There is internal variability, so some decades are going to be well over and some well under, but on average the warming has been of 0.21C per decade since 1990 as can be seen here: http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
Some options being used are to pump water into a reservoir where it can later be used to generate hydroelectric, or store the energy as kinetic by spinning a 4000 KG cylinder up to 11,500 rpm (a flywheel). GE is now shipping their wind turbines with batteries so that they can store energy if the price goes low. If the state has a working energy market you could make a living by buying when the price is low (storing the energy) and selling back when the price is high.
I quoted scientific literature even if you choose not to recognize it as such.
Watts the retired TV weatherman? Really? He's about as qualified as you are. He hasn't shown that the ARGO network is unsuitable for the task and wouldn't even know how to.
Watt's evaluation amounts to this: His doctor says he has a fever. He says "I remain unconvinced. The thermometer only had one ounce of mercury. He only held it under my tongue for 30 seconds. He only took one measurement." These observations tell us nothing about whether the doctor had sufficient evidence to diagnose, but they are enough to convince the converted.
No, they're still useful without independent and unbiased measurements, because it's not like there are competing measurements.
This is not true. They are considered fit for task not because they are the best we've got but because they are good. There are competing measurements. Khallow has no real basis for calling these papers into question. Their findings are entirely consistent with the literature. Several studies confirm that (A) energy accumulating in the system is consistent with (B) the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Of course, it would have to be for energy to be conserved (In this household we obey the laws of thermodynamics!). Khallow would like us to believe that both A and B are wrong by the same amount but has no study to support this claim.
So you don't think it's relevant that you are making statements that you are unqualified to make about a papers that were written, reviewed, and published by people who are? That Watts remains "unconvinced" tells us nothing about the paper except that it does not support his preconceptions. He is not qualified to make any kind of assessment. You are adding nothing here. All you can do is flaunt your ignorance. The ARGO network is considered fit for the task by people who are qualified to make that assessment.
Hmmm, you are correct about the depth of Argo, but I see that they don't actually measure to the precision [wattsupwiththat.com] that the observations require. I didn't correctly remember the above post on Argo data.
No introspection at all then? You posted something obviously false. One second of skepticism and five minutes of research was all it would have taken but instead you make bold claims with absolutely no truth. Now you are stating as fact that the ARGO floats lack precision for the task at hand. Again you are unqualified to even evaluate that claim (and so is TV weatherman Watts), but you state it as fact. Watts said the same about the surface station measurements and was proven wrong. In fact by oversampling you can get precision beyond what is available from any one instrument. Enough of your nonsense.
There is value in truth. Clive doesn't seem to represent it in his graph. Clearly 0.23C is well within the predicted range of 0.15 and 0.3C/decade. I'm not sure my interest in the truth makes me a zealot. I'm really also not sure why that would be an eye-opener for you. Shouldn't you be more suspicious of people who are interested in the goal (by any means) rather than the facts and the truth?
We will never know everything, but we do already know some things. We know that for every doubling of CO2 we will warm somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5C. That is a wide margin, but not so wide that we cannot make decisions based upon it. What decisions should be made is certainly open for debate. Perhaps 'do nothing' is the right choice, but I would hope any decision should be based upon the truth.
The problem with crossing the GHG bridge when we come to it is that once serious impacts are felt it is already to late. Halting GHG emissions abruptly would be a very bad thing. Even if done the world would continue to warm for decades and the serious impacts would worsen. Even after the warming stabilized we would be stuck with serious impacts and no feasible way to cool back down. It is a tricky problem.
You bring up some interesting points. I'm still not sure how your solution could address global warming. I suspect we don't have to agree on this though. Thanks for your thoughts.
Since these networks don't actually measure deep ocean heat content, then they can't be "leveraged" for the claimed purpose.
Well, I checked on the first of the bunch. It looks like ARGO measures down to 2000 meters (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html). The study found enhanced warming between 700 and 2000 meters. So how did you conclude that these networks don't measure deep ocean heat content? Did you make that part up or do you have a source?
No answer? This would be a good time for some introspection. Are you interested in the truth or are you willing to make up facts to win a political debate? Why is the truth held in such low regard?
Any yet, again, none of this alters the fact that we know certain things to be destructive to the environment; at least locally. Coal fire power plants and large scale burning of other fossil fuels produce tons of air particles that cause respiratory problems in animals including humans. That problem is so obvious you can actually see it in places like China and Los Angeles. Coal slurry is another huge problem and has destroyed entire towns in places like West Virginia and Kentucky. Mountains - yes mountains - are destroyed during the mining process.
