Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[polarbear]

From Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs?

Yes. As shown in EIA's International Energy Outlook 2013, the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels for at least the next 25 years. There is, of course, substantial uncertainty about the levels of future oil supply and demand, and EIA reflects some of this uncertainty by developing low and high oil price cases, in addition to a reference case. The oil resources currently remaining in the Earth's crust, in combination with expected volumes of other liquid fuels, are estimated to be sufficient to meet total demand for liquid fuels in all three price cases of the International Energy Outlook 2013.

An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years. However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves. Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase as new technologies are developed.

Learn more:

Alright I`ll take it then that you have no clue to answer the "how to" implement what you keep demanding, because all you do is dodging the question and repeating over and over again that "we" should stop using oil & gas because "we`ll run out".
So what`s the difference if a.) we run out in ~ 200 years and b.)if "we" make oil unavailable right now ?
With b.) your bright idea "we" would be totally screwed because we don`t have a technical solution yet to grid tie wind and solar
and the "we" would be only the nations that are willing to put themselves at a huge disadvantage.
I already asked you howyou figure that could be implemented so that the "we" includes everybody, including countries like China .

With a.) that problem no longer exists and China will be no better off than "we" are because then the "we" includes everybody and we have a level playing field.
Going with a.) is better because we already do have turn key synthetic fuel technology which then (in ~ 200 years) does not have to compete any more with oil & gas or against all the countries that refuse to follow your "advice a".
Before you quote stuff like that you should first inform yourself, else you shoot your own foot yet again, as you did with this quote which I highlighted in red.
Your copy & past quote included the "learn more" when you snatched it and you should have taken their advice.
You seized on the 25 years and figured the 50 years are based on "misleading data" then posted it to stick it into my face.
Had you clicked on "learn more" at the bottom of that web page then you would have realized that the opposite is the case and we have way more oil and gas which is still in the ground to last way longer than just 25 or 50 years.
"Oil reserves" is defined as what is currently exploited with the current available technology and the oil of gas deposits that have been drilled.

It does not include any of the huge deposits that are known to exist, but have not been drilled yet.
It also does not include deposits that are currently not feasible to be extracted, but will be included as an "oil reserve" as soon as it becomes feasible with improved technology.
Such as fracking, directional drilling and better extraction methods for heavy oil and bitumen deposits , like the Canadian tar sands.
No way will we run out in 25 years or in 50 years, we`ll be going with a.) for at least 2 more centuries

Not only do you keep switching the topic from the how to implement renewable to else "we`ll run out of oil" if "we don`t quit using it right now"...but you also continue to evade the "how" to do that on the topic you chose in order to dodge the bullet on the first topic.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'll admit that the skeptics are winning as the pulse has utterly destroyed climate science with the public.

Pray that hundreds of years of physics is truly wrong and we don't see the energy resurface.

 

[PMZ]

Fossil fuel reserves expand dramatically depending on how much we are willing to pay to get them out of the ground. At 200$ per barrel equivalent we have much greater reserves.

At $220/barrel, alternative energy becomes a bargain.

At $ 220/barrel , iit makes NO DIFF to electrical generation. Since almost no petroleum is used. And even if shifts were made to EVehicles, neither solar or wind is capable of ADDING to capacity.

"neither solar or wind is capable of ADDING to capacity."

I'd like to hear the logic behind this statement.

 

[PMZ]

From Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs?

Yes. As shown in EIA's International Energy Outlook 2013, the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels for at least the next 25 years. There is, of course, substantial uncertainty about the levels of future oil supply and demand, and EIA reflects some of this uncertainty by developing low and high oil price cases, in addition to a reference case. The oil resources currently remaining in the Earth's crust, in combination with expected volumes of other liquid fuels, are estimated to be sufficient to meet total demand for liquid fuels in all three price cases of the International Energy Outlook 2013.

An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years. However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves. Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase as new technologies are developed.

Learn more:

Alright I`ll take it then that you have no clue to answer the "how to" implement what you keep demanding, because all you do is dodging the question and repeating over and over again that "we" should stop using oil & gas because "we`ll run out".
So what`s the difference if a.) we run out in ~ 200 years and b.)if "we" make oil unavailable right now ?
With b.) your bright idea "we" would be totally screwed because we don`t have a technical solution yet to grid tie wind and solar
and the "we" would be only the nations that are willing to put themselves at a huge disadvantage.
I already asked you howyou figure that could be implemented so that the "we" includes everybody, including countries like China .

With a.) that problem no longer exists and China will be no better off than "we" are because then the "we" includes everybody and we have a level playing field.
Going with a.) is better because we already do have turn key synthetic fuel technology which then (in ~ 200 years) does not have to compete any more with oil & gas or against all the countries that refuse to follow your "advice a".
Before you quote stuff like that you should first inform yourself, else you shoot your own foot yet again, as you did with this quote which I highlighted in red.
Your copy & past quote included the "learn more" when you snatched it and you should have taken their advice.
You seized on the 25 years and figured the 50 years are based on "misleading data" then posted it to stick it into my face.
Had you clicked on "learn more" at the bottom of that web page then you would have realized that the opposite is the case and we have way more oil and gas which is still in the ground to last way longer than just 25 or 50 years.
"Oil reserves" is defined as what is currently exploited with the current available technology and the oil of gas deposits that have been drilled.

It does not include any of the huge deposits that are known to exist, but have not been drilled yet.
It also does not include deposits that are currently not feasible to be extracted, but will be included as an "oil reserve" as soon as it becomes feasible with improved technology.
Such as fracking, directional drilling and better extraction methods for heavy oil and bitumen deposits , like the Canadian tar sands.
No way will we run out in 25 years or in 50 years, we`ll be going with a.) for at least 2 more centuries

Not only do you keep switching the topic from the how to implement renewable to else "we`ll run out of oil" if "we don`t quit using it right now"...but you also continue to evade the "how" to do that on the topic you chose in order to dodge the bullet on the first topic.

I see you don't like the methodical approach that I proposed. You seem to be reluctant to tell what you believe.

I think that the public won't buy wait and do nothing until a miracle occurs.

And I know engineers won't. Or businesses that depend on energy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs?

Yes. As shown in EIA's International Energy Outlook 2013, the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels for at least the next 25 years. There is, of course, substantial uncertainty about the levels of future oil supply and demand, and EIA reflects some of this uncertainty by developing low and high oil price cases, in addition to a reference case. The oil resources currently remaining in the Earth's crust, in combination with expected volumes of other liquid fuels, are estimated to be sufficient to meet total demand for liquid fuels in all three price cases of the International Energy Outlook 2013.

An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years. However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves. Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase as new technologies are developed.

Learn more:

Alright I`ll take it then that you have no clue to answer the "how to" implement what you keep demanding, because all you do is dodging the question and repeating over and over again that "we" should stop using oil & gas because "we`ll run out".
So what`s the difference if a.) we run out in ~ 200 years and b.)if "we" make oil unavailable right now ?
With b.) your bright idea "we" would be totally screwed because we don`t have a technical solution yet to grid tie wind and solar
and the "we" would be only the nations that are willing to put themselves at a huge disadvantage.
I already asked you howyou figure that could be implemented so that the "we" includes everybody, including countries like China .

With a.) that problem no longer exists and China will be no better off than "we" are because then the "we" includes everybody and we have a level playing field.
Going with a.) is better because we already do have turn key synthetic fuel technology which then (in ~ 200 years) does not have to compete any more with oil & gas or against all the countries that refuse to follow your "advice a".
Before you quote stuff like that you should first inform yourself, else you shoot your own foot yet again, as you did with this quote which I highlighted in red.
Your copy & past quote included the "learn more" when you snatched it and you should have taken their advice.
You seized on the 25 years and figured the 50 years are based on "misleading data" then posted it to stick it into my face.
Had you clicked on "learn more" at the bottom of that web page then you would have realized that the opposite is the case and we have way more oil and gas which is still in the ground to last way longer than just 25 or 50 years.
"Oil reserves" is defined as what is currently exploited with the current available technology and the oil of gas deposits that have been drilled.

