Open thread Nov. 18, 2014 Dan Crawford | November 18, 2014 9:00 pm Tags: open thread Comments (49) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
How Democrats Can Win Back the White Working Class and Increase Turnout Among Blacks and Latinos
Robert Kuttner November 17, 2014
* * * * * * * * * *
Robert Kuttner encourages Democrats nationally to come out for the $15 minimum wage — my reply to one commenter:
Wage may not be a simple matter of supply and demand — not of straight forward consumer demand for the product anyway; not if labor has no effective mechanism to withhold its input in the free market process: that would be collective bargaining via a labor union. Without that we have what I call a two-tier market: labor is paid according to what it is worth compared to other labor — no matter what price the output could be sold to the consumer — starting with subsistence and adding a dollar or two and hour on the way up the rungs.
Fast food: subsistence (or less!). Baristras at Starbucks: need a bit more sophistication for the customers: a dollar or two more. Supermarkets: about the same. Regional airline pilots with $100,000 educations (and your life on the line): a hundred dollars a week more (they love to play with airplanes while they hope to move up to the majors).
$15 MINIMUM WAGE: Walmart labor costs 7% (lowest example) — Walmart average wage of part and full time workers $12 an hour. Make the average $15 (some would make more if the minimum were $15 — but just to get a ball park idea) and Walmart prices go up 1.75% (1.25 X 7%). Wont even put any Walmart employees out of work because the $15 an hour minimum wage will put $560 billion more purchasing power in the pockets of low income consumers. Plausible effect; some of Walmart’s merchandise may have to go a bit more upscale.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING POWER: Double Walmart’s $12 average to $24 and throw in $6 more an hour for benefits and Walmart prices only rise about 10%. 7% + 3.5 % = 10.5%. Again other low end earners would presumably be bargaining collectively too (or at least getting $15 min) — plausibly leading to more sales not fewer. Employees would in any case willlingly sacrifice a few jobs for that kind of raise (many working two because one wont make it). What union wouldn’t take advantage of such free market potential?
Unfortunately there is a sad answer to the last question. No union can take advantage of such a tempting market price possibility when another firm down the road is exploiting non-union labor — which is how Walmart destroyed the middle class contracts of the supermarket unions.
CENTRALIZED BARGAINING — which is the most common labor market setup in continental Europe (also French Canada and such varied places as Argentina and Indonesia) — is a free market setup where all employees doing the same kind of work (e.g., retail clerk) negotiate one common contract with all firms doing similar business (e.g., Best Buy, Safeway, Walmart).
This simple system began its history in 1930s Detroit with the Teamsters Union which by 1964 finally succeeded in establishing its National Master Freight Agreement — one contract for all interstate truckers — from sea to sea. In Europe it was actually instituted by employers after WWII to keep unions from trying to out compete each other — in order to save money for rebuilding (say anything about how much more seriously European workers protect their interests?).
Fast food in the US — highest labor costs (33%); lowest wages — a $15 an hour minimum wage would add 25% to your burger price. 65% of McDonald’s customers go through the drive through (not poor); they gotta eat; gonna bring peanut butter sandwiches for a 25% price hike? Meantime the low income patrons will be getting an average $8,000 a year raise — they should buy more (if they can stand to :-]).
Right or wrong predictions about post wage hike (and price hike) consumer buying choices — still boils down to the same thing: that supply and demand is ultimately about the consumer willingness to pay labor price if we can just get out of the two-tier, ultimately exploitative, labor market the US has now.
BONUS: universal unionization puts equal political financing and lobbying to work for the average person to go with our 99% of the votes. Think how much money will be saved when the same old representatives suddenly become worried about how we are being squeezed by the drug companies and the colleges and the (fill in the too numerous to list dotted lines) …
A recent scientific article claimed that a warm spot in the N. Pacific may have warmed the atmosphere enough to stop the hiatus.
/sarc I haven’t done the math to compare areas, but if the? scientists? can claim that one warmer than usual area of the N Pacific has stopped the hiatus. Then it is even more likely that the unprecedentedly huge area currently being pelted with RECORD SETTING COLD AND SNOW has restarted it.
The ice will cover most of the N. hemisphere. There will be too little fossil fuels to heat our cities. No food will be raised. The wild life will disappear from their normal habitats. The Polar bears and wolves will roam freely searching to eat us poor hungry and cold humans.
See how easy it is? I feel so much better. /sarc
Strangely enough a similar warm spot occurred in the same area last year. Any of you folks in the snow belt have any opinions as to the effect there?
maybe if we move the excess ozone produced in cities to Antarctica, we could kill two birds with one stone.
1. “Scientific articles” generally come with citations
2. Weather does not equal climate
3. Weather how ever severe in one part of the western half of the northern hemisphere in its winter does not by itself offset conditions in both halves of the Southern Hemisphere in their summer. Are Western and Southern Australia experiencing lower than normal summer temperatures? If not what the fuck does a blizzard in Buffalo tell us about GLOBAL warming?
4. See point 2
Thanks folks!. Next time we see articles that (fill in any weather event here) is caused or exacerbated by Climate Change/Global Warming/Anthropogenic Global Warming, I’ll take your solutions and explanations to heart. 😉
Would have been nice to actually see the article that you interpreted for me, CoRev. I mean, I really appreciate the effort you have expended on doing my thinking for me and the other readers, but I have a hard time accepting the effort due to your motivation.
Interesting report from the CBO today. A “Big Picture” look at revenues and expenses for D.C. The report measures the consequences of reducing expenses/raising taxes.
When you go through it, it becomes clear that cutting expenses does not come easy. Yes, get rid of a few Subs and and an Aircraft carrier fleet, but that does not move the needle all so much.
Many options for increasing revenues are looked at. Higher income taxes, higher caps on FICA, new taxes on SS benefits, cap gains, mortgage deductions, minimum tax, etc.
No one report could consider all of the ways that cuts/increases could be made. But this is a ‘road map’ that CBO is using to stimulate some discussion. I thought it was interesting the report did not consider raising SS FICA tax rates. Maybe CBO does not want to highlight a regressive tax increase.
Hiatus? What hiatus?
“Even if it’s freezing in your personal universe, Earth as a whole just broke three “warmest” records and is likely to see 2014 go down as the warmest since record keeping began in 1880, scientists reported Thursday. ”
Joel, even the bulk of climate scientists accept the pause/hiatus. It is most pronounced in the RSS satellite dataset. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:1996.75/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979
Global average temperatures are supposes/expected to rise in el Nino years as is 2014. They will drop or pause in the almost sure to follow la Nina period. Both of these phenomena are NATURAL events. There is no known influence from ACO2.
Your example reinforces the sarcasm of my comment. pointing to weather events, warm spots in the N. Pacific, a specific storm (‘Sandy), or cooler/warmer seasons are all weather.
The most recent scientific attempts to explain the hiatus have pointed to NATURAL overwhelming any anthropogenic causes. Most of those studies point to effect like the ENSO and ocean oscillations. That’s what skeptics have been saying for years.
Nothing you say in any way shape or form has anything to do with the warming of the Earth.
“Joel, even the bulk of climate scientists accept the pause/hiatus.”
CoRev, climate scientists now understand that the “hiatus” in surface temperature warming does not reflect a hiatus in global warming. Climate scientists now understand that the apparent “hiatus” is due to the fact that oceans have been absorbing the “missing” warming and have been warming faster than previously understood.
“The most recent scientific attempts to explain the hiatus have pointed to NATURAL overwhelming any anthropogenic causes. Most of those studies point to effect like the ENSO and ocean oscillations.”
Wrong. The most recent scientific success to explain the so-called “hiatus” have pointed to ocean warming at a rate faster than previously measured. These studies point to continued, monotonic, global warming.
“In the 21st century, surface warming slowed as more heat moved into deeper oceans. In situ and reanalyzed data are used to trace the pathways of ocean heat uptake. In addition to the shallow La Niña–like patterns in the Pacific that were the previous focus, we found that the slowdown is mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers in the Atlantic and the Southern oceans, initiated by a recurrent salinity anomaly in the subpolar North Atlantic. ”
Joel claims: ” Climate scientists now understand that the apparent “hiatus” is due to the fact that oceans have been absorbing the “missing” warming and have been warming faster than previously understood. ” Fundamentally you claim that scientists have seen some change in physics that has caused oceans to change their heat absorption rate and absorbing the “missing” heat.
Is that your position? Is that their position? 90+% (its actually probably closer to 100%) of the ocean’s heat comes from the Sun. What has changed?
What has actually happened is that the measure for global warming has been shifted from average surface temperatures to ocean heat content (OHC). OHC is a very nebulous calculation based upon nebulous calculations of total ocean volumes and nebulous calculations of temperatures at various depths.
They went to that metric because the couldn’t explain the change in the average surface temperatures. Remember this is the “settled” science.
I won’t address the remainder of your comment as they are based upon the same shoddy concept. But I will take on this claim: “In addition to the shallow –like patterns…” That is the cooling portion of ENSO. So if previous science pointed to cooling caused (at least partially) by La Niñas, then warming is also caused (at least partially) by El Niños. These are both NATURAL phenomena.
That amont represented by PARTIALLY has always been the question. “Missing heat” is there only because the models (the culmination of the science) can not predict and has not predicted the pause in warming.
As another aside, when they say: “mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers” they are talking about the deep ocean currents. These have been recognized for decades and are proposed as responsible for the recurrent warm peaks in the Holocene, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, contemporary.
Its an interesting set of hypotheses, but do you notice the loss of attention to anthropogenic causes?
“As another aside, when they say: “mainly caused by heat transported to deeper layers” they are talking about the deep ocean currents. These have been recognized for decades and are proposed as responsible for the recurrent warm peaks in the Holocene, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, contemporary. ”
The fact that deep ocean currents have been recognized for a long time has nothing to do with the Science paper, CoRev. The finding in the paper is that the “missing” energy of the so-called “hiatus” isn’t missing at all, but is being absorbed by the deep ocean. Since the ocean is part of the globe, ocean warming is part of global warming.
“do you notice the loss of attention to anthropogenic causes?”
If you actually understood the paper, CoRev, you would understand why the paper doesn’t discuss anthropogenic causes. The fact that today’s global warming has a largely anthropogenic basis has nothing to do with how the increased warming is partitioned. The point of the paper is that the energy of global warming has, in part, been absorbed by the deep ocean, and that the so-called “hiatus” is an artifact of the previous failure to properly inventory the fraction of global warming that is taking place in the deep ocean.
No where in that post do you even come close to anything that remotely talks about the warming of the Earth.
Humorously, you just refuse to see that all you are doing is limiting the measurements to certain small areas, and then talking about natural events that all climate scientists take into consideration and then act like they don’t take them into consideration.
Same Heritage formula, again and again.
““do you notice the loss of attention to anthropogenic causes?”
Oops, wrong again, CoRev. From the *first* sentence of the Science paper: “Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions perturb Earth’s radiative equilibrium, leading to a persistent imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) despite some long-wave radiative adjustment.”
EM again, do you have a point? It is not obvious.
Joel, I’ll repeat what has changed the physics of warming the planet? Without that change there is no ?missing? heat. It is ?? only because the science was incomplete. Your reference is just another of the near 60 attempts to explain the “pause”. Explanations of the “pause” are needed because the models, the culmination of the science, did not anticipate it. AFATGoes neither did the traditional scientists.
Skeptical scientists had been predicting the pause and even cooling down by predicting the impacts from ocean oscillations and lowering solar activity.
Do you understand that: “Increasing anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions perturb Earth’s radiative equilibrium, leading to a persistent imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) …” actually means OLR should be decreasing. It is not. It actually seems to be synchronized with surface temperatures, and not with GHGs.
Another aside, calculation of radiative imbalance requires some precision in the OHC calculations. I’ve already covered that.
The important point in the current science is the emphasis on NATURAL factors explaining the changes.
“what has changed the physics of warming the planet? ”
You’re obviously not a scientist, CoRev. No physics has been changed, nor has anyone claimed that physics has been changed. What has changed is the quality of the deep sea temperature data, which has been improved using the same old physics deployed in new ways.
” Explanations of the “pause” are needed because the models, the culmination of the science ”
Again, you prove you know nothing about science, CoRev. Models are not the culmination of science. They are exactly what they say–models. Scientific models are based on the data and technologies at hand. When there are new data, the models are modified to incorporate them. In this case, the existing models didn’t explain the illusory “hiatus” in global warming because the models didn’t accurately account for deep sea warming. Now, the models better model real life, because they incorporate new data showing that the “missing” warming predicted by models isn’t missing at all, it’s just undersea rather than in the surface warming data.
“The important point in the current science is the emphasis on NATURAL factors explaining the changes.”
Natural factors explain how the earth’s temperature is reacting to anthropogenic warming, yes. Nobody disputes that. However, the warming is driven in large part because of anthropogenic changes in the natural environment, to which the physical properties of the natural world respond. In this case, anthropogenic global warming of the earth’s surface has taken an apparent “hiatus” while the deep ocean absorbs more of the energy. As the paper says in the closing paragraph, this partitioning will eventually reverse, leading to a resumption of surface warming. But there has been no hiatus in global warming, nor does this shift in increased warming from the surface to the deep ocean demonstrate that the current global warming is due to anything other than anthropogenic causes.
Just for Bruce
” 1. “Scientific articles” generally come with citations http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm
2. Weather does not equal climate My point exactly, but still we get references annually to just that.
3. Weather how ever severe in one part of the western half of the northern hemisphere in its winter does not by itself offset conditions in both halves of the Southern Hemisphere in their summer. Are Western and Southern Australia experiencing lower than normal summer temperatures? If not what the fuck does a blizzard in Buffalo tell us about GLOBAL warming? As afar as temps in Oz and NZ go they are currently under attack for their penchant to ?adjust? temps for their original. Snow in Buffalo = Super Storm Sandy.
4. See point 2 Over and over and over again.
Where’s the anthropogenic component of Global Warming?
“The important point in the current science is the emphasis on NATURAL factors explaining the changes.”
Not to put too fine a point on it, CoRev, all science emphasizes natural factors. Only religion invokes supernatural factors. The science of climate change points to the natural consequences of anthropogenic activities being the cause of global warming. The religion of climate denialism points to supernatural causes in order to avoid the implications of the science.
Joel, if denialists, whoever they are, believe in “supernatural causes” for explaining the changes, then explain why is the hiatus “illusory”? Its data! What is interesting is how badly you personally DENY the DATA.
Because skeptics have questioned completeness and validity of the science those with blind beliefs in it called them science deniers. Just as you have done even in this comment thread. Now you admit: “Scientific models are based on the data and technologies at hand. When there are new data, the models are modified to incorporate them.” This translates to Climate Science is incomplete science (not at all settled) due to ignorance of just this one factor. It is based upon an inaccurate hypothesis due to inadequate attention or identification of major components.
Finally, what gives you the idea that deep sea temperature data improved? It has increased many fold because it was nearly non-existent, but it is mostly limited in locale. Improved over near zero? Yup! Can localized data be trusted for global extrapolation? Problematical. Can the rate of change be very accurate when there is so few data? Again problematical. Rate of change in the abyssal depths is measured in the hundredths of degree, and that is mostly measured for less than the recommended 30 Year minimum time frame. Can this limited localized data, of relativity short life be trusted to calculate globally extrapolated averages in the hundredths of degree without huge error bars? Unlikely.
Skeptics question. Only religious fanatics believe unquestionably. This science is highly questionable, as was the AGW hypothesis.
“then explain why is the hiatus “illusory”? Its data! What is interesting is how badly you personally DENY the DATA.”
No, CoRev, I personally have explained the data to you, citing a recent Science paper which you either haven’t read or don’t understand. To recap: the “data” that support the idea of a global warming “hiatus” come from surface temperature measurements. There is nothing “wrong” with these data and they are indeed data. And the data showing that the planet is still warming even during the “hiatus” come from deep ocean temperature measurements. These are data too. They don’t falsify the surface temperature data, and they don’t falsify the conclusion that there has been a hiatus in surface warming. They do falsify the conclusion that there has been a hiatus in global warming.
“It is based upon an inaccurate hypothesis due to inadequate attention or identification of major components.”
In Science, CoRev, there is no such thing as proof. There are theories and hypotheses. But all theories and hypotheses are not equal. The theories and hypotheses that can be tested and potentially falsified are the scientific ones. That’s why creationism isn’t scientific.
The recent data on surface temperature warming seemed to falsify the hypothesis that as man made greenhouse gases increased, the planet would warm in step. That apparent falsification turned out to be due to incomplete data. Now, with new data, we know that the hypothesis that anthropogenic activity is the best explanation for the rates of global warming is still the best hypothesis and that there has been no “hiatus” in global warming.
“Finally, what gives you the idea that deep sea temperature data improved? ”
Read the Science paper, CoRev.
“Skeptics question. Only religious fanatics believe unquestionably. This science is highly questionable, as was the AGW hypothesis. ”
You ask questions, CoRev, but you don’t bother to learn the answers. You just keep asking the same uncomprehending questions over and over.
Joel, not only have I read your cited paper I critiqued for you explaining its weaknesses. I’ll repeat it since you failed to read and comprehend the issues with it.
“Finally, what gives you the idea that deep sea temperature data improved? It has increased many fold because it was nearly non-existent, but it is mostly limited in locale. Improved over near zero? Yup! Can localized data be trusted for global extrapolation? Problematical. Can the rate of change be very accurate when there is so few data? Again problematical. Rate of change in the abyssal depths is measured in the hundredths of degree, and that is mostly measured for less than the recommended 30 Year minimum time frame. Can this limited localized data, of relativity short life be trusted to calculate globally extrapolated averages in the hundredths of degree without huge error bars? Unlikely.”
you also claimed: “You just keep asking the same uncomprehending questions over and over.” Which questions have I repeated? If you are going to make claims substantiate them. If you can find repeated questions, if they have been answered in the science then show us the clear answer(s).
“Finally, what gives you the idea that deep sea temperature data improved? ”
Read the paper, CoRev. If you’ve already read it, then this question demonstrates that you didn’t understand it. Given all the rest of the bafflegab you’ve posted here, I cannot say I’m surprised. But before you post another self-discrediting reply, I recommend you get professional help. Otherwise, you are just another troll.
“Just for Bruce
” 1. “Scientific articles” generally come with citations http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114090009.htm”
Bruce links and finds this:
Warmest oceans ever recorded
November 14, 2014
University of Hawaii ‑ SOEST
This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Nino year.
This summer has seen the highest global mean sea surface temperatures ever recorded since their systematic measuring started. Temperatures even exceed those of the record-breaking 1998 El Niño year,” says Axel Timmermann, climate scientist and professor, studying variability of the global climate system at the International Pacific Research Center, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise paused, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. This period, referred to as the Global Warming Hiatus, raised a lot of public and scientific interest. However, as of April 2014 ocean warming has picked up speed again, according to Timmermann’s analysis of ocean temperature datasets.”
Bruce scratches head wondering why this debunking of the idea that a hiatus that proved to be closed ended supported global warming denialism. And wonders if that might be the reason a certain CR didn’t provide the cite to begin with.
Bluff called and a pocket 9-4 off suit? That was a winning hand?
But later is better than never. Thanks C.R.!
Joel, define what you mean improved and deep sea. This paper concentrates on the Atlantic portion of the ocean conveyor current and tries to explain the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, an ~60 year 1/2 warm 1/2 cold cycle.
There are no new measurement devices that actually go deep enough, >9,000 meters, to follow this whole current. ARGO buoys, the newest wide spread attempt at measuring ocean dynamics, go to just 2,000 meters. The number and spread of these buoys are still too widely separated to do anything but a cursory collection. At best we are talking about getting readings from just a couple hundred buoys. This current takes 500 – 1000 years (I’ve seen both numbers quoted) to complete one cycle.
Since the ARGO data has been available in sufficient quantity for over a decade, I do not consider this new improvement, since this was the baseline. I guess you were surprised to learn about them.
This is a newer paper in the growing list of explanations trying to explain the hiatus. If you note, this paper, your own cite admitted to its existence. As a newer paper it cites or references several other earlier papers, also recognizing the hiatus.
How does this paper square with your “illusory” description of the hiatus? You’ve focused on just one paper thinking it gives an answer to some question, and that it refutes something I might have said. Instead it confirms it.
Bruce, a couple of points.
1) Bruce: “Weather how ever severe in one part of the western half of the northern hemisphere in its winter does not by itself offset conditions in both halves of the Southern Hemisphere in their summer.”
This applies to a hot spot in the N. Pacific as well as cold and snow in the N. Hemisphere. They are both weather. If large enough and temporally long enough different from thee average to effect the anomaly, then they will show up in the record.
2) Bruce/article: “From 2000-2013 the global ocean surface temperature rise PAUSED, in spite of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations.” (MY EMPHASIS) Yup! There’s that reference to the PAUSE in the science.
3) If you note the graphs in the article: http://images.sciencedaily.com/2014/11/141114090009-large.jpg What is being done is comparing the latest high to an average. Look at that temperature graph on the left and notice the history after peaks. This is an El Nino (may end up a near el Nino) year. The rise in sea surface temps is an indicator and necessary for this determination. Warmer sea surfaces is not unexpected. Let’s see what happens after the el Nino passes.
The interesting point in this paper is the warm spot has occurred two years in a row, with cold Winters in N. America. Cause and effect? Might be. But why does it occur? Maybe Joel’s paper explains it, but what local conditions cause the deep current to rise to the surface? Salinity? Perhaps, but then we have a whole other set of questions.
