Global Warming

He lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

It is not a fact but a hypothesis. If it were a fact, it would be able to be reproduced and correctly modeled. The warming was overstated by a factor of 3, if not more. For those not in the know, UAH and RSS are satellite derived temps.

 

Sorry I've been away, Obama has been consulting with me on the Syrian situation. I talked his dumba$$ off the ledge. I also kept up with that masterpiece of a thread where Tenny D was on truth serum. 1,000 years from now they will use that thread as a perfect historical example of all internets message boards structure and culture. Of course it will take a talented and special cryptographer to decipher those hieroglyphics.

 

This is a lot more rational than I expected.

 

I'll jump in before IP jumps on it by asking the following:

Is the recent plateau you illustrate a result of a relative cool period for the sun? And, as a follow up, isn't the plateau/cooling of the last ten or so years too small a sample to buck what appears to be a longer overall trend?

 

What do you mean by "cool period" for the sun? Has the TSI plunged? The plateau was more than likely a result of less ENSO events (ENSO dominated the last warming period particularly 1977-98) and a flip in the PDO. As for how many years makes a good sample, the chart was used to show the inadequacies of global climate models not to show any sort of long or short term trend.

 

Easy there hoss, I'm a layman at best and an idiot more than likely when it comes to climate discussions. You made me use the internet twice with your response. I was referring to an article I read a while back that referred to the sun going through a relatively cool period. To what the article was referring is beyond me. I guess TSI would fit, but that's just a guess with nothing to back it up.

I get your point concerning the charts, but I have to ask. Does it not show a trend?

 

The sun is going through a quieter, regarding sunspots, than expected period. Whether that has any bearing on temperatures here on earth remains to be seen/proven. TSI has gone up since late 2009 as we hit solar max for this cycle.

 

As I said, I don't recall exactly. The point of the article was to show climate change as a myth. It wasn't very convincing in its presentation.

 

Go on, ben. Tell me about the oceans. What's been going on in the oceans lately? Hmm?

 

It's all smoke and mirrors. He calls the carbon dioxide a hypothesis without even dealing with his biggest problem: the radiocarbon signature that proves the CO2 increase is from fossil fuel.

 

The oceans are a pretty big place. I have no idea what you may be referring to.

 

They've absorbed tons of CO2 and also warmed at a quicker rate than previously. That is where the heat has been going.

 

How is that a problem for me? Obviously CO2 has risen as much as it has due to human emission.

 

Then physics and math are the problem for you. It intercepts a known wavelength of long wave radiation and re-emits it. Factor in how much more of CO2 and other anthropogenic green house gasses we have with how much energy that would mean gets retained rather than re-radiated to space, and you are in the neighborhood of what has been observed. Ignore the additional CO2 and other GHG's, and we should be slightly cooling relative to the early 20th century.

 

You're welcome, Ben4Vols.

You're welcome.

 

I'm actually quite good at both and I understand and except the physical process by which increased CO2 increases warming. We know that 2+2 equals 4 but we also know that 2+2+x+bc+d+etc does not equal 4. It is the unknowns in the rest of the equation that are proving to be a bugger for those trying to prove the CO2 hypothesis. Are the feedback assumptions correct? Obviously not. It is looking like climate sensitivity was over stated.

Also, you say we should be cooling but the climate models, with incorrect feedback assumptions programmed in, did not predict a slight cooling trend.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but you can't have warming oceans and increased absorption of CO2. As for the missing heat. There is a better chance that the heat was in fact never there to begin with. See Dr. Spencer's work on this.

 

Could you define the CO2 hypothesis for me? I've never heard it.


You clearly don't fully accept the process. No one has ever claimed that CO2 as the only moving part of climate. No one. It is a straw man to pretend otherwise. Of course there are other factors, but CO2 is the driving one this warming trend. It is what has changed. Not knowing every feedback fueled by it in quantitative detail does not undermine that. I have no idea how you have determined climate sensitivity has been over stated, when the dire consequences most discussed were 100 and more years down the road. Which claim was overstated? By whom? Throwing out everything based on a few outlying opinions not coming about isn't logical.

You last sentence is giving me trouble. Not in the subject matter, but rather what it is you are saying. What incorrect feedback assumptions? How do you know they are incorrect? Which model?

I know of more than a few attempts to model climate while holding CO2 at pre-industrial levels come out like this: