Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore.

Comments (Page 1,802)

Showing posts 36,021 - 36,040 of45,761
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
kristy

Oviedo, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38334
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no "30-year pause or decrease in temperatures", only a decade of slower rise in surface temperatures, something that was *always* expected from time to time by the IPCC.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Apparently even having your noses rubbed in what the IPCC actually said won't stop liars like you repeating the same lie.
First of all if all this was predicted by the IPCC, why are the scientists baffled as to the standstill and trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't rising?

Second, you posted this:

Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth. She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:

"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C. "Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100. "So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

If the temperatures do go down 1 C because of the effects of the sun, it totally invalidates the AGW hypothesis. This would show that the sun is a main driver of temperature. It would invalidate any previous predictions of a 1.5-4.5 C by 2100. Because if temperatures go down 1 C and AGW hypothesis predicted a 0.67 increase by 2030, then temperatures would actually be 1.6 C degree cooler than predicted. And if the sun is the driver in bringing down temperatures, it would also be more than likely it has been the sun raising the temperatures. As Fun Facts stated the sun over the last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38335
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all if all this was predicted by the IPCC, why are the scientists baffled as to the standstill and trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't rising?
Second, you posted this:
Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth. She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:
"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C. "Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100. "So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
If the temperatures do go down 1 C because of the effects of the sun, it totally invalidates the AGW hypothesis. This would show that the sun is a main driver of temperature. It would invalidate any previous predictions of a 1.5-4.5 C by 2100. Because if temperatures go down 1 C and AGW hypothesis predicted a 0.67 increase by 2030, then temperatures would actually be 1.6 C degree cooler than predicted. And if the sun is the driver in bringing down temperatures, it would also be more than likely it has been the sun raising the temperatures. As Fun Facts stated the sun over the last half of the 20th century is now being considered the Modern Solar Maximum.
You are dense!
No Warming

Waverly, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38336
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
You are dense!
Apparently its the Artic Ice that's very "dense", remember the stories over the spring about how it was young thin ice sure to melt away.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_e...
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38337
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The paper was reviewed by the NAS and validated as complete and competent work. The techniques of multi-proxy climate studies by Mann, et al, established the basic methodology for MANY other studies that validate and enhance his conclusion. One thing that is clearly shown in stuch studies with a limted latitude range are that there is a change in the DISTRIBUTION of thermal energy in the NH while those of the entire NH show little or no change in the TOTAL SUM of thermal energy.
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.
One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP. Does the temperaure rise 2C? Over 50 years or two? Starting in 1100? or When? The studies so far have LABELLED any warming period of any degree within a few hundred years of the MWP as defined in Western Europe, which is not reasonable science. Every region
I am not clear as to which scientific point you made that I have not addressed.
As to the two points above:
You wrote: "One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP."
Once again YOU are correct!... though this description appears rather definitive:
"The Medieval Climatic Optimum (also known as the Lit- tle Climatic Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Warm Epoch) refers to a period of climatic history during which temperatures in Europe and neighboring regions of the North Atlantic are believed to have been comparable to, or to have even exceeded, those of the late 20th century. This period is conventionally believed to have occurred from approximately 900–1300 AD, terminating with the more moderate conditions of the 15th century, and the Little Ice Age (see Little Ice Age, Volume 1) which impacted Europe during the 16th–mid 19th centuries. The Medieval Climatic Optimum appears to have been in large part a feature of the North Atlantic and neighboring regions (Wigley et al., 1981). Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe and parts of North America. Regional temperature pat- terns elsewhere over the globe show equivocal evidence of anomalous warmth (see Wigley et al., 1981; Hughes and Diaz, 1994) and, as Lamb (1965) noted, episodes of both cooler as well as warmer conditions are likely to have punctuated this period."
There is also evidence that suggests there could be as many other MWP scholarly papers...
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
And again there seems to be 'robust' evidence that there are scholorly papers that address SH proxies on this subject:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/324/5927/62...
"Understanding the timings of interhemispheric climate changes during the Holocene, along with their causes, remains a major problem of climate science. Here, we present a high-resolution 10Be chronology of glacier fluctuations in New Zealand’s Southern Alps over the past 7000 years, including at least five events during the last millennium. The extents of glacier advances decreased from the middle to the late Holocene, in contrast with the Northern Hemisphere pattern. Several glacier advances occurred in New Zealand during classic northern warm periods. These findings point to the importance of regional driving and/or amplifying mechanisms. We suggest that atmospheric circulation changes in the southwest Pacific were one important factor in forcing high-frequency Holocene glacier fluctuations in New Zealand."
This cut n paste thing is a lot easier than I imagined... No wonder it is so popular among those who believe in CAGW.
As to your second point:
Perhaps there are people of science that might find such studies of interest.
Now if you could please find even 1 point of reason or rationality or logic or science that I have failed to address I would be interested to see it....
Good luck.
-koolaid
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38338
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
The paper was reviewed by the NAS and validated as complete and competent work. The techniques of multi-proxy climate studies by Mann, et al, established the basic methodology for MANY other studies that validate and enhance his conclusion. One thing that is clearly shown in stuch studies with a limted latitude range are that there is a change in the DISTRIBUTION of thermal energy in the NH while those of the entire NH show little or no change in the TOTAL SUM of thermal energy.
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.
One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP. Does the temperaure rise 2C? Over 50 years or two? Starting in 1100? or When? The studies so far have LABELLED any warming period of any degree within a few hundred years of the MWP as defined in Western Europe, which is not reasonable science. Every region will have periods of warming and cooling trends. The climate anywhere is NEVER stable. But to label it as the MWP without a clear definition of the MWP is just not convincing.
Secondly, and more importantly, even if they could define the MWP and get an agreement on which cherry picked locations show an anomaly, there is the question of the source of the thermal energy. To warm EVERYWHERE by 2C would take a simply ENORMOUS amount of new energy (introduced from where??) Where does this come from? Where does it go away to? Without a mechanism to show a clear source of heat (which is one of the successes of AGW theory in terms that it can show enough thermal energy accumulating to account for the warming over more than a century) any similarity of a warming period elsewhere is purely 'correlation, not causation'. And so it does not pass the 'smell test' and nobody takes it too seriously.
<quoted text>
Repeatedly. But you never learn so apology not accepted. I would rather that you actually ADDRESS the points but you just run away. I expect no different now.
Note. The paintings of Leonardo da Vinci are NOT equal to the finger paintings of a kindegarden student. So you cannot expect the studies to be 'equal'. Your question as to why one is taken seriously and the other dismissed is juvenile and silly. One is a masterpiece. The other is a mess. Nuff said.
Well, I wrote a detailed response to your two points and apparently took too much time... Lost the whole thing.
Anyway, here are a few thousand scholarly papers on The MWP that some 'believe does not exist ...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38339
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Yes, hard to believe but there are those who deny GLOBAL WARMING... during the Middle Ages.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38340
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
Joanna Haigh, a solar physicist at Imperial College London, has spent a fair bit of research time investigating mechanisms that could potentially amplify solar changes into meaningful temperature variations on human timescales on Earth. She summed up the importance of the latest research like this:
"In a future grand minimum, the Sun might perhaps again cool the planet by up to 1C. "Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, are expected to raise global temperatures by 1.5-4.5C by 2100. "So even if the predictions are correct, the effect of global warming will outstrip the Sun's ability to cool even in the coldest scenario. "And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new...

