another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

Would anyone just believe everything that is told to them? I don't think so. Wild life experts are like every one else. I have to believe there are some good ones, and some who are just liers.

Because we don't know we should question the methods.

The people who should have a good idea are the people who issue hunting licences. However the larger birds are not on the list to be hunted. But there should ba a good accounting of ducks, goose, and phesants.

And who cares about cat kills anyway. Cats are more likely food for eagles.

 

[zdas04]

Tenpenny,
I've gone back and looked at a number of your posts and they all simply attack someone (usually me). You call yourself a "mechanical", that covers a lot of ground. If you've ever done piping or worked with an architect on a building project (2 of the 3 major branches of ME) then you've heard of an Environmental Assessment (EA). One of the required chapters in an EA is Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation (T&E). I've been responsible for assembling upwards of 40 EA's and the T&E reports are done by licensed biologists. Many of them were done quite competently with adequate field work. Others were done via cut and past without ever actually visiting my project site. It is about 50/50. The 50% who cut and paste information about endangered coastal birds on a report on a project located on a mountain top 1.5 miles above sea level and 1100 miles from the nearest coastal habitat also prepare bird kill statistics the same way. I talked to a decent field biologist from one of the bad companies a couple of years ago and he told me that his company just completed a bird-kill "study" for one of the large e-NGO's and their marching orders were specifically to call the example that you took exception to 3 bird kills and not to worry if the three bits were "identified" as separate species. That is from a biologist.

The field of "wildlife" is so successful at raising money based on the next catastrophe, that I feel that "reputable wildlife experts" is a serious contradiction in terms, there is just too much money involved to allow "reputable" wildlife experts to stay in the field. I talked to several in South Africa a couple of years ago and they say that I've been very lucky with my 50/50 experience. More common in 2011 is 80% shysters and thieves, and 20% looking for work in zoos and wildlife preserves to get out of the political spin.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

I seem to recall hearing a good saying that the plural of anecdotes is data, or something along those lines…

Putting aside anecdotes being used to reach grandiose conclusions (again), I think we should have stopped this trite “wind farms are bird killer” topic with TomDOT’s post. He nicely wrapped things up and then zdas04’s comment on questioning why we should wean ourselves off coal brings us back to the crux of not just the wind vs coal debate but the entire climate change debate – CO2.

At the end of the day, the reason why wind power is being pursued so aggressively is because of its low GHG emissions/kW. So if you don’t feel that GHGs, primarily CO2, are an issue then it’s hard to see the value in wind (besides small gains in diversifying your energy portfolio – which is of some importance). So, where do people feel that the theory behind anthropogenic CO2 induced climate change falls apart? Let’s try to hone in on a debatable aspect of the theory.

1) CO2 is a green house gas
2) The increase in GHGs has caused an energy imbalance on Earth
3) The increase in GHGs comes, primarily from anthropogenic sources
4) This energy imbalance is affecting the global climate
5) Change in climate, caused by the energy imbalance, will adversely affect humans
6) Changes in the behavior of humans can reduce the adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change

Clearly illustrate your main contention with the theory along with supporting statistics or research. If you do so, counter arguments should be required to follow suit. It would be best if we could keep the conversation on one specific element at a time.

 

[zdas04]

At the end of the day the reason that wind power is being pursued so aggressively is absolutely not because of low GHG emissions/kW. That (even if true, which is debatable) is just so much window dressing. The reason that the so-called "renewables" are being pursued so aggressively is that the backroom deals between the e-NGO's and their puppet politicians has made it so profitable to pretend to be "green". The tax breaks, direct payments, research grants, regulation exceptions, etc. available to wind farms are simply obscene when you compare costs (to the taxpayers) to benefits (to the taxpayers). The intermittent nature of wind requires that there is a fully redundant conventional plant for all of the wind power generating capability. This "backup" is never allowed to steady-out because it is idled then rapidly brought on line when the wind dies down, consequently the emissions/kW of these backup plants is significantly higher than the plants would emit if just allowed to operate without the existence of the wind farms. It is such a shell game. I did some work in Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) last year, and the guy I was working with was working on a problem that hadn't hit the left-wing media (yes, here comes yet another anecdote, which still is not data, but in this field data is sorely lacking)--wind passing a wind turbine creates an environment that can tear downstream turbines off of their foundations. It happens a lot. According to the researcher I talked to upwards of 20% of the turbines in any array are broken or have damaged foundation bolts at any given time from this effect. When you get past the hype, these things are simply not ready for prime time.

