● Sun's rays hit earth.
● Incident visible radiation converted into infra red radiation by earth and reflected.
● Greenhouse gases intercept returning infra red and absorb photons.
● Greenhouse gases bump into adjacent non-greenhouse molecules and transfer energy as heat.
● Hot air rises.
● Then a miracle happens and the heat is discovered in the oceans.
Which bit do you not understand?
Obviously we don't have proof that our CO2 emissions are causing a warming of the atmosphere that is mysteriously being hidden by a warming ocean. The ocean has so much more mass than than the atmosphere that it becomes idiotic comparing the two as if they are equals. It is like comparing a blue whale and a guppy. The margin of error is far greater than the warming that CO2 might cause IMO. I have known for decades that the ocean warmed a bit based on many studies and it supposedly accounted for most of the sea level rise in the last century. Suddenly when alarmists need a bogyman to hide behind, they picked the ocean which is so big that it could be blamed for just about anything under the sun if they used models and cherry picked data. You could hide a whale in the ocean.
Thanks Kano for not making a big deal out of a non-scientifical point!
It's nice to know that pegminer gave up already too!
Research can be captivating. It's called "scientific research", and as long as they are still searching for something, then they will always be looking. "pegminer" is too arrogant to argue any points, yet he will always try. The law of creativity stands! The law of mathematics stands! The law of thermodynamics will probably stand for a while, but all laws are subject to interpretation. Right? The laws of PDO and AMO haven't been established yet, but they do have some 'good standing' so far! ... and so do other aspects that influence the climate. Let's throw in a bit of cloud activity that climate models can't keep up with and we are guaranteed a "full house" of confusion for a while on how our climate actually works.
0.8C peak temps over the established norm in 1998 had a cause and it wasn't humans! PDO and AMO had a lot of influence in 1998 whether alarmists want to realize it or not!
If the AMO and PDO both go into a negative phase and sunspot activity remains "sleepy" then we might have to reconsider the CO2 in its warming capabilities and start helping our V-8 engines output and actually start to consider nitrous oxide as an alternative fuel. Top Fuel Dragsters might be more fun to watch then. (A re-birth of faster NASCARS maybe?) (tic)
Dragsters doing 400mph (for the love of a warmer temp?)
How about 250mph at Daytona for an average lap?
I know they can do it with the tires!
Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.
Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.”
“Even doubling or trebling (tripling) the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will…It is also interesting to note that NASA’s Aqua satellite system has shown that the earth has been cooling since 1998. This corresponds with measurements from the Argos sub-ocean probes that the ocean is cooling. This is in stark contrast with the proposals from many ‘climate alarmists.’”
―Dr. Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ, received the New Zealand Science and Technology Silver Medal, author of 218 peer-reviewed papers
Yes some spots in the deep ocean have wormed up do to an increase of deep volcanic activity.
Based on data from the ARGo bouys, ocean heat content is indeed increasing.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climat...
Really! Do you have any idea of how much 0.54W/m^2 is? If it weren't for the large heat capacity of the oceans, that would lead to an temperature increase of several degrees per year. Here is the effect of a few microwatts per square metre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Milank...
OK! Maybe not a few microwatts per square metre. Perhaps it was a few nanowatts per square metre.
Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.
Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.”
that it is caused by CO2, I mean when the PDO was positive and our planet was warming could not the oceans been cooling, is it not just the AMO. PDO. AO. NAO. doing their thing cycling heat in and out of the oceans
