This actually answers why the warming has taken place.

The Earth is a non-equilibrium, dynamic system. That means it never reaches the equilibrium temperature. There are several reasons for this, but the annual seasons play a big role. Since the Earth never reaches the equilibrium temperature, it is either always losing more energy than it gains (which causes cooling) or it is gaining more energy than it is losing (which causes warming).

All of the temperature reconstructions show that there are hundred year periods of warming or cooling. This explains why this happens on the century time scale. Two hundred years ago when the Earth was cooler, it was gaining more energy than it was losing.

While people want to say that the ocean oscillations cause this, it is only the oceans that lag the most in this phenomenon. The oceans are always in an energy imbalance and always will be. The oceans act as the slack in the system. Once the atmosphere is dissipating energy faster than the oceans can put energy into the atmosphere, the next cooling phase will begin. That will last until the next phase begins.

This is interesting and thanks for sharing. It seems to me, however, that it does not address the central issue, namely, whether the troposphere will end up warming. For example, in your last figure you show that 2009 was indeed warmer than 1984. Yes, the outgoing radiation increased substantially, but apparently not enough to keep the temperature at the 1984 level. Therefore, wasn’t the increase in energy coming into the system equal to (i) the amount of increased outgoing radiation, *plus* (ii) whatever amount of energy was needed to increase global temperature by 0.5 degrees?

Stated another way, wouldn’t a GW advocate argue that it ultimately doesn’t matter how much energy is radiated from the Earth, because if not all of the increased energy is radiated, then the temperature will still increase (which is what happened), and the parade of horrors will still follow?

As a result, regardless of outgoing radiation, the question still comes back to how much warming has occurred, why it has occurred, and whether it is bad.

John’s opinion on *the debate* is absolutely correct. 95% of the people talking about AGW theory disregard the the empirical data and fundamentals of the scientific method. Computer models (i.e. assumptions) rule the day.

His opinion and presentation off the science and evidence should be the topic of debate, but the AGW establishment must pretend as-if the debate doesn’t exist b/c they have no sound evidence.

Very good point here!

I am going to post at PSI forum and my forum to help spread it.

Thank you.

I support a discussion of the science here. Very few supporters of global warming discuss the science, they discuss the number of people that support the theory of global warming.

This is all well and good, except that by saying things like “The science is very clear” and it would be “foolish” to believe otherwise sounds like you are not following your own goals.

I’m not saying that you are right or wrong, but rather that I find a disconnect between your stated mission and your actual words which come across as belittling and pompous to all other scientists out there that don’t believe the same thing as you.

I saw that Envisat is dead. I will have to make due with what the US sats put out now. Not ready to hit that one yet. I had a lot of work put into the setup.