Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[gwb-trading]

Quote from Ricter:

Ok, I replied to your post where you were referencing global warming. Now you're talking about AGW.

It is the assertion from FC, yourself and others that global warming is man-made and is caused by rising CO2 levels - the term for this is AGW.

When it became clear the earth is not warming for several years, the name was changed to "Climate Change" and rising CO2 levels are blamed for hurricanes, snow storms, and every other type of extreme weather.

Now that it is becoming clear that we are not having an excessive amount of extreme weather recently, the name will need to change again.

Do you have recommendations on what the alarmist movement should change the name to next? The more scary sounding, the better - from a political and fund-raising perspective.

 

[Lucrum]

Today's high was 5 deg F below the forecast high.

(Something I've seen several times recently)

And they think they can predict a few degrees temp variation over decades?

 

[jem]

You seem to be missing a fundamental concept here....

I am quoting the NASA scientist... you are the dope saying this scientist did not use the word thermostat properly.

Additionally I am promoting anything new. The greenhouse regulates temperatures you ignorant moron.

On what I would call the micro level

Water Vapor clouds... every hear of them. They are are far larger component of the greenhouse.

what happens when skies are clear?
you have higher highs and higher lows. what happens when you have clouds...they moderate temps...


On a more macro level... what are planets like which do not have a greenhouse layer..

they are warmer and cooler.


Hence co2 and the other ghcs are thermostats regulating the forcings.

Quote from futurecurrents:

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.

 

[jem]

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.

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

 

[gwb-trading]

So how much does the U.S. Government spend on "Climate Change" each year.

Did you guess $2 Billion? $4 Billion? The correct answer is over $7.5 Billion spent each year on "Climate Change"

As outlined in the Federal Climate Change Programs: Funding History and Policy Issues
See page 5 for 2009 and earlier totals.

The well funded scam continues...

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

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.

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

But... he... used... the... term... wrongly. It is not a thermostat. Why can't you understand this simple concept? It acted like insulation, not an air conditioner. When it gets hot a blanket will reject the heat. It does not become a heavier or a lighter blanket in negative feedback fashion according to solar energy. At any rate, what goes on up in the thermosphere during solar flares has nothing to do with AGW. You are just slinging bullshit hoping some of it might pass for relevant facts.

Is your argument so feeble as to now depend on the misuse of one word by one scientist?

You have no interest in the reality, only your ideology. Science should always trump ideology.

You can argue what if anything should be done, but your arguing against the overwhelming consensus of the world's science community is equivalent to saying that cigarettes are not bad for you, and is absurd.


Here is what the American Geophysical Union says...

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

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.

Oh. Do you mean the bandwagon that virtually all of the world's science community is in agreement on?

Here's what the The Geological Society of America says

"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)9

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Lucrum:

How about 16 or so?

It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 16 years, but the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

It's true that the warming of average global surface temperatures has slowed over the past 16 years, but the overall warming of the entire climate system has continued rapidly over the past 15 years, even faster than the 15 years before that.

Huh? There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. All the global measurements over the past 16 years show the rise in temperatures have stopped ("paused" to use IPCC language).

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Oh. Do you mean the bandwagon that virtually all of the world's science community is in agreement on?

Here's what the The Geological Society of America says

"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)9

Oh, wow this is generally the same list (or their predecessors) that supported "global cooling" in the 1970s -- plus NCAR, CRU, NAS, NASA – as did the CIA.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/21/the-1970s-ice-age-scare/