reply to post by NoJoker13
O do we? So maybe you can show me those images from 1900-1920.... Since according to you, without images it can't be true.
Misinterpretation is a wonderful tool isn't it. I did not say that without images it cannot be true. I said that you can not show satellite images
continuing back from the ones you showed.
There are accounts, written of the ice and the lack thereof in the early 1900s and there are probably accounts of later years to give a continuous
In this blog
you will find the written account of 1922.
If you are able to read textual data, or to produce a graph from it, then use this
of Northern Hemisphere anomalies to see the wobble in temperatures in the 1920s but bear in mind that this also is a mean for the whole
of the hemisphere. The point is mainly that the written word from the time said that it was melting. Are you disputing history?
A little further information on ice loss: Ice sheet melt massively
overestimated, satellites show
This came from Maxmars new thread
Also care to dispute this factual information, www.eldoradocountyweather.com...
the graph by NASA at the bottom of the page shows temperatures rising since 1880, there wasn't much of any fluctuation between 1900-1920.
Why would I care to dispute it when I referred to it? If you recall I mentioned the 0.9°C rise since 1880, which is exactly what that graph is
showing. If you have any idea what that graph is then you would understand why a local warming in the polar regions might not show for some extremely
good reasons. That is the GISS LOT graph which stands for Land and Ocean Temperatures and the anomalies are based on the base period of 1951 to 1980.
The polar regions are not well represented and the fact that the chart is the global
anomalies means that any local fluctuation would be
smoothed. Maybe you should read this
for more information.
As far as the effect of climate change from anthropogenic sources is concerned, the solar radiation received at the earth's outer atmosphere is just
under 1400 watts per metre squared. Total radiative forcings from all anthropogenic sources are at best just over 1.5 watts per metre
squared.(increase from 1880 = 0)
Perhaps you should do a little research before offering pictures and graphs without apparently understanding the data behind them.
edit on 29/11/2012 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)