Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 Next
Comments 35751 to 35800:
-
Tom Curtis at 14:02 PM on 8 July 2014Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
NotAFossil @215 starts by saying, "If science was based on popular opinion, the earth would still be flat - and at the center of the universe."
When you first arrive at SkS, you see a button "Newcomers Start Here". If you follow it, it provides you with (among other things) a paragraph on good places for newcomers to start, including "Warming Indicators", "10 Human Fingerprints on Climate Change", "empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming", and then in the following paragraph, "Global Warming in a Nutshell" and "The History of Climate Science". The last of those also appears as a button on the home page, as does "The Big Picture". Of these, only the last mentions consensus at all, and that only the consensus of economists. Rather than focussing on the consensus, they all focus on the emperical evidence which shows global warming to be real, human caused, and potentially catastrophic.
The core of this website are the 176 rebutals to pseudo-skeptical myths about global warming. Of those, only 14 (8%) discuss the consensus. The rest primarilly focus on the scientific evidence for AGW (there are a few dealing with discussions of fraud). Of course, that 8% does not represent the level of SkS interest in the consensus. Rather, it reflects the level of pseudo-skeptic misinformation trying to persuade the uninformed that no consensus exists, even though it clearly does. (Note, due to an idiosyncrasy of the SkS search engine, it will search draft blog posts in addition to ones actually published. At least 1 of the 14 rebutals above is still in draft form, so is not actually part of the 176 published arguments. Ergo, 8% is an overstatement of the actual figure.)
From this, it is very clear that SkS realizes that it is not the consensus but the scientific evidence itself that is the real reason for accepting AGW. They discuss the consensus only to show the false claim by pseudo-skeptics that there is no consensus, that climate scientists are heavilly divided about AGW, is in fact a false claim.
Despite this, we repeatedly get pseudo-skeptics like NotAFossil who come in with their little slogans as if SkS ever argued that science is settled by consensus. They show by the way the focus on the consensus issue that, not only are they arguing a strawman, but they are actively avoiding engaging with the evidence that is so copiously presented elsewhere on SkS.
-
scaddenp at 11:44 AM on 8 July 2014Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Not to pile on too much, but not looking at public opinion but at informed opinion. Informed opinion since 2nd Century BC was that world was round.
We now have 3 different studies with different methodologies coming to same conclusion as to the state of scientific consensus. (the lastest published result is this one which is survey of publications).
It is absolutely given that a consensus does not make a theory correct. However, it is a myth that there is no scientific consensus. For policy makers, going with the consensus is the only rational choice. If you were ill, would you be like this guy? It's not like there is any other credible theory of climate.
-
Bob Loblaw at 10:21 AM on 8 July 2014Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
NotAFossil:
The first step in writing a scientific paper or theses is the literature review. You are unlikely to advance the science if you don't know what it is. Knowledgable scientists base their opinions on the published literature, as well as their own work.
Follow the links to see what the quoted studies say. Then also follow this link to the paper that was based on "The Consensus Project" work (menu item at the top of the SkS page), where the "survey" is a survey of the literature - first by looking at abstracts, then by getting feedback from the authors of papers.
The result? The scientific literature on "global climate change" and "global warming" (the keywords in the search) is also almost universally in support of the idea that humans are responsible for over half of the recent warming.
This is scientific evidence that knowledgable, informed scientists are largely in agreement on the basics, which refutes the alternative argument that there is still significant scientific debate on whether or not humans are having an effect.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:53 AM on 8 July 2014Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
The difference, NAFFFA (@215), is that realizing the world is a sphere is a a result of a scientific process. It was the result of careful observation. Same with the heliocentricity. Casual observation might make you think the sun revolves around the world, but it was careful scientific research that gave us the real answer.
Climate science is the same. We now have 150+ years of careful research showing us that CO2 is the biggest control knob managing the temperature of the earth. That nearly all researchers agree with this position is not surprising, given the overwhelming body of research.
-
NotAFossilFuelFundedAnything... at 09:12 AM on 8 July 2014Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
If science was based on popular opinion, the earth would still be flat - and at the center of the universe. A two-question, vaguely worded survey of scientists, regardless of their qualifications, should not be tossed around like its scientific evidence of anything.