As to the Greenhouse Effect, or Greenhouse Gases, all that exists are hypotheses and computer models to indicate that this phenomena is even a contribution to global climate. There is no data that unequivocally shows CO2 as a leading or lagging indicator. With the last 16 years of nearly constant average temperatures and steadily increasing CO2, in any other field the data would cause the whole AGW hypotheses to be put into the bin along with eugenics and the earth-centric universe. But not AGW. AGW has legs. The legs are political. Al Gore gets the Nobel prize. Well, it really is an Inconvenient Truth that he (like far too many) was in it for the money. The UN is in it for the power (and opportunities for graft) that the subject can, has, and will continue to create. No one is in it for the planet. Again, that is window dressing.

Most of what I have on this subject is the result of conversations with people in the field, work that I've done in the field, and the very few web sites (which I will not link to because I refuse to read the supercilious condemnation of referencing "those sites") that look at the data objectively. Not many unassailable (spelled "liberal") articles that keep getting posted in support of this insanity, because the other side does not get much ink.



David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[rconnor]

Ohhhh, so the climate change theory is all a giant conspiracy involving pretty well every head of state from global powers to under-developed nations and pretty well every major scientific body! And the evil, all powerful and insatiably greedy e-NGO’s are behind it all, in their quest for world domination! Oh, and the greenhouse theory is also made up – NASA faked all that stuff about Venus I guess! Got it, without any actual evidence to support any of the preceeding, it all makes sense now!

(If people actually want to discuss things, I'm still open to it...TGS4, you around?)

 

[rb1957]

'k ... let's step back from the edge.

i've read the the geological record shows CO2 increasing after a significant temperature increase, some 800 years after (a blink in geological time).

i dispute that the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere has caused the temperature changes that are being attributed to it. My opinion is based on what i've read about the Mann "hockey stick".

i believe that the sun is having a major impact on global climate. i'm willing to worry about what the CO2 might do to the future climate, since clearly we (the human race) are a factor in global climate. we've long been a factor in local climate (the US dust bowl in the 30s comes to mind); now with so many countries industralizing i think it fair to say we impact the global climate.

the thing that i detest about the CO2 debate is that there seems to be very little effort to slow the use of FF in the developing economies. yes, i know we can't say "don't do what we did", but we can say "this approach is better". my opinion is that "renewables" will be little more than fringe players, we're wedded to cheap FF and nobody is prepared to Stop (no one wants to pay the prenup). and don't get me started in carbon trading !

personally i wish we'd spend more on fusion research and, for the interim, safer fission reactors.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

What a wide divide in those two ways of thinking. But I have to agree it's more about money and power, and less about saving the planet.

Not to say the studies are wrong, but is it possible some of those are also about the money. After all many of us can develope a conclusion for any point that you are willing to pay for.

The study always seem to follow the thinking of the person paying for it.

As they always say, follow the money.

 

[CheckerHater]

In other news: PAID professionals are doing what they are PAID to do. Government pays prosecutor to put you in jail, you pay defense attorney to not go there. In perfect world in the competition between the two the justice or the truth should emerge. In real one… we will not go there now.

People crying about real world not being perfect are called pundits. Many of them make a good living. Unfortunately, they are counter-productive. They have a lot to say, but nothing to offer.

At least the scientists write REPORTS. They create paper trail, so they can be traced and called on. In the imperfect world they are the lesser evil. The one of necessary kind.

