1. You can take more in than you give out - which is your suggestion. This is what happens when the system is not in equilibrium but it is moving to a new equilibrium.
2. You can let in and out exactly the same amount but the process is delayed or slowed down.
Option 1 is the precursor to option 2.
This animation shows how it can happen: http://tinyurl.com/ksfaa54
The cars enter and exit the bridge at the same rate but the top bridge always has twice as many cars on it as the bottom one. In the climate analogy, a car represents a certain quantity of heat.
Of course, in the climate situation, if the increase in greenhouse gases in the lower atmosphere is slowing down the escape of heat then the greenhouse gases at the top of the atmosphere must be emitting the heat to space at an increased rate.
The animation shows option 2. I believe that there is evidence from satellites that tells us that we are taking in energy faster than we are giving it back. That is option 1 and would seem to imply that we are moving to a new equilibrium situation.
Heat can never permanently be trapped. It radiates no matter how good the insulation. What greenhouse gasses do is keep heat in the atmosphere for longer than it would naturally stay. Every single thermostat on the planet is recording higher that normal average temps. There is no controversy, the scientists who disagree have a funny tendency of being employees of petroleum companies.
yes
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.
The green house gasses is causing heat from the sun to be trapped on earth it itself can't retain heat. It is also not purmanitly trapped.
Your question "has to do" with Global Warming (it's in the "Global Warming" section of Y/A). It seems that you are under the assumption that the atmosphere is still warming. There's plenty of evidence that suggests any warming isn't permanent. No warming is permanent. That's why we have "days" and we also have "nights" (where temperatures are naturally cooled because there is nothing "forcing" them to remain or rise except a wind coming from a warmer part of the planet).
Does surface warming increase when surface winds diminish? Is there any "for-dummies" way to explain it to the terminally confused who seem to think the oceans are warming due to higher CO2 levels?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/09/are-...
http://www.oceanmotion.org/guides/fd_3/f...
" ... Scientists are interested in sea surface winds because they drive surface water currents, influence air-sea exchange of energy and mass, and affect regional and global weather. The SeaWinds instrument uses microwave radar to measure near-surface wind speed and direction continuously, under all weather and cloud conditions over Earth's oceans. ... "
Temperatures measured in the oceans won't be "corrected" if winds have diminished or not. Accepting sea-surface temperatures as they are taken is just another enormous mistake that "envirnmental climate science" is making. There's no adjustment made for "diminishing winds".
That's one reason why "environmental climatologists" should be considered "climate clowns". They can't get the temperatures right in the first place!
When it comes to "environmental climate science", it's becoming more like "Clownunism" instead of Communism, and you're advocacy for these "climate clowns" is too transparent. "Clowns" are for a circus!
Zippi's reference merely gives one explanation of why surface temps have plateaued: heat stays in the ocean.
You gave a good explanation: If output lessens, temp. goes up.
Heat cannot be trapped, it can only be delayed. CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases delay heat, but so does every other gas in the Atmosphere. CO2 is not special.
-----------------------
it's been proven that it's been getting colder for the past 15 years. so where's the warming?
Certain parties here seem to think that because the greenhouse effect does not permanently retain any particular unit of incoming solar energy, it can't raise temperatures.
Does a process need to actually permanently trap heat in order to raise temperatures? Or will temperatures also be higher if you slow outgoing heat (without changing incoming heat), so that any given unit of heat spends longer in the atmosphere? If the latter is the case, is there any for-dummies way to explain it to the terminally confused?
