere is consistently less than in the lower troposphere.

Well there’s definitely a global warming trend there.

And looks like in the order of 0.01 degrees per year.

UAH – The University of Alabama in Huntsville

ChrispenEvan said:

UAH – The University of Alabama in Huntsville

i see you already know

mollwollfumble said:

Zeppelin said:

so here’s the sat data for lower troposphere
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

0.13C/decade trend

the data for the mid troposphere shows a slower trend (0.09C/decade) as compared to the lower trop, not a faster trend as the greenhouse forcing theory dictates.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt

this proves that, at best, only some of the 0.13C trend is due to gasses, or possibly none of it.

Step 1. WTF is UAH?
Step 2. How reliable are those trends?
Step 3. What does theory dictate (back of envelope)?
Step 4. What do global climate models say?

Step 1. UAH = University of Alabama in Huntsville
“The UAH satellite temperature dataset, developed at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, infers the temperature of various atmospheric layers from satellite measurements of radiance. It was the first global temperature datasets developed from satellite information.”

Step 2. Downloading into Excel

Do you have the name of the datafile for the lower stratosphere?

From https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt Lower troposphere
Temperature rise trend
Global 0.13
Land 0.18
Ocean 0.11 – cooler because of better thermal conductivity of ocean
Northern Hemisphere 0.15
Southern Hemisphere 0.10
Southern hemisphere ocean heated less than northern hemisphere ocean.

From https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt Midlevel troposphere
Temperature rise trend
Global 0.09
Land 0.13
Ocean 0.08
Northern Hemisphere 0.11
Southern Hemisphere 0.07
Temperature increase in the midlevel troposphere is consistently less than in the lower troposphere.

Well there’s definitely a global warming trend there.

And looks like in the order of 0.01 degrees per year.

University of Alabama Huntsville. The pioneers of sat temp, NASA award winners. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Yes moll, there is a warming trend, but it is far less than model projections, & there is no proof that the trend, 0.13/decade is from greenhouse forcing. Going by the theory, it isn’t

Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary – greatly

Our study documents pronounced differences between the observed and CMIP5-simulated climate variability in the twentieth century. These differences are dominated by a coherent multidecadal hemispheric-scale signal present in the observed SST and SLP fields but completely missing in any of the CMIP5 simulations.

Our results are also broadly consistent with recent analyses of Cheung et al. , who documented substantial mismatches between their estimated internal components of the observed and CMIP5-simulated AMO, PMO, and NMO variability. However, these authors used subtraction of the scaled CMIP5 MMEM signal to deduce the internal variability in historical simulations of individual CMIP5 models. Kravtsov et al. and Kravtsov and Callicutt showed that the residual variability so defined misrepresents the true internal variability in CMIP5 simulations and is, in fact, dominated by model error, that is, the differences between the true forced response of individual models and the MMEM response. The magnitude of the CMIP5 “internal” variability estimated by this method is, hence, much larger than that of the true simulated internal variability, and the spectral characteristics of the true and estimated internal variability are entirely different.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL074016

A Test of the Tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa Warming Rate in Climate Models
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018EA000401

Abstract
Overall climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling in a general circulation model results from a complex system of parameterizations in combination with the underlying model structure. We refer to this as the model’s major hypothesis, and we assume it to be testable. We explain four criteria that a valid test should meet: measurability, specificity, independence, and uniqueness. We argue that temperature change in the tropical 200‐ to 300‐hPa layer meets these criteria. Comparing modeled to observed trends over the past 60 years using a persistence‐robust variance estimator shows that all models warm more rapidly than observations and in the majority of individual cases the discrepancy is statistically significant. We argue that this provides informative evidence against the major hypothesis in most current climate models.

Zeppelin said:

Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary – greatly

Our study documents pronounced differences between the observed and CMIP5-simulated climate variability in the twentieth century. These differences are dominated by a coherent multidecadal hemispheric-scale signal present in the observed SST and SLP fields but completely missing in any of the CMIP5 simulations.

