Billy, If all the energy that came in each day, left the same day there would be none left to heat the oceans. But there is clear evidence in the rising levels that they are warming (or do you think they are not?????) From the latest IPCC report, AR4 WG1 Chapter 05 Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level 5.2.2.3 Implications for Earth’s Heat Balance To place the changes of ocean heat content in perspective, Figure 5.4 provides updated estimates of the change in heat content of various components of the Earth’s climate system for the period 1961 to 2003 (Levitus et al., 2005a). This includes changes in heat content of the lithosphere (Beltrami et al., 2002), the atmosphere (e.g., Trenberth et al., 2001) and the total heat of fusion due to melting of i) glaciers, ice caps and the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets (see Chapter 4) and ii) arctic sea ice (Hilmer and Lemke, 2000). The increase in ocean heat content is much larger than any other store of energy in the Earth’s heat balance over the two periods 1961 to 2003 and 1993 to 2003, and accounts for more than 90% of the possible increase in heat content of the Earth system during these periods. Ocean heat content variability is thus a critical variable for detecting the effects of the observed increase in greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere and for resolving the Earth’s overall energy balance. Bolding mine Arthur
I haqve already stated that I think, but am not certain, that the oceans are expanding do to warming. Not possible to be completely sure as the land sinking can cause shore lines to creep inland. I also agree with your quote, including the part you made bold; but fail to see how this justifies your speaking of the "slowing of earth radiation" as the cause of the warming, instead of its reduction at the specific absorption wave lenghts of the GHGs. I do agree that the total thermal energy stored in earth probably is increasing and that if so that increase is mainly in the oceans. So if true, then it is true that the radiation escaping is not exactly equal to the production rates I listed in post 295, but the difference is so small that it is impossible to measure. It can only be inferred if one knows how many more Joules the oceans hold now than years ago, assuming they do*. Thus I do not consider it and error to say the radiation escaping is equal to the there sources I named in post 295. It is surely, in annual average, equal to them to within one part in a million and that is "equality" for me. *The sun is not exactly a constant power producer either. If 0.00001% of the solar energy is what is required to explain heating the ocean, then that is small compared to variation in solar output. This is not an exact science like math, so nothing wrong with calling things equal when it is impossible to know they are not.
Not to get into a semantic debate, but as you acknowledge, the energy is absorbed, but then reradiated away, that process, of being absorbed and re-radiated away is what I mean by slowing down it's escape, because this reradiation process allows for more energy to be taken up by the oceans, which have roughly 1,000 times the thermal mass of the atmosphere. Well they do know (within our ability to measure), and it is not so tiny that it is impossible to measure. Again, from IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 5 (pg 391): the oceans net heat uptake since 1960 is around 20 times greater than that of the atmosphere (Levitus et al., 2005a). for the 0 to 3,000 m layer for the period 1961 to 2003 there has been an increase of ocean heat content of approximately 14.2 ± 2.4 × 10^22 J, corresponding to a global ocean volume mean temperature increase of 0.037°C during this period. This increase in ocean heat content corresponds to an average heating rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 for the Earth’s surface Arthur
At earth's orbit from sun, if memory serve me there is a little more than 1kW / meter squared solar power density. Expressed in these same terms, do you know how large is the tidal heating plus the radioactive decay heating? Could they be a significant part of the 0.21W/m^2? If they are 0.01W/m^2 then the difference between solar absorbed and radiated is < 2/10,000 so I called that equal, which it technically is not, but again my point was to clearly explain why RenaissanceMan's misleading graph of the H2O concentration did not support his claims, not to be precise to approximately 1 part in 5000. We got into this long discussion because immediately after my post doing that you said; "Not to be picky, but that is totally false." about my statement that H2O "blocks" radiation and I was careful to clearly state in bold text, that it was IR at its absorption wave length which is "blocked." It probably is at least 99.9% blocked so I did not consider that "total false" considering the context and purpose of my post, so I replied to you, but I think it now time to terminate our exchange.
Billy, The oceans are indeed heating up over this 42 year period the AR4 reported on. On the other hand, the amount of heating from tidal forces and radioactive decay over this period are not only FAR smaller but are essentially constant over that period, so no, they are not the cause of the oceans warming up (indeed, the amount of energy reaching the crust from radioactive decay is falling very slowly over time, not rising). The 14.2 ± 2.4 × 10^22 J that the ocean warmed up however is clearly measurable. And I'm not disagreeing with the main thrust of what you posted. Arthur
Global Warming is a Fraud Here's an excellent documentary detailing why global warming is a fraud. There's a guy from Harvard too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFxxdH67kwY
With 2010 being tied with 2005 as the warmest year in history, that's going to be a somewhat tough sell.
These guys are deceptive, the scientific consensus was never that of global cooling! It was one article in a popular magazine. The urban heat island effect is negligible to the premise of climate change, since the heating in urban areas mirrors that of the rural areas, even when the average temps are higher in the urban areas. Also, sensors from urban areas can be easily filtered from the data. Also, even if man is responsible for a tiny percentage of the total greenhouse gasses, our contribution is responsible for tipping the scales towards a net increase. The impact of small rises in greenhouse gasses can be large. This is like saying I shouldn't be worried about a bullet, since it only weighs but a small percentage of my total body weight. The absolute size of a number is irrelevant without context.
I did. I liked "I'm not a scientist but I work for one." Other contributors: Tim Patterson. Given money by enviro-truth.org, which is wholly funded by The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. Tim Ball. Worked as a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. He also denies that CFCs affect the ozone layer. Now if they could just get Ken Lay to say a word or two on how horrible it would be to reduce CO2 emissions from his power plants, it would be perfect.
Nice work - well done. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'll tell you what I'd like: For the dummies that start this type of thread to actually check out the players in the links they post to see what their qualifications/credentials/connections to organizations/industries are. If they bothered to do so, it would cut down on the garbage threads - like this one. (Incidentally, I suppose Ken Lay is emitting his own very personal emissions right now;those that manage to find their way into the atmosphere from his grave.)
Well i didnt watch the video yet but i will say that these days it is easy to scare the shit out of people in matters such as this. Just one is 24hr. worldwide news so gives a particular impression. Next we consider populations have certainly increased so if there is a storm and flooding more people involved, more debris floating etc. Just look at "The Wizard of Oz" the house was picked up by a hurricane and landed in Oz. That must have been some hurricane and that was made in what??? the 30's. Just goes to show people were well aware of "suoperstroms"...i can go on and on but why bother? That said, i do agree with cleaning up the environment and acknowledge the monumental importance of clean air and water.
Sad isn't it, deniers drum up someone with good academic credentials that agree with their viewpoint,.. but fail to see who signed the cheque in said academics back pocket. Short term profit vs long term change, will mean they will always get someone to say what they they want for money.
One of the most depressing aspects of all this CC denial, is that it shows the blatant duality of those people (mostly from the, uhum, developed world) that are willing to get all up your face about something that might threaten the 'way of life', but never lift a finger (or a braincell) when it comes to the countless corruption and vested interests that occur around the planet every day...
look real hard when they say that the earth heats up then emits carbon... ignore the dumb statment and look at her graphs. the red bar the one that they say is off set, it's actualy of set because it's about half a centimeter out from the margin. they messed with there graphs. there's no way to fallow any of this crap if you've got your eyes looking right at it. those Graphs "I'm not a scientist, but like many of you I work for one" fudging the numbers on top of every thing... how embarasing. so whys global warming a fraud? why say I'll save money but buying a new car? it's happening... let's adapt and move on before the lot of us do. be smart and get moving before every one else does.. to your nearest ford dealer ship.
If you actually saw the documentary, there was no scientific concensus. Both global warming and global cooling are a normal course of action. They just wobble back and forth every several hundred years. Mainstream media is heavily controlled by the establishment. I prefer independent media like RT. Well we have the corporations to blame for that one right?
CO2 is not toxic. I suppose if one thinks it is then one should not be performing CPR unto someone because you can possibly kill them. Plants take in CO2 too.
It definitely is toxic; it will kill you in seconds at high concentrations. At lower concentrations, it's not a human health threat; it merely contributes to warming.
