Warming Then And Now?

[seer]

First, I'm not quite understanding you. Are you saying that the surface temperature has

[Poor Debater]

First, I'm not quite understanding you. Are you saying that the surface temperature has remained flat these past 17 years because the heat found its way into the deep oceans? Or that we don't really know?

First off, you've been misinformed. The surface temperature has NOT remained flat for 17 years. The regression slope is still positive, just lower than it had been. Regarding the question of whether we "really" know or not, the scientific answer to that one is ALWAYS "no". There is no absolute proof of anything in science, and scientists are a lot more comfortable with uncertainty that the general public. In this particular case, the regression slope for the last 17 years is positive, but the 95% confidence interval for that regression slope (which is the usual limit for statistical significance) contains BOTH zero AND the previous, higher slope of the previous 17 years. For that reason I like to call it an "apparent slowdown".

But even though the apparent slowdown isn't statistically significant, it's still scientifically interesting. And yes, the reason for the apparent slowdown seems to be that the heat has been stored in the ocean. And that means it will very likely be temporary.

Data for that chart can be found here. For the period 1967.5 to 1990.5, the increase (using linear regression) was 4 x 10^21 Joules per year. During the period 1997.5-2011.5 (the last year available), the rate of increase was twice as high.

Third, your analogy on the 3% of Co2 being man made is 100% of the profit - If the 3% is a tipping point we could have not reached that point without the previous precentage of natural Co2 being added. Not that the 3% is necessarily a tipping point.

No, simple mass balance computations prove that to be wrong. Humans have dug up, or pumped up, and burned, 360 billion tons of fossil carbon since the start of the Industrial Revolution until 2012. Those numbers come from industrial records and are not in dispute (at least as far as I know). If you burn 360 billion tons of carbon, you get 1.32 trillion tons of CO2. Divide that by the total mass of the atmosphere (5.14 x 10^9 gigatons) and you get 257 parts per million by mass, which is 169 parts per million by volume. That's what we know we've added to the air.

But when we look at ice core records from before the industrial revolution, that's not what we see. Instead of seeing an increase of 169 ppmv of CO2 in the air, we only see an increase of about 115 ppmv. So, we emitted 169 ppmv, and only 115 ppmv is still in the atmosphere -- what happened to the other 54 ppmv? It can't just vanish. And of course the answer is that the rest of it was absorbed by the soils and the oceans. BUT -- and this is the critical point -- since the soils and oceans are acting as a net sink for some of the CO2 that we create, they cannot also be acting as a net source. In other words, ALL of the CO2 increase is down on the human ledger. None of it is natural.

[seer]

First off, you've been misinformed. The surface temperature has NOT remained flat for 17 years. The regression slope is still positive, just lower than it had been. Regarding the question of whether we "really" know or not, the scientific answer to that one is ALWAYS "no". There is no absolute proof of anything in science, and scientists are a lot more comfortable with uncertainty that the general public. In this particular case, the regression slope for the last 17 years is positive, but the 95% confidence interval for that regression slope (which is the usual limit for statistical significance) contains BOTH zero AND the previous, higher slope of the previous 17 years. For that reason I like to call it an "apparent slowdown".

Ok slow down. But we see increased Co2 from countries like India, China and Asia in general, so we should have seen a marked increase in temperature- correct? And I would think that we need to be more certain than you are suggesting before we start undermining free market principles and economies in general.

found here. For the period 1967.5 to 1990.5, the increase (using linear regression) was 4 x 10^21 Joules per year. During the period 1997.5-2011.5 (the last year available), the rate of increase was twice as high.

First, I don't know why you would link raw numbers like that. Second, that does not answer the question. You suggested that unusual La Nina activity was the cause for the rise in ocean temperature, yet in you own chart we see a marked increase of ocean temperature before this 20 year period. Without unusual La Nina activity. If this is the reason for the "slow down" what was the cause of ocean temperature increase between the late 60s and early 90s? And the increased heating of the oceans between the late 60s and the early 90s didn't seem to offset the rise in surface temperature.