Our results are also broadly consistent with recent analyses of Cheung et al. , who documented substantial mismatches between their estimated internal components of the observed and CMIP5-simulated AMO, PMO, and NMO variability. However, these authors used subtraction of the scaled CMIP5 MMEM signal to deduce the internal variability in historical simulations of individual CMIP5 models. Kravtsov et al. and Kravtsov and Callicutt showed that the residual variability so defined misrepresents the true internal variability in CMIP5 simulations and is, in fact, dominated by model error, that is, the differences between the true forced response of individual models and the MMEM response. The magnitude of the CMIP5 “internal” variability estimated by this method is, hence, much larger than that of the true simulated internal variability, and the spectral characteristics of the true and estimated internal variability are entirely different.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL074016

And your point being?

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
is the lower stratosphere file.

In the lower stratosphere we have a global cooling. A greater global cooling than the global warming in the troposphere. Essentially identical over land and ocean, over northern and southern hemisphere, and over tropics.

-0.03 degrees C per year.

Apologies to CrispenEven, I was thinking out loud.

> Step 2. How reliable are those trends?

Next step is to calculate the standard error on the slope. Fairly obviously, if I happened to choose the decade 1998 to 2008 then I would get a totally different result for global warming in the lower and middle troposphere.

How to calculate the standard error on the slope in Excel?

AND

How to subtract the autocorrelation before calculating the standard error on the slope.

mollwollfumble said:

Apologies to CrispenEven, I was thinking out loud.

> Step 2. How reliable are those trends?

Next step is to calculate the standard error on the slope. Fairly obviously, if I happened to choose the decade 1998 to 2008 then I would get a totally different result for global warming in the lower and middle troposphere.

How to calculate the standard error on the slope in Excel?

Linest function, or display it on an XY(Scatter) chart.

mollwollfumble said:

AND

How to subtract the autocorrelation before calculating the standard error on the slope.

Why do you want to do that?

gaghalfrunt said:

Zeppelin said:

Another paper shows that climate models and climate reality vary – greatly

Our study documents pronounced differences between the observed and CMIP5-simulated climate variability in the twentieth century. These differences are dominated by a coherent multidecadal hemispheric-scale signal present in the observed SST and SLP fields but completely missing in any of the CMIP5 simulations.

Our results are also broadly consistent with recent analyses of Cheung et al. , who documented substantial mismatches between their estimated internal components of the observed and CMIP5-simulated AMO, PMO, and NMO variability. However, these authors used subtraction of the scaled CMIP5 MMEM signal to deduce the internal variability in historical simulations of individual CMIP5 models. Kravtsov et al. and Kravtsov and Callicutt showed that the residual variability so defined misrepresents the true internal variability in CMIP5 simulations and is, in fact, dominated by model error, that is, the differences between the true forced response of individual models and the MMEM response. The magnitude of the CMIP5 “internal” variability estimated by this method is, hence, much larger than that of the true simulated internal variability, and the spectral characteristics of the true and estimated internal variability are entirely different.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL074016

And your point being?

I was going to ask that but you did anyway.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

How to subtract the autocorrelation before calculating the standard error on the slope.

Why do you want to do that?

I’m not sure that I can explain easily.

In the following two graphs the data is truly random (random number generator). The only difference is that the red data has autocorrelation added.

Both have the same trendline. The autocorrelation makes the trend look more believable, even though the trend is no more accurate than for the data without autocorrelation.

dumb Q perhaps

how much direct heating does human activity contribute to global warming.

You make maths sexy again Moll.

transition said:

dumb Q perhaps

how much direct heating does human activity contribute to global warming.

Next to nothing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

dumb Q perhaps

how much direct heating does human activity contribute to global warming.

Next to nothing.

I think we need to properly ascertain what Onty means by direct heating.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

dumb Q perhaps

how much direct heating does human activity contribute to global warming.

Next to nothing.

I think we need to properly ascertain what Onty means by direct heating.

any burning of fuel generates heat, for example

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Next to nothing.

