Guest essay by David Archibald
President Obama didn’t start the war on coal. That war had its origins back in the 1970s. The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982 with the establishment of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The CDIAC collects data on carbon dioxide concentrations around the planet and conducts experiments with pre-ordained outcomes. By that I mean growing plants in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations to study the effects of that on growth rates but at the same time adding ozone so that the growth would be stunted. Not everything the CDIAC is completely useless though.
The pause in global temperature rise might cause a loss of faith in the global warming faithfully so the priests of the movement are required to provide an explanation. The explanation they have come up with is that the missing heat is hiding in the depth of the Altantic Ocean and will one day leap out at us when we are least expecting it. This is an illustration of the heat gone AWOL:
The illustration shows heat plunging into the depths as far as 1,500 metres. The oceans don’t work like that. Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimetres of the ocean’s surface. Waves mix the water near the surface layer such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the top 100 metres. Below that there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water.
This is where the CDIAC comes in handy. Following is a map of CDIAC voyages in the Atlantic Ocean:
And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:
It shows how the Antarctic is a giant refrigerator for the planet. The dark blue in the bottom left is cold water below 1°C plunges near Antarctica and ponds in the deep ocean right up to the equator. The CDIAC voyages also record carbon dioxide data of course. This is the carbon dioxide and total alkalinity profile for A20, to the west of the A16 voyage:
Once again, most variation is near surface while the bulk of the ocean is effectively homogenous.
We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data. The CDIAC is well past its use-by date though. Apart from the unnecessary cost, it was conceived for a dark purpose under President Carter. The United States will need all the energy it can get soon enough.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
Reference:
Is Atlantic holding Earth’s missing heat?
Eli Kintisch
Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth’s missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? The suspects include changes in atmospheric water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, or the noxious sunshade of haze emanating from factories. Others believe the culprit is the mighty Pacific Ocean, which has been sending vast slugs of cold bottom water to the surface. But two fresh investigations finger a new suspect: the Atlantic Ocean. One study, in this issue of Science, presents sea temperature data implying that most of the missing heat has been stored deep in the Atlantic. The other, published online in Nature Climate Change, suggests a warming Atlantic is abetting the Pacific by driving wind patterns that help that ocean cool the atmosphere. But some climate specialists remain skeptical. In a third recent paper, also published online in Nature Climate Change, other researchers argue that the Pacific remains the kingpin. One reason some scientists remain convinced the Pacific is behind the hiatus is a measured speedup in trade winds that drive a massive upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest. A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.
katatetorihanzo August 25, 2014 at 8:30 pm
The statement that “there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water” is inconsistent with what is known as the meridional overturning circulation. This is driven by density differences governed by temperature AND salinity…
The statement is more than “inconsistent”, it is nonsense. Where there is no vertical mixing in the ocean, the bottom becomes anoxic. This happens in the Black sea and is why it has this name. But in most of the open ocean there is oxygen at depth originating from the surface.
Edward Richardson says:
Also, the word “unprecedented” is not a part of the Null Hypothesis.
ER, Richard Courtney knows what the Null Hypothesis says, and what it does. From your comment, it is clear that you don’t.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
phlogiston:
Hanzo argues incessantly without saying anything of value. I thought we were finally rid of his nitpicking, but he’s back again. Hanzo is a true believer in runaway global warming, and he actually believes it is happening right now. Yes, this very minute. And of course, he totally believes that humans are the reason. All his arguments are his attempt to support that preconceived conclusion. Typically, he cites NatGeo as his authority; a pop picture book source. And Wikipedia. SkS will probably be next.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
SonicsGuy,
I’ve tried to follow, but it seems you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you believe that NOAA is “quality”, you must be new here.
dbstealey on August 25, 2014 at 11:38 pm
Thanks for the heads-up on Hanzo. I just jumped in regarding a single comment.
