An analysis of differences between daily high temps and daily low temps to measure any effects of increasing CO2 trapping heat. The analysis turns out to be another nail in the AGW coffin. Conclusion: The world wide surface station measured average daily rising temp and falling temp is 17.465460F/17.465673F for the period of 1950 to 2010, not only is the falling temperatures slightly larger than rising temperatures, 17.4F is only 50%-70% of a typical clear sky temperature swing of 25F to 30F, which can be as large as +40F depending on location and humidity. This shows conclusively that the average night time cooling is not limited by GHG (green house gasses) because low humidity clear skies cool far more than the global average. Since recorded Min Max temperatures show no sign of a loss of cooling on a daily basis since at least 1950, even if CO2 has increased the amount of DLR, something else (most likely variablity of clouds) is controlling temperatures. This would seem to eliminate CO2 as the main cause of late 20th century warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...based-on-ncdc-station-record-data/#more-86438
Pisspoor. I've told you once already. Just because it's on the internet does not mean it is true. I know that comes as a shock to you. Try NOAA, NASA, Met Office.
Dumbass, that's from a climate scientist. Just because it doesn't fit with your tired mantra doesn't mean it isn't true. Your sources have been proven to be biased manipulators of the data. Face the truth for once. You are really foolish, futurecunt. You should try to learn something for a change instead of being in denial of the fact all the time.
Dumbass, that's from ONE climate scientist. The other 97% disagree. Along with ALL of the world's science organizations. Just because it fits with your tired mantra means it is true for you. Your sources have been proven to be biased manipulators of the data. Face the truth for once. You are really foolish, pisspoor. You should try to learn something for a change instead of being in denial of the facts all the time. (It's like you are talking to yourself !) LOL
I know you really are too dumb to understand something unless you read it at least 15 times. So, here is attempt #2 on that journey. Hereâs the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that donât, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, thereâs nothing else to call it â a lie of presidential proportions. <a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/><b>The 97% consensus â a lie of epic proportions<b></a>
Sorry wrong again turdbreath. You are referencing bullshit sources still. Try NOAA. 97% ....... and ALL the world's science organizations
You are such a fool. I saw your proof in the other thread that global warming is caused by CO2. Unfortunately, it only proved the opposite. That it IS NOT CO2 that causes planetary warming. Go to this link and read it again. This is #3. Only 12 more and maybe you will start to understand the truth. Hereâs the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that donât, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, thereâs nothing else to call it â a lie of presidential proportions. <a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/><b>The 97% consensus â a lie of epic proportions<b></a>
You just keep babbling nonsense don't you? Which comic book did you read that in? "Deranged Right Wing Nut Job" ? Oh wait. Watt's Up with that. Same thing. LOL Try NOAA, NASA the Met Office or any of the other dozens of reliable authoritative sites. Take your meds today?