I think we need to properly ascertain what Onty means by direct heating.

any burning of fuel generates heat, for example

Yeah, IC engines being cooled by radiating the heat into the atmosphere planes/ships/cars/trucks, billions of them 24/7.
But apparently it’s bugger all in the great scheme of things.

Peak Warming Man said:

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think we need to properly ascertain what Onty means by direct heating.

any burning of fuel generates heat, for example

Yeah, IC engines being cooled by radiating the heat into the atmosphere planes/ships/cars/trucks, billions of them 24/7.
But apparently it’s bugger all in the great scheme of things.

Well a city is pretty much all heat, or at least changes the natural pattern of heat, radiating constantly you would expect that to influence something, especially when you get into mega cities and merging with thousands of acres of suburban roads and roofs.

Peak Warming Man said:

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think we need to properly ascertain what Onty means by direct heating.

any burning of fuel generates heat, for example

Yeah, IC engines being cooled by radiating the heat into the atmosphere planes/ships/cars/trucks, billions of them 24/7.
But apparently it’s bugger all in the great scheme of things.

thing is though what’s the amount of sunshine equal to mid latitudes at midday?(ground level) a KW?

what humans burn per square metre (averaged) is fairly substantial I would have thought

Peak Warming Man said:

transition said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I think we need to properly ascertain what Onty means by direct heating.

any burning of fuel generates heat, for example

Yeah, IC engines being cooled by radiating the heat into the atmosphere planes/ships/cars/trucks, billions of them 24/7.
But apparently it’s bugger all in the great scheme of things.

Well there you go. I though he mean “direct heating by human activity”, like exercise, digging the garden, walking, etc.

transition said:

Peak Warming Man said:

transition said:

any burning of fuel generates heat, for example

Yeah, IC engines being cooled by radiating the heat into the atmosphere planes/ships/cars/trucks, billions of them 24/7.
But apparently it’s bugger all in the great scheme of things.

thing is though what’s the amount of sunshine equal to mid latitudes at midday?(ground level) a KW?

what humans burn per square metre (averaged) is fairly substantial I would have thought

tomorrow night there will he nine people in house here, couple hundred watts each (homeostasis etc), TV on, lights on, heated swimming pool, HWS, AC, electronic gadgets, water pumped to the house and held at pressure, there’s food from the supermarket that was produced elsewhere (and transported), and there’re trips in the cars, holidays overseas in jets. Seems like a shitload of energy to me.

transition said:

transition said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Yeah, IC engines being cooled by radiating the heat into the atmosphere planes/ships/cars/trucks, billions of them 24/7.
But apparently it’s bugger all in the great scheme of things.

thing is though what’s the amount of sunshine equal to mid latitudes at midday?(ground level) a KW?

what humans burn per square metre (averaged) is fairly substantial I would have thought

tomorrow night there will he nine people in house here, couple hundred watts each (homeostasis etc), TV on, lights on, heated swimming pool, HWS, AC, electronic gadgets, water pumped to the house and held at pressure, there’s food from the supermarket that was produced elsewhere (and transported), and there’re trips in the cars, holidays overseas in jets. Seems like a shitload of energy to me.

Meanwhile in Wisconsin ….
and yes it still works!

transition said:

transition said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Yeah, IC engines being cooled by radiating the heat into the atmosphere planes/ships/cars/trucks, billions of them 24/7.
But apparently it’s bugger all in the great scheme of things.

thing is though what’s the amount of sunshine equal to mid latitudes at midday?(ground level) a KW?

what humans burn per square metre (averaged) is fairly substantial I would have thought

tomorrow night there will he nine people in house here, couple hundred watts each (homeostasis etc), TV on, lights on, heated swimming pool, HWS, AC, electronic gadgets, water pumped to the house and held at pressure, there’s food from the supermarket that was produced elsewhere (and transported), and there’re trips in the cars, holidays overseas in jets. Seems like a shitload of energy to me.

we’re discussing how much energy i’m burning sitting here, this planet sized brain idling etc..

