That's not true without knowing a lot more about the system. All that says is some energy is input into the system. It says nothing about the net gain/loss of energy that keeps our system stable. It seems you are preaching that the earth's climate is a closed system and any solar energy increases warming. Surely you know if the sun were to 'blink out' we would all freeze within hours, if not minutes. But you said absolutely nothing. He was pointing out, rightfully so, that any anthropomorphic CO2 is irrelevant to the energy put into and released by the system. Good, then quit arguing against the correct and proven physics.
Jem. I have no science for you. The conjecture that man made CO2 doesn't have a very significant effect may be right. Who knows really? The only thing I would say is that we should let the meteorologists sort this out and not jump to conclusions based on articles in the popular press. Jem, it has long been known that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, as you suggest. Taking into account both abundance and absorptivities of both CO2 and water vapor, most meteorologists estimate that water vapor is about 3 times more important than CO2. But that ratio can only be given to one significant figure. Without error limits, one assumes there is an uncertainty in that ratio of at least 33%. The absorptivities as a function of wavelength are known accurately, but the abundance for water vapor varies widely with location, so you are looking at the mean of very scattered data. CO2 content is of course more uniform. It is extremely difficult to accurately model the atmosphere because of all the feed back loops and interactions. Here are some complicating factors that I'm sure you have thought of since you seem very interested in this topic. All gases are less soluble in liquids as temperature rises, thus the carbonic acid CO2 equilibrium position shifts to the right (more CO2) as the oceans temperature rises. This may have some effect on ocean pH depending on the oceans buffer capacity. The oceanographers will know that. I don't. The liq- vapor equilibrium point for water shifts to the right with rising. temperature. Water has anomalously large heat of fusion and heat of vaporization. So for example, water evaporation has a very large cooling effect on its surrounding. The growth of plants that use chlorophyll is accelerated by rising CO2 concentration. Plants absorb sunlight, convert CO2 to carbohydrates and oxygen. Snow reflects sunlight. Dark surfaces absorb more sunlight than light colored surfaces. Black surfaces are the best absorbers. (Asphalt) Is paving over the surface of the Earth with asphalt and cutting down the forests causing the Earth to warm? Many natural phenomena can effect ocean temperature and atmospheric CO2. Rotting of vegetation, respiration of ants and termites, ocean currents, volcanoes, deep sea and on land. Many of mans activities produce CO2 and/or water (both are greenhouse gases.) Respiration, burning of fossil fuels, the space shuttle, manufacture of Portland cement --the latter is not as important as often portrayed because the equilibrium reverses when concrete cures. And there are other factors. I have probably left out some major ones, in fact. Cow flatulence perhaps? So good luck, Jem, in trying to sort it all out. Personally I think we should just leave all this to the meteorologists. I don't think there is anything to be gained by lay people discussing the issue of anthropomorphic CO2. And, as a matter of fact, it is a problem so complicated that even the meteorologists haven't figured it out. But one thing we can be certain of, and that is if there is money to be made, Goldman Sachs will figure out how.
I know you don't like addressing me but I'll give you my opinion on your statement anyway. Meteorologists have mostly already left the AGW camp. But we have provided studies and names of and from climate scientists and physicists who have valid arguments against the AGW theory. Viola! A light bulb finally goes on. Yes, everybody knows the ocean releases CO2 as temperatures rise. That is one reason CO2 lags warming. (to put it into common English) Firstly, there is no water 'fusion' taking place. Water absorbs energy as it evaporates and releases energy as it returns to a liquid state and again when it changes to a frozen state. Also, energy is released when hydrogen and oxygen combine into water and absorb energy when split apart. Simple well known principals of physics. If you are going to ramble, please chose your words carefully. Elementary my dear Watson. Elementary. But any layman can take the time to read the papers published by qualified climate scientists and reach a level of understanding and recognition of flawed thesis vs. reasonable thesis. One doesn't need to be a researcher in the field to under stand the research and arrive at logical conclusions. Maybe one day you will have something useful to add to the discussion/argument.
they have a political agenda or three: The Catholic Church is part of it, they can unite people of all flavor of religion together with environmental causes [they don't want people that say it's all a sign of the end of times though], the UN needs GW so it can have taxation powers, our Universities are heavily invested in it, who knows how much funding is tied to it...
Billions! <img src=http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/climate_money.png width=460 height=287>