Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
I think that the work here is quite interesting and it only further draws to question if we know enough to make any real suggestions. In my opinion, there is simply too much that we do not understand about our climate to form the opinion of the IPCC. They would have been better to recommend major investments in data gathering and climate modeling technology rather than scare the world’s public by proclaiming a cause and effect.
When one converts the units, this means that the Earth’s climate system should be accumulating Joules at a rate of 2.61*10**22 Joules per year [0.98*10**22 Joules to 3.91*10*22 Joules per year] in 2005…..The data, however, show quite a different accumulation of Joules in recent years, and in 2005 in particular.
Well the radiative forcing data record is now longer, and it presents
quite a different perspective than a more-or-less monotonic increase in
the global radiative forcings as claimed
This loss of heat from the upper oceans is also consistent with little
if any heating in the troposphere over the last several years
Even if the heat has been transported deeper into the ocean than the
about 700m depth analyzed by Lyman et al, the radiative forcing that is
available to alter the global average surface temperature trend is much
less than reported in the 2007 IPCC SPM, and, indeed, for at least the
period from 2003 to 2005 is a negative forcing! Thus, the data indicate
a very different picture than presented by the IPCC.
What these observations mean is that the statement in the IPCC SPM that
there is a positive radiative forcing of 1.6 [0.6 to 2.4] Watts per
meter squared in 2005 (when this was not true based on real
data) is a particularly egregious error. Rather than relying solely on
model based estimates to calculate a global radiative forcing, the
authors of the IPCC Report should have also used real world data for
the assessment of the net radiative forcing.
Technorati Tags: global warmingTags: IPCC, ocean, temperature