Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Ummm no, oh whacky one. You see, a thermostat is what they call a negative feedback mechanism. When it get's hotter it calls for less heat. CO2 in the atmosphere does the exact opposite.
You don't understand the most basic aspect of your pathetic argument. You are trying to sound like you have brilliantly found something that virtually the entire world's science community have not. To do such a thing requires at least a basic understanding of the physical properties of atmospheric gasses and things like feedback mechanisms and what the term "thermostat" means. You have demonstrated that you don't understand any of these things.
The NASA scientist used the term thermostat wrong. Unless he is saying that as heat input gets higher the heat rejecting properties of CO2 in the thermosphere gets higher also. But that does not happen. The properties of CO2 remain constant regardless of solar input.
At any rate it's a moot point, the thermosphere is essentially irrelevant. It is the troposphere that we are interested in here. CO2 acts like the glass in a greenhouse. Hence the term "greenhouse gas". Perhaps you have heard of it. Unless your argument is now that CO2 is not a GG.
Is it time to mention again FC that you would present your points much better if you did not insult people regularly in your presentations. (e.g. "whacky one", etc.).
I will personnally admit that I have found some of the information you posted to be interesting. Especially links to in-detail commentary with strong data. But continously insulting everyone is not helping in making your points or proving your assertions regarding AGW.
Feds Will Spend $18M to Develop âReliableâ Climate Change Predictions
October 18, 2013
By Barbara Hollingsworth
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...imate-change-predictions#sthash.rB1gZjF6.dpuf
Current methods of predicting future climate change have proved to be wildly inaccurate. For example, none of the 73 computer models used by the United Nationâs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that there would be no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years as determined by actual temperature records stored in five different databases worldwide...
October 18, 2013
By Barbara Hollingsworth
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...imate-change-predictions#sthash.rB1gZjF6.dpuf
Current methods of predicting future climate change have proved to be wildly inaccurate. For example, none of the 73 computer models used by the United Nationâs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that there would be no statistically significant global warming for the past 17 years as determined by actual temperature records stored in five different databases worldwide...
Al Gore: Extreme weather is up because of Global Warming; Actual Data: Extreme weather is way down
It will probably come as no surprise that Al Gore, who has made hundreds of millions of dollars by scaring people, is still trying to scare people.
From Bloomberg:
âThe most powerful voice is that of Mother Nature, the increasing storms, floods, droughts and other extreme events,â Gore said. âWeâre paying the cost of carbon every day and we should put a price on carbon in markets and put a price on denial in the political system.â
The only problem with this statement is that itâs not true. None of it. Extreme weather events are at record low levels according to the latest data.
From Climate Depot:
There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether youâre talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.
Look, data means nothing to leftist ideologues and alarmists, especially ones who stand to profit handsomely from it. Itâs because of this that I donât expect to see him challenged on this by any major news outlet. Theyâre all on the same team. Itâs not about science, itâs about an agenda.
It will probably come as no surprise that Al Gore, who has made hundreds of millions of dollars by scaring people, is still trying to scare people.
From Bloomberg:
âThe most powerful voice is that of Mother Nature, the increasing storms, floods, droughts and other extreme events,â Gore said. âWeâre paying the cost of carbon every day and we should put a price on carbon in markets and put a price on denial in the political system.â
The only problem with this statement is that itâs not true. None of it. Extreme weather events are at record low levels according to the latest data.
From Climate Depot:
There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether youâre talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, in some cases, down to historically low levels.
Look, data means nothing to leftist ideologues and alarmists, especially ones who stand to profit handsomely from it. Itâs because of this that I donât expect to see him challenged on this by any major news outlet. Theyâre all on the same team. Itâs not about science, itâs about an agenda.
I certainly hope FC, Ricter, stu. etc. read this entire article. It shows that even the U.S government knows that global warming theory is completely off.
'And despite claims that climate change caused by global warming is causing "extreme weather," a new study by the SI Organization, Inc., a systems engineering firm, ranks 2013 as âone of the least extreme U.S. weather years ever,â noting that âthere has been no major hurricane in either the Atlantic or eastern Pacific, which only occurred one other year in recorded history â 1968.â'
I do have to wonder what the government's definition of 'Reliable' is however.
If you were smart you would jump off the "Global Warming" --> "Climate Change" --> "Next Alarmist Name Here" bandwagon and admit that AGW is not supported by scientific evidence. It is "politcal", effectively a "religious", movement not any type of scientific reality.