 |
| Fig. 1 Lethal mutation? |
Scientists get it wrong sometimes, but some of them that do so take it in stride because they know they are human, and that human society is currently a danger to the ecosystem of the planet.
How much of a danger varies based on which scientist you ask (Fig. 1).
When scientists get it wrong they are likely to "get jiggy wid it" :
"A strange phenomenon occurred in response to our recent paper, 'Global warming has accelerated: are the public and the United Nations well informed?' A few reports appeared in the media the next day, but, almost uniformly, these reports dismissed our conclusions as a fringe opinion, out of step with the larger scientific community, and thus there was no continuing discussion of the issues raised in our paper. How did the media arrive at that conclusion, and is that conclusion truly representative of the wider scientific community? Are there important repercussions for the public of the media’s approach for assessing a climate research paper, especially for today’s young people, indeed, for the future of all people? The answer to the latter question, we conclude, is 'yes.'"
(Large Cloud Feedback Confirms High Climate Sensitivity). Joni Mitchel sings (Fig. 2) that she ran into that cloud thingy once or twice in the past:
Fig. 2 So, albedo is not just for science anymore, but also for politics?
But when scientists submit a hypothesis it should contain a falsification mechanism to avoid, among other things, the hope of preferential treatment (The Saturation Chronicles - 11).
The scientist who now holds the job at Goddard Institute (Fig. 3), which pro albedo hypothesis Dr. Hansen once held, says "we don't know completely" why the unexpected heat increase happened, instead of saying "this is the way it is":
I mean, being worrisome can also be scientific, eh?
Fig. 4 If there are clueless cosmic aliens, some of them are on Earth 1.
Thus, the SpaceX, TwitterX, and those of that ilk, need to consider the possibility of the Dredd Blog saturation hypotheses, or at least falsify it scientifically according to the falsification mechanism properly provided.
It is worth considering as the cause of at least some percentage of the unexpected recent global heat acceleration.
Today's Appendices
A lot of data is provided in four appendices today, in the form of HTML tables (Layer 0-4, Layer 5-9, Layer 10-13, Layer 14-16).
The data is in situ data based on year and WOD layer for Absolute Salinity (SA), Conservative Temperature (CT) Potential Temperature (pt), maximum Potential Enthalpy (ho @WOD maximum), in situ Potential Enthalpy (ho @in situ values), and ocean depth at WOD meter levels.
On the graphs the depths are:
10m, 20m, 30m, 50m, 75m, 100m, 125m, 150m, 200m (green color)
250m, 300m, 400m, 500m, 600m, 700m, 800m, 900m, 1000m (red color )
1100m, 1200m, 1300m, 1400m, 1500m, 1750m, 2000m, 2500m, 3000m, 3500m, 4000m (brown color)
4500m, 5000m, 5500m (orchid color)
Those colors indicate the color of the lines on today's graph appendix (SATPCT).
The saturation percent graphs are constructed using the values detailed in the HTML tables in the four appendices containing HTML tables.
Closing Comments
Since the saturation percentage graphs are NOT temperature graphs, I added a graph of average Conservative Temperatures (APNDX CT), because temperature values are NOT saturation percentage values (satPCT).
Both CT and satPCT values are shown in the HTML appendices as an added indication of the fact that temperature and saturation are different concepts.
Other than the 2nd law of thermodynamics (hot/warm flows to cold/cool), how photons in molecules or atoms are emitted into a 'colder' molecule is unknown; that is "do molecules have 'sight' or 'cognition' sufficient to detect another molecule that is cooler than it is"? ... let's not resort to anthropomorphic speculation please (Small Brains Considered - 6).
The previous post in this series is here.
A la StarTalk (Link</a).
ReplyDelete