[QUOTE=cheesehead;197108]The heat in subsurface water [U]can[/U] travel (slowly) up by conduction. Ocean currents don't merely just circulate between surface and deep waters. There are currents in deeper waters as well as on the surface; they can stir up some layers down there, resulting in temporarily having cold water just above slightly warmer water.[/QUOTE]

Technical note: Any excess heat in deeper layers would generally not slowly travel upward via conduction but rather rise much more quickly via convection, unless the salinity of the warmer water were sufficiently higher than the colder water above so as to negate the density change due to temperature and make the warmer layers denser than the cold - a scenario which seems rather exceptional on large scales. The thermohaline dynamics of e.g. the NADW current are the classic example of the dominant natural dynamics: warmer surface waters evaporate water and thus lose heat and salt until they are sufficiently cold and dense as to sink and displace deeper waters. Without some kind of physical barrier to block it, convection always dominates conduction when there are physical thermohaline gradients present tending to induce convective motion, e.g. buoyancy in the case of less-dense warm water beneath denser cold water.


[QUOTE=rogue;197178]Someone could have at least spelled warming correctly in the new title. I must admit, though, that it is pretty cool.[/QUOTE]

The appellation "Pig Cyrillic" springs to mind.

Breakthrough:China pledges to lie about emissions!
 

Besides The Chosen One blessing it with his presence (on his way to picking up a well-deserved Nobel Peace Price for "most promising-sounding rhetoric"), the other big news related to the Copenhagen Climate Summit is that China has committed to "spouting soothing lies about our emissions":

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE5AQ2JD20091127]China says no emissions checks without foreign funds[/url]:
[quote]BEIJING (Reuters) - A top Chinese climate envoy said Friday only emissions curbs carried out under its newly announced carbon intensity targets that have international financial support will be open to outside scrutiny.

[u]Yu Qingtai, China's climate change ambassador, added that most of the country's emissions-curbing plans would likely not fall into the category of "measurable, reportable and verifiable."[/u]

The phrase, agreed in international talks three years ago, implies third-party checks would be made on any reported reductions.

"Actions would be measurable, reportable and verifiable if (international) support is measurable, reportable and verifiable," Yu told reporters at a briefing.
[u]
"If you look at the magnitude of the measures that were announced yesterday, I would assume only a very small proportion would come under this particular provision."[/u][/quote]
[i]My Comment:[/i] But hey, as long as they "agree in principle" to various nice-sounding stuff (possibly including basic human rights, but only if the West keeps its nose out internal affairs like Tibet), that's "climate change we can believe in", right?

[quote=mdettweiler;197182]The evidence presented within was that sunspots potentially have a significant enough effect on global warming to have made it plateau in recent years. If 11-year cycles (which is what the Spiegel article was saying had caused the plateau--it didn't refer to 11-year cycles by name, but that seems to be what it was talking about given the timeframes referred to within),[/quote]I neglected to challenge your mistake about the plateau in some recent posts, so let's get this straightened out now.

There has NOT been any plateau in total global warming. The plateau in the subset of the global warming that is the surface and atmosphere has been more than offset by the continued rise in subsurface ocean warming.

The ocean subsurface temperature measurements show a continued upward trend, as shown in the skepticalscience.com article at [URL]http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm[/URL] in its Figure 1 "Earth's Total Heat Content anomaly".

You first tried to dismiss this factual evidence by claiming that it "doesn't address the sunspot issue" in your post #457. That is irrelevant. There is a difference between data and the theorized causes of that data, and I was referring to the former.

The _data_ shows that warming has not plateaued. This has nothing whatsoever to do with sunspots! It has to do with _actual measurements_, not speculated causes. Thermometers don't care about sunspots.

Then in post #462 you tried to confuse two separate things by writing "Actually, in the Spiegel article it didn't seem to be even necessary to point out about ocean heat content or global heat content. After all, if the theory being presented is that global warming cycles are caused by changes in the sun's activity, then there'd be no argument against the fact that the planet's heat content would increase because of that."

The reason it _was_ necessary for the Spiegel article to mention "ocean heat content or global heat content" was that it started by stating that global warming had paused. Before it even mentioned any theorized cause such as sunspots, it was wrong because it ignored a significant portion of the global heat content: in the subsurface ocean water. _That_'s why it was wrong, and that has nothing to do with sunspots. Global warming has NOT paused. The rest of the article is based on a _false_ statement that there has been a pause in global warming since 1998. You haven't yet acknowledged that. Please do so (and do it without mentioning sunspots, because sunspots have nothing to do with the article's basic factual error).

Then in post #474 you tried to dismiss this problem by "Subsurface ocean heat content is an important factor in global warming only if it's actually having an effect on the planet. Yet, we don't see this effect occurring." As I pointed out, the ocean is part of the globe, and we DO see an effect -- the thermometer DATA.

Later in post #474 you tried to weasel out by "Also, if you think about it, there's not really much way we can know whether the increase in subsurface ocean heat content is due to humans, or just normal geological activity." Max, the thermometers don't care where the increase came from; they just show us that _the increase is there_ (whereas the Spiegel article is based on a claim that the increase is not there). Please distinguish between data and theory. It is not necessary to know where the heat comes from to in order to measure that the heat is there and has been increasing.

In post #486 you again tried to dodge the basic fact that the warming has not paused by writing, "the warming of the subsurface oceans isn't having any effect on the surface (both land and ocean). The surface is the part that we, humans, interact with--not the subsurface ocean." But the _fact_ that the warming has _not_ paused has nothing to do with our human interaction -- it has to do with the measured data.

You followed with "If the subsurface ocean is warming, how's that a problem if it doesn't affect us adversely?" Max, the point is not whether or not it's a problem -- the point is that it's a fact that it's occurring.

You keep trying to avoid the basic plain fact that global warming has _not_ plateaued by trying to drag in nonfactual stuff such as causes.

It's not about causes. It's about the fact that global warming has not plateaued. Please acknowledge that fact without trying to drag nonfactual stuff in.

In post #498, you barely admitted the distinction between facts and their causes when you wrote, "Yes, I don't dispute that. However, what I do dispute is that it's the cause of the measurable changes in subsurface ocean heat content." You admitted there that we're talking about _measurable_ changes in subsurface ocean heat content and that that's a separate issue from what causes they have. That's a little progress, I'll grant, but still not as clear-cut as I want to see you admit after all your attempts to confuse the two. I want you to make a plain standalone statement about the measured fact that global warming has not paused since 1998, contrary to what the Spiegel article assumes without question.

In post #504 you relapsed by again confusing facts with causes: "However, you did use the increase in subsurface ocean heat content as evidence for GW, when as I explained above, that can just as easily be caused by normal levels of sunlight as well." But the _measured fact_ of increase in subsurface ocean heat content does not depend on its cause! Whether it is "caused by normal levels of sunlight" has nothing to do with the _measured fact_. It happened. _Why_ it happened is a separate issue, and I want to see you admit that. I also want to see you stop treating facts and theorized causes as though they were equivalent things.

In post #508, you're at it again -- conflating facts and causes by, "Actually, that particular "error" (of ignoring subsurface ocean heat content) is still under hot debate between us--just a couple posts up I argued for how that data isn't showing us anything that wouldn't be caused by normal sunlight." Please acknowledge that 1) the subsurface ocean heat content is a measured fact, while 2) whether or not a change in subsurface ocean heat content is caused by normal sunlight is a question of cause, and that 3) the cause of change in measured data is separate from the data itself, and cannot be used to dismiss the data.

In post #511 you again showed fuzzy thinking with "As such, the heat keeps building up in the subsurface, therefore leading to an inrease in subsurface heat content, with no global warming needed." But global warming is not a _cause_ of increase in subsurface ocean heat content. Subsurface ocean heat content is a fact which is part of the global warming facts. Can you see the difference?

Later in that post you wrote, "The skepticalscience.com article's explanation of subsurface ocean warming being caused by global warming is indeed a conclusion that does not follow when the very same results occur due to normal levels of sunlight." But the skepticalscience.com article never said that global warming _caused_ subsurface ocean warming; it said that subsurface ocean warming _was part of_ global warming. You have misconstrued the skepticalscience.com article. Please acknowledge this correction.

At the end of post #511, you claim, "The [Spiegel] article itself is not necessarily mistaken. All it said was that "some" attribute the apparent stagnation of global warming to a lack of sunspots, and also that "some" others attribute it to ocean currents (on page 2--you did read page 2, right? :smile:). It doesn't advocate one particular position or the other; it just presents two distinct theories that are out there to explain this, one that would support AGW and another that wouldn't."

You still hadn't gotten it. My claim that the article is factually wrong, and therefore scientifically faulty by your own standard, has nothing to do with sunspots, nor with ocean currents. I wasn't saying the article fails to meet your own standard based on the theories it presents. I _was_ saying that the article fails to meet your own standard because of the basic factual error it makes in assuming that global warming has plateaued/stagnated/paused -- there has in fact been _no_ plateau/stagnation/pause.

In post #515, you wrote, "And I've kept trying to explain why I believe it [I]has[/I] paused, yet you keep dismissing it out of hand as if it's a foregone conclusion." While it is true that I've argued against some of your explanations for a pause, the main point I'm making in this present post is that it is a _fact_ that the warming has _not_ paused.

All your attempted explanations to explain that "pause" are irrelevant to the basic fact that there has been no pause in overall global warming.

Please acknowledge that you understand that total (atmosphere plus surface plus subsurface ocean) global warming has _not_ paused since 1998.

Please acknowledge that the initial assumption of the Spiegel article applies only to the subset of the globe which is the surface and atmosphere, but ignores the subsurface ocean.

[quote=ewmayer;197220]Technical note: Any excess heat in deeper layers would generally not slowly travel upward via conduction but rather rise much more quickly via convection, unless the salinity of the warmer water were sufficiently higher than the colder water above so as to negate the density change due to temperature and make the warmer layers denser than the cold - a scenario which seems rather exceptional on large scales.[/quote]I agree. My previous statement was simply about the possibility of conduction, not a claim that it is more prominent than convection.

@cheesehead:

Okay, I think I see where we're getting confused. It boils down to that you're defining global warming as including the subsurface ocean, whereas I'm not including that in my definition. I agree, it does seem that if you include the subsurface, it hasn't paused at all.

The reason why I wasn't including the subsurface in my definition is because of a few different reasons. For one, the subsurface waters would seem to be continually accumulating heat even from normal levels of sunlight--thus leading to "global warming" from perfectly normal environmental factors. Secondly, the subsurface waters have little actual effect on the part of the world we live in--namely, the surface. They make very little contact with icebergs and other ice formations, so thus they're not going to contribute much to their melting. Essentially, the subsurface waters don't really have much of an effect on the part of the world that is relevant to us--hence why I didn't consider it when discussing whether global warming has plateaued. My point was that the temperatures on the [i]surface[/i] have plateaued, and that's the part that is relevant to mankind.

Does this clear things up a bit? :smile:

[quote=mdettweiler;197480]@cheesehead:

Okay, I think I see where we're getting confused. It boils down to that you're defining global warming as including the subsurface ocean, whereas I'm not including that in my definition. I agree, it does seem that if you include the subsurface, it hasn't paused at all.

The reason why I wasn't including the subsurface in my definition is because of a few different reasons. For one, the subsurface waters would seem to be continually accumulating heat even from normal levels of sunlight--thus leading to "global warming" from perfectly normal environmental factors.[/quote]That's true of atmosphere and surface, too -- that they're warmed by normal sunlight. So you can't make subsurface ocean an exception.

If there were an equilibrium ("normal" everything), the total heat of atmosphere, surface, and subsurface ocean would remain constant -- but it's not.

[quote]Secondly, the subsurface waters have little actual effect on the part of the world we live in--namely, the surface.[/quote]Did you miss the part where heat flows from surface to subsurface? That's an actual effect on the surface -- it cools the surface below the temperature it'd have if there were no heat transfer to subsurface.

[quote]They make very little contact with icebergs and other ice formations, so thus they're not going to contribute much to their melting.[/quote]You've forgotten the other way -- that the subsurface [I]cools[/I] the surface when heat flows from the latter to the former. This makes icebergs melt [I]less[/I], so it has to be accounted for because of the heat taken away from the surface!

Neglecting that subtraction effect [I]is [U]exactly[/U] what leads to the erroneous conclusion[/I] that global warming has paused just because the sum of atmosphere plus surface warming has paused.

If you reason that slower melting of icebergs means that total warming has paused, you're leaving out that the surface heat went into the subsurface _instead_ of into the icebergs! It didn't disappear -- it went into the subsurface part that you keep wanting to ignore.

[quote]Essentially, the subsurface waters don't really have much of an effect on the part of the world that is relevant to us[/quote][U]Yes, they do![/U]

That's the mistake you keep making over and over and over ... neglecting to account for the heat flowing from surface to subsurface.

[quote]--hence why I didn't consider it when discussing whether global warming has plateaued. My point was that the temperatures on the [I]surface[/I] have plateaued, and that's the part that is relevant to mankind.[/quote]No, the surface (and atmosphere) _isn't_ the (only) part that's relevant!

Do you understand now?

[quote]Does this clear things up a bit? :smile:[/quote]All you've done is continue to ignore the effect of subsurface ocean on surface and atmosphere!! But maybe this reply will clear it up for _you_.