-
CBDunkerson at 00:37 AM on 8 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
funglestrumpet wrote: "...personal transport that can go futher than the local supermarket without needing a flatbed truck to get it back home."
Chevy Volt? Nissan Leaf? Tesla?
We're well past the 'local use only' stage of electric vehicles. The Volt only has a 38 mile electric range, but that is enough to cover most daily automobile usage. The Leaf's 100 mile range covers something like 98%, and Tesla's 265 mile range (more with an extra battery pack) is good for anything short of non-stop cross country driving... and even that would be possible if their battery switching stations proliferate.
Granted, these vehicles are pricey, but the cost of rechargeable batteries is coming down almost as fast as solar... which is also helping with the need to store solar power in general.
Solar power and electrical storage are clearly going to supplant fossil fuel electricity production over the next few decades. That has been obvious for a few years now and getting moreso all the time. The only places you see fossil fuel generation increasing are the developing world (where they are ramping up every form of power generation they can) and temporarily in places like Japan and Germany that have shut down nuclear. Everywhere else you've got renewable power, mostly solar, growing faster than everything else combined. Transportation isn't as obvious, but a conversion from petroleum to electric power is now within reach and will be helped along by the falling price of solar electric power.
-
PhilippeChantreau at 00:29 AM on 8 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Well Glenn I can't say that I would ever advise to disagree with Thermodynamics... :-)
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:05 PM on 7 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
funglestrumpet
""Or better still, seek some much needed councelling."
The image of the Koch's and similar seeking 'councelling' might just do my head in. Like we have just fallen down the rabbit hole into Wonderland and discovered it ain't too bad.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 20:02 PM on 7 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
And someone from the Tea Party agreeing with left-wing renewable advocates!!!!
WOW.
This isn't just technically disruptive. It could be amazingly politically disruptive as well. The Koch's may come to regret ever starting the Tea Party.
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 19:46 PM on 7 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Phillippe
"Of course, it would involve changing the ways of the old fashioned monopolistic utilities in place in the US, which have a lot of friends in the right places..."
But there are a lot of other folks, hard-headed money people, who will vote with their check-books. In the long run (perhaps not so long) if I had to back big-money and politics against big-money and thermodynamics I would back the latter.
The politicians may get away with protecting big-business from 'the people'. But they struggle to protect big-business from other big-business.
Eventually even the dinosaurs were forced to look up and pay attention to the huge disruptive streak arcing across the sky
-
PhilippeChantreau at 13:16 PM on 7 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
The pdf was interesting. The smaller scale systems they prototyped were only in the 100-200 kW range, I think. I'm envisioning an integrated solar/PHES turn key system at the scale of a regular house that would allow you to keep your refrigerator going and charge your car at night, then during the day recharge, and feed the grid when you're not home and not needing much power. If you could price the whole system, installed, at 100 grands, you could have a 200K house for 300 k with the added benefit of being truly carbon neutral or even negative over its lifetime. Such a house would likely have been priced that high anyway only 6 or 7 years ago, and for no good reason. That would make Steve Jobs look like a caveman.
Of course, it would involve changing the ways of the old fashioned monopolistic utilities in place in the US, which have a lot of friends in the right places...
-
Paul D at 04:08 AM on 7 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
PhilippeChantreau @ 17
The gas they are using is I believe Argon, which may go some way to help??
Just found this article, which includes a photo of a prototype machine, I have not seen a photo of it before:
http://www.isentropic.co.uk/uploads/Article_Recharge_News.pdf
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
PhilippeChantreau at 01:35 AM on 7 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Paul, I have to admit the PHES technology by Isentropic looks really impressive on paper. The scalable aspect is especially interesting in my opinion. I wonder how long you can keep the energy in storage without thermic losses. Still, it seems to open all sorts of possibilities. Thanks for sharing.
-
Paul D at 01:22 AM on 7 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
ianw01 they recently posted this Youtube video:
Which explains in detail how it (PHES) works.
