Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] ocean heat content



This isn't just misinformation on the web, it's the official NOAA State of
the Climate report, published in the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society. They should be using accepted definitions of
scientific terms. In fact, it's probably a policy of the journal. Now, if
it's become acceptable to use "heat" in place of "thermal energy", then
physics classes should adapt and model how real science is done. It does
look like they are using heat to mean what I would have previously called a
change in thermal energy or a relative thermal energy. In that sense, the
entire change in thermal energy is due to the net heat on the system.

There is some confusion caused by the scientific world using prescribed
definitions while the real world has language that is evolving. Some
corporations, like Xerox, have lost some protections of their trademarks.
Maybe we should accept when one of our words has become part of the common
vernacular and pick a different term that stands out better.

(On another level, the study of language itself has a similar problem.
Should definitions of words be descriptive (of how the words or used) or
should the definitions be prescriptive (of how the words ought to be used)?
Thinking about that literally makes my head spin.)

--
Jeff Spirko spirko@gmail.com WD3V |=>

The study of non-linear physics is like the study of non-elephant biology.


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Anthony Lapinski
<Anthony_Lapinski@pds.org>wrote:

Bothered? People are familiar the word "heat," and I think they know what
it means in this context.

Whether it is the "proper" term to use is another story. Outside physics
classes, "speed" and "velocity"
are used interchangeably, as are "pressure" and "force." There's much
misinformation on the web, so
this is nothing new...


Phys-L@Phys-L.org writes:
Just curious but does it bother anyone that NOAA refers to the "ocean
heat content" as opposed to "ocean thermal energy content" or some such
phrase?

<
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-ocean-heat-content



Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
570.422.3428 rcohen@esu.edu http://www.esu.edu/~bbq


-----Original Message-----
From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@phys-l.org] On Behalf Of Jim Diamond
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2014 11:52 PM
To: Phys-L@phys-l.org
Subject: Re: [Phys-L] Garth Paltridge: Climate Change's Inherent
Uncertainties

Here are a few of the indicators of the real situation:
* nearly unprecedented loss of arctic sea ice (even including supposed
gain in antarctic sea ice)
* rapidly increasing sea level rise exceeding the rate of rise of any
model of the IPCC
* rapidly increasing ocean heat content, at depths as low as 2 km below
the surface
* a forty year record of decline of northern hemisphere snow and ice that
will lead to a loss of almost all permanent ice outside of Greenland and
the high mountain regions by 2050.

These are not models. These are observations.

In my opinion, the worst way to measure the effects of global warming is
to use surface temperatures. This is like trying to measure the
temperature of a beaker of liquid water by suspending a thermometer a few
microns above the surface of water and measuring the temperature of the
air above, while putting the entire apparatus in the back of a pickup and
driving around into the sun and back into the shade with no attempt to
control sloshing in the beaker. It is no surprise that surface
temperatures show such wide variance. The best way to measure the
temperature of the beaker of water is to immerse the thermometer in the
liquid, then measure the temperature.
That is what we have done with the ARGO float data for a decade, and the
data is bad news.

We are the frog slowly cooking in the pot.

Imagine that! By 2050, almost all northern hemisphere snow and ice cover
will be seasonal, not permanent, but for Greenland and the highest
mountain regions. If you don't think this is a substantial alteration of
earth's ecosystem, IMO there is something wrong with your logic.

Now, a little less than 50% of cumulative emissions are due to OECD plus
BRIC and Indochina; the rest of the world has the responsibility for the
rest. I see little prospect of controlling the emissions outside of the
OECD nations.

I don't think we will avoid a 4°C increase in global surface
temperatures; we might even hit 6°C if we keep accelerating our
emissions at the present rate. I suspect that it is highly likely that
Andy Dessler and Michael Mann are correct that climate sensitivity is
likely to be much larger than 3.15°C.
Cloud feedback appears to be dominated by trapping by low-level clouds of
IR radiated by the earth , not by changes in albedo due to upper-level
clouds.

There are plenty of references to back up these data. Just look for
yourself.

Happy Year of the Horse
恭喜发财。 身体健康!
Jim
--
James J. Diamond, Ph.D.
Department of Chemistry
Linfield College
McMinnville, OR 97128
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l