And yet a new energy source discovered pumping energy into the Earth's atmosphere, and you and I both know that is not included in any calculations.
What "new energy" source are you speaking of?
Perhaps you should make it part of your area, since everything is apparently connected throughout space.
Is this more "electric universe" stuff?
You can ignore one area of science all you like,
Let me try this again: I am a chemist. I have had training in QM
but when I make a coating formulation I can do it quite well even without solving the Shroediger Equation.
but trying to explain Earth weather without taking the Sun into account is pretty useless.
I thought I was abundantly clear on this point: NO ONE Is failing to take the sun into account. NO ONE.
I am still waiting for you to show how some alternative understanding of solar physics will alter what we know about the amount of energy coming in from the sun and how it will impact agw as an hypothesis.
Ignoring an energy source would be no different than ignoring the oceans and how they affect climate. The Sun is the most important part of the calculations since it is the main source of heat for the earth.
SO it appears I'll have to ask it again. Maybe if I put it in bold red font:
Do I have to understand the wiring diagram of a heater to be able to measure the temperature coming off of it?
I can keep asking this question you know.
So apparently with a new source of energy
What is this new source of energy again? Is it measurable?
Can you really honestly tell me this energy source does not matter in global warming calculations?
Does it have a name? Because I've not heard of any "MYSTERY ENERGY SOURCES" that science doesn't account for.
Or is it a ssssseeeeecret energy source?
These events are going off all the time, everyday, 24 hours a day, 7 days a weeks, 52 weeks a year. The energy contribution to Earth's atmosphere is enormous. You might want to check into that.
I would if you would tell me what this secret energy source is that apparently no scientists of repute are accounting for.
And yes, man has contributed a lot of pollution to the equation, but we don't understand all the parameters enough at the present to make any definitive conclusions.
Of course not! Except that using KNOWN forcings (natural and anthropogenic) we can RECONSTRUCT the
actual temperature trends for the last 150 years ab initio apparently.
I don't think they are including super secret mystery energies either.
We can ASSUME things, but we can't KNOW for sure until we understand it all.
You mean as in 100% perfect knowledge? Then we understand NOTHING. May as well just give up. It's all a giant mystery.
Man was not producing pollution when the ice age ended, so apparently the Earth cools and heats up without help from man in cycles.
And as luck would have it we understand quite a bit about NATURAL FORCINGS on the climate! And guess what? They can't account for all the warming in the past 150 years.
But when you couple ANTHROPOGENIC and NATURAL forcings you pretty much can!
It is indisputable these currents exist between the sun and Earth, and that they have not been included in any calculations.
So if these currents have not been included in any calculations then why is the fit so good for these:
If those currents are NECESSARY to understand the warming the past 150 years it seems the system can be explained without them awfully easily. Which, in regular science circles, would call into doubt their importance and necessity to the explanation.
And I know you haven't included them because mainstream is still waffling over their cause and how much energy they pump into the atmosphere.
So lemme get this straight: YOU just clearly stated how much energy it is pumping into the atmosphere up above there...but "mainstream science" is uncertain on it?
Hmmmm.....that is so strange!
They are still doing whatever they can to avoid electrical explanations for the event.
Because...ummmmm....it's a grand conspiracy to halt this secret knowledge? Yeah, I've hard about that kind of stuff before.
So if you want to say that you *believe* man is responsible for the climate change, fine, just don't pretend its fact, too many variables have been left out to claim it as fact.
In science we often model systems with the variables we know about. In some cases it is impossible to get a good fit to the data without some important variable.
This usually shows up as excessive "error". So when I look at something like THIS:
I have to ask myself: is there something missing here? Maybe so! But is it enough to overturn the basic hypothesis?
Well, that's doubtful. And it certainly doesn't indicate the NEED for some secret energy that almost no one in the field seems to be considering.
Or is the data being manipulated by the Anti-Electric Universe Illuminati Bilderbergs?