2014 smashes temperature records in Europe

January 5, 2015
People enjoying warm temperatures on the beach in the French Riviera city of Nice on March 7, 2014

The year 2014 broke a series of heat records in France, Britain, Germany and Belgium, weather agencies reported Monday.

In France, "2014 was the hottest year since 1900," the Meteo-France weather agency said in a statement.

The country's average annual temperature in 2014 was 1.2 degrees Celsius (2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than normal, defined by the long-term average for 1981-2010.

The year 2014 dethroned 2011 as the previous warmest year, which was an average 1.1 C higher than the benchmark.

Meteo-France also pointed to records in Germany and Belgium, saying in both countries the average annual temperature in 2014 was 1.4 C higher than normal.

In Britain, provisional data showed 2014 was the country's warmest year since 1910, according to the Met Office.

The mean temperature in 2014 was 9.9 C, 1.1 C above the 1981-2010 average or 0.2 degrees higher than the previous record of 2006, it said.

Eight of Britain's top 10 warmest years have happened since 2002.

Fifteen of the hottest years in France since the start of the 20th century have been in the last 25 years, Meteo-France said.

"In Paris, the thermometer went below 0 C only on two days, compared to the usual 25-odd days of sub-zero temperatures per year," it added.

The Met Office said 2014, which began with flooding across much of Britain, was also the nation's fourth wettest year since 1910, with 1,297.1 millimetres (51 inches) of rainfall.

Five of Britain's top six wettest years have happened since 2000.

The UN's World Meteorological Organisation last month said 2014 was set to be the hottest worldwide since record began, in step with a global warming trend.

UN nations have agreed to ink a global pact in Paris in December in an attempt to brake climate change through curbs of Earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

The goal is to limit overall global warming to 2 C over pre-Industrial Revolution levels, but scientists warn that on current trends Earth is heading for potentially devastating levels of 4 C or more.

Explore further: France has had hottest year since 1900

Related Stories

France has had hottest year since 1900

December 27, 2011

This year was the hottest in France since the start of the 20th century, Meteo France said Tuesday, with average national temperatures 1.5 degrees Celsius warmer than the norm.

Recommended for you

41 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

aksdad
1.3 / 5 (12) Jan 05, 2015
scientists warn that on current trends Earth is heading for potentially devastating levels of 4 C or more

Wrong, according to all the current global temperature measurements. They all show 0.8 C to 1 C warming since 1880 or 1910.

Global temperature 1880-present:
http://www.cru.ue...erature/

They also show the trend for the last 17 years is essentially zero. Here's a detailed view from satellite measurements (click on graph).

Satellite temperature 1979-present:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

If you project into the future based on just the last 17 years, there will be virtually no warming in the next 100 years. But if you base projections on the last 100 years, the next 100 years will increase by about 0.8 C. That's a lot less than 4 C.

And FYI, if Europe sets heat records but global temperatures haven't risen, it means other regions are cooler, offsetting heat in Europe. Regional, not global, warming.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (15) Jan 05, 2015
scientists warn that on current trends Earth is heading for potentially devastating levels of 4 C or more

Wrong, according to all the current global temperature measurements. They all show 0.8 C to 1 C warming since 1880 or 1910.

Global temperature 1880-present:
http://www.cru.ue...erature/

If you project into the future based on just the last 17 years, there will be virtually no warming in the next 100 years. But if you base projections on the last 100 years, the next 100 years will increase by about 0.8 C. That's a lot less than 4 C.

And FYI, if Europe sets heat records but global temperatures haven't risen, it means other regions are cooler, offsetting heat in Europe. Regional, not global, warming.


And FYI, the forgoing is a steaming pile of dog vomit, which aksdad keeps returning to in a vain, ever-more-desperate effort to bolster he/she/its denial.

In case you were wondering.
indio007
1 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2015

And FYI, the forgoing is a steaming pile of dog vomit, which aksdad keeps returning to in a vain, ever-more-desperate effort to bolster he/she/its denial.

In case you were wondering.

Thanks for that illuminating data.

