Right now the ocean is (on average) warming by quite a bit. Here is the latest data: http://davidappell.blogspot.co... . This may be due to natural cycles (which it is!), but if the ocean is warming, and the atmosphere is warming, then there is a radiative energy imbalance causing that warming. That's physics.
What we are seeing in atmospheric temperatures is a steady increase in temperatures due to GHG. Transposed on top of this is the natural ebb and flow of energy from the atmosphere to the ocean and back. This is called ENSO and PDO. When we are in a negative phase of the PDO and ENSO we see more energy moving from the atmosphere to the ocean. When we are in a positive phase we see a spike in atmospheric temperatures (See the super-ElNino of 1998 for example).
So what we are measuring makes perfect sense to a scientist. When you look at the evidence (if you are willing to look at the data at all) you see "desperate" people "trying to pretend" something or other. What nonsense!
Are you saying that CO2 is going down? Because that is obviously not true. Scientists have found that about 1/2 of the CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere. 1/4 is absorbed by the ocean. 1/4 by the land. The rest remains in the atmosphere: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/gra...
Right. So you've never accused anyone else of being a sock puppet because everyone else you've accused is a sock puppet. I concede. Your logic cannot be refuted.
Yup. You found a guy on the internet who represents the 2%. Good job. Even this guy admits that the ocean is warming, so you also managed to find a link that contradicts the point you are trying to make.
That has nothing to do with measuring ocean heat content. That is just the opinion of some guy on the internet regarding the implications of increased ocean heat content. Someone who is apparently not that familiar with the concept of conservation of energy.
I don't think that these types of polarizing caricatures are helpful. I believe in a free market solution to this problem. There are many others who also prefer a conservative based solution to this problem. You are dismissing half of the population as science denying yahoos when what you need to be doing is coming together to figure out whether your solutions are at all compatible with ours.
Sure. You accused an AC of being a sock puppet of me because she agreed with me... or are you not considering her "other people" because you've already concluded that she's me?
The chart showed global ocean heat content from 0-2000m. Other papers show the same result. The article you cited does not say otherwise. Did you even read it?
Likely if the information was easy to find he would have cited it. I did a Google search and found information to the contrary:
"The higher frequency of extreme weather events is influenced by climate change... Munich Re first warned about global warming way back in 1973, when it noticed that flood damage was increasing.... The trend lines in Munich Re’s charts are compelling. They show that the insured and uninsured losses from natural catastrophes have been on the upswing since work on the company’s database began in earnest in 1980." -http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/an-industry-that-has-woken-up-to-climate-change-no-deniers-at-global-resinsurance-giant/article15635331/?page=all
I find it very interesting that both of you have the same mannerisms...
You don't just "find it very interesting". You have jumped to the conclusion that several people who disagree with you must all be the same person. That's just nutty.
Oooooooor... How about a revenue neutral carbon tax? We could tax the carbon at the port of entry. Since it is revenue neutral we would want to lower income or sales tax - things we ought to be trying to encourage rather than tax.
How do you suppose that finding a rise in global heat content amounts to "trying to pretend". Could it be another conspiracy theory? (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5452767&cid=47611623).
If we are optimistic about a technological solution, wouldn't it be in our interest to move forward with those solutions instead of continuing to get our energy from burning stuff?
Uncertainty is one reason we should tread lightly here. You mention that we have sometimes failed to accurately predict the future. This failure has often resulted in catastrophe. Take the Atlantic fisheries as an example. If we had greater certainty we would have know how far we could exploit that resource without destroying it:
An imperfect understanding of the ocean ecosystem; technical and environmental challenges associated with observation techniques, which led to incomplete data on the resource (the cod); and the naturally high levels of variability in the population due to dynamic environmental factors (such as ocean temperature) combined to make it arduous to discern the effects of exploitation. Unfortunately, this led to predictions about the cod stock that were mired in uncertainty, making it more difficult for the government to choose the appropriate course of action. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
I agree that it is a "pretty epic level of arrogance" to presume that we know exactly how much more carbon we can safely emit. The truth is that we don't.
I'm not too interested in you conspiracy theories (for instance your wacky theories on Obama's birth cirtificate: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...).
The 97% consensus paper has been replicated numerous times. The scientists own evaluation of the reviewed papers found an even stronger result. Just last month another replication was published: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...
We already are doing something about climate change! The price of solar is plummeting and some are suggesting that it will be a disruptive technology on the same order as the internet:
the tipping point will arrive around 2020. At that point, investing in a home solar system with a 20-year life span, plus some small-scale home battery technology and an electric car, will pay for itself in six to eight years for the average consumer in Germany, Italy, Spain, and much of the rest of Europe. Crucially, this math holds even without any government subsidies for solar power. - http://climatecrocks.com/2014/...
Slashdot Mirror
When you look at the evidence (if you are willing to look at the data at all)
I'm just not going to take it very seriously if it's yet another "adjusted" dataset from NOAA
Ha ha ha ha! Nailed it didn't I! Tell me more about your 911 truther or birther theories!
Right now the ocean is (on average) warming by quite a bit. Here is the latest data: http://davidappell.blogspot.co... . This may be due to natural cycles (which it is!), but if the ocean is warming, and the atmosphere is warming, then there is a radiative energy imbalance causing that warming. That's physics.
