Being an engineer and understanding the basis of thermodynamics this one.
"there might be less heat in the climate system than scientists predicted"
Why? because the heat has to "go" somewhere. Heat flows, as all things in nature, through the points of least resistance. But as with all things there are saturation points. We should be able to know where the energy is going if not then its probably not the case. This is a LOT of energy we are talking about.
2. Political - Which case is more desirable to be true?
Seeing the political landscape and Obamas latest speach on the issue I say this one for many.
"The heat can go somewhere other than the atmosphere"
Why? Is is a great driver for change. Politicians and activists live for this stuff.
3. Reality - Which case is being pursed more aggressively?
Seeing everything I am seeing this one is easy.
"The heat can go somewhere other than the atmosphere"
Why? Is is a great driver for change. Politicians and activists live for this stuff.
1. Scientific - Which case seems more likely to be true?
Ask some scientists. If the heat is going someplace other than the atmosphere, the most likely place seems to be the oceans. Find out what evidence thare is, if any that the oceans are warming. Or could there be less heat than the scientists predicted? Inquire about the Asian Brown cloud, solar activity, and just how accurate are the measurements of incoming and outgoing radiation. If it is more than a few milliwatts per square metre, I would expect temperature change to be very dramatic, but if it is only a few milliwatts per square meter, how can that imballance be measured out of a solar constant of about 1600 watts per square meter?
2. Political - Which case is more desirable to be true?
Unless your name is Sagebrush or Maxx, what is more desireable does not make it true.
3. Reality - Which case is being pursed more aggressively?
The Copenhagen Conference collapsed.
Canada withdrew from Kyoto.
The U. S. never ratified Kyoto.
Germany is abandoning nuclear power.
Baccheus
Not these guys.
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/activity?sho...
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/activity?sho...
Can’t shed any light on whether The New Republic is a liberal blog or otherwise, not come across it before.
The statement you quoted from the blog about their being two ways to create a global warming hiatus is wrong. There are more than two ways – in addition to those mentioned there could be an anthropogenic dimming component, geological factors, botanical factors, an imbalance between oceanic and atmospheric heat and gas exchanges, we’re up to six already.
But focussing just on the two points mentioned…
1. Scientific - Which case seems more likely to be true?
The heat in the atmosphere has to obey the laws of thermodynamics, it can’t simply disappear. That doesn’t mean that we necessarily know where the heat is – it could be in the oceans for example where it’s harder to detect.
The scientists predicted that there would be X amount of heat in the climate system by a certain time, given that these predictions are bounded by laws and principles (and of course some variables) then the predictions should be more or less correct. But this approach is over-simplifying the matter as it assumes that other factors aren’t going to influence the amount of heat, it would be more accurate to say that the potential amount of heat would be X.
For example, we release 100 units of warming gases, nothing gets in their way so there’s an additional 100 units of warming in the atmosphere. But what happens if 60 units of cooling gases are released at the same time? The potential for 100 units of heating is still there but the actual amount of heating is 40 units.
This is what we’re seeing happening as a consequence of the very significant quantities of ‘cooling agents’ that are being released by the expanding Asian manufacturing and power generation sectors.
We’re actually adding more warming units than ever before, but in recent years they have been countered by the opposing cooling units.
2. Political - Which case is more desirable to be true?
From a political perspective it would seem more desirable that the scientists got it wrong. In the first scenario where the heat isn’t in the atmosphere, this doesn’t mean it’s gone away – it’s still there and has the potential to cause further warming and so pose a political headache. If the scientists’ projections are wrong and the heat never made it into the atmosphere than the problem is of a smaller magnitude.
3. Reality - Which case is being pursed more aggressively?
Probably the first option – the ‘missing heat’ syndrome. We know that the requisite amount of greenhouse gases have been produced to cause a given amount of warming but some of that warming can’t adequately be accounted for. For the time being some of that heat is lost and people are trying to find it.
