CO2 Content of Atmosphere

[arkie87]

It doesn't have to, it can measure solar influx directly (being, y'know, in space). Obviously emissivity and reflectivity will render this pretty useless for predicting e.g. temperature at a local level, but gives a nice whole-globe model of radiative forcing.

Sure, heat flux from sun on day side and earth on night side will be very accurate, so it can assess net heating or cooling accurately.

Good to know...

But you seemed to indicate it can measure surface temperatures too...?

Also, it would be interesting to send one of these satellites to orbit the Mun, i mean, Moon, and see if the net flux is zero... given that it has no atmosphere and is much smaller, so it cooled down much faster and might already be in thermal equilibrium...

[Kryten]

But you seemed to indicate it can measure surface temperatures too...?

Harder to do, but you can good a good picture of surface and atmospheric temps from low orbits through sufficiently sensitive IR spectrometry; see for example the AIRS instrument on Aqua.

[arkie87]

Harder to do, but you can good a good picture of surface and atmospheric temps from low orbits through sufficiently sensitive IR spectrometry; see for example the AIRS instrument on Aqua.

Thanks for the info. I'm looking into it. Seems expensive

[Kryten]

Very.

Edit: wait, what? Has the 10 character limit been removed?

[Frybert]

Its a 5 character limit.

[arkie87]

Very.

Edit: wait, what? Has the 10 character limit been removed?

Its a 5 character limit.

It's a good thing you included that period!

[78stonewobble]

That dumping was scarce, experimental and primarily in oceans' trenches. It actually isn't a bad idea if you want to get rid of it and you vitrify it first. It will get pulled in by tectonic subduction.

Since then waste is either stored or recycled because it's valuable.

Of course, it has no effect on CO2 footprint, or any impact, unless it's done in a terribly shoddy way.

Bombs, on the other hand (thousands of tests!) did terrible damage, but can't match the global warming.

I agree on the dumping, but what damage did the bombs do again?

Supposedly and statistically 11.000 extra cancer deaths... Don't know if that's in the US alone or worldwide. For comparison the worldwide cancer deaths is around 8 million, 7 million from air pollution and 1.5 mio die in automobile accidents a year. In that comparison... terrible damage is much less than 1 percent of truely terrifying damage.

The basic understanding is clear, also the consequences.. So try to take more than a grain of salt next time.

Ah mister "solerpanels will drop in price so exponentially that people will get paid to buy them in the future"... We meet again.

Now, did I write "basic understanding" or did I write "fully understand"? Want me to describe the difference using small words and anthropomorphized cartoon animals?

[AngelLestat]

You seem to be misinterpreting everything i am saying... I wasnt claiming more CO2 is absorbed than is released. That would be crazy talk. I was referring to this statement YOU made:

The reason it seems we are absorbing CO2 into the oceans 3x faster than we have been releasing it on average since 200 years ago is because we have not been releasing it at a steady rate, but rather, exponentially.

Capeesh?

Ok, not sure if I understand but let me try.

You are saying since now we have 800gt in the atmosphere (instead 550gt before fossil fuels) we are capturing 5 Gt extra (trees and sea) by year, so in case we stop with the co2 emissions, the co2 will go back to the normality?

If that is your logic, then yeah.. it should happen like that. But if we keep with the co2 emissions then it will trigger some chain of events that even if we later stop, it will continue to rise and nobody is sure if can be stopped.

In fact calculations show that even if we stop now with all the emissions, the heat will keep rising by 30 years if I remember correctly.

Because it will take a time to absorb that extra co2 in the atmosphere, also the heat absortion due sun light takes time, seas are huge capacitors.

The data I have seen does not cherry pick anything, but uses the raw data to show that global average temperatures have decreases since 1998. Here is a figure from the NOAA:

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png

If such a hiatus doesnt exist, then why have i seen article after article trying to explain why it actually doesnt exist (despite the obvious change in slope of the data)?

Also, why are the uncertainty bars so large if thousands of thermocouples are being used?

If we are accurately measuring average temperature, the trend should also be less noisy, no?

First let me point that what peader1987 said is true, it does not matter the accuracy of your instruments, if you had millions of them and you only care on the average, you will had the most accuracy data.

The uncertainty bars is because measure the earth temperature is not easy. You have different seasons all with their different cycles and micro changes in the sun radiation and earth orbit, you also had weather.

What I mean.. you have energy... but energy sometimes may be heat, and some others may be kinetic, etc.

You have that same energy that is in constant change, but you are only measuring temperatures.

Also you dont have a thermometer in each part and deep of the oceans and the atmosphere, some times the heat rise over the big majority of your instruments, sometimes down, some times is deep in the oceans, etc.

But you dont need to follow the local trends, you need to follow the general trend, and is rising without question. And not only rising.. is rising in the same value expected due our current co2 levels, in fact it would be a surprice and mistery if the temperature would not be rising.

And again.. follow the general trend.

Here explain the hiatus in the last years:

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/

"The Pacific Decadal Oscillation affects surface temperature," Loeb said. "It's a pattern of temperature shifts, primarily over the Pacific, that occurs about every 20 or 30 years."

- - - Updated - - -

Ah mister "solerpanels will drop in price so exponentially that people will get paid to buy them in the future"... We meet again.

Now, did I write "basic understanding" or did I write "fully understand"? Want me to describe the difference using small words and anthropomorphized cartoon animals?

aww for the comment seems like you miss me..

Also I never said price drop exponentially, just linear as they are doing it.. 70% in the last 5 years.. remember? and they keep droping.

So you need a full understand for this to just take more than a grain of salt? So fully understand means waits 50 years with the water on our feets and then said.. ah yes.. is happening.. is 100% true.. now lets act.. aww.. not we cant.. is too late..

The only uncertainty we have, is that if global warming will be terrible, or just very bad..

Edited June 27, 2015 by AngelLestat

[PakledHostage]

The only uncertainty we have, is that if global warming will be terrible, or just very bad..

No kidding, eh? What always gets me about these discissions is that climate change deniers are basically conspiracy theorists. A guy claims that his instrument can't measure temperature with the requisite accuracy and suggests that no instruments can, therefore the science is bogus... But the science is peer reviewed. If what he says about measuring temperature was true, wouldn't an expert in metrology have pointed it out already, thereby tossing the whole idea of climate change into the trash bin?

Authoritatively and definitively disproving an entire field of research's fundamental premis would seem to be an excellent way to make a name for one's self, wouldn't it? If there was any real doubt, wouldn't the brightest minds be all over attempting to disprove anthropogenic climate change?

It is impossible to believe that no reputable scientists would pursue any research that goes against the established paradigm without also believing that there exists a conspiracy motivating that resistance. Scientists have egos just like everyone else. Some even more so. Give them a chance to turn the scientific world upside down and they'll take it, conspiracy or no conspiracy. It is just too big a prize.

[Shpaget]

All I need to see to be assured that the climate is changing is this picture:

[78stonewobble]

aww for the comment seems like you miss me..

Also I never said price drop exponentially, just linear as they are doing it.. 70% in the last 5 years.. remember? and they keep droping.

So you need a full understand for this to just take more than a grain of salt? So fully understand means waits 50 years with the water on our feets and then said.. ah yes.. is happening.. is 100% true.. now lets act.. aww.. not we cant.. is too late..

The only uncertainty we have, is that if global warming will be terrible, or just very bad..

I don't really know, how I could have made, what I said any simpler. Here's what I said:

"I don't believe anyone who says they fully understand how the earths climate works, so I do take the explanations about eg. global warming with a grain of salt. Not that I don't believe in global warming, but in the sense we don't completely understand how or why or the reasons yet... And it's on that basis I think it is dangerous to keep emitting as much co2 as we do, with our poor understanding of the ramifications."

Fully understand/completely understand = Know ALL variables to a very high degree of precision and possibly a way to fully simulate it.

I don't believe that we are there yet and thus all the models have more or less inaccuracy. While some experts might be able to distinguish between worse or better models, the average person (me) probably cannot and thus I take them with a grain of salt. Eg. allowing for the inaccuracy and our incomplete understanding of all variables, interpersonal scientist rivalry, book sales of scientists, politicians and what not.

