The records were showing a cooling trend until they were recalibrate
Please cite data that shows that.
even the corrected datasheets don't show warming if you look from 1998 to today
What was that you were saying about cherry-picking trends?
In any case, surface temperatures are only one symptom of climate change - and we know they're quite variable over decadal periods. Others, like ocean heat content, ice melt, and sea level rise, are still rising. And that table you cited looks to me like mostly negative anomalies in the 70s, and mostly positive anomalies in the current time - how is that not a warming trend? Perhaps a graph would make it clearer?
The sea rise is linear.
No, it isn't. The difference in trend from the first couple of decades to the last couple looks clearly visible to me, and Vermeer's graph of the derivative rate of change makes the accelerating sea rise crystal clear.
I think a large volcanic erruption might create such a rise...
The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2. Human emissions in 1991 were 23 billion tonnes of CO2. Don't expect to see much of a blip.
The IPCC figure you're citing is 120 years... that seems obviously impossible
Why do you assume they're wrong, instead of assuming you're missing something?
As I said (and my citations tried to explain), it's not as simple as a fixed number. CO2 uptake depends on numerous processes, some of which are feedback loops. Some CO2 is re-absorbed quickly, some slowly, and some of it takes centuries to be removed from the atmosphere. That's why I mentioned the CO2 lifetime graphs - it's not a linear process.
But you only have to look at the rising atmospheric CO2 levels to see that, clearly, our CO2 emissions are currently exceeding the uptake.
I'm utterly indifferent to how many people agree with you.
It's got nothing to do with how many people agree with me. It's got everything to do with how many experts agree with each other.
you're skipping over my request for a longer trend line on pH values in the ocean.
Did you look at the graph page 4 of the presentation link I gave? Is 25 million years not long enough?
If you can find other data from 1900, please do feel free to cite it.
don't like having to validate your positions
Still waiting for you to validate yours. You've made a lot of claims, but cited very little data - and the data you've cited so far has contradicted your claims, not backed them.
I've found nothing to suggest that that band is special in anyway.
It's only "special" because we're pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the air every year. That makes its effects relevant to us.
Regarding the earth's energy fluxes (in and out), we can measure those accurately with satellites (not just the less-accurate surface measurements you cite further down). See this picture for figures, and details, particularly Fig 2 - the energy imbalance is +0.58±0.15 W/m^2, even during a solar minimum (and you'll note the error levels are perfectly reasonable).
just because you publish something and it gets peer reviewed, it doesn't mean anything in the paper is valid or that the underlying conclusions of the paper are beyond criticism.
It's not an absolute guarantee of truth (there's no such thing) - but it's the closest we've been able to get. Individual papers can be wrong (though far more often they're simply incomplete), but you can't dismiss all peer-reviewed papers because of that, particularly when similar conclusions are reached from independent evidence, all across the field, for decades.
As to whether my own intelligence is enough... you're missing the point. It has to be enough. If it isn't then I have no choice but to simply assume something is valid or disbelieve everything by default.
Or, you could accept that certain other people are better equipped (by means of study, experience and access to data, if not intelligence) to make judgements about the evidence, than yourself, and defer to their conclusions. You can't hope to make an informed conclusion yourself about any field you know so little about, any more than myself or any layman. To assume your own meagre knowledge is sufficient to contradict the findings of experts is pure Dunning-Kruger effect.
As to your question about whether a scientific paper has ever misrepresented itself... this is a very odd statement you're making. You're suggesting that no scientist has ever lied?
I did not say that. I said there's such broad agreement among climatologists and institutions - are they all misrepresenting the truth? Every one of them?
To dismiss consensus as "political" is to accuse every scientist and institution that endorses the consensus opinion, of falsifying their conclusions for political reasons, which would be career suicide. All those scientists are doing their jobs by evaluating the decades of evidence and reaching conclusions - are you really claiming they're all lying to us?
the sats are calibrated with ground data... Every year their numbers are adjusted up...
No, they're not. The measurements are going up, not the adjustments. The citations you yourself provided show only tiny adjustments to the trend, every few years, going both up and down - while the measured temperature trend is ever upwards.
The calibration is not re-done from scratch every year. That would be meaningless, as you say. The satellite data obviously must be kept comparable, both to itself and to ground measurements, so that any trends can be determined. Give these people some credit, would you? not to mention the expert reviewers who checked their methods.
I can't cross reference that information with any other source
Similar data is in the HadCRU and NASA datasets, not just NOAA. They're all cross-checked with each other and with related evidence. Perhaps you should look harder.
As to Vermeer, that contradicts what was in the Church paper that you cited yourself.
No, it doesn't. Church's Fig 5 and Vermeer's Fig 3 Lower are the same graph, though Vermeer has a blue trend line drawn over the red measurement line. You can see clearly they have the same values at the same decades. Fig 3 Upper is the derivative of that trend line, showing rate of change.
how long do you think CO2 remains in the atmosphere?
Individual molecules of carbon are being re-absorbed - and re-emitted - all the time, by plants and by the ocean, in large quantities (around 200Gt/year). This is normally in equilibrium, with a slow growth from geologic weathering and occasional volcanism. The rates of natural emission and uptake aren't fixed however, due to numerous feedbacks, so the best we can say is between 30 and 95 years for much of it, with perhaps 20% persisting a lot longer (thousands of years). It depends a lot on the atmospheric concentration, and how much we keep releasing. This page discusses the issue and provides lifetime graphs.
If true this implies the CO2 from our sources is being emitted at a lower rate than the biosphere's absorption ability.
Obviously that's not the case, because atmospheric levels have gone up sharply for 150 years See this ice-core data and more recent Mauna Loa data, showing a definite acceleration even in the last 50 years. Regarding CO2 spectrum absorption, your questions were already answered by the citations I've given. Broad-spectrum sunlight is not only reflected, but also absorbed and re-radiated in infra-red (look up black-body radiation), which is then partially blocked by various greenhouse gases. This is well-understood science going back to the 1800s. and I'm not going to go over it all yet again. I've already cited papers that quantify the measured radiative forcing of CO2. There's no serious debate about this aspect, only about the feedbacks and resulting temperature rise.
Regarding ocean acidification, Turley et al 2006 is cited by many. Can't find a link to the paper, but here is a related presentation by Turley - see page 4.
Sorry, but I no longer have the time to spend with long explanations. It's taking too much time from my work. If the many peer-reviewed papers I've already provided haven't convinced you of anything, then providing more won't help. Either you're unable to follow the studies I've cited, or you're unwilling to to accept them as valid evidence, despite peer review and cross-correlation with other evidence. You claim that the broad agreement
Where the situation gets complicated isn't so much who handles the exploits, it's during the research.
You're a security researcher, you've got a couple of potential holes you're looking into; crash bugs you might be able to leverage into execution then chain them to break through a browser sandbox, say, but they're not yet ready for submission to the vendor. Then you travel overseas to a conference to present some interesting related techniques. You bring your laptop with some of your unpublished recent research on it.
And now you can be locked up for exporting secret weapons-grade exploit technology. Until the exploit is handed over, to the vendor or a council or whoever, any research is classed as a potential forbidden weapon.
For polar temperature measurements - don't forget we have satellites too. We're not relying solely on a handful of ground stations, but their measurements help confirm our satellite results.
I can't believe you're still confused about "the zeta joules". Earth has an energy budget, right? A near-constant amount of energy from the sun comes in (about 700 terawatts from memory), and a variable amount goes out. The difference in energy remains on the earth - in the atmosphere, but mostly in the oceans. Energy units are measured in joules, where a joule is one watt for one second. If we're measuring the ocean heat content in "zeta joules", that's clearly a lot of energy that is being stored. I have no idea why you find this so baffling, let alone "several other scientists".
Regarding sea level rise, look at Vermeer 2009 for example, specifically Fig 3.
You can see that not only has the sea level been rising, but the rate of change in the sea level has also been rising - and has more than tripled in recent years, due to faster ice melting.
You're saying that that little sliver of spectrum that is unique to CO2 is the only frequency that energy is radiated away from earth on? That's nonsense.
Of course I'm not saying that. Please re-read what I did say. Water vapour blocks much of the outgoing energy, and CO2 blocks some of what's left. Their effect is added.
we are seeing plants respond to the increase in CO2.
Sure, and the ocean has increased its CO2 uptake too (hence the acidification). But it's not nearly enough, hence our CO2 levels are still rising. Plant uptake would have to increase enormously to make a substantial difference, especially as it's a relatively small fraction of the total.
Therefore, radiative heat transfer is not how heat flows through our atmosphere. It isn't possible.
Heat moves through our atmosphere with both radiative and convective transfer (and probably a little conduction too). Heat cannot leave our atmosphere by convective transfer, as we're surrounded by a vacuum. Therefore, radiative transfer is the only way heat can actually leave our planet. That's why it's important.
Your citation is only an abstract, but models both convective transfer of heat to upper atmosphere layers, and radiative transfer as a Planck black-body radiator. It agrees that CO2 has a warming effect, though the amount calculated is much lower than more recent research (the exact figure is still being determined).
Explain why my reading of the spectrum charts is wrong.
It's not so much wrong, as not really the point. Yes, there's a lot of overlap between CO2 and water. But even if atmospheric water blocked 100% of the radiation covered by its absorption spectrum (it doesn't), CO2 would still have an additional effect. And any overlapped frequencies that aren't blocked completely by water, CO2 will also have an additional effect.
The point is, degree of overlap is not the issue. Amount of outgoing energy blocked by CO2 is the issue. And the figure to look for there is radiative forcing, calculated as 3.7 W/m^2 (this article shows how to derive CO2 forcing from first principles, and compares it to satellite measurements). This is the raw effect that increasing CO2 has on our atmosphere (which is then complicated by numerous positive & negative feedback effects).
I just don't see how it could matter.
You haven't done the maths. Your gut feeling is not reliable here. Look at the science, not your preconceptions.
In regards to not listening to the progressives but listening to the scientists... the problem is that the the one will misrepresent themselves as the other.
What evidence do you have that any scientific papers have misrepresented anything?
I can't just trust anyone. The only defense I have is to use what intelligence I have and go through the argument and logically evaluate it brick by brick.
Unfortunately, without years of study and experience, that's simply not enough.
Your choices are: a) get enough experience in the field to be considered an expert, run your own evaluation on the massive amounts of data acquired in the last 30 years, then make an expert judgement of your own, or; b) listen to the many experts who have done exactly that.
Unfortunately, too many people choose c) none of the above, and make snap judgements on limited understanding of the field, and even more limited evidence. This is all but guaranteed to run afoul of preconceptions, political and otherwise. The Dunning-Kruger effect prevents most of these people from even realising how far off base they usually are.
Given your difficulty in even dealing with ocean heat c
comparing at equal pressures gives more of an apples to apples comparison. Since you can clearly see how radically the temperatures fluctuate based on pressure.
Um, well yeah. The temperatures on different planets are very different, even at the same pressure - as you'd expect, given all the other differences, like distance from the Sun, cloud cover, chemical composition and who knows what else. I'm really not sure where you're going with all this. It certainly doesn't show that "the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference." It just shows that there are a lot of factors that determine temperature. The pressure may be "apples to apples" but nothing else is.
And of course the temperature goes up & down with the pressure at different altitudes; that's the Pressure-Temperature law I linked to earlier. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what any of this has to do with the Greenhouse Gas effect.
As to trapping heat... CO2 is hardly unique in this feature nor do I see why it plays a special role in the Earth atmosphere.
What's different about CO2 compared to the other, stronger greenhouse gases like water vapour and methane is that it accumulates over a long time.
Water vapour is a stable quantity in the atmosphere (for a given temperature). Any excess simply precipitates out as rain. It doesn't increase, at least not until you start warming the air up.
Methane does accumulate, for a while - but it is broken down by UV light over a period of years, so it has only a short term effect as well. It can still be a problem (e.g. if melting permafrost like the Siberian Traps releases significant methane into the atmosphere, which is a real concern and could trigger other warming feedbacks), but it doesn't build up over a long time, so any direct effects of a methane pulse are short-lived.
CO2 takes centuries to be removed from the atmosphere. This is done by vegetation, to a small extent, but the vast majority of CO2 uptake is done by the ocean. Even so, this is a slow process. CO2 has been building up rapidly in our atmosphere, and even if we stopped emitting ALL anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow, it would still take centuries to return to pre-industrial levels. Worse, much of that CO2 being absorbed by the oceans is being converted to carbonic acid, which is resulting in ocean acidification - a decreasing pH that we've been observing for some time, and is already having measurable results on sensitive ocean ecosystems.
I had a hard time finding a graph for CO2 ironically... maybe you can help me out there.
Yep, that looks like a useful graph. It's certainly clear that water vapour has a bigger effect - but the primary point here is that CO2 also blocks outgoing energy. It's in addition to the effect of water vapour. Water doesn't "black out" the effect of CO2, it adds to it, trapping more energy.
While the water vapour effect is bigger, the CO2 effect is added to this - and that is steadily increasing, as the CO2 in our atmosphere increases. This is enough extra trapped energy to change the temperature equilibrium of our planet; we've done the maths. See e.g. Myhre '98 for how this is forcing value is derived, while Puckrin '04 compares our radiative flux models for a variety of greenhouse gas mixes with atmospheric observations, and finds them to agree well.
Have a look here for a comparison of the radiative forcing values of the significant greenhouse gases, particularly the Greenhouse Gases section and
CO2 is not unique in its ability to absorb energy or radiate that energy.
Of course; there are other greenhouse gases too.
You can do comparisons to every other planet in the solar system and what you'll find is that the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference.
Citation most definitely needed for that claim.
what makes a difference is distance from the sun and density.
Obviously, but distance from the sun only affects the level of incoming energy, not outgoing radiated energy. And it's also obvious that pressure affects temperature. This goes back to the 1700s. But this doesn't trap heat.
Where greenhouse gases make a difference is because they allow most of the incoming radiation to pass (which from our sun is primarily in the optical spectrum, and CO2 is invisible to optical light), but they block a significant amount of the outgoing radiation, much which has been absorbed then re-radiated at black-body temperatures, i.e. in the infra-red range.
If you don't like the Skeptical Science site, don't read it - just read the cited sources (that's what I've been telling you to do all along, if you recall). I merely provided the page as it has a good list of relevant papers, but if you can't even bear to go near it, I'm happy to list them here for you.
As to the effect of CO2 being unquestioned, that is simply not true.
Show many any reputable atmospheric scientist who is questioning the basic science of the greenhouse effect. I'll concede that there are still ignorant people in the world who aren't up to speed on this, but if you want to include any old uninformed opinion, then there are still people who question whether the earth is round.. Let's not muddy the discussion by being over-literal, yes? Context matters. This is centuries-old science, dating back to the 1820s.
There is clearly a controversy so claiming there is no question is not logically supportable.
Now I think you're being disingenuous. When I said there was no question about the effect of CO2, I was clearly referring specifically to the well-established greenhouse effect, and there is pretty much no controversy about that in scientific circles (I'm largely ignoring uninformed opinion outside that, as I don't see that as relevant to the science). And as I said, there is still debate about how much this effect translates into increased temperatures on the surface.
You can't simply dismiss them all. That is not how science works.
Now you're going all straw-man on me. I'm not "simply dismissing" anything. I've provided citations to peer-reviewed papers for every single claim I've made - which is far more than you've been doing, I might add - and the few links you've provided have not challenged anything I've said, or even backed your own claims.
Let's start seeing some actual citations for your claims, because this conversation is ending up as one-sided as all the others. I've spent enough time providing you with verified evidence, and all you've done so far is change the subject.
The new link does show corrections to a single satellite dataset - but there's nothing there even faintly close to the 0.6 degrees/year you were claiming. There are both positive and negative corrections that are a fraction of that, as they discover and account for factors like orbital decay.
There is your citation. Don't be stubborn or proud. It will undermine your intellectual credibility. Admit that and move on;-)
As to zeta joules, I can't process that information... That means I can't audit it. And I don't like evidence that can't be audited.
Perhaps you should engage in further study, then - and until then, you'll have to accept that this evidence has been audited by expert reviewers, both before and after publication; by people who have enough experience in the field to understand what heat content is. This is how science works in every field.
That said, I don't understand your confusion. How would a temperature figure help here? Do you just want to see an overall degrees/year amount so you can decide subjectively if it's "significant" or not? It's rather more complicated than that.
18810.48 cubic km of water
Did I make another error here? Because these numbers are still no where near what they're talking about. That shows nearly five times the melting of that estimate. That's not even close.
That's because you're calculating from incomplete data. The 200 Gt/year ice loss figure I quoted was an estimate from a single paper that dealt only with the major ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. To get a more accurate figure for all the sea level rise inputs, you also have to factor in the melting glaciers everywhere else in the world. This is further complicated by the fact that ice melt in different areas can contribute quite differently to sea level rise (e.g. if it's floating, or if shrinking ice extent decreases albedo, resulting in warmer water and thus more moisture uptake in the atmosphere, to name a couple of factors). Then on top of this you have to include the effects of thermal expansion, which is around 25% of the total rise.
For a more detailed discussion, you could start with Meier et al 2007, which for example estimates that 60% of sea level rise actually comes from glacier melting, not including the two ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic.
you're going to have to show a graph that predates the heavy emission of fossil fuels.
Take a look at Figures 5 through 7 in Church et al 2011, that I already linked to earlier.
Obviously satellite data doesn't go back that far, which is what Shepherd was looking at, but we have fairly good logs of tidal data going back hundreds of years. These are confirmed by sedimentary cores going back to 1300.
That shows a much lower rate of rise... I think they're saying inches per century
This is only looking at ice melt in some specific areas. A direct quote:
we quantify mass-change trends in 19 continental areas that exhibit a dominant signal... the net effect was + (1.1 ± 0.6) mm/year.
This is consistent with our calculations above, as it includes areas beyond Greenland and the Antarctic. But it does not include all global sources of sea level rise; besides, we can measure that directly.
What's more, the rate of sea level rise has itself been increasing. Prior to 1900 it was close to 1mm/year, but in the las
Sorry, I thought the error was clear - you converted cubic metres to cubic kilometres incorrectly. I'll spell it out:
200 gigatons is 200 billion tons ice is ~ 200 billion tons of sea water.
200,000,000,000 tons per year convert tons of sea water into cubic meters 195,698,545,959 cubic meters of water convert to cubic kilometers 195,698,546 cubic kilometers of water
It should be 195.699 cubic kilometres of water, because there are 1000x1000x1000 cubic metres to a cubic kilometre, not 1000.
Thus, over 20 years this would be 3,913.97 cubic kilometers of water, and as the surface of the world's oceans is ~361,740,000 square kilometers, you would see a rise of 0.0000108198 km, or 10.81 mm.
We know exactly how much effect CO2 has on incoming and outgoing radiation, because we can measure it in the lab, and via satellite. We know beyond doubt that it allows broad-spectrum energy in, but blocks much of the Earth's black-body radiation from escaping again.
We have measured precisely how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and we can calculate accurately how much effect it should have. That's how we know that CO2 is such a significant problem; see this page for empirical measurements, a discussion of the maths, and a graph of the Earth's radiative forcings (all with fully cited sources of course, which I recommend you follow up).
The effect of CO2 is unquestioned. What is still being debated is only how much does this affect us? At what rate will surface temperatures change as a result? This is complicated by the myriad feedback cycles involved in the climate system. Current scientific opinion varies between "this could be a real problem" to "if we don't do something ASAP we're in for a very unhappy time".
No, it really isn't. ICS lets a user connect to a PC and access the internet through that PC. The PC becomes an access point.
WiFi Sense lets your friends connect directly to your router, by securely sharing its details with them. Your PC doesn't even have to be on.
This is how it's possible for your friends to share those router details with their friends. Win10 doesn't know it's your router and not theirs, it will let anyone with the password enable WiFi Sense sharing.
Because if your friends can connect to your network, and they have WiFi Sense enabled, then access to your network is shared with all of their Facebook friends.
So you have no control over who now get access to your network. Is that clear enough yet?
Every time you give a friend your password, you have to make certain they don't have their Wifi Sense option enabled, or the same situation arises. It's also possible for them to opt into Wifi Sense for your network details any time afterwards too, so you better remain on good terms with them.
There's a reason that Microsoft added the ludicrous option of opting out via your SSID - it's because there's simply no other way to be certain this doesn't happen to you.
The problem is, if I let any of my friends near my beer, they could easily end up inviting all their Facebook friends to whizz in my ale. And the only way to scare them off is to write "_OPTOUT" in large letters on my favourite beer mug.
Here's the thing: You can leave your box unchecked - but if ANY of your friends have access to your wifi, and *their* box is checked, then all their Facebook friends will also get access to your wifi.
And the only way you can prevent this is to append "_optout" to your SSID.
Thanks, it's a refreshing change to have an actual rational discussion:-)
Luckily the sea ice calc was easy to debug, and does get you into the ballpark. Most of the climate papers are much harder to work through (kinda why you need to have all that study and experience under your belt); while many of the principles can be grasped by laymen like ourselves, it quickly becomes clear from reading the papers that there can be a lot of subtleties and counter-intuitive effects that we just don't realise, and I'm happy to admit I get lost in the depths of many of them.
For auditing papers, the peer reviewers read the described methodology in data collection, and work through the calculations to check them, while looking for factors the paper may not have dealt with adequately. But the raw data has to be taken on faith, and errors can still slip through.
Luckily, papers examining different lines of evidence can often come up with similar figures, so cross-correlation is possible, where multiple different sets of observations and methods can confirm each other, and this is the basis for much of our confidence in the climate research to date.
I'd like to think I'm quite open to correction too, particularly on specifics (easy to get those wrong), but I have fairly high standards of proof required these days. There's so many different lines of confirming evidence for the observed warming that to change my views on that I'd need to see a peer-reviewed paper from a reputable climatologist, ideally that has also been publicly checked and confirmed by other reputable climatologists. Disputing global warming has reached the threshold of an extraordinary claim, given the sheer weight of studies, climate scientists, and scientific institutions that have confirmed it, so extraordinary evidence is now required to question it.
Some of the corrections in there look like they're putting upwards of a.6 C temp bias on the sat data.
Sorry, you'll have to explain to me where in that link you're seeing hard figures for satellite corrections. You're not assuming "Global Temperature Anomaly" is a correction factor, are you? (it's the difference in temperature results from a mean value). All I see is that graph of those results, and some figures for trends. I followed some of the source links, but the methods they use are complex, and some of them only have abstracts available.
I have a big problem with the units you're using in that graph... Zeta Joules? Why aren't you citing this as temperature?
It's NOAA's graph, not mine, and they use joules because it's a measure of total energy change. This is helpful for discovering how much solar energy is being trapped by greenhouse gases and subsequently absorbed by oceans. Temperature is a less useful figure because it's dependant on the volume of water and thermal mass, but will show the same ongoing trend.
It's true that El Nino and La Nina cycles directly affect ocean heat, but these are relatively short cycles and can easily be smoothed out by averaging data over decades; similarly for solar cycles. There are also geologic cycles as you say, but those have a much slower effect, and can be accounted for by measuring the change in their causes (e.g. orbital changes). While we can't discount the effect of an undiscovered long-term climate cycle on what we're seeing now, nobody has yet found a natural cause that would result in such a relatively rapid change - but the effects we're observing match quite closely with the calculated effects of the rise in atmospheric CO2, so that's a sufficient and far more likely cause than postulating an unknown factor.
Similarly for sea level rises. Of course it has changed much more drastically in the past, and sometimes very rapidly too, but nonetheless the level of rise we're seeing helps confirm our hypotheses, and is still of concern to our many coastal communities.
show me the error I made here
Yeah, you're off by a factor of 1 million - 195,698,545,959 cubic meters of water is actually 195.7 cubic kilometres of water (there are 1000x1000x1000 cubic metres in a cubic kilometre). Though because the ice is freshwater, 200 Gt of ice would be closer to 200 km^3 when melted, or about 0.55mm when spread out evenly. There are of course other sources of meltwater than just Greenland + Antarctic, and thermal expansion is about 25% of the total rise too.
