Over at Dr. Roger Pielke Sr’s website there’s a takedown in Physics Letters A of dogmatic eco-activist and “Skeptical Science” cohort Dana Nuccitelli, along with the rest of the SkS crew, regarding their (now failed) recent rebuttal to Douglas et al Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts
I loved this part:
In sum, we show that the criticism of our results (change of slope in the implied FTOA at the climate shift of 2001–2002) by Nuccitelli et al. is unwarranted because they used different data of less temporal resolution. A more careful analysis of this data shows, in fact, consistency and not conflict with our results.
Please visit and read for yourself here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kristian says:
November 12, 2012 at 2:14 pm
What I know for certain is that Josh Willis noted that some buoys were reading low and found that suspicious. These buoys were pulled.
It was documented at Pielke Snr’s site and also I think in some news media. I do not recall any being pulled for being warm.
DaveE.
Philip Bradley says:
November 12, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Philip, according to Wikipedia (yes I know referring to it is dangerous) photosynthesis efficiency is between 47,300-71,000 EJ, which equates to ~1.05% photosynthesis efficiency of solar radiation that hits the surface (ie: how much solar energy is converted into sugars). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency
So a back-of-envelope calculation using Trenberth & Fasullo’s latest energy budget of 161 W/m2 hitting the surface, then global photosynthesis efficiency is ~1.6 W/m2.
If biomass increased, then more solar energy would be removed from the equation. Would this not simulate the proposed TOA imbalance changes put forward by AGW proponents? Maybe not the entire imbalance, but this is just one example of how solar energy can be removed from the equation. I’m sure there are others.
Kristian says: “How do you know that the NODC tweaks the ARGO data to show warming?”
The “raw” UKMO EN3 ocean heat content data is unadjusted data:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/figure-1-global.png
The graph is from this post:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/ukmo-en3-ocean-heat-content-anomaly-data-disappeared-from-the-knmi-climate-explorer-as-suddenly-as-it-appeared/
Regards
DR says: “Is the ‘tweaking’ by NODC based on GRACE?”
No mention of it in Levitus et al (2009):
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
He must be playing the role of Captain Wrong-way Peter Peachfuzz of Rocky & Bullwinkle fame.
@ur momisugly Dale says:
November 13, 2012 at 2:38 am
The first law of thermodynamics, is energy cannot be created or destroyed. When energy is tied up in molecular bonds, it dosnt vanish, so when the bonds are broken, that energy is released. (through digestion/rot/fire whichever) So although biomass does lock up a small percentage of the radiation incident on the surface, it is also constantly releasing energy… So a change in total biomass is only going to be a small percentage… of a small percentage… and it will balance in time(and in the larger scheme o things, quickly, of course burial does lock it away, sometimes for a long time… fossil fuels) But these numbers would be utterly inconsequential in the larger scheme o things.
At the moment, the radiation imbalance, is inside the area of uncertainty of the measurements… So, its more a case, of according to the change in atmospheric opacity/ measured change of energy in the system… there should be an imbalance, more than a measured imbalance as such.
I always thought his name was spelled Nutticelli. My bad.
KingOchaos, thanks for the info.
OT – the WUWT ENSO meter is a little behind – showing 0.5 when its almost down to zero.
The approach taken by Douglass and Knox, together with Tsonis and Swanson, to describe phase regime shifts in terms of nonlinear interactions between different ocean oscillations, and then to look for evidence of these shifts in net radiation balance by an integrating signal namely the upper 300m OHC, is a very good example of sound observational, deductive science with a sound theoretical underpinning. This is in stark contrast to the prevalent inductive culture of use of computer simulations as if they were reality and testing spurious hypotheses against spurious models to obtain spurious (but alarmist and media-palatable) conclusions.
“It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness”.