No what we are saying is the increase in OHC has raised the average temperature of the ocean by 0.02C.
A single ARGO buoy (which measures ocean temperatures down to 2000m) has an uncertainty of about 0.1C
And as I already asked, what action? All the same questions I asked Norse apply. I'm all for taking action, but no one has ever said what that action is. Reducing CO2 emissions isn't a plan, it's a response. It's like your doctor telling you have a terminal illness and you ask what to do, and he responds with "try to live longer".
So what's the plan? What specifically are the steps to reversing climate change? Do we need to build ten thousand nuclear power plants and build a damn on every river on earth? Is solar energy the answer, and can we produce enough of it to matter?
I don't know what "action" means in this circumstance. Running in circles with our hands in the air may be emotionally rewarding, but it's not going to help.
That makes all the difference, seeing as that would represent a bigger change in the atmosphere. It adds up.
Are you comfortable with the error margins of ARGO measuring in hundredths of a degree? I just looked up an interesting... commentary on the subject.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/518497/Exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Benny-Peiser
Well you got the Ocean absorbed all the energy theory down pat, better start brushing up on the other 29 theories for why the warming stopped. :awe:
originally posted by: Dr Peiser
"Something is clearly balancing out the warming effect of the CO2 [carbon dioxide]," he explained.
"It might be natural factors, it might be the ocean, no one knows for sure.
I'll let Benny brush up on the science.originally posted by: Dr Peiser
Peiser acknowledges that he is "not a climate scientist" and has "never claimed to be one." His interest as a social anthropologist, is in "how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that."
I'll let Benny brush up on the science.
Interesting site:
"Kate Moss flashes Boobs for Breast Cancer"
"Abbey Clancey bares all"
I guess you were reading it for the articles.
If we all had a dime for every editorial piece written by a non-climate scientist that the deniers on here attempted to pass off as a legitimate rebuttal to overwhelming scientific evidence we would all be very rich men.
If we all had a dime for every editorial piece written by a non-climate scientist that the deniers on here attempted to pass off as a legitimate rebuttal to overwhelming scientific evidence we would all be very rich men.
Who are the deniers here? I have seen none that deny climate is changing and that the climate has warmed since the end of the LIA.
Perhaps if you defined what constitutes a "denier" that may help.
You know what's really funny about that. Every time we bring up the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree about MMGW we are adamantly told on this board that that's wrong.
If the consensus is wrong and most of those papers don't support MMGW why do we never see links to one of the 1000's of papers? :hmm:
Instead we get links like this, or the occasional Judith Curry link.
:hmm:
Who are the deniers here? I have seen none that deny climate is changing and that the climate has warmed since the end of the LIA.
Perhaps if you defined what constitutes a "denier" that may help.
Denier is a catch all term used to describe anyone that isn't fully on the band wagon. It also serves as a useful tag so the "believers" will know who to sneer at.
Doesn't this all sound a bit familiar?
This does sound familiar, much like the creationism/evolution debate.
NOT EVEN CLOSE! When was the last time that evolutionists attempted to cripple the American economy and impoverish the world? AGW proponents have been attempting to do exactly that for decades.
If we all had a dime for every editorial piece written by a non-climate scientist that the deniers on here attempted to pass off as a legitimate rebuttal to overwhelming scientific evidence we would all be very rich men.
And still no closer to actually achieving your political objectives than you have been for the last 3 decades. And 30 years hence you'll be making the same arguments in yet another thread about global warming while you reminisce about the good old days of the widely ignored and repudiated Kyoto treaty which represents the high water mark of your achievements.
This debate is starting to sound more and more like religion all the time.
You would be priest/rabbi/cleric btw.
I know you were trying to go for that, but that's because you guys are so blinded by ideology you can't look at the facts objectively.
Only on ATPN do the people who say we should follow the overwhelming conclusions of science try to get labeled as the religious guys by the people desperately trying to deny those same scientific conclusions.
You guys are displaying all the same irrationality that comes from the creationists in the creation/evolution debate, just about a different topic. What's sad is that I'm pretty confident that you think creationists are acting foolish when they do this.
overwhelming conclusions of science
1. Like basically everything else you say about AGW this is based on a profound ignorance of the science. As usual, you're hysterically ranting.
2. Even if your hysterical rant were true, the preferred policy of those accepting the science has literally nothing to do with whether or not the science is correct. This is basic logic.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223Without accounting for how the revenues from a carbon tax would be used, such a tax would have a negative effect on the economy. The higher prices it caused would diminish the purchasing power of peoples earnings, effectively reducing their real (inflation-adjusted) wages. Lower real wages would have the net effect of reducing the amount that people worked, thus decreasing the overall supply of labor. Investment would also decline, further reducing the economys total output.
The costs of a carbon tax would not be evenly distributed among U.S. households. For example, the additional costs from higher prices would consume a greater share of income for low-income households than for higher-income households, because low-income households generally spend a larger percentage of their income on emission-intensive goods. Similarly, workers and investors in emission-intensive industries, who would see the largest decrease in demand for their products, would be likely to bear relatively large burdens as the economy adjusted to the tax. Finally, areas of the country where electricity is produced from coalthe most emission-intensive fossil fuel per unit of energy generatedwould tend to experience larger increases in electricity prices than other areas would.