Really, you don't understand this?
The postulate that the missing heat is going into the ocean is an ad hoc hypothesis. Since we have little or no reliable data from there, it is also an unverifiable hypothesis. It is bases on an argument from ignorance ("it can't be anything else!"). It is not a scientific position. It is a way of salvaging the AGW hypothesis from the dustbin of reality. But, by Occam's razor, it has no need to exist. The simplest solution is that the climate sensitivity is lower than the alarmists claim; with that change to the model, there is no missing heat, and no need to imagine the deep oceans acting as a heat sink.
I think this diagram will show how far out they are with their forcing
http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-conten...
and this one
http://www.climatedialogue.org/wp-conten...
See how close radio sond and satellite measurements correspond and how they are nothing like the climate model predictions.
Hmm the warmth is going into the ocean is the cause, well when the PDO was positive I do not hear them saying all the heating we had was through the oceans giving up heat, they cant have it both ways.
That energy and the resultant heat is already in the system. That heat has merely been redistributed. The result is the top layer of the oceans being cooler while the lower layers of the oceans being warmer. Can you describe exactly how a cooler ocean would result in greater or less radiation in the lower troposphere? Are you one of those people mixing up radiative forcing with surface temperature changes?
As oceans warm they absorb more heat. As they cool they release that heat. what is happening now is the absorption by the surface of that heat is 'releasing' that heat to lower layers of the ocean resulting in cooling. This is probably a consequence of the PDO or similar oscillatory cycles.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vao...
Can you explain how cooler oceans surface would result in more or less radiation being absorbed by the surface of the planet thereby changing the radiative balance?
Rio: You have failed to read the question. The question deals with the 'hiatus in the warming'. This is at the surface. It has nothing to do with the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere. The energy is already in the system. When you learn to differentiate between surface temperatures and the top of atmosphere radiative flux then perhaps you will have something to actually post in this thread.
How many substances on Earth are there that don't amplify radiation from the sun or even reflect it?
I can start with clouds.
Does "WATER", "WATER VAPOR", or even "CLOUDS" ever enter the "BIG PICTURE" and "GRAND SCHEME" of things?
Can the alarmists ever figure out that CO2 only helps the Greenhouse Effect in keeping us warm and is never a driver of temperatures?
Does "non-linear and chaotic" mean that climate science will eventually figure it out? ... or is it time for pegminer to re-emerge as the local professional climate scientist here and explain with his arrogant point of view the "matter-of-factness" of climate science?
How many licks does it take to get to a Tootsie Pop center pegminer? 3?
So far you have two Alarmist refusing to believe climate variability can't have a negative forcing.
I'd say its time for remedial training.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/0...
The things one reads. Lordy!
From the last IPCC AR4 report, we have seen the claim that: "...the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2." http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html
This has been loaded into climate models and given what data on CO2 emissions increases, they can calculate the predicted future temperatures. However, there has been a hiatus in the warming of the global surface air temperature for the past decade (or more). Several explanations have been put forth as to why the surface air temperature has not warmed as expected given the predicted net forcing. For example, one of the more popular explanations is that the heat which is supposed to be in the atmosphere as per the net positive radiative forcing has actually gone into the ocean resulting in the lower than expected air surface temperatures.
How does this affect the figure in the above IPCC link? Is there a net negative forcing missing?
Or is the graph still valid and, if surface air temperature doesn't change as expected from those forcings, then a secondary explanation is required? How many secondary explanations exist? Do they cover all warming and cooling scenarios which depart from the predictions?