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - I'm still here

1) CO2 is a green house gas
2) The increase in GHGs has caused an energy imbalance on Earth
3) The increase in GHGs comes, primarily from anthropogenic sources
4) This energy imbalance is affecting the global climate
5) Change in climate, caused by the energy imbalance, will adversely affect humans
6) Changes in the behavior of humans can reduce the adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change

1) Agreed. So, too is H2O, and a whole host of other variety of well-mixed and not-well mixed gases.
2) Uncertain. And likely not within our ability to measure energy imbalance. The latest flux-balance diagram that I saw (sorry, no link, but I'll look for it) had the ± measurement error at between 14-15 W/m². Any to-date CO2 contribution has been claimed to be on the order or 3-4 W/m². We can't measure it directly, because it's within the error of the system measurement.
3) There does seem to be some correlation in that regard - both in quantities and with respect to isotopes of carbon. However, such calculations make assumptions about CO2 residence time that are unproven. The atmospheric atomic-bomb tests seems to have provided us with an opportunity to evaluate CO2 residence time via decaying C-14 (artificially elevated by the nukes). I think the jury is still out on this.
4) We don't have anywhere near enough of a clue about natural cyclic and non-cyclic phenomenon that say one way or the other. From a simplistic thermodynamics model, yes an energy imbalance will lead to increasing temperatures. The emphasis here is on simplistic models (and I don't even mean computer models). What about emergent phenomenon such as thunderstorms?
5) Increasing CO2 is most certainly increasing productivity in the biosphere (greening), by increasing the efficiency of photosynthesis (which includes, BTW, making plants more drought-tolerant). Food production is still increasing (despite Ehrlich's constant refrain of doom), due to higher CO2, slightly longer growing seasons, increased mechanization, increased fertilizer use/effectiveness. Most papers that I have read about harm due to global warming shows a net benefit up to an additional 2°C. Any incremental harm after 2°C is due to assumptions about food production. There is also harm from rising sea levels - which we have successfully mitigated over the past 300 years, so I don't see how we won't be able to in the future.
6) I don't know what you mean by this. In my opinion, if we spent 1/10th the amount of money that we are currently spending on "climate research" on poverty reduction or food distribution or even educating girls around the world, most of the real problems of the world could be eliminated in fairly short order.

Just an anecdote about temperature/climate that I am familiar with... The current temperature in Calgary, Canada (where I live) is -15°C with a windchill of -23. I would gladly pay ~$3,000/person in my family to go travel to a location where the temperature is between 40°C and 50°C warmer than here. And this is only for a one or two week reprieve. And somehow, I am being asked to pony up an equivalent amount so that, on average, the globe doesn't get any warmer than 2°C above the temperature of some past arbitrary date?

You want to find agreement on some general principles, you need to start putting numbers to it. Assign real (future) costs, and compare that to future mitigation costs. My person philosophy on this is:
A) We really don't know much about how our climate system works. The next few solar cycles should be very interesting and provide some additional insight into how things work. Getting through a full PDO or AMO cycle should also prove very enlightening. I remain open to the CO2-temperature hypothesis.
B) Warmer is better than colder.
C) We have time to figure things out.
D) Future mitigation is more cost-effective than current prevention (even assuming pessimistic "numbers").
E) Any current prevention proposals involve making me poor (ok, less rich), and keeps the really poor still poor; and a few oligarchs who would become even more fantastically rich beyond my comprehension...
F) I don't see any conspiracy, just "noble cause corruption", a few chicken littles, and some useful idiots, and very few scientists asking the needed questions out of fear for their livelihood (See American president Eisenhower's speech).

 

[GregLocock]

1) CO2 is a green house gas
2) The increase in GHGs has caused an energy imbalance on Earth
3) The increase in GHGs comes, primarily from anthropogenic sources
4) This energy imbalance is affecting the global climate
5) Change in climate, caused by the energy imbalance, will adversely affect humans
6) Changes in the behavior of humans can reduce the adverse effects of anthropogenic climate change

1 correct
2 Shocking phrasing, but yes that is a possibility
3 No, most GHG is water vapour, and most of it comes from natural sources, and man's direct contribution is small
4 Possibly
5 Not according to the IPCC, for the next 60 years GW of up to 2 deg C is positive.
6 Possibly

As usual you are making far too many assumptions.

