Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[jem]

Hey einstein if CO2 did not cool this would not happen.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“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:

It's really very simple, liar. CO2 in the atmosphere warms the planet.

Period.

No reputable scientist has ever claimed that adding CO2 can cool the earth.

To suggest otherwise is beyond absurd and akin to saying that up is really down.

Kill yourself now and do the future world a favor. Please.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

Hey dipshit if CO2 did not cool this would not happen.
Even NASA says CO2 plays a key role in the energy balance.

do you understand the idea of an energy balance.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface.
“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.

The price of the tea in China is governed by demand and crop yields.

 

[jem]

this is what happens when a leftist drone is confronted by facts and science...

Quote from futurecurrents:

The price of the tea in China is governed by demand and crop yields.

 

[jem]

this shows you how sick leftist drones become when confronted by facts and science.

I am not so sure this guy is stable...
Maybe I should take him seriously.
this is a terrorist threat.

these are they types of guys who would turn their homeland security guns on americans if their dear leader told them to.

these are the types who would use their IRS powers to torture citizens

these idiots are the types that all thinking americans are afraid of.

these are the types of drones... who prove liberalism as it manifests today is a disease.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Jerm. I suggest running the car in a closed garage or running a hose from the tail pipe into the car.

Just trying to help.

I hate to see anyone suffer. Even you. Though I do tend to reserve my murderous ire for the intentional liars who would trade current profits and personal ideology for the surviveability of the the planet

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

this shows you how sick leftist drones become when confronted by facts and science.

I am not so sure this guy is stable...

Lol, the irony.


"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

" Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


None of this is to say you're necessarily wrong, but that is the way to bet.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from fhl:

The earth hasn't warmed in over fifteen years but it's melting the ice, eh.

That's quite a feat.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Fine, except the earth has not stopped or even slowed it's warming trend.


Fail. Try again.

You might want to convey your expert opinion on this to Climate Scientist Prof. Anastasios Tsonis.

No doubt he'd be all too happy to hear what a heat and air installer has to say on the matter.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

You are trying to using logic.

That doesn't work with these assholes.

Maybe give grammar a try, and see if THAT works.

 

[jem]

all of that is opinion based on a paper which has been completely debunked in a very recent peer reviewed article.

hence the op and the title of this thread...

its not 97% but .3 percent of the peer reviewed papers which claim man made co2 is causing most of the warming.

The truth is science does not know... for many reasons...

1. including that fact that using the most reliable statistical methods neither science nor your nor nor terrorist leftist drones can show warming outside natural variability.

2. science can also not show if adding more greenhouse gases warms or cools there earth....

for instance... as I just showed you a few pages... back...

Nasa does not know if adding clouds / water vapor increases cooling or warming..

Do you understand the significance of that? do you?

AGW nutters know co2 is such a small component of of greenhouse gases theorize... co2 is a big part of warming by claiming more co2 increases clouds...

which is all nice and interesting... but for one small issue..

see next post...

Quote from Ricter:

Lol, the irony.


"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

"National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:

" Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


None of this is to say you're necessarily wrong, but that is the way to bet.

 

[jem]

science does not know if more clouds will keep more warming in or keep more warming out.



http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?

Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gas—water vapor—or in the form of a liquid—clouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.

Clouds as seen from space.
Earth's clouds as seen from space.

Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.

How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer.