Axil, this "thermal Inertia" argument is untenable and does not fit the facts.
In order for your thermal Inertia argument to be correct, you need to show
steady temperatures over the years as the extra heat is supposedly being
"absorbed" by the ocean waters. Fact is, global temperatures were increasing
for serveral years starting in the 70s up to approx 2000, then temps remained
steady. Thermal Inertia can not explain why this is happenning.
But, instead of acknowledging that there may be something seriously and fatally
wrong with their models, these supposed experts continue with the charade and
claim the "settled science" argument and continue pushing the lie of AGW. And
we have lackeys in this forum arguing that these experts must be right because
they spend their days and nights studying this subject and they undertstand it
more fully and more correctly even though their explanation does not fit the
observed facts. And it has never occured to this lackey that these supposed
experts might be LYING.
What sort of logical fallacy argument is this? "Yea ... our experimental data
do not fit our models but we are still right because we have PhDs and we've
been studying this problem for decades." This is the argument Jed wants you to
swallow. Does this sound like the scientific method to anyone in this forum?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:How bad is this news? Jed Rothwell
The primary reasons why the climate is not heating up faster than it has been
include oceanic thermal inertia and industrial negative aerosol forcing.
There is a lot of water in the ocean and there still is loads of ice spread
around the world that can cool that water.
In the case of oceanic thermal inertia, the good news is that because the
oceans are so large, and take so much time to absorb the thermal energy, we are
warming more slowly than would otherwise occur.
The bad news is that the oceans not only take up heat slowly, the also
dissipate heat slowly. So even if we are able to reduce the greenhouse gases in
the earth atmosphere to reasonable levels (closer to 300ppm CO2) the thermal
inertia of the oceans will still take quite some time to respond and cooling
down the earth will take considerable time.
On the bright side, We still have some time to get LENR and zero point
energy(ZPE) extraction developed and deployed to replace fossil fuel burning
before all the ice is gone.
Cheers: Axil
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 9:07 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
Jed,
I have been following the subject fairly closely. I'm not about to start
yet another discussion on AGW. I've written hundreds of posts on that already.
That the IPCC forecast has been falsified for the average of the models and
most of the individual models you can read about on Lucia's blog at
http://rankexploits.com/musings/
I'm not at all sure that global temperature is even a very meaningful
number when you think about it.
I lean towards what Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu writes here:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_climate_change.pdf
At least his forecast is a lot closer than IPCC's.
