You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Quote from jem:
It also does not change the fact that historically change in the level of co2 trails change in the level of temps.
It does not change the fact that CO2 acts as a thermostat in our atmosphere.
It does not change the fact that NASA is currently unsure if adding more greenhouse gases to our atmosphere creates more warming or cooling...
for instance... here is the info from NASA on the largest greenhouse gas....
http://climatekids.nasa.gov/nasa-research/
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 gasâwater vaporâor in the form of a liquidâclouds. 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.
Cloud effects on Earth's radiation. Diagram shows how clouds reflect some of the Sun's energy back to space.
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 gasâwater vaporâor in the form of a liquidâclouds. 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.
Yeah OK, you are half right and half wrong above but every science organization on earth, along with Exxon believe man's release of greenhouse gasses has caused the temps to rapidly rise beyond any natural cause.
Do you want me to start quoting all the AGW position statements of all the science orgs in the world and Exxon and BP and The Weather Channel?
The science is clear, overwhelming and obvious. Man's release of greenhouse gasses - mostly CO2 - has increased the greenhouse effect of earth's atmosphere which has caused heating of the earth and it continues to increase unabated. There is nearly unanimous agreement among the world's science community and the experts are in 97% consensus about this.
All sorts of red herrings and disinformation can be offered, but anyone who would say this not true is simply wrong. Various reasons can be given for them being wrong. But wrong they are.
If the science were clear you would not be employing logical fallacies (such and an improper appeal to authority) to prove what should be a basic point.
If you have all these papers and experts proving man made co2 causes warming on earth... (instead of it being a thermostat)
you would produce some of the papers, the science, and the facts... showing man made co2 causing warming on earth.
You don't because such science does not exist.
If you have all these papers and experts proving man made co2 causes warming on earth... (instead of it being a thermostat)
you would produce some of the papers, the science, and the facts... showing man made co2 causing warming on earth.
You don't because such science does not exist.
Quote from futurecurrents:
Yeah OK, you are half right and half wrong above but every science organization on earth, along with Exxon believe man's release of greenhouse gasses has caused the temps to rapidly rise beyond any natural cause.
Do you want me to start quoting all the AGW position statements of all the science orgs in the world and Exxon and BP and The Weather Channel?
The science is clear, overwhelming and obvious. Man's release of greenhouse gasses - mostly CO2 - has increased the greenhouse effect of earth's atmosphere which has caused heating of the earth and it continues to increase unabated. There is nearly unanimous agreement among the world's science community and the experts are in 97% consensus about this.
All sorts of red herrings and disinformation can be offered, but anyone who would say this not true is simply wrong. Various reasons can be given for them being wrong. But wrong they are.
Quote from jem:
If the science were clear you would not be employing logical fallacies (such and an improper appeal to authority) to prove what should be a basic point.
If you have all these papers and experts proving man made co2 causes warming on earth... (instead of it being a thermostat)
you would produce some of the papers, the science, and the facts... showing man made co2 causing warming on earth.
You don't because such science does not exist.
I guess you have missed the previous 20 posts wherein piezoe and I start with the science showing the physical properties of CO2 and go from there.
Hmmm. I wonder why you missed it?
Troll.
1. the physical properties of co2 are that it can warm and that it can cool.
I presented the NASA experiment to prove that.
2. as an example of why showing physical properties is not proof of what happens in a dynamic, complex system....
Lets take the largest green house gas... water vapor.
When you add more water vapor to earth right now does it cause warming or cooling?
I just showed you NASA admits it does know know.
3. What happens when you add aerosols another greenhouse gas...
The recent papers seem to conclude adding that ghc causes cooling.
Therefore...
adding greenhouse gases to our current mix does not necessarily cause warming.
I presented the NASA experiment to prove that.
2. as an example of why showing physical properties is not proof of what happens in a dynamic, complex system....
Lets take the largest green house gas... water vapor.
When you add more water vapor to earth right now does it cause warming or cooling?
I just showed you NASA admits it does know know.
3. What happens when you add aerosols another greenhouse gas...
The recent papers seem to conclude adding that ghc causes cooling.
Therefore...
adding greenhouse gases to our current mix does not necessarily cause warming.
Quote from futurecurrents:
I guess you have missed the previous 20 posts wherein piezoe and I start with the science showing the physical properties of CO2 and go from there.
Hmmm. I wonder why you missed it?
Troll.
So you do not understand when using experts and science to prove a point is legit and when it is a fallicy....
I know you are smarter than that ricter so I will tell you to google it.
For others who may be new to rhetoric....
there is a time when appealing to authority is a logical fallicy and when it is a legit way to make a point when it is backed up by scientific evidence that people can access.
For instance when court allows expert testimony to interpret evidence in front of a jury. Such as DNA evidence or finger print evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
I know you are smarter than that ricter so I will tell you to google it.
For others who may be new to rhetoric....
there is a time when appealing to authority is a logical fallicy and when it is a legit way to make a point when it is backed up by scientific evidence that people can access.
For instance when court allows expert testimony to interpret evidence in front of a jury. Such as DNA evidence or finger print evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Quote from Ricter:
How is this different from you using the guy on the video? Using the NASA observations on high-altitude CO2?
His authorities are not so by decree, but by expertise. You're confounding a fallacy with legitimate argumentation.Quote from jem:
So you do not understand when using experts and science to prove a point is legit and when it is a fallicy....
I know you are smarter than that ricter so I will tell you to google it.
For others who may be new to rhetoric....
there is a time when appealing to authority is a logical fallicy and when it is a legit way to make a point when it is backed up by scientific evidence that people can access.
For instance when court allows expert testimony to interpret evidence in front of a jury. Such as DNA evidence or finger print evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
1. first of all if you break down his authorities... the cook papers excluded 2/3 of the papers as not coming to a conclusion.
Cook basically stands for the fact that 97% of the papers supporting agw support agw... you need to go read cooks own breakdown if you do not believe me.
Next it was shown cook would not re produce his stats or results..
2. A consensus in science is ridiculous. You need the science out front... and then you can rely on experts to explain it, if it is out of reach of the layman.
3. First you need the science then you can rely on expertise in evaluation....that is the proper use of an authority.
Cook basically stands for the fact that 97% of the papers supporting agw support agw... you need to go read cooks own breakdown if you do not believe me.
Next it was shown cook would not re produce his stats or results..
2. A consensus in science is ridiculous. You need the science out front... and then you can rely on experts to explain it, if it is out of reach of the layman.
3. First you need the science then you can rely on expertise in evaluation....that is the proper use of an authority.
Quote from Ricter:
His authorities are not so by decree, but by expertise. You're confounding a fallacy with legitimate argumentation.