No, simple mass balance computations prove that to be wrong. Humans have dug up, or pumped up, and burned, 360 billion tons of fossil carbon since the start of the Industrial Revolution until 2012. Those numbers come from industrial records and are not in dispute (at least as far as I know). If you burn 360 billion tons of carbon, you get 1.32 trillion tons of CO2. Divide that by the total mass of the atmosphere (5.14 x 10^9 gigatons) and you get 257 parts per million by mass, which is 169 parts per million by volume. That's what we know we've added to the air.

But when we look at ice core records from before the industrial revolution, that's not what we see. Instead of seeing an increase of 169 ppmv of CO2 in the air, we only see an increase of about 115 ppmv. So, we emitted 169 ppmv, and only 115 ppmv is still in the atmosphere -- what happened to the other 54 ppmv? It can't just vanish. And of course the answer is that the rest of it was absorbed by the soils and the oceans. BUT -- and this is the critical point -- since the soils and oceans are acting as a net sink for some of the CO2 that we create, they cannot also be acting as a net source. In other words, ALL of the CO2 increase is down on the human ledger. None of it is natural.

Well given what you have said, it doesn't see that we have good understanding of any of this. And I'm not saying that this does make some sense. I guess the real question is, would a warmer planet really be such a bad thing or is there anything we could really do about it now - that would make a real difference, without destroying our economies.

[Poor Debater]

Ok slow down. But we see increased Co2 from countries like India, China and Asia in general, so we should have seen a marked increase in temperature- correct?

And we have, in the long term. Temperatures have risen markedly over the 20th century, and over the latter half of the 20th century. But surface temperatures are, as I said, a noisy dataset. It's a mistake to think rising CO2 will mean rising temperatures every single year. Think of it as a man walking a dog on a long leash. The straight path of the man is CO2; the wandering path of the dog is surface temperatures. In the short term the dog can wander all over the place, but in the long term, the dog has to go where the man goes.

And I would think that we need to be more certain than you are suggesting before we start undermining free market principles and economies in general.

So, considering the possibility of having a car crash is uncertain, would you feel comfortable buying a car without airbags or seat belts? Because you could save money that way.

Or maybe that's just false economy, when you consider that that consequences of being wrong are so incredibly disastrous.

And I would also be very interested to know why you believe a Pigovian tax undermines free market principles, when even conservative economists admit that it does not.

First, I don't know why you would link raw numbers like that.

I did it as a courtesy, to allow you to do your own regression and verify my results for yourself. If math isn't in your wheelhouse, I won't bother from now on.

Second, that does not answer the question. You suggested that unusual La Nina activity was the cause for the rise in ocean temperature, yet in you own chart we see a marked increase of ocean temperature before this 20 year period. Without unusual La Nina activity. If this is the reason for the "slow down" what was the cause of ocean temperature increase between the late 60s and early 90s? And the increased heating of the oceans between the late 60s and the early 90s didn't seem to offset the rise in surface temperature.

Well given what you have said, it doesn't see that we have good understanding of any of this. And I'm not saying that this does make some sense. I guess the real question is, would a warmer planet really be such a bad thing or is there anything we could really do about it now - that would make a real difference, without destroying our economies.

It's too late to stop the warming that has already happened, and there is still a lot of warming "in the pipeline" that it is too late to stop. But the things we do now could make a huge difference down the road. The economic loss of a 6 degree rise in temperatures would be massively greater than a 3 degree rise, and we could certainly prevent that with intelligent actions today.

The obvious way to do that is with a revenue-neutral fossil carbon tax. The overall effect on GDP would be close to zero or slightly positive. As the tax takes hold and fossil fuels are priced out of the economy, revenue from the tax would gradually drop close to zero. So the tax would be essentially self-repealing once its work was done.

[seer]

And we have, in the long term. Temperatures have risen markedly over the 20th century, and over the latter half of the 20th century. But surface temperatures are, as I said, a noisy dataset. It's a mistake to think rising CO2 will mean rising temperatures every single year. Think of it as a man walking a dog on a long leash. The straight path of the man is CO2; the wandering path of the dog is surface temperatures. In the short term the dog can wander all over the place, but in the long term, the dog has to go where the man goes.

So what if we don't have a significant rise for 15 or 20 years even while more Co2s are being pumped into the atmosphere? That wouldn't be every single year but a trend.

So, considering the possibility of having a car crash is uncertain, would you feel comfortable buying a car without airbags or seat belts? Because you could save money that way. Or maybe that's just false economy, when you consider that that consequences of being wrong are so incredibly disastrous. And I would also be very interested to know why you believe a Pigovian tax undermines free market principles, when even conservative economists admit that it does not.

Well I don't know what conservative economists believe that carbon taxes are good ideas. Or that trying to control behavior through taxation is generally a good idea. And no, we know from experience what happens when a car gets into an accident. You are only assuming negative effects from warming. Perhaps, over all, a warmer planet, will have a positive effect. After all the planet was once much warmer than today and life flourished. Look, from what I have read the planet's over all temperature has risen about one degree in the past 100 years - with minimal or no, real harm.


Well I still don't see how that correlates with the increase ocean temperature increase between the late 60s and early 90s, where it doesn't seem that the increase in ocean heat did anything to effect or mitigate the surface temperature. You are saying that the warmer oceans are offsetting or absorbing the surface heat. But the warmer oceans did not seem to offset or effect the surface heat between the late 60s and early 90s, when there was a marked increase in ocean temperatures.

The obvious way to do that is with a revenue-neutral fossil carbon tax. The overall effect on GDP would be close to zero or slightly positive. As the tax takes hold and fossil fuels are priced out of the economy, revenue from the tax would gradually drop close to zero. So the tax would be essentially self-repealing once its work was done.

No tax is revenue-neutral, some one will pay. For instance, here in my state of Connecticut (very liberal state) my electric bills have doubled over last year. Though we are not getting straight answers it seems it has something to do with carbon credits, or lack of them. No one PD cares if they get their energy from wind or oil or natural gas or solar - but if you start doubling energy prices for home and business that will have serious effects on our economy and production. And if you can't get countries like China, India, and Asia in general, to go along (which they aren't going to do at this point) then what we do in the west will be pretty much useless.

[Jorge]

.....................

As I had said, "Poor Debater" indeed.

A few days ago (post #23) you wrote (with a tone of disbelief and sarcasm, I might add):
"Nothing I have seen proves that at all. Please enlighten us with the exact nature of your evidence."


I provided for you some of that evidence (there's much more).
How do you respond?
You carry on as if the evidence did not exist, that's how.

Yup, "Poor Debater" indeed!

Jorge

[rwatts]

...

I think the hiatus has been put down to an increase in heat take up by the oceans - a problem in its own right:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...10/3941061.htm

I don't know if you are aware of this, because I have not read all of your's and seer's exchange. I just noted some questioning about the importance of the slowdown.

[seer]

I think the hiatus has been put down to an increase in heat take up by the oceans - a problem in its own right:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...10/3941061.htm

I don't know if you are aware of this, because I have not read all of your's and seer's exchange. I just noted some questioning about the importance of the slowdown.

Another view:

http://www.thegwpf.org/pacific-pause/

One of the problems with the conclusions drawn from the output of England et al’s climate models is that their predicted increase in sub-surface ocean temperature between 100m and 300m below sea level is not born out by the observations. Another interesting question is, why did the Pacific winds change just after the strongest El Nino seen? Another question is if the rise in global surface temperature seen between 1910 – 40 is also related to the Pacific trade winds.

In any case, the trade winds theory is only a partial explanation for the pause giving a modelled cooling of 0.11 deg C by 2012 whereas it would require 0.2-0.3 deg C to explain the pause completely...

...The best thing about this paper is that it leads to a specific prediction: When the Pacific winds desist global temperature should increase rapidly, by about 0.5 deg C in a decade – an unprecedented amount.

[rwatts]

Another view:

http://www.thegwpf.org/pacific-pause/

The link under the "not born out by the observations" comment, does not work.

Note as well that he does accept that this could be a partial explanation.

[seer]

The link under the "not born out by the observations" comment, does not work.

Yes, it is a conspiracy by NOAA to hide the truth!

Note as well that he does accept that this could be a partial explanation.

Yes he does. Just a note on all this: I have conservative friends who do not believe that man can effect the climate, I think that is nonsense. Fire off 1,000 nukes and see if the climate changes. But I also suspect that warming may not be, over all, a bad thing. Our ecosystem seems to have the ability to adjust, and we have the ability to adjust. Then there is the idea of us in the west hobbling our economies when those in Asia, India, Africa refuse to do so. No only will that undermine our economy, our efforts, from what I read, will have little or no effect without these other countries coming aboard.

