Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

The greenhouse effect.
The effective temperature of Earth is much lower than what we experience. Averaged over all seasons and the entire Earth, the surface temperature of our planet is about 288°K (or 15°C). This difference is in the effect of the heat absorbing components of our atmosphere. This effect is known as the greenhouse effect, referring to the farming practice of warming garden plots by covering them with a glass (or plastic) enclosure.

Difference 1880 to 2007 = 287.76°K - 286.56°K = 1.20°K

okie wrote:

Yes, add my name to the confused list of people here. diest now claims that man caused co2 is not the entire blame for global warming, or that the global warmers haven't been claiming that. Perhaps it is only 99% to blame or 80% to blame, or maybe 51% to blame, but anyway we have been led to believe it is the primary blame. If there is another huge cause that has been talked about by your global warming pundits, let us know diest. And can you tell us the percentage of blame? I haven't heard any other ones out of you guys. If its 99%, what is the other 1%?

You idiot.

I nor anybody else has ever said that CO2 is the ONLY cause of CC. I asked you to provide a quote from anybody claiming that CO2 was the exclusive cause of CC.

You nor anybody else has been able to provide a single quote establishing that anyone believes this ridiculous idea. You are now back pedaling try to hide behind the "way the media" portrays the issue. I'm not patient enough to deal with your misunderstandings of this topic or explain how your perceptions of the media around this subject are your short-comings.

I believe that CO2 is a primary cause, not the ONLY cause. I have never claimed it to be the exclusive cause, EVER. Every climate scientist in the world independent of their beliefs in AGW or CC will tell you that the climate model is not as simple as being governed by any single factor. that is why I laugh at the claims of solar radiance.

Until you can provide a quote stating that somebody believes that CO2 is the ONLY cause of CC, you are simply full of ****.

Happy Valentines Day,

...
I believe that CO2 is a primary cause, not the ONLY cause. I have never claimed it to be the exclusive cause, EVER. Every climate scientist in the world independent of their beliefs in AGW or CC will tell you that the climate model is not as simple as being governed by any single factor. that is why I laugh at the claims of solar radiance.
...T
K
O

If it is not now the exclusive cause as you now claim, then is it the primary cause, or are you now going to claim it is only a minor cause? If there are other causes, then cite them. Speaking of back pedaling, I suspect there is now a bit of it going on, diest.

Diest TKO wrote:

...
I believe that CO2 is a primary cause, not the ONLY cause. I have never claimed it to be the exclusive cause, EVER. Every climate scientist in the world independent of their beliefs in AGW or CC will tell you that the climate model is not as simple as being governed by any single factor. that is why I laugh at the claims of solar radiance.
...T
K
O

I understand you to believe "that CO2 is a primary cause, not the ONLY cause."

Consequently, you do not believe CO2 is the exclusive cause.

Please name what you think are some of the other primary causes, and some of the secondary and/or trivial causes of climate change or of global warming,

High Seas - You should pause before you post. Radiance is a proper term too, you dimwit, so piss off. I'm well versed in thermodynamics and astromechanics. I'm an Aerospace Engineer.

The five year average, which among other things discounts the temporary in order to focus on the long term trends, keeps rising.

Skeptics have one thing right: The climate does change naturally. What they seem to fail to grasp is the timescale at which changes are taking place now.

um, mini, I look at your graph and the trend in each measurement seems to be rising. would you care to tell me why you think they're falling?

If you look at the global temperature from 3 different sources below (curiously, global temperature is the arithmetic mean of SH and NH temperatures, which amount to adding apples to orange but well, it's climate science), the planet is slightly cooling over the past 5 years.
The data are publicly available. But don't worry if the media don't tell you
[img]http:///images/temp_annual.png[/img]

If you ever read your own cites completely, you'd know why this year is colder than average, okie. One of them a few pages back told you why, and it was--surprise--just what I've told you too several times. This is a la Nina winter, and spring. The next couple months will be colder than average and then it will revert to the (steadily rising) mean. La Nina years--colder than normal. El Nino years--warmer than normal. That's WEATHER. They're temporary phenomena. Their effects are predictable. They pass. The five year average, which among other things discounts the temporary in order to focus on the long term trends, keeps rising.

Oh, and since you're just here, minitax: I've asked last week an electrician in Nice about fluolescence bulbs and dimming them: you get in France the very same brands as we do, as long as we do (and profesional businesses had them even earlier). (According to my host, the one in my room was installed more than three years ago.)

username wrote:

If you ever read your own cites completely, you'd know why this year is colder than average, okie. One of them a few pages back told you why, and it was--surprise--just what I've told you too several times. This is a la Nina winter, and spring. The next couple months will be colder than average and then it will revert to the (steadily rising) mean. La Nina years--colder than normal. El Nino years--warmer than normal. That's WEATHER. They're temporary phenomena. Their effects are predictable. They pass. The five year average, which among other things discounts the temporary in order to focus on the long term trends, keeps rising.

While the effects of La Ninha are - to a very limited extent - predictable, the occurrence of the shift in Pacific currents that causes them is not. The highly non-linear complexities of the dynamics of oceanic currents, as well as those occurring in the atmosphere, (in short the weather) are such that their future dynamics and states cannot accurately be predicted. The results of numerical modelling of such phenomina may look like currents and weather, but after a fairly short period they bear only a random relationship to what actually occurs. This phenominon is called chaos by mathematicians. The best we can do is produce educated guesses about some future average state, but such things are hardly scientific predictions.

Other factors in no particular order...

Methane, aerosols, land ice, forrestation/deforrestation, water pollution, volcanic activity, solar radiation, global procession, orbit variance.

I'm sure I've left some out. I'm sure some are yet to be discovered.



T
K
O

If you ever read your own cites completely, you'd know why this year is colder than average, okie. One of them a few pages back told you why, and it was--surprise--just what I've told you too several times. This is a la Nina winter, and spring. The next couple months will be colder than average and then it will revert to the (steadily rising) mean. La Nina years--colder than normal. El Nino years--warmer than normal. That's WEATHER. They're temporary phenomena. Their effects are predictable. They pass. The five year average, which among other things discounts the temporary in order to focus on the long term trends, keeps rising.