Search This Blog


Monday, July 28, 2014

Al Jazeera Censors Comments That Expose and Document Hamas' Ideology and Goals

Another experience with, this time not climate related, how facts are not being liked, when the topic is highly ideologically charged: The war between Israel and Hamas. Apparently, comments that expose Hamas' ideology of death, genocidal intentions against Jewish people, and paranoid anti-Semitic world view are not being liked at Al Jazeera, even if the comments are backed up with Hamas' statements from their own Charter (or because they can be backed up?).

My first attempt:

My second attempt, after suspecting they just may not allow links (at the end it was supposed to say "stood behind"):

Not really another attempt:


  1. The graph shows quite clearly that the oceans are sucking up all the additional heat caused by AGW, but what I would like to know is what is the absolute value of the ocean heat content at the zero mark? Without knowing that its not possible to gauge the significance of the AGW heat.

  2. What do you mean, the zero mark?

    This is a common conceptual problem the lay person has. A actual state of a chaotic system can never be determined accurately, therefore assumptions and estimations must be made. Which makes it impossible to predict since assumptions, estimations, and rounding errors, while tiny at first become compounded with each iteration.

  3. Not only that, but it doesn't make sense to talk about the ocean's "zero mark," or sense for any system, because heat is not energy per se, it is the transfer of energy. Even at absolute zero (if it could be reached; it can't), a system would have nonzero energy.

    OHC is similar to surface temperatures -- no one knows what the baseline temperature of the Earth's surface is, only the baseline temperature of their model fo the surface. The assumption is then that one's model is good so that changes in model data are equivalent to changes in actual temperature.

  4. I consider it incredibly encouraging in a roundabout way to see skeptic sites just blocking everything that doesn't align with the standard WUWT/CDepot/etc mantra(s). What more conclusive evidence could there be that the tide is finally turning? Skepticshave been content for years to run in endless circles on the same tired and endlessly debunked fulcrums of AGW "debate." The truth is (in my opinion) is that the standard responses to the usual talking points are becoming impossible to refute.

    I just went to a Breitbart post (on Caleb Rossiter's dismissal from IPS) and it was...kind of a ghost town? "-comment deleted-" "-comment deleted-" "-comment deleted-" "-comment deleted-"...of course, a hardcore skeptic will doubtless applaud the "low tolerance for alarmist rhetoric", but those folks are a lost cause regardless. Anyone with a brain will wonder why the comments are a one-note symphony of disdain and scorn for the LEFTIST conspiracy etc. It's interesting that seeing skeptic rant after skeptic rant after skeptic rant looks a lot kookier when they fill the page, versus an actual exchange. In other words, 2400 comments of people all parroting identical garbage does not paint a compelling case to anyone genuinely on the fence.

    Not only is the lack of "discussion" notable, it makes the skeptic comments seem fishier, specifically because they're not batting around the science. Here's how to |vvv|lose|vvv| a Breitbartesque AGW debate (well, stalemate anyway):

    Skeptic: blah blah hiatus blah Antarctic sea ice blah blah Al Gore etc

    Warmist: uhhh [skeptical science link] [NOAA link] Al Gore's not a scientist etc

    Skeptic: oh yeah? [WUWT link] [ClimateAudit link] [CRU email quote] etc

    Warmist: umm no, because [points out cherry-pick] [explains sea ice vs land ice] etc

    Skeptic: you're so gullible [Goddard rant] [NOAA temperature record] blah blah

    Anyone genuinely on the fence reads something like this and concludes, "Hmm, lots of science here, and both sides seem to know what they're talking about. Looks like this is a contentious debate!"

    This is why I am trying very hard lately to avoid online debate of hard science regarding AGW: because what is clearly an intellectually dishonest debate to us looks like a normal debate to anyone who doesn't understand climate change.

    Case in point, |vvv| this |vvv| isn't quite as compelling:

    Skeptic: Ugh the Marxists are taking over everything
    Skeptic: This is just like 1984
    Skeptic: It's the UN Agenda, grab your gun and head for the hills
    Skeptic: etc etc

    For a dyed-in-the-wool skeptic, this is home cooking, but they're not pulling a 180 anytime soon. A genuinely undecided person with a brain reads that second scenario...and maybe thinks twice.

    Sorry for the lengthy post, /.02.

  5. I agree. I'm blocked at Breitbart too. Also WUWT. And Popehat. and Red State.

  6. I am talking about zero on the graph. Presumably the graph is showing heat content differences from some arbitrary value of absolute heat content. If it is possible to work out heat changes then it must be possible to work out the absolute value of the heat content of the oceans. The heat content increases as a percentage of the absolute heat content of the oceans must be of prime relevance in guaging the significance of the AGW heat

  7. I wasn't talking about the oceans zero mark, whatever that is. I was referring to the zero mark or reference point on the graph. You reckon heat is not energy? Thats a new one to me. I was taught that heat is energy and surely energy is what all this AGW concern is all about. CO2 causes heat to be trapped in the earth system and it is the anthropogenic CO2 which is adding extra heat energy to the earth's system that is the cause for concern. It follows that the fundamental issue to be determined is by what %age AGW is adding to the earth system

  8. I had missed your original comment from a month ago.

    You are asking what the "absolute heat content" of the oceans is at the Zero mark in the figure. I can't answer this question because I don't even know what you mean with "absolute value of the heat content". "Absolute" regarding what reference/Zero value? Regarding the enthalpy of the earth system at a temperature of the universe's background radiation? Please explain.

