Posted on 02/01/2002 7:53:08 AM PST by boris
HUH?
Perhaps the reporter meant to write, "Their findings indicate there was less cloud cover blocking incoming solar radiation and a reduced trapping of re-radiated heat (AKA "Greenhouse Effect")
But then the political agenda would fall apart so it's better to confuse you.
And it provides more data for "The Skeptical Environmentalist" to look at too. For pete's sake, scientist's know that the climate changes, always has, likely always will. Man is not a master of this one. So study it another 22 years and get a longer term trend line please. Just don't give this data to greenpeace or the sierra club, there is no doubt what this data will say in their slimy hands.
The real issue they're failing to define is whether or not my boating season is affected here in Western N.Y. That's all that really matters.
Huh?
I think it's a very roundabout way of them saying the satellite measurements indicated a decrease in tropical temperatures from the 1980s through the 1990s. The presumed lack of clouds and increased radiational cooling is their excuse.
It all has to do with a drop in temperature but they won't say that. Instead "their findings indicate less cloud cover blocking incoming radiation and trapped outgoing heat". I.e., an excuse for atmospheric cooling.
Their findings indicate less cloud cover blocked incoming radiation and trapped outgoing heat.
That sentence says that clouds allow incoming radiation and allow heat to escape the atmosphere, which is wrong. I think they meant to say:
Their findings indicate less cloud cover blocking incoming radiation and trapping outgoing heat.
I'm sure the answer is that it is a direct result of all the exhaust from retro rockets fired off while trying to explore Mars.
Their argument seems to be: less clouds = less heat retained by the atmosphere which = the atmospheric satellite data gathered from the 1980s - 1990s [i.e., lower atmospheric temperatures reported by the satellite]. They just want to leave out what the satellite data actually shows and jump to a hypothesis to account for it.
A fancy way of saying these are nothing more than atmospheric temperature measurements. So, since "more heat went out of the atmosphere in the 1990s" simply means atmospheric temperatures in the tropics dropped in the 1990s.
Water is very hard to model and can cause drastic warming or cooling depending upon the type and altitude of the clouds formed. Adding water to the climate prediction models could either suppress warming predictions or it is simply too compilcated to add to the current models.
The climate people are gradually preparing to tell us the models are wrong and warming won't be serious. Earlier this month they said Antartica is cooling in contradiction to the models. Ice there is growing in contradiction to the models. The middle atmosphere is not warming in contradiction to the models. Next they will be saying the land warming is caused by urban heat islands after all.
The theory is in big trouble and the scientists are desparately trying to escape being associated with it before their reputations are totally destroyed.
A whole 22 years???? Oooooo! Really reaching the bottom now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.