My other posts here make a point about the null hypothesis of normative climate change. Essentially, Tung and Chen 2014 is a massive own goal in the net of team AGW. In making a flimsy and unconvincing excuse for the warming “pause” they unwittingly provide rock solid support for the null hypothesis that chaotic nonlinear climate is always changing. They supply a convincing mechanism in ocean vertical mixing and periodic oscillatory changes and corresponding variation in delivery of deep cold to the surface.
b fagan says:
The greenhouse effect is well understood, proven, and has been observed on Earth as well as on Venus, Mars and Titan.
Then why isn’t Mars experiencing runaway global warming? It’s atmosphere is well over 95% CO2.
When the predictions of runaway global warming collide with reality, they crash and burn. Do you think the reason in this case might be because planets are not closed greenhouses?
The earth’s atmosphere is only .04% CO2, not 95%. The concentration of that harmless trace gas has risen from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only about 4 parts in 10,000, in a century and a half. That minuscule change is what the alarmist crowd is hanging their hats on. Skeptics are amused at that.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented happening with global temperatures, which have been both higher and lower before, without any regard to CO2 levels. The extremely minor, ≈0.07ºC fluctuation in T, over the past 150 years, is supposed to be some sort of “proof” that we face runaway global warming? Honestly, doesn’t that sound silly?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
phlogiston,
Hanzo is riding the climate scare gravy train. His income depends on keeping the populace alarmed, and he will often argue non-stop using the most discredited sources. The one source he will not use is the real world, which contradicts his belief system.
When alarmists start making up excuses for the flat global average temperature trend, you know they are making it all up as they go along.
Why?
Remember the 2007 IPCC 4th Assessment Report? Around the world it was hailed as “the gold standard in climate science” based solely on peer-reviewed science (except that that was a lie)… the settled science… incontrovertible… indisputable. Funny how that report never covered the scenario of a flat temperature trend despite rising CO2 emissions! In effect, AR4 is now obsolete!
b fagan’
I have posted multiple links to charts showing no change in ocean pH. Here is just one example:
http://sanctuarymonitoring.org/regional_docs/monitoring_projects/100240_167.pdf
This should help:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again/#more-31112
The “acidification” scare is baseless. CO2 has been up to twenty times [20X] higher in the past, without ocean pH being affected due to the oceans’ immense buffering capacity.
Relax, there is nothing to worry about. pH isn’t gonna getcha.
dbstealey – you ask why Mars isn’t having a runaway greenhouse effect, with a 95% CO2 atmosphere. The quick answer is because it isn’t as close to the sun as Venus, and has a far smaller atmosphere, since Mars doesn’t way nearly as much as Earth or Venus.
But read this paper from one of the experts and you’ll know much more about the subject than now.
The paper is “Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature” by Ray Pierrehumbert in Physics Today from 2011. http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
And no climate scientist is predicting a runaway greenhouse effect here – they are predicting a greenhouse effect that matches the amount of greenhouse gases released, and we simply won’t be burning enough fuel to start a true runaway greenhouse.
They are also predicting warming lower than the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which is a very good thing. And the temperatures during the PETM are based on greenhouse gases.
Your comment about “The earth’s atmosphere is only .04% CO2, not 95%. The concentration of that harmless trace gas has risen from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only about 4 parts in 10,000, in a century and a half. That minuscule change is what the alarmist crowd is hanging their hats on. Skeptics are amused at that.”
No, people who confuse amount with effect are amused by that. All the plants on the planet are alive because of that minuscule amount of a silly gas. The Earth is 33C warmer than it would be because the persistent greenhouse gases keep water vapor cycling back into the atmosphere – otherwise it falls from the sky within weeks. People get jailed for drunk driving because of a minuscule amount of alcohol in their bodies. Certain chemicals are toxic at far lower concentrations than that.
Read the Pierrehumbert paper. He literally wrote the book on planetary atmospheres – well, one of them: “Principles of Planetary Climate”.
Friends:
The trolls have been very busy overnight. Much of their tripe has been answered by others. However, I answer two of them as a method to demonstrate how disingenuous and/or misguided they are.
