The same cycle of heating and cooling the planet has gone through for years.
Your comparing two 30 year periods. It's the same moronic crap as local weather people calling 105 degree the hottest day ever in Georgia, yet when I was a kid I remember it hitting at least that much. Anyone that has lived her long enough remembers it.
Yet all the same they play on the hope that you have a short term memory.
NASA Says Hotter Summers Since 1980 Caused by Global Warming: Is Global Warming Man-Made?
mrosen814
2012/08/07 21:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
334 votes
|
|
45% | |||
|
404 votes
|
|
55% | |||
The study leader from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James Hansen, as well as researchers Makiko Sato and Reto Ruedy, have concluded that U.S. summer heat waves (mainly in the Midwest) "have become the norm over the last 30 years compared to a base period 30 years before 1980 -- and it's because of global warming." Do you agree with NASA? You can read more about the study by clicking the 'DAILYTECH.COM' link below.
DAILYTECH.COM reports:
DAILYTECH.COM reports:
Hotter summers have become the norm from 1980 to present compared to 1951 to 1980 (the base period)
Read More: http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Hotter+Summers+Since...
Here is a DIRECTly measured link from anthropogenic CO2 to the rise in temperature. Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, and Methane, or CH4, each have different infrared spectra. Satellites recording the infrared spectra of our planet's atmosphere can tell how much infrared energy each gas in our atmosphere traps. The fraction of Earth's greenhouse effect from CO2, CH4, and many other gases is therefore directly measurable. These measurements have been taken for more than three decades, now. Please see:
http://www.nature.com/nature/...
(Please click on the graph to enlarge it.)
All this study shows is the amount of anthropogenic C02 rising.....Just because it is rising doesn't mean its a direct link to rising surface temps.
There is a reason why there is still a debate in this subject. THERE WOULD BE ZERO DEBATE IF THERE WERE DIRECT LINKS. THE DEBATE WOULD BE OVER.
(Please click on the graph to enlarge it.)
Please support this statement. Start by listing all the climate models you know of.
LOL! The boldface lies keep on coming.
Example, IPCC models have greatly exaggerated the increase in surface temp. By now it was supposed to be at 1.5C. It's at 0.8>
They make claims that positive feedback processes like water vapor and clouds amplify the direct warming form c02...And by that claim they predicted 3 degree increase by 2050. They used the same rational to predict the 1.5increase which never happened...All based on this exaggerated positive feedback loop, which we do not understand fully The fact is negative feedback dominates our atmosphere.
"EVERY model has turned out to be wrong. What do you have to say about that?"
Please support this statement. Start by listing all the climate models you know of.
IF YOU CAN'T LIST ALL THE MODELS, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT, "EVERY MODEL." YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN AN OBVIOUS LIE.
HENCE, THE REASON THERE IS STILL A HUGE DEBATE.
Also, ALL the models do not account for cloud formation. It is common knowledge increase in C02 would cause some warming, and at the same time evaporation in the ocean would increase. Now, the alarmists and models say this will create more water vapor and enhance warming. However, the water vapor will also reflect solar radiation and reduce warming. Remember the models do not include cloud formation because humanity lacks the knowledge to fully understand the formation of clouds. (Proof is our terrible rate at predicting the weather.)
Climate sensitivity (effects of feedbacks) aren't fully understood yet.
How can we come to conclusions without fully understanding the entire process? All these models are guesstimates.
AND, most importantly, those models assume a very strong positive feedback system. However, the Earth is primarily a negative feedback system.
NEGATIVE FEEDBACK is the Earth's response to slowing global warming. The small amount human c02 increases temperature is mo...
HENCE, THE REASON THERE IS STILL A HUGE DEBATE.
Also, ALL the models do not account for cloud formation. It is common knowledge increase in C02 would cause some warming, and at the same time evaporation in the ocean would increase. Now, the alarmists and models say this will create more water vapor and enhance warming. However, the water vapor will also reflect solar radiation and reduce warming. Remember the models do not include cloud formation because humanity lacks the knowledge to fully understand the formation of clouds. (Proof is our terrible rate at predicting the weather.)
Climate sensitivity (effects of feedbacks) aren't fully understood yet.
How can we come to conclusions without fully understanding the entire process? All these models are guesstimates.
AND, most importantly, those models assume a very strong positive feedback system. However, the Earth is primarily a negative feedback system.
NEGATIVE FEEDBACK is the Earth's response to slowing global warming. The small amount human c02 increases temperature is most likely neutralized.
