WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[LeafByNiggle]

Then the evidence for that should be easily acquired; where is it?

Why do you think it is easy to acquire evidence of an increase in 0.002 deg. C in the deep ocean when averaged over all the world? Remember, the ocean has many many times the specific heat of the atmosphere. It takes only a tiny change in ocean temperature to offset a much larger change in atmospheric temperature. I learned that in high school 50 years ago, long before AGW was an issue.

Really? Average global temperatures are facts of the public domain; you really want me to prove them to you?

I gave you the average global temperature facts from the public domain in post 149, but you chose to disbelieve it. Since you don’t like my public record source, I think you should present your public source so we can evaluate them. Apparently not all public information sources are equal, eh?

 

[lynnvinc]

Should we fight climate change? Should we fight a rainy day? Should we fight a sunny day. Should we fight a cold day? When someone has an answer without the need for taxes, with a solution that is more realistic than the question, then I 'll respond to this Man Made Disaster.

Well, here’s something that doesn’t cost – prayer. You can pray for things. And if you haven’t got a half’enny then God bless you.

Here’s what I’ve always said if we want the rain to stop: “Rain, rain, go away, come again another day…” But that didn’t work well last Sat when we got stuck in a parking lot “flood.”

In fact, I’m sort of thinking that the real cause for the pause is my ardent prayers to stop GW. Prayer really does work, even if kiddie jingles don’t.

 

[estesbob]

There is nothing magical about it. It has been known for centuries that when the sun shines on water the water gets warmer. It has also been known for centuries that when you stir a container of water, the warm water on the top mixes with the cooler water below.

Then why did none of the Climate Scientists predict this?

 

[weller2]

As I’m sure you know, an increase in the planet’s albedo will reduce the amount of energy absorbed by the planet and re-emitted as IR. An increase in cloud cover will increase the albedo. I don’t have any idea what the increase would have to be in order to have a significant effect, but, again, the problem with oversimplifying the climate system to “CO2 is all that matters” is that it ignores everything else going on.

Problem is, if cloud feedback was negative and larger than CO2 feedback, then CO2 sensitivity would be zero – as any CO2-driven warming would be immediately counteracted by increased albedo. That’s clearly not the case.

I could buy a claim that for whatever reason cloud feedback kicked it after 1998 to stop further warming, however that still does not imply that you can pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into atmosphere with impunity – an increased positive CO2 feedback will ultimately overcome the cloud feedback.

Policy-wise, there is no alternative to CO2 reduction.

Actually there is, but it involves artificially seeding clouds with SO2 to increase albedo. However, to talk about geoengineering one has to first acknowledge that humans can modify climate.

 

[weller2]

[deep ocean heat sink] would explain the longstanding mismatch between basic physics approach and paleo data (former gives you 2C sensitivity, the latter 4C on average)

Actually, I got that backwards. Deep ocean heat sink would mean that paleo data underestimates radiative transfer by a factor of two – as half of the warming predicted by radiative transfer gets sunk into the ocean. This is of course the exact opposite of what we have (paleo is 4C vs 2C for radiative transfer).

The interesting part is that none of our skeptical experts has noticed my obvious blunder…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Then why did none of the Climate Scientists predict this?

Because they did not know the stirring would take place. In case you haven’t noticed, it is hard to predict the weather.

 

[gilliam]

I don’t think we know very much about the deep ocean either.

 

[weller2]

Do you have any idea of the economic hardship that would create?

That depends on several factors.

Theoretically, a scenario involving a high CO2 cap (low climate sensitivity), several technological break-throughs and a worldwide uptake of Nordic economic model could accomplish the transition without a substantial decrease in quality of life.

On the other hand, a scenario involving high climate sensitivity, no technological breakthroughs and unchecked neoliberal capitalism would probably lead to the civilization collapsing to Mad Max state sometime around 2050-2070.

As usual, the scenario which will play itself out will be something intermediate – meaning substantial hit to GDP per capita but no catastrophe. If you look closely at economic data a noticable decline in prosperity is already underway (and it cannot be really blamed on global warming – not yet, anyway). On the upside there are some good news on the technology front.

 

[gilliam]

…and a worldwide uptake of Nordic economic model could accomplish the transition without a substantial decrease in quality of life. .

How do you propose that is going to happen? Especially in the countries now pumping the most CO2 into the air? I’m also not sure how the Nordic economic model affects global emissions anyway.

Climate Change | US EPA

Comprehensive information from U.S. EPA on issues of climate change, global warming, including climate change science, greenhouse gas emissions data, frequently asked questions, climate change impacts and adaptation, what EPA is doing, and what you can do.

www.epa.gov

 

[estesbob]

Because they did not know the stirring would take place. In case you haven’t noticed, it is hard to predict the weather.

All the more reason to impose massive new regulations and taxes.

 

[weller2]

I’m also not sure how the Nordic economic model affects global emissions anyway.

It allows maximizing HDI while minimizing energy use and CO2 production per capita.

 

[gilliam]

Per capita isn’t the way to look at CO2 emissions. What matters is the amount going into the atmosphere.

 

[estesbob]

It allows maximizing HDI while minimizing energy use and CO2 production per capita.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...n_Development_Index_per_country,_2006.svg.png

So?

 

[RGCheek]

Why do you think it is easy to acquire evidence of an increase in 0.002 deg. C in the deep ocean when averaged over all the world? Remember, the ocean has many many times the specific heat of the atmosphere. It takes only a tiny change in ocean temperature to offset a much larger change in atmospheric temperature. I learned that in high school 50 years ago, long before AGW was an issue.

I gave you the average global temperature facts from the public domain in post 149, but you chose to disbelieve it. Since you don’t like my public record source, I think you should present your public source so we can evaluate them. Apparently not all public information sources are equal, eh?

Those temps are ‘adjusted’ and the set is incomplete with contrary data omitted.

I would like to work with the raw, original, unadjusted data, and that chart does not use such.

 

[weller2]

All the more reason to impose massive new regulations and taxes.

But of course! Someone will have to pay back the debts of the Baby Boomers (both monetary and environmental). In one lifetime, they’ve managed to burn through centuries worth of accumulated social wealth, 100 million years worth of fossilized sunlight and they’ve left us with debt (and CO2).

 

[weller2]

Per capita isn’t the way to look at CO2 emissions. What matters is the amount going into the atmosphere.

No. It’s all about the Third World. If India, Africa, etc. follow the high-emissions path the West took, CO2 will shoot through the roof. They must be put on a path which can combine high HDI with low emissions. That, or the developed countries must cut their CO2 emissions (to accommodate the increasing Third World emissions) while maintaining HDI.

Either way, the challenge is the same.

 

[weller2]

So?

So, the planet cannot really support four billion people in Africa, India and China driving gas-guzzling SUVs, err… all living in a US-style economy. Forget global warming – we would run out of oil.

 

[estesbob]

So, the planet cannot really support four billion people in Africa, India and China driving gas-guzzling SUVs, err… all living in a US-style economy. Forget global warming – we would run out of oil.

Malthus claimed this 200 years ago. Last time I checked we are still here.

 

[estesbob]

No. It’s all about the Third World. If India, Africa, etc. follow the high-emissions path the West took, CO2 will shoot through the roof. They must be put on a path which can combine high HDI with low emissions. That, or the developed countries must cut their CO2 emissions (to accommodate the increasing Third World emissions) while maintaining HDI.

Either way, the challenge is the same.

And since there is no evidence that CO2 is a problem I say let them grow! In fact we should find a way to ship our abundant supplies of coal to them.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Those temps are ‘adjusted’ and the set is incomplete with contrary data omitted.

I would like to work with the raw, original, unadjusted data, and that chart does not use such.

So do it already, and show me that raw, original, unadjusted data that made you think the temperature went up 1 deg. C in 50 years following the Little Ice Age, like you claimed.