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

transition said:

thing is though what’s the amount of sunshine equal to mid latitudes at midday?(ground level) a KW?

what humans burn per square metre (averaged) is fairly substantial I would have thought

tomorrow night there will he nine people in house here, couple hundred watts each (homeostasis etc), TV on, lights on, heated swimming pool, HWS, AC, electronic gadgets, water pumped to the house and held at pressure, there’s food from the supermarket that was produced elsewhere (and transported), and there’re trips in the cars, holidays overseas in jets. Seems like a shitload of energy to me.

Meanwhile in Wisconsin ….
and yes it still works!

:)

don’t let the big fella get frozen to the side, you’ll be needing a friend with a hairdryer.

transition said:

transition said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Yeah, IC engines being cooled by radiating the heat into the atmosphere planes/ships/cars/trucks, billions of them 24/7.
But apparently it’s bugger all in the great scheme of things.

thing is though what’s the amount of sunshine equal to mid latitudes at midday?(ground level) a KW?

what humans burn per square metre (averaged) is fairly substantial I would have thought

tomorrow night there will he nine people in house here, couple hundred watts each (homeostasis etc), TV on, lights on, heated swimming pool, HWS, AC, electronic gadgets, water pumped to the house and held at pressure, there’s food from the supermarket that was produced elsewhere (and transported), and there’re trips in the cars, holidays overseas in jets. Seems like a shitload of energy to me.

Another (somewhat easier) method is to consider how much energy is mined (coal, oil, gas) and how much energy is eaten (food). All of that energy is ultimately converted to heat. Add that up.

There’s 10s of thousands of tonnes of coal equivalent energy mined (lets say 35 Mj/kg). There’s probably about 5000 kj of energy eaten per person. That’s 5 MJ per person per day.

So, it’s an awful lot of energy.

Michael V said:

transition said:

transition said:

thing is though what’s the amount of sunshine equal to mid latitudes at midday?(ground level) a KW?

what humans burn per square metre (averaged) is fairly substantial I would have thought

tomorrow night there will he nine people in house here, couple hundred watts each (homeostasis etc), TV on, lights on, heated swimming pool, HWS, AC, electronic gadgets, water pumped to the house and held at pressure, there’s food from the supermarket that was produced elsewhere (and transported), and there’re trips in the cars, holidays overseas in jets. Seems like a shitload of energy to me.

Another (somewhat easier) method is to consider how much energy is mined (coal, oil, gas) and how much energy is eaten (food). All of that energy is ultimately converted to heat. Add that up.

There’s 10s of thousands of tonnes of coal equivalent energy mined (lets say 35 Mj/kg). There’s probably about 5000 kj of energy eaten per person. That’s 5 MJ per person per day.

So, it’s an awful lot of energy.

that’s what I reckon

transition said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

tomorrow night there will he nine people in house here, couple hundred watts each (homeostasis etc), TV on, lights on, heated swimming pool, HWS, AC, electronic gadgets, water pumped to the house and held at pressure, there’s food from the supermarket that was produced elsewhere (and transported), and there’re trips in the cars, holidays overseas in jets. Seems like a shitload of energy to me.

Another (somewhat easier) method is to consider how much energy is mined (coal, oil, gas) and how much energy is eaten (food). All of that energy is ultimately converted to heat. Add that up.

There’s 10s of thousands of tonnes of coal equivalent energy mined (lets say 35 Mj/kg). There’s probably about 5000 kj of energy eaten per person. That’s 5 MJ per person per day.

So, it’s an awful lot of energy.

that’s what I reckon

Compared to sunshine?

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

Another (somewhat easier) method is to consider how much energy is mined (coal, oil, gas) and how much energy is eaten (food). All of that energy is ultimately converted to heat. Add that up.

There’s 10s of thousands of tonnes of coal equivalent energy mined (lets say 35 Mj/kg). There’s probably about 5000 kj of energy eaten per person. That’s 5 MJ per person per day.

So, it’s an awful lot of energy.

that’s what I reckon

Compared to sunshine?

Nah, SFA. A square meter gets on average about 21 MJ of energy per day.

