Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[jem]

you are lying about what your chart shows.
if co2 lead temps...

then why do we have 17 years and 3 months of now warming on earth while co2 has gone up dramatically (see the light graph behind the lack of temp trend below.)


and don't give us the b.s. about ocean temps going up.
you have no science showing co2 causes ocean temps to go up.
as ocean temps go up... they release co2.

 

[jem]

as a so called greenhouse gas... nasa says it is the most efficient coolant in the atmosphere. Note... this is science.nasa.gov...
where the real science gets gone...

you quote the whores from climate.nasa.gov


http://science.nasa.gov/science-new...12/22mar_saber/


“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.

Quote from futurecurrents:

CO2 clearly leads temps as expected because...say it with me jem.....CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS

 

[futurecurrents]

jem, you bore me.

But since you still seem very confused on how the greenhouse effect works and you don't understand words.

 

[futurecurrents]

Oh, and it's 97% not .3%




The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:

The data which forms your chart shows that CO2 trails the change in temperature... year after year.


http://www.climatechangedispatch.co...ture-rises.html[/url]

In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003).

And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)."

So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles?

Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find?

Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "the maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocea

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Oh, and it's 97% not .3%




The Geological Society of America

"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Oh, and it's 97% not .3%

Is it just me or is that getting a little old?

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from Lucrum:

Is it just me or is that getting a little old?

I have the sense that the "97% retarded parrot" will magically appear every time FC pulls this refuted nonsense out of his rear end and posts it.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Because they looked into the other reasons and they could not explain it by them. Only by considering CO2 can it be explained. The sun for instance did not suddenly become hotter at the start of the industrial revolution. If you actually read the link I gave you from NOAA you would know this.

"Because they looked into the other reasons and they could not explain it by them." WTF is that supposed to mean? So they looked into every other possibility in existence and were unable to explain it? What a load of horseshit. You sound like my 5 year old trying to argue a failed point by just filling up a sentence with a bunch of words.

Holy weak-ass excuses, batman!

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

"Because they looked into the other reasons and they could not explain it by them." WTF is that supposed to mean? So they looked into every other possibility in existence and were unable to explain it? What a load of horseshit. You sound like my 5 year old trying to argue a failed point by just filling up a sentence with a bunch of words.

Holy weak-ass excuses, batman!

Nor can FC explain why the Earth was significantly warmer in Roman and Medieval times.

Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval times
http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/#!