Share
10,698 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 237
clock Created with Sketch. 03/09/14
20:38
Share
Originally posted by jopo
↑
Well i think the modelers better get there head around the short term "anomalies" then. As these short term anomalies are a every day factor in our lives.A) natural versus fossil burning forcings 1) they are not assuming they understand them. They have built up a strong understanding through the long centuries of scientific study and observations. It is not assumption. On what they know at the time 2) prior to industrialisation, the climate models, using scientists understanding of natural forcings only, correspond well with observations. What sort of wishy washy statement is that. retrospectively my model correlates to nature for the last blink of an eye. 3) once CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning becomes significant the models with natural natural forcings alone depart from the observations - temperatures warm more than natural forcings alone would cause 4) if you add modelling of CO2 impacts the observations and models again correlate well. Hello it is the modelling that is being questioned. B) "missing" heat. 1) the heat is not missing. OK i should have said atmospheric heat. My bad. Models predicted atmospheric rise back then. I cannot recall any mention of oceans back then absorbing all of the heat to neutralise the atmospheric rise. My question is why all of a sudden if there is still warming that the oceans are now the 100% sink and not the 90% as mentioned. 2) what does need explanation is why air temperatures have not risen as much over the last 20 years as longer term models would suggest as a long term trend 3) ocean observations and understandings of physics indicate ~90% of all heating goes into the oceans 4) and ocean warming at deep levels has been seen to increase 5) so theories and observations that support those theories have been developed that explain mechanisms by which heat transfers in the ocean can explain why more of the heat has gone into the oceans in recent times. I cant say that the theory has been tested and proven correct. Nonetheless it is a theory and probably irrelevant. If the oceans are holding the heat well so be it. We have not had 50% stronger trade winds for the last 15 years so there must be more to it than that theory. Again an unknown not factored in. The IPCC do not know yet. C) the distinction between short and long term physics 1) the CO2 warming is a very long term impact . Well it is understood. It is the severity of it that there is still debate on. I.E the logarithmic effect of Co2 increases. Saturation. 2) and it is well understood. Refer to above 3) the ocean impacts and the variabilities of la nina, el nino and trade winds are much shorter and more variable impacts. Yep and these impacts and more happen on a yearly cycle somewhere in the world. NASA are only now talking about links between solar links and ocean currents. 4) and they have been less predictable and less well understood. AGREE
Expand
i have to say, that response has me breaking out in laughter