The problem with

"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."

is the contention that there is a 'normal' for solar output and that the distance from our sun is stable. Neither is correct.

At one time there was the concept of a solar constant. We know now and the graph above illustrates that there is no solar constant. The proponents of AGW hold on to the solar constant by saying the variations we have measured are very small.

In 1991 we experienced the Pinatubo eruption. This volcano put particulate matter into the atmosphere that acted in the same way as clouds and reduced incoming solar energy. This happened at a time when we were measuring TSI mechanically.

"After Mount Pinatubo erupted, while overall solar radiation was reduced by less than five percent, data showed a reduction of direct radiation by as much as 30 percent. So, instead of direct light, the sun's rays were reaching leaves after colliding with particles in the air."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/vie...

The 30 months following Pinatubo earth experienced cooling up to .6*C. As the aerosols cleared the very high activity of cycle 22 was unblocked by the 'clouds of aerosols' and warming resumed.

The sun has a range of activity that is thought to be very small but within that range, the highs and the lows can impact earth significantly.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38341
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

kristy wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all if all this was predicted by the IPCC, why are the scientists baffled as to the standstill and trying to figure out why the temperatures aren't rising?
They never were. That was a lie by the denialists. The only concern of the scientists was that the warming has to go SOMEWHERE and they couldn't see it in the land and ocean at the time. The result is that they discovered that the oceans were warming to deeper levels than expected. This was the surprise, not the variability of the air temperature chart.

You continue to be clueless no matter how many times you are infomred. Is this deliberate or are you just dim?

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38342
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

gcaveman1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't call me "son", boy, I'm probably old enough to be your grandpa, and I could be.
as a grandpa you don't really show much wisdom for your years. Son seems to be more fitting for someone who only cares about his self interests above all else.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38343
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
Correlation is NOT causation. And you are totally innumerate.
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with
"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
is the contention that there is a 'normal' for solar output and that the distance from our sun is stable. Neither is correct.
False. Constant is a relative term. One can be standing still in terms of cm of movement and yet find random swings in your movement on the nanometer scale. But you ARE 'standing still'.