Have there been any attempts at litigation over these clear and present impacts? If so, how have they fared? (Honest question). If this has not been successful then do you still think that litigation is a solution for the trickier problem of greenhouse gasses?
Could work. One problem with this is that the CO2 we introduce now will cause warming in 20 years. The effects of that warming may not be realized for another 20. My parent's generation is responsible for a sizeable amount of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere now. They will all be dead in 40 years. Even if they were not, it is not clear that my kids would want to sue an entire generation or how that would work.
There is some cost to emitting CO2. Economists are able to estimate that cost (within a very wide margin). Why try and add that back into the transaction after the fact if we can account for some of it now? It's not adding outside pressure but rather attempting to internalize costs that the parties involved are otherwise able to pass on to our kids.
As a conservative I am philosophically opposed to borrowing from my children, or leaving them in debt. I believe in paying my own way and having some left over at the end.
Since these networks don't actually measure deep ocean heat content, then they can't be "leveraged" for the claimed purpose.
Well, I checked on the first of the bunch. It looks like ARGO measures down to 2000 meters (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html). The study found enhanced warming between 700 and 2000 meters. So how did you conclude that these networks don't measure deep ocean heat content? Did you make that part up or do you have a source?
Again, this isn't direct observation.
They leveraged satellite data to fill in the unobserved regions. They showed that this technique works quite well by testing it on areas where we do have direct measurements.
holes which happen to conveniently contain a lot of alleged missing heat.
The "missing heat" isn't "alleged". It is observed that there is a top of atmosphere energy imballance [Trenberth, 2009; Trenberth et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2009]. The warming found in these two previously unobserved regions largely addresses the discrepancy between the energy that is accumulating in the system and the observed temperatures.
He seems to have it wrong. "Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade" (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html).
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade" (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html). We have seen 0.23C per decade since the report was published: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2010/trend.
I sympathize with your desire to reduce government. A revenue neutral carbon tax is probably still the best solution. This would allow the markets to decide which solution is most desirable - including possibly burning more gas/coal. If it is revenue neutral then we could reduce taxes on things that we actually want to encourage like sales and income.
the missing heat is attributed to ignorance of our environment - it must be in the places we don't know much about, rather than to flaws in our models.
Except that the 'missing heat' is not just anticipated by models, but is also anticipated by observations of radiative imbalance: [Trenberth, 2009; Trenberth et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2009]
And that we have taken efforts to measure previously unobserved regions and found that energy accumulating there largely accounts for the discrepancy in the observed top of atmosphere imbalance vs. the observed energy accumulated:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf - Leverages the ARGO/TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA to estimate ocean heat content and finds that warming has doubled in the most recent decade.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract - Leverages satellite data and finds that the arctic has been warming at 8 times the rate of the rest of the planet.
The first IPCC report in 1990 predicted (all else being equal) 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for business as usual. We have seen 0.16C per decade since the report was published. Even though all else has not been equal (natual factors such as solar and ENSO have had a cooling influence), the results are still within the predicted range. So far so good?
Solar output is typically around 1365.5 WM^-2. Every 11 years or so it rises by 0.5 or even as much as 1 WM^-2, but then falls back down to around 1365.5 after a few years. CO2 is currently causing a sustained forcing of 1.9 WM^-2 relative to preindustrial CO2 forcing (given by 5.35 LN(C/C0)). This sustained forcing dwarfs the periodic energy fluxuations from the sun.
Curiously, "skeptics" who argue that these small changes in solar output can cause the changes we've seen in temperature are arguing that the Earth is very sensative to relatively small forcings. If this is the case then it would seem inconsistant to also argue that the sustained forcing from CO2 is insignificant.
Slashdot Mirror
There is internal variability, so some decades are going to be well over and some well under, but on average the warming has been of 0.21C per decade since 1990 as can be seen here: http://woodfortrees.org/data/g...
The first IPCC report from 1990 predicted a temperature rise of 0.15 to 0.3C/decade. Since then we have seen a temperature rise of 0.21C per decade: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/trend
Seems like they're doing ok so far.
What you can do with Micro Scribe. Digitize complex 3D objects in minutes. Create realistic models as lines, polygons, splines, or NURBs. - http://archive.org/stream/NewTekniques_Volume_2_No._02_1998-04_Advanstar_Communications_US/NewTekniques_Volume_2_No._02_1998-04_Advanstar_Communications_US_djvu.txt
Some options being used are to pump water into a reservoir where it can later be used to generate hydroelectric, or store the energy as kinetic by spinning a 4000 KG cylinder up to 11,500 rpm (a flywheel). GE is now shipping their wind turbines with batteries so that they can store energy if the price goes low. If the state has a working energy market you could make a living by buying when the price is low (storing the energy) and selling back when the price is high.
