Given that the natural factors for global temperatures appear to point to a slight cooling trend human contributions may be responsible for up to 120% of global warming.
I can just see that. Interstate highways made of steel plate for the ground and covered with an electric roof. You could totally enclose it and drive in your shirt sleeves. Morning rush hour, 10,000 bumper cars all trying to get to the same place. It would be hilarious. We could put solar panels on top for electricity.
Maybe it's bias but from where I sit there's been a lot more willingness to compromise from the Democratic side. For instance Obama initially wanted to include a pubic option in the Affordable Care Act but dropped that in hopes of getting some Republican buy in. Particularly since the election of all of the Tea Party Republicans in 2010 there's been a lot of just plain obstructionism from that side.
The pedant in me just has to say you can't use carbon dating on dinosaur bones because it's only useful going back about 60,000 years. The dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago. But there are other forms of radiometric dating that will work on dinosaur bones.
The observation period is what it is and we have pretty good records going back over 100 years. We can only work with what we have. This graph shows how temperature anomalies have shifted since the 1950's. The caption for it is:
Figure 2. Temperature anomaly distribution: The frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Area under each curve is unity. Image credit: NASA/GISS.
Notice how the curves for the past 3 decades have shifted towards the hot end of the scale increasing the chances for heat waves and decreasing the chances for cold snaps.
I would expect if you continuously add CO2 to the air in your experiment at the rate humans are adding it to the atmosphere approximately 43% of it will remain in the air and the rest will be absorbed by the ocean water. A new balance won't be reached until you quite adding CO2.
Antarctic sea ice has increased somewhat. That is partly an effect of the ozone hole over Antarctica strengthening the circumpolar winds pushing existing ice around and opening more leads that subsequently freeze over (Turner 2009) and partly an effect of global warming causing increasing precipitation over the Southern Ocean freshening the surface and less mixing of the ocean layers (Zhang 2007). Antarctic sea ice is different than Arctic sea ice in that it melts nearly completely and then reforms every year rather than being more or less permanent.
From measurements of the GRACE satellites we know that land ice in the Antarctic is decreasing.
In a situation where there was a balance between the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 dissolved in the oceans it would be governed by ocean temperature. Right now there is an imbalance with the atmosphere containing the excess. That's easily shown with simple with simple chemistry.
Yes, CO2 in the ocean has little or no direct effect on temperature. I'm not sure your assertion that the ocean may be a buffer solution that neutralizes acids and bases is warranted.
The observation that heat waves are becoming more common and affecting more of the Earth's surface over the past 50 years is a simple statistical analysis. It's an expected effect of global warming.
There's no reason for us to believe that if we had eliminated mankind in WWI with some super virus, that those heat waves would have happened either.
I still pay attention to what people like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen have to say. They have some expertize in the subject. Watts has no credibility for me.
Yes, the internal heat of the Earth is negligible compared to the energy we receive from the Sun.
I'm not assuming we've increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's evident in the numbers that our emissions are increasing CO2. The year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 is only about 43% of the total CO2 emitted by humans. Most of the other 57% is being absorbed by the oceans presently. All of that is evident in the observations we make.
Acidification simply means the pH of the ocean is dropping, not that it has actually become acid. You could call it dealkalinization too but that's kind of clumsy. If it ever reaches the point of even being neutral (pH=7) we're in for a world of hurt from the effects.
I agree with you. Responding to the global warming problem would have only a moderate effect on the economy notwithstanding the screams of anti-global warming advocates who predict economic Armageddon.
The amount of energy coming out of the Earth from volcanic action and just in general is at least a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the energy we get from the Sun. If there were no Sun it wouldn't be enough energy to keep temperatures above freezing. TapeCutter has it right.
Oceans can't drive warming overall because they have no internal source of heat energy. The oceans are warming because right now the absorb about 90% of the increase in heat energy in the Earth system. Despite the fact that oceans are warming they are still absorbing CO2 because we've increased the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past ~200 years. Ocean acidification is direct evidence of that.
Cryosat uses SIRAL (a synthetic aperture radar/inferometric radar altimeter) to measure the altitude of sea ice over sea level to get the volume. Since ice is about 9% less dense than water you can tell how much ice there is by how high it sticks out of the water. If a 5 cm layer is at the surface then Cryosat will show an elevation of a little less 0.5 cm. I don't think there is such a thing as submerged lumps of thick multiyear ice because something would have to be holding it down to keep it from floating at the surface. There may be some relatively small areas that are held under water by mechanical pressure but they still contribute to the overall ice elevation in the area.
CO2 concentration in water is governed by temperature but it is also governed by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is a balance between the two. That is why despite ocean temperatures rising the oceans are still sinking CO2 from the atmosphere. We've increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past ~200 years and the oceans haven't caught up with the total new CO2 in the system yet.
You and I have gone back and forth before over whether the warming will be good or not. Weather statistics show that heat waves like we've had this past year in the US and like Russia had in 2010 and Europe in 2003 have become more common over the past half century. That is an expected effect of global warming. I don't consider that a good thing.
Don't bother citing WUWT to me. I spent time there a few years back and found nothing of value. I don't even bother to give Watts the page views any more. It's a waste of my time.
When coming out of ice ages CO2 levels do lag temperature increases for a while. Basically changes in Milankovitch Cycles start the warming which has a feedback of increasing CO2, mostly from the oceans outgassing it as they warm. This in turn drives even more warming but eventually a new balance is reached. That mechanism in no way implies that CO2 can't drive warming too.
As I said I'd be more sympathetic to your "someone could vote on my behalf" argument if there were more evidence that it is a problem but 10 cases since 2000 just isn't a problem. Some of those cases were one spouse trying to vote for the other who was too sick to make it to the polls.
Why not vet the voter at registration when you have the time to get it right? By your logic if you can't trust it you may as well not have voter registration at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that the natural factors for global temperatures appear to point to a slight cooling trend human contributions may be responsible for up to 120% of global warming.
If I had mod points to give you'd get a +1 Insightful
Better stand to the side when you do.
They did it so Pluto wouldn't feel so lonely when it got demoted to dwarf planet.
I can just see that. Interstate highways made of steel plate for the ground and covered with an electric roof. You could totally enclose it and drive in your shirt sleeves. Morning rush hour, 10,000 bumper cars all trying to get to the same place. It would be hilarious. We could put solar panels on top for electricity.
I think he needs legroom more than headroom.
Maybe it's bias but from where I sit there's been a lot more willingness to compromise from the Democratic side. For instance Obama initially wanted to include a pubic option in the Affordable Care Act but dropped that in hopes of getting some Republican buy in. Particularly since the election of all of the Tea Party Republicans in 2010 there's been a lot of just plain obstructionism from that side.
The pedant in me just has to say you can't use carbon dating on dinosaur bones because it's only useful going back about 60,000 years. The dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago. But there are other forms of radiometric dating that will work on dinosaur bones.
is this something that could be used to cheaply make hydrogen for fuel? If you put 6.02 * 10^23 of them in water how much hydrogen would it produce?
The observation period is what it is and we have pretty good records going back over 100 years. We can only work with what we have. This graph shows how temperature anomalies have shifted since the 1950's. The caption for it is:
Figure 2. Temperature anomaly distribution: The frequency of occurrence (vertical axis) of local temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-1980 mean) in units of local standard deviation (horizontal axis). Area under each curve is unity. Image credit: NASA/GISS.
Notice how the curves for the past 3 decades have shifted towards the hot end of the scale increasing the chances for heat waves and decreasing the chances for cold snaps.
I would expect if you continuously add CO2 to the air in your experiment at the rate humans are adding it to the atmosphere approximately 43% of it will remain in the air and the rest will be absorbed by the ocean water. A new balance won't be reached until you quite adding CO2.
LOL, I never was that great at grammar.
Antarctic sea ice has increased somewhat. That is partly an effect of the ozone hole over Antarctica strengthening the circumpolar winds pushing existing ice around and opening more leads that subsequently freeze over (Turner 2009) and partly an effect of global warming causing increasing precipitation over the Southern Ocean freshening the surface and less mixing of the ocean layers (Zhang 2007). Antarctic sea ice is different than Arctic sea ice in that it melts nearly completely and then reforms every year rather than being more or less permanent.