- - -

Hmmm... I'll bet that if the subsurface ocean were cooling instead of warming, and the surface were definitely warming instead of seeming to pause, [U]then[/U] you'd see that the subsurface was affecting the surface by feeding it extra heat -- right?

- - -

Saayy... you live in the western hemisphere, don't you? But you don't say that we can ignore the eastern hemisphere, even though it has no "direct" effect on you, do you?

You would protest if I tried to leave out the eastern hemisphere.

Each hemisphere affects the other. They're not isolated from each other.

Do you see why I protest when you try to leave out the subsurface because, supposedly, it doesn't have any "direct" effect on you -- that, supposedly, it's isolated from having any "relevance" to humankind?

The subsurface is _not_ isolated.

The heat flows between surface and subsurface may seem slower than we normally need to take into account in our everyday lives, but when we're speaking of _global_ warming we can't ignore those massive heat flows if we want correct results.

[quote=cheesehead;197490]That's true of atmosphere and surface, too -- that they're warmed by normal sunlight. So you can't make subsurface ocean an exception.

If there were an equilibrium ("normal" everything), the total heat of atmosphere, surface, and subsurface ocean would remain constant -- but it's not.

Did you miss the part where heat flows from surface to subsurface? That's an actual effect on the surface -- it cools the surface below the temperature it'd have if there were no heat transfer to subsurface.

You've forgotten the other way -- that the subsurface [I]cools[/I] the surface when heat flows from the latter to the former. This makes icebergs melt [I]less[/I], so it has to be accounted for because of the heat taken away from the surface!

Neglecting that subtraction effect [I]is [U]exactly[/U] what leads to the erroneous conclusion[/I] that global warming has paused just because the sum of atmosphere plus surface warming has paused.

[U]Yes, they do![/U]

That's the mistake you keep making over and over and over ... neglecting to account for the heat flowing from surface to subsurface.

No, the surface (and atmosphere) _isn't_ the (only) part that's relevant!

Do you understand now?

All you've done is continue to ignore the effect of subsurface ocean on surface and atmosphere!! But maybe this reply will clear it up for _you_.[/quote]
Hmm...well, if the subsurface is cooling the surface because of heat flowing from the surface into the subsurface, then it would make perfect sense that the subsurface would be warming. After all, heat from the surface is being continually pulled down to the subsurface, and not going back the other way. Therefore, the subsurface is going to keep warming up regardless of whether global warming is occurring.

Max, I've extensively edited my preceding post. I'll stop now. Please read it again as it now stands, and revise your reply accordingly.

[i]"I fervently hope that Copenhagen will avoid canonising the absurd notion that climate is determined by any single parameter like CO2. The dubious attempts to link this parameter to every form of catastrophe is producing unwarranted fear. Imposing this notion as a matter of international law will set science back several centuries. The accompanying policies seem designed to do the same for society as a whole. The carbon control movement, like every malicious movement, seeks to cloak itself in an aura of virtue. Sentient citizens should be able to see through this patent ploy."[/i]

-- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, commenting for [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427366.800-great-and-good-share-hopes-and-fears-for-copenhagen.html]New Scientist[/url]

Wikipedia has a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen]detailed write-up on Professor Lindzen[/url] ... his participation in (and later criticisms of) the IPCC are especially noteworthy, as they echo the criticisms of the "Mann hockey stick" doubters and the "IPCC is more about politics than science" skeptics:
[quote]Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.[1] [u]He was the lead author of Chapter 7, 'Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,' of the IPCC [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Assessment_Report]Third Assessment Report[/url] on climate change[/u]. He has been a critic of some global warming theories and the alleged political pressures on climate scientists.

He hypothesized that the Earth may act like an infrared iris; increased sea surface temperature in the tropics would result in reduced cirrus clouds and thus more infrared radiation leakage from Earth's atmosphere.[2] [u]This hypothesis suggested a negative feedback which would counter the effects of CO2 warming[/u].
...[b]
Climate change science
[/b]
In 2001 Lindzen served on an 11-member panel organized by the National Academy of Sciences.[7] The panel`s report, entitled [i]Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions[/i],[8] has been widely cited. [u]Lindzen subsequently publicly criticized the report summary for leaving out doubts about the weight that could be placed on 20 years of temperature records[/u].[9] Gavin Schmidt has said that Lindzen agrees with about 90% of what other climate scientists are saying, yet the last 10% is sufficiently different to label him a contrarian.[10]
[edit] IPCC activities