They are currently developing/building a grid level system which will be tested at a substation in the Midlands region on the UK grid. -
ianw01 at 23:34 PM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Paul D @ 13:
Thanks for the fascinating link. That round trip efficiency of 72%-80% is impressive! -
Paul D at 19:05 PM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
funglestrumpet @ 4
It appears that tractor manufactures are replacing the hydraulic systems on some new models with electric systems. Effectively the tractor has a diesel generator on board and the wheels and attached equipment are electrically driven.
That suggests that there is a path in the future to fully electric tractors.
-
Paul D at 18:49 PM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
ianw01@ 3
My favorite energy storage system is being developed by Isentropic. It ticks all the boxes regarding cost, efficiency, non exotic material use, reproducibility at any location and old school engineering (none of that nano rubbish and complex chemistry etc, just engines, pipes and steel containers). -
Tom Curtis at 15:07 PM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
From Peru @11, another way of saying that photovolatic cells absorb 85% of light is to say they have an albedo of 0.15. For comparison, here are the abledos of several common surfaces:
Surface Typical
albedo
Fresh asphalt 0.04
Worn asphalt 0.12
Conifer forest
(Summer) 0.08, 0.09 to 0.15
Deciduous trees 0.15 to 0.18
Bare soil 0.17
Green grass 0.25
Desert sand 0.40
New concrete 0.55
Ocean ice 0.5–0.7
Fresh snow 0.80–0.90As you can see, the albedo of photovoltaic cells is comparable to that of trees and soil, and not significantly different from that of grass. Indeed, with 15% of the incident energy being converted to electricity, the waste heat at source of a PV cell is only 60% of incident energy, 15% less than is the case with grass, and comparable to desert sand.
It is true that the energy converted to electricity is eventually dissipated as waste heat. However, the energy from fossil fuels is also dissipated as waste heat so that the net gain in waste heat is no greater than that from equivalent energy generation from fossil fuels (for PV cells in deserts), and much less than that for PV cells in areas naturally covered by grasses or forests. Indeed, as electricity generation from fossil fuels is inefficient in terms of the energy content of the fuel, use of PV cells even in deserts rather than fossil fuels will reduce the current waste heat generation.
The upshot is that generating power with PV will reduce industrial waste heat relative to current levels. Globally, this will make us better of by a small amount (waste heat being only a minor forcing). That is in addition to the far larger impact from reduced GHG forcing from the use of renewable energy.
It is true that large PV farms may have significant regional effects on climate. In that, however, they are no different from any other human development, including farming and reforestation (which generates equivalent amounts of waste heat). If that is considered a problem, it can be offset by increasing the albedo of the infrastructure surrounding the PV cells (eg, cement roads rather that asphalt, whitened roofs).
-
From Peru at 14:03 PM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
I recently found a review paper that states:
"Even renewable energies produce local heat, although they provide a greater thermal reduction benefit by avoiding CO2 emissions.
Photovoltaic solar panels are mainly black or dark with very low albedo and high emissivity, typically:
- absorbing about 85% of the incoming light,
- 15% of this is converted into electricity,
- the remainder 70% of the energy is turned into heat.
Millstein [see reference 93 in linked article] found that the large-scale adoption of desert PV, with only 16% albedo reduction, lead to significant local temperature increases (+0.4 ºC) and regional changes in wind patterns"
Source:
Tingzhen Ming , Renaudde_Richter , Wei Liu , Sylvain Caillol
"Fighting global warming by climate engineering: Is the Earth radiation management and the solar radiation management any option for fighting climate change?"
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 31 (2014)
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113008460
As good as solar and other renewables are, can we be sure that are actually 100% climate neutral? They don't emit CO2, but emit waste heat and change the land surface albedo. Maybe big solar farms will need be built with big mirrors incorporated, to compensate for the warming due to the lowered albedo.
Waste heat on the other hand, is much more difficult to handle. The 2nd law of thermodynamics make impossible to recycle all of it into useful work (energy) so some amount of waste heat is unavoidable. At least "waste heat forcing" is one to two order of magnitude lower than greenhouse forcing, so at current energy growth rates there are still a few centuries before the impact is significant.
