Ill go ahead and post this again:
Ive said it before, in fact its getting boring saying this so often, man-made global warming is a dream.
In the 70s it was global cooling because all these emissions arent letting in enough heat, now its global warming because all these emissions are keeping all the heat in. So which is it?
Quoting Article by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century."
All this data, which only shows a razor-thin rise in global temperatures, can bring up the question: How accurate is our data for temperatures?
"Absolute estimates of global mean surface temperature are difficult to compile for a number of reasons."
Where has your argument for global temperatures are rising gone?? Nowhere, vanished. Now, how about this folly about CO2 emissions raise the greenhouse gases enough to raise the temperature of the entire world enough to kill us, as is a obvious problen thus
Did you know, for instance, that CO2 is classified as a 'trace gas', making up less than 1% of the atmosphere, that in fact more than 1/2 of ALL
anthropogenic CO2 emissions are absorbed naturally (althoug not much is known about where it goes - most theories suggest it is absorbed into the oceans and terrestrial biospheres), and that less than 1/2% that is not absorbed naturally is trumped, and I do mean trumped, by natural emmisions of CO2.
Most of the CO2 I mentioned, that is absorbed by natural processes, isnt taken into account in future predictions.
"Current models used to project future atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations assume that the carbon cycle will continue to operate in the same way it has operated in the recent past. These models do not take into account the limitations of the carbon sink on land, or how biological, chemical and physical processes in the ocean and land might change either due to natural variability or external forcing. "
" They point to actual measurements taken from satellite and weather balloons and reliable surface observations that show little or no warming has taken place in the last 22 years; they show that the character of the observed warming is more indicative of urbanization than the effect of man's production of greenhouse gases; they present evidence that most of the observed warming in the last century can be linked to changes in solar luminosity and sunspot activity; and they show how the effects of even small changes on the sun can be magnified in our atmosphere through the effect these changes have on cloud cover."
So the 'drastic' rise in global temperatures is because of sun-spot and solar-flare activity, not because of greenhouse gases?
"If there is indeed a solar cycle to global temperature connection, it would help explain the observed changes in recent decades as well as the changes observed over the centuries. The quiet sun period of the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s coincided with the global phenomenon known as the Little Ice Age, during which the Thames River froze in England and glaciers advanced.
There is evidence that solar activity (based on reports of very high aurora activity) was very high in the 11th and 12th century. Global warming then enabled the Vikings to inhabit Greenland. They eventually abandoned Greenland when the solar activity diminished and temperatures returned to frigid levels. "
From the Same Article:
"Research at the Danish Meteorological Institute found that when the sun is quiet, more cloudiness is observed in middle latitudes than when the sun is active. They believe this may be due to cosmic rays, which reach the atmosphere in much greater numbers during the quiet sun years because the earth’s protective shield is weaker. This cloudiness increase can serve to reflect more solar energy back to space and help to lower temperatures. Their research models suggest that the combined effects can explain net heating and cooling differences more like a few percent"
That explains it, explains it all. If you have any questions, dont hesitate to ask. Dont just hop on the GW bandwagon because its popular now, know the facts.