It does not include any of the huge deposits that are known to exist, but have not been drilled yet.
It also does not include deposits that are currently not feasible to be extracted, but will be included as an "oil reserve" as soon as it becomes feasible with improved technology.
Such as fracking, directional drilling and better extraction methods for heavy oil and bitumen deposits , like the Canadian tar sands.
No way will we run out in 25 years or in 50 years, we`ll be going with a.) for at least 2 more centuries

Not only do you keep switching the topic from the how to implement renewable to else "we`ll run out of oil" if "we don`t quit using it right now"...but you also continue to evade the "how" to do that on the topic you chose in order to dodge the bullet on the first topic.

I see you don't like the methodical approach that I proposed. You seem to be reluctant to tell what you believe.

I think that the public won't buy wait and do nothing until a miracle occurs.

And I know engineers won't. Or businesses that depend on energy.

I think that the public won't buy wait and do nothing until a miracle occurs.

The public won't pay more money for less reliable energy, to appease a few bedwetters.

 

[PMZ]

I'll admit that the skeptics are winning as the pulse has utterly destroyed climate science with the public.

Pray that hundreds of years of physics is truly wrong and we don't see the energy resurface.

Here's what Gallup is finding.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/161645/americans-concerns-global-warming-rise.aspx

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Explaining the dynamics of weather and water in responding to increased energy is just way beyond the man in the street. And I'm afraid that the IPCCs attempts to explain it in laymen's terms if anything did more harm than good.

That will correct itself one of these years with what can't be ignored but this unfortunate set of circumstances will cost us several precious years getting started.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'll admit that the skeptics are winning as the pulse has utterly destroyed climate science with the public.

Pray that hundreds of years of physics is truly wrong and we don't see the energy resurface.

Here's what Gallup is finding.

Americans' Concerns About Global Warming on the Rise

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Explaining the dynamics of weather and water in responding to increased energy is just way beyond the man in the street. And I'm afraid that the IPCCs attempts to explain it in laymen's terms if anything did more harm than good.

That will correct itself one of these years with what can't be ignored but this unfortunate set of circumstances will cost us several precious years getting started.

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Only because, for the last 20 years, the warmers told them that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

 

[PMZ]

I'll admit that the skeptics are winning as the pulse has utterly destroyed climate science with the public.

Pray that hundreds of years of physics is truly wrong and we don't see the energy resurface.

Here's what Gallup is finding.

Americans' Concerns About Global Warming on the Rise

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Explaining the dynamics of weather and water in responding to increased energy is just way beyond the man in the street. And I'm afraid that the IPCCs attempts to explain it in laymen's terms if anything did more harm than good.

That will correct itself one of these years with what can't be ignored but this unfortunate set of circumstances will cost us several precious years getting started.

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Only because, for the last 20 years, the warmers told them that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Well, of course you're wrong again as we've come to expect from you.

 

[PMZ]

From Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Do we have enough oil worldwide to meet our future needs?

Yes. As shown in EIA's International Energy Outlook 2013, the global supply of crude oil, other liquid hydrocarbons, and biofuels is expected to be adequate to meet the world's demand for liquid fuels for at least the next 25 years. There is, of course, substantial uncertainty about the levels of future oil supply and demand, and EIA reflects some of this uncertainty by developing low and high oil price cases, in addition to a reference case. The oil resources currently remaining in the Earth's crust, in combination with expected volumes of other liquid fuels, are estimated to be sufficient to meet total demand for liquid fuels in all three price cases of the International Energy Outlook 2013.

An often cited, although misleading, measurement of future resource availability is the reserves-to-production ratio, which given the current rate of consumption and total proved reserves is about 50 years. However, proved reserves are an accounting concept that is based on known projects and is not an appropriate measure for judging total resource availability in the long-term. Over time, numerous additional projects will be developed, which will add to global reserves. Furthermore, reserve estimates at known projects are likely to increase as new technologies are developed.

Learn more:

Alright I`ll take it then that you have no clue to answer the "how to" implement what you keep demanding, because all you do is dodging the question and repeating over and over again that "we" should stop using oil & gas because "we`ll run out".
So what`s the difference if a.) we run out in ~ 200 years and b.)if "we" make oil unavailable right now ?
With b.) your bright idea "we" would be totally screwed because we don`t have a technical solution yet to grid tie wind and solar
and the "we" would be only the nations that are willing to put themselves at a huge disadvantage.
I already asked you howyou figure that could be implemented so that the "we" includes everybody, including countries like China .