I also directly say, that I believe in global warming, there seems to be a rather wide concensus about that tendency and that it is dangerous to keep pumping out as much co2 as we do... without fully understanding the ramifications.

So yeah, I guess the only difference is I want to cut co2 pollution, whereas you wanna pump out more via megaprojects.

[arkie87]

All I need to see to be assured that the climate is changing is this picture:

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/680891main_seaIceArea_08262012-orig_full.jpg

Have you heard that the antarctic polar caps are growing? How do you discount that?

[Kryten]

The actual cap is shrinking, we've got plenty of radar data showing that. Sea ice coverage at the antarctic is expanding slightly, probably due to increased calving from the land.

[arkie87]

Ok, not sure if I understand but let me try.

You are saying since now we have 800gt in the atmosphere (instead 550gt before fossil fuels) we are capturing 5 Gt extra (trees and sea) by year, so in case we stop with the co2 emissions, the co2 will go back to the normality?

If that is your logic, then yeah.. it should happen like that. But if we keep with the co2 emissions then it will trigger some chain of events that even if we later stop, it will continue to rise and nobody is sure if can be stopped.

In fact calculations show that even if we stop now with all the emissions, the heat will keep rising by 30 years if I remember correctly.

Because it will take a time to absorb that extra co2 in the atmosphere, also the heat absortion due sun light takes time, seas are huge capacitors.

Now you have confused me... I agree though that its possible that greenhouse effect could runaway, though i think the uncertainties in the models regarding where that runaway point is, is quite high.

First let me point that what peader1987 said is true, it does not matter the accuracy of your instruments, if you had millions of them and you only care on the average, you will had the most accuracy data.

Millions of measurements only removed random error. It does not remove systematic error if you are all using the same system, or systems with the same biases. If you are right, why are there uncertainty bars not (approaching) zero?

The uncertainty bars is because measure the earth temperature is not easy. You have different seasons all with their different cycles and micro changes in the sun radiation and earth orbit, you also had weather.

What I mean.. you have energy... but energy sometimes may be heat, and some others may be kinetic, etc.

You have that same energy that is in constant change, but you are only measuring temperatures.

Also you dont have a thermometer in each part and deep of the oceans and the atmosphere, some times the heat rise over the big majority of your instruments, sometimes down, some times is deep in the oceans, etc.

Yes, measuring the average temperature is not easy at all, as you mentioned...

There are lots of other sources for warming, which introduce noise, and we arent doing a good job of measuring the average temperature of the surface either (large areas of ocean go unmeasured). This, in turn, introduces a lot of noise into our measurements. Thus, (1) how can we be sure the earth really is warming on average if we dont have a good average temperature measurement (the areas of ocean we dont measure might be cooling due to changing ocean currents) and (2) if other factors introduce so much noise (such as solar activity and whatnot), what makes us so sure that even if the earth is warming, that it isnt being caused by these non manmade sources?

But you dont need to follow the local trends, you need to follow the general trend, and is rising without question. And not only rising.. is rising in the same value expected due our current co2 levels,

The fact that it is rising in concert with our current CO2 levels is almost certainly no accident i.e. the modelers adjusted their values to make it so. There is a lot of guesswork in these huge climate models, since, as you can imagine, the global climate is very complex. Thus, modelers have to make assumptions and often fit their models to observed results in order to "calibrate" the model. Thus, these models might be great at predicting present performance, but using these models to extrapolate can introduce serious uncertainties and errors. If you look ten years ago at the predictions of what surface temperatures should have risen to by now based on CO2 levels, we have fallen short of those, which, despite recent article's claims, indicates that 15 years ago, we didnt fully understand the earth's climate. Granted now, we should have a better understanding, but it is by no means complete.

in fact it would be a surprice and mistery if the temperature would not be rising.

Interesting you say that, given the so-called "global warming hiatus", which scientists have tried to explain (even though their models didnt predict it ten years ago).

IMHO, it is not intellectually honest to make predictions that support your hypothesis, and when those predictions arent met, explain away why they werent met, but still assert the hypothesis.