This analogy applies here. The sun is a VERY stable star and the graph proves it. The scale of the chart shows that these minor variances in the solar constant run from 1365.1 to 1366.7 which is only a total variance of 1.6 watts/m*m or .11%. Blowing up the scale to make it SEEM like a lot is dishonest. And a change of such small magnitude will have an effect of LESS than 0.2C based on forcing so there is no logic to the idea that the two are truly related. so there IS a normal 'mean' for solar output of about 1366 w/m*m and the solar constant IS 'constant' in terms of it's effect on global temperatures.

You will never make a convincing case with such false connections. And the graphs is not a very good 'correlation'. Any rising signal will look a lot like any other rising signal, but that is not a 'correlation'. It is just a problem with human perceptions. The R value of the CET to the temperature is NOT very good.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38344
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I wrote a detailed response to your two points and apparently took too much time... Lost the whole thing.
Oh, my GOD! You really want me to believe 'the dog ate my homework' is your argument??? What are you? Seven?
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyway, here are a few thousand scholarly papers on The MWP that some 'believe does not exist ...
There are always contrarians and scientists trying to make ANY claim. But none of these has made ANY attempt to address the two points I made which is why none of them get much respect or citations.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCICRANK....
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38345
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
They never were. That was a lie by the denialists. The only concern of the scientists was that the warming has to go SOMEWHERE and they couldn't see it in the land and ocean at the time. The result is that they discovered that the oceans were warming to deeper levels than expected. This was the surprise, not the variability of the air temperature chart.
You continue to be clueless no matter how many times you are infomred. Is this deliberate or are you just dim?
Correct.
The scientists "couldn't see' where the warming went because Not One Single Climate Model predicted where the missing energy went so these climate experts did not know where to begin to look.

To this day the experts are guessing (without benefit of a climate model that successfully forecast this mystery) the energy is "SOMEWHERE" in the oceans and perhaps someday they may find it :-)

Too funny because; Time And Time Again these facts do not in the slightest way shake the faith of the true believers in CAGW.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
You continue to be clueless no matter how many times you are infomred. Is this deliberate or are you just dim?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38346
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you.
You probably mean simple minded. That is your bag..
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things.
You wrote: "One is that there is no accepted description of the MWP."
Once again YOU are correct!... though this description appears rather definitive:
"The Medieval Climatic Optimum (also known as the Lit- tle Climatic Optimum, Medieval Warm Period, or Medieval Warm Epoch) refers to a period of climatic history ..
True. But it is a very hazy description. Like defining an elephant and then discovering a mouse that fits.. because it is gray, four legged, with a tail, etc. To be a description it must be somewhat better defined by the scientists that want to prove the connection. I am correct, as you say and without that 'definition' of what is a MWP, it would fit ANY warming period, which is to say that it is meaningless since ANY area will warm or cool somewhat within the four centuries of your 'definiton'. The description is so loose it could fit a mouse or an elephant.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
I will try to simplify this enough for you. Two things.
Indeed, when Lamb (1965) coined the term Medieval Warm Epoch, it was based on evidence largely from Europe and parts of North America
Exactly. It is a period that is documented in Western Europe and defined by the change there. But those change are not even consistent within Western Eurpope in time or temperature. They are a wide range from the UK to Denmark. The UK got the most dramatic change for the simple reason that it is almost certainly a result of changes to the Rossby wave transport of heat to Europe and thus the 'western edge' got the most heating.

The SHAPE of the warming is interesting too. It was rougjly a dramatic shift followed by a slow return to 'normal'. A 'impulse response' in classic physics.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38347
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Regional temperature pat- terns elsewhere over the globe show equivocal evidence of anomalous warmth (see Wigley et al., 1981; Hughes and Diaz, 1994) and, as Lamb (1965) noted, episodes of both cooler as well as warmer conditions are likely to have punctuated this period."
This description of an 'elephant' would fit a mouse quite well. So what have we. A warm (maybe cool) period within a four century span (maybe with cool (or warm) periods in it. Hell.. This is like describing an elephant and fitting it to an armadillo..
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCICRANK....
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
"Understanding the timings of interhemispheric climate changes during the Holocene, along with their causes, remains a major problem of climate science.
To have an 'inter-hemisphere' change you must have either transport of heat by ocean currents (which takes many centuries) or you must have an external change (such as a major warming of the sun, a nearby supernova, etc. It is a well established principle of climate science that you do not get teleconnections between the hemisphere in the air flow due to the ITCZ. That pig won't fly.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38348
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
This cut n paste thing is a lot easier than I imagined...
And takes absolutely no thought or reasoning skills, which seems to suit you to a T.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder it is so popular among those who believe in CAGW.
'Belief' based on evidence is called "knowledge" and it is very popular among serious scientists who are the basis for AGW theory.
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
As to your second point:
Perhaps there are people of science that might find such studies of interest.
Now if you could please find even 1 point of reason or rationality or logic or science that I have failed to address I would be interested to see it....
Good luck.
-koolaid
My SECOND point was that to have a synchronous period of warming (i.e a global MWP) you need a SOURCE OF ENERGY equal to the task. And this has NOT been addressed. AGW has taken over a century of warming to add a degree of warming. Depending on your definition and where you are taking your measurements, the MWP is a warming of several degrees in only a few years. NO source of energy currently known or documented could supply this. The 'global MWP' does not pass the 'smell test'.