For the Earth's atmosphere to survive this long there must be strong negative feedback. It logical.
The current models also show the troposphere is rising at 1F per decade. But if you look at the observations and data collect this has not happened. HOW could the models be right if the data doesnt show a rise of 1F per decade in the middle atmosphere above the surface?
Another fact overlooked by many internet experts is the the upper limit the green house effect has. The earth limits the greenhosue effect because the Earth can only be equivalent absorption of 1.
I dont get why you pretend scientist libs over the internet CRY from the rooftops,"global warming is almost entirely driven by man!"......EVEN some of THE IPCC scientists dont think that. But, some how unschooled internet libs read some blogs and are all of a sudden experts.
I believe there should be the slightest warming from our c02 emissions, but not even close to the rate the alarmists claim.
"EVERY model has turned out to be wrong. What do you have to say about that?"
Please support this statement. Start by listing all the climate models you know of.
IF YOU CAN'T LIST ALL THE MODELS, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT, "EVERY MODEL." YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN AN OBVIOUS LIE.
You cannot discuss a single topic I wrote can you?
You have no idea what positive and negative feedbacks are. You had no idea that the models do not take clouds into consideration.
You said, "EVERY model has turned out to be wrong. What do you have to say about that?"
Please support this statement. Start by listing all the climate models you know of.
IF YOU CAN'T LIST ALL THE MODELS, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT, "EVERY MODEL." YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN AN OBVIOUS LIE.
Why don you do the research yourself you lazy lib.
If you know a single thing about climate change, why dont you discuss my post? You seem to have ignored every point I make. All you do is post a study. You have contributed zero to this discussion. Like a lib you have to use other people's thoughts.
You said, "EVERY model has turned out to be wrong. What do you have to say about that?"
Please support this statement. Start by listing all the climate models you know of.
IF YOU CAN'T LIST ALL THE MODELS, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT, "EVERY MODEL." YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN AN OBVIOUS LIE.
Here is a link for you since you cannot write a single thought for yourself, or from your research.
https://www.google.com/search...
Here is another very simple answer for you.
The uncertainties within the energetic responses of Earth's climate systems make it impossible to predict greenhouse effects with certainty. We do not even fully understand basic planetary ecology...i.e effects of farms, forests, fields, chemistry...
Sure the models do a good job of describing fluid dynamics. However, they do not consider cloud formation, and feedback systems.
HOW CAN YOU MAKE A MODEL WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE ENTIRE processes of FEEDBACKs AND CLOUD FORMATION?
The climate models start to fall apart even at high latitudes.
You said, "EVERY model has turned out to be wrong. What do you have to say about that?"
Please support this statement. Start by listing all the climate models you know of.
IF YOU CAN'T LIST ALL THE MODELS, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT, "EVERY MODEL." YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN AN OBVIOUS LIE.
TELLING MORE LIES DOES NOT CANCEL YOUR FIRST LIE.
Jim Hanson modelist said ten years about he was sure about advanced greenhouse effects. big time proponent. He jumped the gun because now he says he isn't sure.
THE MODELS are wrong. There is a fundamental error within the models. They do not account for the correct processes of positive and negative feedbacks. The models use stronger positive feedback, observation has shown and logic that Earth is dominated by negative feedback. Meaning the Earth tries to do everything in its power to keep stability as long as possible. Also, none of the models factor in the effect of the clouds.
If the models were correct the warming should be increasing at a rate of 1degree F per decade. Observation of the past 3 decades show the climate warming at a much slower rate.
Should someone actually want to start learning about climate modeling, here is a link with an educational tool.
EdGCM.com
TO REPEAT:
You said, "EVERY model has turned out to be wrong. What do you have to say about that?"
Please support this statement. Start by listing all the climate models you know of.
IF YOU CAN'T LIST ALL THE MODELS, THEN YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT, "EVERY MODEL." YOU HAVE BEEN CAUGHT IN AN OBVIOUS LIE.
TELLING MORE LIES DOES NOT CANCEL YOUR FIRST LIE.
ANOTHER OBVIOUS LIE!!
(Please click on the graph to enlarge it.)
The past 20 years show warming, obviously.
OK. Since you obviously can't think for yourself, who is feeding you these lies that you are parroting?
Greg Jarvis
Christa McAuliffe
Ronald McNair
Ellison Onizuka
Judith Reznik
Michael Smith
Dick Scobee
Please see:
Follow the green line, which represent long-lived anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/mod...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.grida.no/climate/i...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/pale...
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/d...