With a.) that problem no longer exists and China will be no better off than "we" are because then the "we" includes everybody and we have a level playing field.
Going with a.) is better because we already do have turn key synthetic fuel technology which then (in ~ 200 years) does not have to compete any more with oil & gas or against all the countries that refuse to follow your "advice a".
Before you quote stuff like that you should first inform yourself, else you shoot your own foot yet again, as you did with this quote which I highlighted in red.
Your copy & past quote included the "learn more" when you snatched it and you should have taken their advice.
You seized on the 25 years and figured the 50 years are based on "misleading data" then posted it to stick it into my face.
Had you clicked on "learn more" at the bottom of that web page then you would have realized that the opposite is the case and we have way more oil and gas which is still in the ground to last way longer than just 25 or 50 years.
"Oil reserves" is defined as what is currently exploited with the current available technology and the oil of gas deposits that have been drilled.

It does not include any of the huge deposits that are known to exist, but have not been drilled yet.
It also does not include deposits that are currently not feasible to be extracted, but will be included as an "oil reserve" as soon as it becomes feasible with improved technology.
Such as fracking, directional drilling and better extraction methods for heavy oil and bitumen deposits , like the Canadian tar sands.
No way will we run out in 25 years or in 50 years, we`ll be going with a.) for at least 2 more centuries

Not only do you keep switching the topic from the how to implement renewable to else "we`ll run out of oil" if "we don`t quit using it right now"...but you also continue to evade the "how" to do that on the topic you chose in order to dodge the bullet on the first topic.

I see you don't like the methodical approach that I proposed. You seem to be reluctant to tell what you believe.

I think that the public won't buy wait and do nothing until a miracle occurs.

And I know engineers won't. Or businesses that depend on energy.

"we[/B][/U][/SIZE] don`t have a technical solution yet to grid tie wind and solar"

Interesting.

What happens on the grid today when demand changes or a power plant goes up or down?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Since at least IPCC in 2001 we've noted that co2 is
1. Only part of the total climate system(even through a big player within the warming). You have to consider that a warmer planet = more co2, more water vapor, etc.
2. The co2 won't cause a snap of the fingers like warming...But the warming will take centuries to reach a new balance. Where do you get what you're saying from? Oceans are where 93% of the energy is going into.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Climate Forcings and Global Warming

Any changes to the Earth’s climate system that affect how much energy enters or leaves the system alters Earth’s radiative equilibrium and can force temperatures to rise or fall. These destabilizing influences are called climate forcings. Natural climate forcings include changes in the Sun’s brightness, Milankovitch cycles (small variations in the shape of Earth’s orbit and its axis of rotation that occur over thousands of years), and large volcanic eruptions that inject light-reflecting particles as high as the stratosphere. Manmade forcings include particle pollution (aerosols), which absorb and reflect incoming sunlight; deforestation, which changes how the surface reflects and absorbs sunlight; and the rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which decrease heat radiated to space. A forcing can trigger feedbacks that intensify or weaken the original forcing. The loss of ice at the poles, which makes them less reflective, is an example of a feedback.

Carbon dioxide forces the Earth’s energy budget out of balance by absorbing thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by the surface. It absorbs thermal infrared energy with wavelengths in a part of the energy spectrum that other gases, such as water vapor, do not.

The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.

When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.

The changes we have seen in the climate so far are only part of the full response we can expect from the current energy imbalance, caused only by the greenhouse gases we have released so far. Global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 and 0.9 degrees Celsius in the past century, and it will likely rise at least 0.6 degrees in response to the existing energy imbalance.

As the surface temperature rises, the amount of heat the surface radiates will increase rapidly (see description of radiative cooling on Page 4). If the concentration of greenhouse gases stabilizes, then Earth’s climate will once again come into equilibrium, albeit with the “thermostat”—global average surface temperature—set at a higher temperature than it was before the Industrial Revolution.

However, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the amount of absorbed solar energy will continue to exceed the amount of thermal infrared energy that can escape to space. The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise.

Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

We've known for decades this fact.



The greenhouse effect.

