climate change

Everyone read what you said.

You claimed the process of photosynthesis caused cooling and that was why green areas were cooler. I just correct you on that. 

Average global temperatures have steadily risen during the 20th century – the graph of increasing temperature is an image frequently used to illustrate man-made climate change. But the graph does not climb steadily: a number of dips and rises occur over the century.

One of these, late in 1945, is more pronounced than the others. The cause of the 1945 dip has so far remained a mystery, something highlighted by people who doubt that climate change is caused by human fossil-fuel burning. They say it is proof that burning fossil fuels cannot explain changes in the climate during the 20th century, given that fossil fuels were being burnt throughout.

That objection may be laid to rest with a study published today in Nature. According to David Thompson of Colorado State University, US, and colleagues it is all down to buckets and human error.

The researchers took a detailed look at the international temperature dataset used by most contemporary climate studies. They first filtered out the effects of natural climate events which are known to cause variations in temperature, such as El Niño events.

In the filtered temperature record, dips were even more pronounced. Each one corresponded to a large volcanic eruption, except for the largest, in 1945. Volcanic eruptions spew large amounts of gases and particles into the atmosphere which block solar radiation and therefore cool the planet.
Human “error”

The global temperature graph is a combination of temperatures taken on land and at sea. When the researchers looked at the land measurements only they saw no dip in 1945. Records taken at sea, however, do show the dip. This suggests that it may be an artefact of how such measurements were taken during the second world war.



Prior to the war, UK and US fleets had contributed roughly equally to the global temperature record. From 1942 to 1945, UK ships, previously an important gatherer of sea water temperatures, were mobilised on the front and contributed just 5% of measurements. Measurements taken from US ships made up 80%.



The key, then, is how each nation took its measurements. UK ships tended to throw a bucket overboard and lift it on deck to take the water’s temperature. US ships by and large would sample water drawn into the engine room before it was used to cool the machinery.

So, as we have ascertained that the countryside is cooler than the city, which our esteemed zany points out because large areas of building hold the heat, how will being over populated and building large amounts of housing in green belt areas lower global warming? When our eminent scientist Zany points out it will make it worse?
Now I have spoken.

It is an aside that has been stated several times on here and the continual rejection of 'one-off anomalies' that pile up in the global warmists dustbins actually raises questions as regards the veracity of the hypothesis. The whole point of having a hypothesis is that when you crunch the numbers it proves the hypothesis. So far there are anomalies all over the place that are either unexplained or correction factored away so as not to cause a problem. No way to settle science.

Almost all real scientists are convinced of the facts that man made global warming is a reality. But certain clowns think they look intelligent by ignoring them and pretending it is all rubbish