WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[weller2]

Of course, your traveler arrived at “City 1” in Europe by plane, so that needs to be added back in. But let’s say one lands in Paris and wants to go to Frankfurt, and we only count that part. Well, he can take a train. That will take anywhere from almost four to about six hours. Or, he can take a plane (and they do have flights between Paris and Frankfurt) and be there much faster. If people didn’t take the plane, they wouldn’t have the flights available, right?

First thing is that the distance from LAX to SAN is 200km, and FRA to Paris is 500km. Second thing is that for an intercontinental traveller the FRA-Paris route makes no sense, because you can fly directly to either ORL or CDG from any place in the world.

A better example is FRA - Dusseldorf (180km):



And note that it’s directly from the airport in Frankfurt to the city center in Dusseldorf. If you decide to fly from FRA to DUS, you have to add another hour to get to the city center from the airport. That said, there may be logistical benefits from doing so – but at least you have a viable low-energy alternative.

Alternative between SAN and LAX is what, 3 hours by car? Of course everyone will choose to fly.

And people wonder why the US economy is so energy-intensive.

NB, before you pick up the practical necessity of air travel between US coasts – the point is that long haul flights have much better fuel/energy/CO2 efficiency than short haul flights (<500km).

Also, as a site note: what is it that Amtrak will not give you a reserved seat on the express train? Polish railways have had a computerized seat reservation system since early 1990s.

 

[RGCheek]

No, your idea of a pause is wrong. I guess you haven’t been digging deeply enough into climate science to understand that the deeper oceans have been taking up a larger portion of the warming. The earth’s total heat content has been increasing, even if atmospheric temps have not increased significantly for over a decade.

That is an unproven theory that was not anticipated prior to the pause. So it is hardly more than an excuse dressed up in science drag.

Again; what is YOUR FAIL CONDITION for AGW? What has to happen to convince you that AGW is FALSE?

Any theory that does not have a fail condition is a tautology and not valid science.

 

[RGCheek]

That’s exactly the point – more population > more food needed > less chances of a food surplus. Which is why increasing population does not automatically mean increasing inventivesness to the level which will automatically solve all the problems created by the increased population.

If overpopulation causes resource strain to the point that there is no food surplus, or even no economic surplus – any further innovation stops.

You say that but where is the proof?

It is said for a reason that ‘Necessity is the mother of invention’, and in starving over populated medieval Europe charcoal making processes, crop rotation, use of manure as fertilizer and breeding techniques for domesticated animals all advanced with innovation and invention.

Where is the actual proof that ‘over populated’ nations have no innovation?

 

[weller2]

It is said for a reason that ‘Necessity is the mother of invention’, and in starving over populated medieval Europe charcoal making processes, crop rotation, use of manure as fertilizer and breeding techniques for domesticated animals all advanced with innovation and invention.

It was neither staving nor overpopulated, in the sense Africa or India in 1980s. Also, you should distinguish between the Early Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages – the first industrial revolution (sort of) only happened in the 12th century.

By the way, Renaissance is sort of a misnomer – it’s only impressive if you take 8th century as the baseline. If you compare it against 12-13th century… not so much. This when the real progress was made. One of the alleged causes of Renaissance was that the Black Death wiped out half of the population and freed up a lot of resources (land) resulting in a food and economic surplus.

Also, three-field crop rotation is much easier to invent than transgenic plants. The latter require some quite expensive hardware and personnel.

Where is the actual proof that ‘over populated’ nations have no innovation?

The graph was posted above --number of patent applications per capita is a good measure of innovation.

There are a very specific conditions which must be met for an innovation to happen.

 

[lynnvinc]

Funny that you brought this up. I’ve been on work related telecons with one of the foremost experts in methane hydrates at wood’s hole (see author) and have asked another coworker about this subject who has done hydrate research.

Basically, as far as I understand this, methane is undersaturated in the oceans and most or all of the CH4 from the destabilized hydrate would get absorbed into the ocean water before it can be released into the atmosphere to cause global warming. This isn’t to say it couldn’t happen in some circumstances, but the complexities of when this can happen escapes me.

If you have any questions about methane hydrates, I probably can find someone who has a good answer.

Thanks. Could you find out if anyone who really knows is making any connections between “warming going into the deeper oceans” and “hydrate melting and release” (I do understand that most CH4 is not going into the atmosphere…but if it gets decomposed, I think that would mean some CO2 going into the atmosphere – not sure).

Also I think this “warming going into the deeper oceans” is mainly in the Atlantic (not sure), which may also be why Atlantic hurricanes are not so prominent this year, as high sea-surface temps are a necessary condition for them to form.

I know David Archer (U. Chicago) is not so concerned about CH4 as he is about CO2, and is pretty conservative on the “hydrate shotgun” hypothesis.

As a scientist he is striving to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims. However, as a person concerned about life on earth striving the avoid the false negative of failing to address a true catastrophic problem, I’m more open to the higher end possibilities. I expect the worst and hope for and work for the best (or least harmful).

Another issue (which I’m sure will not become severe enough to worry about within this or the next few centuries) is that methane being turned into hydrogen sulfide and killing off a portion of life in the sea and on land, as may have happened toward the height of the end-Permian great warming as the warming seas became super-anoxic. See

• geology.gsapubs.org/content/33/5/397.full.pdf+html
• geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/36/9/747.abstract

 

[RGCheek]

It was neither staving nor overpopulated, in the sense Africa or India in 1980s.

The population of Europe went from about 30 million to nearly 90 million just before the Black plague. The towns and cities were teeming with poor people, so much so that some scholars think the ‘Children’s Crusade’ was merely an effort to get rid of excess population.

And overpopulation is overpopulation, no matter where or when. The real problem is the concentration of people where resources are limited. That creates necessity and that drives innovation.

Also, you should distinguish between the Early Middle Ages and Late Middle Ages – the first industrial revolution (sort of) only happened in the 12th century.

The first industrial revolution was not till modern times. I don’t know how to discuss the subject if you are going to simply redefine everything as we go.

By the way, Renaissance is sort of a misnomer – it’s only impressive if you take 8th century as the baseline. If you compare it against 12-13th century… not so much. This when the real progress was made. One of the alleged causes of Renaissance was that the Black Death wiped out half of the population and freed up a lot of resources (land) resulting in a food and economic surplus.

Agreed, the Black plague and all bad things have some good threaded into them.

But I wouldn’t, say, let Ebola out of Africa to get an increase in wage scales for the lucky survivors.

Also, three-field crop rotation is much easier to invent than transgenic plants. The latter require some quite expensive hardware and personnel.

But not all innovation and invention require expensive hardware and personnel.

The graph was posted above --number of patent applications per capita is a good measure of innovation.

That is not proof; it is merely a graphic illustration of your claim.

There are a very specific conditions which must be met for an innovation to happen.

Malarky. While I agree that said conditions makes for more innovation of the most unneeded kind, destitution often spurs innovation in a way similar to how war spurs innovation and invention.

Necessity is the Mother of Invention is patently TRUE.

 

[lynnvinc]

What has to happen to convince you that AGW is FALSE?

That’s easy. Global average temps (GAT) would have to go back down to what they were prior to 1970 and stay there for over 30 years. No problem there. I think that’s actually what the skeptics had predicted and they are WAY WRONG compared to climate scientists, who slightly overestimated what the GAT would be in 2013.

BTW, in his 1981 projection Hansen actually underestimated what GAT would be in 2000. Eyeball the mid-point of his projection on pg 4 (about .6 C) of pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf.

It is also interesting to note that he projected something higher with “no ocean heat capacity” (i.e., without the ocean taking up the heat), and something a lot lower with deeper ocean taking up more of the warming.

These scientists really know what they are talking about…compared to the skeptics. Though I have to say his underestimations smack of scientific reticence from striving to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims.

We people concerned about life on earth, OTOH, should be striving to avoid the false negative of failing to address true, serious life-threatening problems like AGW. You’d think.

 

[RGCheek]

That’s easy. Global average temps (GAT) would have to go back down to what they were prior to 1970 and stay there for over 30 years. No problem there.