TL;DR:

(1) global climate is very complex, and i would be amazed if anyone could accurately model it, given the number of unknowns, feedback loops, new physics, and scales involved; thus, models should be taken with a grain of salt (especially since by adjusting "fudge factors" like emissivity of CO2 and adding/removing physical models and relationships, different results can be obtained)

(2) CO2 levels are no doubt rising (at least where we are measuring it) and the rate we release CO2 is unsustainable

(3) global temperature measurements are susceptible to lots of noise, which could indicate that either additional sources have a large control over our climate and/or we arent measuring global temperature accurately enough (since, for example, we arent measuring large swathes of the pacific)

- - - Updated - - -

The actual cap is shrinking, we've got plenty of radar data showing that. Sea ice coverage at the antarctic is expanding slightly, probably due to increased calving from the land.

that's what i've read. Can i assume that they have radar measurements of the arctic that show that the reverse isnt happening there (i.e. the caps or sea ice isnt getting deeper)?

Edited June 28, 2015 by arkie87

[Kryten]

There are no caps of any kind at the Arctic (unless you count the Greenland one, which again is shrinking), it's just an area of transient, constantly shifting sea ice. You can cross the whole thing in an icebreaker.

[AngelLestat]

I don't believe that we are there yet and thus all the models have more or less inaccuracy. While some experts might be able to distinguish between worse or better models, the average person (me) probably cannot and thus I take them with a grain of salt. Eg. allowing for the inaccuracy and our incomplete understanding of all variables, interpersonal scientist rivalry, book sales of scientists, politicians and what not.

I also directly say, that I believe in global warming, there seems to be a rather wide concensus about that tendency and that it is dangerous to keep pumping out as much co2 as we do... without fully understanding the ramifications.

Ok, I understand.. I follow this since a long time, something I notice over the last decade, is that every time, predictions and studies contain extra details with less uncertainty, but the real issue, is that the new predictions are not in the center margin of old predictions, in fact new prediction are in top or exceed the worst case of old predictions, that is scary, more if we saw the half of the world who still think global warming is a conspiracy from little green guys (kerbals).

So yeah, I guess the only difference is I want to cut co2 pollution, whereas you wanna pump out more via megaprojects.

you know we can not derail the topic, never mind.. eat it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Dont worry, nuclear will be still usefull for the next 5 to 10 years.. after that there is not point to keep making them.

(1) how can we be sure the earth really is warming on average if we dont have a good average temperature measurement (the areas of ocean we dont measure might be cooling due to changing ocean currents) and (2) if other factors introduce so much noise (such as solar activity and whatnot), what makes us so sure that even if the earth is warming, that it isnt being caused by these non manmade sources?

1) There is a whole branch of science that study measuments, is a science and is exact.. You can calculate how big is your error (with the exception of human error).

2) You will always have a chance to be wrong.. but I guess lately that chance is 1 vs 99. It can be only a coincidence that all evidence points to the same place? yeah.. but unlikely.

The fact that it is rising in concert with our current CO2 levels is almost certainly no accident i.e. the modelers adjusted their values to make it so.

heh, you are saying that all scientist in the world are cheating with this? How they change the values from the real data they receive? Nobody review their works?

This is the same that PakledHostage explain, scientist compete a lot between then, there is nothing more rewarding for a scientist than prove all other wrong.

And right now all others is the vast majority by far.

If you look ten years ago at the predictions of what surface temperatures should have risen to by now based on CO2 levels, we have fallen short of those, which, despite recent article's claims, indicates that 15 years ago, we didnt fully understand the earth's climate. Granted now, we should have a better understanding, but it is by no means complete.

Read my answer to 78stonewobble.

Interesting you say that, given the so-called "global warming hiatus", which scientists have tried to explain (even though their models didnt predict it ten years ago).

predict climate change trends is easy.. predict local effect on short periods of time is not.

But that theory of the pacific ocean if you read the actual paper, has a lot of evidence, also you can see the same "hiatus" every 30 years aprox.. in your same graph.

(1) global climate is very complex, and i would be amazed if anyone could accurately model it, given the number of unknowns, feedback loops, new physics, and scales involved; thus, models should be taken with a grain of salt (especially since by adjusting "fudge factors" like emissivity of CO2 and adding/removing physical models and relationships, different results can be obtained)

(2) CO2 levels are no doubt rising (at least where we are measuring it) and the rate we release CO2 is unsustainable

(3) global temperature measurements are susceptible to lots of noise, which could indicate that either additional sources have a large control over our climate and/or we arent measuring global temperature accurately enough (since, for example, we arent measuring large swathes of the pacific)

Well in that case I really hope you become a climate scientist to help to fill that uncertainty.

Meanwhile, I guess the forecast is enoght clear to secure the house as prevention, dont you think? After all is the only house we have.

[PakledHostage]

Have you heard that the antarctic polar caps are growing? How do you discount that?

You're back! I noticed you'd gone away for a day or so. Glad to see you're back here now, casting doubt on global warming. All is right again in my world.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Claw

[magnemoe]

Ok, I understand.. I follow this since a long time, something I notice over the last decade, is that every time, predictions and studies contain extra details with less uncertainty, but the real issue, is that the new predictions are not in the center margin of old predictions, in fact new prediction are in top or exceed the worst case of old predictions, that is scary, more if we saw the half of the world who still think global warming is a conspiracy from little green guys (kerbals).

IPCC has reduced their effect estimates.

Global warming is an real effect, anybody who says otherwise is trolling in best case, earth is warmer because it has an atmosphere.

How large the effect of more co2 in the atmosphere is is an more open question, note that we can not predict the natural long time variations who is introducing an serious error margin.

CO2 levels is much easier to work with.

Global warming should introduce an fairly stable effect related to co2 level. now put the natural variations as noise on top.

Now just looking at the temperature graph the last 150 years without knowing anything about how global warming works except that the temperature rises with co2 level and we assume an linear relationship we can come with some estimates we can come with some conclusions.

https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2014/201301-201312.png

Worst case scenario is that all of the temperature increase from 1970 to 2000 was caused by global warming and the the 15 years of stable temperature is an natural cooling who negating global warming.

This is plausible it will mirror the cooling period from 1940 to 1950 or 1895 to 1910. This will give an global warming of 0.8 degree from 1970 to 2015.

Best case scenario is if we was in an natural warming period from 1970 to 2000 similar to the one from 1910 to 1940, now add global warming on top and the global warming effect will be more like 0.2.

Most plausible scenario is something in the middle.

you know we can not derail the topic, never mind.. eat it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Dont worry, nuclear will be still usefull for the next 5 to 10 years.. after that there is not point to keep making them.

Why not make more nuclear? only thing who might replace it is fusion.

[arkie87]

1) There is a whole branch of science that study measuments, is a science and is exact.. You can calculate how big is your error (with the exception of human error).

I am well aware of this. If the error from thermocouples/temperature measurements is only random, then the error from so many measurements will be zero! No? (But it is not zero in the graphs)...

Error from noise cannot be quantified, unless you know ALL the sources of the noise. Do we know all the sources of the noise? Do we fully understand how the climate works?

2) You will always have a chance to be wrong.. but I guess lately that chance is 1 vs 99. It can be only a coincidence that all evidence points to the same place? yeah.. but unlikely.

See above regarding accuracy and noise and below regarding modeling

heh, you are saying that all scientist in the world are cheating with this? How they change the values from the real data they receive? Nobody review their works?

This is the same that PakledHostage explain, scientist compete a lot between then, there is nothing more rewarding for a scientist than prove all other wrong.

And right now all others is the vast majority by far.

It's not cheating. They have full disclosure on what assumptions and simplifications they make in their models (they have to make assumptions and simplifications or else they wouldnt even be able to start), but how to model this complicated a phenomena is not easy. When making a complicated model such as this, you often take past experimental data and "calibrate" your unknowns in the model to match (i say this as someone who has done expensive modeling work on the PhD level). It's not always possible to obtain values for these "fudge factors" from theory or direct measurement (especially on the scale of the globe), so they have to use average values which need to be calibrated. They do not receive any "real data" for this modeling work; after all, one requirement of all models is that it needs to be independent from experiment (except in the case of initial conditions).

As someone who conducts extensive modeling, I know full well it's limitations and drawbacks. I don't believe modeling results all the time, especially when the modeling task is so complicated that their is no way it could have been done completely correctly. I have seen, in my field, people not really being so careful and rigorous with the values they use for models. I have seen people use incorrect values (knowingly) because the values for their condition werent available in the literature; and then future people use those values not realizing they are not physically accurate (which then requires the use of "fudge factors". People assume modeling work is straight from heaven, and if the computer predicts it, the computer knows everything, and it must be true. But the computer is only as accurate as the equations that are programmed into it, and the equations programmed into it are too complicated to be completely physical, so it relies extensively on correlations, assumptions, and simplifications....

Read my answer to 78stonewobble.

Read my answer above regarding the accuracy of modeling...

predict climate change trends is easy.. predict local effect on short periods of time is not.

Predicting climate trends is not easy. They are numerous feedback loops (some positive, some negative), many capacitances, convective terms (which themselves are affected by changing climate/temperature) etc... Predicting short periods is even more difficult...

But that theory of the pacific ocean if you read the actual paper, has a lot of evidence, also you can see the same "hiatus" every 30 years aprox.. in your same graph.

This just goes to show my point that the climate scientists and modelers dont yet completely understand everything. Their could easily be additional negative feedback loops that resist climate change or large capacitances that havent yet been tapped (like the pacific ocean).

Furthermore, how on earth could people claim the surface temperature is warming, without measuring the surface temperature of the whole globe? They are basically saying that yes, the surface temperature has been warming, but it stops every 30 years, because it has to pause to warm the pacific. Wait, werent they measuring the pacific ocean temperature already when they said the surface temperatures were warming? I'm confused...

Well in that case I really hope you become a climate scientist to help to fill that uncertainty.

Meanwhile, I guess the forecast is enoght clear to secure the house as prevention, dont you think? After all is the only house we have.

I am all for sustainability. It will eventually be a requirement with or without global warming/climate change. Eventually, we wont have any more non-renewable resources left and we will have to recycle everything (or mine asteroids).

Ideally, if the amount of money we had to spend to stop climate change and the effort on the part of every citizen was minimal, i would say, yes, we should put in the money and the effort. But clearly, the amount of change required is huge (all the green efforts most countries have taken have been pitiful and dont actually reduce anything). To make a difference, the industrialized world would have to reduce emissions by 10x, which is just not going to happen. Coupled with that, china and india are in the process of industrializing. If everyone in China and India used as much energy as we do in the US, the whole globe is F'd.

- - - Updated - - -

You're back! I noticed you'd gone away for a day or so. Glad to see you're back here now, casting doubt on global warming. All is right again in my world.

Please dont be condescending. I try to take one day a week off my computer.

My biggest problem with global warming is the dogma; there is always room for a rational, respectful debate (that is what science is), but what happens with global warming debates is closer to condescending dismissals, insults, bullying, and name calling which is reminiscent of politics.

Keep in mind, 10 years ago, 97% of scientists thought global warming was a pseudoscience. Now, it's the opposite. In 20 years, who knows...

Edited June 28, 2015 by Claw

[peadar1987]

Keep in mind, 10 years ago, 97% of scientists thought global warming was a pseudoscience. Now, it's the opposite. In 20 years, who knows...

That is utter fiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

Even in the early 1990s, less than 15% of scientists were "skeptical" of the predictions of the IPCC, the rest being "uncertain" or agreeing with them.

[arkie87]

That is utter fiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

Even in the early 1990s, less than 15% of scientists were "skeptical" of the predictions of the IPCC, the rest being "uncertain" or agreeing with them.

I think it was clear that i wasnt quoting statistics, but rather trying to issue a point. Global attitude towards global warming has drastically changed in the last 10 years, starting around when "an Inconvenient Truth" came out, and those survey results bolster that opinion (though it was never 97%).

Is that the only thing you wish to respond to?

[peadar1987]

I think it was clear that i wasnt quoting statistics, but rather trying to issue a point. Global attitude towards global warming has drastically changed in the last 10 years, starting around when "an Inconvenient Truth" came out, and those survey results bolster that opinion (though it was never 97%).

You said "Keep in mind, 10 years ago, 97% of scientists thought global warming was a pseudoscience." That doesn't make it clear at all that . It's a very specific number.

Ever since surveys have been carried out, the vast majority of scientists (over 65%, even in the lowest results) have agreed that anthropogenic warming is occurring. The results in no way back up your very emphatic statement that 10 years ago, an overwhelming majority of scientists thought AGW was pseudoscience.

Is that the only thing you wish to respond to?

Sorry, your post was a victim of "last on the page syndrome", and I didn't see it until I went looking.

The thermocouples i am using have been selected to be accurate to within 0.1°C. The error is from the DAQ itself, not from the thermocouple i am using. I have verified the offset with more than one thermocouple. All report 0.6°C instead of 0°C.

Well if there's a systematic error in the data acquisition, or indeed with anything, it shouldn't make a difference when we're looking at trends. Unless it is not only present, but growing in magnitude. And also relatively consistent across several different ways of measuring temperature, mercury thermometer, thermocouple, satellite measurements, etc.

The data I have seen does not cherry pick anything, but uses the raw data to show that global average temperatures have decreases since 1998. Here is a figure from the NOAA:

Look at the blue line. The average temperature has still increased since 1998. 1998 was just anomalously warm, dragging the moving average up for several years afterwards, 2006 was anomalously cold, dragging it down. Your graph shows the 5-year mean, which means the latest data in it is from 5 years ago. More recent data from NASA shows that 2014 was the warmest year on record, and the 5-year mean is likely to increase again.

If such a hiatus doesnt exist, then why have i seen article after article trying to explain why it actually doesnt exist (despite the obvious change in slope of the data)?

Because it doesn't exist? The change in the slope of the graph of a noisy signal over a period of a few data points doesn't imply that global warming is "on hold" or not happening.

Also, why are the uncertainty bars so large if thousands of thermocouples are being used?

If we are accurately measuring average temperature, the trend should also be less noisy, no?

Not really. There are various correction factors in place, to compensate for things like urban heat islands, ocean mixing, and the geographic distribution of sensors, which is not uniform over the surface of the globe. These all have a small amount of uncertainty associated with them, making the signal slightly noisy.

[78stonewobble]

you know we can not derail the topic, never mind.. eat it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources

Dont worry, nuclear will be still usefull for the next 5 to 10 years.. after that there is not point to keep making them.

Based on relatively small scale projects and ignoring the needed ressources to build, deploy and maintain enough solarcells, windturbines and energy storage to replace to a high degree or all of global conventional powerproduction (taking in mind that solar power has to be dimensioned with eg. 14 percent efficient loss over 7 years). Not to mention that energy usage will increase by a great deal (double or triple global use) as more and more people get relatively richer and from changing eg. heating from central heating to electrical.

[rtxoff]

Based on relatively small scale projects and ignoring the needed ressources to build, deploy and maintain enough solarcells, windturbines and energy storage to replace to a high degree or all of global conventional powerproduction (taking in mind that solar power has to be dimensioned with eg. 14 percent efficient loss over 7 years). Not to mention that energy usage will increase by a great deal (double or triple global use) as more and more people get relatively richer and from changing eg. heating from central heating to electrical.

I'm not sure about what solar power you are talking about here. Here is a typical datasheet from a panel and it says that degression in performance is max. 0.7% p.a.

http://www.recgroup.com/Documents/Downloadcenter/Solar%20product%20downloads/Solar%20Product%20Datasheets/REC%20PE%20Series%20ENG.pdf,

that comes no way close to your mentioned 14% efficiency loss.

[magnemoe]

I'm not sure about what solar power you are talking about here. Here is a typical datasheet from a panel and it says that degression in performance is max. 0.7% p.a.

http://www.recgroup.com/Documents/Downloadcenter/Solar%20product%20downloads/Solar%20Product%20Datasheets/REC%20PE%20Series%20ENG.pdf,

that comes no way close to your mentioned 14% efficiency loss.

Agree main issue is not efficient loss, main issue is more that solar require sunlight, wind power require wind, you need something else who can kick in fast then performance falls. This is pretty much hydro. other realistic source is liquid gas, yes buying from another country is the best solution today. this might not work so well if both uses solar and wind.

if it only responsible for parts of you power needs it works nice, wind in good places provides pretty cheap power.