CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,642
- 71,960
- 2,330
Atmospheric CO2 doesn't do that.If so, than provide the links/url to such. Most of us haven't time to waste digging through the "archives" in hope of finding what you vaguely allude to.I was most specifically speaking to the contention that warming was being fabricated by NOAA's adjustments to the raw GHCN data, but as well to all the rest of the NOAA-fabricated-global-warming BS that was all thoroughly refuted on this forum years ago.It is so wearying when you folks bring up arguments that have been thoroughly refuted in years gone by. The selection of stations for the GHCN was objective did not bias the results - there was no change in temperature absolutes or trends across that edit. The correction of raw data is open and fully justified. The interpolation of temperature values between stations is objective and valid. I found it interesting when your article claimed NASA had no temperature data for Africa, then used contemporary NASA satellite data in an attempt to show errors.
Here is an excerpt from an article on radiative forcing that might interest you:
Earth's radiation balance has been continuously monitored by NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) instruments since year 1998.[24][25] Each scan of the globe provides an estimate of the total (all-sky) instantaneous radiation balance. This data record captures both the natural fluctuations and human influences on IRF; including changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, land surface, etc. The record also includes the lagging radiative responses to the radiative imbalances; occurring mainly by way of Earth system feedbacks in temperature, surface albedo, atmospheric water vapor and clouds.[26][27]
Researchers have used measurements from CERES, AIRS, CloudSat and other satellite-based instruments within NASA's Earth Observing System to parse out contributions by the natural fluctuations and system feedbacks. Removing these contributions within the multi-year data record allows observation of the anthropogenic trend in top-of-atmosphere IRF. The data analysis has also been done in a way that is computationally efficient and independent of most related modelling methods and results. Human-caused radiative forcing was thus directly observed to increase by +0.53 +/- 0.11 Watt/m2 from years 2003 to 2018. About 20% of the increase was attributed to a reduction in the atmospheric aerosol burden, and most of the remaining 80% was due to the rising burden of greenhouse gases.[22][28][29]
22. Kramer, R.J., H. He, B.J. Soden, L. Oreopoulos, G. Myhre, P.M. Forster, and C.J. Smith (2021-03-25). "Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing". Geophysical Research Letters. 48 (7). doi:10.1029/2020GL091585.
28. Sarah Hansen (12 April 2021). "UMBC's Ryan Kramer confirms human-caused climate change with direct evidence for first time". University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
29. "Direct observations confirm that humans are throwing Earth's energy budget off balance". phys.org. 26 March 2021.
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
What arguments are you referring to? how does that relate to the CERES data?
AR5 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2014 — IPCC
www.ipcc.ch
How does atmospheric CO2 warm the deep ocean? Does a .1C increase in the atmosphere also warm the oceans 700m deep by .5C? What's the relationship: logarithmic , exponential?
Walk me through these concepts
Within the concept of plate tectonics, there are subduction zones/areas and expansion zones/areas. At the expansion zones/areas warm(hot) material from the Earth's mantle~magma is coming upward from the hot core regions and pushing the plates outward. This magma is the same hot material coming up and out of volcanoes and what causes much of the pressure that produces earthquakes. So it is the hot material from deep down towards the Earth's core which is seeping out of those expansion areas which is the main source of heat to the oceans' depths.
Of course this source of global warming doesn't fit the "ACC/AGW driven by atmospheric CO2" agenda~hypothesis~scam, so such is downplayed as a factor.
Didn't Crick once say that it takes 3,000 times the energy to heat an equal amount of water compared to air?