Where in there do they show any calculations?
The last link was to the IPCC AR5 paper; they don't do the calculations there, they summarise the conclusions of the papers that do, and cite those papers. (The link I gave you was actually a draft and was missing diagrams, so here's the relevant section of the final report).
If you look at section 13.3.6, that discusses the contributing factors to the total sea level rise, and cites a number of papers for their sources, including Shepherd et al 2012 (better link than earlier) and Church et al 2011a.
Well, you took the time to write all that out, so I'll do you the courtesy of a response, but I will point out that none of it is worth saying without citations (which was the entire point of this thread).
You call it "common knowledge", but when it contradicts the published, peer-reviewed results from any number of studies, which are compiled, published and endorsed by organisations like NOAA, CRU, CSIRO, and the IPCC in numerous countries, then your "common knowledge" doesn't seem to be all that common at all. I provided linked citations of reputable sources for my claims, so you'll need data at least as reputable (please, no blogs or news articles). I've heard claims just like yours countless times, and nobody has yet provided any reliable data to back them up.
"[surface temperature stations] are mostly not very accurate" - a vague claim, but in aggregate they can still give a very accurate picture of the temperature trend.
"[satellites] have their readings INCREASED every year...The current "correction" is about.4 C" - citation certainly needed for this one, for both claims.
"the depths of the ocean are not warming... It rarely goes below 100 meters much less 200 meters." - the data shows that ocean heat content has been rising steadily down to 2,000m. Below that, NASA finds no significant change. But there's a huge amount of energy going into that top 2km of the world's oceans.
"there is no way to know how much [sea level rise] is the result of a climate change and how much is climate cycle." - well, we know that sea level rise accelerated significantly in the last 150 years. We know that it's consistent with predictions based on thermal expansion and measured ice loss. If it's part of a long-term cycle, there needs to be a cause, and there's no credible evidence of any cyclic cause at that timescale.
"There are regions that are losing ice and regions that are gaining ice... How much ice are you saying has melted... just give me your rough estimate." - Shepherd et al 2012 finds a net ice mass loss of over 200 gigatonnes/year for the last couple of decades, using multiple lines of evidence.
"ice extent is very easy to estimate. And ice extent doesn't show a decline." I cite ice mass because it's what matters, for rising heat content and for sea levels. Ice extent is a fairly inaccurate indicator of overall ice melt. That said, ice extent has been declining in the Arctic and Greenland while increasing in the Antarctic (despite overall ice mass decreasing there by around 70 Gt/y).
"if the ice packs were melting over all to any significant degree you'd see a great deal more sea level rise than we have seen thus far... We can look at the volume of water in the oceans and compare the change to your ice loss figures." - Yes, and it matches well with what we've observed, including accounting for thermal expansion (which, if you're tacitly admitting exists, requires significant ocean warming).
Citations - yes please. At this stage, if you have any further claims to make, I want to see only links to reputable published data and peer-reviewed studies, not talk of "common knowledge" or speculation from laymen or reporters.
That's quite a rant there - assumptions, ad hominems, sweeping declarations, invective, ironic projection, the lot. In fact, pretty much everything except data.
Oh you want peer reviewed rebuttals? Done:
Science & Education, really? Remember what I said earlier about crap publications that would publish anything? Yeah. It's not exactly Nature, is it? Where is its peer-review policy anyway?
Shame the article is paywalled so we can't examine it, but these guys did. And if it's the article I think it is, applying Monckton's own peculiar standards for handwaving-away any papers that aren't explicit enough for him, only makes the numbers for rejection of AGW look even tinier, at a mere 9 out of 11,944 papers reviewed. And nowhere is there anything to back your claim that the consensus figures "included papers that argued against climate change".
And of course, Cook's paper isn't the only one that arrived at ~97% consensus - from Oreskes to Powell, they all give similar results. Plus, of course, the long list of scientific institutions that have confirmed the findings of AGW, and none dissenting.
[vague accusations & unsourced claims of bias & corruption omitted]
ice age predictions from the 1970s [...] New York was supposed to be under water by 2015
Ah, specifics. Cite the papers that predicted these, please. Or are you getting misled by bad reporting again?
Every year you get weaker and look more foolish
Every year, the surface temperatures rise, ocean temperatures keep going up, sea levels rise some more, global ice mass keeps decreasing - the ongoing trend is obvious everywhere to anyone who opens their eyes, and comes from climate scientists around the globe who couldn't care less about all that Republicans vs Democrats nonsense. The argument about what to do about global warming is certainly political - but the data aren't, and wild, unsourced claims of massive political bias in the field only make the accusers look like the foolish ones.
The *only * piece of the puzzle needed for intermittent renewables to be practical is storage - and there are many many options beyond stacked 18650 cells.
Pumped hydro (if the geography suits), reflow batteries with scaled-up electrolyte tanks, buried flywheels on magnetic bearings, lumps of concrete on inclined rails - the list goes on. There's something suitable for virtually every site, and it's all doable today, no breakthroughs needed. The only real concern is efficiency and economics - and those have had to compete against the skewed costs of fossil fuels.
Can renewables + storage compete against entrenched fossil fuels, if you even up the subsidies and account for the (massive) external costs? A number of studies have said "yes", and "we'll actually *save billions*", and "why the hell aren't we doing this already?"
All those links, and not one published paper among them. Seems like you completely missed my point.
Your Forbes link illustrates precisely what I'm talking about. It is not a peer-reviewed analysis, it is not subject to any stringent scientific standards, it is merely one layman's opinion, and judging from the language it's a highly biased opinion at that. *Exactly* the sort of reporting that only muddies the waters. What makes you believe he didn't "form his theory before the data came in" - or that the scientists in question did?
And nobody is claiming the peer-review is perfect - but it is *far* better than no peer review at all! It can't guarantee perfection of course, but the review process weeds out the vast majority of mistakes, obvious and subtle, and expert review does this better than any layman could. Inevitably there are crap publications that merely pretend to review, just like there are equally useless blogs and editorials, but reputable publications are still looked to as reliable sources by all in the field. There is a reason why, in every scientific discipline, peer-reviewed papers continue to be our highest standard of information quality.
You make vague accusations of bias, yet no offer explanation why so many researchers around the world in this one specific field would be risking their all-important reputation by apparently submitting (and passing) sloppy, biased work - only your claim that all their politics are different to your own. Plus of course, you fail to say why your preferred, non-scientific source is any better, particularly as it hasn't even had the benefit of an expert review.
It seems unlikely that all the coral will go completely extinct, yes. Some small percentage will doubtless adapt and survive. But sudden drastic changes to the environment will certainly result in massive diebacks, of the coral and the ecosystems that depend on them.
It'd also suck for the local tourism & fishing trades, and the many livelihoods that depend on them, not to mention losing at least one of the natural wonders of the world, but hey, at least the coral won't be completely extinct.
The 98 percent consensus for example arrived at that number by collecting a big sample of published papers and citing any paper that referenced climate change as the author supporting the most extreme predictions of climate change. This included papers that argued against climate change.
That is completely untrue, nor would that sort of obvious crap ever get past peer review. There have been 6 or 7 papers on the consensus among climatologists that did pass peer review, and all arrived at similar numbers using different methodology; I suggest you read a few for yourself, and don't just accept other people's versions.
You're right that a lot of the reporting is highly charged one way or the other, and its difficult to get a clear picture of the facts. But published, peer-reviewed papers are still the most accurate and least biased source of information we have. All our best information in every field still comes through the peer review process; all else is speculation at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
Don't trust *any* reporting on the matter unless it provides links to published sources, and be sure to *always* at least read the linked papers' abstracts and conclusions to get as close as a layman can to the original data. I've seen blogs link to papers that stated the exact opposite of the blog author's conclusions.
Slashdot Mirror
The records were showing a cooling trend until they were recalibrate
Please cite data that shows that.
even the corrected datasheets don't show warming if you look from 1998 to today
What was that you were saying about cherry-picking trends?