A few centuries, however, is still extremely rapid for geological standards. I imagine a situation a few centuries in the future, when, after avoiding greenhouse global warming, the problem returns, this time with waste heat instead of greenhouse gases emissions.
Then, since the root cause of warming is energy consumption, the only option left will be stopping the growth of energy consumption, and if necessary, even reverse it. This could mean either:
- decouple energy and economic growth completely. I don't know if this is physically possible
- switching to a steady-state economy, where the growth of GDP should tend to zero.
What do you think?
-
scaddenp at 13:46 PM on 6 July 2014There is no consensus
Murmur, it is absolutely given that a consensus does not make a theory correct. However, this is article is putting to bed the myth that there is no scientific consensus. For policy makers, going with the consensus is the only rational choice. If you were ill, would you be like this guy? It's not like there is any other credible theory of climate.
-
Murmur at 13:11 PM on 6 July 2014There is no consensus
97% ? Pfff... Until 1887, 100% of scientists agreed on the existence of aether...
-
Tom Curtis at 10:39 AM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
sunweb @7:
1) Wikipedia gives an Energy Return on Investment (EROI) of 6.8 for photo-voltaic in the US, compared to 80 for coal in the US. Assuming the invested energy comes from coal, that means each KwH of energy from photovoltaics generates only 15% of the CO2 emissions of coal over its lifetime. That remains a very substantial gain in the task of tackling global warming, and will improve as more and more electricity is generated from low carbon energy sources.
2) A number of studies (including Murphy and Hall 2010, from which the Wikipedia figures are drawn) show the EROI of fossil fuels is declining over time. In contrast, that of renewable energy is improving over time.
3) The figures for fossil fuel EROI typically quoted are misleading as they for the thermal energy returned from combustion. Thermal energy conversion to electricity tends to be inefficient for fossil fuels, radically reducing its EROI when the output energy is measured in terms of electricity production. In contrast, photovoltaic and wind power are directly generated as electricity, and must pay an efficiency cost to generate thermal energy. Therefore their EROI for electricity production is understated. Estimates of EROI for electricity production (rather than thermal energy) give photovoltaics an EROI of 10.2 compared to the 12.8 for coal (see Hall, Lambert and Balogh, 2013, Fig 3):
Similar efficiencies apply in transport, where the majority of thermal energy form fossil fuels is lost as heat or noise, while electric vehicles have energy efficiencies near double that of fossil fuels.
4) Economic analyses of the limitations of low EROI (so long as the EROI is above 1) are of limited applicability to renewable energy in that the low efficiency is at point of production. Given that renewable energies are effectively unlimited relative to current or projected populations and economic activity over the next century, low EROI's merely require greater energy production at source from renewable resources. The potential of Solar Breeder factories makes EROI's potentially redundant for economic analysis.
-
Catprog at 10:11 AM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
@sunweb 7-Assuming all the costs are electricity here in Australia you can get $2/watt panels installed. Assuming the manufactures get half price electricity , it would only take 8 years to generate enough power to offset the usage.If you use retail rates that drops to 4 years.-I have seen wind turbines that have returns using 6 months. -
villabolo at 05:34 AM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
@funglestrumpet #4
Tractor trailers would be an excellent choice for a battery operated vehicle. The trailer has a lot of volume some of which can house a large battery array. The top of the trailer can also have solar cells though I realize it wouldn't be enough to drive the truck - maybe for running the air conditioner or heater.