    I also don't understand your reasoning. Why would the knowledge of the percentage value of the heat content increase relative to this elusive "absolute value" be of "prime relevance" as you are asserting here? What do you mean with "gauging the significance of the AGW heat"? What is the meaning of "significance" as you use it? If you are referring to statistical significance of the upward trend in the ocean heat content displayed in the figure, then your statement is not correct. The statistical significance of the trend is determined relative to the background variability over the same time period, but not relative to some "absolute value". Or you mean something else with "significance", but I don't know what it is.

    I don't see how this "absolute value of the heat content" would help us with better understanding the variability in climate as empirically diagnosed from measurements or proxy data, whether it is naturally caused climate variability like the occurrence of ice ages, the changes between glacials and interglacials within ice ages, or the global warming since the late 19th century, which mainstream climate science mainly attributes to the increase in greenhouse gases due to human activities.

    Climate change is primarily caused by changes in the energy fluxes going in and out of the earth system, energy that is redistributed between the various components of the earth system. We want to know the magnitude of the changes in the energy fluxes and in the changes of the energy budgets of the components due to the flux changes, and we want to understand the physical processes behind it, and what effect these changes have on temperature, humidity, precipitation, sea level and other physical variables in the climate system. By what average magnitude latter change due to the variations in the energy fluxes, but also how their frequency distributions change (width and shape, which is relevant for extreme events). We also want to understand how these changes affect human civilization, the change in the environmental and life conditions for humans all over the planet, the occurrence of nature catastrophes, the effects on the economy and social relations, which is all important for economic and political decision making, but this already goes beyond the field of the physical science on climate and goes into other scientific disciplines.

    For none of this I need to know some "absolute value of the heat content of the oceans" at the Zero mark in the figure above.

  9. Heat is not energy per se -- it is the transfer of energy. When you turn your oven on, do you care how much energy is initially inside it? No, you only care how much energy is added (=heat), and what that does to the air temperature inside the oven.

    CO2 causes *energy* to be added to the Earth. Granted, we are often sloppy about how we use the term "heat." The heat comes because more energy is being transferred in to the Earth than is transferred out.

    The anthropogenic CO2 is not itself adding more energy. It is transferring energy from one place (that coming upward from the surface) to other places (some of it down to the surface). That's what global warming is.

  10. "It follows that the fundamental issue to be determined is by what %age AGW is adding to the earth system."

    No need to deal with percentages -- absolute amounts of energy are what matter. So the question is how much energy AGW is adding to the Earth system. That's *heat*, and it will cause a different temperature change in the ocean than in, say, the atmosphere.

  11. Yes, it's self-immunization for the purpose of self-preservation. Otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance. The whole meaning of what they have been doing is in danger to be destroyed. I suspect it would be a psychologically catastrophic revelation for some of them to realize that they haven't been reincarnations of Copernicus, Galileo, or Giordano Bruno after all, but just a bunch of clueless nutters, not driven by scientific curiosity, but mainly by ideological or religious motives. Thus, they prefer to close their bubble.

  12. The zero mark is mean for 1955-2010.

  13. I replied to DavidAppell, so I will repeat it here.

    The zero mark is mean for 1955-2010.

  14. and what is the value of the mean in joule?

  15. The perceived problem is that anthropogenic CO2 is trapping more heat than would otherwise be trapped. This is increasing the energy level of the earth system and it is this increased energy level that is causing the unwanted climate change. So what I want to know and surely this must be the fundamental question, is by how much is the energy level increasing eg by 1% per year or by 0.1% per year or by 10% per year

  16. The absolute value is irrelevant when measuring the anomaly.

  17. maybe, but comparing the size of the anomaly to the absolute value is what determines the significance of the anomaly

  18. Comparing the size of the anomaly to the average anomaly is a better determinant of the significance of the anomaly.

  19. That's your opinion, and is like saying 6 raindrops in the ocean per year is significant to the volume of the ocean compared to the normal 4 raindrops per year

  20. Specious nonsense? There's a lot of that flying around when talking about AGW lol. It was a simple analogy of additional heat compared to total heat,

  21. Most of the specious nonsense is generated by PR groups funded by the Koch's and other fossil fuel interests.

    It was not a good analogy, since it not a real scenario.

    Ocean temperature has been stable, IE, small anomalies, little bit deviation from the running mean. A running mean with a generally cooling trend for the past 5000 years. Now we see a sharp increase in ocean heat content, an extreme deviation from the mean, and a reversal of the trend.

    The specific amount of heat in the ocean is irrelevant, a red herring.