In any case, surface temperatures are only one symptom of climate change - and we know they're quite variable over decadal periods. Others, like ocean heat content, ice melt, and sea level rise, are still rising. And that table you cited looks to me like mostly negative anomalies in the 70s, and mostly positive anomalies in the current time - how is that not a warming trend? Perhaps a graph would make it clearer?
The sea rise is linear.
No, it isn't. The difference in trend from the first couple of decades to the last couple looks clearly visible to me, and Vermeer's graph of the derivative rate of change makes the accelerating sea rise crystal clear.
I think a large volcanic erruption might create such a rise...
The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2. Human emissions in 1991 were 23 billion tonnes of CO2. Don't expect to see much of a blip.
The IPCC figure you're citing is 120 years... that seems obviously impossible
Why do you assume they're wrong, instead of assuming you're missing something?
As I said (and my citations tried to explain), it's not as simple as a fixed number. CO2 uptake depends on numerous processes, some of which are feedback loops. Some CO2 is re-absorbed quickly, some slowly, and some of it takes centuries to be removed from the atmosphere. That's why I mentioned the CO2 lifetime graphs - it's not a linear process.
But you only have to look at the rising atmospheric CO2 levels to see that, clearly, our CO2 emissions are currently exceeding the uptake.
I'm utterly indifferent to how many people agree with you.
It's got nothing to do with how many people agree with me. It's got everything to do with how many experts agree with each other.
you're skipping over my request for a longer trend line on pH values in the ocean.
Did you look at the graph page 4 of the presentation link I gave? Is 25 million years not long enough?
If you can find other data from 1900, please do feel free to cite it.
don't like having to validate your positions
Still waiting for you to validate yours. You've made a lot of claims, but cited very little data - and the data you've cited so far has contradicted your claims, not backed them.
I've found nothing to suggest that that band is special in anyway.
It's only "special" because we're pumping gigatonnes of CO2 into the air every year. That makes its effects relevant to us.
Regarding the earth's energy fluxes (in and out), we can measure those accurately with satellites (not just the less-accurate surface measurements you cite further down). See this picture for figures, and details, particularly Fig 2 - the energy imbalance is +0.58±0.15 W/m^2, even during a solar minimum (and you'll note the error levels are perfectly reasonable).
just because you publish something and it gets peer reviewed, it doesn't mean anything in the paper is valid or that the underlying conclusions of the paper are beyond criticism.
It's not an absolute guarantee of truth (there's no such thing) - but it's the closest we've been able to get. Individual papers can be wrong (though far more often they're simply incomplete), but you can't dismiss all peer-reviewed papers because of that, particularly when similar conclusions are reached from independent evidence, all across the field, for decades.
As to whether my own intelligence is enough... you're missing the point. It has to be enough. If it isn't then I have no choice but to simply assume something is valid or disbelieve everything by default.
Or, you could accept that certain other people are better equipped (by means of study, experience and access to data, if not intelligence) to make judgements about the evidence, than yourself, and defer to their conclusions. You can't hope to make an informed conclusion yourself about any field you know so little about, any more than myself or any layman. To assume your own meagre knowledge is sufficient to contradict the findings of experts is pure Dunning-Kruger effect.
As to your question about whether a scientific paper has ever misrepresented itself... this is a very odd statement you're making. You're suggesting that no scientist has ever lied?
I did not say that. I said there's such broad agreement among climatologists and institutions - are they all misrepresenting the truth? Every one of them?
To dismiss consensus as "political" is to accuse every scientist and institution that endorses the consensus opinion, of falsifying their conclusions for political reasons, which would be career suicide. All those scientists are doing their jobs by evaluating the decades of evidence and reaching conclusions - are you really claiming they're all lying to us?
the sats are calibrated with ground data... Every year their numbers are adjusted up...
No, they're not. The measurements are going up, not the adjustments. The citations you yourself provided show only tiny adjustments to the trend, every few years, going both up and down - while the measured temperature trend is ever upwards.
The calibration is not re-done from scratch every year. That would be meaningless, as you say. The satellite data obviously must be kept comparable, both to itself and to ground measurements, so that any trends can be determined. Give these people some credit, would you? not to mention the expert reviewers who checked their methods.
I can't cross reference that information with any other source
Similar data is in the HadCRU and NASA datasets, not just NOAA. They're all cross-checked with each other and with related evidence. Perhaps you should look harder.
As to Vermeer, that contradicts what was in the Church paper that you cited yourself.
No, it doesn't. Church's Fig 5 and Vermeer's Fig 3 Lower are the same graph, though Vermeer has a blue trend line drawn over the red measurement line. You can see clearly they have the same values at the same decades. Fig 3 Upper is the derivative of that trend line, showing rate of change.
how long do you think CO2 remains in the atmosphere?
Individual molecules of carbon are being re-absorbed - and re-emitted - all the time, by plants and by the ocean, in large quantities (around 200Gt/year). This is normally in equilibrium, with a slow growth from geologic weathering and occasional volcanism. The rates of natural emission and uptake aren't fixed however, due to numerous feedbacks, so the best we can say is between 30 and 95 years for much of it, with perhaps 20% persisting a lot longer (thousands of years). It depends a lot on the atmospheric concentration, and how much we keep releasing. This page discusses the issue and provides lifetime graphs.
If true this implies the CO2 from our sources is being emitted at a lower rate than the biosphere's absorption ability.
Obviously that's not the case, because atmospheric levels have gone up sharply for 150 years See this ice-core data and more recent Mauna Loa data, showing a definite acceleration even in the last 50 years.
Regarding CO2 spectrum absorption, your questions were already answered by the citations I've given. Broad-spectrum sunlight is not only reflected, but also absorbed and re-radiated in infra-red (look up black-body radiation), which is then partially blocked by various greenhouse gases. This is well-understood science going back to the 1800s. and I'm not going to go over it all yet again. I've already cited papers that quantify the measured radiative forcing of CO2. There's no serious debate about this aspect, only about the feedbacks and resulting temperature rise.
Regarding ocean acidification, Turley et al 2006 is cited by many. Can't find a link to the paper, but here is a related presentation by Turley - see page 4.
Sorry, but I no longer have the time to spend with long explanations. It's taking too much time from my work. If the many peer-reviewed papers I've already provided haven't convinced you of anything, then providing more won't help. Either you're unable to follow the studies I've cited, or you're unwilling to to accept them as valid evidence, despite peer review and cross-correlation with other evidence. You claim that the broad agreement
Where the situation gets complicated isn't so much who handles the exploits, it's during the research.
You're a security researcher, you've got a couple of potential holes you're looking into; crash bugs you might be able to leverage into execution then chain them to break through a browser sandbox, say, but they're not yet ready for submission to the vendor. Then you travel overseas to a conference to present some interesting related techniques. You bring your laptop with some of your unpublished recent research on it.
And now you can be locked up for exporting secret weapons-grade exploit technology. Until the exploit is handed over, to the vendor or a council or whoever, any research is classed as a potential forbidden weapon.
For polar temperature measurements - don't forget we have satellites too. We're not relying solely on a handful of ground stations, but their measurements help confirm our satellite results.
I can't believe you're still confused about "the zeta joules". Earth has an energy budget, right? A near-constant amount of energy from the sun comes in (about 700 terawatts from memory), and a variable amount goes out. The difference in energy remains on the earth - in the atmosphere, but mostly in the oceans. Energy units are measured in joules, where a joule is one watt for one second. If we're measuring the ocean heat content in "zeta joules", that's clearly a lot of energy that is being stored. I have no idea why you find this so baffling, let alone "several other scientists".
Regarding sea level rise, look at Vermeer 2009 for example, specifically Fig 3.
You can see that not only has the sea level been rising, but the rate of change in the sea level has also been rising - and has more than tripled in recent years, due to faster ice melting.
You're saying that that little sliver of spectrum that is unique to CO2 is the only frequency that energy is radiated away from earth on? That's nonsense.
Of course I'm not saying that. Please re-read what I did say. Water vapour blocks much of the outgoing energy, and CO2 blocks some of what's left. Their effect is added.
we are seeing plants respond to the increase in CO2.