So it a 30 year period is required to disprove something that must be acted on in the next 20 years or we all die? Yes, this is a con.

We people concerned about life on earth, OTOH, should be striving to avoid the false negative of failing to address true, serious life-threatening problems like AGW. You’d think.

The economic costs and hardship inflicted thus far to avoid the consequences of AGW is much higher, from what I have read, than any actual provable damage caused by AGW.

A classic con game is to convince a person that something horrid will happen to them unless you give them complete control of their assets, power of attorney, etc, so they can protect you from the coming disaster, but you cant know that the disaster wont happen until it is much too late to stop it. You just gotta trust us NOW.

No thanks.

 

[sps49]

So it a 30 year period is required to disprove something that must be acted on in the next 20 years or we all die? Yes, this is a con.

The economic costs and hardship inflicted thus far to avoid the consequences of AGW is much higher, from what I have read, than any actual provable damage caused by AGW.

A classic con game is to convince a person that something horrid will happen to them unless you give them complete control of their assets, power of attorney, etc, so they can protect you from the coming disaster, but you cant know that the disaster wont happen until it is much too late to stop it. You just gotta trust us NOW.

No thanks.

This is the essential point that must be made. The climate is never in equilibrium (energy balance) unless it is averaged for some period of time. They say the data must be averaged to reduce the “noise.” How are the start and end points on the data chosen? How “long” a run constitutes an “equilibrium” state? Obviously the current hiatus is not long enough for them, but why?

When these questions are asked, an answer pops out, usually one constructed around a grain of truth, such as the effect of CO2 on radiative transfer, but the rest is hand waving mixed with a liberal dose of “even if it’s not exactly right, we should do it anyway.” No wonder some have wondered about the ethical behavior of pro-AGW proponents, professional and otherwise. You are correct to be suspicious when the answer they give you is a mix of dire doomsday predictions, followed by “you are not smart enough to follow our arguments. Please consult a real climate scientist.” Reminds me of a Frank Zappa snippet, “Now is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?”

Trust your instincts, ask the questions that make them shriek and howl. It means you are on the right track.

 

[RGCheek]

This is the essential point that must be made. The climate is never in equilibrium (energy balance) unless it is averaged for some period of time. They say the data must be averaged to reduce the “noise.” How are the start and end points on the data chosen? How “long” a run constitutes an “equilibrium” state? Obviously the current hiatus is not long enough for them, but why?

When these questions are asked, an answer pops out, usually one constructed around a grain of truth, such as the effect of CO2 on radiative transfer, but the rest is hand waving mixed with a liberal dose of “even if it’s not exactly right, we should do it anyway.” No wonder some have wondered about the ethical behavior of pro-AGW proponents, professional and otherwise. You are correct to be suspicious when the answer they give you is a mix of dire doomsday predictions, followed by “you are not smart enough to follow our arguments. Please consult a real climate scientist.” Reminds me of a Frank Zappa snippet, “Now is that a real poncho or is that a Sears poncho?”

Trust your instincts, ask the questions that make them shriek and howl. It means you are on the right track.

Agreed.

This whole thing smells so bad I doubt that a feral alley cat would touch it.

 

[lynnvinc]

So it a 30 year period is required to disprove something that must be acted on in the next 20 years or we all die? Yes, this is a con.

It’s not so much we will die, as our children, progeny, and the poor (today and on into the future) will be harmed and die at a much higher rate with AGW – which could last for 100s, even 1000s, of years.

And, yes, it does take some 30 years to establish that AGW is happening, which is why it took them so long to establish it in 1995 when they had a pretty good idea it would be and was happening decades before 1995.

And it would take some 30 years of temps coming back down to 1970s levels and remaining there to establish it is not happening.

Sorry, but climate is quite complex and the science just takes quite a lot of time – frustrating for those who are concerned about its impact on life on earth and for the naysayers both.

The economic costs and hardship inflicted thus far to avoid the consequences of AGW is much higher, from what I have read, than any actual provable damage caused by AGW…

Totally wrong and just the opposite. We’ve been saving $1000s by mitigating AGW, reducing our GHG emissions over 60% below our 1990 levels, without lowering our living standards, even increasing them a bit. It has been estimated by experts that the US could reduce its conventional energy consumption by over 75% without lower productivity.

