Please search middlebury community network, then read the editorial about global warming.?

Question

I was very impressed with this work and would like some feedback. Please read the entire article and try to remain objective and tell me what you think?

Answer 1

liberals..all of them////   no reason..they are sick ..li tell you sick liberals

Answer 2

Excellent!  Thank you!

Answer 3

Very good article!

He for got to mention that oceans 'outgas'  CO2 when warmed and the oceans are the largest repository of CO2.

Cooler oceans absorb CO2.

What's all this heat doing around Australia in the oceans - part of the 'Pacific Ring of Fire' - Can Anyone answer this?

http://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite...

Also he forgot to mention the heat from within the Earth's core (up to 9000 degrees) can come up from the bottom of the oceans - which can create the El Nino effects that drive the Earth's climates/weather.

There is far more that we need to know before acting on a "Theory" and that action will have no effects.

Answer 4

It's a bunch of complete nonsense.  Tired and discredited arguments of a few "skeptics".  I'll take on a few.

Solar radiation is increasing.  Just flat wrong about the data.  Proof:

"Recent oppositely directed trends in solar

climate forcings and the global mean surface

air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A

doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/pro...

News article at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.st...

"CO2 follows temperature."  This one is cool because it's actually proof this warming is not natural.  In the past CO2 DID lag temperature by hundreds of years.  The Sun caused warming, and hundreds of years later CO2 was released from warming ocean waters.  

This time THERE IS NO LAG.  CO2 and temperature are going up together, because CO2 is causing the warming.

Put it together and he says: "Sloppy "scientists" see the warming, and the CO2, but overlook the changes in the sun, don't see the fine differences in timing...

They do, as noted above, see both and understand what's going on.  He's the idiot who doesn't.

That's enough.  The rest is more of the same.  Much of it refuted here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Just nonsense from a newspaper guy who's a denier.  The term fits here.