In this instance, however, I do believe that the questioner was basing his understanding of the subject on his misunderstanding of the subject. I have asked things repeatedly myself on the basis that I do nto fully understand some aspect of the subject being asked about. I actually believe Ottawa Mike is capable of gaining knowledge on this subject quite a lot better than others seem to be he is still limited by his own beliefs on the subject which have been shown in many of his previous posts. in this instance, though, I would not blame hum for attempting to get a better, more elementary, explanation.
I did read that reference and didn't like the explanation of the that figure in the text. So I looked up Reference (38) which was another study by the same author here: Ramanathan, V., 1981: The Role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the CO2-Climate Problems. J. Atmos. Sci., 38: 918-930
I finally found that reference here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1...
The pertinent information was explained a little better and described as Process 1 on Page 921.
However, the explanation is nothing more than a statement that CO2 warms the ocean surface. I've taken that information away but I'd like a little more in depth explanation and perhaps more of a mainstream or widely accepted view of the process.
So thank you for pointing me to new sources of information for me to consider.
Edit: I apologize for not giving you best answer but pegminer and myself had a discussion going which I concluded with my best answer comment.
Skeptics can - and have. That is the reason there are almost no true skeptics left.
Deniers probably could, but won't. Denial is an action; not passive ignorance. They have chosen - mostly for political reasons - to deny the science and existence of global warming. After all the time that the regular Deniers spend here, they still don't understand a single scientific concept. The have no clue about the epistemology or history of science or the scientific method; they do not know what qualifies as scientific evidence or data; they do not understand experimentation; they do not understand the concept of a hypothesis test; they do not understand the concepts of 'law' or 'theory' in science; and for the number of times they bltch and whine about statistical significance - they remain absolutely clueless and completely ignorant of what it is, how it works, or what it does.
No one who professes an interest in something can be so stupid by accident. They are (1) lying about the nature of their interest (it is not - never has been - and never will be) in the evidence, science, or truth about climate ot global warming and (2) intentionally refusing to research or learn about climate, science, or the truth.
A skeptic is someone who uses observation and their minds to determine a conclusion. Not just slink along behind the pact saying YESSIR! NOSIR! Whatever you say sir! When the study was written in a book in 1969 it was global cooling and when they didn't make enough money off that they tried global warming, now how can you be skeptical about that. Let's take something much simpler. For years it was "WASH YOUR CHICKEN OR DIE!" Now they are chuckling to themselves and saying "WHY IN GOD'S NAME ARE YOU WASHING YOUR CHICKEN, YOU WILL DIE!" Nothing to be skeptical about there is there? You believe these chuckleheads and they are laffing at you behind your backs and they love it.
Your example concerns a highly UNskeptical and uneducated denier of science, not a "skeptic."
As for the question:
YES, and here are some examples of excellent scholarship by scientific skeptics:
Hulburt, Callendar and Plass were skeptical of Koch's inference that anthropogenic climate change would be limited by CO2 saturation.
Suess was skeptical of the liquid drop model in nuclear physics.
Broecker was skeptical of Rossby's suggestions that changes in ocean circulation affected climate only over thousands of years.
Revelle et al were skeptical of H?gbon's calculation that most human-produced CO2 would be promptly absorbed by oceans.
That you are so utterly incapable of distinguishing between ignorant anti-science liars and eminent climate scientists is mind-boggling.
Yes i su
I don't know. It probably depends on how much a skeptic's head can stretch when their brain expands ...
What a piece!!!
EDIT: Speaking of the paper if you didn't get it. Obviously purposefully misleading and with massive assumption. Very troubling that a paper like this would get such an award.
A climate skeptic asked this question:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApjY_LI9kxs0IePubVI3g3Psy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130529082026AANaWjT
and was directed to this reference:
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr78.pdf
Figure 3 in the Ramanathan paper cited above shows a schematic of the dominant mechanisms that transfer energy between the surface and atmosphere, including energy transfer to the ocean surface. The details are provided in the text, clearly showing energy is transferred to the surface mostly through the downwelling longwave IR flux (a fact that can also be deduced from casual inspection of Trenberth's famous energy cartoon).
Why, given the answer to the question he was seeking, would the climate skeptic consider the question unanswered and the point still "open?" Is it that the material was too complicated for him to understand or is it willful ignorance on the part of the skeptic? In either case, if they cannot learn the very simple basics of energy transfer, how can we trust any of their assessments regarding climate science?
Does this seeming incapacity for learning new concepts (new to them anyway) explain, possibly, why they endlessly recycle arguments that have been repeatedly shown to be false?
