Hiilidioksidilla ei on juurikaan merkitystä ilmaston lämpötilojen vaihtelun kanssa.
Uusin tutkimus kertoo tarkemmin.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf
"Feedback in the Real World
As we show in the new paper, the only clear signal of feedback we ever find in the global average satellite data is strongly negative, around 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree C. If this was the feedback operating on the long-term warming from increasing CO2, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming from 2XCO2. (Since we have already experienced this level of warming, it raises the issue of whether some portion — maybe even a majority — of past warming is from natural, rather than anthropogenic, causes.)"
Uusin tutkimus kertoo tarkemmin.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/our-jgr-paper-on-feedbacks-is-published/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf
"Feedback in the Real World
As we show in the new paper, the only clear signal of feedback we ever find in the global average satellite data is strongly negative, around 6 Watts per sq. meter per degree C. If this was the feedback operating on the long-term warming from increasing CO2, it would result in only 0.6 deg. C of warming from 2XCO2. (Since we have already experienced this level of warming, it raises the issue of whether some portion — maybe even a majority — of past warming is from natural, rather than anthropogenic, causes.)"
Vastaukset 9
Vanhimmat
Suomen ja maailman johtavat ilmastontutkimuslaitokset kertovat kylläkin ihan muuta:
"Ihmiskunnan toiminta muuttaa planeettamme ilmakehän koostumusta. Kasvihuonekaasujen, kuten hiilidioksidin, pitoisuus ilmakehässä on nousussa. Kasvihuonekaasujen lisääntyminen näkyy jo ilmastossa."
http://www.fmi.fi/ilmastonmuutos/
"A large body of evidence supports the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. This evidence has accumulated over several decades, and from hundreds of studies. The first line of evidence is our basic physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate."
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/climfaq15.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
"Most scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. ... Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change."
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
"Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950. After that point, the decadal trend in global surface warming cannot be explained without including the contribution of the greenhouse gases added by humans."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php
No eihän sinun tarvitse kuin kumota tuo Spencerin paperi, jos olet erimieltä.
Ole hyvä, odotan mielenkiinnolla laskelmiasi.
ja tule sitten esittämään noita maailmanlopunskenaarioitasi muka totuutena.
Miksi se muka pitäisi kumota? Pitäisikö kumota myös Spencerin kreationistiset ja evoluution vastaiset väitteet?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer#Opposition_to_evolution_and_embrace_of_.22intelligent_design.22
Juurihan tuossa FMI, NOAA ja NASA todistivat sen vääräksi.
Retardilauma on varmaan Spencerin kanssa samaa mieltä tästäkin:
"Spencer has been an active in advocating Intelligent Design over evolution, and he argues that its teaching should be mandatory in schools. Working with the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, Spencer has been part of an effort to advocate environmental policy that is based on a "Biblical view" rather than science. As a defender of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" creationism, Spencer has asserted that the scientific theory of evolution is really just a kind of religion."
RRUUAAHHHHAAHHOIJAA!!!!1
Et osaa muuta kuin ad hominemia. Voi reppanaa.
Ei se tuota tutkimusta kumoa.
Ymmärrätkö edes mistä tuossa tutkimuksessa on kyse?
No kerropa ne kohdat missä tuo tutkimus kumotaan ja miten se osoitetaan.
Tuohon se tietämyksesi sitten päättyykin. Voi reppanaa.
Osaat vain toistella tuota alarmistien propagandaa.