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.
According to you the other day it was 100 years. Now it's 800??? Get your "facts" straight. You truly are an embarrassment, even to your denier brethren.
The current linear trend in rising sea levels began about 1820 and predates human CO2 release by a century.
Historically, elevations in naturally occurring CO2 lag behind increases in temperature by about 800 years.
Different sources of CO2 and different reasons for it increasing.
The Lack Of Greenhouse Gases
...
Is the Earth really in danger of HEATING UP from "Greenhouse gases"?
Let us look at our neighbor, which does not have an atmosphere.
...
The lunar surface (equator) -
minimum : 100 K (-279.67 F)
maximum : 390 K ( 242.33 F)
By observation, one may note that despite almost equal energy input from the Sun, the Earth enjoys a substantial COOLING effect (-60K) from the presence of its atmosphere.
“A tiny amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, like methane and water vapour, keep the Earth’s surface 30°Celsius (54°F) warmer than it would be without them. We have added 42% more CO2 but that doesn't mean the temperature will go up by 42% too.”
WAIT - the Earth with atmosphere is 60° K cooler than the Moon without an atmosphere.
But they’re saying the greenhouse gases are keeping us 30 K warmer (K and C are the same interval), so we should be 90 K cooler without the “greenhouse” gases.
(Huh?)
....
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
Earth’s albedo is about 0.30, while the Moon’s albedo is only about 0.11.
ALBEDO - The fraction of incident electromagnetic radiation reflected by a surface, especially of a celestial body.
. . .
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
One of the comments summed it up : “I postulate => the net result of GH gasses is to cool the Earth!”
Come on, folks, let’s albedo friends.
P.S. Staying Cool on the ISS - NASA Science
International Space Station : +250 F (121 C)
That's some 'warming' absent a 'greenhouse gas' atmosphere, folks.
Hmmm....hate to call you out on this, but it`s apples and oranges.
The Moon rotates on its axis once a month.
Were it to rotate once per day as the Earth does, temperature variations would much less.
Your Lunar temperature extremes were measured at the lunar equator but the Earth`s temperature extremes are obviously taken from a place near the Earth`s Equator and the South Pole.
The argument could probably be reworked to give it some continuity, but not the way it is presented here.
Hmmm....hate to call you out on this, but it`s apples and oranges.
The Moon rotates on its axis once a month.
Were it to rotate once per day as the Earth does, temperature variations would much less.
Your Lunar temperature extremes were measured at the lunar equator but the Earth`s temperature extremes are obviously taken from a place near the Earth`s Equator and the South Pole.
The argument could probably be reworked to give it some continuity, but not the way it is presented here.
You're using Wikipedia articles on the earth and moon as your "evidence"? Really? LOL. Look, we can all plainly see that not only do you not have anything even resembling an uderstanding of real science, but the things you post in an effort to make it look like you do aren't even related to what you're trying to claim. And you're so convinced that you're right.
The sad thing is this is a reflection on our nation's educational system. No wonder other countries are outpacing us in the STEM fields.
Your first statement (the sun is a constant) is wrong, so that puts the rest of your post in question.....
You also need to factor in the earth's natural carbon cycle and learn about just how much carbon it can deal with....The fact is that humans are overwhelming the carbon cycle.. The Carbon Cycle Before Humans
Point number three... Volcanoes generally cool the atmosphere, and emit only a tiny fraction of CO2 that humans do through burning the carbon and releasing the CO2 that nature locked up millions of years ago....
All of the evidence points to humans emitting CO2 as the main cause of today's warming.
Science has not determined what the earth's limits are, in regards to it's carbon cycle capacity.
So when did the earth hit the ultimate carbon cycle limit, back during the Little Ice Age???
The hubris to claim that the absolute limits the planet can endure, occurred the day these climate scientists were born, is so typical of much of the hype surrounding this issue.
You're using Wikipedia articles on the earth and moon as your "evidence"? Really? LOL. Look, we can all plainly see that not only do you not have anything even resembling an uderstanding of real science, but the things you post in an effort to make it look like you do aren't even related to what you're trying to claim. And you're so convinced that you're right.
The sad thing is this is a reflection on our nation's educational system. No wonder other countries are outpacing us in the STEM fields.
I think you were looking for jetgraphics.
I also disagree with jetgraphics, but I explained why and didn`t resort to personal attacks which appears to be all you have left to cling to.
Maybe now would be a good time for you to explain why sea level rise, what is presented as proof positive of CAGW and the main reason we need to operate a carbon-exchange (CCX) / giant slush fund, reversed course on or around 1820 (sea levels were declining before that) and began what is clearly a consistent linear upward trend that continues today.
You should stop banging your head, as I do believe you are hurting your brain....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist
I'm still laughing at him using geocraft.com as an 'authoritative source'. It's a hobby website by a crackpot engineer called Monty Heib and often gets used by Creationists. It's like using a hobby website about homeopathy by a hairdresser as an 'authoritative' source for medical sciences, or answersingenesis.com as an 'authoritative' source on evolutionary biology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahzzie
Geocraft.com? Really? Well the good news is; since you had no credibility to begin with you haven't lost any by using that site as your "evidence".
Sorry to interrupt your circle jerk...
You wonder why no one wants to "debate" you on this topic when you reply with petulant comments like this?
I also disagree with jetgraphics, but I explained why and didn`t resort to personal attacks which appears to be all you have left to cling to.
Maybe now would be a good time for you to explain why sea level rise, what is presented as proof positive of CAGW and the main reason we need to operate a carbon-exchange (CCX) / giant slush fund, reversed course on or around 1820 (sea levels were declining before that) and began what is clearly a consistent linear upward trend that continues today.
No personal attacks, just stating the obvious. Apparently you didn't read an earlier post where I linked a good site for the layman (you) to get an idea of why your "evidence" is laughable. Here, I'll post it one more time for you since you apparently didn't bother to read it the first time.
It is the opposite...CO2 causes a rise in temperatures. A rise in temperatures causes an increase in water vapor.
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.
It's like using a hobby website about homeopathy by a hairdresser as an 'authoritative' source for medical sciences, or answersingenesis.com as an 'authoritative' source on evolutionary biology.
