2012-03-06 21:23:10The Earth is still warming...A Lot!
Glenn Tamblyn


Follow-up post to my previous one looking at total heat content. Trying to drive the nail deeper.

Still needs headings, links etc but comments!


2012-03-09 10:40:51
Sarah Green

I like it. 

Two suggestions:

1. Wording in the first line:

In a previous post here we discussed how the argument that the Earth has stopped warming doesn't make much sense because the people claiming this don't know how to draw their 'system boundaries' correctly.


In a previous post we explained the errors in the argument that the Earth has stopped warming. People making that claim don't know how to draw their 'system boundaries' correctly.

2. Is it possible to make a graph similar to your first one showing the energy examples? (although as I write this I see that it may be hard to get good examples onto a reasonable scale)., e.g. amount of energy to boil the harbor, melt Greenland, heat the atmosphere x degrees, heat generated by X number of nuke plants, etc.

2012-03-09 11:18:52
Glenn Tamblyn




Thanks, I'll have a look at what I can do in Excel. Hoping to get time to work on this in the next couple of days.

2012-03-11 21:41:55
Glenn Tamblyn


Latest version is ready to go - I think. Opinions please

Sarah. I looked into a graph that would show relative magnitudes of different phenomena - just too hard too show the biggest phenomena and even be able see the smaller ones.

2012-03-12 07:35:37
Kevin C


I like the content, but a few things grated:

1. At the beginning: 'In a previous post we discussed... In the previous post we showed... The previous post focused on...', a bit repetitive. I'd change the last one. How about 'That post focussed on...'.

2. I'd delete every exclamation mark, and some of the bold. The text is strong enough to carry the message without them. On reading it the voice in my head started to sound hysterical - I think less emphasis would moderate this to calm urgency.

2012-03-12 09:37:21
Andy S


Very good, but I'll largely second Kevin's comment #2. The odd exclamation mark is useful for emphasis but they should be used sparingly and never in pairs.

You could perhaps  link to my article on geothermal heatflow. jg's figure 4 was an attempt to capture the relative sizes of energy flows, which span orders of magnitudes. I recall that not everyone liked that figure because it made the incoming solar flux look too big relative to the human change in radiative forcing.

2012-03-12 15:56:08
Glenn Tamblyn


1. Repetitive use of 'post' removed.

2. Linked to your piece Andy rather than Wiki

3. OK, OK, I won't shout at people quite so much EVEN THOUGH THEY NEED TO SEE SOMETHING THAT IS SO BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!

Any more comments?

2012-03-14 15:09:37
Dana Nuccitelli

This would go really well with our comment on the Douglass & Knox paper.  But that won't be published for quite a while yet (if at all, though it had better be!), so I'm guessing you won't want to wait :-)

0.261 W/m2 => should be a lower-case 'm'.

Under 2 Hiroshima bombs/second, what do you think about adding an image of an atomic bomb mushroom cloud?

The notation C ° is kind of weird.  I prefer °C.

In the cosmic ray bit you should point out that there is no long-term trend in cosmic ray flux on Earth over the past 60 years.  It's been flat, on average (you could also add a figure from the GCR rebuttal you linked to show this).

2012-03-14 16:15:54
Glenn Tamblyn



I've made the small corrections. Reworked the Cosmic Ray section a bit but with links to both the intermediate and advanced rebuttals. I would rather not directly include the graph from there since it is a bit technical and cluttered for what I am trying to do in this post, keeping it simpler and at a lower level - I don't want to distract from the narrative of eliminating possibilities to leave GH gases as the last standing by dwelling too much on any one of them.

I thought about the mushroom cloud idea but the use of Hiroshima Bomb counts has sometimes been critcised as too alarmist and emotionally manipulative so I think just referencing it without the image is a better balance. Also that was the reason for the Sydney Harbour value as well. An alternative way of getting it into peoples heads. What I would love to include but haven't been able to find would be a graphic, probably from a SciFi story, of a dry Sydney Harbour. The two images side-by-side would be effective. But no such luck. So I think I'll let this go out as is.

I would rather get this out sooner, before the previous post fades too far into the past. Also I am trying to keep this focused on the implications of a simple number and the type of content a D&K prebuttal might have doesn't go as well with that. But certainly link back to this when the D&K post goes up.