|
Not sure I see the relevance. The warmest on record means the warmest on record, ie the average temperature of each year in the 2000's has been higher than any other year prior to that since records began, about 150 years. What have the warming since 1970, or the stasis in the last 10 years got to do with it? They are still the warmest on record, and at least some of that heat has had to come from greenhouse capture.
Well that of course applies either way (doesn't it just!!). The difference of course is that the laws of physics show that the wishful thinkers (aka GW deniers) rank with Canute's advisers when it comes to rationality. Never since Bishop Wilberforce has so much effort been squandered in so many attempts to bolster entrenched belief against evidence and theory.
Why do we coming up against this same old rubbish? The extra greenhouse energy is pushing the average temperature up. Any underlying trends overlay that rise. Plot annual average temperature over as many past years as you care to name, and you'll see a zigzag line representing hotter and cooler years. Overlaying that you'll see longer-term trends (most notably 11 years because of the sunspot cyle). But until about 200 years ago, the statistical underlying trend of all that was flat: no average rise in temperature. However, from about 1800, the line has shot up in a typical hockey stick curve. This rise is way outside any previous trend, and the only theoretical (not hypothetical) basis for it is greenhouse capture from the extra 100ppm of CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere since then.
I repeat my challenge yet again: 100ppm CO2 captures a lot of heat, so where is it going if it isn't warming the atmosphere? Greenhouse warming is simple physics, so anyone with GCSE science should be able to answer that, and there's a Nobel Prize awaiting if you do. |
|