Here's an exciting one to think about. If the global average temperature drops over the next 20 years while CO2 increases by 40%, will this entire debate cease? We are 17 years into a pause in the increase in temperature.



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rb1957]

the linkage between CO2 release and climate change is very undefined. what we release into the atmosphere today won't change the climate tomorrow, maybe next week or next month.

short term climate changes (up or down) prove nothing. neither side in the debate should crow that today's reading support their case, for i'm willing to bet that tomorrow's readings will support the other side.

i don't know how much we can separate man-made effects from natural ones. the sun clearly influences things in a big way. Natural heating can affect the permafrost, releasing CH4. Natural changes will alter the CO2 uptake/release from the oceans. we are clearly pushing a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere, increasing the %age (is doubling significant ?) and i think this has at least the potential to affect climate in the future. however "having the potential to affect future weather" is way too wooly a statement to ask (direct?) people to change their lifestyles; so i think the politicans/lobbyists went for the more direct "manmade CO2 is causing today's higher temperatures".

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[rconnor]

Thank you for the replies. Before we head into other points (both TGS4 and rb1957 brought up some good ones), we need to discuss the reoccurring argument regarding “the pause”.

If it isn’t the core reason why people are skeptical of the anthropogenic climate change theory then it certainly appears to the most widely repeated reason. This is about the fourth time it’s been brought up and for the fourth time I’ll outline why it’s an argument from ignorance. Hopefully, it won’t be completely ignored for the fourth time. You are welcome to disagree but you need to actually engage in the debate, not just ignore it and then regurgitate it again 20 posts later.

The anthropogenic climate change theory states that there is a radiative energy imbalance, primarily caused by increased forcing of CO2 (See Figure SMP5 from AR5), and that imbalance results in more energy being accumulated within our planet. To the layman, we think that this increased energy accumulation must result in continued surface temperature increases or the theory falls apart. This is an incredibly over simplified stance and, for people with some knowledge on the subject, is rather ignorant. There are numerous factors that explain why surface temperatures could hold steady for a period of time while, at the same time, CO2 levels increase.

Ocean Heat Content
The planet contains a lot of water (this appears to come as a surprise to some). The oceans can act as a giant heat sink and, according to AR4 – 5.2.2.4, absorbs 93.4% of the increased heat due to radiative imbalances. The atmosphere takes up 2.3%. Therefore ocean heat content, including both upper and deep ocean, is a very important consideration. To ignore it is to ignore 93.4% of the issue.

Measurements of upper ocean heat content (0-700 meters) has shown very little warming since 2003, despite being notable higher than the 1993-2012 average (source). However, 700 meters presents 16% of the average ocean depth (average being 4300 meters). A fairly interesting study, Palmer et al 2011, shows there is a weak relationship between sea surface temperature (alone) and top-of-atmosphere radiation balance (TOA) but a very strong relationship between total ocean heat content and TOA. This suggests that by only taking temperature near the surface, you don’t get the full picture.

Studies by Balmaseda et al 2013, Abraham et al 2013 and Levitus et al 2012 show that there is significant uptake of heat in the deep ocean. I encourage a read through of the article on this subject at Real Climate. A very interesting take away is that during the recent slowdown in the upper ocean (0-700m) warming, the deep ocean (0-2000m) warming rate has be quite steady. This corresponds nicely with another important point that we have been in a double-dip La Nina during the upper ocean slowdown (and global temperature “pause”), which brings cooler water to the surface. So a cooling (or lack of warming) of the upper ocean would be expected in a La Nina dominated period, all the while, the oceans as a whole continues to gain heat at a steady rate.

(More information and graphs on OHC can be found here)

ENSO
Which brings us nicely to a conversation about ENSO, which is likely the most significant factor in short term global temperature trends (again, this appears to come as a surprise to some). It should not be surprising that when you take a sample period starting with one of the strongest recorded El Nino events (1998) through a period ending with a double-dip La Nina (2011, 2012), that you’re going to get a non-standard picture (but apparently it is). Further analysis of the time frame shows that there were 5 La Nina years and 3 El Nino years (one being during the first year) and the last El Nino event, 2010, resulted in the hottest year in the modern record (source for ENSO years).