That's what your prognostications are right? Data?
gkam
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 05, 2015
where do the folk come from who look at the data and see the opposite of what it displays?

How can anybody deny Climate Change?
GSK2000
1 / 5 (10) Jan 06, 2015
Well, you gotta figure that they HAVE to post this kind of tripe (the article, that is). I mean all of the most reliable data-sets (satelitte) show no warming for ~18 years. Just in case the alarmists want to argue the point please take it up with the following gentlemen:

Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU):
""Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.""
http://news.bbc.c...1670.stm

James Hansen on the "pause" in 2012:
"The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade"
http://www.columb...ailings/
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
And look at all the reports of heat waves, brown-outs and heat related deaths. Its tragic, do you remember all those news articles about the horrors stories surrounding this hottest year on record?
Seems like everyday they were telling us about them.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2015

If you project into the future based on just the last 17 years, there will be virtually no warming in the next 100 years. But if you base projections on the last 100 years, the next 100 years will increase by about 0.8 C. That's a lot less than 4 C.


Only someone who doesn't understand the way the thermodynamics involved works, would come to that conclusion my friend plus of course a certain ideological bent to make the stupid true.
Err - it's why we have experts in this world and it's not run by such as you who possess a raging DK syndrome.
FYI there is nothing in nature that changes linearly and there is a thing called the second derivative afforded by +ve feedbacks increasingly coming into play.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 06, 2015
Well, you gotta figure that they HAVE to post this kind of tripe (the article, that is). I mean all of the most reliable data-sets (satelitte) show no warming for ~18 years. Just in case the alarmists want to argue the point please take it up with the following gentlemen:


Satellite data is NOT reliable for surface temperatures.
Google what is involved to make that fact apparent to you.
You do know that the oceans heat the atmosphere ... and not the other way around?
Now apply thermodynamics and meteorology to the process when the main Earthly driver of climate, the PDO/ENSO cycle is cool.
Also check out the heat being stored in said oceans whilst not able to transfer it to the atmosphere so efficiently.
Err also, if there has been no warming for ~x years then why have the 10 hottest years occurred since 2002? (if 2014 is confirmed as hottest) and this during a natural cooling cycle caused by a cool ENSO.
A scam by climate scientists? FFS
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2015
So now that I am actually lying (re first post), nobody calls me on it?
There were no exceptional heat waves, brown out or deaths.

Is it hot in here, or just me?
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (12) Jan 06, 2015
And FYI, the forgoing is a steaming pile of dog vomit, which aksdad keeps returning to in a vain, ever-more-desperate effort to bolster he/she/its denial.

In case you were wondering.

Thanks for that illuminating data.

That's what your prognostications are right? Data?


You are ever-so-welcome, indio.

You will, of course, recognize it as shorthand "data", in other words, I do not intend to refute aksdad's dogvomit, as it is no more than that: re-re-re-re-re-regurgitated denier pseudoscience, which has been quite expertly obviated, over'n'over'n'over'n'over'n'overagain, right here, on Physorg, in article and comment, since before you ever even thought to post your insight for the first time.

As to my "prognostications" --I made none in that comment. Perhaps you would you like to import a few from some other thread?

And, just to be clear, a prognostication, by definition, isn't "data".

So just what is it that you have failed to state clearly?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2015
So now that I am actually lying (re first post), nobody calls me on it?
@ALCHE/h20Crybaby
So you are simply BAITING/TROLLING and intentionally trying to get someone to post with regard to your continual lies?

i am still waiting for you to provide equivalent empirical evidence refuting the studies i linked...

i am still waiting for you to break apart those studies and demonstrate where the science is flawed or bad, so that i can pass that on to the authors

i am still waiting for you to be able to prove, support or validate ANY of your claims with anything OTHER than just your "personal word" (which has been demonstrated to be worth absolutely nothing given your historical and repeated lies)

you've posted far worse lies anyway
especially the ones vilifying studies but without evidence

http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
http://www.scienc...abstract

like i said...
I'm waiting
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (14) Jan 07, 2015

GSK2000
Just in case the alarmists want to argue the point please take it up with the following gentlemen:


Maybe you could take it up with the World Meteorological Organization. There is some good data in this report for Indio007 too.

https://www.wmo.i..._en.html

GSK2000 - when you say the most reliable data sets show no warming - could you post references to some data sets - that include ocean temperatures? Thanks.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2015
@greenonions

Sorry about the down vote..
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (19) Jan 07, 2015
Well, you gotta figure that they HAVE to post this kind of tripe (the article, that is).

Yeah...where do people get off posting actual measurements. The sheer nerve! (/sarcasm)
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 07, 2015
Here is an article that sets out how the fallacious argument that there is some "pause" fails.

http://www.washin...stopped/

Now that 2014 looks to be the hottest year on record, surpassing even the El Nino driven hot year of 1998 (which is actually cooler than both 2005 and 2010), and this without there being a El Nino, perhaps the tripe that there is a pause will finally be put to rest.

Well not for Ubamoron, MR166 or GSK2000, who are all driven by some political/conspiracist agenda, but maybe for an askdad who at least takes the time to read.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 07, 2015
And then again, as it relates to askdad, maybe not. WRT this:
Wrong, according to all the current global temperature measurements. They all show 0.8 C to 1 C warming since 1880 or 1910.
there has indeed been a 0.8 to 1C rise in temps, something which has been observed for some time now. For a really good explanation on why this has meaning, read this: http://www.aip.or...rend.htm
As to this:
f you project into the future based on just the last 17 years, there will be virtually no warming in the next 100 years. But if you base projections on the last 100 years, the next 100 years will increase by about 0.8 C. That's a lot less than 4 C.
I can't help but wonder if aksdad is being purposefully obtuse. In the next 100 year the rate of global temperatures is going to increase in an accelerating pace, not remain at a comparatively sedate trend of .1C per decade. THAT IS THE ISSUE aksdad! And it already is; the bulk of the rise occurred in the last 30 years
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 07, 2015
VietVet - it is all good.... I understand - sometimes the drivel from comments like GSK2000 drive us to a down vote response. I don't pay too much attention to the votes - but it is heartening to see that on the whole - the drivel is being downvoted these days - lots of 5's for you and runrig, and the opposite for the anti-science bunch - maybe things are shifting....
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2015
VietVet - it is all good.... I understand - sometimes the drivel from comments like GSK2000 drive us to a down vote response. I don't pay too much attention to the votes - but it is heartening to see that on the whole - the drivel is being downvoted these days - lots of 5's for you and runrig, and the opposite for the anti-science bunch - maybe things are shifting....


Actually greenonion, if you look back through the treads, in most cases the anti-science crowd, the deniers, and the nutjobs (like cantthinkforhimself and zephir the sock-puppet king) get downvoted pretty regularly. The number of comments by the idiots versus the number of those of most reasonable people only makes it appear that they are numerous. The reality is that they make a lot of noise, but they are truly in the minority. A shrinking minority to boot.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (15) Jan 07, 2015
Maggnus observed with an interesting lament
The reality is that they make a lot of noise, but they are truly in the minority. A shrinking minority to boot
Yes indeed, its as if the idle uneducated & ill considered talkers are evaporating, their metabolic rate increasing their own local climate to radiate more heat via their remonstrations to expand our universe with electromagnetic noise thus diminishing more their intensity, increasing their entropy & through special relativity fading out in the distance of their attempted accelerations of effort to phase our physics foundations - of which they have definitively failed - thus survival of the fittest re the paradigms based in sound physics has prevailed & stands the test of time :-)

One can indeed hope & with focus to progress :-)

We have intelligence with linguistics & above all intellect to slay the beast of ignorance, such effort does not rely on mere faith - it bases its progress on evidence with integrity.
OZGuy
4.8 / 5 (16) Jan 08, 2015
I used to think if you ignored the trolls they would go away.
The one comment wonders are usually looking for an immediate reaction and ignoring usually works but the recalcitrants, and we all know who they are, will take being ignored as taciturn acceptance and grow bolder in their grandiose BS claims. Just as immature children test the boundaries of acceptance to see what they can get away with so do these idiots and lets be plain here they ARE IDIOTS.

