I haven't seen anything in the climate models that I've seen that go into the effects of hurricanes and thunderstorms. An average hurricane releases heat energy at the rate of 50 to 200 exajoules (1018 J) per day, transporting heat from the ocean surface to the upper atmosphere where it can be more easily radiated away. The warmer the oceans get, the more hurricanes we'll have, and the more heat gets radiated away in a negative-feedback system.
To put this in perspective, wiki says the total solar energy the earth gets is 1.7 * 1017 Watts. A watt is 1 joule/sec, so the daily energy is 3600 * 24 * 1.7 * 1017 = 1.5 * 1022. If a hurricane transports between 5 * 1019 and 2 * 1020 joules/day to be radiated away in the upper atmosphere, this seems to be a pretty decent amount of energy, on the order of 1% of the total the earth receives. I would think that honest global warming theories would need to take into account this negative feedback system?
Does anybody want to check my math above?
I've done better than that, I've done the math on your checks.
Exxon Mobil is paying you! /Gore-bot>
(Seriously, the only issue I see is that the solar irradiation is 365 days / year: a hurricane lasts what-- a week or ten days? So 10 days * 1 year / 365 days = .0274 years. Include the 1% factor, and each hurricane transposts .00274 of the average annual solar irradiation.
Which actually does a lot to refute "The Day After Tomorrow" and its monster cyclones, doesn't it...?
(Hint: in order for NYC etc. to freeze solid, what is the rate at which energy must have been
a) transported to the upper atmosphere
b) then radiated out to space
The mind reels.
Cheers!
This is simply wrong, and there are a lot of scientists working on sophisticated models who are pretty smart. Here is an example of the sophistication of an ocean and sea ice model being developed at Los Alamos using the largest computers in the world.
The criticism that these models lack the fidelity and completeness necessary to model long term climate effects is fair, and the researches will tell you that problem.
The claim that these are "static models" is so far off base as to be laughable. It shows your stupidity and not the researchers stupidity.
Again whether human activities are affecting climate is an open scientific quesiton, but do not make yourself look ridiculous by claiming that all the folks working on this problem are stupid. Obviously the CRU folks are corrupt, and apparently incompetent. Not everyone is. Many are good and open minded scientists trying to solve a problem.