Fitstly, SonicsGuy writes at August 25, 2014 at 4:27 pm saying in total
Oh dear!
SonicsGuy, either you are full of cr@p or you are deliberately providing falsehoods.
The “logic and symantic (sic) problems” are entirely yours!
Clearly, you don’t know what climate is!
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines “climate” in its Glossary which is here. The definition is
There cannot be “average weather” if weather does not vary.
There cannot be a “statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time” if weather does not vary.
And, importantly, “Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.”
Variation of the weather occurs within the climate system. Temperature variation is one of the parameters which is statistically described to define the climate system. A change to the system would be indicated by temperature variation (n.b. NOT temperature) changing by more than its previous variations.
I said and you have quoted me having said of the climate system
“A variation of 0.8 degrees is NOT evidence that the system has changed because such variations have happened before.”
That is true and it is completely consistent with the definitions of climate and of the climate system of the holocene.
You are being disingenuous when you conflate temperature “variation” with “change” to the range of temperature variation.
And your entire argument is false because it is built on a set of falsehoods which lead to your saying
“Beyond that, 0.8 C is about 1/10th the warming from a glacial to interglacial period. I think anyone would conclude that 10% of ice age is, indeed, a significant changes.”
NO! Only someone who knows nothing about climate and climate change could or would think and/or conclude such ridiculous nonsense!
And then we have b fagan at August 26, 2014 at 12:28 am.
b fagan, your first post was addressed to me and consisted entirely of untrue talking points derived from some unstated warmunist briefing note. I rebutted that twaddle in my reply at August 25, 2014 at 2:59 pm. Your response to my careful explanation is a ‘fingers in the ears’ rejection which is summed up by your saying
Yes, b fagan, I said that in my post you think you have answered. It would help if you were to open your mind to reality because then reality will crowd-out the untrue warmunist talking points which now fill your brain.
Richard
b fagan August 26, 2014 at 12:28 am
Richard, your reply to me was full of words, but little that bears reply. We have measures of fossil fuel extraction – recorded in the books of the energy companies. We know how much CO2 is produced per unit of fuel burned. We have recordings since 1958 of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, declining pH of ocean surface waters as they absorb CO2, and the amounts add up to what we see dug from the ground, when you allow for increased plant growth absorbing a bit of the remainder.
We have measurements of declining concentrations of atmospheric oxygen which are consistent with the amount of carbon burned in our fossil fuels.
In the light of palaeo climate and atmospheric data this alarmist CO2 narrative is impossible. Corals and bryozoans supposedly sensitive to CO2 acidification evolved during the Cambrian-Ordovician during which CO2 was at 3000-10000 ppm. Later during the Carboniferous CO2 levels, lower but still higher than today were accompanied by oxygen levels higher than today, not lower, as evidenced by supersize insects impossible in today’s 20% O2. For most of the Phanerozoic epoch of multicellular life co2 has been much higher than today with the biosphere in rude health and no sign of stress to the oceans (except during extinction events caused by bolides, flood basalts etc which oddly were followed not by runaway change but a reversion to life-supporting conditions).
If the total CO2 in the atmosphere were added to the oceans it would lower the ocean CO2 concentration by only 1ppm.
What planet are you on?
If the ocean is absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere, why is the concentration of CO2 near the surface, lower than that at depths? Sure, solubility is higher in deep cold water but how does it get there, if it is being removed progressively by marine organisms?
katatetorihanzo:
I write to ask a genuine and serious question.
In your post at August 25, 2014 at 8:30 pm you assert
No. In reality ice mass is increasing.
And you assert
Now that is pseudoscience at its finest!
Any data can be “adjusted” to show anything, and some charlatan has adjusted the surface temperature data to indicate what s/he wants. And you claim to be impressed by that!
You add similar nonsense then conclude saying
So, my question is;
Who supplies you and the others with the nonsense which you spout?
Richard
Richard, in your reply to katatetorihanzo I quote you, your pasted quote from him, and your reply:
“In your post at August 25, 2014 at 8:30 pm you assert
The ice mass at both poles are still diminishing without pause, and accelerating.