I quoted scientific literature even if you choose not to recognize it as such.
Watts the retired TV weatherman? Really? He's about as qualified as you are. He hasn't shown that the ARGO network is unsuitable for the task and wouldn't even know how to.
Watt's evaluation amounts to this: His doctor says he has a fever. He says "I remain unconvinced. The thermometer only had one ounce of mercury. He only held it under my tongue for 30 seconds. He only took one measurement." These observations tell us nothing about whether the doctor had sufficient evidence to diagnose, but they are enough to convince the converted.
Yes, I was blatantly wrong earlier in this thread. The reason I said that was immaterial is because the underlying problem remains.
You haven't shown that and you don't know how to show that.
searching for "missing heat" (and finding it where there are no observations to contradict the hunt)
First you admit that you were in error, then you repeat the error. Good job.
and by stating my opinion whether in error or not, I demonstrate sufficient qualification to speak on this matter.
Exactly. We can believe you, who have been shown to be talking out of your ass, or the scientific literature. Tough choice.
Your error is the discussion. You are talking out of your ass and expect that we should value your opinion over that of qualified scientists?
No, they're still useful without independent and unbiased measurements, because it's not like there are competing measurements.
This is not true. They are considered fit for task not because they are the best we've got but because they are good. There are competing measurements. Khallow has no real basis for calling these papers into question. Their findings are entirely consistent with the literature. Several studies confirm that (A) energy accumulating in the system is consistent with (B) the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Of course, it would have to be for energy to be conserved (In this household we obey the laws of thermodynamics!). Khallow would like us to believe that both A and B are wrong by the same amount but has no study to support this claim.
So you don't think it's relevant that you are making statements that you are unqualified to make about a papers that were written, reviewed, and published by people who are? That Watts remains "unconvinced" tells us nothing about the paper except that it does not support his preconceptions. He is not qualified to make any kind of assessment. You are adding nothing here. All you can do is flaunt your ignorance. The ARGO network is considered fit for the task by people who are qualified to make that assessment.
Hmmm, you are correct about the depth of Argo, but I see that they don't actually measure to the precision [wattsupwiththat.com] that the observations require. I didn't correctly remember the above post on Argo data.
No introspection at all then? You posted something obviously false. One second of skepticism and five minutes of research was all it would have taken but instead you make bold claims with absolutely no truth. Now you are stating as fact that the ARGO floats lack precision for the task at hand. Again you are unqualified to even evaluate that claim (and so is TV weatherman Watts), but you state it as fact. Watts said the same about the surface station measurements and was proven wrong. In fact by oversampling you can get precision beyond what is available from any one instrument. Enough of your nonsense.
There is value in truth. Clive doesn't seem to represent it in his graph. Clearly 0.23C is well within the predicted range of 0.15 and 0.3C/decade. I'm not sure my interest in the truth makes me a zealot. I'm really also not sure why that would be an eye-opener for you. Shouldn't you be more suspicious of people who are interested in the goal (by any means) rather than the facts and the truth?
We will never know everything, but we do already know some things. We know that for every doubling of CO2 we will warm somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5C. That is a wide margin, but not so wide that we cannot make decisions based upon it. What decisions should be made is certainly open for debate. Perhaps 'do nothing' is the right choice, but I would hope any decision should be based upon the truth.
The problem with crossing the GHG bridge when we come to it is that once serious impacts are felt it is already to late. Halting GHG emissions abruptly would be a very bad thing. Even if done the world would continue to warm for decades and the serious impacts would worsen. Even after the warming stabilized we would be stuck with serious impacts and no feasible way to cool back down. It is a tricky problem.
You bring up some interesting points. I'm still not sure how your solution could address global warming. I suspect we don't have to agree on this though. Thanks for your thoughts.
Since these networks don't actually measure deep ocean heat content, then they can't be "leveraged" for the claimed purpose.
Well, I checked on the first of the bunch. It looks like ARGO measures down to 2000 meters (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html). The study found enhanced warming between 700 and 2000 meters. So how did you conclude that these networks don't measure deep ocean heat content? Did you make that part up or do you have a source?
No answer? This would be a good time for some introspection. Are you interested in the truth or are you willing to make up facts to win a political debate? Why is the truth held in such low regard?
Looking at the IPCC reports from the 1990s, all the major predictions have failed. The warming has been consistently, massively overestimated
The IPCC report from 1990 predicted a temperature rise of 0.15 to 0.3C/decade. Since then we have seen a temperature rise of 0.23C per decade: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2010/trend
That doesn't sound like a failed prediction...