We’re just a bunch of mean-spirited, profligate spend-thrifts who do not care a blink about other people’s lives, including our own children’s.

When you consider the enormous costs from AGW impacts – which are already adding up in to many $billions, even tho we’re hardly in the beginning of it – you might say we are eating up our progeny’s future lickity-split and polluting them to boot.

 

[sps49]

It’s not so much we will die, as our children, progeny, and the poor (today and on into the future) will be harmed and die at a much higher rate with AGW – which could last for 100s, even 1000s, of years.

And, yes, it does take some 30 years to establish that AGW is happening, which is why it took them so long to establish it in 1995 when they had a pretty good idea it would be and was happening decades before 1995.

And it would take some 30 years of temps coming back down to 1970s levels and remaining there to establish it is not happening.

Sorry, but climate is quite complex and the science just takes quite a lot of time – frustrating for those who are concerned about its impact on life on earth and for the naysayers both.

Totally wrong and just the opposite. We’ve been saving $1000s by mitigating AGW, reducing our GHG emissions over 60% below our 1990 levels, without lowering our living standards, even increasing them a bit. It has been estimated by experts that the US could reduce its conventional energy consumption by over 75% without lower productivity.

We’re just a bunch of mean-spirited, profligate spend-thrifts who do not care a blink about other people’s lives, including our own children’s.

When you consider the enormous costs from AGW impacts – which are already adding up in to many $billions, even tho we’re hardly in the beginning of it – you might say we are eating up our progeny’s future lickity-split and polluting them to boot.

Excellent delivery. My ardent hope is that the pro-AGW folks utilize you as a primary public relation spokesperson. The rest of us who inhabit the real axis will continue the search for the truth.

 

[lynnvinc]

Excellent delivery. My ardent hope is that the pro-AGW folks utilize you as a primary public relation spokesperson. The rest of us who inhabit the real axis will continue the search for the truth.

Thanks! I’m getting pumped up for the Climate March tomorrow in our nearby town of McAllen, TX. There is a 50% chance of rain. Please pray that it doesn’t rain from 4 to 7 pm tomorrow. Thanks.

 

[sps49]

Thanks! I’m getting pumped up for the Climate March tomorrow in our nearby town of McAllen, TX. There is a 50% chance of rain. Please pray that it doesn’t rain from 4 to 7 pm tomorrow. Thanks.

The People’s Climate march, hmm.

To each their own.

 

[RGCheek]

It’s not so much we will die, as our children, progeny, and the poor (today and on into the future) will be harmed and die at a much higher rate with AGW – which could last for 100s, even 1000s, of years.

And, yes, it does take some 30 years to establish that AGW is happening, which is why it took them so long to establish it in 1995 when they had a pretty good idea it would be and was happening decades before 1995.

And it would take some 30 years of temps coming back down to 1970s levels and remaining there to establish it is not happening.

Sorry, but climate is quite complex and the science just takes quite a lot of time – frustrating for those who are concerned about its impact on life on earth and for the naysayers both.

Yes, more ‘act now before its too late’ con. You say that they took 30 years to establish it in 1995, but in 1965 who heard of any such nonsense? What paper was published in 1965 that predicted global warming?

And your demand for 30 years of data is not going to make any difference and you know that. If nearly 20 years isn’t enough another ten wont matter.

Totally wrong and just the opposite. We’ve been saving $1000s by mitigating AGW, reducing our GHG emissions over 60% below our 1990 levels, without lowering our living standards, even increasing them a bit. It has been estimated by experts that the US could reduce its conventional energy consumption by over 75% without lower productivity.

We’ve been saving thousands at the cost of MILLIONS dude. Entire industries with tens of thousands of jobs are being SHUT DOWN by Presidential edict because he buys into this AGW unproven theory.

The cost is already too high for something with nothing more than correlated effects for evidence.

We’re just a bunch of mean-spirited, profligate spend-thrifts who do not care a blink about other people’s lives, including our own children’s.

Yes, we human beings are so unworthy.

