Few if any serious and competent scientists deny the anthropogenic factor. The observed effect of CFC’s on ozone is quite credible but I do not see good correlation between observed and calculated changes in oceanic heat content. Only the heat content anomaly for the region from 60 degrees south to 20 degrees south shows some correspondence with the model and an aggregate factor for three ocean regions is very much smaller than predicted.
Climate models cannot determine cause-effect relationships except when all credible variables have been tested in non-linear, multiple regression analysis and I have never seen anyone publish something like this. My research indicates that increasing land and ocean surface temperatures are mainly caused by human destruction of natural vegetation which has been massive, progressive and still on-going. Natural vegetation absorbs and stores solar energy and carbon dioxide, stores heat, cools surroundings, creates moisture through respiration, attracts clouds and precipitates moisture, and all this stabilizes climate. Climate models do not include proper calculations of the effect of increasing destruction of natural vegetation which will allow atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to increase and progressively limit massive surface cooling effects.
Perhaps biology and botany is not your specialist field but it would be useful to see 50 year historical records graphically depicting loss of natural vegetation versus global temperature increases. I would also like to see an accurate comparison of mankind’s increased emissions of greenhouse gases versus natural emissions of greenhouse gases as a result of mankind’s interference with nature. Thanks, Mike
Atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are relatively uniform around the earth due to relatively fast moving winds and stratospheric jet streams. Unstable Ozone is an exception. Anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases are also relatively uniform around the earth due to wind movements. Therefore, heat energy flux into the ocean surface from solar radiation or increased anthropogenic contributions should be relatively uniform around the earth irrespective of the source of energy.
Here is my challenge to climate change models: The rate of increase in ocean surface temperature in the southern hemisphere lags behind the northern hemisphere by approximately 10 years. Although, ocean surface area and volume of seawater in the southern hemisphere is between two and three times as much as the northern hemisphere, both ocean surface currents and deep water counter-currents are fast enough to transport and mix seawater so that northern and southern hemispheres are almost one single complex ocean in the time-scale of one year. Therefore: given (1) relatively uniform heat energy flux from both solar radiation and anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases and (2) this situation with one single complex ocean with relatively fast moving currents and (3) observations during the time-scale of one year, these three factors should produce a relatively uniform increase in ocean surface temperature. If greenhouse gas models were comprehensive and accurate we should not see a 10 year lag. We also see average land surface temperatures rising faster in the northern hemisphere compared with the southern hemisphere while greenhouse gas levels are rising at the same rate in both hemispheres. Major differences in land mass, temperatures and ocean currents specifically within the two arctic circles might contribute to observed differences. The hypothesis that land mass changes may be causing rising surface temperatures more so than fossil fuel combustion has not been serious investigated.
Hi Richard,
Few if any serious and competent scientists deny the anthropogenic factor. The observed effect of CFC’s on ozone is quite credible but I do not see good correlation between observed and calculated changes in oceanic heat content. Only the heat content anomaly for the region from 60 degrees south to 20 degrees south shows some correspondence with the model and an aggregate factor for three ocean regions is very much smaller than predicted.
Climate models cannot determine cause-effect relationships except when all credible variables have been tested in non-linear, multiple regression analysis and I have never seen anyone publish something like this. My research indicates that increasing land and ocean surface temperatures are mainly caused by human destruction of natural vegetation which has been massive, progressive and still on-going. Natural vegetation absorbs and stores solar energy and carbon dioxide, stores heat, cools surroundings, creates moisture through respiration, attracts clouds and precipitates moisture, and all this stabilizes climate. Climate models do not include proper calculations of the effect of increasing destruction of natural vegetation which will allow atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to increase and progressively limit massive surface cooling effects.
Perhaps biology and botany is not your specialist field but it would be useful to see 50 year historical records graphically depicting loss of natural vegetation versus global temperature increases. I would also like to see an accurate comparison of mankind’s increased emissions of greenhouse gases versus natural emissions of greenhouse gases as a result of mankind’s interference with nature. Thanks, Mike
Remember that most of the ocean area is in the Southern Hemisphere, and that ocean currents can transport the deposited energy over huge distances.
Atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are relatively uniform around the earth due to relatively fast moving winds and stratospheric jet streams. Unstable Ozone is an exception. Anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases are also relatively uniform around the earth due to wind movements. Therefore, heat energy flux into the ocean surface from solar radiation or increased anthropogenic contributions should be relatively uniform around the earth irrespective of the source of energy.
Here is my challenge to climate change models: The rate of increase in ocean surface temperature in the southern hemisphere lags behind the northern hemisphere by approximately 10 years. Although, ocean surface area and volume of seawater in the southern hemisphere is between two and three times as much as the northern hemisphere, both ocean surface currents and deep water counter-currents are fast enough to transport and mix seawater so that northern and southern hemispheres are almost one single complex ocean in the time-scale of one year. Therefore: given (1) relatively uniform heat energy flux from both solar radiation and anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases and (2) this situation with one single complex ocean with relatively fast moving currents and (3) observations during the time-scale of one year, these three factors should produce a relatively uniform increase in ocean surface temperature. If greenhouse gas models were comprehensive and accurate we should not see a 10 year lag. We also see average land surface temperatures rising faster in the northern hemisphere compared with the southern hemisphere while greenhouse gas levels are rising at the same rate in both hemispheres. Major differences in land mass, temperatures and ocean currents specifically within the two arctic circles might contribute to observed differences. The hypothesis that land mass changes may be causing rising surface temperatures more so than fossil fuel combustion has not been serious investigated.