WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[vz71]

If you think over decades, one decimal is all you need. If you think over centuries, you can forget the decimals.

Really?
What mathematical principle is this?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Really?
What mathematical principle is this?

The sufficiency of one or no decimal places was explained in the very next paragraph after the one you quoted. That paragraph was:

The temperature goes up by 2-3 degrees for every doubling of CO2. We managed to get to 400 ppm from the pre-industrial 280 ppm. In a few decades we’ll hit 560 ppm and I can’t see it stopping there either.

To talk about whether or not this assertion is true over the time period necessary to see a doubling of the CO2 level, one only need consider temperatures to the nearest degree. Since we are likely to witness a complete doubling of CO2 levels in a few decades from now, we will have our needed time period. So if the temperature is 2-3 degrees higher at that time than in pre-industrial times, the point will have been demonstrated. It is not necessary to measure temperature to an accuracy of any better than one degree to verify or disprove this assertion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So if the temperature is 2-3 degrees higher at that time than in pre-industrial times, the point will have been demonstrated.

Alternatively, one can recall that a good part of “pre-industrial times” was during the Little Ice Age. So, depending on what date one uses for his starting point, it might simply demonstrate that the Little Ice Age ended and has not (yet) returned.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Alternatively, one can recall that a good part of “pre-industrial times” was during the Little Ice Age. So, depending on what date one uses for his starting point, it might simply demonstrate that the Little Ice Age ended and has not (yet) returned.

Perhaps. But does this look like the rise during the industrial age is just the normal ending of the Little Ice Age? Note especially the rate of change of temperature.

 

[Ender]

The temperature goes up by 2-3 degrees for every doubling of CO2.

In the theoretical world perhaps; in the real world, apparently not. Doesn’t it cause you to ponder even for a moment why things aren’t occurring as you have been led to believe they would? Since the turn of the century CO2 levels have increased at least 10% yet the temperature has remained stubbornly constant. According to the “law” you cited above the temperature should have gone up 0.2-0.3 degrees, but it hasn’t. Do you deny that your assertion is contradicted by the facts?

Ender

 

[BernardMccoy]

Step one: Stop the Chicken Little routine. We’ve been hearing how “[THING] is going to kill us all!” for the better part of the past 100 years, and we’re still here.

Another thing that we’ve been hearing for a long time. “[AMAZING TECH] is only 20 years off!”. Some of these are plausible techs that could indeed be realized with sufficient funds - fusion, for example. Others are nothing but investment scams, like the infamous 100mpg carburetor.

When it’s cheaper to buy a tomato grown within 100 miles than one grown in Peru at the grocery store, I’ll do so. Honestly, it’s not that people want to pollute as much as possible or be deliberately wasteful. It’s that most people are trying to balance immediate cost and immediate convenience with existing demands on time. Believe me - I’d love to get all of my meat and veg from local farmers. But I don’t have the time available to make that a realistic, everyday means of buying food.

Solar and wind are feel-good tech. The reality is that wind farms are about as inefficient as one can get in terms of energy output from a given parcel of land, and solar panel manufacture requires some fairly hazardous chemicals, while only being slightly more efficient than wind in terms of land utilization. Tidal and hydroelectric are limited by location. If one honestly wants to get off of fossil fuels in an efficient manner, then the only real choice is nuclear. It’s the most efficient in terms of both fuel usage and land usage, and it is classified as a “carbon-free” source by the IPCC.

We can also look at neighborhood power stations running Generation IV reactors. Several designs are small and safe enough that I’d be comfortable having one in my basement.

Seriously - the keys to getting people on board with reducing CO2 and GHG emissions is to show that it can be done without any loss of their present lifestyle (no “skyrocket” utility bills), and to stop the Chicken Little alarmism.

I do agree with your opinions…We are still not able to find an effective renewable energy source which can control global warming.

 

[lynnvinc]

I do agree with your opinions…We are still not able to find an effective renewable energy source which can control global warming.

There will be no silver bullet to solve the problem, only 1000s of things we can do thru enery/resource efficiency/conservation and alt energy when feasible. That can get us down to a 75% reduction in GHGs.

We need to consider that every product has a GHG component in it’s resource extraction, shipping, processing; manufacture; wholesaling & retailing; shopping; and disposal. We need to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and buy Recycled goods, etc.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We need to consider that every product has a GHG component in it’s resource extraction, shipping, processing; manufacture; wholesaling & retailing; shopping; and disposal. We need to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and buy Recycled goods, etc.

Ever been to a metal recycling facility? You would not believe the energy it takes to do that. That’s one of the reasons why a lot of metal never gets recycled.

