I wouldn't go *quite* that far.
"because there is a 'there' there in what he's been saying here"
I think he has made an understandable mistake. I do not believe he is "onto something" because the topic of this very news article: heat which we are *not* able to measure, neither on Earth nor leaving it. One presumes the imbalance in the equation (Trenberth's motive for wanting to measure deeper in the ocean) is that *less* energy is radiated to space than measured incoming. The logical conclusion is that the net OLR is actually not positive overall (for statistically significant spatial & temporal intervals), because Trenberth's call to measure deeper in the ocean is based on the global energy budget not adding up in a manner opposite of what "too much" radiation to space would imply.
Intentionally or not, gui has picked data that suggest the opposite of the energy imbalance that led to this article, which -- again, I'm assuming -- is accepted by professional climate scientists in general. I expect even gui would concede that Trenberth is the more authoritative source on the process of balancing the global energy budget. I think fixating on one class of raw data while failing to consult the leading experts' publications on the same matter is unscientific and wrong.
"Papers on radiative budgets maintain that we are keeping more energy than we are losing - reconciling that with the total OLR trend is perhaps the key here."
Agreed. I'm through with this
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment