agw - for thinkers not blind followers, page-6

Sypaladin, you are prepared to consistently bag AGW yet you do not even know what the greenhouse heat trapping mechanism is. Ignorance is bliss, huh?!!

There are plenty of explanations on the web. Maybe try Wikipedia. The basic mechanism is described as such:

"Basic mechanism
See also: Radiative forcing
The Earth receives energy from the Sun mostly in the form of visible light and nearby wavelengths. About 50% of the sun's energy is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Like all bodies with a temperature above absolute zero the Earth's surface radiates energy in the infrared range. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb most of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface and pass the absorbed heat to other atmospheric gases through molecular collisions. The greenhouse gases also radiate in the infrared range. Radiation is emitted both upward, with part escaping to space, and downward toward Earth's surface. The surface and lower atmosphere are warmed by the part of the energy that is radiated downward, making our life on earth possible.[5]"

The important point is that incoming solar radition is mostly in the visible range (unaffected by CO2) but what is re-radiated by the surface of the earth is mostly in the infrared range, some of which matches the specific wavelengths absorbed by CO2. Plus there are plenty of other greenhouse gases which absorb at different wavelengths.

Now you know enough to be dangerous, why not bag the theory even more???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Re: Banjar's temperature question, interesting point, my opinion is that when it is measured is perhaps not as important as having consistency when measuring the temperatures. I'm sure that temperature measurement is a discipline all on its own. I do think the average temperatures are relevant. Why wouldn't they be? After all, we are trying to predict average temperatures in the future so why not use track temperature measurements now?