Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming II

Please quote the passage that states that "Trenberth was LOOKING for warming in the first place."

 

Here is the quote from that link:

If Trenberth is calculating HOW MUCH energy is reaching us from the sun, then that amount of energy is unknown. Why does he assume that some of it is missing when he doesn't know HOW MUCH is absorbed in the first place? I bolded Trenberth's predetermined conclusion

 

The amount of energy from the sun hitting the Earth is measured by satellites and is definitely not "unknown". That is just your ignorance of science talking, which also describes pretty much all of your very ignorant posts.

 

Apparently you didn't read the quote I provided directly from YOUR link..."Trenberth's job is to track exactly how much energy is reaching us from the sun."

If he is TRACKING how much energy is reaching us from the sun and, has questions as to where some of it went then he doesn't know how much energy is reaching us. He only presumes on the basis of a global warming mindset.

Apparently your mind-numbed pro-AGW mindset is so overwhelming you can no longer comprehend in an objective manner and are reduced to childish name-calling.

 

That has to be the most scientifically illiterate thing I have ever read!! It even beats the Homoeopathy stops Malaria by stopping mosquito shaped holes happening in your immune system bunk I read the other day.

 

Like most warmists you don't like to discuss, you like to denigrate. This shows you have no logical argument but then, that is what I expect from reading most of your posts.

 

1) If calculations have given us the amount of energy from the sun, then the amount of energy is known.
2) Trenberth, or the article, never states that energy from the sun is missing; he states that warming is not accounted for; big difference.
3) "The more global warming there is, the more energy is absorbed by all these places" is not a conclusion; it is a statement of fact; like saying the more money I have, the more I can spend. The article could just as well have stated "The less global warming there is, the less energy is absorbed by all these places".
4) Trenberth never stated "The more global warming there is, the more energy is absorbed by all these places"; the article did. So even if it were a conclusion, it cannot be "Trenberth's predetermined conclusion"

 

Again, I point out a quote from the link: "Trenberth's job is to track exactly how much energy is reaching us from the sun"

The point I am making is that Trenberth does not know how much energy is reaching us from the sun in the first place. I am not addressing how much TOTAL energy is radiated by the sun.

If Trenberth is studying HOW MUCH energy from the sun is reaching the Earth then he doesn't know if there is any missing energy yet he states as much. My contention is that it has to do with a GW mindset and the fact that he is really setting out to prove a pre-determinied conclusion.

How does he know that warming is not accounted for if he doesn't know how much energy is reaching us from the sun? The article states that his job is tracking it.

Again, if one is studying HOW MUCH energy is reaching us from the sun, how does one leap to the conclusion that there is warming coming from something other than the sun?

The article was posted to support GW I read it and saw and obvious flaw.

 

Sure he does. So do I. So does anyone who tracks it. You can track it yourself using publicly avaibable PMOD data. So what's the big mystery?

You've fallen into the same mis-reading of Trenberth's email as every FoxNews-brainaddled denier out there. Trenberth's complaint was that we didn't have enough subsurface thermometers to track what happens to oceanic heat content during the course of an ENSO cycle. That's all. It has nothing whatever to do with the Sun.

 

Again the link provided says that Trenberth's job is tracking how much energy from the sun is reaching us. The issue is NOT tracking procedures.

That is not the issue at hand. Try to stay focused.

 

When you "track" the amount of money you have in your checking account, do you know what that amount is? When an astronomer "tracks" a satellite, does he know where that satellite is? You might want to take some time and look up the meaning of "track".

For the 5th time, climate researchers know how much energy is coming in from the sun. The TOA energy is 342w/m-m. That number varies at the most 1W/m-m. That change cannot account for the difference in temperature of the atmosphere. The rise in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should have by now given us more warming. That missing heat has now been shown to be in the lower ocean, a place that Trenberth has not included in his research because his focus has been the energy flowing through our atmosphere, land, and melting ice.

Trenberth has come to no pre-determined conclusions.

 

Trenberth is a hack that manipulates data and what gets published. He also plagiarizes and then corrects it without admitting it.This man has no credibility

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9436/...-Kevin-Trenberths-legacy-of-political-science

 

It is how much energy is REACHING the earth that Trenberth was tracking. Which means he was TRACKING it. THEN he makes the statement about missing warming. How does one know something is missing if one is in the midst of quantifying it?

 

Are you being deliberately dense? 'Tracking' something simply means 'keeping track' of it. Trenberth is keeping track of the amount of solar energy hitting the Earth as measured by satellites on an ongoing basis and studying where that energy is going. He is not, as you so ignorantly imagine, "in the midst of quantifying it". It is already "quantified" and known.

 

No he's tracking how much energy is reaching us from the sun. That's what the article says. He is not 'keeping track' of it. You just made that up. He doesn't KNOW how much energy is reaching us because he is studying HOW MUCH. You are a believer, I am being objective.

 

And this is important why?

Are you suggesting that he is being fiendishly clever by altering the amount of sunlight hitting earth to make it higher but blaming the resultant rise in temperature on man made global warming just so he can make money on the stock market betting on alternate energy companies??

 

And if we posted similar about Spencer - what would your reaction be? Perhaps in line with other posts from denialists where they start to accuse of targeting the person not the science??


Just a heads up about your website "Climate depot"

 

Are you suggesting that he can identify missing warming when he is trying to find out how much of it there is in the first place?

 

You're not "being objective". You're just apparently too ignorant to understand the meaning of "tracking".

But then you don't seem to understand much at all about this issue. Your posts are empty of any real substance and don't ever amount to squat.

It would be funny though to hear you explain just what you think is the difference between 'tracking the energy hitting the Earth' and 'keeping track of the energy hitting the Earth'. Would you care to make everyone laugh again? One more time, please.

 

Apparently if the words 'global warming' are attached to any outlandish pro-global warming position, or statement you will believe it and anybody who questions your belief is 'ignorant.'

I have already explained my position quite clearly, you can't refute it so you descend to denigration and name-calling which is typical of most of your posts.

 

The devil is in the details, which you either missed or are ignoring.

Here! Read Trenberth's original paper and show me where he has reached a pre-determined conclusion. Climate researchers know how much energy is reaching us from the sun and Trenberth is tracking, where that energy is going.
And satellite measurements of total solar irradiance

 

All you've done is demonstrate your ignorance of science and your inability to understand simple English. You have "explained" nothing, let alone doing it "clearly". Vacuous ignorance is what is actually typical of pretty much all of your posts.

 

And you demonstrate your mind-numbed brain-washed global warming religion. Your cult-like belief precludes you from using common logic which is apparent in all of YOUR posts.

 

From your link:

The very first sentence shows obvious bias.

The there is this...

This is on-going research, not proven science.

More...from YOUR link...

It's hard to fathom how anyone would come to any conclusion about missing warmth when there is no standard in the first place. We both read the same paper...It is purported to be about on-going research but its obvious it is researching predetermined conclusions.