The effect of ENSO on global temperatures is an area where there is a lot of research being done lately. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 removed the effects of ENSO, volcanoes and solar activity, which produce short term noise (ENSO having the greatest effect), from historical temperature records and determined that you are left with a consistent increase in temperature, even during the last decade. Further studies have been conducted by Kosaka and Xie 2013, which attempts to isolate the effect of ENSO. A good analysis of this paper can be found here. It also cleans up the mistaken interpretation by Judith Curry.

The Real Climate article posted in the OHC section also provides commentary on the research into ENSO.

Solar Activity
At this point, some may be protesting that surely the Sun is the single greatest influencing factor on global temperatures. In an absolute sense, of course that is true but in a decade-to-decade comparative sense, not as much as one would think. Studies by Meehl et al 2004, Stone et al 2007, Lean and Rind 2008 and Huber and Knutti 2011 all calculate that changes in solar activity account for less than 17% of global warming (and the first three calculate it to be less than 10%). A good illustration comparing global temperatures, CO2 and solar activity can be found here.

The relatively small impact that solar activity has on global temperatures could also be used to argue against the “pause” being the nail in the coffin of the CO2 theory, not support it. Since 2000, solar activity declined to around 2009 and then up slightly to a much lower peak, compared to 2000, in 2013-2014. Therefore, with lower solar activity it would be expected that temperatures would decrease (if solar activity is the predominate influence on temperatures) but the fact that temperatures have very slightly continued to rise suggests that another cause is contributing to maintaining the warming. Combine this with the fact that ocean heat content has continued to rise despite low solar activity and we begin to see that low solar activity as of late really adds weight to the CO2 theory.

(Regarding GCR Cloud seeding, the following papers suggest there is little to no correlation – Kazil et al 2006, Kristjansson et al 2008, Sloan and Wolfendale 2008, Kulmala et al 2010 and Calogovic et al 2010.)

Lack of Coverage in Artic
A new paper by Cowtan and Way 2013 aims to fill in the missing data around the Arctic. They developed tests for the various reconstruction approaches to determine their accuracy. There is also a YouTube video by the author that explains the paper and can be found here or a the Real Climate article here (and a good response to the various climate skeptics arguments against the paper can be found here).

I highly recommend this great article that does a good job at discussing temperature trends from Real Climate, that can be found here. It discusses “the pause”, the arctic gap, climate models, etc. Or this humorous tongue-in-cheek article from Tamino here which depicts the weakness of the “pause” argument.

If you’re still in search of more information, look at my other posts on the subject at 20 Nov 13 15:12 in this thread or 24 Sep 13 17:28 and 26 Sep 13 14:10 on another thread found here. GregLocock, I’d refer you to the 26 Sep 13 14:10 post because it was specifically directed at another comment you made about “the pause” (and models). You failed to offer a rebuttal but saw no problem in repeating the exact same argument again.

While on the subject GregLocock, this is your second post in a row where you take a jab at my critical thinking skills. If you take issue with my thought process, I suggest you stay awhile and engage in the conversation rather than dropping in a pithy comment here and there. I can’t learn and improve from your wisdom if you don’t point to the specific areas where I’ve erred.

To answer your question about whether the debate will be over if we go another 20 years without surface temperature warming, it depends. As I’ve illustrated here, although there is an absence of surface temperature warming, there is plenty of evidence to suggest why that is. In fact, the “pause” has resulted in research into areas, such as OHC, that have only helped further solidify the anthropogenic climate change theory. We still have a radiative imbalance and we still have increased heat accumulation on the planet.

As a closing note: nit-picking one study or one point from above does not invalidate my argument (or validate the “pause”). Ocean heat content, ENSO, Solar Activity and Arctic Coverage are relatively independent arguments (OHC and ENSO have some tie-ins but also stand up on their own), which when brought together create a strong argument against the “pause”. You’ll also note the number of references to peer-reviewed papers (or articles which discuss and directly link to peer-reviewed papers), I’d appreciate if others responded in kind.