 

[Monkey1976]

Ever been to a metal recycling facility? You would not believe the energy it takes to do that. That’s one of the reasons why a lot of metal never gets recycled.

For one excellent example, watch the Alton Steel episode of Dirty Jobs. Almost all steel in the US today is recycled, but they only run the big furnaces late at night to keep from overtaxing the power grid.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For one excellent example, watch the Alton Steel episode of Dirty Jobs. Almost all steel in the US today is recycled, but they only run the big furnaces late at night to keep from overtaxing the power grid.

And when Obama makes utility bills “skyrocket”, I guess we’ll need to import recycled steel from China.

 

[Monkey1976]

And when Obama makes utility bills “skyrocket”, I guess we’ll need to import recycled steel from China.

Bingo. Never mind the extreme pollution from their methods, or the fuel burned by the freighters moving the steel, or the working conditions they suffer under - us enlightened people need to save the planet!

 

[Hans_W]

In the theoretical world perhaps; in the real world, apparently not. Doesn’t it cause you to ponder even for a moment why things aren’t occurring as you have been led to believe they would? Since the turn of the century CO2 levels have increased at least 10% yet the temperature has remained stubbornly constant. According to the “law” you cited above the temperature should have gone up 0.2-0.3 degrees, but it hasn’t. Do you deny that your assertion is contradicted by the facts?

Ender

I am happy to answer this question - again.

We are talking about global warming not atmospheric warming. Global warming includes warming the oceans, rocks, ice - not just the air around the globe. Only a tiny fraction of the heat goes into the atmosphere. Most of it goes into the oceans. We know that.

And please don’t ask again how the oceans can warm without the air getting warmer. That has also been answered many times.

 

[estesbob]

I am happy to answer this question - again.

We are talking about global warming not atmospheric warming. Global warming includes warming the oceans, rocks, ice - not just the air around the globe. Only a tiny fraction of the heat goes into the atmosphere. Most of it goes into the oceans. We know that.

And please don’t ask again how the oceans can warm without the air getting warmer. That has also been answered many times.

There was not one single model produced by any climate scientist that involved anything but atmospheric warming. The idea that the warming somehow ended up in the oceans is an unproven hypothesis and , again, was not predicted by a single model produced in the last 30 years. What we have is scientists who have been consistently wrong desperately trying to convince us we should trust them even though they haven’t been right yet

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am happy to answer this question - again.

We are talking about global warming not atmospheric warming. Global warming includes warming the oceans, rocks, ice - not just the air around the globe. Only a tiny fraction of the heat goes into the atmosphere. Most of it goes into the oceans. We know that.

And please don’t ask again how the oceans can warm without the air getting warmer. That has also been answered many times.

The rocks?

As a resident of the Ozarks, I have a great deal of familiarity with rocks since they’re ubiquitous, and I can assure you they are not warming more than they did when I was a kid, and then only in warm weather and then only when they’re in the sun. They promptly lose it at night when the heat goes into…the atmosphere. (excellent for strawberries, by the way)

But in the caves, of which there are many, and all made of rock? No warming at all for lo these many decades, with records to prove it.

 

[estesbob]

The rocks?

As a resident of the Ozarks, I have a great deal of familiarity with rocks since they’re ubiquitous, and I can assure you they are not warming more than they did when I was a kid, and then only in warm weather and then only when they’re in the sun. They promptly lose it at night when the heat goes into…the atmosphere. (excellent for strawberries, by the way)

But in the caves, of which there are many, and all made of rock? No warming at all for lo these many decades, with records to prove it.

I think he is referring to volcanoes

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There was not one single model produced by any climate scientist that involved anything but atmospheric warming.

Really? Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proofs. And this is certainly an extraordinary claim. I am certain that no knowledgeable climate scientist would construct a model of the climate that totally ignored the effect of the oceans being there and sourcing and sinking heat.

 

[estesbob]

Really? Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proofs. And this is certainly an extraordinary claim. I am certain that no knowledgeable climate scientist would construct a model of the climate that totally ignored the effect of the oceans being there and sourcing and sinking heat.

Then you should be able to point us to the model that predicted no atmospheric warming for 18 years because it was going to go in the ocean

 

[Exiled_Child]

I was actually thinking (briefly) of posting this article in World News, but I like reading this thread (even though I never post in it), and plus it’s got tons of traction. Anyway, what do you all make of this?

utahpeoplespost.com/2014/10/east-coast-cities-will-experience-daily-tidal-floods/

Because the sea level rises, the East Coast will end up suffering from daily tidal floods, a research shows. The Union of Concerned Scientists looked at data concerning 52 cities and reached the conclusion that by 2045, many of them will face tidal floods even more than once a day.

