Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[jem]

man made co2 is only a small fraction of overall co2 and only a tiny part of 1 percent of greenhouse gasses.

how can it really be responsible for much warming...
especially since any warming we have seen is not even known to be outside natural variability.

we just do not know...

1 water vapor is probably the most potent and we are not sure if more clouds cool or warm.

2. additional aerosols if anything are being given credit for cooling right now.

3. the reduction in cfcs.. probably also had a cooling effect... and it could have been the cfcs which contributed to the warming we saw 20 to 40 years ago. (but we dont really know yet.)

4. I just read recently that burning fossil fuels could release aerosols which may have a cooling or warming effect? I have seen it argued both ways.

5. we have not warmed in 17 years.

6. statistically it has been shown we have not warmed outside natural variability.

7. finally I have read convincing studies which show that as you add co2 it would warm less and less since it is the first layer which does the most warming.

we really could be cooling...

we do not know.

Quote from bigarrow:

Why would man made co2 obviously be lower ?

 

[futurecurrents]

This illustration dates from 1861 and it is taken from one of John Tyndall's books where he describes his setup for measuring the relative radiant-heat absorption of gases and vapors. The galvanometer quantifies the difference in temperature between the left and right sides of the thermopile. The reading on the galvanometer is settable to zero by moving the Heat Screen a bit closer or farther from the lefthand heat source. The righthand heat source directs radiant heat into the long brass tube. The long brass tube is highly polished on the inside, which makes it a good reflector (and non-absorber) of the radiant heat inside the tube. Rock-salt (NaCl) is practically transparent to radiant heat, and so plugging the ends of the long brass tube with rock-salt plates allows radiant heat to move freely in and out at the tube endpoints, yet completely blocks the gas within from moving out. To begin the measurements, both heat sources are turned on, the long brass tube is evacuated as much as possible with an air suction pump, the galvanometer is set to zero, and then the gas under study is released into the long brass tube. The galvanometer is looked at again. The extent to which the galvanometer has changed from zero indicates the extent to which the gas has absorbed the radiant heat from the righthand heat source and blocked this heat from radiating to the thermopile through the tube. If a highly polished metal disc is placed in the space between the thermopile and the brass tube it will completely block the radiant heat coming out of the tube from reaching the thermopile, thereby deflecting the galvanometer by the maximum extent possible with respect to blockage in the tube. Thus the system has minimum and maximum readings available, and can express other readings in percentage terms. (The galvanometer's responsiveness was physically nonlinear, but well understood, and mathematically linearizable.)

 

[fhl]

IPCC was chartered with a mandate to push global warming. That doesn't sound like science to me.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html


On top of that, they have used bogus studies which they have had to retract when caught.

 

[stu]

Quote from bigarrow:

Why would man made co2 obviously be lower ?

Good question.

Because when supporting AGW denial... 30 billion tons of man made co2 now being released into the atmosphere every year, that has built up a man made 40% increase of atmospheric greenhouse gas in the last 150 years, to the highest it's been for 800,000 years, means against all real science and factual reality, man made co2... 'would obviously be lower'.

But not to worry, the AGW denier's legacy of counterfactual lower co2 is merely a hope that maybe it will get cloudy anyway, and though they're not sure how or why , cloudy might help!

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Maybe I did not make myself clear. Let me try again.

CO2 absorbs and then re-radiates infra-red heat radiation. Radiation that would otherwise pass through the air.


There is no question about this. None. It's as solid a science as science gets.

If you can't accept this there is no hope you will be able to grasp anything more complicated.

Here, look at this video. This kid knows his stuff. Maybe he can help Republicans understand.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/ai4idlxhjo0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We don't live inside a small jar. We live on the surface of a very large sphere.

If you can't accept this there is no hope you will be able to grasp anything more complicated.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Lucrum:

We don't live inside a small jar. We live on the surface of a very large sphere.

If you can't accept this there is no hope you will be able to grasp anything more complicated.

Let's not get ahead ourselves here.

First you need to understand that C02 molecules absorb and then re-radiate heat radiation. Radiation that without the CO2 would normally pass through the air unimpeded.

This is key. You do understand that this property of CO2 molecules is a fact............. right?

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Let's not get ahead ourselves here.

First you need to understand that C02 molecules absorb and then re-radiate heat radiation. Radiation that without the CO2 would normally pass through the air unimpeded.

This is key. You do understand that this property of CO2 molecules is a fact............. right?

Lets get back to the FACTS:

Facts: Carbon dioxide is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapor is).

Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.

Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively).

The sun, not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

 

[jem]

and therefore.....

"he (meaning the scientist I was referencing) states that technically co2 is a greenhouse gas and could cause some warming... but that it is such a small component of ghg it itself would only be responsible for a tiny fraction of any warming. man mad co2 would obviously be even lower.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

and therefore.....

"he (meaning the scientist I was referencing) states that technically co2 is a greenhouse gas and could cause some warming... but that it is such a small component of ghg it itself would only be responsible for a tiny fraction of any warming. man mad co2 would obviously be even lower.

Oh, you mean the TV meteorologist Watts?

This is what the American Meteorological Society says..


"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Let's not get ahead ourselves here...

We don't live inside a small jar. We live on the surface of a very large sphere.

If you can't accept this there is no hope you will be able to grasp anything more complicated.