It's not enough to downvote you have to aggressively point and laugh at the recalcitrants. They'll start with the vitriol soon enough to try to draw you into a personal slanging match and I've fallen for it more than once. Point and laugh LOUDLY at their stupidity and call their BS as the BS it is whenever they post it.

There are plenty of psychobabble sites that will welcome these idiots with open arms, encouraging them to leave Phys.org and seek a more appropriate forum to rant in is a win-win for everyone.
gkam
3.6 / 5 (14) Jan 10, 2015
Do the Deniers now just stand there and scream "IS NOT!"?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2015
Do the Deniers now just stand there and scream "IS NOT!"?
Isn't it funny that when I commented on all the recent snow in France, the AGWites got all up in arms claiming snow in France isn't "global." So, where are they now?

Anyway, AGW critics don't buy into the hype. We check the data and reserve our own opinions.

2014 doesn't look particularly special:

http://woodfortre.../mean:12

gkam
3.5 / 5 (13) Jan 10, 2015
"Do the Deniers now just stand there and scream "IS NOT!"? "

From the response from ooba, apparently, they do.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2015
ubavonatuba
Anyway, AGW critics don't buy into the hype. We check the data and reserve our own opinions.


As usual - you cherry pick the data to serve your own agenda. You are of course aware that 2014 is the hottest year on record, and that the 10 hottest years on record all occurred during the past 16 years. These are just facts - as opposed to your cherry picked data.

http://www.climat...ar-18502
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2015
Isn't it funny that when I commented on all the recent snow in France, the AGWites got all up in arms claiming snow in France isn't "global." So, where are they now?
AGW critics don't buy into the hype. We check the data and reserve our own opinions
we're still here and still trying to get you to read the science and not the comics page of the local paper or the lovelorn responses in the daily personal ad's...
France ISNT global and there is a study that helps to explain all the cold snaps, but you refused to read it

would you like me to link it again?
How many times should i link it before you read it... we can dispense with the stupidity and go right into multiple links so that you can go right to the study... if that will help

just let me know

By the way... you also don't buy into reading actual science/physics, reading actual studies, or reputable journal's published data either, according to what i've seen posted to date

read the studies linked
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2015
ubavonatuba
Anyway, AGW critics don't buy into the hype. We check the data and reserve our own opinions.


As usual - you cherry pick the data to serve your own agenda. You are of course aware that 2014 is the hottest year on record, and that the 10 hottest years on record all occurred during the past 16 years. These are just facts - as opposed to your cherry picked data.

http://www.climat...ar-18502


And now, instead of arguing the facts, ubamoron will claim you don't know what cherry picking is......

Ubamoron has nothing to add to the conversation, so he simply repeats the fallacies and distortions he has cherry picked previously. I wish you luck greenonion, but I suspect you will simply end up just as frustrated with dealing with that idiot as the rest of us have.

ubamoron has never met a climate myth he doesn't believe in.
PsycheOne
2 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2015
Of the 16 responses so far from people who believe in global warming, 9 of them involved name calling. It appears that people who believe in global warming feel the need to scream and insult rather than calmly present data.

Argumentum ad hominem anyone?
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2015
PsycheOne: The ignore button. It's not a perfect miracle, but it's a miracle. They won't change or be polite.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jan 10, 2015
Of the 16 responses so far from people who believe in global warming, 9 of them involved name calling. It appears that people who believe in global warming feel the need to scream and insult rather than calmly present data.

Argumentum ad hominem anyone?


Well, aren't you the holier-than-thou patronizing one! Presented any good science to discuss lately? No? Ask if any here are surprised.

Tell you what, before I sick Ira on you, maybe you can come up with something that is worth discussing. Like how 2014 is now the year with the hottest average temperature of the last 1000 or more years. Makes those that keep saying there is some pause look pretty stupid, don't you think?
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (13) Jan 10, 2015
PsychOne -
rather than calmly present data.


I presented data - 2014 is the hottest year on record. The 10 hottest years on record have all been in the past 16 years.

Are you able to refute the data - or you really have nothing to say?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jan 10, 2015
Of the 16 responses so far from people who believe in global warming, 9 of them involved name calling. It appears that people who believe in global warming feel the need to scream and insult rather than calmly present data.

Argumentum ad hominem anyone?


By the way dumdum, one does not simply "believe" in facts. Facts simply are. A fact remains a fact whether or not some denialist lapdog chooses to believe it or not.

That you use the word "believe" in your little diatribe says much about you and the denialist agenda you try to defend.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 10, 2015
@PsycheOne
The arguments you see above are not localised nor singularly about just this thread, but ongoing arguments from a long period of time.

For instance, in my first post i gave (again) the same set of links to ALCHE/water for his refute which, to date, there has been absolutely nothing
The closest he came was a graph in Wiki, and it did NOT explain how the studies were wrong and demonstrated how he ignores empirical data

i do not "believe" in AGW, i have followed the overwhelming evidence and the scientific studies and there was only one conclusion that i could come to with any logic: AGW is real, it exists and there is a lot of info supporting that conclusion

If you disagree, then i would offer the same to you: refute the links posted above with equivalent evidence

Not a watt's site/cherry picked graph
or a conjecture
evidence that is equivalent to mine (a peer reviewed study with empirical data from a reputable journal) or the retractions of my studies
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 10, 2015
PsycheOne: The ignore button. It's not a perfect miracle, but it's a miracle. They won't change or be polite.
ALCHE/cryh2opreacher
you were given every opportunity in the beginning to present equivalent evidence and even work closely with Thermo in a joint experiment which you bailed on because you could see that you would not be able to push your pseudoscience after it was done because the results would directly refute your continued posts and diatribe

it undermined any authority you might have had when you cried and pouted and left in a huff

if you would have continued and proven you were at least marginally capable of understanding the science, you would have been given more respect as well

you deserve nothing but scorn for promoting the pseudoscience that you continually still post about, from your water bowl to the ignorance shown with regard to the studies i posted

i am still waiting for your refute, BTW
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 11, 2015
As usual - you cherry pick the data to serve your own agenda. You are of course aware that 2014 is the hottest year on record, and that the 10 hottest years on record all occurred during the past 16 years. These are just facts - as opposed to your cherry picked data.

http://www.climat...ar-18502
And YOU accuse ME of cherry picking?

RSS satellite data is about as unspoiled as you can get. But even the most widely respected AGWite standards show 2014 isn't particularly special:

http://woodfortre.../mean:12

http://woodfortre.../mean:12

http://woodfortre.../mean:12
greenonions
5 / 5 (9) Jan 11, 2015
ubavonatuba
And YOU accuse ME of cherry picking?


That is correct. As MANY others on this site have pointed out repeatedly - you are "The Queen" of cherry picking.

I gave you data from the Japanese Meteorological Association - showing a 120 year graph. You scurry off to Woodfortrees - and cherry pick some graphs that fit your agenda.

If you read the link that I presented - you will see that it discusses how there are 4 main agencies in the world that compute global temperature data (not just pick one metric) - including the one that operates the hadcrut record that you cherrypicked -and while there are "subtle differences" in how they analyze the data (complex data) - there is "Generally Broad agreement"

So yes - when you cherry pick some specific data to support your own agenda - and think that you know better than the 4 organizations in the world that do this stuff for a living - you are the queen of cherry picking (as pointed out by many).
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 11, 2015
ubavontuba
And YOU accuse ME of cherry picking?
Yes
1. Not an accepted climate period of 30yrs
2. RSS publish a warning specific to the nature of your manipulation ubavontuba, last sentence of 1st para:-
http://www.remss....eratures

ie
..denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope
Then ubavontuba said
RSS satellite data is about as unspoiled as you can get
Likely true but, why don't U take note of RSS' warning, makes U look so VERY un-intelligent & especially so as U have been told before, Y do U want to come across as an unthinking automata, not smart :-(