Lindzen worked on Chapter 7 of 2001 IPCC Working Group 1, which considers the physical processes that are active in real world climate. He had previously been a contributor to Chapter 4 of the 1995 "IPCC Second Assessment." He described the full 2001 IPCC report as "an admirable description of research activities in climate science"[11] although he criticized the Summary for Policymakers. [u]Lindzen stated in May 2001 that it did not truly summarize the IPCC report[12] but had been amended to state more definite conclusions.[13] He also emphasized the fact that the summary had not been written by scientists alone[/u]. However, the NAS panel on which Lindzen served (see above) disagreed, saying that the summary was the result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers.[14][15]
[i][EWM: Actually, I would say that a summary which is the "result of dialogue between scientists and policymakers" confirms the "not written by scientists alone" claim, so the NAS panel`s objections here have me baffled - sounds more like they disliked the implications of Lindzen`s claim, while not really disputing its veracity.][/i]

[b] Media appearances[/b]

Lindzen has contributed to several articles on climate change in the mainstream media. In 1996, Lindzen was interviewed by William Stevens for an article in the [i]New York Times[/i].[16] In this article, Lindzen expressed his concern over the validity of computer models used to predict future climate change. Lindzen said that [u]computer models may have overpredicted future warming because of inadequate handling of the climate system`s water vapor feedback. The feedback due to water vapor is a major factor in determining how much warming would be expected to occur with increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide[/u]. Lindzen said that the water vapor feedback could act to nullify future warming. According to Stevens, scientists who worked on computer climate models did not accept Lindzen`s nullification hypothesis.

The [u]New York Times[/u] article included the comments of several other experts. Jerry Mahlman, director of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University, did not accept Lindzen`s assessment of the science, and said that Lindzen had "sacrificed his luminosity by taking a stand that most of us feel is scientifically unsound." Mahlman did, however, admit that Lindzen was a "formidable opponent." William Gray of Colorado State University basically agreed with Lindzen, describing him as "courageous." He said, "A lot of my older colleagues are very skeptical on the global warming thing." He added that whilst he regarded some of Lindzen`s views as flawed, he said that, "across the board he`s generally very good." John Wallace of the University of Washington agreed with Lindzen that progress in climate change science had been exaggerated, but said "relatively few scientists who are as skeptical of the whole thing as Dick [Lindzen] is." Stephen Schneider of Stanford University criticized Lindzen`s estimate of climate sensitivity (the global mean temperature increase associated with a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations), arguing that it was too specific given the available evidence. Lindzen`s reply to this was that he had at least given reasons for his estimate, rather than following the "herd instinct" common in science.

[i][Continued in next post][/i][/quote]

[quote][i][cont.[/i] In June 2001, Lindzen wrote an article for the [i]Wall Street Journal[/i], stating that "there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them" and "I cannot stress this enough -- [u]we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions[/u]."[9] In July, Lindzen was interviewed by Fred Guterl for [i]Newsweek[/i].[17] Other experts also contributed to the article. [u]Contrary to the IPCC`s assessment, Lindzen said that climate models were inadequate and had not improved[/u]. Guterl wrote that despite the accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid. Lindzen gave an estimate of the Earth`s climate sensitivity of less than 1 degree Celsius. Lindzen based this estimate on how the climate had responded to volcanic eruptions. James Hansen, a climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimated a climate sensitivity of 3-4 degrees Celsius. Hansen based this estimate on evidence from ice cores. According to Hansen: "Dick`s idea that climate sensitivity is low is simply wrong, [...] The history of the earth proves him wrong." [18] John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, took the view that greenhouse gas emissions should be cut. When asked about Lindzen, Schellnhuber said "People like him are very useful in finding the weak links in our thinking."

In September 2003 Lindzen wrote an open letter to the mayor of his home town, Newton, Massachusetts,[19] his views on global warming and the Kyoto Accord, in which he stated, "... [T]he impact of CO2 on the Earth`s heat budget is nonlinear. What this means is that although CO2 has only increased about 30% over its pre-industrial level, the impact on the heat budget of the Earth due to the increases in CO2 and other man influenced greenhouse substances has already reached about 75% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2, and that the temperature rise seen so far is much less (by a factor of 2-3) than models predict (assuming that all of the very irregular change in temperature over the past 120 years or so—about 1 degree F—is due to added greenhouse gases—a very implausible assumption)."

