Beam Me to Planet Gore !
The author makes no sense with that statement. There been no warming since for over a decade. It's been cooling over a year at least. At least the author tried to present both sides, although the conclusion indicates the hypothesis favored by the author.
Ugh. There’s been no warming for over a decade.
Sorry professor but that moist organic odor wafting under your nostrils is NOT global warming. It's a byproduct of the egg salad sandwich which you consumed for lunch you flatulent idiot!
For the past decade, the Sun has had few sunspots. As a result, Lehr believes, the Sun produced higher temperature radiation and higher global temperature.
This is backwards. When the sun displays fewer sunspots, it is less active and solar radiation declines.
Supporters of cooling cite historical observations from the last century — a time when, according to warming theory, global temperatures continually rose due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. Lehr and others suggest that skewed data sets created false indications of warming.
Although CO2 levels rose continuously during the last century, most of the century's warming took place before 1940. Then, while CO2 was still increasing, temperature fell for 30 years between 1940 and 1970. Around 1980, temperatures rose again for about 20 years and have been declining since 1998. We are now back to 1980 temperatures.
Greenhouse gases absorb and emit the Sun’s thermal infrared radiation. When the Sun’s radiation enters the Earth’s atmosphere, the gases either reflect it back to earth or into space. However, as gas emission increased during the past century, the gases reflected increasing amounts of radiation toward Earth — this is known as the Greenhouse Effect.
This is a completely wrong description of greenhouse gas theory. The greenhouse effect does not operate by reflecting or absorbing solar radiation. The theory is that the continuum radiation from the sun easily passes through the atmosphere and heats the surface of the Earth. Then it is proposed that the narrower band of infrared radiation emitted by the warm Earth is what gets absorbed by the greenhouse gases. Not the sun's radiation.
The article also reveals its bias by labeling the scientists who disagree with man-made global warming as a "minority" or a "conservative institute."
[If droughts and extreme weather events become severe enough, Mahowald mused, an ice age might be a relief. “The new ice age will come, but not soon enough to save us,” she said.]
Who would have guessed an ice age could be beneficial to human life? Science is amazing.
Obama appointed more than 17 lobbyists after talking big on anti-lobbyist, clean Governance (INDIA) Real domestic U.S. news comes from other countries!
ANOTHER Obama Stinker: How Do You Say "Tax Cheat" in Spanish? [Rep. Hilda Solis' husband]
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
This related gem, also:
According to Lehr, the Sun’s output relies greatly upon the presence or absence of sunspots
Uh, no; according to astrophysicists, sun spot cycle relative activity, and cycle peaks and minimums are a visible indicator of solar activity. It is an association, not a 'cause' of increased or descreased solar output. Either Lehr expressed it poorly, or the writer totally misunderstood what he was told.
Next up:
When the Sun’s radiation enters the Earth’s atmosphere, the gases either reflect it back to earth or into space. However, as gas emission increased during the past century, the gases reflected increasing amounts of radiation toward Earth — this is known as the Greenhouse Effect. .
No comment.
To judge the effectiveness of a model, he added, is to judge the relevancy of data.
This seeming says that if the model isn't "effective", then the data used in it isn't relevant. OTOH, it is actually a statement on the correctness of the model; data is data.
That's it. Can't go on.
There was a time that journalists had an education, and were expected to be versed in science if they were "science writers".
Pretend that this was a sports story, written by someone displaying an equivilent knowlege of sports as this writer displays of science (and writing, for that matter) and then ask yourself if the editor would have accepted it for publication.
What this means, according to the report, is a drastic rise in sea level and more extreme weather events, including bigger, more intense storms. However, it suggested only minor changes in the amount of precipitation. With rising temperatures, this means that the regularity of drought will most likely increase during the century.
So let me get this straight. The temperature will increase, which will increase evaporation from rivers, lakes, and oceans, BUT very little change in the amount of precipitation.
Just where is all that extra moisture going to go?
Evaporation and precipitation BOTH contribute to COOL the planet, and I guarantee that if the temperature increases, so will precipitation.
This guy is either a fool, or a government tool, but he sure ain't no scientist....
Climate Research NewsClick on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
Ping me if you find one I've missed.