-
sunweb at 04:13 AM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Solar and wind capturing devices are not alternative energy sources. For the physical devices – for wind, photovoltaices, solar hot water, hot air panels - the sun and wind are there, are green, are sustained. The devices that are used to capture the sun and wind’s energy are an extension of the fossil fuel supply system. There is a massive infrastructure of mining, processing, manufacturing, fabricating, installation, transportation and the associated environmental assaults. There would be no sun or wind capturing devices with out this infrastructure. This infrastructure is not green, sustainable, or renewable. The making of the these devices inadvertently but directly supports fracking, tar sands and deep ocean drilling because of the need for this infrastructure. In addition, the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) is very low for all solar devices. It takes years if ever to repay the energy it took to make, install, and maintenance these devices. I invite you to view these essays. This essay has diagrams and pictures of how we get copper, aluminum, glass, black chrome – the chemicals, heavy machinery, and industrial processes that are necessary to make the devices to capture the energy of the sun and wind. http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/machines-making-machines-making.html and this one has similar information and includes research on ERoEI http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2014/03/reality-again.html And even if you could get around the environmental degradation, the low ERoEI and could amass enough extra energy to reproduce the capturing devices and their equipment, then how about the rest of the STUFF of high tech, high energy society? http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/10/to-make-light-bulb.html and http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2013/10/a-small-fan.html
-
kmalpede at 02:58 AM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Fungelsrumpet took the words right out of my mouth. This is fantastic news.
-
shastatodd at 02:18 AM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
now solar is so cheap it is powering waste... no need for silly energy audits or conservation... no need to consider the embedded energy, toxic waste, mining & c02 which is involved with manufacturing "magic solar". no need to change our lifestyles or think about the limitations of living on a finite planet with finite resources...
woo-hoo... we are all saved... sigh
-
funglestrumpet at 01:32 AM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Now let's find a way of feeding all this cheap electricity into tractors and trucks, and into personal transport that can go futher than the local supermarket without needing a flatbed truck to get it back home.
Once that little problem is cracked, it won't matter how much the fossil fuel industry spends on campaigns against combating climate change because people's purses will call the shots. They'll have to find another way to harm the planet and with it their kids, their country and themselves. Or better still, seek some much needed councelling.
-
ianw01 at 01:23 AM on 6 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
Unaddressed is the question of storage. Those long cold calm winter nights cannot be ignored, and as things stand now we still need full traditional generating capacity on standby for those times.
On a positive note, here is an exciting development on ammonia-based storage.
-
JARWillis at 23:23 PM on 5 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
We switched on our 4kW array 12 weeks ago and have generated more than 7 times the total power our house has used since then. All our hot water has come from otherwise unused power automatically fed to the immersion heater in our cylinder, so the only gas we have used is for the cooker hob.
The cost was half the estimate provided by an energy performance assessor less than a year ago. And our roofs face East and West (not the usually recommended South) - so with half the cells on each side we are often generating more than 1kW by 7am and after 7pm, peaking at over 3kW.
That's using only a third of our roof area and this is supposedly-cloudy-and-rainy England.
That's a long way of saying 'Yes, we've got a revolutionary technology here and it's accessible to ordinary people. '
-
Charliec65 at 23:21 PM on 5 July 2014Today’s Solar Power ‘Revolution’: Powerful Insights from Energy Experts
This sounds too good to be true.
-
Phil at 23:19 PM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
scaddenp @29
Jim, you state "My concern is that nobody in the climate science community seems to have attempted to quantify the role that CO2 plays in keeping it there"
I am not even sure quite you mean.
My reading of Jim's comment was that he hoped that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could alter the specific heat capacity of water, and as such really didn't merit consideration.
But I could be wrong... -
Glenn Tamblyn at 15:23 PM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
jim
Some things to keep in mind when looking at the temperature records from the early 20th century and before. Station coverage wasn't global. We only had decent station coverage in the Antarctic starting in the late 50's. And most of the Arctic only really started having decent station coverage since the 1920's. So variations in station coverage are a confounding factor for the earlier records. And the Arctic did see a warmer period during the 20's/30's. Not as warm as today but warmer.
The problem with looking at just surface temperatures and expecting them to have a tight correlation with CO2 levels or any other forcing factor is that the surface temperatures alone don't capture what is happening to the system; they can also be significantly influenced by internal variability in addition to the CO2 driven warming. Surface temperature changes only represent about 2% of the total heat being added to the earth and are very much the tail that gets wagged by the dog - the oceans where over 90% of the extra heat is going.
So when we look at old records we don't have any data on what was happening inside the oceans so we shouldn't expect the record to tell us too much. In contrast we now have good data on the oceans as well and know that everything is warming.