Sure, and the ocean has increased its CO2 uptake too (hence the acidification). But it's not nearly enough, hence our CO2 levels are still rising. Plant uptake would have to increase enormously to make a substantial difference, especially as it's a relatively small fraction of the total.
Therefore, radiative heat transfer is not how heat flows through our atmosphere. It isn't possible.
Heat moves through our atmosphere with both radiative and convective transfer (and probably a little conduction too). Heat cannot leave our atmosphere by convective transfer, as we're surrounded by a vacuum. Therefore, radiative transfer is the only way heat can actually leave our planet. That's why it's important.
Your citation is only an abstract, but models both convective transfer of heat to upper atmosphere layers, and radiative transfer as a Planck black-body radiator. It agrees that CO2 has a warming effect, though the amount calculated is much lower than more recent research (the exact figure is still being determined).
Explain why my reading of the spectrum charts is wrong.
It's not so much wrong, as not really the point. Yes, there's a lot of overlap between CO2 and water. But even if atmospheric water blocked 100% of the radiation covered by its absorption spectrum (it doesn't), CO2 would still have an additional effect. And any overlapped frequencies that aren't blocked completely by water, CO2 will also have an additional effect.
The point is, degree of overlap is not the issue. Amount of outgoing energy blocked by CO2 is the issue. And the figure to look for there is radiative forcing, calculated as 3.7 W/m^2 (this article shows how to derive CO2 forcing from first principles, and compares it to satellite measurements). This is the raw effect that increasing CO2 has on our atmosphere (which is then complicated by numerous positive & negative feedback effects).
I just don't see how it could matter.
You haven't done the maths. Your gut feeling is not reliable here. Look at the science, not your preconceptions.
In regards to not listening to the progressives but listening to the scientists... the problem is that the the one will misrepresent themselves as the other.
What evidence do you have that any scientific papers have misrepresented anything?
I can't just trust anyone. The only defense I have is to use what intelligence I have and go through the argument and logically evaluate it brick by brick.
Unfortunately, without years of study and experience, that's simply not enough.
Your choices are: a) get enough experience in the field to be considered an expert, run your own evaluation on the massive amounts of data acquired in the last 30 years, then make an expert judgement of your own, or; b) listen to the many experts who have done exactly that.
Unfortunately, too many people choose c) none of the above, and make snap judgements on limited understanding of the field, and even more limited evidence. This is all but guaranteed to run afoul of preconceptions, political and otherwise. The Dunning-Kruger effect prevents most of these people from even realising how far off base they usually are.
Given your difficulty in even dealing with ocean heat c
comparing at equal pressures gives more of an apples to apples comparison. Since you can clearly see how radically the temperatures fluctuate based on pressure.
Um, well yeah. The temperatures on different planets are very different, even at the same pressure - as you'd expect, given all the other differences, like distance from the Sun, cloud cover, chemical composition and who knows what else. I'm really not sure where you're going with all this. It certainly doesn't show that "the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference." It just shows that there are a lot of factors that determine temperature. The pressure may be "apples to apples" but nothing else is.
And of course the temperature goes up & down with the pressure at different altitudes; that's the Pressure-Temperature law I linked to earlier. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what any of this has to do with the Greenhouse Gas effect.
As to trapping heat... CO2 is hardly unique in this feature nor do I see why it plays a special role in the Earth atmosphere.
What's different about CO2 compared to the other, stronger greenhouse gases like water vapour and methane is that it accumulates over a long time.
Water vapour is a stable quantity in the atmosphere (for a given temperature). Any excess simply precipitates out as rain. It doesn't increase, at least not until you start warming the air up.
Methane does accumulate, for a while - but it is broken down by UV light over a period of years, so it has only a short term effect as well. It can still be a problem (e.g. if melting permafrost like the Siberian Traps releases significant methane into the atmosphere, which is a real concern and could trigger other warming feedbacks), but it doesn't build up over a long time, so any direct effects of a methane pulse are short-lived.
CO2 takes centuries to be removed from the atmosphere. This is done by vegetation, to a small extent, but the vast majority of CO2 uptake is done by the ocean. Even so, this is a slow process. CO2 has been building up rapidly in our atmosphere, and even if we stopped emitting ALL anthropogenic CO2 tomorrow, it would still take centuries to return to pre-industrial levels. Worse, much of that CO2 being absorbed by the oceans is being converted to carbonic acid, which is resulting in ocean acidification - a decreasing pH that we've been observing for some time, and is already having measurable results on sensitive ocean ecosystems.
I had a hard time finding a graph for CO2 ironically... maybe you can help me out there.
I did find this which should serve: https://commons.wikimedia.org/...
Yep, that looks like a useful graph. It's certainly clear that water vapour has a bigger effect - but the primary point here is that CO2 also blocks outgoing energy. It's in addition to the effect of water vapour. Water doesn't "black out" the effect of CO2, it adds to it, trapping more energy.
While the water vapour effect is bigger, the CO2 effect is added to this - and that is steadily increasing, as the CO2 in our atmosphere increases. This is enough extra trapped energy to change the temperature equilibrium of our planet; we've done the maths. See e.g. Myhre '98 for how this is forcing value is derived, while Puckrin '04 compares our radiative flux models for a variety of greenhouse gas mixes with atmospheric observations, and finds them to agree well.
Have a look here for a comparison of the radiative forcing values of the significant greenhouse gases, particularly the Greenhouse Gases section and
CO2 is not unique in its ability to absorb energy or radiate that energy.
Of course; there are other greenhouse gases too.
You can do comparisons to every other planet in the solar system and what you'll find is that the chemistry of the atmosphere makes almost no difference.
Citation most definitely needed for that claim.
what makes a difference is distance from the sun and density.
Obviously, but distance from the sun only affects the level of incoming energy, not outgoing radiated energy. And it's also obvious that pressure affects temperature. This goes back to the 1700s. But this doesn't trap heat.
Where greenhouse gases make a difference is because they allow most of the incoming radiation to pass (which from our sun is primarily in the optical spectrum, and CO2 is invisible to optical light), but they block a significant amount of the outgoing radiation, much which has been absorbed then re-radiated at black-body temperatures, i.e. in the infra-red range.
If you don't like the Skeptical Science site, don't read it - just read the cited sources (that's what I've been telling you to do all along, if you recall). I merely provided the page as it has a good list of relevant papers, but if you can't even bear to go near it, I'm happy to list them here for you.
As to the effect of CO2 being unquestioned, that is simply not true.
Show many any reputable atmospheric scientist who is questioning the basic science of the greenhouse effect. I'll concede that there are still ignorant people in the world who aren't up to speed on this, but if you want to include any old uninformed opinion, then there are still people who question whether the earth is round.. Let's not muddy the discussion by being over-literal, yes? Context matters. This is centuries-old science, dating back to the 1820s.
There is clearly a controversy so claiming there is no question is not logically supportable.
Now I think you're being disingenuous. When I said there was no question about the effect of CO2, I was clearly referring specifically to the well-established greenhouse effect, and there is pretty much no controversy about that in scientific circles (I'm largely ignoring uninformed opinion outside that, as I don't see that as relevant to the science). And as I said, there is still debate about how much this effect translates into increased temperatures on the surface.
You can't simply dismiss them all. That is not how science works.
Now you're going all straw-man on me. I'm not "simply dismissing" anything. I've provided citations to peer-reviewed papers for every single claim I've made - which is far more than you've been doing, I might add - and the few links you've provided have not challenged anything I've said, or even backed your own claims.
Let's start seeing some actual citations for your claims, because this conversation is ending up as one-sided as all the others. I've spent enough time providing you with verified evidence, and all you've done so far is change the subject.
As to the link, I think I cited the wrong link...
The new link does show corrections to a single satellite dataset - but there's nothing there even faintly close to the 0.6 degrees/year you were claiming. There are both positive and negative corrections that are a fraction of that, as they discover and account for factors like orbital decay.
There is your citation. Don't be stubborn or proud. It will undermine your intellectual credibility. Admit that and move on ;-)
As to zeta joules, I can't process that information... That means I can't audit it. And I don't like evidence that can't be audited.
