A statistically representative climate change debate

[futurecurrents]

That is correct CO2 acts as a thermostat in out atmosphere. When a warming events hits... it cools.

NASA shows the cooling part very clearly below...

Science.nasa released a few studies about the true nature of CO2 also being a coolant after the real scientists at NASA signed the now famous letter... thereby forcing NASA to out Hansen from the propaganda arm of climate.nasa.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

Stratosphere jerm, stratosphere. That's the one way up high. We live in the troposphere where the level of CO2 determines the temperature of the atmosphere. The higher the level, the higher the temps.

You certainly should know this very basic science by now. Why don't you? Intentional ignorance? Right wing nut job psychosis? Both?

 

[jem]

when blocking the heating effect of the suns rays... does it matter if CO2 picks it off in the upper atmosphere before it warms the land and the water?

What kind of leftist logic is that. CO2 only matters in the lower atmosphere? do they teach that sort of logic in drone conditioning class?

Stratosphere jerm, stratosphere. That's the one way up high. We live in the troposphere where the level of CO2 determines the temperature of the atmosphere. The higher the level, the higher the temps.

You certainly should know this very basic science by now. Why don't you? Intentional ignorance? Right wing nut job psychosis? Both?

 

[wjk]

drone conditioning class

LOL. That's funny.

 

[jem]

thanks... it was sort of necessary to be accurate... because he rarely has a thoughful reply... he just says "97%" or reaches back into the drone playbook of lies and misinformation.

LOL. That's funny.

 

[futurecurrents]

thanks... it was sort of necessary to be accurate... because he rarely has a thoughful reply... he just says "97%" or reaches back into the drone playbook of lies and misinformation.

Do you mean the fact that virtually the entire world's community is agreement about AGW? That "misinformation"? LOL

And that only one author out of 9000 denies AGW? That "misinformation". Or the fact that no science organization of national or international standing denies it?

 

[jem]

Its a totally debunked lie.
only 41 of 11000 papers found that man made co2 causes warming and most of those used now failed models.

If your consensus were really so strong... you could produce a few hundred papers.

You can't even produce 10.

Do you mean the fact that virtually the entire world's community is agreement about AGW? That "misinformation"? LOL

And that only one author out of 9000 denies AGW? That "misinformation". Or the fact that no science organization of national or international standing denies it?

 

[Lucrum]

 

[futurecurrents]

Its a totally debunked lie.
only 41 of 11000 papers found that man made co2 causes warming and most of those used now failed models.

If your consensus were really so strong... you could produce a few hundred papers.

You can't even produce 10.

It's better than 97% consensus.

Only one author out of 9000 denies it.

No science org denies it.

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

 

[futurecurrents]

A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers, finding 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming and reporting:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.[119]

Additionally, the authors of the studies were invited to categorise their own research papers, of which 1,381 discussed the cause of recent global warming, and:
Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

 

[gwb-trading]

Mankind Not Causing West Antarctic Glaciers To Collapse
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/28/mankind-not-causing-west-antarctic-glaciers-to-collapse/

Despite hype by environmentalists and many media outlets, the slow collapse of major glaciers in western Antarctica is nothing new, according to scientists. The warming and cooling in the South Pole is well in line with historical trends dating back thousands of years.

The British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has released two major studies in the last year that have shed light on western Antarctic collapsing glaciers — both of which show that the thinning sea ice in the western south pole is nothing new.

A BAS study released in February found that 8,000 years ago Antarctica’s Pine Island glacier thinned just as fast as it has in recent decades. This happened thousands of years before the Industrial Revolution, which scientists and environmentalists blame for releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide emissions that have warmed the atmosphere.

The point of the BAS study was to see how a thinning Pine Island glacier affected sea levels thousands of years ago. Scientists say Pine Island is currently going through “ocean-driven” melting — as more warm ocean water is getting under the ice shelf.

“Our geological data show us the history of Pine Island Glacier in greater detail than ever before,” the study’s lead author Joanne Johnson of BAS said in a statement. “The fact that it thinned so rapidly in the past demonstrates how sensitive it is to environmental change; small changes can produce dramatic and long-lasting results.”

“Based on what we know, we can expect the rapid ice loss to continue for a long time yet, especially if ocean-driven melting of the ice shelf in front of Pine Island Glacier continues at current rates,” Johnson said.

Not only did Pine Island glacier experience similar melting to today, it also was able to reverse the melting naturally.

Another study from BAS released last year found that the current melt in the western Antarctic is within the “natural range of climate variability” of the last 300 years.

“The record shows that this region has warmed since the late 1950s, at a similar magnitude to that observed in the Antarctic Peninsula and central West Antarctica,” said a BAS study published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters last year, “however, this warming trend is not unique.”

“More dramatic isotopic warming (and cooling) trends occurred in the mid-19th and 18th centuries, suggesting that at present the effect of anthropogenic climate drivers at this location has not exceeded the natural range of climate variability in the context of the past ~300 years,” the study said.

(More on page 2 at above url)