The November 10, 2004 online version of [i]Reason[/i] magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[20] James Annan, a scientist involved in climate prediction, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan and Lindzen exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree. Lindzen`s final proposal was a bet that if the temperature change were less than 0.2 °C (0.36 °F), he would win. If the temperature change were between 0.2 °C and 0.4 °C the bet would be off, and if the temperature change were 0.4 °C or greater, Annan would win. He would take 2 to 1 odds.[21]

Of the Kyoto Accord, he claims there is no "controversy over the fact that the Kyoto Protocol, itself, will do almost nothing to stabilize CO2. Capping CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated will have a negligible impact on CO2 levels."[22]

[u]He frequently speaks out against the IPCC position that significant global warming is very likely caused by humans (see global warming) although he accepts that the warming has occurred[/u], saying global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago.[11] A [i]Spiegel[/i] article on the 2007 IPCC Working Group I report included a discussion of Lindzen`s critical views on the IPCC.[23] The writer of article Uwe Buse concluded "Lindzen`s arguments sound convincing, but they are still nothing but claims, popular theories as opposed to a transparent global process [the IPCC report], a global plebiscite among climate researchers."[/quote]
[i]My Comment:[/i] LOL, describing the workings of the IPCC as "a transparent global process" is simply laughable (although perhaps by "transparent" they really mean they have no good way to model clouds there, either), especially in light of the leaked e-mails which show a push for forcing of consensus and active denial and suppression of dissenting views.

Hey, cheesehead, do you care to take time out from picking on poor mdettweiler and showing us the profound flaws in Lindzen`s arguments? E.g. that computer models which all make similar assumptions and have poor ways to model complex local-and-mesoscale atmospheric feedback interactions like "clouds" are likely to all come to similarly-flawed conclusions ... Or that the most headline-worthy conclusions of the IPCC and its supporters are based on the same dubious computer models in conjunction with similalrly dubious sparse-and-very-short data sets. Are these some of the "multiple lines of evidence" you frequently cite with respect to the AGW hypothesis? Did I miss any major lines of evidence? (Not for mere *warming* mind you, but for mankind`s alleged role in it.)


BTW, I couldn`t help but notice this one of the other comments posted on the above newscientist.com page - this raises the issue of politicization even further, because when big money gets involved, any remaining semblance of objectivity - whether scientific or political - tends to go right out the proverbial window: In other words, it’s no longer just about science vs politics, it`s science vs big-money interests. Care to wager which carries more clout with most governments?
[quote][b]Richard Folland[/b]

The financial sector has a major stake in Copenhagen. Decisions there will affect investment and business. At J. P. Morgan, we are significant participants in the carbon market as traders, project developers and in voluntary carbon offsetting.

Our hope for Copenhagen is that we get clarity, to set out the long-term policy framework that investment needs. Parties could, for example, reform and improve the Clean Development Mechanism. This is criticised, sometimes justifiably, but its achievement in incentivising private finance for clean energy projects in developing countries is undeniable. Our fear is that an inability to reach an agreement puts these decisions on hold, thus delaying investment and therefore emissions reductions which are urgently needed.
[i]
Richard Folland is climate change and energy adviser to J. P. Morgan[/i][/quote]

[quote=cheesehead;197490]Saayy... you live in the western hemisphere, don't you? But you don't say that we can ignore the eastern hemisphere, even though it has no "direct" effect on you, do you?

You would protest if I tried to leave out the eastern hemisphere.

Each hemisphere affects the other. They're not isolated from each other.

Do you see why I protest when you try to leave out the subsurface because, supposedly, it doesn't have any "direct" effect on you -- that, supposedly, it's isolated from having any "relevance" to humankind?

The subsurface is _not_ isolated.

The heat flows between surface and subsurface may seem slower than we normally need to take into account in our everyday lives, but when we're speaking of _global_ warming we can't ignore those massive heat flows if we want correct results.[/quote]
Comparing the subsurface to the eastern hemisphere is a somewhat flawed analogy. The hemispheres both share the same global atmosphere, and as such, atmospheric events in one can and do affect the other. But with the subsurface, heat transfer is largely one-way. As long as the subsurface is significantly cooler, relatively speaking, than the surface waters above it (which is the case), heat will go down, from the surface to the subsurface. So, I'll admit I was a bit unclear when I said it had no particular effect on the surface...what I meant to say is that it isn't going to have a warming effect on the surface. Regardless of the fact that heat content in the subsurface is increasing, it will still be relatively much cooler than the surface--which means that heat will still only flow down. The end effect on the surface would thus be essentially the same regardless of whether the subsurface is warming.