New NASA Study Shows CO2 causes Cooling

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

5. I will hit these one at a time going backwards....


your last one is the joke we have been referencing...

it does not say man made CO2 causes warming... it takes a sample of pro global warming authors and even they say man made activities not man made co2.


Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

4. no science..... in fact a link to the IPPC report which modeled projections not predictions and whose model is failing because we are cooling or staying the same instead of warming... even though co2 is still increasing.

3. shows high co2 level but no science showing CO2 causing warmth.

I will get to 2 and 1 tomorrow.

5) No Looney Tune No matter how one look at it it is 97% this is just one of the more recent surveys..

"Once we finished the 24,000+ ratings, we went back and checked the abstracts where there were disagreements. If the disagreement about a given paper couldn't be settled by the two initial raters, a third person acted as the tie-breaker.

The volunteers were an internationally diverse group. Team members' home countries included Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy.

The Self-Ratings
As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.

The 97% Consensus Results

Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

read more http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm


4) No Looney Tune. How many times do we have to tell you that the atmosphere is highly variable and is largely controlled by the oceans.
Ocean temps show NO slowdown or significant pause and contain the vast majority of the world's heat. If one wants to know the temp of the world the oceans are the most important. That you don't understand this proves you are an idiot or a liar or very very stupid. And I don't think you are stupid so you are simply lying or at least being extremely intellectually dishonest. I'll call that lying.

3) No Loony Tune. The science is as solid as science gets. The only way someone could read what I presented and not see that is if they are blind, insane, really fucking stupid or a crazed ideologue like you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm


An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).


I can't wait to hear the rest of your insane word games and twisted intellect Looney Tune.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

5) No Looney Tune No matter how one look at it it is 97% this is just one of the more recent surveys..

"Once we finished the 24,000+ ratings, we went back and checked the abstracts where there were disagreements. If the disagreement about a given paper couldn't be settled by the two initial raters, a third person acted as the tie-breaker.

The volunteers were an internationally diverse group. Team members' home countries included Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy.

The Self-Ratings
As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.

The 97% Consensus Results

Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

read more http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm


4) No Looney Tune. How many times do we have to tell you that the atmosphere is highly variable and is largely controlled by the oceans.
Ocean temps show NO slowdown or significant pause and contain the vast majority of the world's heat. If one wants to know the temp of the world the oceans are the most important. That you don't understand this proves you are an idiot or a liar or very very stupid. And I don't think you are stupid so you are simply lying or at least being extremely intellectually dishonest. I'll call that lying.

3) No Loony Tune. The science is as solid as science gets. The only way someone could read what I presented and not see that is if they are blind, insane, really fucking stupid or a crazed ideologue like you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm


An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).


I can't wait to hear the rest of your insane word games and twisted intellect Looney Tune.

You don't have a mind for scientific understanding, futurecurrents. A test tube study with near 100% CO2 cannot model the environment with just 4 parts per 10,000 of CO2 distributed in miles of strata.

Your assumptions are not only flawed, they are so ridiculous to be laughable.

You need to stick to installing air conditioners and leave the understanding of science to those with a mind for scientific understanding.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from pspr:

You don't have a mind for scientific understanding, futurecurrents. A test tube study with near 100% CO2 cannot model the environment with just 4 parts per 10,000 of CO2 distributed in miles of strata.

Your assumptions are not only flawed, they are so ridiculous to be laughable.

You need to stick to installing air conditioners and leave the understanding of science to those with a mind for scientific understanding.

Yeah OK douchebag. My assumptions? Tell that to the entire world's science community and virtually every climate scientist in the world.

You need to stick to being a crazed obsessive ideologue and leave science to the sane and rational.

 

[jem]

you are worthless troll. the question we are focused on is whether man made co2 causes warming.

it is very different to say 97% of scientists say mans activity contributes to warming.

I would agree with the second statement if I have to pick.

From packing billions of people along cost lines to cutting down rain forests to creating cows for food... man is probably contributing to some warming.

Since you can't even begin to tell the truth and cease misrepresenting the 97% study....

I can tell you will never learn.

Quote from futurecurrents:

5) No Looney Tune No matter how one look at it it is 97% this is just one of the more recent surveys..

"Once we finished the 24,000+ ratings, we went back and checked the abstracts where there were disagreements. If the disagreement about a given paper couldn't be settled by the two initial raters, a third person acted as the tie-breaker.

The volunteers were an internationally diverse group. Team members' home countries included Australia, USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, Finland, and Italy.

The Self-Ratings
As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.

The 97% Consensus Results

Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers expressed a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming.

read more http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm


4) No Looney Tune. How many times do we have to tell you that the atmosphere is highly variable and is largely controlled by the oceans.
Ocean temps show NO slowdown or significant pause and contain the vast majority of the world's heat. If one wants to know the temp of the world the oceans are the most important. That you don't understand this proves you are an idiot or a liar or very very stupid. And I don't think you are stupid so you are simply lying or at least being extremely intellectually dishonest. I'll call that lying.

3) No Loony Tune. The science is as solid as science gets. The only way someone could read what I presented and not see that is if they are blind, insane, really fucking stupid or a crazed ideologue like you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm


An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory results identifying carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then, the absorptive qualities of carbon dioxide have been more precisely quantified by decades of laboratory measurements (Herzberg 1953, Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).


I can't wait to hear the rest of your insane word games and twisted intellect Looney Tune.

 

[pspr]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Yeah OK douchebag. My assumptions? Tell that to the entire world's science community and virtually every climate scientist in the world.

You need to stick to being a crazed obsessive ideologue and leave science to the sane and rational.

Fist of all that is just an outright lie. We have proven it over and over but you are just a liar and a retard.

You should stick to fucking your bother and give up on anything more complicated that putting in a window air conditioner.

You are just way to stupid to have a clue what you are talking about, futurecunt.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

hey look its sock puppets having conversation with each other avoiding the main point... that leftists have no science supporting their argument that man made co2 causes warming and mis directing and deflecting with straw men.

Just as predicted.

(and yes stu for a short time I posted on work computer under a different name and let people know it was me... so you are not going to able to distract us with your sock puppet crap. )

The funny thing is, you really mustn't have any understanding how much in utter denial the stuff you post shows you to be.

The only sock puppet around here was proven to be yourself. You were caught red handed. You didn't let people know....you were outed. You admitted to it and are still trying to squirm out of it with the same deadbeat excuse. Don't worry. It's not as if all your credibility hadn't been lost at that point anyway.

After that debacle, you call other people sock puppets. I was going to say intellectually you are on a par with a bucket of frogs. But seriously, it's just the bucket, and even that's stretching it.




You're always claiming to defer to those "great minds" and Nobel prize winning science and scientists, though actually you don't. So do yourself a favor and actually go read the IPCC reports.

As futurecurrents shows, IPCC explain how and why there is a higher than a 90% probability human emissions of CO2 cause the observed increase in global warming.
Expected and predicted a hundred years ago, anthropogenic climate change is real. These long standing predictions are supported by science and consistent with AGW. There are no other valid explanations. If there were, the science of those would have been identified.

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. So why the hell exactly would you call it a turkey and make such stupid thread titles to enthusiastically chase after false assertions made by a bunch of fact twisting crap in articles from known one sided agenda driven climate deniers.

Don't bother. It 's rhetorical. I know why.

Goes without saying. As a winger, believing in wacked out extremist ideals and conspiracies in direct contradiction to objective and rational reasoning is much easier for you than thinking things through.

 

[pspr]

Quote from stu:

....You're always claiming to defer to those "great minds" and Nobel prize winning science and scientists, though actually you don't. So do yourself a favor and actually go read the IPCC reports.....

That statement right there sums up how ignorant you are. We all know, including you, the the IPCC is just a political group of the UN trying to shake down the U.S. and Europe with falsified claims.

That isn't science, it is just attempted extortion.

Referring to the IPCC just shows us how incredibly naïve or incredibly partisan your views are.

We are looking for the truth not a bunch of lies from the likes of the IPCC and apparently YOU. Shame on you.

 

[jem]

you mindless troll... you are linking to studies whose models have failed.

They predicted serous warming.
We have had no warming in 17 years.

I typically accept or defer to the scientific opinion of experts on topics that I do not have an expert understanding in when when those experts on the subject present their data and reasons for their opinion.

There is no data showing man made co2 causes warming on earth.

The data shows temperatures lead co2 accumulation up and then the temperatures leads co2 dissapation or absorption on the way down.

The only science you had were models and those models are now being criticized for leaving out the sun and the tides... but scientists on both sides of the agw issue.

You need to update your world view old man... todays science has left you behind.

Quote from stu:

The funny thing is, you really mustn't have any understanding how much in utter denial the stuff you post shows you to be.

The only sock puppet around here was proven to be yourself. You were caught red handed. You didn't let people know....you were outed. You admitted to it and are still trying to squirm out of it with the same deadbeat excuse. Don't worry. It's not as if all your credibility hadn't been lost at that point anyway.

After that debacle, you call other people sock puppets. I was going to say intellectually you are on a par with a bucket of frogs. But seriously, it's just the bucket, and even that's stretching it.




You're always claiming to defer to those "great minds" and Nobel prize winning science and scientists, though actually you don't. So do yourself a favor and actually go read the IPCC reports.

As futurecurrents shows, IPCC explain how and why there is a higher than a 90% probability human emissions of CO2 cause the observed increase in global warming.
Expected and predicted a hundred years ago, anthropogenic climate change is real. These long standing predictions are supported by science and consistent with AGW. There are no other valid explanations. If there were, the science of those would have been identified.

It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. So why the hell exactly would you call it a turkey and make such stupid thread titles to enthusiastically chase after false assertions made by a bunch of fact twisting crap in articles from known one sided agenda driven climate deniers.

Don't bother. It 's rhetorical. I know why.

Goes without saying. As a winger, believing in wacked out extremist ideals and conspiracies in direct contradiction to objective and rational reasoning is much easier for you than thinking things through.

 

[futurecurrents]

You two just keep assuring each other that instead of being intellectually dishonest lying scumbags that you actually know what's going on with AGW and that all the worlds's science oraganizations and 97% of the world's climatologists are wrong.

Maybe you should jerk each other off also.

You two are a couple of crazy motherfuckers.

 

[jem]

your are a leftist drone tool.

We present science you present bullshit...


This study shows that it was CFCs that were causing warming since the Industrial Revolution.....

did we make this study up --- you troll.

http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."
The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html#jCp



By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.
"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html#jCp