warmest January on record

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Right now.

Low Total Solar Irradiance.

Low Sunpspots.

El Nino.

A 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and a bunch of really nasty industrial GHGs.

So far this year, record temperatures globally. Looks like the latter two factors cancelled out the effect of the sun.

Now, let us look at the prior two years, 2008, and 2007.

Low TSI.

Low Sunspot activity.

Strong and persistant La Nina.

40% increase in CO2. 150% increase in CH4. And some really nasty industrial GHGs.

So three out of four factors say that we should have had a couple of really cold years. But both years rank among the ten warmest on record.

So what happened PP? Why did not the solar effect overpower the GHG effect?

Saint Albert and the global warming gods salute you .........

Old rocks has more blind faith than many devout catholics

 

[driveby]

Right now.

Low Total Solar Irradiance.

Low Sunpspots.

El Nino.

A 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and a bunch of really nasty industrial GHGs.

So far this year, record temperatures globally. Looks like the latter two factors cancelled out the effect of the sun.

Now, let us look at the prior two years, 2008, and 2007.

Low TSI.

Low Sunspot activity.

Strong and persistant La Nina.

40% increase in CO2. 150% increase in CH4. And some really nasty industrial GHGs.

So three out of four factors say that we should have had a couple of really cold years. But both years rank among the ten warmest on record.

So what happened PP? Why did not the solar effect overpower the GHG effect?

Saint Albert and the global warming gods salute you .........

Mindless derision in leiu of any kind of real rebuttal. Simply states your whole case.

I think you meant "faithless derision" .......

 

[DiamondDave]

Ahh... everyone has trouble seeing beyone the end of their noses.

I had a bit cooler than normal January, however the word for the day kiddies is GLOBAL.

The word of the day is cyclical

Really?

Sure, cyclical, as in spirally upward.

Come on, Dave, give us some good science that states that we are not changing the climate. Show us that the Ice Caps are not melting. The the area of alpine glaciers is not shrinking rapidly and at an accelerating rate.

You are good at flapping yap, but never back up what you state with any real data.

You have given us no good science that man is the culprit... we'll wait for your burden of proof instead of being asked to prove a negative

 

[Old Rocks]

Dave are you truly that stupid? American Institute of Physics. History of the research concerning GHGs.


The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect


Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically? - LINKS -



For full discussion see
<=Climate cycles

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (&#8220;infrared radiation&#8221 rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

 

[Meister]

get over yourself, rocks. your just a guppy in a big pond

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Ahh... everyone has trouble seeing beyone the end of their noses.

I had a bit cooler than normal January, however the word for the day kiddies is GLOBAL.

No the word for the day is Troposphere. We do not live in it.

 

[Oddball]

No the word for the day is Troposphere. We do not live in it.

Um....Yes we do.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No the word for the day is Troposphere. We do not live in it.

Um....Yes we do.

He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.

 

[Liability]

February has been pretty fucking cold, by the way.

And if the folks who are trying to take the Earth's overall temperature would do so honestly, these latest claims of global warming might just have to start being modified.

Of course, in the algorian world of paradoxical effects, where nothing that is can't be explained away by resort to the mythology of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE," evidence of overall global cooling would still constitute PROOF of AGW!

 

[Old Rocks]

February has been pretty fucking cold, by the way.

And if the folks who are trying to take the Earth's overall temperature would do so honestly, these latest claims of global warming might just have to start being modified.

Of course, in the algorian world of paradoxical effects, where nothing that is can't be explained away by resort to the mythology of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE," evidence of overall global cooling would still constitute PROOF of AGW!

Where you live, probably. Where I live, most of the days have been 50 F or above. Been a warm February for us.

 

[Old Rocks]

No the word for the day is Troposphere. We do not live in it.

Um....Yes we do.

He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.

Wiggle, spin,

 

[keee keee]

they must be fudging the numbers again!!!! must have put the thermometers in front of warm air exhaust vents again or next to light bulbs again!!!

 

[Charles Stucker]

February has been pretty fucking cold, by the way.

And if the folks who are trying to take the Earth's overall temperature would do so honestly, these latest claims of global warming might just have to start being modified.

Of course, in the algorian world of paradoxical effects, where nothing that is can't be explained away by resort to the mythology of "GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE," evidence of overall global cooling would still constitute PROOF of AGW!

Where you live, probably. Where I live, most of the days have been 50 F or above. Been a warm February for us.

You have to understand Global Cooling will cause some areas to heat up.
Use your imagination to add the appropriate smiley.

 

[Oddball]

No the word for the day is Troposphere. We do not live in it.

Um....Yes we do.

He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.

He's also using numbers that have deliberately excluded stations at higher altitudes, while including measurements taken from obvious heat islands.....That's how the frauds have jimmied the numbers.

Still, the troposphere is where it is.

 

[SFC Ollie]

It's very difficult to believe in any type of Global Warming while buried under record Snowfall.

And it isn't just one area.

 

[edthecynic]

Right now.

Low Total Solar Irradiance.

Low Sunpspots.

El Nino.

A 40% increase in CO2, a 150% increase in CH4, and a bunch of really nasty industrial GHGs.

So far this year, record temperatures globally. Looks like the latter two factors cancelled out the effect of the sun.

Now, let us look at the prior two years, 2008, and 2007.

Low TSI.

Low Sunspot activity.

Strong and persistant La Nina.

40% increase in CO2. 150% increase in CH4. And some really nasty industrial GHGs.

So three out of four factors say that we should have had a couple of really cold years. But both years rank among the ten warmest on record.

So what happened PP? Why did not the solar effect overpower the GHG effect?

Crickets chirping!

 

[edthecynic]

It's very difficult to believe in any type of Global Warming while buried under record Snowfall.

And it isn't just one area.

Of course, you don't need record cold to get record snowfall in the dead of Winter, now do you!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the reason its cooler where we live is because it's warmer miles above us and deep in the Arctic Ocean???

Am I learning this "science" Brother Warmer

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Um....Yes we do.

He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.

Wiggle, spin,

Shall I go quote where you ADMIT you are not discussing ground temperature?

 

[edthecynic]

Um....Yes we do.

He is not discussing ground temperatures and you know it, he is discussing temperatures higher then that. They can not keep the warming trend going with ground readings so are resorting to this bullshit.

He's also using numbers that have deliberately excluded stations at higher altitudes, while including measurements taken from obvious heat islands.....That's how the frauds have jimmied the numbers.

Still, the troposphere is where it is.

When the frauds Christy and Spencer jimmied the Troposphere numbers by using the opposite sign to "correct" for diurnal satellite drift, the deniers were claiming UAH satellite Troposphere data was the ONLY accurate data. Now that the correct sign is being used and the satellite data matches exactly the surface data, Troposphere data is suddenly suspect even though there are no heat islands in satellites.

So how do you explain the nearly exact correlation between surface data and satellite data?