No. In reality ice mass is increasing.”
I believe that katetetorihanzo was referring to ice mass on the Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is measurably losing mass. He could also be talking about Arctic sea ice, or ice mass on the Greenland Ice Sheet, or on glaciers around the world. Ice sheets, glaciers and Arctic sea ice are declining globally. .
You ask where people who read science get their information – I’ll ask you please to also provide links to where you get yours, and blog posts are not accepted. Peer reviewed literature please, or centers where the observations are made.
First, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets losing mass. Here’s a recent research article for reference and a quote from the extract.
“A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance”
Science 30 November 2012: DOI: 10.1126/science.1228102
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183.abstract
“Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively. Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.”
And sea ice. The National Snow and Ice Data center tracks sea ice extents in Arctic Ocean and around the Antarctic continent. http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html – the page shows Arctic and Antarctic ea ice trends.
As they point out, the trend in decline in the Arctic is steeper than the trend in increasing Antarctic sea ice.
This matters because the declining ice extent during Arctic summers allows even more sunlight into the Arctic and surrounding waters, further increasing the warming, reducing ice, reducing albedo in a feedback loop. So opening the Arctic waters during the sunlit months is a positive feedback speeding the warming.
It also matters because even while sea ice is increasing around the Antarctic continent, the ice sheet on Antarctica itself is losing mass, which increases sea level.
Glaciers are generally shrinking, too. Another report from Science: “A Reconciled Estimate of Glacier Contributions to Sea Level Rise: 2003 to 2009”
Science 17 May 2013: DOI: 10.1126/science.1234532
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6134/852.abstract
“Glaciers distinct from the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets are losing large amounts of water to the world’s oceans. However, estimates of their contribution to sea level rise disagree. We provide a consensus estimate by standardizing existing, and creating new, mass-budget estimates from satellite gravimetry and altimetry and from local glaciological records. In many regions, local measurements are more negative than satellite-based estimates. All regions lost mass during 2003–2009, with the largest losses from Arctic Canada, Alaska, coastal Greenland, the southern Andes, and high-mountain Asia, but there was little loss from glaciers in Antarctica. Over this period, the global mass budget was –259 ± 28 gigatons per year, equivalent to the combined loss from both ice sheets and accounting for 29 ± 13% of the observed sea level rise.”
You can provide your science references if you want, here’s a Google Scholar search for you to help. Term is “global ice mass trend” and search is from 2010 to now.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2010&q=global+ice+mass+trend&hl=en&as_sdt=1,11
The Princeton Primers in Climate is a good book series on various aspects of how the climate works. Check them here http://press.princeton.edu/catalogs/series/ppic.html
Note from the titles that they don’t make scary “the end is near” noises. They are reviews of the science by experts. As I’ve told others, the warming and declining ocean pH are completely natural responses due to a sudden increase in atmospheric CO2. Doesn’t matter how the stuff got there – the planet is just going to respond according to the laws of nature.
I have work to do so can’t spend more time here. Read the books and links referenced above.
richardscourtney on August 26, 2014 at 2:35 am asks
katatetorihanzo:
“I write to ask a genuine and serious question…
Who supplies you and the others with the nonsense which you spout?”
ICE MASS LOSS:
With regard to accelerated global ice mass loss, I am persuaded by the GRACE satellite data which quantifies the mass (not ‘extent’ or area) of ice loss, with error bars, over the last 20 years during the so called ‘hiatus’. I am also persuaded by the number of consistent studies, all showing similar down trends, performed at 26 different labs.
“GRACE” are two satellites that detect mass changes by measuring the pull of Earth gravity and how it changes over time. It measures ice build up and ice mass declines.
QUANTIFIABLE:
I’m further persuaded when I see numbers rather than qualitative statements. “In Greenland, the ice mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in 2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.
In Antarctica the ice mass loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of −26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009.”
Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL040222/abstract;jsessionid=5CC63C213C94CF82C29D3519069FF8C7.f03t03
More recent (2011) http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html#.U7y-ZGt5mSN
REPRODUCIBLE:
I’m persuaded when I see multiple studies giving the same result. “In a landmark study published… in the journal Science, 47 researchers from 26 laboratories report the combined rate of melting for the ice sheets covering Greenland and Antarctica has increased during the last 20 years.”
UNCOMPLICATED:
Here is a great visualization of global ice mass loss:
Yellow represents mountain glaciers and ice caps
Blue represents areas losing ice mass
Red represents areas gaining ice mass
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGnM75T6iaE
All of the above is inconsistent with this assertion: “No. In reality ice mass is increasing.”
MASS IS NOT THE SAME AS EXTENT:
The only data cited to support the claim of increased global ice mass is the observation of increased sea area extent in Antarctica over 2.7 years (1000 days).
Sea ice extent: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/22/antarctic-sea-ice-has-been-above-average-for-1000-straight-days/”
Respectfully, I feel like I need to bring clarity to the distinction between “sea ice extent” and the declining ice mass trend as measured gravimetrically by GRACE satellites.
Sea ice extent is an area measurement (‘spread’), not a mass measurement. Consider, which is more money: A small pile of $1000 bills on your kitchen floor or the same floor covered with $100 worth of $1 bills?
Increasing the ‘spread’ with ever thinning ice whose extent is greatest in the Antarctic winter (minimum solar) is less important than the impact of increased solar energy absorption in increasing areas of ice-free Arctic ocean in the summer (max solar).
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPnj9eR7t0g
DECONVOLUTION:
When I asserted… “When surface temperatures were adjusted for known natural processes like ENSO and volcanic activity in the last 30 years, there was no pause observed in the mean global temperature increase due to the GHG component.”
…The refutation appeared to criticize the inappropriate use of “adjusted” data. In this context, “adjusted” refers to removing the effect of variation from known natural sources (ENSO, solar, volcanic aerosols) to better reveal the magnitude of ‘unnatural’ sources of temperature variation if present. The null hypothesis here is that natural sources of variation trump any anthropogenic variation. The approach is illustrated here and it is not unconventional.
GREENHOUSE EFFECT AND MARS
As for Mars, we inappropriately oversimplify the greenhouse effect with statements such as “∆T is the cause of ∆CO2” or vice versa. Temperature on Mars is not governed by solely by its proportion in the atmosphere but rather by the magnitude of the flux of incoming solar radiation (minus reflection) compared with the flux of outgoing IR radiation. The latter is impacted by the concentration of GHG. On Mars the concentration of CO2 is very low because the atmosphere is too thin (due to low gravity). Also dust storms impact the albedo and there’s no significant water vapor feedback. In other words, Mars is a terrible control experiment for the cause of the radiative imbalance seen on Earth.
As always, I challenge anyone to refute any of the claims above without ad hominem, speculative or conspiracist ideation.
Dr Burns:
At August 26, 2014 at 2:27 am you ask
I answer the CO2 is delivered to deep ocean from above and from below.
FROM ABOVE
CO2 is net flowing from the air into the ocean surface layer and then exchanges with the deep ocean.
FROM BELOW
CO2 is injected directly into the deep ocean by undersea volcanism.
So very little is known and understood about the carbon cycle that neither process is quantified and cannot be estimated.
Richard
b fagan,
I like how you get to have it both ways. Mars is farther from the sun, so it is colder.
If that negates the effect of all-powerful CO2, then the 95% CO2 atmosphere of Mars doesn’t really have any warming effect to speak of. So which is it? In reality, Mars’ distance from the sun fully explains its colder temperature.
Next, CO2 may have some minuscule effect, possibly even as much as 1ºC per doubling. But that truly is minuscule, because it is too small to even measure with current technology.
Stick around here for a while, instead of wasting your time at your usual alarmist blogs. You will learn worthwhile facts here. All you will ‘learn’ at alarmist blogs is misinformation, because they are political propaganda blogs, not science sites like WUWT.