I repeat my question: “Where’s the anthropogenic component of Global Warming?” That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, but clearly it is overwhelmed by natural causes.
Skeptics have been asking this questions for decades. It still needs to be answered. Current non-modeled answers try to remove from the measurement data the variability influenced by natural events leaving the underlying anthropogenic signal. The values and identification of them have been questioned. Leaving more doubts.
It is good to see the science recognizing the hiatus/pause, because it has forced climate science into review of natural cycles, supporting the skeptical position, and improving the overall ?settled? science.
“Maybe Joel’s paper explains it, but what local conditions cause the deep current to rise to the surface? Salinity? Perhaps, but then we have a whole other set of questions.”
Yes, CoRev. Good research always begets more questions. That’s how science works. It doesn’t deal in dogma, it deals in evidence. When new evidence appears, such as in the Science paper I cited, new and better models and hypotheses arise.
But in this case, our ability to account for the apparent global warming “hiatus” as an artifact of over-reliance on surface warming data does not in any way raise questions about the anthropogenic basis for global warming; the evidence for this is strong. How the increased thermal energy is distributed across the globe is dictated by physical properties of the planet, but as of now, the best interpretation of the science is that the planet continues to warm, there has been no hiatus in this process in the past 20 years and that the major driver for global warming in the last 50 years is human activity.
“Since the ARGO data has been available in sufficient quantity for over a decade, I do not consider this new improvement, since this was the baseline. I guess you were surprised to learn about them.”
Whether or not you, a nonscientist with a demonstrated incomprehension of climate science, considers this new data doesn’t interest me. Evidently, the editorial board of the AAAS journal Science, one of the most prestigious scientific journals on the planet, found the findings sufficiently novel
“This is a newer paper in the growing list of explanations trying to explain the hiatus. If you note, this paper, your own cite admitted to its existence. As a newer paper it cites or references several other earlier papers, also recognizing the hiatus.”
Again, you show your incomprehension, CoRev. Nobody is saying that the Science paper is the only attempt by any scientist anywhere to explain the “hiatus.” Nobody is saying that surface temperature measurement data don’t show a “hiatus” in surface warming. What this paper does is provide evidence that there has been no global hiatus in planetary warming, and that the apparent “hiatus” in global warming is likely an artifact of over-reliance on surface temperature measurements.
How is it not obvious that your entire thought process consists of measuring small areas and coming to a conclusion based on those small areas?
It is all you do.
Joel, stop denying the science. You responded to my insistence that the hiatus/pause was being recognized in the newer science papers by calling “illusory”. You denied its very existence. You closed you 2nd comment with ” What this paper does is provide evidence that there has been no global hiatus in planetary warming,…”
You then accept that changing the metric is rational that c science: “… global warming “hiatus” as an artifact of over-reliance on surface warming data…” It was the climate scientists that used it as the metric. Now that it is no longer confirming the hypothesis, they are searching for causes. This paper is just one of nearly 5 DOZEN papers identifying causes in the past couple of years.
You also claim that “… found the findings sufficiently novel…” is in some way conclusive science. You have overworked this single paper, while claiming I do not know the science. You continue with this even though I critiqued its weaknesses. Your base understanding of Climate Science remains unchanged even though its inadequacy is evident. Even though you claim otherwise “… nobody claims blah, blah, blah…”. An ad hominem attack is a sure sign of inadequate knowledge to argue the points.
Finally, you have the tail wagging the dog: ” However, the warming is driven in large part because of anthropogenic changes in the natural environment, to which the physical properties of the NATURAL WORLD RESPONDS. ” (MY EMPHASIS) Wow, the natural world responds to the anthropogenic changes. Your grasp of the obvious here is extraordinary. NO ONE QUESTIONS THAT MANKIND IMPACTS THE ENVIRONMENT, and causes some portion of the warming.
How much for each human cause can not be assigned, and how much of this is part of the total warming? Yes, GHG can warm. Never been an issue. How much of the GHGs are anthropogenic and how much warming to them can be defined? That’s unknown.
The recent papers show us that NATURAL causes overwhelm anthropogenic in the short term.
What you are saying is that climate scientists did not realize that the oceans were a giant heat sink until they started “searching for causes”.
That is insane and uninformed. Scientists always knew the role of the oceans, they just had no accurate way to obtain data. In the last decade or so, the ability to gather data has increased, and keeps increasing.
