I, personally, am at a point where I don't care any more, partly because the problem started before me and was ignored by those who could deal with it when I was young.
What could we have done to prevent world population from doubling?
What could we have done to stop people from wanting bigger cars? Or *any* cars, for that matter?
How would the world today (30 years later) be any different if you had managed those two things 30 years ago?
We don't even know if we have a problem, much less that there is anything short of mass genocide/suicide that could fix it if it did exist.
Okay, so here's the problem - "cheaper than coal" can mean either we've made coal more expensive, or that solar has become cheaper in absolute terms. While I'll agree the first is possible, the second is highly unlikely.
1 ton of coal costs $36 = $0.006 per KWH $45,000 5KW solar energy system produces about 119,246 KWH of electric over its lifespan meaning the average cost equals $0.38 per KWH.
We're talking an order of magnitude there.
So while coal fired electricity may be cheaper than liquid gasoline with current technology, you're still stuck on cheap energy coming from sources that emit CO2.
That's running under the assumption that a warmer world is categorically a worse place for humanity or the biosphere. That's speculation, not fact.
The problem is that civilization is always in jeopardy, and it seems to me that in general, the only defense civilization has from jeopardy is energy. Cheap energy means a better quality of life, more productivity, and more ability to overcome and adapt to whatever various catastrophes come our way.
Now, I'm not sure just how much higher the poverty rate world wide would go if we lost 3% of GDP/year, but it seems to me that we've got a known harm in a proposed intervention, and a speculated harm from a warmer world.
If my mother, who created me, happened to be some fertility doctor that helped me and my wife create a child, and then told me I had to *kill* that child, I'd spit in her face. No matter how wonderful and powerful and generous she had ever been to me, asking for human sacrifice is simply not a moral action.
As to what makes me say that those acts aren't moral, you can derive it in any number of ways without resorting to some otherworldly figure. Philosophers of all sorts have extolled all sorts of rational foundations for morality over the years.
As for "higher thoughts", I'd be awfully skeptical of any being that demanded absolute obedience - after all, what mortal could discern between the word of God and the word of Satan?
Look, I've read the NIV, King James, New American, Book of Mormon, Quran, and even the Pearl of Great Price (I skipped Dianetcs and just watched SouthPark instead). I understand the whole narrative. I even agree with some of it. But make no doubt about it, there is no post hoc explanation that makes Abraham a good person for almost killing his son by the demand of his powerful benefactor. None. Nada. No excuses for killing your kid, period.
As for how flawed man really is, that's an argument of philosophy that can be had without resorting to sacrificing your own daughters up for rape, or slitting your son's throat. Certainly, I've had my flaws and I've overcome them without resorting to faith, so your citation of empirical evidence is already refuted:)
Climate has always changed, and we've always had to adapt in order to avoid starvation. To think that if we were to make energy so expensive that developing nations couldn't even afford to cook their food, that somehow we'll stop climate from ever changing again is kind of silly.
Until technology arrives that can beat natural petroleum products on affordability per kWh, moving to these more advanced technologies is a surefire recipe for increased world poverty. The rest of the world knows that.
There have been numerous inquiries into the matter, but to call them independent is a stretch. If they wanted the inquires to be independent, they'd have asked folk like Lindzen and Spencer to be on the inquiry panels:) Being judged by people who are partial to your point of view, who have vested interests in preserving your credibility, cannot be seen as independent.
Look, if an alien came down from the sky in a spaceship, performed all sorts of wonders and miracles, and predicted the future with uncanny accuracy, and even helped me and my wife conceive when we thought it was impossible, sorry, but if they ask me to kill my kid, they're evil. Not just "not good", but pure evil.
Similarly, if an alien was about to be raped at my doorstep by an angry mob, I might be willing to try to fight the mob off and risk my life, but sacrificing my daughter to be raped instead is simply not moral. Heck, I might even be able to understand it if to fend the mob off I had to offer *myself* up for a good raping, but to sacrifice my *daughters*? Not okay.
Abraham's decision to take Issac to the altar should be universally condemned - killing your own child to appease a powerful figure in your life is never justifiable.
But wait, we haven't seen a doubling of CO2 in the past 100 years...or even the past 1000 years, and we certainly haven't seen 4-5C of warming that would go with it.