You will learn here that globbal warming stopped, many years ago. That fact alone debunks the “carbon” scare. The incessant predictions were that runaway global warming would continue until there was a climate catastrophe. But when that didn’t happen, the predictions stopped. Now, the alarmist crowd is backing and filling, tapdancing around with words like “pause” and “hiatus”. All those words mean is that global warming has stopped. At last count, they were up to 38 excuses as to why global warming has stopped.
Next, you are correct that all the plants are alive because of that tiny, beneficial trace gas. But you do not go far enough: CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better, at current and projected concentrations. The “carbon” scare is preposterous nonsense. CO2 has been far higher in the past, during times when the biosphere thrived with life and diversity. All of the great extinction events took place during cold episodes. In fact, global T is lower now that the planet’s long term average. It has often been substabntially warmer, with no ill effects. Therefore, the arm-waving over the completely arbitrary 2º rise is nonsense. If global T rose by 2º, immense areas would be opened to farming, like Canada, Mongolia, Alaska and Siberia. A warmer world is a healtier world. And global warming raises low temperatures — it does not raise high temperatures higher. It warms at the higher latitudes, not at the equator. And it warms nights more than days. All net benefits. What’s not to like?
Finally, the climate null hypothesis has never been falsified. That means that everything currently being observed has happened before, and to a greater degree. Current climate parameters were all exceeded in the past. We have actually been living in a true “Goldilocks” climate for the past century and a half, and all the ridiculous Chicken Little clucking over a few tenths of a degree fluctuation is ridiculous nonsense. Honestly, we have never had it so good as a species. Leave it to the wild-eyed climate alarmist crowd to make a full glass half empty.
See? You are already learning some new facts. Stick around, and you will eventually conclude that you have been lied to. There is nothing wrong with more CO2, and all the scare stories are just that. It isn’t news to point out that nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening. The ‘news’ that sells advertising is news of looming catastrophes. But after a while, folks get tired of the incessant cries of “Wolf!!”
There is no runaway global warming wolf. And there never was one. It was always a false alarm.
richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 at 2:35 am
…
“No. In reality ice mass is increasing.”
…
That is false.
Sea levels continue to rise at > 3 mm/yr.
…
Half the rise is from melting ice.
Half the rise is from thermal expansion.
dbstealey
August 25, 2014 at 11:38 pm
…
“From your comment, it is clear that you don’t.”
Could you please cite a reference where the word “unprecedented” is a required part of the Null Hypothesis?
Edward Richardson:
I see you continue your campaign of disinformation and distraction.
For example, at August 26, 2014 at 7:06 am you ask dbstealey
Before he does, could you please justify your question by citing any reference where anybody claimed it is?
You see, Edward Richardson, I think this is another of your red herrings which attempts to distract from the subject of the thread.
Richard
Edward Richardson:
At August 26, 2014 at 6:59 am you provide yet more disinformation when you write
No. Total ice mass is increasing.
The Antarctic contains 90% of all the ice on Earth which continues to grow; see here.
Please provide references to substantiate your assertions when you make them because they are usually absurd.
Richard
dbstealey says:
“Then why isn’t Mars experiencing runaway global warming? It’s atmosphere is well over 95% CO2.”
The absence of pressure broadening of CO2’s spectral lines.
@richardscourtney:
No comments on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/#comment-1717630 ?
richardscourtney
August 26, 2014 at 8:48 am
..
“No. Total ice mass is increasing.”
…
False.
Sea levels are continuing to rise at 3 mm/yr.
Half of sea level rise is due to melting ice.
Richardscourtney wrote:
“The Antarctic contains 90% of all the ice on Earth which continues to grow; see here.”
Sorry, but no.
Antarctic land ice: -159 Gt/yr
McMillan et al: GRL (2014): http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060111/abstract
Antarctic sea ice: +26 Gt/yr
Holland et al, J Climate (2014): http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00301.1?af=R
Sonicsguy,
Yes, pressure broadening exists on Venus, but it is far too small of an effect to explain away the fact that Venus is near the sun and thus hot, and Mars is farther from the sun, and thus cold.
