Easterbrook added that his long - term prediction until the end of century is «a lot more nebulous» due to the still -
unknown effect of the sun, which has entered a «grand solar minimum» occurring every 200 years.
Not exact matches
One would have to assume that there weren't certain
unknown effects due to either the atmosphere
of the
sun or the earth which would distort the results.
Enough
of this stupidity, this is the AGWSF Greenhouse
Effect energy budget, that «shortwave heats the Earth and no longwave infrared from the
Sun plays any part in heating the Earth's land and water», either because it doesn't get through some
unknown unexplained silly idea
of an invisible barrier like the glass
of a greenhouse, as per Arrhenius's getting Fourier wrong, or, as Pekka gives, that the
Sun produces very little longwave infrared.
Many things that play into the equation, like the
effects of the
Sun, are being ignored, not to mention the
unknowns totally missing from the equation.
But the utter incoherence
of views presented by deniers gives the game away even so (it's cooling, it's warming but the
sun is responsible, it's warming but some
unknown natural cycle is responsible, the «greenhouse»
effect violates the laws
of thermodynamics, but somehow the energy radiated back to the surface by the atmosphere simply vanishes, there is a greenhouse
effect but negative feed - backs make it negligible, & c ad nauseam).
It's not computing what the non feedback
effect would be if the flux received from the
sun stayed at 240 watts, and the surface flux increased from 390 watts in sensible heat and 100 in latent heat to 390 sensible plus 100 latent + 3.7
of some
unknown mixture
of latent and sensible heat