You asked how much ocean warming is due to natural mechanisms. We can answer that substantially by asking where the heat that is accumulating in the oceans could have come from. It is the dominant heat accumulation in the climate system. And the answer is that it couldn't have come from anywhere here on Earth.
The largest heat source here on Earth is geothermal heat. And the geologists have been able to estimate how large the heat flow from inside the Earth is - 44.2 trillion watts. (see Pollack et al 1993 here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93RG01249/abstract).
In contrast the rate of heat accumulation in the oceans is over 250 trillion watts. 6 times greater. So the only possible conclusion is that the extra heat in the oceans has an extra-terrestrial source. Either more energy is arriving at the Earth from the Sun, or less energy is being radiated to space by the Earth.
And the Sun hasn't been getting warmer. If anything it is on a very, very slight cooling trend.
So this really limits the possibilities for what could account for the amount of heat being added to the oceans. An increase in the GH Effect is really the only explanation that fits the evidence.
-
scaddenp at 14:27 PM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, you state "My concern is that nobody in the climate science community seems to have attempted to quantify the role that CO2 plays in keeping it there"
I am not even sure quite you mean. Personally I would ensure that I had an extremely deep understanding of the physics before I started thinking that there was a gap in the scientists understanding.
One to look at quantifying it is to look at the amount of radiation reaching the ocean surface (including backradiation) Check - do that. See for instance the Trenberth energy balance. Secondly, what portion of the radiation is heating it. Okay, emissivity is measured. If I were you, I would spend a bit of time at Science of Doom getting to grips with the text book physics.
-
MA Rodger at 05:50 AM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
jim @24.
On a point of detail, the concept of a "forcing" concerns a change in an energy flux rather than the size of an energy flux. Thus your first sentence @24 is either wrong or (more likely) you are using the word "forcing" incorrectly. And "increases" should probably be "maintains."
When you write "Now for their suggested reading........." are you preparing us denizens of this comment thread for some suggestions from you as to what to read? Or are you requesting some suggestions from us as to what you should read?
The subject of the role/mechanism of back-radiation in warming the oceans appears to be what interests you although I would suggest that you have probably fallen short of identifying here "an important gap in our understanding." Perhaps this SkS article 'How Increasing CO2 Heats The Ocean' will assist in identifying the part of the mechanism that puzzles you.
-
JARWillis at 05:25 AM on 5 July 2014What really annoys scientists about the state of the climate change debate?
Excellent idea for an article. Full of good sense. As you would expect. Thank you.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 05:09 AM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, The way I visualize the impact of increased CO2 on increased OHC is that the increased CO2 leads to a warmer surface temperature because the emission of radiation from the surface, mainly infrared that CO2 absorbs, must increase to rebalance with the incoming radiation, mainly higher frequency that CO2 does not absorb, with the outgoing radiation.
And the temperature increase that has occurred the ocean is very small compared to the temperature increase in the surface atmosphere. Yet a huge amount of energy has been added in the oceans. So a huge amount of heat will be added in the ocean depths for the same amount of temperature increase that is occuring in the surface atmosphere.
Also, all of the ocean surfaces would be warmed by the warmer global surface atmosphere, not just the tropical Pacific. And there are warm and cool surface circulation changes in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans.
So the CO2 capturing infrared emissions from the surface, but not blocking the higher ferquency incoming radiation, and reflecting some of that captured energy back down is like an insulating effect on the surface. And the warmer surface will lead to a warmer ocean. La Nina increases the rate of heat uptake in the Tropical Pacific while temporarily reducing the global average surface temperature. And El Nino temporarily increases the global average surface temperature and reduces the rate of heat uptake in the Tropical Pacific. But the oceans could eventually warm at depth the same amount that the surface is warming. Note that the temporary cooling effect of La Nina produces temporary surface temperatures that are warmer than previous comparable La Ninas because the extra CO2 is increasing the average surface temperature.
I found the World Meteorological Organization publication "Climate Into the 21st Century" to include a comprehensive though brief presentation on issues like this and so much more.
-
sauerj at 00:52 AM on 5 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
HK & scaddenp, Very helpful! ... and HK, thx for explaining the charts (column by column)! Hansen's top, middle chart was spot-on what I was dreaming of! And, yes, it shows cause & effect very well. Hansen's chart will be a great reference slide for future discussions & presentations. Thanks!
-
hdssh at 23:01 PM on 4 July 2014What really annoys scientists about the state of the climate change debate?
And not a single inclusion solicited from a relevant developing nation scientist. Its frustrating when the world is perceived through the eys of the developed nations, as if the global majority does not exist.
-
HK at 22:25 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Sauerj, maybe this figure on page 20 in James Hansens Earth’s energy imbalance and implications (2011) is even better. It shows the total and each category of forcing (left column) and their estimated impact on temperature compared to the data (middle) and energy imbalance (right).
Most of the difference between estimated and measured temperature in the top middle graph is probably due to internal variations. -
jim7917 at 21:24 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
scaddenp et al @ 20,21,22
I understand that insolation is the dominant forcing that increases OHC. I also understand that a prolonged ENSO Neutral/la Nina condition will lead to an increase in the OHC in the Equatorial Pacific region. My concern is that nobody in the climate science community seems to have attempted to quantify the role that CO2 plays in keeping it there (Rob drew an analogy with it acting as an insulant via the down welling infra red radiation effect on the thin film layer). It seems to me that this is an important gap in our understanding.
I would like to thank contributors to this site for the courtesy and help in responding to my original post. Now for their suggested reading.........
-
timtak at 15:13 PM on 4 July 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
I like, or am scared by, the last two graphs. It would be nice to have them in a higher resolution.
According to these graphs, yes, and the theory there has been a haiatus but that is because the heat has been melting ice, with potentially scarier postive-feedback calamitous potential if Polar Ice has a damping mechanism.
> "The advantage with my hypothesis is that it can be proved wrong within the next four years - I hope!"
I confess to being a bit of a sceptic, but I think that we are reaching a watershed. I guess a lot of people feel the same way. When the hiatus ends, the temperature is going to up or down. If it starts going up again, then I am going to junk my turbo charged car, and become a "realist".
(I hardly ever drive my car, and I have had it for 16 years. I cycle and try to behave like a realist anyway.) -
scaddenp at 14:41 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
sauerj - try here. But also in the WG1 report.
-
sauerj at 13:37 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Kevin C., Re: Chart in #12 above. To fully resolve Jim's doubts, could someone provide a link that shows the combined "net" forcing. When I do this with my mind's eye: 1) with the early negative volcanic forcing, 2) including some time lag & 3) some 5-10 year averaging (for the give & take of ocean circulation variation), it appears that this "net" line may very well comparatively mimic the temp rise charts. This would be cool to see. ... Thx!
-
One Planet Only Forever at 12:16 PM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, Consider it possible that ocean circulation like La Nina conditions draw energy from the atmosphere into the deeper oceans thus increasing the heat content at a more rapid rate while the global average surface temperature does not rise as rapidly because of the energy being taken in by the cooler ocean surface.
Now consider it possible that the change of conditions to El Nino would result in heat energy from the larger area of warmer ocean surface being drawn into the atmosphere resulting in higher global average surface temperatures and a slower rate of deep ocean heat content gain.
Now look into the durations and intensities of El Nino and La Nina conditions provided by NOAA and compare them with global average surface temperatures (any set you wish including Spencer's Sattelite data). For added edification compare the variation of the Southern Oscillation. Then you could write your own paper.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 4 July 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
truthbtold @10:
1) When economists try to compare economic conditions between different years, they try to eliminate the effects of inflation to determine the real changes in economic activity. When they do so, they state the figures in "real dollars" relative to the most recent year under consideration. They do that because those are the terms that make sense for the people making the comparison. Likewise in temperature series, the adjustments are made relative to the most recent temperature record. For that reason, anytime adjustments are made they are made to past years, rather than the most recent record. That means anytime an error is found in previous adjustment procedures, past years will be adjusted again; and they will only cease to be adjusted once the temperature record is demonstrably perfect.