RSS period 30yr
- CO2 in blue
- Your 18 yrs (sympathy for U) mean in red
- Trend in green

http://woodfortre...ormalise
Mike_Massen
3.7 / 5 (12) Jan 11, 2015
PsycheOne claimed
Of the 16 responses so far from people who believe in global warming, 9 of them involved name calling
I'm not in favor of name calling unless they're idiots ;-) & have PROVEN they can't learn or r operating an anti-science agenda. You should be aware & please confirm U r NOT a Science idiot by understanding it is not about belief, it is about Evidence & the proposition that Greenhouse gases (GHGs) interfere with Earth's outgoing long wave (LW) infra red radiation to space, proven for >100yrs

Something Water_Prophet has been told often but just.. just.. cannot.. c.c.comprehend but,
hey he claims he's a Physical Chemist which demands pre-requisites in Physics, so sad !

PsycheOne observed
It appears that people who believe in global warming feel the need to scream and insult rather than calmly present data
For the most part it betrays frustration that a mob of completely uneducated deniers pick sporadically at data, fail at logic & don't learn.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2015
No, stumps, I bailed because I had shown five ways, including one bogus way to disprove the slime thermo was generating. And you and the rest of the brown-nose squad supported dumb assumptions, disagreed upon methods, and in short, everything you needed to declare a victory. We really could go over all the objections I had to our joint endeavor, all the ignored ground rules, but what's the point? If you did that, you wouldn't be able to DOUBLE the absorbence band of CO2, and increase its magnitude to the what, 100% you needed to fake the model.
But, please whine about the defeat you had six months ago.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2015
I bailed because I had shown five ways, including one bogus way to disprove the slime thermo was generating
@ALCHE
so why was it that you are the ONLY one who saw this or that can verify that claim?
You also said you demonstrated this fact but there is NOTHING in the record proving that statement
We really could go over all the objections I had to our joint endeavor, all the ignored ground rules, but what's the point?
This is true... given that you refuse to see anything negative about yourself or the blatant lies you are posting even still about that whole endeavor, then it is likely you will never see the fallacious comments you made and are still making nor why they're applicable to the current situation
But, please whine about the defeat you had six months ago
more delusion
WHAT defeat? the science Thermo was doing was also included in a STUDY that i linked to you, which you STILL ignore

it proved you wrong, so you refuse to acknowledge it! STILL
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2015
...to DOUBLE the absorbence band of CO2, and increase its magnitude to the what, 100% you needed to fake the model
@ALCHE
and again, i refer you back to the study i linked more than 50 times to you regarding the CO2 WV feedback as well as the properties therein of both (which include observed measured data and properties)

in fact...had you followed through with the "joint endeavor" you would have STILL ended up with the same info as that study

you still complain about how that collusion was ran, but you also failed to make the point when told to produce the evidence to another site offering you 30K for your efforts...

why is that?
why is it that you've NEVER been able to produce any evidence equivalent to the studies i've linked which refute, undermine or would cause retraction of said studies?

Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 12, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
.. If you did that, you wouldn't be able to DOUBLE the absorbence band of CO2, and increase its magnitude to the what, ..
What is the basis of your claim that CO2 to space is negligble when you ONLY focused on incoming Total Solar Insolation ?

The evidence is clear, you totally ignored CO2's increased thermal resistivity of IR to space !

Why Why would you Water_Prophet ignore something so vitally important ?

its as if you have some serious mental block to even THINK of that issue ?

Did U look at Mars as I suggested:-
- Less than 1% of Earth's atmosphere
- Farther away from sun
- High CO2 of ~95%
yet can reach a balmy 20 to 30C in the shade...!

As a claimed Physical Chemist, why can't you even find any link to support your claim, let alone an educated opinion based upon your university training ?

Look forward to integrity & mature dialectic here Water_Prophet - can you please communicate well, just like a trained uni graduate ?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.