Michael V said:

transition said:

transition said:

thing is though what’s the amount of sunshine equal to mid latitudes at midday?(ground level) a KW?

what humans burn per square metre (averaged) is fairly substantial I would have thought

tomorrow night there will he nine people in house here, couple hundred watts each (homeostasis etc), TV on, lights on, heated swimming pool, HWS, AC, electronic gadgets, water pumped to the house and held at pressure, there’s food from the supermarket that was produced elsewhere (and transported), and there’re trips in the cars, holidays overseas in jets. Seems like a shitload of energy to me.

Another (somewhat easier) method is to consider how much energy is mined (coal, oil, gas) and how much energy is eaten (food). All of that energy is ultimately converted to heat. Add that up.

There’s 10s of thousands billions of tonnes of coal equivalent energy mined (lets say 35 Mj/kg). There’s probably about 5000 kj of energy eaten per person. That’s 5 MJ per person per day.

So, it’s an awful lot of energy.

(corrected – thousands —-> billions)

So, 7.53 billion people times 5 Mj times 365 = 13,742.25 billion MJ

(say) 30 billion tonnes times 1000 times 34Mj = 102,000 billion MJ

So 116 trillion MJ of heat energy per year.

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

that’s what I reckon

Compared to sunshine?

Nah, SFA. A square meter gets on average about 21 MJ of energy per day.

Surface area of the earth is 510.1 trillion m²

times 21 times 365 = 3,909,916.5 trillion MJ. From sunshine

And 116 trillion MJ of heat energy per year from Humans.

So about .003%

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Compared to sunshine?

Nah, SFA. A square meter gets on average about 21 MJ of energy per day.

Surface area of the earth is 510.1 trillion m²

times 21 times 365 = 3,909,916.5 trillion MJ. From sunshine

And 116 trillion MJ of heat energy per year from Humans.

So about .003%

Was just doing the calcs, MV. You beat me to it :)

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Compared to sunshine?

Nah, SFA. A square meter gets on average about 21 MJ of energy per day.

Surface area of the earth is 510.1 trillion m²

times 21 times 365 = 3,909,916.5 trillion MJ. From sunshine

And 116 trillion MJ of heat energy per year from Humans.

So about .003%

I haven’t looked up sun output variability, be quite a bit more than that I guess.

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

Nah, SFA. A square meter gets on average about 21 MJ of energy per day.

Surface area of the earth is 510.1 trillion m²

times 21 times 365 = 3,909,916.5 trillion MJ. From sunshine

And 116 trillion MJ of heat energy per year from Humans.

So about .003%

Was just doing the calcs, MV. You beat me to it :)

:)

transition said:

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

Nah, SFA. A square meter gets on average about 21 MJ of energy per day.

Surface area of the earth is 510.1 trillion m²

times 21 times 365 = 3,909,916.5 trillion MJ. From sunshine

And 116 trillion MJ of heat energy per year from Humans.

So about .003%

I haven’t looked up sun output variability, be quite a bit more than that I guess.

It’s all ball-park. Halve the sun’s output, ten times the human input. Multiply by 20.

0.003% times 20 = 0.6%

Michael V said:

transition said:

Michael V said:

Surface area of the earth is 510.1 trillion m²

times 21 times 365 = 3,909,916.5 trillion MJ. From sunshine

And 116 trillion MJ of heat energy per year from Humans.

So about .003%

I haven’t looked up sun output variability, be quite a bit more than that I guess.

It’s all ball-park. Halve the sun’s output, ten times the human input. Multiply by 20.

0.003% times 20 = 0.6%

Correction, sorry:

0.06%

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

I haven’t looked up sun output variability, be quite a bit more than that I guess.

It’s all ball-park. Halve the sun’s output, ten times the human input. Multiply by 20.

0.003% times 20 = 0.6%

Correction, sorry:

0.06%

Stop trying to be an engineer!

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

transition said:

I haven’t looked up sun output variability, be quite a bit more than that I guess.

It’s all ball-park. Halve the sun’s output, ten times the human input. Multiply by 20.

0.003% times 20 = 0.6%

Correction, sorry:

0.06%

So, bugger all.

The real problem is two-fold:

Burning the fuel adds CO2 to the atmosphere – causing capture of more of the sun’s energy (rather than reflecting it), and

Burning the fuel allows more modification (mostly destruction) of the ecosphere.

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

It’s all ball-park. Halve the sun’s output, ten times the human input. Multiply by 20.

0.003% times 20 = 0.6%

Correction, sorry:

0.06%

Stop trying to be an engineer!

OK, I put my hand up, I made an engineering error. I didn’t carry a zero…

Michael V said:

sibeen said:

Michael V said:

Correction, sorry:

0.06%

Stop trying to be an engineer!

OK, I put my hand up, I made an engineering error. I didn’t carry a zero…

Anyway, I blame the wine, rum-n-campari, sake and more wine.

Oh wait…

EtOH is another engineer’s thing. Bloody.

OK, I blame my nearly teetotal (sort of) engineer father. He’s dead. So that’s OK…

sibeen said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

transition said:

that’s what I reckon

Compared to sunshine?

Nah, SFA. A square meter gets on average about 21 MJ of energy per day.

I know some meters are square but many are also round.

I know that Z wants us to see that the models were overestimating what is really going down and hence trying to force play upon inconsistency but the one unavoidable constant is the ever increasing rise of temperatures overall.

I’m glad the lengthy discussion eventually arrived at the original answer.

‘The reason deniers claim the satellite data is superior is that they want to discredit the surface temperature (thermometer) record, and that’s because the surface data show so much warming. But among the satellite data sets, there’s one which shows far less warming: UAH TMT. Odd that these days they make a habit of showing that one, the one satellite data set which shows the least warming and correlates least with balloon data. Come to think of it, it’s not odd at all…’

From here-
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m glad the lengthy discussion eventually arrived at the original answer.

:)

ruby said:

‘The reason deniers claim the satellite data is superior is that they want to discredit the surface temperature (thermometer) record, and that’s because the surface data show so much warming. But among the satellite data sets, there’s one which shows far less warming: UAH TMT. Odd that these days they make a habit of showing that one, the one satellite data set which shows the least warming and correlates least with balloon data. Come to think of it, it’s not odd at all…’

From here-
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/

TATE on cherry-picking is quite good:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

ruby said:

‘The reason deniers claim the satellite data is superior is that they want to discredit the surface temperature (thermometer) record, and that’s because the surface data show so much warming. But among the satellite data sets, there’s one which shows far less warming: UAH TMT. Odd that these days they make a habit of showing that one, the one satellite data set which shows the least warming and correlates least with balloon data. Come to think of it, it’s not odd at all…’

From here-
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/

Link now read.

Good information, answering many unasked questions :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

‘The reason deniers claim the satellite data is superior is that they want to discredit the surface temperature (thermometer) record, and that’s because the surface data show so much warming. But among the satellite data sets, there’s one which shows far less warming: UAH TMT. Odd that these days they make a habit of showing that one, the one satellite data set which shows the least warming and correlates least with balloon data. Come to think of it, it’s not odd at all…’

From here-
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/

Link now read.

Good information, answering many unasked questions :)

Yes, I look forward to Zeppelin finding it and the cherry picking article most illuminating too.

ruby said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

ruby said:

‘The reason deniers claim the satellite data is superior is that they want to discredit the surface temperature (thermometer) record, and that’s because the surface data show so much warming. But among the satellite data sets, there’s one which shows far less warming: UAH TMT. Odd that these days they make a habit of showing that one, the one satellite data set which shows the least warming and correlates least with balloon data. Come to think of it, it’s not odd at all…’

From here-
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/

Link now read.

Good information, answering many unasked questions :)

Yes, I look forward to Zeppelin finding it and the cherry picking article most illuminating too.

The UAH data is the longest record. With anything climate-related it’s essential to have the longest record possible.

