Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree. I picked them and cut and paste the links. They lead me back to such incredible websites as NOAA, AGU - American Geophysical Union, and other questionable sites.
BS. NONE of those dodgy graphs I just posted can be found on a legitimate science website.
I already said there were a few legitimate graphs with links to science websites amongst the gosh gallop of dodgy graphs from junk science blogs..
The rest are trash, misrepresent the data, and lead to other conspiracy blogs.
How can you still be arguing that C3 is in any way a credible science source? Amazing.
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
. . . http://wstannard.wordpress.com/the-g...nergy-balance/
One of the comments summed it up : “I postulate => the net result of GH gasses is to cool the Earth!”
The third graph, for example. At the bottom is the source. Cut and paste it. You go to NOAA. Every single graph is sourced. I will humor you and cut and paste the links. Then you can tell me all about those dodgy graphs from NOAA.
LOL!. Just because a graph claims the 'source' is from a credible science source doesn't mean they haven't completely misrepresented the data and the science. Which they do. Wow. You're very gullible and un-sceptical about these junk-science graphs. Why not just stick with legitimate science sources in the first place? It's almost like you want to lied to and fooled about the science.
For a man of science, you are obviously clueless about this invention called the Internet. You've been brainwashed that anything from any source not approved by your master is bad. Let me explain how it works:
NOAA or NASA posts a graph. Or a set of data. They post it on their web server. Maybe some other guy wants to link to the data. He might hot link. He might direct link. The risk is that web servers and pages change frequently. Or maybe he wants to annotate the data. Another option is to print the data and source the data on the graph or citation. Scientists do this - it's called a bibliography. He can then post the data on another server. If you click on it, it might not point to NOAA anymore. Guys like you look at where it's hosted and immediately trash the source. You use terms like "denier" or "blogger" or even "conspiracy nut". You discount the data because of the messenger or where it's hosted. It's still valid data.
I don't expect you to understand something as complicated as the Internet - Al Gore invented it and it's really complicated.
You don't actually know enough about the science to realise when someone is taking you for a ride by misrepresenting data. It's the junk-science blogs conspiracy that are doing that - and you apparently gullibly swallow what they say hook line and sinker.
This isn't about science at all for you, it's all about your ideology.
From your link: "Increasing greenhouse gases and the decline of stratospheric ozone cool the stratosphere. A long-term cooling trend in the lower stratosphere is one of many signs that increasing levels of greenhouse gases are changing our planet's climate."
It's already been explained to you several times that UV radiation doesn't warm anything, ultraviolet wavelengths are too short. You are confusing it with infrared radiation. Why do you keep posting the same scientifically illiterate nonsense over and over again? Do some fact checking and learn some science.
"The spectrum of radiation received on earth from the sun includes infrared, visible and ultraviolet radiation. The light spectrum ranges from the colour violet to red, just as you would see on a rainbow. Next to the violet colour is ultraviolet (UV). This is the radiation to which overexposure can cause harm in humans. At the other end of the visible light spectrum, next to red is infrared. This is the type of radiation that creates warmth. This is an important point to understand because many people think of heat and UV radiation as the same thing. Actually they appear are opposite ends of the spectrum and are delivered from the sun in different proportions."
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
. . . http://wstannard.wordpress.com/the-g...nergy-balance/
One of the comments summed it up : “I postulate => the net result of GH gasses is to cool the Earth!”
Why do some people never fact-check the scientifically illiterate nonsense they find on blogs on the internet? They must want to be fooled.
LOL!. Just because a graph claims the 'source' is from a credible science source doesn't mean they haven't completely misrepresented the data and the science. Which they do. Wow. You're very gullible and un-sceptical about these junk-science graphs. Why not just stick with legitimate science sources in the first place? It's almost like you want to lied to and fooled about the science.
Oh that graph from NOAA is wrong but my graph from NOAA is right.
Can you teach me to pick cherries? You seem to be an expert........
Much of the radiation from the Earth is emitted by the atmosphere, not the Earth's surface. Based on albedo, the atmosphere is definitely COOLING the planet's surface. (Earth is 60° K cooler than the Moon, despite almost equal insolation)
. . . http://wstannard.wordpress.com/the-g...nergy-balance/
One of the comments summed it up : “I postulate => the net result of GH gasses is to cool the Earth!”
Good grief...The temperature on the moon can be as high as 250 F during the day, and as low as - 390 F at night, because the moon has NO ATMOSPHERE.
This entire argument is ridiculous...The fact is 2015 was the warmest year globally that anyone alive today has ever seen...I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would want to deny that fact.
For those of you who think that science is not accounting for every possible known factor that can cause the climate to change check out the site below. Once you do that please stop with lame ideas, like it's caused by volcanoes, clouds, CFCs or other nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Amazing.
Why do some people never fact-check the scientifically illiterate nonsense they find on blogs on the internet? They must want to be fooled.
..The temperature on the moon can be as high as 250 F during the day, and as low as - 390 F at night, because the moon has NO ATMOSPHERE.
