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.
Well, everyone knows that NASA and NOAA promote global warming because they are part of a liberal conspiracy to redistribute your wealth to third world dictators or something.
No, but that clearly is the U.N.'s chief motivation. It's all they talk about at the COP meetings.
Many factors come into play ray. It just not man that is the cause. Our distance from the sun will vary over the many millions of years and the sun will also vary in output. My snowball effect is already taking place and doing so at a faster and faster pace.
That doesn't answer the question regarding the claim of a1500 year cycle nor did you answer the question relative to the 100 year warming other than "there's a lot of stuff happening". So what's the cause, or do you just have blind belief.
Raddo, there is "unprecedented compared with the past 800,000 years" and then there is "many, many, many times higher than they have ever been". These two claims are not even remotely the same.
Raddo, there is "unprecedented compared with the past 800,000 years" and then there is "many, many, many times higher than they have ever been". These two claims are not even remotely the same.
And this is a perfect example of the kind of exaggeration that discredits climate activism in the eyes of many.
And this is a perfect example of the kind of exaggeration that discredits climate activism in the eyes of many.
It's also a perfect example of someone who isn't seeing the big picture. Please refer to the 800,000 year chart. That extreme spike that represents modern times would not stop rising even if we completely stopped pouring CO2 into the atmosphere today. The increase would not level off until the natural CO2 sinks and sources balanced with each other, which could take decades if not a century. If you already know where that spike would stabilize, then congratulations.
No it doesn't make sense because there are no natural climate forcings that can explain what is happening today....That leaves increasing greenhouse gasses as the culprit.
Variations in humidity, cloud cover, surface albedo and man-made chemicals in the stratosphere (refrigerants, etc.) will all have an immediate effect on surface temperature, yet they are never mentioned by warmers.
The most abundant and effective greenhouse gas, by far (approx. 90% of total), is H2O.
We have no idea how much H2O was in the atmosphere twenty, fifty or a hundred years ago.
No one knows if we have more or less cloud cover today vs. a century ago.
Moreover, some types of cloud cover cause warming while some types cause cooling.
Relative to a decade ago, a century ago or a millennium ago, how much cloud cover do we have today and does it cause net cooling or net warming?
The increase in CO2 concentrations has created enough new tree leaves to cover the continental US twice.
How has this greening effect altered the Earth's albedo?
How much has farming and urban development?
The stratosphere cooled dramatically when commercial refrigerants came along but it has begun to stabilize (post Montreal Protocol).
What is the effect of more of the Sun's UV rays making it to the surface?
Add these many unknowns (perhaps unknowables) to our nonexistent, made-up temperature record and you have a theory that is fundamentally untestable and unfalsifiable.
According to the precise definition of "scientific theory", global warming is simply not science.
There is no "runaway greenhouse effect" on Venus. That's another lie spouted by "science lovers" and "science believers." Venus is hot because it is closer to the sun, barely rotates, rotates in the opposite direction of other planets, has no magnetic field to protect it against solar radiation, and has a very thick atmosphere - which exerts pressure on the surface and raises the temperature (see real science: Boyle's Law).
The article is written by an IT guy. Repeating the lie about Venus by an IT guy does not make it any more accurate.
Unbelievable.
You realize, don't you, that Venus's runaway greenhouse effect was scientifically observed, studied, and confirmed well before there were any political reasons to lie about it, right?
The article is written by an IT guy. Repeating the lie about Venus by an IT guy does not make it any more accurate.
How about NASA...I expect they know as much about Venus as anyone.....
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus's thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury! https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...001/ast20feb_1
OK, now it's your turn to provide evidence, that is if you have anything from a valid source....Personally I think you just made your crappy theory up.
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.