Perhaps you should engage in further study, then - and until then, you'll have to accept that this evidence has been audited by expert reviewers, both before and after publication; by people who have enough experience in the field to understand what heat content is. This is how science works in every field.
That said, I don't understand your confusion. How would a temperature figure help here? Do you just want to see an overall degrees/year amount so you can decide subjectively if it's "significant" or not? It's rather more complicated than that.
18810.48 cubic km of water
Did I make another error here? Because these numbers are still no where near what they're talking about. That shows nearly five times the melting of that estimate. That's not even close.
That's because you're calculating from incomplete data. The 200 Gt/year ice loss figure I quoted was an estimate from a single paper that dealt only with the major ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. To get a more accurate figure for all the sea level rise inputs, you also have to factor in the melting glaciers everywhere else in the world. This is further complicated by the fact that ice melt in different areas can contribute quite differently to sea level rise (e.g. if it's floating, or if shrinking ice extent decreases albedo, resulting in warmer water and thus more moisture uptake in the atmosphere, to name a couple of factors). Then on top of this you have to include the effects of thermal expansion, which is around 25% of the total rise.
For a more detailed discussion, you could start with Meier et al 2007, which for example estimates that 60% of sea level rise actually comes from glacier melting, not including the two ice sheets in Greenland and the Antarctic.
you're going to have to show a graph that predates the heavy emission of fossil fuels.
Take a look at Figures 5 through 7 in Church et al 2011, that I already linked to earlier.
Obviously satellite data doesn't go back that far, which is what Shepherd was looking at, but we have fairly good logs of tidal data going back hundreds of years. These are confirmed by sedimentary cores going back to 1300.
That shows a much lower rate of rise... I think they're saying inches per century
This is only looking at ice melt in some specific areas. A direct quote:
we quantify mass-change trends in 19 continental areas that exhibit a dominant signal... the net effect was + (1.1 ± 0.6) mm/year.
This is consistent with our calculations above, as it includes areas beyond Greenland and the Antarctic. But it does not include all global sources of sea level rise; besides, we can measure that directly.
What's more, the rate of sea level rise has itself been increasing. Prior to 1900 it was close to 1mm/year, but in the las
Sorry, I thought the error was clear - you converted cubic metres to cubic kilometres incorrectly. I'll spell it out:
200 gigatons is 200 billion tons ice is ~ 200 billion tons of sea water.
200,000,000,000 tons per year
convert tons of sea water into cubic meters
195,698,545,959 cubic meters of water
convert to cubic kilometers
195,698,546 cubic kilometers of water
It should be 195.699 cubic kilometres of water, because there are 1000x1000x1000 cubic metres to a cubic kilometre, not 1000.
Thus, over 20 years this would be 3,913.97 cubic kilometers of water, and as the surface of the world's oceans is ~361,740,000 square kilometers, you would see a rise of 0.0000108198 km, or 10.81 mm.
We know exactly how much effect CO2 has on incoming and outgoing radiation, because we can measure it in the lab, and via satellite. We know beyond doubt that it allows broad-spectrum energy in, but blocks much of the Earth's black-body radiation from escaping again.
We have measured precisely how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, and we can calculate accurately how much effect it should have. That's how we know that CO2 is such a significant problem; see this page for empirical measurements, a discussion of the maths, and a graph of the Earth's radiative forcings (all with fully cited sources of course, which I recommend you follow up).
The effect of CO2 is unquestioned. What is still being debated is only how much does this affect us? At what rate will surface temperatures change as a result? This is complicated by the myriad feedback cycles involved in the climate system. Current scientific opinion varies between "this could be a real problem" to "if we don't do something ASAP we're in for a very unhappy time".
No, it really isn't. ICS lets a user connect to a PC and access the internet through that PC. The PC becomes an access point.
WiFi Sense lets your friends connect directly to your router, by securely sharing its details with them. Your PC doesn't even have to be on.
This is how it's possible for your friends to share those router details with their friends. Win10 doesn't know it's your router and not theirs, it will let anyone with the password enable WiFi Sense sharing.
Because if your friends can connect to your network, and they have WiFi Sense enabled, then access to your network is shared with all of their Facebook friends.
So you have no control over who now get access to your network. Is that clear enough yet?
And making sure nobody who has access to your wifi ever enables it either. Best of luck!
Every time you give a friend your password, you have to make certain they don't have their Wifi Sense option enabled, or the same situation arises. It's also possible for them to opt into Wifi Sense for your network details any time afterwards too, so you better remain on good terms with them.
There's a reason that Microsoft added the ludicrous option of opting out via your SSID - it's because there's simply no other way to be certain this doesn't happen to you.
The problem is, if I let any of my friends near my beer, they could easily end up inviting all their Facebook friends to whizz in my ale. And the only way to scare them off is to write "_OPTOUT" in large letters on my favourite beer mug.
Here's the thing: You can leave your box unchecked - but if ANY of your friends have access to your wifi, and *their* box is checked, then all their Facebook friends will also get access to your wifi.
And the only way you can prevent this is to append "_optout" to your SSID.
Thanks, it's a refreshing change to have an actual rational discussion :-)
Luckily the sea ice calc was easy to debug, and does get you into the ballpark. Most of the climate papers are much harder to work through (kinda why you need to have all that study and experience under your belt); while many of the principles can be grasped by laymen like ourselves, it quickly becomes clear from reading the papers that there can be a lot of subtleties and counter-intuitive effects that we just don't realise, and I'm happy to admit I get lost in the depths of many of them.
For auditing papers, the peer reviewers read the described methodology in data collection, and work through the calculations to check them, while looking for factors the paper may not have dealt with adequately. But the raw data has to be taken on faith, and errors can still slip through.
Luckily, papers examining different lines of evidence can often come up with similar figures, so cross-correlation is possible, where multiple different sets of observations and methods can confirm each other, and this is the basis for much of our confidence in the climate research to date.
I'd like to think I'm quite open to correction too, particularly on specifics (easy to get those wrong), but I have fairly high standards of proof required these days. There's so many different lines of confirming evidence for the observed warming that to change my views on that I'd need to see a peer-reviewed paper from a reputable climatologist, ideally that has also been publicly checked and confirmed by other reputable climatologists. Disputing global warming has reached the threshold of an extraordinary claim, given the sheer weight of studies, climate scientists, and scientific institutions that have confirmed it, so extraordinary evidence is now required to question it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/
Some of the corrections in there look like they're putting upwards of a .6 C temp bias on the sat data.
Sorry, you'll have to explain to me where in that link you're seeing hard figures for satellite corrections. You're not assuming "Global Temperature Anomaly" is a correction factor, are you? (it's the difference in temperature results from a mean value). All I see is that graph of those results, and some figures for trends. I followed some of the source links, but the methods they use are complex, and some of them only have abstracts available.
I have a big problem with the units you're using in that graph... Zeta Joules? Why aren't you citing this as temperature?
It's NOAA's graph, not mine, and they use joules because it's a measure of total energy change. This is helpful for discovering how much solar energy is being trapped by greenhouse gases and subsequently absorbed by oceans. Temperature is a less useful figure because it's dependant on the volume of water and thermal mass, but will show the same ongoing trend.
It's true that El Nino and La Nina cycles directly affect ocean heat, but these are relatively short cycles and can easily be smoothed out by averaging data over decades; similarly for solar cycles. There are also geologic cycles as you say, but those have a much slower effect, and can be accounted for by measuring the change in their causes (e.g. orbital changes). While we can't discount the effect of an undiscovered long-term climate cycle on what we're seeing now, nobody has yet found a natural cause that would result in such a relatively rapid change - but the effects we're observing match quite closely with the calculated effects of the rise in atmospheric CO2, so that's a sufficient and far more likely cause than postulating an unknown factor.
Similarly for sea level rises. Of course it has changed much more drastically in the past, and sometimes very rapidly too, but nonetheless the level of rise we're seeing helps confirm our hypotheses, and is still of concern to our many coastal communities.
show me the error I made here
Yeah, you're off by a factor of 1 million - 195,698,545,959 cubic meters of water is actually 195.7 cubic kilometres of water (there are 1000x1000x1000 cubic metres in a cubic kilometre). Though because the ice is freshwater, 200 Gt of ice would be closer to 200 km^3 when melted, or about 0.55mm when spread out evenly. There are of course other sources of meltwater than just Greenland + Antarctic, and thermal expansion is about 25% of the total rise too.
Where in there do they show any calculations?
The last link was to the IPCC AR5 paper; they don't do the calculations there, they summarise the conclusions of the papers that do, and cite those papers. (The link I gave you was actually a draft and was missing diagrams, so here's the relevant section of the final report).
If you look at section 13.3.6, that discusses the contributing factors to the total sea level rise, and cites a number of papers for their sources, including Shepherd et al 2012 (better link than earlier) and Church et al 2011a.
Hope that helps.
Well, you took the time to write all that out, so I'll do you the courtesy of a response, but I will point out that none of it is worth saying without citations (which was the entire point of this thread).
You call it "common knowledge", but when it contradicts the published, peer-reviewed results from any number of studies, which are compiled, published and endorsed by organisations like NOAA, CRU, CSIRO, and the IPCC in numerous countries, then your "common knowledge" doesn't seem to be all that common at all. I provided linked citations of reputable sources for my claims, so you'll need data at least as reputable (please, no blogs or news articles). I've heard claims just like yours countless times, and nobody has yet provided any reliable data to back them up.
"[surface temperature stations] are mostly not very accurate" - a vague claim, but in aggregate they can still give a very accurate picture of the temperature trend.
"[satellites] have their readings INCREASED every year...The current "correction" is about .4 C" - citation certainly needed for this one, for both claims.
"the depths of the ocean are not warming... It rarely goes below 100 meters much less 200 meters." - the data shows that ocean heat content has been rising steadily down to 2,000m. Below that, NASA finds no significant change. But there's a huge amount of energy going into that top 2km of the world's oceans.
"there is no way to know how much [sea level rise] is the result of a climate change and how much is climate cycle." - well, we know that sea level rise accelerated significantly in the last 150 years. We know that it's consistent with predictions based on thermal expansion and measured ice loss. If it's part of a long-term cycle, there needs to be a cause, and there's no credible evidence of any cyclic cause at that timescale.
"There are regions that are losing ice and regions that are gaining ice... How much ice are you saying has melted... just give me your rough estimate." - Shepherd et al 2012 finds a net ice mass loss of over 200 gigatonnes/year for the last couple of decades, using multiple lines of evidence.
"ice extent is very easy to estimate. And ice extent doesn't show a decline." I cite ice mass because it's what matters, for rising heat content and for sea levels. Ice extent is a fairly inaccurate indicator of overall ice melt. That said, ice extent has been declining in the Arctic and Greenland while increasing in the Antarctic (despite overall ice mass decreasing there by around 70 Gt/y).
"if the ice packs were melting over all to any significant degree you'd see a great deal more sea level rise than we have seen thus far... We can look at the volume of water in the oceans and compare the change to your ice loss figures." - Yes, and it matches well with what we've observed, including accounting for thermal expansion (which, if you're tacitly admitting exists, requires significant ocean warming).
Citations - yes please. At this stage, if you have any further claims to make, I want to see only links to reputable published data and peer-reviewed studies, not talk of "common knowledge" or speculation from laymen or reporters.
That's quite a rant there - assumptions, ad hominems, sweeping declarations, invective, ironic projection, the lot. In fact, pretty much everything except data.
Oh you want peer reviewed rebuttals? Done:
Science & Education, really? Remember what I said earlier about crap publications that would publish anything? Yeah. It's not exactly Nature, is it? Where is its peer-review policy anyway?
Shame the article is paywalled so we can't examine it, but these guys did. And if it's the article I think it is, applying Monckton's own peculiar standards for handwaving-away any papers that aren't explicit enough for him, only makes the numbers for rejection of AGW look even tinier, at a mere 9 out of 11,944 papers reviewed. And nowhere is there anything to back your claim that the consensus figures "included papers that argued against climate change".
And of course, Cook's paper isn't the only one that arrived at ~97% consensus - from Oreskes to Powell, they all give similar results. Plus, of course, the long list of scientific institutions that have confirmed the findings of AGW, and none dissenting.
[vague accusations & unsourced claims of bias & corruption omitted]
ice age predictions from the 1970s [...] New York was supposed to be under water by 2015
Ah, specifics. Cite the papers that predicted these, please. Or are you getting misled by bad reporting again?
Every year you get weaker and look more foolish
Every year, the surface temperatures rise, ocean temperatures keep going up, sea levels rise some more, global ice mass keeps decreasing - the ongoing trend is obvious everywhere to anyone who opens their eyes, and comes from climate scientists around the globe who couldn't care less about all that Republicans vs Democrats nonsense. The argument about what to do about global warming is certainly political - but the data aren't, and wild, unsourced claims of massive political bias in the field only make the accusers look like the foolish ones.
The *only * piece of the puzzle needed for intermittent renewables to be practical is storage - and there are many many options beyond stacked 18650 cells.
Pumped hydro (if the geography suits), reflow batteries with scaled-up electrolyte tanks, buried flywheels on magnetic bearings, lumps of concrete on inclined rails - the list goes on. There's something suitable for virtually every site, and it's all doable today, no breakthroughs needed. The only real concern is efficiency and economics - and those have had to compete against the skewed costs of fossil fuels.
Can renewables + storage compete against entrenched fossil fuels, if you even up the subsidies and account for the (massive) external costs? A number of studies have said "yes", and "we'll actually *save billions*", and "why the hell aren't we doing this already?"
All those links, and not one published paper among them. Seems like you completely missed my point.
Your Forbes link illustrates precisely what I'm talking about. It is not a peer-reviewed analysis, it is not subject to any stringent scientific standards, it is merely one layman's opinion, and judging from the language it's a highly biased opinion at that. *Exactly* the sort of reporting that only muddies the waters. What makes you believe he didn't "form his theory before the data came in" - or that the scientists in question did?
And nobody is claiming the peer-review is perfect - but it is *far* better than no peer review at all! It can't guarantee perfection of course, but the review process weeds out the vast majority of mistakes, obvious and subtle, and expert review does this better than any layman could. Inevitably there are crap publications that merely pretend to review, just like there are equally useless blogs and editorials, but reputable publications are still looked to as reliable sources by all in the field. There is a reason why, in every scientific discipline, peer-reviewed papers continue to be our highest standard of information quality.
You make vague accusations of bias, yet no offer explanation why so many researchers around the world in this one specific field would be risking their all-important reputation by apparently submitting (and passing) sloppy, biased work - only your claim that all their politics are different to your own. Plus of course, you fail to say why your preferred, non-scientific source is any better, particularly as it hasn't even had the benefit of an expert review.
It seems unlikely that all the coral will go completely extinct, yes. Some small percentage will doubtless adapt and survive. But sudden drastic changes to the environment will certainly result in massive diebacks, of the coral and the ecosystems that depend on them.
It'd also suck for the local tourism & fishing trades, and the many livelihoods that depend on them, not to mention losing at least one of the natural wonders of the world, but hey, at least the coral won't be completely extinct.
The 98 percent consensus for example arrived at that number by collecting a big sample of published papers and citing any paper that referenced climate change as the author supporting the most extreme predictions of climate change.
This included papers that argued against climate change.
That is completely untrue, nor would that sort of obvious crap ever get past peer review. There have been 6 or 7 papers on the consensus among climatologists that did pass peer review, and all arrived at similar numbers using different methodology; I suggest you read a few for yourself, and don't just accept other people's versions.
You're right that a lot of the reporting is highly charged one way or the other, and its difficult to get a clear picture of the facts. But published, peer-reviewed papers are still the most accurate and least biased source of information we have. All our best information in every field still comes through the peer review process; all else is speculation at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.
Don't trust *any* reporting on the matter unless it provides links to published sources, and be sure to *always* at least read the linked papers' abstracts and conclusions to get as close as a layman can to the original data. I've seen blogs link to papers that stated the exact opposite of the blog author's conclusions.