If oceans are now releasing stored energy at such a fast rate why aren't they cooling?
The ty theories that called for warming and have been verified?
Before you go to your obvious "they called for cooling" rebuttal, the overwhelming majority of climate forecasts in the 70s called for warming due to CO2. Pretty sure those have been verified.
If oceans are now releasing stored energy at such a fast rate why aren't they cooling?
Solar heat is a simple math function. Units of power don't magically change. We know that solar forcing has increase since the maunder Minima, till about 1950. the total change during the period addressed by the AR4, using the 11 year average, is 0.18%, if you use the studies by Lean et. al. As I pointed out with the percentage changes on the simple NASA graphic, that 0.18% increase accounts for 0.12 watts of direct forcing increase, and the IPCC acknowledges this. As simple as the graph is, there are no complicating issues, except when other factors change. watts in, watts out. With no change in greenhouse gas composition, the heat pump is also increased by 0.18%. Being amplified by the greenhouse gas effect, the number gets rather large.
As for looking up posts. Sorry, just go back and read my previous posts. If I link then, you're just going to dismiss them anyway.
Now forget about saying the solar heat is reduced by ^1/4. This is true for the actual surface heat, but when it is radiated back as IR, it radiates back upward with ^4. I had this argument with someone solid in the sciences in the past, and he conceded to my point.
You need to understand ocean circulation better. It's a long process. However, through the centuries it takes for the oceans to circulate, the heat isn't magically lost.
LOL this is how you prove it?
So you're saying that greenhouse gases - notably CO2 are the primary cause for warming.
Thanks.
Show me the proofs then. Maybe we are using different terminology, but show me the studies so we ca peer review them.
Oh that's right. The AGW crowd destroys the data, and uses close peer review processing. they are secretive, and never have an open peer review process.
Much of AGW theory is based on computer models. Being a computer modeler myself, I've looked at a lot of the source code and I don't have a lot of confidence in it.
Especially when there are comments in the code like:
"Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!"
"APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION"
etc. etc.
Not at all. The primary greenhouse gas is H2O.
Must think your smart trying to tack that on.
Next, you're going to tell me that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.
Computer models operate like this:
garbage in, garbage out.
And climate models don't even account for clouds, at least not correctly. LOL.
No kidding. Even with added heat in the global system, we simply have more high al ude clouds acting as a thermostat.
, the computer models didn't even predict the last decade and we're supposed to trust their results for 50-100 years out. Such bull . Even Manny knows that weather models (I know they're not the same, don't even go there) don't predict very far out.
First of all, you're no scientist peer, at least in this field (me neither, BTW)
But please tell me what IPCC numbers you're quoting if you've never seen them?
If Manny can find the studies, I doubt you can't.
What gets me is that when you get a degree in meteorology, you don't know and can't predict the weather past a week. It only takes one more class to get a degree in climatology. Now these two areas are only a small slice of the geosciences. They don't even begin to learn the complexities of the other earth systems that affect global climate.
If you are refering to the 1.6, 1.66, 0.12, etc:
Exactly. What does that tell you though?
Does it proves or disproves that the Climate change is man made?
It really does neither.
So you have the research, you just don't agree with it.
Last edited by ElNono; 10-11-2010 at 08:08 PM.
The IPCC isn't proof, and their conjectures don't add up. They are a political body dabbling in science.
Do you mean the greenhouse model I provided? All I did was mark up an existing NASA model. See:
wiki: Greenhouse Effect
I meant research. That's what you were asking for, wasn't it?
What you want is somebody to convince you. That's not science.
You are almost right aboput my point. My point is that science is not being done by the AGW crowd. My asking for the evidence, and no one being able to provide it, should show just that.
While we are at it, what do you think of ice core proxy data showing CO2 lagging warmth, and no additional warming when CO2 increases:
I think you should follow the scientific model, write a paper debunking the IPCC conjectures, fill it up with all the nice colored pictures, and publish it so it can be peer reviewed.
Then the scientific community can review it and react accordingly....
Debunking has been done by people already.
Seriously, what do you think of the data from the ice cores?
This thread is so good at proving the OP.
How about showing me what I ask for. Proof that the AGW crowd is correct. Otherwise, you should consider it pseudo science.
This thread is so good at proving the OP.
Try following along with this:
FATAL ERRORS IN IPCC'S GLOBAL CLIMATE MODELS
There are currently 4 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 4 guests)
Posting Permissions
