This thread has been opened primarily as a reference section for the benefit of members who haven't posted in the climate forum before. To this end I'd grateful if regular contributors could perhaps give a summary of their position in the debate, and where appropriate provide some reference links.........Thanks in advance
Ok Gandalf, where does llamedos state this thread is only about key science issues? I think many of the key issues about climate are political, moral and economic. That's assuming we want to do anything about it?
Well it seems perfectly clear to me that the thread was started to draw together contributors' positions in the debate about climate change. I don't see that it's possible to include political, moral and economic issues in that. I agree they are relevant but they are about our response to AGW, not about AGW itself.
I have often thought that a thread about the responses to AGW might be useful. With a starting point that AGW is real and will be a problem at some stage in the future the discussion would then be about responses and not arguments about whether it was happening or not.
Perhaps I'll set one up.
Ok Gandalf, I think we are just looking at it in a different way, you could say that AGW only exists because of political and economic issues?
I see you've set up the other thread so in the interests of your blood pressure I'm happy to post my thoughts on the key political, economic and moral issues of AGW over there
Er, no you couldn't, unless you are alluding to the reason for the burning of fossil fuels. But that would be to miss the point or distort it to the point of meaninglessness.
Blood pressure normal thanks, as always.
I recommend that you get used to it, NSGandalf has an aptitude for it.
I am used to it pw and it's a thought to cheer up even the darkest of days
The biggest key issue is that three-quarters of the increased forcing energy caused by man's GHGs and aerosols is either literally missing (Residual) or is increased Outgoing radiation from the Earth.
Increased Ocean Heat Content was the last potential area to find the missing energy and this has now been exhausted as it is less than one-third of that needed to meet the projections of the theory. The energy is not missing; it was never there in the first place.
The theory needs to be re-written now.
Edited by user 23 May 2012 00:27:57(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
You're a bit too late with that one:
"Our data show that Earth has been accumulating heat in the ocean at a rate of half a watt per square meter (10.8 square feet), with no sign of a decline," Loeb said. "This extra energy will eventually find its way back into the atmosphere and increase temperatures on Earth."
Edited by user 23 May 2012 12:50:34(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
Total direct forcing is +2.0 W/m2/yr (before feedbacks that are to triple that number).
Energy is accumulating around 0.4 W/m2/yr in the Oceans and 0.08 W/m2/yr in ice-melt, land and atmosphere warming.
Leaving a total 1.5 W/m2/yr missing.
Either the forcing estimates are wrong, the energy is escaping faster than predicted, the feedbacks are negative or the energy is hiding somewhere else.
That is not a valid conparison because the raised temperature increes outgoing IR. The comparison reported in the paper is the comparison between the observed radiative inbalance measured by satellite and the heat storage in the ocean
And why are we trying to match up the radiative imbalance measured by satellite? If it is only 0.5 W/m2/yr then that is all the energy that is accumulating. It is supposed to be over 2.0 W/m2/yr (with feedbacks adding on top of that).
Haven't read the NASA piece have you Bill?
The CERES satellite records some minor imbalances which at around 0.5 W/m2/yr is far, far lower than the theory predicts and the climate models estimate.
So, we can find the 0.5 W/m2/yr accumulation measured by CERES and seems to be actually occuring between OHC content increases of 0.4 W/m2/yr and surface/atmosphere accumulation of 0.08 W/m2/yr but ...
... but it is supposed to be +2.0 W/m2 according to the theory and the climate models.
There are two kinds of missing energy, the missing energy which is measured by the satellites (originally thought to be 0.85 W/m2/yr but now revised down to 0.5 W/m2/yr and can be accounted for) and the even extra missing energy that the theory predicts should be there but even the satellites don't seem to see.
See figure.s3 in the Supplemental:
It is not supposed to be +2 W m-2, that is the total radiative forcing of greenhouse gases that is not the same as the radiative inbalance. The radiative inbalance would only equal the radiative forcing if the forcing was having no impact on the climate system.
The Euro championships are nearly upon us and final preperations are taking place. England will do very well to get through the group phase, with what is a team lacking in real quality but with a new manager at the helm.
My tip as winners are the Germans... I think the spanish players esp the Barca ones looked very tired and i will stick my neck out and plum for the Germans. The spanish will be there or there abouts and likewise the Dutch.
Possible suprise packages... France and Croatia.
Edited by user 31 May 2012 19:43:02(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified
I Shall stay with England as long as they stay in....
i'm tipping the germans to win, too. i'm not reading too much into their 5-3 friendly defeat to switzerland yesterday, as they were missing the bayern contingent to their squad.
surprise packages for me...belgium
Same here I recon rep ireland may do quite well .
That would be a big surprise package.