Any yet, again, none of this alters the fact that we know certain things to be destructive to the environment; at least locally. Coal fire power plants and large scale burning of other fossil fuels produce tons of air particles that cause respiratory problems in animals including humans. That problem is so obvious you can actually see it in places like China and Los Angeles. Coal slurry is another huge problem and has destroyed entire towns in places like West Virginia and Kentucky. Mountains - yes mountains - are destroyed during the mining process.
Have there been any attempts at litigation over these clear and present impacts? If so, how have they fared? (Honest question). If this has not been successful then do you still think that litigation is a solution for the trickier problem of greenhouse gasses?
Could work. One problem with this is that the CO2 we introduce now will cause warming in 20 years. The effects of that warming may not be realized for another 20. My parent's generation is responsible for a sizeable amount of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere now. They will all be dead in 40 years. Even if they were not, it is not clear that my kids would want to sue an entire generation or how that would work.
There is some cost to emitting CO2. Economists are able to estimate that cost (within a very wide margin). Why try and add that back into the transaction after the fact if we can account for some of it now? It's not adding outside pressure but rather attempting to internalize costs that the parties involved are otherwise able to pass on to our kids.
As a conservative I am philosophically opposed to borrowing from my children, or leaving them in debt. I believe in paying my own way and having some left over at the end.
Since these networks don't actually measure deep ocean heat content, then they can't be "leveraged" for the claimed purpose.
Well, I checked on the first of the bunch. It looks like ARGO measures down to 2000 meters (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/How_Argo_floats.html). The study found enhanced warming between 700 and 2000 meters. So how did you conclude that these networks don't measure deep ocean heat content? Did you make that part up or do you have a source?
Again, this isn't direct observation.
They leveraged satellite data to fill in the unobserved regions. They showed that this technique works quite well by testing it on areas where we do have direct measurements.
holes which happen to conveniently contain a lot of alleged missing heat.
The "missing heat" isn't "alleged". It is observed that there is a top of atmosphere energy imballance [Trenberth, 2009; Trenberth et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2009]. The warming found in these two previously unobserved regions largely addresses the discrepancy between the energy that is accumulating in the system and the observed temperatures.
Do you have evidence for the claims you listed?
Of course - it's in the papers. they were linked! "Dubious"? "Alleged"? Really?
He seems to have it wrong. "Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade" (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html).
We have seen 0.23C per decade since the report was published: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2010/trend.
Above post is wrong... We have seen 0.23C per decade since the report was published: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2010/trend.
"Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15C and 0.3C per decade" (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html). We have seen 0.23C per decade since the report was published: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2010/trend.
I sympathize with your desire to reduce government. A revenue neutral carbon tax is probably still the best solution. This would allow the markets to decide which solution is most desirable - including possibly burning more gas/coal. If it is revenue neutral then we could reduce taxes on things that we actually want to encourage like sales and income.
If the global warmers want people to engage in large scale decivilization [why is that always the solution?].
That is perhaps a bit alarmist. Most people that I have talked with simply want to take steps to modernize our energy portfolio.
the missing heat is attributed to ignorance of our environment - it must be in the places we don't know much about, rather than to flaws in our models.
Except that the 'missing heat' is not just anticipated by models, but is also anticipated by observations of radiative imbalance: [Trenberth, 2009; Trenberth et al., 2009; Murphy et al., 2009]
And that we have taken efforts to measure previously unobserved regions and found that energy accumulating there largely accounts for the discrepancy in the observed top of atmosphere imbalance vs. the observed energy accumulated:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf - Leverages the ARGO/TAO/TRITON/PIRATA/RAMA to estimate ocean heat content and finds that warming has doubled in the most recent decade.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract - Leverages satellite data and finds that the arctic has been warming at 8 times the rate of the rest of the planet.
The first IPCC report in 1990 predicted (all else being equal) 0.15C and 0.3C per decade for business as usual. We have seen 0.16C per decade since the report was published. Even though all else has not been equal (natual factors such as solar and ENSO have had a cooling influence), the results are still within the predicted range. So far so good?
Solar output is typically around 1365.5 WM^-2. Every 11 years or so it rises by 0.5 or even as much as 1 WM^-2, but then falls back down to around 1365.5 after a few years. CO2 is currently causing a sustained forcing of 1.9 WM^-2 relative to preindustrial CO2 forcing (given by 5.35 LN(C/C0)). This sustained forcing dwarfs the periodic energy fluxuations from the sun.
Curiously, "skeptics" who argue that these small changes in solar output can cause the changes we've seen in temperature are arguing that the Earth is very sensative to relatively small forcings. If this is the case then it would seem inconsistant to also argue that the sustained forcing from CO2 is insignificant.