Latest findings on global warming

Didn't you get the link to the CFC report? Here it is again: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/indicat/

If that isn't evidence enough for you of anthropogenic climate change then I suggest you argue with the EPA.

 

Where is the effect on the "climate"?

 

Right. You were wrong.

They're saying that because that's the only thing they have evidence for. If they say something without evidence they would get shot down in peer review. In science, unlike talk radio, you can't just say whatever comes to mind. You actually have to have evidence to back up what you say. Which is why they stuck to the evidence, and only to the evidence. I wish more deniers would do the same.

If we can't believe what CERN says, then this report is a fraud too, and you don't have a leg to stand on.

It's been around for years, but somehow Rush Limbaugh never reported on it, so you never heard about it.

 

Yeah and you know what else? The Soviet Union taught the theory of gravity in their science classes. So that's a commie plot too!

There are hundreds of studies out there, but since you're clearly unfamiliar with the basics, let's start there.

1. If it's the Sun, then we're getting more heat during the day, and daytime temps should be rising fastest. If it's greenhouse, then we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temps should be rising fastest. In fact, nighttime temps are rising almost twice as fast as daytime temps.

2. If it's the Sun, then the Earth is getting more energy, and the whole planet should be warming, top to bottom. If it's greenhouse, we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, which means less heat escapes to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.
In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend for as far back as global records go.

3. If it's greenhouse, we should be seeing more downwelling infrared radiation (seen from the surface) in the greenhouse gas part of the spectrum. That's been observed.

4. If it's greenhouse, we should be seeing less upwelling infrared radiation (seen from space) in the greenhouse gas part of the spectrum. That's been observed.

This is step 1: solid observational evidence that the greenhouse effect is increasing, and causing the current temperature increase. If you have no argument with this evidence, we can move on to step 2.

 

Yup. I also see the peak in temperature 6000 years ago, and cooling since then. All of which corresponds to orbital forcing from Milankovitch cycles. But Milankovitch cycles have been cooling the planet since they hit that peak 6000 years ago, so the natural peak of the current interglacial has already passed. Which means the current warmth isn't related to glacial cycles and the orbital forcing that triggers them.

Which means, we are causing the current warmth, and only we can stop it.

 

Well, we should then congratulate ourselves for heading off the next ice age.

 

Right. Now if we can only head of the starvation, migration, sea level rise, and mass extinction we're heading toward.

 

We can better handle increasing temperatures than we could an ice age. Likely, civilization North of Chicago will be scraped from the surface of the earth.

 

No - that is obvious. Because you wrote:

The planets temperature is not and never has been sinudoidal.








Definition of SINUSOIDAL

: of, relating to, shaped like, or varying according to a sine curve or sine wave
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinusoidal

 

Do you understand the difference between 140,000 years and a few decades?

Do you know how long human civilisation has existed?

Is is closer to 140,000 years? Or a few decades?

Do you understand the issue at all?

 

You can take readings from 50 years ago, and show a "50 year cycle".
Take readings from 5000 years ago (ice cores etc) and show a "5000 year cycle".
Similar with 140,000 years.
Go onto 500,000 years and the cycle changes again.

Just because there is a noteable difference in the "140,000" cycle, does not mean that it actually matches the "500,000" cycle. This quick rise could be expected in part of a 500,000 cycle... that would not be known until two of those cycles have passed.

 

Yes

Yes

A few decades.

Yes. Did you have a point you wanted to make, or just stupid questions to ask?

 

And Ive never been the Rev, silly.

 

Tell that to all the flood ravaged countries!!

Bangkok is the latest - they are evacuating most of the city at the moment.

The results of the Inquiry into Queensland's floods is now out - and the answer? We have to re-write the flood books and boundaries because climate change has rewritten what to expect

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-26/flood-advisory-tipped-to-be-scrapped/3602464

 

Flood is easier to contend with than a glacier.

 

It's not an either-or choice. The next ice age wouldn't be due for another 20,000 years. Global warming is here, now.

 

Actually flooding is just as bad as the fast retreat of glaciers in the Andes that already has a negative impact on farmers' water supply there. They won't be able to use the water that will be drowning the Maldives.

But of course it's more important to drive a big Hummer than to care about any of that.

 

Imaginary cycles do not magically exist. They are caused by something

 

My apolgies.

But you did jump in on my response to him. And after a while - all these retarded denier posts tend to look the same.

 

The point is that the observed warming of recent decades is not in any way connected with Milankovic Cycles.

 

What cycles are imaginary?
We know of certain cycles because we have examined a specific period of time and can see obvious patterns. Unless we examine a furhter period of time, we don't know if there is a bigger cycle...

All cycles are caused by something - or rather a combination of many things.

 

As if local pollution is not part of global warming? Ok, it isn't the only source that causes global warming, but it is a contributing factor and one of the largest factors relating to human caused pollution - hence, human factors causing global warming. There is obviously a difference between human caused and natrual caused pollution and therefore global warming. But human caused pollution is something that can be controlled with the input of hard work!!

 

How true. I agree - were those questions even answered?

 

I thought this was something almost every one knew? Obviously not, what a shame.

 

Yes a sine wave which goes up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down ~ look at the graphs the temps go up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down up and down for 400 millon years hence sine wave and this is the important part LIKE, sine wave like sine wave like sine wave like sine wave like sine wave like sine wave like sine wave like sine wave like
...get it now? eh? Ha ha ~

If you like to look at pictures better than to read look at the red line I drew on the graph. That is sine wave like. Get it now?

Rev A