 

[GregLocock]

"The anthropogenic climate change theory states that there is a radiative energy imbalance, primarily caused by increased forcing of CO2 "

well yes. But if that is the foundation of your argument it falls over right there. You are assuming the theory is fact. It is only provable to date by the same computer models that don't predict the pause, ie they fail to predict the future when they run free over a term of two-three decades, never mind a century. So it seems very likely that those models are significantly flawed. So their predictions about CO2 sensitivity are probably flawed as well. I agree the oceans are a huge effect but the GCM models can't currently take them into account except as boundary conditions. Which is cheating, if you know much about physics based modelling.

Sorry you spent so much time typing the rest, I didn't actually read it since one of your assumptions was so naive.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - I look forward to your discussion about my points.

W.r.t. the pause - there is indeed a pause in atmospheric temperatures - the length depends on the specific metric. The alarm from the warming in the 1980's and 1990's came from rapidly rising atmospheric temperatures (we didn't have reliable measurements of ocean heat content over that time frame) - anyone who was alarmed about these rapidly rising temperatures should be ecstatic about the pause. That the prior alarm was about atmospheric temperatures and now has shifted to ocean heat content is a pea-thimble scam: there was no prior alarm in OHC, but now there is - there was prior alarm in atmospheric temperatures and now there is not.

W.r.t. ocean heating - I fail to see any alarm about oceanic heating on the order of 0.01-0.02°C - even if it is 10^22J. There's no catastrophe there - unless I am missing something. Thank whatever deity you believe in for the difference in specific heat capacity!

This radiative imbalance exists in computational models only. It is not a measured value, because of the measurement error overwhelming the "signal". It's unfortunate, but our observational capabilities are exceeded by our computational abilities. Maybe we should get some of these computer jockey's out of the office and out into the real world. And in-filling actual measured data from a mix of remote sensing and computer models (Cowtan and Way 2013) is somewhat interesting, but it is not data, and should not be presented or suggested as anything resembling data. Heck, it doesn't even reach the level of anecdotes. ;-)

 

[rconnor]

I didn't actually read it since one of your assumptions was so naïve

This just perfectly illustrates the stubborn, ignorant responses that I’ve come to expect. What’s even more absurd is the VERY NEXT sentence after the one that you took issue with explains your exact stance.

To the layman, we think that this increased energy accumulation must result in continued surface temperature increases or the theory falls apart

I then go on to describe why that is an incredibly over simplified stance, in detail and with many references.

My entire post is dedicated towards providing evidence as to why this flippant (and ignorant) dismissal of the anthropogenic climate change theory is unfounded but you use that exact same flippant (and ignorant) dismissal to “justify” ignoring it. My post included:
1) Stating the predictions that the theory makes (radiative imbalance --> increased energy accumulation)
2) Stating the contention to the theory (if increased energy accumulation --> increased surface temperatures. If no increased surface temperatures --> no increased energy accumulation --> no radiative imbalance --> theory falls apart)
3) Explain why this is an overly simplified view point (ignores OHC, solar activity, short term effects of ENSO, heavily biased time frame, etc)
4) Conclude that when you take into account these other factors, the theory still stands

But you read (1) and then stop reading, ironically for the exact reasons described in (2). Then, because of this, you missed my argument for why (2) is not appropriate. It is fine to argue point (4) by providing counter arguments to what I say in point (3) but that’s not what you have done. You’ve read the premise, which you didn’t agree with, and then ignored the supporting evidence. And you accuse me of making a priori assumptions?

TGS4,
”Shifting the Goal Posts”
I’ll paraphrase your first point as the “shifting the goal posts” argument. I disagree, I feel this is more an example of developing a better understanding of the science. As non-experts, we perceive information through the lens of public communication of science. We get a simplified, bare-bones version of the actual research. Part of this simplification is that global temperatures are portrayed as the be-all, end-all metric of climate change as it is the easiest to understand. In the long term, that is somewhat true but given that there is so much noise in the data (ENSO, solar activity, volcanoes, etc.), it can mislead people in the short term. There are plenty of statements like “well it’s -20 here, so much for global warming” in the non-scientific community.