2) We do not have a temperature record using the same instruments, under the same conditions, at the same locations, using the same observation times and methods. Rather, all of those things have changed over time to a greater or lesser extent except for (in the US) a recently installed set of temperature stations (the Climate Refference Network). Our knowledge of the causes and effects of these changes is not perfect, and is revisited by scientists in order to improve the temperature record, and whenever that knowledge is improved, a further adjustment is in order.
3) So called "climate skeptics" have a very one sided view of climate adjustments, only being worried about adjustments that run counter to their narrative. The most telling example of this is their willingness to accept the UAH temperature series, which derives tropospheric temperatures from microwave emissions from the atmosphere. That series requires far more, and more complicated adjustments than does the surface temperature record but so called "climate skeptics" accept it without batting an eyelid, and and in preference to more straight forward measures.
4) A range of other measurements show the temperature record after adjustment better reflects the actual temperature record than the unadjusted record. In Maine, for example, there is a record of the first day without ice (the ice out day) of a number of lakes, eg:
Bear in mind that the unadjusted temperature series for the contiguous US shows 1940s temperatures equivalent to those over the last decade; but that is inconsistent with the ice out data shown above, or indeed the ice out days for all lakes in Maine (smoothed):
(Source)
Similar records show for the Great Lakes, and other natural climate indicators. These records are not, of course, able to tell us the validity of individual adjustments, but they do show the general tendency of the adjustments is to make the temperature record more accurate. Further, related but distinct instrumental records also show the same patterns as the instrumental record, as has been shown recently for global data by the UK Met Office:
-
scaddenp at 09:34 AM on 4 July 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
Did you look at the detailed explanation linked to in the article? At the bottom there is also further reading. Why adjust? Well to take an example of just one adjustment, would you consider it valid to compare temperatures measured in the afternoon (past practise) with measurements taken morning (modern practise). How about when a stevenson screen was add to the station? Or a station moved? The science is trying to construct the best possible record of past temperature change from what data is available with all its flaws. Methods for detecting problems with station records and methods for correcting these problems are evolving all the time. You would expect then to see them applied to problem of extracting historical temperatures. The exact methodology is documented in published papers and as the article I linked to shows, it has been reproduced by many researchers (even ones sure that their superior methods would show reduced warming like the BEST group).
-
scaddenp at 08:53 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
Jim, You expect OHC/climate to react, not just to CO2, but the sum of all forcing acting at the time. This is the standard for judging climate science. What you are looking for in reports is called attribution studies. Note that OHC is energy. I consider it laughable to suggest that OHC increases are unforced (what I think you mean by "natural") without identifying a source for that increased energy. ie conservation of energy must apply.
-
jim7917 at 08:27 AM on 4 July 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Sees Warmest May Ever Recorded Following on From 2nd Warmest April
scaddenp @18. Thank you for the links. I am familiar with the Levitus paper, but of course it does not attempt to assess the extent to which the increase in OHC is caused by CO2 or natural mechanisms. The article on the thin film layer looks very informative and I look forward to digesting it, along with WG1.
-
truthbtold at 08:07 AM on 4 July 2014Global warming conspiracy theorist zombies devour Telegraph and Fox News brains
The claim by Steve Goddard that 40% of the dataset is estimated (denoted by E on the each datapoint), is interesting. The great thing is all of us can easily experiement with the datasets (current and historical).
I understand scientists need to adjust data for bias, but this post didn't do a lot to educate on:
Why so many adjustments? Why adjust so often? When will the need for adjustments end? How many times does/did a single datapoint get adjusted? Is there a change log for each adjusted datapoint? Is there a changelog between each published datset which tells how many datapoints were adjusted?
In general this post is a good read. But I found this a bit hyperbolic, "The USA represents less than 2% of the Earth’s surface." This is a quasi marketing type statement designed to contrast 98% vs. 2% and make readers jump to conclusions.
Beisdes that, Steve Goddard's accustation of data tampering is about a land based temperature network.
The USA may be less than 2% of the Earth's surface. However it is 6.26% of total land area and ranks 4 of 256 countries. (Russia, Antartica and China are bigger.)
Prev 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 Next