“The recent papers show us that NATURAL causes overwhelm anthropogenic in the short term. ”
No. You obviously don’t understand the literature on this topic, CoRev. What the recent papers show is precisely the opposite: that nature is unable to overcome anthropogenic warming. What, in particular, the Science paper shows is the *mechanism* by which the physics of the planet is distributing the energy. The surface temperature increase has experienced a recent hiatus, while the deep oceans are absorbing more of the excess heat due to periodic changes in deep ocean currents. That isn’t evidence that “NATURAL causes overwhelm anthropogenic in the short term,” since the data show that anthropogenic global warming has continued unabated.
Of course you are correct. But it does not matter. He will just continue restricting measurements to certain areas affected by natural forces and then declaim that natural forces are driving the climate.
And every now and then he will outright lie.
“The connection between global warming and the changes in ocean heat content has long been a subject of discussion in climate science. This was explicitly discussed in Hansen et al, 1997 where they predicted that over the last few decades of the 20th Century, there should have been a significant increase in ocean heat content (OHC). Note that at the time, there had not been any observational estimate of that change (the first was in 2000 (Levitus et al, 2000)), giving yet another example of a successful climate model prediction. At RC, we have tracked the issue multiple times e.g. 2005, 2008 and 2010. Over the last few months, though, there have been a number of new papers on this connection that provide some interesting perspective on the issue which will certainly continue as the CMIP5 models start to get analysed.”
– See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/global-warming-and-ocean-heat-content/#sthash.8poL2R2m.dpuf
CoRev’s scribblings on this topic are so obtusely nonsensical that I cannot tell whether he is lying or just profoundly ignorant. To be generous, at least part of his problem appears to be a conflation of the distribution of heat with the appearance and disappearance of heat. The fact that cyclic natural processes can account for differential apportionment of energy over time is no evidence that the cause of global warming is “natural” and not anthropogenic. The planet is heating up, there is no compelling evidence that the progression of this process over time has experienced a “hiatus,” that the increased heating over recent historical baselines is best explained by human activity.
Sorry, my last sentence should have read:
“The planet is heating up, there is no compelling evidence that the progression of this process over time has experienced a “hiatus,” *and* the increased heating over recent historical baselines is best explained by human activity.
The lies are separate.
In this latest meme of his, the lie is that climate scientists are only looking now at the oceans since the surface temps don’t “fit” their science. Of course, that is demonstrably false.
EM, stop the strawman argument. I did not say anything about measuring small areas, except that it was an error to extrapolate short term impacts globally. I do however use the polar ice cores, often. They represent very long term climate proxies for both hemispheres, and show clear similar patterns.
Further, climate scientists have emphasized the importance of GHGs over natural impacts. The hiatus/pause has showed the flaw in that thinking. The models, the culmination of the science, did not predict the hiatus simply because the scientist emphasized the wrong factors.
, el Ninos and la Nina, is just one of those ocean driven factors. you then go to RC to show how they have considered OHC in previous articles: ” At RC, we have tracked the issue multiple times e.g. 2005, 2008 and 2010.” Each of these was an el Nino year warming the oceans. Indeed so is 2014 and lo and behold we have another series based upon OHC/warming. Ocean warming in specific areas is the significant determinant and result to determine el Ninos. BTW that determination is done by measurements in small specific areas of the Pacific. Guess they should also be ignored?????
So you rely on scientific articles, not papers, talking about ocean warming/OHC during el Nino years? And you insist that scientists always ” always knew the role of the oceans, ” Even during the time frame of those articles something interesting was happening: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2001/trend Also not predicted.
Please understand climate science is not a “settled” science, and the part most unsettled is the role of GHGs.
Joel claims: ” while the deep oceans are absorbing more of the excess heat due to periodic changes in deep ocean currents.” Excess heat is non-existent. Your paper talks about moving heat around the oceans it does not say there is ?excess? heat. Excess from what level? Excess because of what? If you claim it is from GFG, explain how much is from anthropogenic sources. (Note: if you don’t know the amounts off the top of your head ACO2 is ~3-4% of the total atmospheric CO2.)
Long wave IR can only penetrate the ocean to a depth of a couple of microns of the surface. That warmed surface will actually increase evaporation, cooling it. So explain how that excess surface heat gets to those deep currents.
As in surface and a couple feet of water.
“Excess from what level?”
From historical baselines, before the recent anthropogenic warming trend.
“Excess because of what?”
” So explain how that excess surface heat gets to those deep currents.”
Here’s a lay language explanation.
Joel, I should have been more clear in my question, you answered with what I assumed you already meant: “Excess because of what?”
That’s what I assumed when I referenced down well long wave radiation. From 2 microns to 9 kilometers? You say its because a usually deep to very deep ocean current grabs the highest couple of microns of surface water AT ITS LOCATION(s) where it reaches the surface and then carries it for 500-1000 years to release some where else?
Do you have any idea how small in area are those currents and their points where they touch the surface are compared to the overall surface of the oceans?
Another point, when scientists talk about the oceans being a sink, they are not talking about down welling long wave radiation but the short wave solar radiation. So those currents are warmed by the short wave radiation which can reach to several hundred meters below the surface, and represents +90% of surface heating. The remaining heat is for the land masses and then what left over may be due to down welling radiation.
Now when these currents deepen how do they maintain that temperature while being surrounded by much cooler even cold water. The lower temps in the deep oceans is as low as 2C. Do you believe radiation stops at some depth? Conduction and convection will enhance heat loss. Here’s a visual of ocean temperatures http://www.mar-eco.no/learning-zone/__data/page/152/thermocline-800.jpg
I’d also like to point out you showed us that ocean temperature measurement had improved significantly. So why didn’t Trenberth show us that hotspot where the current was hiding the heat? Maybe the salinity has some influence but its just not evident in the data.
Just like the nonexistent hot spot in the atmosphere proposed by the hypothesis and never found, the hot spot deep in the oceans has not been found. All hot spots are surface related. So lets wash, rinse and repeat, what is the main source for oceans heating (a hint the S*n). Why would a warm surface spot occur? I would bet highly on a solar influence probably fewer clouds and less rain in an are for e period.
EM’s clueless, but you claim to be a scientist. When you read this stuff don’t you even think or review the likelihood? You obviously do not question if there is an alternative explanation.
Blind belief = religion.
BTW, if you persist in using this Trenberth paper I’ll have to explain his follow on.
EM and Joel — a thought problem.
If the “pause” should end because of the warm spot in the N. Pacific, do the alarmists in denying its existence, ( that would include the both of you) and now calling it ended, realize that the cause for its beginning and end are almost totally natural. The AGW hypothesis is not supported by its ending, but is modestly disproved. Modestly in that it shows that ACO2 warming is overwhelmed and/or enhanced by nature.
This leaves us with the oft repeated question: How much warming is from (fill in your own cause here).
“If the “pause” should end because of the warm spot in the N. Pacific. . . ”
I don’t care to discuss hypotheticals, CoRev. I’m interested in reality.
“You obviously do not question if there is an alternative explanation.”
You obviously don’t know anything about me or what alternatives I’ve considered. Don’t be such a tool, CoRev.
“Do you believe radiation stops at some depth? ”
Of course, silly. Nobody said otherwise. Do you believe ocean water is static and that there are no currents that can exchange heat?
“The thermohaline circulation acts like a conveyor belt in the ocean, guiding the hot salty tropical water from the equator toward the North Atlantic. In the North Atlantic ocean, this water cools somewhat while maintaining its high salinity, making it much denser than the surrounding relatively fresher water. The dense tropical water sinks rapidly, effectively moving some of the heat into the ocean.
“The AMOC naturally cycles back and forth between a stronger and a weaker flow of water. When the flow is stronger (as it is now), more heat is removed from the atmosphere and taken to the depths of the ocean.”
Here’s a lay language explanation for you, CoRev, on how anthropogenic CO explains the current global warming:
Here’s a lay language explanation for you, CoRev, about ocean warming:
Joel, you’ve lost all credibility in citing SkS. They are a misinformation machine. I con understand your own confusion because the depth of your knowledge doesn’t allow you to identify the deliberate errors and misinterpretations.
You keep showing me articles defined as lay language. They may be lay to you, not to me. Your constant Google search to find pertinent articles is a tell tale that you are the lay person. Coupling your Googling with your inability to write independently without copying from your lay articles confirms that conclusion.
I take it you didn’t even read the comments to your cited “lay” article re:
What I wish is that the science or even you could answer this question: “This leaves us with the oft repeated question: How much warming is from (fill in your own cause here).” It hasn’t to date without Ole Mom Nature refuting it.
Since you are certain that excess heat exists because of ”Human activity.” The answer should be readily available without googling. What is the answer?