The true concern is over increased energy accumulation within the planet that is estimated to produce a host of changes, a rise in global temperatures being only one of them. So the recent discussion of OHC is not a shell game but the scientific community educating the public on the issue in more depth. OHC has been an area of focus for decades but is more recently brought to the foreground of discussion in the non-expert community because of claims regarding the “pause”.

Furthermore, "shifting the goal posts" is not really an argument against the thoery. Nothing said about global surface temperatures is invalidated whne bringing in OHC. In fact, you require both concepts to review the situation accurately. No one is saying “ignore surface temperatures now”, we are saying “interpret surface temperatures alongside OHC (and ENSO)”

Ocean Temperature Rise
I partly agree that the absolute temperature rise of the ocean isn’t necessarily an issue (it does affect sea levels though). However, heat in the ocean doesn’t stay in the ocean forever. Especially during El Nino events, some of the heat in the ocean is transferred to the atmosphere. If you look at the temperature trends, you see spikes during El Nino events and dips during La Nina (and volcanoes). From NOAA, here is a look at the temperature trend per year with El Nino and La Nina years highlighted (my early statement is false – looks like in that period it contained 8 La Nina Years and 2 El Nino years, the starting year and 2010 – the hottest year on record):

Think of the oceans as a storage tank, the sun as a compressor, global temperature as the system pressure and ENSO as a control valve. During a La Nina, the control valve is closed so while the tank pressure increases, the system pressure stays steady or drops. But when we switch to an El Nino, the valve opens and air from the tank drives the system pressure up.

To continue the analog, as ENSO is stochastic (as far as we can tell), the opening and closing of the valve is random. Therefore, the storage tank cannot be used as a means to control or regulate system pressure (i.e. claims that ENSO is responsible for global warming are incorrect as ENSO is about the temporary storage and release of energy). The only aspect that can control the system pressure in the long term is either (1) the compressor output or (2) the balance between air allowed to enter the system versus leave the system. Although solar output is variable, its average luminosity varies little over time and historical temperature vs solar activity correlations seem very weak. See below from the Stanford Solar Center:

Radiative Imbalance is Too Difficult to Measure
I do appreciate the fact that the error of radiative imbalance measurements is high and that a number is difficult to calculate. That is why the “pause” has weight because people that disagree with the TOA numbers look at surface temperatures and say “the TOA numbers are wrong because if they were right, we’d see consistently increasing surface temperatures”. My response is that is an over simplification – the imbalance can show up in other places, namely the ocean. So even if you don’t agree with TOA numbers, we can ignore them and still look to the finger prints of an energy imbalance – surface temperature increases, ocean heat content increases (upper and deep ocean), etc. As we’ve seen a steady increase in surface temperatures up until ~2000 and now we’ve seen a slowing in surface temperatures and upper ocean temperatures but an increase in the heat accumulation in the deep ocean, I believe we have empirical evidence that there is some form of energy imbalance. This, by itself, doesn’t prove that it is CO2 but if you can name another physical mechanism that does a better job at explaining these events and other changes in climate, then you are likely to get a Nobel Prize.

I suggest going through Cowtan and Way in a bit more detail (it’s free to the public now). The tests that they applied to the reconstructions may change your opinion. Even if it doesn’t, we can ignore their paper and that does very little to resurrect the “pause” as an argument with any weight. (I did chuckle at your last line. As a result of some of claims being made, I’ve been rather aggressive in my posts, so I appreciate adding in the humour to try and soften the tone of the discussion…I’ve actually softened my opening from what I first wrote)

To conclude, although there has been a slowing of global temperatures as of late, the “pause” does not invalidate the anthropogenic climate change theory. In fact, with our current understanding of global climate, you’d expect a temporary halt to surface temperature warming if studying a period that starts with a strong El Nino event and ends with a double-dip La Nina. You’d also expect that deep oceans appear to be warming faster than the upper ocean during La Nina events. And that is what we are seeing. No shifting the goal posts, no shell game, no reliance on evil climate models – just surface temperatures, OHC and ENSO.