When you consider the enormous costs from AGW impacts – which are already adding up in to many $billions, even tho we’re hardly in the beginning of it – you might say we are eating up our progeny’s future lickity-split and polluting them to boot.

I would like to see that itemized, thank you.

We had hurricanes, forest fires, droughts and more long before AGW came along.

 

[vz71]

The graph was posted above --number of patent applications per capita is a good measure of innovation.

Assuming you wish to limit innovation to something that is patented.

But I believe that would disqualify most of the innovation throughout the history of mankind.

 

[lynnvinc]

Yes, more ‘act now before its too late’ con. You say that they took 30 years to establish it in 1995, but in 1965 who heard of any such nonsense? What paper was published in 1965 that predicted global warming?

I don’t think your really are interested, but here goes at least the beginnings of AGW predictions from the late 1800s (if I have time later I’ll get into more…):

• Chapter 1 of John Tyndall’s book, Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat (1873), discusses the infrared absorptive power of greenhouse gases.
• Svante Arrhenius, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground,” Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76 at globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
• And the list goes on up until today…

 

[sps49]

I don’t think your really are interested, but here goes at least the beginnings of AGW predictions from the late 1800s (if I have time later I’ll get into more…):

• Chapter 1 of John Tyndall’s book, Contributions to Molecular Physics in the Domain of Radiant Heat (1873), discusses the infrared absorptive power of greenhouse gases.
• Svante Arrhenius, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground,” Philosophical Magazine 1896(41): 237-76 at globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
• And the list goes on up until today…

I can’t speak for RGCheek, or anyone else on this thread, but I can express, speaking for myself, how absolutely tedious and boring it is to hear you and other pro AGW types go on and on about CO2 being the only “climate knob” that matters. Yes yes, Tyndall and Arrhenius. Big. Deal. They are mere props for your environmental doom saying amusement and social engineering desire. The climate, as it turns out, is a much more interesting phenomenon than your rhetoric claims. Try telling the whole story, stripped of your negative and judgmental narrative.

 

[Mark121359]

Again; what is YOUR FAIL CONDITION for AGW? What has to happen to convince you that AGW is FALSE?

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m convinced, seeing how some have become so completely obsessed with so-called MMGW, that Christ Himself couldn’t talk them out of it!

*** “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,” “It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years…Seven years from now!” ~Al Gore~***

According to recent reports, sea-ice levels are growing at both poles!..go figure Al.

Peace, Mark

 

[Ender]

And, yes, it does take some 30 years to establish that AGW is happening, which is why it took them so long to establish it in 1995 when they had a pretty good idea it would be and was happening decades before 1995.

If it takes 30 years of data to establish that warming is (or is not) happening in the atmosphere, why would it not also require 30 years of data to prove the same thing about the oceans? The problem with that requirement, however, is that there is nothing like 30 years of deep ocean data to go on. In fact, accurate and reasonably well distributed temperature probes didn’t even exist until the Argo system was introduced…beginning in 1999. They didn’t reach 95% of the planned 3000 buoys until June of 2007.

Lack of data was the reason this program was conceived, a problem with which the scientific community was well aware.Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. argo.ucsd.edu/ (emphasis in the original)
Here is NOAA on why Argo was needed.However, until Argo began in 1999, the lack of both systematic worldwide observations of key factors that influence climate and the lack of accurate models that use observational data in climate forecasting made understanding and predicting these changes difficult.

Prior to Argo, knowledge about the interior of the ocean came primarily from measurements taken by research ships, moored buoys, and commercial vessels. But, the immensity of the ocean and the limited area where these vessels and platforms took measurements left large data-sparse areas such as the southern oceans. Observations outside tropical waters were often restricted to periods of favorable weather. And, data collected were often limited to water temperatures in the upper 750 meters of the ocean, with depth inferred from elapsed time and a fall-rate equation used in conjunction with instruments “free-falling” through the ocean.
No comprehensive data on the deep oceans was available prior to, what, 2004? Come back in 2034 with data to support the claim that there has been warming. No? If you don’t have to wait for 30 years of data to conclude that the oceans have warmed then no one else has to wait 30 years to make their claims either.

Ender