There is also merit to the possibility of their being less heat than earlier supposed. For example, equilibrium climate sensitivity used to be thought of as being between 3°C and 4°C – this was many years ago. Today we know that this value is too high and that it’s much lore likely to be between 2.5°C and 3.0°C. On the basis that some early projections used the higher values then about a quarter of the projected warming isn’t going to happen.
IMO, it is a leftist magazine. It seemed the author was busy making excuses. I am familiar with the New Republic. It is mainstream which makes it left wing.
1. Scientific - Which case seems more likely to be true? I think the most elegant explanation is that they don't know as much as they pretend to and there is less heat than predicted.
2. Political - Which case is more desirable to be true? For those who are using it to push their political agenda, it is downright inconvenient so they will clearly argue for the heat being lost rather than admitting they might have exaggerated their omniscience. Leftists are typically patient and ruthless and they won't let facts get in their way. They will just keep repeating their mantras and the followers will follow.
3. Reality - Which case is being pursed more aggressively?
Presumably pursued is what you were saying even though pursed works as well. I think they need for people to believe the ocean is hiding the warming so they will pursue that until we have some more warming.
Scientific consensus is showing no measurable warming for the past 10 years.
Scientific measurements of temperature are suspect due to the human element involved.
Trends in temperatures are the basis of the current warming. Since the LIA (Little Ice Age) ended around 1700ad, temperatures are naturally going to rise and fall due to the historic trends and will most likely continue to rise for the next 200-300 years and will probably reach that of the Medieval Warm Period. Historical temperature data backs that up.
Drastic changes in temperature readings are not happening.
Political implications can be very devastating if the wrong conclusions are made scientifically. We have already witnessed the negative impact on how people view Al Gore. He still seems to be benefitting financially from his stance on AGW.
The reality of temperatures rising after cooling periods and vice-versa can always be misinterpreted as being anthropogenic by people who don't understand how the climate can easily fluctuate on its own. Climate science is still a new science with all kinds of problems predicting future climate states, but I'm sure that the 97% believe that the warming will continue. Based on the historical records of temperature they will keep riding that wave of influencing people.
The news here is that Mike has diversified his copy-paste-as-fake-question sources from anti-scientist Watts to anti-scientist Curry. http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/18/the-ne...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/11...
Science....The facts do not support the AGW hypothesis.
Political...The "Greens" and Neocons have united to support this nutty idea. The latter because they figure that, sooner or later, they'll have to jettison fossil fuels and they want to be able to win on things such as carbon trading (and want to look like "good guys"). The former because they figure that this is an extreme position, but similar to their own...and "If we get everyone on board, what's the loss?"
Psychological...Bandwagon, conforming behavior.
90% of warming goes into the oceans. We know that. Sea level continue to rise due both to thermal expansion and melting ice. We know that heat in the system is increasing. Deniers will try to claim that water is expanding as it cools which is obviously wrong. It is not that hard, oceans are thermal-expanding.
Politically, I don't care. People will make the right decisions if they have the right information.
As far as as your comment about "consensus", it has been stated in YA hundreds of times. I alone have explained here many many times that the only scientific debate anymore is about rates and effects.
Well, it's being discussed in ever more liberal media outlets now. I believe the New Republic is a liberal blog but I could be wrong. Anyways, it doesn't really matter to my question but what matters is that they discuss the pause here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-did-heat-go#
However, I'd like to examine this statement (which is not a new one but an important one IMO):
"There are two ways to create a global-warming hiatus: The heat can go somewhere other than the atmosphere, or there might be less heat in the climate system than scientists predicted."
That seems pretty straightforward. So I have devised three questions with regard to that statement with three distinct flavors:
1. Scientific - Which case seems more likely to be true?
2. Political - Which case is more desirable to be true?
3. Reality - Which case is being pursed more aggressively?
You can add..."and why?" to each of those if you wish.