The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is in the effect of the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is known as the greenhouse effect, referring to the farming practice of warming garden plots by covering them with a glass (or plastic) enclosure.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/index.html

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here's what Gallup is finding.

Americans' Concerns About Global Warming on the Rise

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Explaining the dynamics of weather and water in responding to increased energy is just way beyond the man in the street. And I'm afraid that the IPCCs attempts to explain it in laymen's terms if anything did more harm than good.

That will correct itself one of these years with what can't be ignored but this unfortunate set of circumstances will cost us several precious years getting started.

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Only because, for the last 20 years, the warmers told them that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Well, of course you're wrong again as we've come to expect from you.

Warmers haven't been telling us this?

 

[ScienceRocks]

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Only because, for the last 20 years, the warmers told them that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Well, of course you're wrong again as we've come to expect from you.

Warmers haven't been telling us this?

no,

but we have been saying that it will take hundreds of years for it to reach a new balance. The ipcc never tried to forecast 5-15 year periods as the natural climatic cycles aren't forecastable....Like the enso, pdo and volcano's...

Some of the models did forecast stalls kind of like the one we're seeing...
RealClimate: The global temperature jigsaw

Figure 2 Temperature evolution in a model simulation with the MRI model. Other models also show comparable “hiatuses” due to natural climate variability. This is one of the standard simulations carried out within the framework of CMIP3 for the IPCC 2007 report. Graph: Roger Jones.

In this model calculation, there is a “warming pause” in the last 15 years, but in no way does this imply that further global warming is any less. The long-term warming and the short-term “pause” have nothing to do with each other, since they have very different causes. By the way this example refutes the popular “climate skeptics” claim that climate models cannot explain such a “hiatus” – more on that later.

Now for the causes of the lesser trend of the last 15 years. Climate change can have two types of causes: external forcing or internal variability in the climate system.



The possible external drivers include the shading of the sun by aerosol pollution of the atmosphere by volcanoes (Neely et al., 2013) or Chinese power plants (Kaufmann et al. 2011). Second, a reduction of the greenhouse effect of CFCs because these gases have been largely banned in the Montreal Protocol (Estrada et al., 2013). And third, the transition from solar maximum in the first half to a particularly deep and long solar minimum in the second half of the period – this is evidenced by measurements of solar activity, but can explain only part of the slowdown (about one third according to our correlation analysis).

The latest data and findings on climate forcings are not included in the climate model runs because of the long lead time for planning and executing such supercomputer simulations. Therefore, the current CMIP5 simulations run from 2005 in scenario mode (see Figure 6) rather than being driven by observed forcings. They are therefore driven e.g. with an average solar cycle and know nothing of the particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum 2005-2010.

 

[PMZ]

IMO the average public, who don't know the science, are completely fooled by the temperature record recently. They really do believe that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Only because, for the last 20 years, the warmers told them that every new carbon atom in the atmosphere should immediately cause a measurable immediate sensible temperature increase.

Well, of course you're wrong again as we've come to expect from you.

Warmers haven't been telling us this?

No. It's a denier story.

Climate scientists have reported that all that is known with certainty, is that the earth is increasingly out of energy balance due to increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations.

And that there is no way for that energy balance to re-stabilize except for the earth surface temperature to warm.

The nature of how and when that excess energy gets resolved is a significant component of weather in the future. Near or far? That's unpredictable.

 

[ScienceRocks]

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology:


"We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2."

Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.

Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).

As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:


"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."

Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.


"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."

A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Huber and Knutti. And like Huber and Knutti, they find that greenhouse gases have caused more warming than has been observed, because other factors have had a net cooling effect over the past century (Figure 5).

 

[Kosh]

And as you can see the AGW cult is still pushing their agenda, mind you not based on real science, but religious dogma.

 

[ScienceRocks]

And as you can see the AGW cult is still pushing their agenda, mind you not based on real science, but religious dogma.

And you know better then phds and professors of their field. Genius???

 

[Kosh]

And as you can see the AGW cult is still pushing their agenda, mind you not based on real science, but religious dogma.

And you know better then phds and professors of their field. Genius???

Yes! Money can influence scientists, especially when they are told by the scribes what they must believe in order to get grants. Many believe the AGW farce because of the AGW talk circuit that has caused many of the so called "scientists" to become rich.

James Hansen drives a Bentley to work and lives in a 22 room mansion and is also an environmental wacko that helped fuel the AGW myth based on his personal cause and not any science.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate Forcings and Global Warming

Any changes to the Earth’s climate system that affect how much energy enters or leaves the system alters Earth’s radiative equilibrium and can force temperatures to rise or fall. These destabilizing influences are called climate forcings. Natural climate forcings include changes in the Sun’s brightness, Milankovitch cycles (small variations in the shape of Earth’s orbit and its axis of rotation that occur over thousands of years), and large volcanic eruptions that inject light-reflecting particles as high as the stratosphere. Manmade forcings include particle pollution (aerosols), which absorb and reflect incoming sunlight; deforestation, which changes how the surface reflects and absorbs sunlight; and the rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which decrease heat radiated to space. A forcing can trigger feedbacks that intensify or weaken the original forcing. The loss of ice at the poles, which makes them less reflective, is an example of a feedback.

Carbon dioxide forces the Earth’s energy budget out of balance by absorbing thermal infrared energy (heat) radiated by the surface. It absorbs thermal infrared energy with wavelengths in a part of the energy spectrum that other gases, such as water vapor, do not.

The absorption of outgoing thermal infrared by carbon dioxide means that Earth still absorbs about 70 percent of the incoming solar energy, but an equivalent amount of heat is no longer leaving. The exact amount of the energy imbalance is very hard to measure, but it appears to be a little over 0.8 watts per square meter. The imbalance is inferred from a combination of measurements, including satellite and ocean-based observations of sea level rise and warming.

When a forcing like increasing greenhouse gas concentrations bumps the energy budget out of balance, it doesn’t change the global average surface temperature instantaneously. It may take years or even decades for the full impact of a forcing to be felt. This lag between when an imbalance occurs and when the impact on surface temperature becomes fully apparent is mostly because of the immense heat capacity of the global ocean. The heat capacity of the oceans gives the climate a thermal inertia that can make surface warming or cooling more gradual, but it can’t stop a change from occurring.

The changes we have seen in the climate so far are only part of the full response we can expect from the current energy imbalance, caused only by the greenhouse gases we have released so far. Global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6 and 0.9 degrees Celsius in the past century, and it will likely rise at least 0.6 degrees in response to the existing energy imbalance.

As the surface temperature rises, the amount of heat the surface radiates will increase rapidly (see description of radiative cooling on Page 4). If the concentration of greenhouse gases stabilizes, then Earth’s climate will once again come into equilibrium, albeit with the “thermostat”—global average surface temperature—set at a higher temperature than it was before the Industrial Revolution.

However, as long as greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise, the amount of absorbed solar energy will continue to exceed the amount of thermal infrared energy that can escape to space. The energy imbalance will continue to grow, and surface temperatures will continue to rise.

Climate and Earth?s Energy Budget : Feature Articles

We've known for decades this fact.



The greenhouse effect.

The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288 K (or 15°C). This difference is in the effect of the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is known as the greenhouse effect, referring to the farming practice of warming garden plots by covering them with a glass (or plastic) enclosure.

Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance

Shame that this BASIC science and math was IGNORED by climate science for 25 years, because the story needed tobe that simple ass well correlated temp vs co2 curve. ALL this systems analysis of storage and delays was a plague to these clowns UNTIL they needed to pull the "hiding in the oceans " card.. Majorities of citatations before then assumed a couple years to new tmp equilibrium.. THAT kind of sloppy science is what created a vibrant skeptic opposition. NOW that the box is opened, wont be long before the public knows that curve matching is NOT climate science.

 

[PMZ]

And as you can see the AGW cult is still pushing their agenda, mind you not based on real science, but religious dogma.

And you know better then phds and professors of their field. Genius???

Yes! Money can influence scientists, especially when they are told by the scribes what they must believe in order to get grants. Many believe the AGW farce because of the AGW talk circuit that has caused many of the so called "scientists" to become rich.

James Hansen drives a Bentley to work and lives in a 22 room mansion and is also an environmental wacko that helped fuel the AGW myth based on his personal cause and not any science.

As compared to big oil execs that private jet to work.