The cities, stretching for Portland, Maine to Freeport, Texas, will end up being victims of climate change. As the sea level rises, the number of floods increases. The authors compare the events with slam dunks. If the floor is closer to the basket, the number of slam dunks will increase.

In three decades from now, some cities, like Washington DC and Annapolis, will witness around 400 floods each year. Miami, Atlantic City, Lewisetta and Windmill Point, among others, will only experience around 240 days of flooding. Baltimore, Norfolk, Philadelphia and Charleston will have 180 days when they will struggle with flooding in 2045.

“Several decades ago, flooding at high tide was simply not a problem,” said Melanie Fitzpatrick, report co-author and climate scientist at UCS. “Today, when the tide is extra high, people find themselves splashing through downtown Miami, Norfolk and Annapolis on sunny days and dealing with flooded roads in Atlantic City, Savannah and the coast of New Hampshire.”

The authors warn that other cities not included in the analysis will probably have to prepare for a similar fate. The study included two projections, one for 2030 and another for 2045. In 15 years from now, the number of annual tidal floods may triple and, in some cases, itmay increase tenfold in 30 years.

What today is called a ‘nuisance flood’ will end up being a huge problem, as they will transform into ‘extensive’ floods – “floods that are deeper, reach further inland, last longer and threaten life and property.” They will be present in seven cities.

The problem is that global warming causes the polar ice caps to melt and rise the ocean levels, as Melanie Fitzpatrick, UCS climate scientist, says. She urges for international and national action to stop the pollution causing the climate to heat up.

Local municipalities will now have an extra budget category to address. In order to reduce the devastating effects of tidal flooding, they will need to invest unprecedented sums in adequate infrastructure. Miami already invested $400 million in a new pumping stations, while Norfolk needs to invest $1 billion in the flood protection system.

 

[Hans_W]

Really? Extraordinary claims required extraordinary proofs. And this is certainly an extraordinary claim. I am certain that no knowledgeable climate scientist would construct a model of the climate that totally ignored the effect of the oceans being there and sourcing and sinking heat.

Yes, that happens when people discuss things they have little knowledge of.

 

[Hans_W]

I was actually thinking (briefly) of posting this article in World News, but I like reading this thread (even though I never post in it), and plus it’s got tons of traction. Anyway, what do you all make of this?

utahpeoplespost.com/2014/10/east-coast-cities-will-experience-daily-tidal-floods/

Because the sea level rises, the East Coast will end up suffering from daily tidal floods, a research shows. The Union of Concerned Scientists looked at data concerning 52 cities and reached the conclusion that by 2045, many of them will face tidal floods even more than once a day.

The cities, stretching for Portland, Maine to Freeport, Texas, will end up being victims of climate change. As the sea level rises, the number of floods increases. The authors compare the events with slam dunks. If the floor is closer to the basket, the number of slam dunks will increase.

In three decades from now, some cities, like Washington DC and Annapolis, will witness around 400 floods each year. Miami, Atlantic City, Lewisetta and Windmill Point, among others, will only experience around 240 days of flooding. Baltimore, Norfolk, Philadelphia and Charleston will have 180 days when they will struggle with flooding in 2045.

“Several decades ago, flooding at high tide was simply not a problem,” said Melanie Fitzpatrick, report co-author and climate scientist at UCS. “Today, when the tide is extra high, people find themselves splashing through downtown Miami, Norfolk and Annapolis on sunny days and dealing with flooded roads in Atlantic City, Savannah and the coast of New Hampshire.”

The authors warn that other cities not included in the analysis will probably have to prepare for a similar fate. The study included two projections, one for 2030 and another for 2045. In 15 years from now, the number of annual tidal floods may triple and, in some cases, itmay increase tenfold in 30 years.

What today is called a ‘nuisance flood’ will end up being a huge problem, as they will transform into ‘extensive’ floods – “floods that are deeper, reach further inland, last longer and threaten life and property.” They will be present in seven cities.

The problem is that global warming causes the polar ice caps to melt and rise the ocean levels, as Melanie Fitzpatrick, UCS climate scientist, says. She urges for international and national action to stop the pollution causing the climate to heat up.

Local municipalities will now have an extra budget category to address. In order to reduce the devastating effects of tidal flooding, they will need to invest unprecedented sums in adequate infrastructure. Miami already invested $400 million in a new pumping stations, while Norfolk needs to invest $1 billion in the flood protection system.

Alarmists painting the end of the world with everybody drowning are just as bad as the deniers.