What we are seeing in atmospheric temperatures is a steady increase in temperatures due to GHG. Transposed on top of this is the natural ebb and flow of energy from the atmosphere to the ocean and back. This is called ENSO and PDO. When we are in a negative phase of the PDO and ENSO we see more energy moving from the atmosphere to the ocean. When we are in a positive phase we see a spike in atmospheric temperatures (See the super-ElNino of 1998 for example).
So what we are measuring makes perfect sense to a scientist. When you look at the evidence (if you are willing to look at the data at all) you see "desperate" people "trying to pretend" something or other. What nonsense!
Are you saying that CO2 is going down? Because that is obviously not true. Scientists have found that about 1/2 of the CO2 we release stays in the atmosphere. 1/4 is absorbed by the ocean. 1/4 by the land. The rest remains in the atmosphere: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/gra...
I suppose, if we have to be sock puppets, we could do worse. :P
In order to disprove the fact that the ocean is warming you've linked to a site that concedes that the ocean is warming. Good job.
The ocean is warming. To disprove this you linked to a site that concedes the ocean is warming. Good job.
Right. So you've never accused anyone else of being a sock puppet because everyone else you've accused is a sock puppet. I concede. Your logic cannot be refuted.
Yup. You found a guy on the internet who represents the 2%. Good job. Even this guy admits that the ocean is warming, so you also managed to find a link that contradicts the point you are trying to make.
That has nothing to do with measuring ocean heat content. That is just the opinion of some guy on the internet regarding the implications of increased ocean heat content. Someone who is apparently not that familiar with the concept of conservation of energy.
Why don't you read the report and find out?
I don't think that these types of polarizing caricatures are helpful. I believe in a free market solution to this problem. There are many others who also prefer a conservative based solution to this problem. You are dismissing half of the population as science denying yahoos when what you need to be doing is coming together to figure out whether your solutions are at all compatible with ours.
In that case you've really got this locked up quite tight. Any evidence contradicting your theory can be dismissed as part of the ruse itself.
Sure. You accused an AC of being a sock puppet of me because she agreed with me... or are you not considering her "other people" because you've already concluded that she's me?
The chart showed global ocean heat content from 0-2000m. Other papers show the same result. The article you cited does not say otherwise. Did you even read it?
Likely if the information was easy to find he would have cited it. I did a Google search and found information to the contrary:
"The higher frequency of extreme weather events is influenced by climate change... Munich Re first warned about global warming way back in 1973, when it noticed that flood damage was increasing.... The trend lines in Munich Re’s charts are compelling. They show that the insured and uninsured losses from natural catastrophes have been on the upswing since work on the company’s database began in earnest in 1980." -http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/an-industry-that-has-woken-up-to-climate-change-no-deniers-at-global-resinsurance-giant/article15635331/?page=all
I find it very interesting that both of you have the same mannerisms...
You don't just "find it very interesting". You have jumped to the conclusion that several people who disagree with you must all be the same person. That's just nutty.
You give up using energy first. Let me know how it goes. (For what its worth, I drive an electric car and have 10KW solar panels on my house.)
It sounds like you are carbon negative. In that case, you could tell us how it goes. Are you suffering horribly?
Oooooooor... How about a revenue neutral carbon tax? We could tax the carbon at the port of entry. Since it is revenue neutral we would want to lower income or sales tax - things we ought to be trying to encourage rather than tax.
Why can't it be both? Irreversible damage has been caused (but is not yet widespread), and we risk causing irreversible and widespread damage.
In any case, trying to pretend the heat is "trapped" deep in some ocean
This is bizarre. We've measured a rise in ocean heat content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
How do you suppose that finding a rise in global heat content amounts to "trying to pretend". Could it be another conspiracy theory? (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5452767&cid=47611623).
"Laysej", otherwise known as "khayman80"
Another conspiracy theory?
If we are optimistic about a technological solution, wouldn't it be in our interest to move forward with those solutions instead of continuing to get our energy from burning stuff?
Uncertainty is one reason we should tread lightly here. You mention that we have sometimes failed to accurately predict the future. This failure has often resulted in catastrophe. Take the Atlantic fisheries as an example. If we had greater certainty we would have know how far we could exploit that resource without destroying it:
An imperfect understanding of the ocean ecosystem; technical and environmental challenges associated with observation techniques, which led to incomplete data on the resource (the cod); and the naturally high levels of variability in the population due to dynamic environmental factors (such as ocean temperature) combined to make it arduous to discern the effects of exploitation. Unfortunately, this led to predictions about the cod stock that were mired in uncertainty, making it more difficult for the government to choose the appropriate course of action. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
I agree that it is a "pretty epic level of arrogance" to presume that we know exactly how much more carbon we can safely emit. The truth is that we don't.
The 97% consensus paper has been replicated numerous times. The scientists own evaluation of the reviewed papers found an even stronger result. Just last month another replication was published: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10...
We already are doing something about climate change! The price of solar is plummeting and some are suggesting that it will be a disruptive technology on the same order as the internet:
the tipping point will arrive around 2020. At that point, investing in a home solar system with a 20-year life span, plus some small-scale home battery technology and an electric car, will pay for itself in six to eight years for the average consumer in Germany, Italy, Spain, and much of the rest of Europe. Crucially, this math holds even without any government subsidies for solar power. - http://climatecrocks.com/2014/...