Global warming

NASA GISS's current data analysis process retrieves data in a way that's irrelevant to determining solar magnetics in the manner I discussed above. Not to mention, of course data is going to contradict. The chart I used isn't current data, but data from previous dates in which patterns have been recognized in. The chart came from the marshall institute. They have a whole section of their website devoted to climate studies.

Hell if I know whether or not their reputable, I was just making an analysis based on the chart, assuming it would be relatively accurate. Which means I do realize & accept that my speculation could be flawed.

Interesting though, if you look at NASA GISS's animations over a course of 5 year mean, you'll notice surface air measurements that rise and fall at about the same rate that solar magnetics change.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/animations/a5_1881_2003_2fps.mov

http://science.nasa.gov/ssl/PAD/SOLAR/images/maghstry.gif

 

I think it's just bullsh*t...there is no solid proof.Some of the records were from 1885 back!You think they were as accurate as now?It could of been the same as now in 1885 back but it wasn't accurate...

 

Get off of the internet.

 

The first thing you need to know about understanding the future, is understanding what's happened in the past.

 

SLOPE. SLOPE. AND SLOPE.

The earth has heated and cooled itself hundreds of times over billions of years. In the past few decades (which is NOTHING on a historical time scale), the avg temp has increased far too much.

Only two explanations. Cataclysmic event, or human activity. As of now, I do'nt know of any such event.

Plus, this heating is causing a significant downward spiral. More heat, more gasses released from trapped rocks, less ice cap to reflect light, and thus more heat.

 

The sun has a large impact on earth's weather. It has also been proven that the earth heats and cools over time.

 

Ha. The 1950's USA boom was NOTHING, not even close to what's occurring now. Even less if you're going to compare it to China.

 

It's a natural phase. Humans aren't helping but it would've happened with us or without us.

 

I agree, with or without us. But I think we have sped the process with our high exhaust of fossil fuels

 

Humans are horrible.
The earth will be destroyed in 100 years or so...

 

Do you have any proof the other planets are warming up?

 

Despite the amount of greenhouse gasses, the Earth is actually cooling quite rapidly in some places. While some glaciers may be melting, others are freezing over. I personally believe that we are just at the end of another interglacial period, on the verge of another ice-age. Ice-core samples among other things show trends in the Earth's weather, and they tend to support this theory.

 

Oh, how very convenient your interpretation matches your worldview so well

Mars is heating up for reasons besides solar variation, the warming (which we're not even sure is actually global) is caused, if anything, by albedo changes due to dust storms. I'd like to see your data for other planets as well.

I'm sorry to say that global warming isn't something commies (or Al Gore) made up in order to take over the world. Our understanding of the process is a result of impartial scientific study. A more sane (and acceptable) argument would be that politicians are using global warming as a soapbox to win popularity with the public.

EDIT:

Global warming does not mean there is uniform warming over the entire planet. The climate is a complex system, and as such, we can expect to see climate change in a situation like this. So some glaciers will melt, others freeze - but the net effect is glacier loss, and similarly, the net temperature trend is positive.

 

You had me stumped here, so I did my homework:

The trend you're talking about is established by Fenton (2007), and he makes a key error.

Using albedo changes from in a circulation model, he calculated a 22-year warming trend 0.6 celsius. He used two snapshots;

The first was a 1977 one, taken immediately after a global dust storm. Global dust storms increase albedo.
The second 1999 snapshot was the planet when no major dust storms had occurred for a while.

Fenton was wrong to compare just the two points; he made the basic error of confusing weather with climate. If you look at the current data, there is no longer any discernable trend in albedo:



What does this mean? It means you're wrong, since not only is there scant empirical evidence to support your claim of Mars warming, but also that Mars' climate is largely driven by dust and albedo which have natural variability.

You should also note that the scientists who did the studies which established that dust storms and their influence on albedo agree with me, not you.

You're getting mixed up. That's Mars.

If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would have blowtorched the Earth. Ever heard of the inverse square law?

I think I'll stick with these:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Urban heat islands are accounted for by statistical correction techniques. If you discount the recording centers near urban areas and just look at the data from say, sea-based centers, the warming trend doesn't go away.

The stratosphere is meant to be cooling, this is consistent with global warming theory. As for the troposphere (where warming is expected), satellite measurements are consistent with land-based ones.

You're welcome to believe what you want in this regard, but you've been arguing that global warming is something made up by the commies and doesn't actually exist. That is what I'm going to dispute on this thread, I can't be bothered to get into another political row with you.