|
|
Post by magellan on May 27, 2009 13:24:16 GMT
So let me get this straight...you've no clue why it warmed from 1910-1940 by about the same as the warming period from 1980-2000(ish). You haven't got that straight, so there is no answer to your point. Can you look at the Levitus plot, or the Domingues plot that includes uncertainties (you need to use your imagination to add on the flat spot since 2003), and state with confidence that the data shows that OHC is on the turn?  irpwfoeow1t1bneot"ync"b. You need to use your own imagination and ask why they stopped at 2003:) |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jun 1, 2009 15:43:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 1, 2009 17:39:14 GMT
The question is - is the heat missing - or was it never here in the first place? If there are negative feedbacks (that none of the AGW group accept) then they would account for the 'missing' heat as perhaps something could be stopping it arriving here such as increased albedo or other unmeasured effects.. A parallel - but interesting pictorially - item was of interest here. Clouds are not only poorly modeled but they are now appearing in forms not seen before. One comment made was on the amount of energy needed to form these new 'asperatus' clouds. Perhaps there is something in Svensmark's ideas ? Acceptance of any of that would in fact be an acceptance of an alternative model for climate change. . . .or non-change. Beautiful cloud shots. . . .perhaps thats a brief (hopefully), glimpse at an iceage atmospheric world. Hmmm, likely not caused by volcanos either. The intensely interesting thing about all this is the complete denial on the part of the AGW (anthropogenic global whatever) proponents of any possibility of vast natural climate variation. Its soooo politically motivated. It certainly has zero whatsoever to do with science as science screams loudly that vast natural change is a fact. |
|