  22. "The specific amount of heat in the ocean is irrelevant, a red herring." That's where you and I differ. What exactly is meant by a sharp increase in ocean heat content if it is not related to the overall heat content ? What I am trying to learn about is a proposition that that for the amount of AGW we are capable of producing the oceans are effectively an infinite heat sink. It's impossible to test this proposition without taking the heat content of the oceans into consideration

  23. The oceans are not an infinite heat sink. They will continue to warm until emission equals absorption.

  24. Of course the oceans are warming but if it is by an insignificant amount compared to the heat already in the ocean then it becomes obvious that this extra heat is not what's driving the "climate change" you seem to be concerned about.

  25. That doesn't make any sense.

  26. In what sense does it not make any sense?

  27. Read it.

    You are trying to rationalize away global warming by saying the oceans are a very big heat reservoir.

    That is a non-sequitur. It is not the heat capacity that is important, it is the anomaly.

  28. Climate is not linear.

    Here is the forcing equation.

    ΔF = α ln(C/C0)

    ΔF is the forcing, in watts per meter at the tropopause.

    the value of α = 5.35 and is derived from line by line.

    Climate sensitivity is a range between 1.5℃ and 4.5℃

    ΔF = 5.35 ln(400/280) or about 1.9W/m2 at the tropopause since preindustrial times.

    A doubling of CO2 yields 3.7W/m2, so climate sensitivity of 3℃/doubling is (3 ÷ 3.7 = 0.81℃ for every watt per meter squared, so 1.9 x 0.81 = 1.54℃ at equilibrium.

  29. very impressive, so with an obviously brilliant mind like yours it must be a doddle for you to work out the total heat of the oceans and by what %age that heat is increasing annually. That's what I would like to know yet it seems so difficult to answer

  30. It is not difficult to answer, it is irrelevant.

    One joule is the amount of energy needed to generate 1 watt for one second of time. It takes 4.184 joules to raise the temperature of a gram of water 1 degree celsius.

    The mass ocean is 1.4 x 10e24 grams, with an average temperature of the ocean is 275ºK. So about 3.85e27 joules total heat content. That is an estimate based on estimated averages, but certainly close enough for our purposes.

    How much heat are the oceans accumulating?

    That is the important question. NOAA updates this graph regularly for the upper 2000 meters, but that is only the upper half of the ocean. We don't yet have instrumental coverage of the abyssal ocean.

    What percentage is that?

    Eyeballing the graph, 10e22 joules looks to be the annual increase in the upper ocean. That is ~0.000026% of the total heat content of the oceans.

    Since climate change is a product of flux in the system, not total heat content, knowing the total might be interesting, but tells us nothing about climate change.

  31. I'm grateful that you take time to answer irrelevant questions. It's a testament to your dedication to the science. Thanks again for "the learnin'" :-)

  32. I often wonder about people who question the answer, yet cannot do the math themselves.

    I mean, why hold a strong opinion upon a subject one is ignorant of?

  33. Maybe when subjective belief trumps objective reality?

  34. I think you may be onto something there.


  35. What should the average global temperature be ?

    What should the average global CO2/ppm be ?

    This needs to be known if both are to be regulated . So we will know when the desired goal has been achieved and further actions are not required.

  36. I just started reading more about AGW and skeptical for two reasons: 1. Climategate e-mails and 2. CO2 the single source driver in these conversations. Science is about an honest debate on any subject and climate change is no different. When I see deception used to advance a theory, I will be immediately skeptical and suspicious. It troubles me to read these e-mails and the people behind them. Secondly, the focus on CO2 is another area that troubles me, too. This reminds me of the adage, "too close to the forest to see the trees." The planet has warned and cooled over thousands of years. Much of this warming and cooling has occurred with minimal or no input from man's activities. I prefer to look at climate change with a longer timeline, that is longer than the last 50-150 years. CO2 may indeed have some impact on climate change and the warming of the planet in the 20th century, but presently I don't assign the degree of warming suggested by the IPCC for several reasons. There has been too much reliance on climate models to predict future warming. It seems as though, other data sets have been ignored. I believe that climate change is much more than the introduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. I would prefer that all data sets be examined to get a better understanding of the climate and how it has changed. Climate change is far too complex to place all the blame on CO2. Sun activity (solar cycles), solar winds, cosmic rays bombarding the earth, cloud cover, the amount of snow and ice covering Antarctica, volcanic activity and the differences between the northern and southern hemispheres in atmospheric and surface temperatures etc... CO2 is essential to plant growth and life on this planet. What if we are wrong and the planet is perhaps entering a cooling period, much like what happen during a Maunder, Dalton and Sporer Minimum or a Wolf and Dalton Minima. Solar cycles 24-26 suggest as much and only time will tell. There just might be a repeat of the "Year without a Summer, 1816." If we are wrong as a community of scientists, we'll have more to worry about than the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. I would prefer to see a broader cohort of scientists examine climate change from different disciplines looking at more than just at the AWG prospective and that spans a timeline of thousands of years covering the Maunder, Dalton and Sporer Minimums, as well as the Dalton and Wolf Minima.

  37. Compare and contrast::

    We have a winner!

  38. I saw you commented on my post at Breitbart, but apparently it got scrubbed. How did you manage that?

    In any case, what type of non-linear relationship do you claim CO2 holds to temp.?