Not only that. It has been proven beyond doubt that changes in global temperature [T] are the cause of subsequent changes in CO2. There is no longer any doubt about that:
∆T causes ∆CO2
This is seen on all time scales from years, to hundreds of millennia [charts on request]. However, there is no comparable data or charts showing that changes in CO2 cause subsequent changes in T.
What would your conclusion be to those facts? Would you conclude that the alarmist crowd got its causation backward? Or would your response be the usual warmist reaction?
When facts that you are aware of change, the best course of action is to do what a scientific skeptic would do: change your mind. Arguing is just digging a deeper hole.
From the beginning the narrative has been that rising CO2 would cause runaway global warming leading to climate catastrophe. Now it turns out that T is the forcing, not CO2. Change your mind? Or dig?
@ur momisugly dbstealey: August 26, 2014 at 3:41 am
“It warms at the higher latitudes, not at the equator. And it warms nights more than days. All net benefits. What’s not to like?”
——————-
Right you are, dbstealey.
And there in the above is the “secret” that defines and/or explains all of the hyped and touted CAGW “junk science” claims about the ….. “increases in ‘average’ monthly/yearly near-surface air temperatures”.
The “average number” of a number “set” will decrease if any number in the “set” decreases.
And, conversely, the “average number” of a number “set” will increase if any number in the “set” increases
But, an increase in the “average number” of a number “set” does not mean that the highest number in the “set” was the one that increased.
Therefore, the calculated “average increase” in near-surface air temperatures does not mean, nor prove without a doubt, that the highest number in the near-surface air temperature number “set” is increasing and/or getting “hotter”. Does not prove, suggest, infer or imply that the average increase in CO2 ppm is causing said near-surface air temperatures to get “hotter”.
But the “warmer” night time and winter temperature(s) does mean, …. and does prove, …. that the average near-surface air temperatures will and/or have been increasing.
The Laws of Mathematics dictates said will occur. And all “average numbers” are abstract numbers and therefore have no physical quantative value and thus are only useful as reference information..
dbstealey
August 26, 2014 at 9:21 am
…
“∆T causes ∆CO2”
…
FALSE
…
Proof? 17 years of no increase of surface temperature, but CO2 has risen in the 17 year time span.
@ur momisugly Edward Richardson: August 26, 2014 at 9:27 am
““∆T causes ∆CO2″
…
FALSE
…
Proof? 17 years of no increase of surface temperature, but CO2 has risen in the 17 year time span.”
—————
Firstly, Edward R, you really should read and try to understand Henry’s Law which defines the fact that …. “∆T causes ∆CO2″, …. or the ingassing/outgassing of CO2.
REF: http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L23/web-L23.pdf
Also read up on the outgassing of CO2 via microbial decomposition (rotting/decaying) of dead biomass when surface temperatures are above 60 degrees F.
And secondly, the average temperature of the ocean has been increasing for the past 200+ years …. so it matters not that the near-surface air temperatures have not risen in the past 17 years. As long as the ocean water is “warming” then the outgassing of CO2 from the ocean will continue. And IT IS still “warming”, to wit:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/
Edward Richardson,
You dismiss empirical evidence with a one-word throwaway: “FALSE” ??
Then you fit this meme.
Your objection is very simple to explain. I’ve done it many times:
Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2. This happens on all time scales, from years, to hundreds of millennia.
The proof is irrefutable: ∆T causes ∆CO2. The reverse may be true to a small extent… but where are the charts?
I have been looking for years for comparable charts, showing that a rise in CO2 is the cause of a later rise in T. They don’t seem to exist. All we find are simple overlays of temperature and CO2. But those do not show causation.
Either produce charts showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T, or face facts: the alarmist crowd got causation wrong from the get-go.
Personally, I don’t think you can face those facts. Show me I’m wrong.