skierinvermont

The oceans are absorbing the vast majority of it. If the atmosphere was forced to absorb .87W/m2, the atmosphere would be warming at like 10C per year (of course once it warmed up a couple degrees C the energy imbalance would disappear).

My statement has absolutely nothing to do with climate models. The warming of the whole earth system is based on data. Nothing else with a radiative effect in our atmosphere has changed to cause such an imbalance, except CO2. Water vapor has increased, but this cannot be the cause of such a large and persistent change or else we would be stuck in an infinite warming trend.

Your points are superficial at best. The point demonstrated by ohc data isn’t that the oceans are getting hot and running out of their ability to absorb more heat. The oceans are vast and have substantially slowed the rate of atmospheric warming and will continue to do so. The point of ohc measurements is that they prove the earths energy imbalance of .87w/m2. You questioned the validity of the .87w/m2 earlier in your post, well the ohc data is one of the main independent lines of proof. For the oceans to warm by that much the earth must have a large and persistent energy imbalance. The only plausible cause of such an imbalance with any evidence is CO2.

Thanks Don. It's been educational to witness the tremendous rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years we've been following this. I can't remember if you were around when I first started following the issue on this forum (easternuswx back then) 13 years ago in college. In my arrogance and incomplete understanding of the science I did not believe that climate sensitivity was as high as it is. I didn't understand the multiple lines of evidence for climate sensitivity and I was skeptical of the atmospheric and oceanic temperature datasets. As I understood the science and data sources better, my thinking changed, but the nail in the coffin has been the massive rise in OHC and surface temperatures the last 15 years. Not that 15 years proves anything on its own, but when combined with the previous 100 years of warming and with the multiple lines of evidence for CO2s radiative forcing and for climate sensitivity, I quickly realized how mistaken and incomplete my understanding was. Back then the 'climate skeptics' universally predicted imminent cooling or at worst a leveling off. A more complete understanding of the science even 15 years ago would have proved them (and me) wrong, but the last 15 years have been a sort of real world test for those of us that had less than perfect understandings. I'm not proud of my youthful mistakes, but I can say even when I was at my most mistaken and ignorant I never pretended that climate accords are too punitive against the U.S. when they allow higher per capita emissions in the U.S. than any other country. Or that the relatively low number of birds killed by windmills negate the numerous benefits. Or that wind power is too expensive when it's actually cheaper (even back then it was starting to get close in price). It seems that the 'skeptics' have moved on from making any actual useful predictions of their own, since they got burned the first time, and have moved even further until the realm of magical thinking.

Opinions are one thing. Repeating right wing lies that have been disproved a thousand times over are entirely another. Any remotely genuine engagement on the topic would be entirely a different matter and deserve a more engaged response. Anybody with an ounce of respect for the truth, science, human or environmental health wouldn't be repeating disproved falsehoods ripped straight from right wing disinformation sources. This isn’t some mr Rogers fairy land where everyone gets to have an opinion just because they were born. The truth and a rigorous disciplined pursuit of it is what counts. One group is presenting facts and peer reviewed science. The only response is 'it's the oceans!!!' and a bunch of other lies. There is no genuine search for the truth. There is no discussion to be had with such an individual.

You tell lies, I point out your lying and/or willful ignorance, you report me. Good luck. You don’t like being called a liar? Have you tried not spreading lies? I don't have respect for lies and disingenuous behavior. Bless the people here who are willing to try and educate you despite this.

'birds in turbines' is mostly winger nonsense given 100x more birds die from feral cats, communication towers, power lines, and household windows. 'but it can't be forced' is also winger nonsense given wind is cheaper than coal and has been largely adopted on economic grounds. Modest tax subsidies can speed the process with little to no impact on poor people (and much benefit in terms of a less polluted environment and more stable climate). 'all countries' is more winger bullshit since the U.S. uses far more CO2 per-capita than almost any country in the world. climate accords should allocate an equal amount of CO2 per person in every country. Just because the U.S. has been the worse offender historically doesn't mean it should get to keep being the worst. 'question everything as a scientist' lol - we see right through you - just another phony winger buying into right wing lies ultimately you will lose this debate and the actions and words of people like you will be looked back upon with shame, because your side is founded on lies and the truth will ultimately win I have no patience for people spreading lies. Shame on you.

'oceans go back to a cooling cycle' - wow the wonder of magical thinking. How are the oceans going to cool the planet when they are full of more heat than any time in thousands of years. It's simple. There is a massive persistent energy imbalance of the whole planet. There is no possible mechanism by which the oceans could cause such a whole-system imbalance where the atmosphere and oceans - everything - are warming continuously and with a very large magnitude.

I mean most sane people don't really argue that corn syrup isn't bad for you, the argument I've seen is that it's no worse than sugar which is correct (there's little evidence corn syrup is any worse than sugar other than the fact that it's cheaper and more widely used in the food industry).

In terms of global warming, animal farming and dense population centers have a negligible effect outside of their GHG effect (cow farts, cars in cities etc.). Outside the GHG effect of animal farms (cow farts = methane, and clear cutting = CO2), animal farms probably cause cooling by creating a more reflective land surface than a forest. Of course the GHG effect of the cow farts and clear cutting outweigh that.

Looks like the GFS just backed off a little. very borderline now.

ENSO doesn't cause a planetary energy imbalance. In fact, by reduced ocean mixing concentrating heat at the oceans surface, more heat is radiated to space and the deep oceans cool. In contrast, we have observed an exceptionally large increase in the earth's oceanic heat content. The oceans have warmed so much that they have expanded significantly and are the primary cause of sea level rise for the last century. It's very difficult to comprehend the amount of heat the oceans have absorbed over the last 100+ years in order to expand that much (and also confirmed by deep sea buoys over more recent decades). You really should make an effort to learn about the amount of heat that the oceans have absorbed and how the only possible explanation is that the earth is stuck in a large radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. There are only a few plausible explanations for such an imbalance: 1) large changes in cloud cover 2) large land use changes making the earth less reflective (human caused land changes have tended to make the earth more reflective) 3) changes in greenhouse gas concentrations The obvious answer is #3 given the observed increase in CO2 and its testable radiative properties

Denver could see it's earliest sub-30 reading ever 4 days after seeing it's latest 100+ ever. While I'd generally expect record cold to decrease with climate change, the wild weather swings are predicted to increase with a slowing jet.

NWS point and click says 6-12 for me, but the WWA says 2-6. I'm a few hundred feet higher than most of the metro's WWA area and on the western edge, so I'm thinking 3-7 for me. Unreal. Latest Euro upped the qpf a bit but most of that was rain, so predicted snowfall held steady.

Average temperatures in California have increased and average precipitation has decreased.

Pointing out contradictions is not uncivil. You’ve said that the molecules scatter random directions and implies this means that they can’t warm the earth. But this is exactly how the greenhouse effect for other gases works, which now you say keep our atmosphere warmer than it would be. That’s a contradiction. Those molecules also scatter in random directions and yet keep the earths atmosphere warmer than it would be

No of course not. The co2 and the sun aren’t going anywhere

Mars is cold because the atmosphere is thin 1% of earths and contains almost no water vapor

My blanket takes issue with your blanket statement that no insulator ever traps heat. The air inside my blanket is toasty. as I said nobody ever said the total heat increase. By trapping more heat on earth less heat escapes to stratosphere and space

See you’ve changed tactics. First you denied the greenhouse effect entirely. Now you deny that more ghgs will increase the effect. Which is it?

I’m sure you did. What I appreciate is that you are thinking about it and I am sure that if you think and engage enough you are more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion.

It’s full of holes but also miles thick. Which is why the surface of the earth isn’t freezing cold like other similar planets. Planets with more ghgs are even hotter.

Bill, I will say I appreciate the more effort you e put into reading and responding. Your short one line posts and then ignoring the responses when people try to help you understand are extremely frustrating, so I apologize if my post was too personal.

Even if the blanket were not touching me the air gets warmer inside the blanket because the heat loss is slowed. CO2 is very similar to a blanket being thrown over the earth. Do you deny that the air inside the blanket gets warmer even though the molecules of the blanket scatter heat in random directions? This random scattering of heat can all be simulated by computer and it shows warming in the lower layers. the room doesn’t get warmer because the room is outer space and the stratosphere in this example. They actually cool as does the room temporarily because less heat is escaping until the earth or air inside the blanket get so hot they start emitting enough heat that the energy flows balance again

When a blanket absorbs radiation from your body it doesn’t re-emit the radiation in any particular direction. The first layer of molecules absorb radiation and then scatters it in all directions. And yet the blanket warms you. This is because even though it is scattered in all directions which slows the dissipation of the heat relative to the radiation having no obstacle at all. your greenhouse example is wrong too. the greenhouse obviously doesn’t get hotter every day but it is still hotter than if there were no greenhouse or a weaker one. The earth is like a really big greenhouse that just takes a really time to warm up. If you ever had a greenhouse and put a deep swimming pool of cold water in it, it would take the greenhouse several days to warm up fully, especially near the surface of the water. the real problem with the greenhouse analogy is that glass greenhouses don’t work by insulating. They work by preventing the air from escaping. The glass has very little insulating effect. a very clear plastic greenhouse would probably be hotter than a glass one