From measurements of the GRACE satellites we know that land ice in the Antarctic is decreasing.
In a situation where there was a balance between the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere and the CO2 dissolved in the oceans it would be governed by ocean temperature. Right now there is an imbalance with the atmosphere containing the excess. That's easily shown with simple with simple chemistry.
Yes, CO2 in the ocean has little or no direct effect on temperature. I'm not sure your assertion that the ocean may be a buffer solution that neutralizes acids and bases is warranted.
The observation that heat waves are becoming more common and affecting more of the Earth's surface over the past 50 years is a simple statistical analysis. It's an expected effect of global warming.
There's no reason for us to believe that if we had eliminated mankind in WWI with some super virus, that those heat waves would have happened either.
I still pay attention to what people like Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen have to say. They have some expertize in the subject. Watts has no credibility for me.
Yes, the internal heat of the Earth is negligible compared to the energy we receive from the Sun.
I'm not assuming we've increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's evident in the numbers that our emissions are increasing CO2. The year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 is only about 43% of the total CO2 emitted by humans. Most of the other 57% is being absorbed by the oceans presently. All of that is evident in the observations we make.
Acidification simply means the pH of the ocean is dropping, not that it has actually become acid. You could call it dealkalinization too but that's kind of clumsy. If it ever reaches the point of even being neutral (pH=7) we're in for a world of hurt from the effects.
We are not anywhere close to this cliff at the present time and with global warming we are sprinting away from the cliff.
I agree with you. Responding to the global warming problem would have only a moderate effect on the economy notwithstanding the screams of anti-global warming advocates who predict economic Armageddon.
Not who but what. The state of Earth's orbital variations (Milankovitch Cycles) were different then than they are now and favored warmer temperatures.
The amount of energy coming out of the Earth from volcanic action and just in general is at least a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than the energy we get from the Sun. If there were no Sun it wouldn't be enough energy to keep temperatures above freezing. TapeCutter has it right.
Oceans can't drive warming overall because they have no internal source of heat energy. The oceans are warming because right now the absorb about 90% of the increase in heat energy in the Earth system. Despite the fact that oceans are warming they are still absorbing CO2 because we've increased the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past ~200 years. Ocean acidification is direct evidence of that.
Cryosat uses SIRAL (a synthetic aperture radar/inferometric radar altimeter) to measure the altitude of sea ice over sea level to get the volume. Since ice is about 9% less dense than water you can tell how much ice there is by how high it sticks out of the water. If a 5 cm layer is at the surface then Cryosat will show an elevation of a little less 0.5 cm. I don't think there is such a thing as submerged lumps of thick multiyear ice because something would have to be holding it down to keep it from floating at the surface. There may be some relatively small areas that are held under water by mechanical pressure but they still contribute to the overall ice elevation in the area.
CO2 concentration in water is governed by temperature but it is also governed by the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. There is a balance between the two. That is why despite ocean temperatures rising the oceans are still sinking CO2 from the atmosphere. We've increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% over the past ~200 years and the oceans haven't caught up with the total new CO2 in the system yet.
You and I have gone back and forth before over whether the warming will be good or not. Weather statistics show that heat waves like we've had this past year in the US and like Russia had in 2010 and Europe in 2003 have become more common over the past half century. That is an expected effect of global warming. I don't consider that a good thing.
Don't bother citing WUWT to me. I spent time there a few years back and found nothing of value. I don't even bother to give Watts the page views any more. It's a waste of my time.
When coming out of ice ages CO2 levels do lag temperature increases for a while. Basically changes in Milankovitch Cycles start the warming which has a feedback of increasing CO2, mostly from the oceans outgassing it as they warm. This in turn drives even more warming but eventually a new balance is reached. That mechanism in no way implies that CO2 can't drive warming too.
Yep, the top 10 feet of the oceans contains as much heat energy as the entire atmosphere.
As I said I'd be more sympathetic to your "someone could vote on my behalf" argument if there were more evidence that it is a problem but 10 cases since 2000 just isn't a problem. Some of those cases were one spouse trying to vote for the other who was too sick to make it to the polls.
Why not vet the voter at registration when you have the time to get it right? By your logic if you can't trust it you may as well not have voter registration at all.