[Leonhard]

Sorry for the pause in writing, I'm super busy with my thesis writing. Had to pull an all nighter.

Then there is the idea of us in the west hobbling our economies when those in Asia, India, Africa refuse to do so. No only will that undermine our economy, our efforts, from what I read, will have little or no effect without these other countries coming aboard.

Its true that the inevitable change from fossil fuels to solar power is going to be costly, but it'll be amortized over a three quarters of a century. Its something we'll have to do anyway, and the sooner we start doing it, the cheaper its going to be. Even if there's a hundred more years of cheap oil (which there isn't), then why wait until the last moment? Putting in research today, and moving forward will allow us elbow room to do it gracefully. Currently a lot of companies are starting to figure out how to do this more cheaply, but in the beginning the initial research came from government investment.

That time is starting to be over though. In roughly ten years solar power is projected to be significantly cheaper than coal power (even without government subsidies) and at that point market forces will drive home the changes. We'll be doubling world production of batteries in five years time. Its starting to become affordable.

Unlike fossil fuels whose prices are only ever going to rise, solar power doesn't have a lower limit to how cheap it will be. Some of the solar panel designs coming out now can in principle run for half a decade producing 80% of the power it did when it was originally installed. No maintaince cost once installed, they earn themselves home more than a dozen times, which is better the oil EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested). It takes one barrel of oil worth of energy to dig up seven.

The fact that we might also save untold trillions of dollars in environmental damage is an added reason to do it. You (seer) say that it might not be bad, but why take the gamble?

[seer]

Sorry for the pause in writing, I'm super busy with my thesis writing. Had to pull an all nighter.

I used to pull all nighters - but not for studying...

Its true that the inevitable change from fossil fuels to solar power is going to be costly, but it'll be amortized over a three quarters of a century. Its something we'll have to do anyway, and the sooner we start doing it, the cheaper its going to be. Even if there's a hundred more years of cheap oil (which there isn't), then why wait until the last moment? Putting in research today, and moving forward will allow us elbow room to do it gracefully. Currently a lot of companies are starting to figure out how to do this more cheaply, but in the beginning the initial research came from government investment.

That time is starting to be over though. In roughly ten years solar power is projected to be significantly cheaper than coal power (even without government subsidies) and at that point market forces will drive home the changes. We'll be doubling world production of batteries in five years time. Its starting to become affordable.

Unlike fossil fuels whose prices are only ever going to rise, solar power doesn't have a lower limit to how cheap it will be. Some of the solar panel designs coming out now can in principle run for half a decade producing 80% of the power it did when it was originally installed. No maintaince cost once installed, they earn themselves home more than a dozen times, which is better the oil EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested). It takes one barrel of oil worth of energy to dig up seven.

The fact that we might also save untold trillions of dollars in environmental damage is an added reason to do it. You (seer) say that it might not be bad, but why take the gamble?

I have no problem letting market forces drive this, even with a little government investment. But as we have seen here in the US Len tax payers have been bilked out of literally billions of dollars for failed solar companies. And again, I do not favor hobbling our economy with higher energy prices while other developing countries do not follow suit. I'm in the electronics field, and we have a hard enough time trying to compete with Chinese companies as it is. Double or triple our energy costs and we are out of business. That is a fact.

[JonF]

But as we have seen here in the US Len tax payers have been bilked out of literally billions of dollars for failed solar companies.

Check your facts. Especially the ROI on non-failed solar companies.

[seer]

Check your facts. Especially the ROI on non-failed solar companies.

And? What about the billions lost on failed solar companies? Like I said I have no problem with some government investment, but we need to be a lot wiser and more careful with the companies we choose to invest in. Not just because they happen to be Democrat donors.

[Leonhard]

And? What about the billions lost on failed solar companies? Like I said I have no problem with some government investment, but we need to be a lot wiser and more careful with the companies we choose to invest in. Not just because they happen to be Democrat donors.

Solar City was founded by a mostly libertarian guy (Elon Musk), and its currently the rising star, so I wouldn't broad paint them all as commies seer. :P