So while you might be able to create an equation that matches our current data, and which also asserts that we'll see a 4-5C warming for a doubling of CO2, that's an extrapolation of assumptions - we haven't actually *observed* that.
FWIW, CO2 from say, 1000AD to today has gone from 280ppm to around 390ppm (about a 39% increase, as opposed to a doubling of 100%), and temperature from say, 1000AD to today has been what, an additional 0.6C? Maybe 1C if you're generous?
Do you have data which disagrees with that general outline?
Yup, I've seen that canard around too - the warmist analog is that we have a consensus, and the science is settled, and that the time for action is now:)
This is exactly why I enjoyed our conversation about getting to a falsifiable hypothesis statement so much -> when we skip that part, both sides pretty much spend their time building straw men to burn, rather than trying to understand where the disconnect in communication is:)
Another favorite canard of both warmist and denier is "it's not [warming/cooling]! it's [freezing/sweltering] outside today!":)
If a voice in your head told you to kill your own child, would you do it? Let's say at the last minute, the voice says "just joking!", but you were *really* gonna do it. Am I supposed to think you did a morally righteous thing by fully intending to kill your own child to prove your loyalty to someone?
Or what if there was an angry mob outside your house, about to rape some guy? If you instead convinced the mob to rape your own daughters, and let the guy go, am I supposed to look at you like a role model?
Morality has been awfully fluid over the period of human existence...
You mixed up a few canards together there. Yes, CO2 is plant food. That's pretty much a given, as is its corollary that CO2 is animal waste. The canard that CO2 is a great thing is a slightly different one, and seems not to fit with "it can have little impact if any", since if it's a great thing, it should be having a great impact. As for the "there's so little of it" canard, that's often separate from the "it can have little impact if any".
The analogous warmist canards would probably be, CO2 is air pollution, it's a terrible thing, and it's such a powerful gas that it will completely kill off all the polar bears, drown Florida and the Maldives, and make the world a permanently hot and sweaty place:)
The really sad thing is that there are probably many things deniers and warmists agree on, but we always end up skipping to the part where if I drive my car I'm going to kill the world with melting glaciers, and if you tell me not to drive my car you're a communist hippie bent on world domination.
People have an amazing capacity to believe all sorts of mutually exclusive things. They believe that government programs for the poor and elderly are good, but taxes to pay for them are bad. They believe in a right to life, but support the death penalty. They believe in evolution, but want to preserve endangered species. They believe in climate change, but they don't want it to change any more. They believe absence makes the heart grow fonder, but familiarity breeds contempt.
A more surprising finding would have been to see people actually hold onto a *consistent* set of beliefs.
Sure, I'd prefer that too. But things change all the time, and sometimes, it's hot, humid, and the air cloys to you like a wet blanket. Sometimes it's not. Climate changes.
Now, can you show me that if we continue expanding our population, and continue utilizing natural petroleum to power our lives, and continue emitting CO2 until the atmosphere is say, at 2000ppm, that we'll somehow be able to make the entire world a place that lives in an eternal, unchanging Louisiana summer?
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to base my actions today on a bit more than wild speculation about a planet of eternal sweat and heat exhaustion.
While certainly there are those conspiracy theorists out there, I'd venture to say the typical "climate denier" is more often denying that humanity is in control of the climate and is on a path to make it so bad that it cause the end of civilization as we know it. Yes, yes, climate changes, we accept that. Heck, we can even accept that CO2 is part of those changes, and adds some measure of warmth to the equation. And we can even accept that humans emit CO2! But to think that our influence can overwhelm a system that has been changing for billions of years before humanity has existed?
I know I need to accept that the typical warmist is probably not a Jim Jones zombie that simply follows whatever papal bulls come from the mouth of the Goracle. The typical warmist is also probably not some socialist hell bent on transforming society into some sort of centrally controlled utopia. The typical warmist probably loves their children just as much as the typical denier...we just seem to forget that sometimes.
Strike down ObamaCare, and you've got years of unraveling to do (especially in IT, which has been starting work in anticipation of several key dates coming up), as well as a apoplectic progressive left. Uphold ObamaCare, and you've got a drum upon which every libertarian and conservative will beat any time there's the slightest increase in health insurance costs, and who knows what kind of crazy social conservative will be the one to carry the mantle of the White House (even though most people just want fiscal conservatives).