I’d also like to (re) bring up the main point from this Tamino article. The warming rate from 1992 to 2006 for was 0.28 dec C/decade, which is faster than the warming from 1975 to now and faster than the IPCC models had predicted.

Did the corrupt climate scientists, bowing to their alter of profits, parade this as a dooms day warning? Did the alarmist IPCC, in an attempt at furthering their mission of world dominance, exploit this to force citizens to surrender more power to them?

No, the authors of the paper stated:
“The first candidate reason is intrinsic variability within the climate system” (Rahmstorf et al 2007)

As good scientists do, they attempted to understand the reason behind the data not force it to fit their assumptions. The fact that GregLocock and others have accused me (and the vast majority of the scientific community) of doing the latter by actually doing the latter himself is rather ironic.

 

[GregLocock]

Since you are trying to communicate it may be an idea to actually consider the reader's response to your words.

It is not flippant to ignore supposedly logical arguments if an axiom is wrong. As one mathermatician used to do when presented with another proof of some famous theorem, he would repsond with something along the lines of "the first error is on line X and I read no further".



Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[rconnor]

Either you don't understand what an axiom is or you wrongly believe that the radiative imbalance is an axiom.

If the radiative energy imbalance was presumed to be true (i.e. an axiom), NASA would not have sent a satellite into orbit FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MEASURING THE ENERGY BUDGET.

Nor would the following papers need to written if they were studying axioms:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2165/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/abstract

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/homerbe.html

And a just a few more from the ERBE team...and by a few I mean 416 publications

So no, the radiative energy imbalance is not an axiom; it's being studied, rigorously.

Furthermore, I don't assume a radiative imbalance to be true anywhere in my post; I think you are confusing my outline of the theory with me assuming all those points to be true. But, you see, I don't just assume - I've provided numerous links to references that support this point of a theory (which you've outright ignored). Again, I don't think you know what an axiom is because you don't provide supporting evidence to axioms in an attempt to validate the axiom - they are just assumed true by their nature.

The closest thing to a false axiom in this thread is the stance "16 years of steady surface temperatures invalidates the anthropogenic climate change theory". Although, I think it's more of an ignorant belief than an false axiom. You've offered no evidence to support it and I have provided ample to discredit it (which you've outright ignored). Yet you continue to cling to it as the foundation for your beliefs.

 

[2dye4]

I am amazed more every day by humans ability to corrupt their rational thinking based on what they want to be true.
Even high intelligence cannot diminish the effect by itself.
To think clearly requires a person to recognize their wishes with respect to an issue and be constantly vigilant
against their biasing ones opinion.

I think so many in the climate debate want to believe it isn't true because of their vocation, or they have religious beliefs that are challenged
by the idea that we could harm our global environment. When discussing the issue with them they cycle back to the start and begin their arguments
all over even though they have been challenged successfully in their recent history. This must mean that the challenges are just not registering
even though presented well and no return argument is put forth at the time by the person who is skeptical of MMGW.

And yes those 'concerned' about MMGW have an interest in supporting the position they have staked out so they too must be ready to
consider biases in their though process.

It cannot be achieved completely, only Spock could do that.

 

[ornerynorsk]

"I think so many in the climate debate want to believe it isn't true because of their vocation, or they have religious beliefs that are challenged by the idea that we could harm our global environment"

Or, perhaps, it's because no adequate, conclusive proof has been offered yet. Once conjecture, belief, and will become forms of concrete evidence, the AGW folks have their case made. Until then, the jury is still out, my friend.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[cranky108]

Religious Beliefs that are challenged?? You won't win that one. That is why it is a religious belief, or what some people would call your belief in all this data.

I learned a long time ago "trust, but verify", so can this data be verified by some group that is not associated with the goverment and those who want to tax co2?

You see I just follow the money to find out where this came from.