You have certainly provided a lot of verbiage in you post but no reasoning or critical thinking. You do NOT address either of my REASONED objections. You have no case.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38349
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
There are always contrarians and scientists trying to make ANY claim. But none of these has made ANY attempt to address the two points I made which is why none of them get much respect or citations.
<quoted text>
I am impressed at the speed that you read and analized (sic) 74700 scholarly papers and found every one lacking in the ability to address your "two points".
If I recall; there also does not exist a single scholarly paper that can, in your mind, successfully challenge your idea that CO2 is "unnecessary" for life on Earth :-)
Belief systems are fascinating.
May your faith give you peace,
-koolaid
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38350
Aug 23, 2013
 
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
This description of an 'elephant' would fit a mouse quite well. So what have we. A warm (maybe cool) period within a four century span (maybe with cool (or warm) periods in it. Hell.. This is like describing an elephant and fitting it to an armadillo..
<quoted text>
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SCICRANK....
<quoted text>
To have an 'inter-hemisphere' change you must have either transport of heat by ocean currents (which takes many centuries) or you must have an external change (such as a major warming of the sun, a nearby supernova, etc. It is a well established principle of climate science that you do not get teleconnections between the hemisphere in the air flow due to the ITCZ. That pig won't fly.
Yes,
"It is a well established principle of climate science that you do not get teleconnections between the hemisphere in the air flow due to the ITCZ."
That is why it seemed odd that my can of deodorant which I spray in Minnesota was responsible for the Ozone hole over Antarctica! The "Experts" knew of the ITCZ back then but for some reason it was not relevant to chlorofluorocarbons.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
That pig won't fly.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38351
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Correlation is NOT causation. And you are totally innumerate.
<quoted text>
False. Constant is a relative term. One can be standing still in terms of cm of movement and yet find random swings in your movement on the nanometer scale. But you ARE 'standing still'.
This analogy applies here. The sun is a VERY stable star and the graph proves it. The scale of the chart shows that these minor variances in the solar constant run from 1365.1 to 1366.7 which is only a total variance of 1.6 watts/m*m or .11%..
Not quite, but good try. The graph shows that the last half of the 20th century was higher than the prior 400 years in the maximum activity.

What it also shows is the minimum activity was much higher than at any other time in the last 400 years.

Kinda like the AGW statements about the low temps. That nighttime lows are not as low as they used to be. The Met Office made a statement it's not about how hot is gets but more about how cold it doesn't get.

Well in the last half of the 20th century, the sun didn't get very 'cold'.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38352
Aug 23, 2013
 

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38353
Aug 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new...
The problem with
"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
is the contention that there is a 'normal' for solar output and that the distance from our sun is stable. Neither is correct.
At one time there was the concept of a solar constant. We know now and the graph above illustrates that there is no solar constant. The proponents of AGW hold on to the solar constant by saying the variations we have measured are very small.
In 1991 we experienced the Pinatubo eruption. This volcano put particulate matter into the atmosphere that acted in the same way as clouds and reduced incoming solar energy. This happened at a time when we were measuring TSI mechanically.
"After Mount Pinatubo erupted, while overall solar radiation was reduced by less than five percent, data showed a reduction of direct radiation by as much as 30 percent. So, instead of direct light, the sun's rays were reaching leaves after colliding with particles in the air."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/vie...
The 30 months following Pinatubo earth experienced cooling up to .6*C. As the aerosols cleared the very high activity of cycle 22 was unblocked by the 'clouds of aerosols' and warming resumed.
The sun has a range of activity that is thought to be very small but within that range, the highs and the lows can impact earth significantly.
During the last 35 years the total solat irradiation has decreased slightly while the global temperature has been rising.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 36,021 - 36,040 of45,761
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Wethersfield Discussions

Search the Wethersfield Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min THE DEVILS MENTALLY ILL 1,077,874
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 45 min just wondering 18,537
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr All about perspective 305,061
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 2 hr TRD 67,831
Police: Suspect Tried To Strangle Woman (Mar '08) 16 hr LMAO 164
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 17 hr Frijoles 68,341
Electric heat Cromwell hills 23 hr Tommy T 1
•••
•••
•••
•••

Wethersfield Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Wethersfield People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Wethersfield News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Wethersfield
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••