The sad part, though, is that none of this fight is about health care - it's about insurance. We could mandate universal auto insurance (even for non drivers, since they are either passengers or pedestrians who interact with cars), or we could mandate universal fire insurance (even for non homeowners, since they might start a fire that spreads, or be affected by smoke inhalation from someone else's house), or we could mandate universal food insurance (since hey, everyone eats food). None of that changes the facts about risk and scarcity in our world.
Forget ala carte channels - I've got a cable subscription for the 60mbps download, and if a TV channel wants my eyeballs, they'll need to have a website to stream from.
Of course, they keep calling me up asking me if I want to add a cable TV package for some low low price, but they just can't seem to understand that if I'm not going to use it, I'm not going to buy it.
I've always wondered why there isn't a hybrid system - make your electronic vote print out a receipt, validate the receipt and drop the receipt in the box. If someone manages to compromise the electronic system, you've got a paper trail backup. If someone manages to compromise the paper system, you've got the electronic one.
So this paper that Spencer says blows a gaping whole in AGW actually only rehashes decades old Ramanathan work.
You've misunderstood both Ramanthan and Spencer. Ramanthan speculated about how measuring cloud forcing could help verify postulated feedbacks. Spencer asserted that feedbacks can be misdiagnosed as positive even when they are in fact negative, if one makes the wrong assumptions.
Get it yet?
Clouds also appear to be a small positive feedback rather than a negative feedback.
Read Spencer 2008 again. Appearances have deceived you:)
You continue to show that you cannot be persuaded by any amount of logic, reason, or facts.
Show me some logic, reason or facts, and then we'll know for sure:)
"(the) weak positive cloud feedback diagnosis will suddenly turn into a negative feedback diagnosis. I’ve done it, and it is what Lindzen and Choi did in their recently published paper, which resulted in a diagnosis of strongly negative feedback."
Oooh, missing context again!
"Secondly, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume our critics are right, and there IS a substantial time lag in the cloud feedback response to a temperature change. As I have challenged Dessler to do, if he really believes that is happening, then he should do LAGGED regression to estimate feedbackthat is, adjust for the time lag in his regression analysis.
And when he does that, his weak positive cloud feedback diagnosis will suddenly turn into a negative feedback diagnosis. I’ve done it, and it is what Lindzen and Choi did in their recently published paper, which resulted in a diagnosis of strongly negative feedback."
Spencer, once again, is asserting that the diagnosis of positive or negative feedback is dependent on the calculations you choose to use - not that clouds are definitely a negative feedback. Read it again, carefully:)
Of course you believe that you are right and the author is wrong.
No, it's simpler than that - I understand what the author is saying, you seem to continue to misinterpret it with out of context quotes:)
Clearly I cannot convince you that the paper you cited does not support Spencer's contention that clouds are a negative feedback.
You're misunderstanding Spencer - he doesn't make that contention at all. In his own words:
"This issue is critical because, to the extent that non-feedback sources of cloud variability cause surface temperature change, it will always look like a positive feedback using the conventional diagnostic approach. It is even possible to diagnose a positive feedback when, in fact, a negative feedback really exists."
From the paper in question:
"Thus, the radiative effect of changes in cloud cover or properties is highly sensitive not only to cloud type (height, optical thickness, extent) but also to the time of year and time of day at which the changes in cloud properties take place. This is of importance in assessing cloud climate feedbacks which contribute substantially to uncertainty in climate prediction"
You keep on trying to divide sides up by "positive" versus "negative" feedback mechanisms with clouds. What Spencer shows through his work is that this is not a simple duality - the truth of the matter is that it can go both ways, depending on a lot of other variables.
Sorry, I completely missed the part where you said, "If one observes an increase in CO2 over 10 years, but does not observe a similar increase in temperature, my hypothesis is falsified."
I'm sure it was just eaten up by an intarweb monster somewhere...or maybe it's hiding with the rest of the missing heat at the bottom of the ocean:)
Slashdot Mirror
What could we have done to prevent world population from doubling?
What could we have done to stop people from wanting bigger cars? Or *any* cars, for that matter?
How would the world today (30 years later) be any different if you had managed those two things 30 years ago?
We don't even know if we have a problem, much less that there is anything short of mass genocide/suicide that could fix it if it did exist.
Okay, so here's the problem - "cheaper than coal" can mean either we've made coal more expensive, or that solar has become cheaper in absolute terms. While I'll agree the first is possible, the second is highly unlikely.
http://greenecon.net/understanding-the-cost-of-solar-energy/energy_economics.html
1 ton of coal costs $36 = $0.006 per KWH
$45,000 5KW solar energy system produces about 119,246 KWH of electric over its lifespan meaning the average cost equals $0.38 per KWH.
We're talking an order of magnitude there.
So while coal fired electricity may be cheaper than liquid gasoline with current technology, you're still stuck on cheap energy coming from sources that emit CO2.
That's running under the assumption that a warmer world is categorically a worse place for humanity or the biosphere. That's speculation, not fact.
The problem is that civilization is always in jeopardy, and it seems to me that in general, the only defense civilization has from jeopardy is energy. Cheap energy means a better quality of life, more productivity, and more ability to overcome and adapt to whatever various catastrophes come our way.
Now, I'm not sure just how much higher the poverty rate world wide would go if we lost 3% of GDP/year, but it seems to me that we've got a known harm in a proposed intervention, and a speculated harm from a warmer world.
Actually, look closer at your graph - we've done B, and we've gotten less than C.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/rommcook-prosecute-themselves/
Now that we've refuted Hansen's predictions, should we:
A) abandon the whole CO2 hypothesis;
B) abandon just Hansen, and look for other CO2 driven predictions which may match better;
C) add a fudge factor for Hansen to make the models match the observations again.
The problem is that B and C here can be applied ad infinitum.
If my mother, who created me, happened to be some fertility doctor that helped me and my wife create a child, and then told me I had to *kill* that child, I'd spit in her face. No matter how wonderful and powerful and generous she had ever been to me, asking for human sacrifice is simply not a moral action.
As to what makes me say that those acts aren't moral, you can derive it in any number of ways without resorting to some otherworldly figure. Philosophers of all sorts have extolled all sorts of rational foundations for morality over the years.
As for "higher thoughts", I'd be awfully skeptical of any being that demanded absolute obedience - after all, what mortal could discern between the word of God and the word of Satan?
Look, I've read the NIV, King James, New American, Book of Mormon, Quran, and even the Pearl of Great Price (I skipped Dianetcs and just watched SouthPark instead). I understand the whole narrative. I even agree with some of it. But make no doubt about it, there is no post hoc explanation that makes Abraham a good person for almost killing his son by the demand of his powerful benefactor. None. Nada. No excuses for killing your kid, period.
As for how flawed man really is, that's an argument of philosophy that can be had without resorting to sacrificing your own daughters up for rape, or slitting your son's throat. Certainly, I've had my flaws and I've overcome them without resorting to faith, so your citation of empirical evidence is already refuted :)
As for your continued education on the Bible, I refer you to the illustrious Bart Erhman: http://www.bartdehrman.com/books.htm
Climate has always changed, and we've always had to adapt in order to avoid starvation. To think that if we were to make energy so expensive that developing nations couldn't even afford to cook their food, that somehow we'll stop climate from ever changing again is kind of silly.
Until technology arrives that can beat natural petroleum products on affordability per kWh, moving to these more advanced technologies is a surefire recipe for increased world poverty. The rest of the world knows that.
There have been numerous inquiries into the matter, but to call them independent is a stretch. If they wanted the inquires to be independent, they'd have asked folk like Lindzen and Spencer to be on the inquiry panels :) Being judged by people who are partial to your point of view, who have vested interests in preserving your credibility, cannot be seen as independent.
http://www.thegwpf.org/gwpf-reports/1531-the-climategate-inquries.html
Name a single thing you believe Montford's report got wrong. Two things if you're feeling particularly optimistic :)
Look, if an alien came down from the sky in a spaceship, performed all sorts of wonders and miracles, and predicted the future with uncanny accuracy, and even helped me and my wife conceive when we thought it was impossible, sorry, but if they ask me to kill my kid, they're evil. Not just "not good", but pure evil.
Similarly, if an alien was about to be raped at my doorstep by an angry mob, I might be willing to try to fight the mob off and risk my life, but sacrificing my daughter to be raped instead is simply not moral. Heck, I might even be able to understand it if to fend the mob off I had to offer *myself* up for a good raping, but to sacrifice my *daughters*? Not okay.
Abraham's decision to take Issac to the altar should be universally condemned - killing your own child to appease a powerful figure in your life is never justifiable.
But wait, we haven't seen a doubling of CO2 in the past 100 years...or even the past 1000 years, and we certainly haven't seen 4-5C of warming that would go with it.
So while you might be able to create an equation that matches our current data, and which also asserts that we'll see a 4-5C warming for a doubling of CO2, that's an extrapolation of assumptions - we haven't actually *observed* that.
FWIW, CO2 from say, 1000AD to today has gone from 280ppm to around 390ppm (about a 39% increase, as opposed to a doubling of 100%), and temperature from say, 1000AD to today has been what, an additional 0.6C? Maybe 1C if you're generous?
Do you have data which disagrees with that general outline?
Yup, I've seen that canard around too - the warmist analog is that we have a consensus, and the science is settled, and that the time for action is now :)
This is exactly why I enjoyed our conversation about getting to a falsifiable hypothesis statement so much -> when we skip that part, both sides pretty much spend their time building straw men to burn, rather than trying to understand where the disconnect in communication is :)
Another favorite canard of both warmist and denier is "it's not [warming/cooling]! it's [freezing/sweltering] outside today!" :)
Sure the moral teachings cause conflict.
If a voice in your head told you to kill your own child, would you do it? Let's say at the last minute, the voice says "just joking!", but you were *really* gonna do it. Am I supposed to think you did a morally righteous thing by fully intending to kill your own child to prove your loyalty to someone?
Or what if there was an angry mob outside your house, about to rape some guy? If you instead convinced the mob to rape your own daughters, and let the guy go, am I supposed to look at you like a role model?
Morality has been awfully fluid over the period of human existence...
You mixed up a few canards together there. Yes, CO2 is plant food. That's pretty much a given, as is its corollary that CO2 is animal waste. The canard that CO2 is a great thing is a slightly different one, and seems not to fit with "it can have little impact if any", since if it's a great thing, it should be having a great impact. As for the "there's so little of it" canard, that's often separate from the "it can have little impact if any".
The analogous warmist canards would probably be, CO2 is air pollution, it's a terrible thing, and it's such a powerful gas that it will completely kill off all the polar bears, drown Florida and the Maldives, and make the world a permanently hot and sweaty place :)
The really sad thing is that there are probably many things deniers and warmists agree on, but we always end up skipping to the part where if I drive my car I'm going to kill the world with melting glaciers, and if you tell me not to drive my car you're a communist hippie bent on world domination.
People have an amazing capacity to believe all sorts of mutually exclusive things. They believe that government programs for the poor and elderly are good, but taxes to pay for them are bad. They believe in a right to life, but support the death penalty. They believe in evolution, but want to preserve endangered species. They believe in climate change, but they don't want it to change any more. They believe absence makes the heart grow fonder, but familiarity breeds contempt.
A more surprising finding would have been to see people actually hold onto a *consistent* set of beliefs.
Sure, I'd prefer that too. But things change all the time, and sometimes, it's hot, humid, and the air cloys to you like a wet blanket. Sometimes it's not. Climate changes.
Now, can you show me that if we continue expanding our population, and continue utilizing natural petroleum to power our lives, and continue emitting CO2 until the atmosphere is say, at 2000ppm, that we'll somehow be able to make the entire world a place that lives in an eternal, unchanging Louisiana summer?
I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to base my actions today on a bit more than wild speculation about a planet of eternal sweat and heat exhaustion.
While certainly there are those conspiracy theorists out there, I'd venture to say the typical "climate denier" is more often denying that humanity is in control of the climate and is on a path to make it so bad that it cause the end of civilization as we know it. Yes, yes, climate changes, we accept that. Heck, we can even accept that CO2 is part of those changes, and adds some measure of warmth to the equation. And we can even accept that humans emit CO2! But to think that our influence can overwhelm a system that has been changing for billions of years before humanity has existed?
I know I need to accept that the typical warmist is probably not a Jim Jones zombie that simply follows whatever papal bulls come from the mouth of the Goracle. The typical warmist is also probably not some socialist hell bent on transforming society into some sort of centrally controlled utopia. The typical warmist probably loves their children just as much as the typical denier...we just seem to forget that sometimes.
Yes, climate changes. Always has.
Yes, CO2 has some impact on climate. Always has.
No, it's not likely that climate changes are primarily controlled by human activity, as opposed to myriad non-human factors.
No, it's not likely that a warmer world will cause more harm than benefit to humanity or the biosphere as a whole.
No, I'm not going to do what you want just because you're super cereal.
Strike down ObamaCare, and you've got years of unraveling to do (especially in IT, which has been starting work in anticipation of several key dates coming up), as well as a apoplectic progressive left. Uphold ObamaCare, and you've got a drum upon which every libertarian and conservative will beat any time there's the slightest increase in health insurance costs, and who knows what kind of crazy social conservative will be the one to carry the mantle of the White House (even though most people just want fiscal conservatives).
The sad part, though, is that none of this fight is about health care - it's about insurance. We could mandate universal auto insurance (even for non drivers, since they are either passengers or pedestrians who interact with cars), or we could mandate universal fire insurance (even for non homeowners, since they might start a fire that spreads, or be affected by smoke inhalation from someone else's house), or we could mandate universal food insurance (since hey, everyone eats food). None of that changes the facts about risk and scarcity in our world.
Forget ala carte channels - I've got a cable subscription for the 60mbps download, and if a TV channel wants my eyeballs, they'll need to have a website to stream from.
Of course, they keep calling me up asking me if I want to add a cable TV package for some low low price, but they just can't seem to understand that if I'm not going to use it, I'm not going to buy it.
I've always wondered why there isn't a hybrid system - make your electronic vote print out a receipt, validate the receipt and drop the receipt in the box. If someone manages to compromise the electronic system, you've got a paper trail backup. If someone manages to compromise the paper system, you've got the electronic one.
Isn't defense in depth the order of the day here?
You've misunderstood both Ramanthan and Spencer. Ramanthan speculated about how measuring cloud forcing could help verify postulated feedbacks. Spencer asserted that feedbacks can be misdiagnosed as positive even when they are in fact negative, if one makes the wrong assumptions.
Get it yet?
Read Spencer 2008 again. Appearances have deceived you :)
Try again! Harder!
Show me some logic, reason or facts, and then we'll know for sure :)
Oooh, missing context again!
"Secondly, just for the sake of argument, let’s assume our critics are right, and there IS a substantial time lag in the cloud feedback response to a temperature change. As I have challenged Dessler to do, if he really believes that is happening, then he should do LAGGED regression to estimate feedbackthat is, adjust for the time lag in his regression analysis.
And when he does that, his weak positive cloud feedback diagnosis will suddenly turn into a negative feedback diagnosis. I’ve done it, and it is what Lindzen and Choi did in their recently published paper, which resulted in a diagnosis of strongly negative feedback."
Spencer, once again, is asserting that the diagnosis of positive or negative feedback is dependent on the calculations you choose to use - not that clouds are definitely a negative feedback. Read it again, carefully :)
No, it's simpler than that - I understand what the author is saying, you seem to continue to misinterpret it with out of context quotes :)
Try again! Harder!
You're misunderstanding Spencer - he doesn't make that contention at all. In his own words:
"This issue is critical because, to the extent that non-feedback sources of cloud variability cause surface temperature change, it will always look like a positive feedback using the conventional diagnostic approach. It is even possible to diagnose a positive feedback when, in fact, a negative feedback really exists."
From the paper in question:
"Thus, the radiative effect of changes in cloud cover or properties is highly sensitive not only to cloud type (height, optical thickness, extent) but also to the time of year and time of day at which the changes in cloud properties take place. This is of importance in assessing cloud climate feedbacks which contribute substantially to uncertainty in climate prediction"
You keep on trying to divide sides up by "positive" versus "negative" feedback mechanisms with clouds. What Spencer shows through his work is that this is not a simple duality - the truth of the matter is that it can go both ways, depending on a lot of other variables.
Get it yet?
I miss you too! :)
But just because we can't be together doesn't mean we can't just be friends :)
Sorry, I completely missed the part where you said, "If one observes an increase in CO2 over 10 years, but does not observe a similar increase in temperature, my hypothesis is falsified."
I'm sure it was just eaten up by an intarweb monster somewhere...or maybe it's hiding with the rest of the missing heat at the bottom of the ocean :)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/