Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am a bit confused about this article. I thought that the 'greenhouse' effect (which I learned about back in the 1960s) concerned the release of excessive CO2 on Earth, which is trapped within the Earth's atmosphere, hence causing the heating.
Yet this article is about how the Earth's atmosphere helps reflect back solar radiation, which is not the same as trapped CO2.
I guess I agree that if not for our atmosphere the solar flares would 'fry' us, so, in a sense, having said atmosphere does keep us 'cooler', but I don't see where this helps the trapped CO2.
Well, it sounds like another half truth masquerading as a debunking. The deflection of short-wave (ultriviolet) radiation is not the same as retention of long-wave (infrared) radiation. It is like rolling the windows up on a parked car. The interior heats up because short-wave radiation passes through the windows readily, but long-wave radiation not so much, hence heat accumulates.
An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods." The new study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The blue is the actual data points, the white is smoothed line of the data points and the red is the overall trend.
2010 was the hottest year in recorded history. That was 3 years ago. This is according to the GIS land and ocean measurements, Hadley satellite measurements, and UAH satellite measurements are all in agreement.
2005 was the second hottest, and that was 8 years ago.
1998 was the third hottest, and that was quite recent still.
9 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1998.
And to top it off, the polar ice caps have shrunk every year--that's where that excess energy is going.
You cannot credibly say the earth stopped heating 15 years ago when people have posted evidence that contradicts that. This isn't ignorance on your part anymore. Now you're simply lying.
Your argument is about as factually heavy as sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah nyah nyah".
2010 was the hottest year in recorded history. That was 3 years ago. This is according to the GIS land and ocean measurements, Hadley satellite measurements, and UAH satellite measurements are all in agreement.
2005 was the second hottest, and that was 8 years ago.
1998 was the third hottest, and that was quite recent still.
9 of the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1998.
And to top it off, the polar ice caps have shrunk every year--that's where that excess energy is going.
You cannot credibly say the earth stopped heating 15 years ago when people have posted evidence that contradicts that. This isn't ignorance on your part anymore. Now you're simply lying.
Your argument is about as factually heavy as sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nyah nyah nyah".
Temps are dropping. Fact.
The antarctic ice has increased. Offsetting the Arctic. Fact
Can you add specifics? You're not bandying about, "Just a theory LOL," so you've got my attention.
Goggle it. This isn't new and is common knowledge to anyone who has spent any amount of time or interest in reading about the IPCC and the issues of climate change.
Look for issues of grey literature and many other issues concerning the IPCC and credibility concerning the AR4.
I know that sounds inattentive to the discussion or like I am evading you, but that isn't the case. I just don't want to put a lot of effort into it with you if you are going to just dismiss it.
First link is an easier site to read, while technical in discussions at times, it is more laymen friendly.
Second link is extremely technical, but... is more beneficial if you want to wade through to the point.
If you are new to the issue of climate science, this is a good place to start. I advise reading back on the various topics to get an understanding. The problems with the IPCC and climate science shenanigans has been going on nearly a decade now. There is a lot of info on the problems with the CAGW position.
The antarctic ice has increased. Offsetting the Arctic. Fact
NYAH, NYAH
are these facts just in your mind, or do you have any reality to source?
I mean. . .the Artic is opening up new trade routes thanks to the melting caps. I don't think global warming is anchored on which areas you want to cherry pick.
How about graph from a more recent study with longer timeline?
The blue is the actual data points, the white is smoothed line of the data points and the red is the overall trend.
The two graphs from nasa I posted simply show how global temperatures have risen alongside with the rise of greenhouse gases. Global temperature and climate change are influenced by the amount of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere. If we continue to increase those gases, temperature will also increase. Just as the data in the graph shows.
Once again, believing that adding heat trapping gases to the atmosphere doesn't trap more heat doesn't refute the actual data of climate change science. You can believe what you want, but that doesn't somehow shift or bend reality toward your beliefs.
Talking to someone else? I didn't make any comments about that, I pointed out your failed attempt to politically attack while claiming science was something that it is not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
