Context, dumb ass. You stated that the sun is running cooler. Then, since the sun provides all of the energy to the Earth's surface, the Earth should be cooling. But it is warming. You failed to add that the second part of the equation is how much of the sun's heat the Earth retains. Increasing the GHG's in the atmosphere increases the amoint of heat retained by the Earth. So you can have a warming Earth and a cooling sun if you have increased the GHG's in the atmosphere, and we certainly have.
Please explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean
One of the problems these wackos have with their computer models is that they cannot accurately model the chemistry of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is far more complex than they can model. Everything from the effect of water vapor to the buffering capacity of the oceans to the absorption of plant life.
That is why they have to manipulate data in order for it to come out to be the same as what they predicted. They get caught doing it all the time. Obama even corrupted NASA and NOAA by having them fudge data. Don't trust any data you see from NASA or NOAA that was created during the Obama Administration. Just like you wouldn't trust any data created by the principle scientist that were exposed in Climategate I & II that admitted they had manipulated data.
I have one of the Warmers on record stating that it takes 3,000 times the energy to heat water than air. So how hot must the atmosphere be in order to raise the ocean temperature even 1/10th of a degree?
The thing that gets me is how the AGW religious nuts refuse to understand the real data that has been collected. Like for instance that once the earth had more than ten times as much CO2 in the atmosphere but yet the planet was a ball of ice at the time. If CO2 is a greenhouse gas with 4,000 ppm then why wasn't the earth warm enough to melt ice?
Back in medieval times and Roman times the earth had lower CO2 but yet the earth was warmer. How can they explain that? The historical data clearly shows that CO2 level lags temperature increases.
The reason these nut cases have to make up data and corrupt science is because their theory that man is creating enough CO2 to change the climate of the earth doesn't hold up to any real scientific scrutiny.
All they have are their shitty computer models that don't correlate to any real world climate. That is why they have to invent data and they have been caught doing it several times.
When it gets damn cold in the next few years because of the solar minimum these Moon Bats will be damn glad they have fossil fuels to heat their homes because the Solyndra solar cells ain't gonna do jackshit. Obama lied to them.
This chart based on Ice core data, from
C3 Headlines:
View attachment 196635
Look at all those temperature swings while CO2 barely moved.
Two things are immediately apparent. If we make allowance for local warming over the last 155 years, Easterbrook’s claim that “most of the past 10,000 [years] have been warmer than the present” is not true for central Greenland, let alone the global record. It’s also clear that there is a mismatch between the temperature reconstructions and the ice core record. The two blue crosses on the chart show the GISP site temperatures (adjusted from GRIPdata) for 1855 and 2009. It’s clear there is a calibration issue between the long term proxy(based on ∂18O measurement) and recent direct measurement of temperatures on the Greenland ice sheet. How that might be resolved is an interesting question, but not directly relevant to the point at issue — which is what Don Easterbrook is trying to show. Here’s his conclusion:
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list. The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age(Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years. It’s really much to do about nothing.
1855 — Easterbrook’s “present” — was not warmer than 1934, 1998 or 2010 in Greenland, let alone around the world. His claim that 9,100 out of the last 10,500 years were warmer than recent peak years is false, based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of data.
The last word goes to Richard Alley, who points out that however interesting the study of past climate may be, it doesn’t help us where we’re heading:
"Whether temperatures have been warmer or colder in the past is largely irrelevant to the impacts of the ongoing warming. If you don’t care about humans and the other species here, global warming may not be all that important; nature has caused warmer and colder times in the past, and life survived. But, those warmer and colder times did not come when there were almost seven billion people living as we do. The best science says that if our warming becomes large, its influences on us will be primarily negative, and the temperature of the Holocene or the Cretaceous has no bearing on that. Furthermore, the existence of warmer and colder times in the past does not remove our fingerprints from the current warming, any more than the existence of natural fires would remove an arsonist’s fingerprints from a can of flammable liquid. If anything, nature has been pushing to cool the climate over the last few decades, but warming has occurred.
Confusing Greenland warming vs global warming
Dr. Alley is the author of the "Two Mile Time Machine". One of the premier experts on glaciers, arctic, and antarctic ice in the world.