In 1990 I was working with someone who was making a climate record of Australia. The problem was, less than 200 years of data, reliable and otherwise, was nowhere near long enough to accurately characterise the Australian climate.

mollwollfumble said:

ruby said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Link now read.

Good information, answering many unasked questions :)

Yes, I look forward to Zeppelin finding it and the cherry picking article most illuminating too.

The UAH data is the longest record. With anything climate-related it’s essential to have the longest record possible.

In 1990 I was working with someone who was making a climate record of Australia. The problem was, less than 200 years of data, reliable and otherwise, was nowhere near long enough to accurately characterise the Australian climate.

https://i.imgur.com/uiJcJol.mp4

UAH lower troposphere data.
Blue line – as recorded
Red line – with autocorrelation removed

The autocorrelation turned out to be 0.85 per month. If it had been as high as 1.0 per month then the data would have been a random walk, in which case the slope would have been meaningless.

The removal of autocorrelation doesn’t actually mean anything on its own, but is it a necessary first step in calculating the standard error on the slope. Both datasets have the same trend line.

You can see already that the standard error on the slope from the red data will be quite substantial.

Got it.

Global warming in the lower troposphere is 0.013 +- 0.003 degrees per year.

That gives it a sigma level of 0.013/0.003 = 4.

So the probability that global warming is not real is … tiny

https://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/lamp-posts-freeze-over-in-stunning-images/5rowu2ade6lkxlmzhz840a0zhwvvvwak!

https://www.accuweather.com/en/videos/lamp-posts-freeze-over-in-stunning-images/5rowu2ade6lkxlmzhz840a0zhwvvvwak

For mollwollfumble , from chat, in case you missed it:

From: Michael V
ID: 1339396
Subject: re: February Chat 2019.

mollwollfumble said:
PMSL.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Why?
————————————————————————————————————

mollwollfumble said:
“The Ross River Dam is 186 per cent full, according to the latest reading at 3pm on Friday.”

I think somebody needs to learn what per cent means.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Oh, OK.

This is dam engineer-speak. 100% dam fill is the maximum safe water level, usually around half the over-top amount. A dam over-top event is a catastrophic event that can ( likely) lead to dam failure. Often earth-walled dams (like Ross River Dam) have fuses built into them around 180-190% This results in huge uncontrolled releases and major (but not irreparable) damage to the dam. Around 120-150% the engineers get very concerned and try to rid the dam of water.

Ta. I did miss that.

Howd-ee Y’all!
Jest passin’ thru
but I thought I’d innerject
that Huntsville, Ala-fuckin-bama
is a Climate Denier’s Wet-Dream…

DEEEEEP South, Obamar Hatin’
Make Merica Great Agin’ TRUMP CUNTry

(Coal Country)

As you were, carryon

Michael V said:

Here: I’ve started a thread. It seems this is not chat.

Zeppelin said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

That the observed warming is less than the models predict.

Here’s the data for the UAH satellite https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt

global lower tropospheric trend over the 40 year record >>> 0.13C. The model best guess works out to be 0.33C / decade.

The Melting Arctic Ice has Disrupted the Normal “Flow” of the Jet Stream

Michael V said:

For mollwollfumble , from chat, in case you missed it:

From: Michael V
ID: 1339396
Subject: re: February Chat 2019.

mollwollfumble said:
PMSL.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Why?
————————————————————————————————————

mollwollfumble said:
“The Ross River Dam is 186 per cent full, according to the latest reading at 3pm on Friday.”

I think somebody needs to learn what per cent means.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Oh, OK.

This is dam engineer-speak. 100% dam fill is the maximum safe water level, usually around half the over-top amount. A dam over-top event is a catastrophic event that can ( likely) lead to dam failure. Often earth-walled dams (like Ross River Dam) have fuses built into them around 180-190% This results in huge uncontrolled releases and major (but not irreparable) damage to the dam. Around 120-150% the engineers get very concerned and try to rid the dam of water.

On the radio this morning that the dam was now at 200%.

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

For mollwollfumble , from chat, in case you missed it:

From: Michael V
ID: 1339396
Subject: re: February Chat 2019.

mollwollfumble said:
PMSL.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Why?
————————————————————————————————————

mollwollfumble said:
“The Ross River Dam is 186 per cent full, according to the latest reading at 3pm on Friday.”

I think somebody needs to learn what per cent means.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Oh, OK.

This is dam engineer-speak. 100% dam fill is the maximum safe water level, usually around half the over-top amount. A dam over-top event is a catastrophic event that can ( likely) lead to dam failure. Often earth-walled dams (like Ross River Dam) have fuses built into them around 180-190% This results in huge uncontrolled releases and major (but not irreparable) damage to the dam. Around 120-150% the engineers get very concerned and try to rid the dam of water.

On the radio this morning that the dam was now at 200%.

Koombooloomba dam has a fabridam which, when inflated, increases the capacity to over 100%.

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

For mollwollfumble , from chat, in case you missed it:

From: Michael V
ID: 1339396
Subject: re: February Chat 2019.

mollwollfumble said:
PMSL.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Why?
————————————————————————————————————

mollwollfumble said:
“The Ross River Dam is 186 per cent full, according to the latest reading at 3pm on Friday.”

I think somebody needs to learn what per cent means.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Oh, OK.

This is dam engineer-speak. 100% dam fill is the maximum safe water level, usually around half the over-top amount. A dam over-top event is a catastrophic event that can ( likely) lead to dam failure. Often earth-walled dams (like Ross River Dam) have fuses built into them around 180-190% This results in huge uncontrolled releases and major (but not irreparable) damage to the dam. Around 120-150% the engineers get very concerned and try to rid the dam of water.

On the radio this morning that the dam was now at 200%.

Scary. I wonder what the failure capacity is.

In the meantime, the latest depth from BoM (reference below):

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDQ65393/IDQ65393.532020.plt.shtml

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

Michael V said:

For mollwollfumble , from chat, in case you missed it:

From: Michael V
ID: 1339396
Subject: re: February Chat 2019.

mollwollfumble said:
PMSL.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Why?
————————————————————————————————————

mollwollfumble said:
“The Ross River Dam is 186 per cent full, according to the latest reading at 3pm on Friday.”

I think somebody needs to learn what per cent means.
————————————————————————————————————

Michael V said:
Oh, OK.

This is dam engineer-speak. 100% dam fill is the maximum safe water level, usually around half the over-top amount. A dam over-top event is a catastrophic event that can ( likely) lead to dam failure. Often earth-walled dams (like Ross River Dam) have fuses built into them around 180-190% This results in huge uncontrolled releases and major (but not irreparable) damage to the dam. Around 120-150% the engineers get very concerned and try to rid the dam of water.

On the radio this morning that the dam was now at 200%.

Scary. I wonder what the failure capacity is.

In the meantime, the latest depth from BoM (reference below):

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDQ65393/IDQ65393.532020.plt.shtml

Well into the standup sequence:

Sorry. I meant to reference the Emergency Action Plan. The dam wall is 8.4 km long!

http://data.dnrm.qld.gov.au/eap/ross-river-eap.pdf

Michael V said:

The dam wall is 8.4 km long!

That explains a few things.

Ian said:

Michael V said:

The dam wall is 8.4 km long!

That explains a few things.

The length of the wall being one of them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/everything-is-not-going-to-be-okay-how-to-live-with-constant-reminders-that-the-earth-is-in-trouble/2019/01/24/9dd9d6e6-1e53-11e9-8b59-0a28f2191131_story.html?fbclid=IwAR3cprI0fPDtk9jXHmvgH2lTBJqC_VyEvlO0Y3dT2J5q9-QW_w3uzV-R-h4&utm_term=.2d45b0677b79

Michael V said:

Michael V said:

PermeateFree said:

On the radio this morning that the dam was now at 200%.

Scary. I wonder what the failure capacity is.

In the meantime, the latest depth from BoM (reference below):

http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDQ65393/IDQ65393.532020.plt.shtml

Well into the standup sequence:

Ross River Dam has been rising quite quickly again: