Look, you can talk all you like about numbers of citations etc etc. Knox and Douglas are, after all, just bringing together the results of other studies, so you can always check the originals. This is not a numbers game.
Just look at the NASA sea surface data - you can compare the daily mean for the last 12 months with that for the 12 months of 2003 and it's getting cooler at sea surface. There's no two ways about it: absolutely no ambiguity. A simple sighting of these plots
http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg makes it clear. You can do the plots yourself on the NASA site as I did to get this. (There's a link on my site.) For further details read what I have written on this page:
http://earth-climate.com/CaseAgainst.html However you look at it, Trenberth's estimates of ocean warming every year since 2003 have to be wrong. I don't blame him - there was bad data. The sea surface figures would have to show it if it really happened. And we should be weighting mean world temperatures by about 90% on "over the ocean" temperatures, based on the heat stored, not the surface area of about 70%. Land measurements are also prone to urban crawl and other problems. Just keep watching those NASA sea surface figures.
What I expect (based on planetary orbits) is a slight rise (say 0.1 deg) by 2013, then decline (~0.2 deg) from 2014 till 2027-2028 then rise (~0.4 deg) till 2058-2059 after which a long term decline till about the year 2500. I have archived these predictions - see archive link on my home page
http://earth-climate.com The main point is that the period 2003 to 2011 provides a good potential testing ground for the models - fairly stable temperatures (as could have been predicted from natural cycles) and a fairly linear trend in increasing levels of CO2. Models show a lot of net radiation which should have added to temperatures, but it hasn't. Absolutely none of the CO2 has had any effect whatsoever.
Hence the models are wrong.
There are solid reasons based on physics on my home page as to why CO2 does not have a net warming effect. It can also act as a scavenger, removing heat from O2 and N2 molecules and then emitting photons much more easily than those air molecules can do - thatis, CO2 can also (indirectly) cause cooling.
It doesn't matter if GHG molecules get warmer - they will just emit more. And even the models say at least 99.7% of all emitted heat energy gets to space eventually. I say that the models cannot have such a high degree of accuracy, anyway, so it's not surprising that their 99.7 figure can easily be 100% or even greater when the world is cooling.
Login
Register
FAQ
