You know, reading this again, this looks like the rantings of deranged lunatic.
Oh wait, sorry, typical righty.
Climate Change... its the sun... again.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
You know, reading this again, this looks like the rantings of deranged lunatic.
Oh wait, sorry, typical righty.
Here's a chart from the BBC's report. One can certainly still draw a "no warming" line across a couple of tops, mainly because 2000 (?) was a high point, but as stu pointed out, and what's clear from the trend, that would be cherry-picking. Anyway, 2014 looks like a break out. Interestingly, it's not an El Nino year, either.
Here's a chart from the BBC's report. One can certainly still draw a "no warming" line across a couple of tops, mainly because 2000 (?) was a high point, but as stu pointed out, and what's clear from the trend, that would be cherry-picking. Anyway, 2014 looks like a break out. Interestingly, it's not an El Nino year, either.
Yeah, that's the scary thing. '98 was a spike due to El Nino. What happens with the next one?
I'm still waiting for his scathing rebuttal on how CO2 has warmed the earth 50 degrees? If that's true mankind would have frozen to death long ago without it. Either he makes shit up as he goes along or he has no idea of what he posts here.
He said the Earth would be 50 deg. cooler without CO2.
Thanks Ric.
*************************
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
(Schmidt et al., 2010) found that water vapor accounts for about 50% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, carbon dioxide 20%, and the minor greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%, as shown in Fig. 1. Thus, while the non-condensing greenhouse gases account for only 25% of the total greenhouse effect, it is these non-condensing GHGs that actually control the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect since the water vapor and cloud feedback contributions are not self-sustaining and as such, only provide amplification. Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
*************************
The size of the greenhouse effect is often estimated as being the difference between the actual global surface temperature and the temperature the planet would be without any atmospheric absorption, but with exactly the same planetary albedo, around 33°C
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/
(Schmidt et al., 2010) found that water vapor accounts for about 50% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, with clouds contributing 25%, carbon dioxide 20%, and the minor greenhouse gases (GHGs) and aerosols accounting for the remaining 5%, as shown in Fig. 1. Thus, while the non-condensing greenhouse gases account for only 25% of the total greenhouse effect, it is these non-condensing GHGs that actually control the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect since the water vapor and cloud feedback contributions are not self-sustaining and as such, only provide amplification. Because carbon dioxide accounts for 80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing in the current climate atmosphere, atmospheric carbon dioxide therefore qualifies as the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
I am pretty sure the is the bullshit hide the tree ring decline chart.
the recent years where tree rings go down were removed from the chart and thermometer data was grafted on.
and ricter could you provide a link to you chart.
from the number I saw there is no way 2014 could have looked that much higher.
if it is the global temperature over land or even the combo land and ocean chart I will have to compare your data to the data that I saw earlier today... which stated it only hit a new high by an almost impossibly indistinguishable amount. your chart seem to show a substantial new high.
finally... could you link to the official statement that 2014 was not an el nino year.
THIS is the relevant chart.
[/quote]
the recent years where tree rings go down were removed from the chart and thermometer data was grafted on.
and ricter could you provide a link to you chart.
from the number I saw there is no way 2014 could have looked that much higher.
if it is the global temperature over land or even the combo land and ocean chart I will have to compare your data to the data that I saw earlier today... which stated it only hit a new high by an almost impossibly indistinguishable amount. your chart seem to show a substantial new high.
finally... could you link to the official statement that 2014 was not an el nino year.
THIS is the relevant chart.
[/quote]I am pretty sure the is the bullshit hide the tree ring decline chart.
the recent years where tree rings go down were removed from the chart and thermometer data was grafted on.
and ricter could you provide a link to you chart.
from the number I saw there is no way 2014 could have looked that much higher.
if it is the global temperature over land or even the combo land and ocean chart I will have to compare your data to the data that I saw earlier today... which stated it only hit a new high by an almost impossibly indistinguishable amount. your chart seem to show a substantial new high.
finally... could you link to the official statement that 2014 was not an el nino year.
THIS is the relevant chart.
I'm pretty sure that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. And why do you deny that CO2 is a GHG?