Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

It's not that they're lying, they're just wrong--the oceans are part of the globe.

The argument was co2 causes air temps to rise.
Arguing CO2 causes ocean temps to rise is a far different argument and almost definitely at least wrong in part.

Cold oceans absorb co2 warm oceans off gas...

Since we have cycled for 100s of thousands of years... it is only obvious that as the ocean off gas at some point the ghcs in the atmosphere start cooling the planet.

There is almost no way for this cycle to work and be controlled by the "thermostat" of ghcs.

We would just go to an extreme.

So ghc gasses either warm and cool or they have negligible influence.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

The argument was co2 causes air temps to rise.
Arguing CO2 causes ocean temps to rise is a far different argument and almost definitely at least wrong in part.

Cold oceans absorb co2 warm oceans off gas...

Since we have cycled for 100s of thousands of years... it is only obvious that as the ocean off gas at some point the ghcs in the atmosphere start cooling the planet.

There is almost no way for this cycle to work and be controlled by the "thermostat" of ghcs.

We would just go to an extreme.

So ghc gasses either warm and cool or they have negligible influence.

You're arguing from faith and hope. We've already observed a "pause" in warming, and then it resumed. It's faith that it won't happen again, and it's faith and hope that a new, extreme (for human life) temperature equilibrium is somehow contrary to what the universe (God?) "wants".

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

The argument was co2 causes air temps to rise.
Arguing CO2 causes ocean temps to rise is a far different argument and almost definitely at least wrong in part.

Cold oceans absorb co2 warm oceans off gas...

Since we have cycled for 100s of thousands of years... it is only obvious that as the ocean off gas at some point the ghcs in the atmosphere start cooling the planet.

There is almost no way for this cycle to work and be controlled by the "thermostat" of ghcs.

We would just go to an extreme.

So ghc gasses either warm and cool or they have negligible influence.

Double speak obfuscation, bullshit and ultimately meaningless.

You are an incredibly good bullshitter.

CO2 increase has caused air temps to rise, which has warmed the ocean. There is no question about that.

There has been a pause in atmospheric warming because the heat has been absorbed by the oceans because the ocean currents change over time. There may also have been an aerosol effect from dirty coal plants that decreased solar input.



I really wonder sometimes if you believe your own bullshit.

 

[jem]

my argument is we have no idea if humans or having any impact at all.

we can't even tell if we are warming outside natural variability.

We cycle.

The onus is on the agw nutters to show it is man made co2 cause warming here on earth.

You have never produced any evidence showing that.

Now if you do examine the recent data and science... you see that rather than co2 affecting temps its looks more and more like the change in ocean temps lead co2 levels.

Quote from Ricter:

You're arguing from faith and hope. We've already observed a "pause" in warming, and then it resumed. It's faith that it won't happen again, and it's faith and hope that a new, extreme (for human life) temperature equilibrium is somehow contrary to what the universe (God?) "wants".

 

[jem]

you are a science moron.

read the link I presented about a page ago.

It explains how salbys study of the data shows that the change in ocean temps is leading the change in co2.

that is not bullshit ... it is data analysis.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Double speak obfuscation, bullshit and ultimately meaningless.

You are an incredibly good bullshitter.

CO2 increase has caused air temps to rise, which has warmed the ocean. There is no question about that.

There has been a pause in atmospheric warming because the heat has been absorbed by the oceans because the ocean currents change over time. There may also have been an aerosol effect from dirty coal plants that decreased solar input.



I really wonder sometimes if you believe your own bullshit.

 

[jem]

http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...emperature-is-driving-co2-and-not-vice-versa/

As can be seen in Figure 1, there is no relationship between the fossil carbon emissions curve and the annual carbon increase curve. That is because all the fossil emissions carbon is taken up by the biosphere or by the oceans according to Henry’s Law, and then sequestered there. The carbon in the atmosphere is controlled by temperature. This has been described by Dr. Murry Salby in this presentations at Sydney and Hamburg. He compares the CO2 curve to the integral of temperature. Here, I am going the other way mathematically, taking the differential of the CO2 curve as temperature and comparing it to known temperature data, the HADSST3 data. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/08/...-co2-and-not-vice-versa/#sthash.MpRRDnYE.dpuf

Quote from jem:

 

[Lucrum]

Yet another newspaper seems to have noticed that there doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence that the globe is heating up like the “consensus” says it is.

From the New York Post:

The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.

Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.

Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.

And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all...

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/69083116585/new-york-post-man-made-global-warming-proof-is

 

[jem]

America is waking up.
AGW nutters have no science. We have no idea if and when ghcs are causing net warming or cooling.

Quote from Lucrum:

Yet another newspaper seems to have noticed that there doesn’t seem to be any hard evidence that the globe is heating up like the “consensus” says it is.

From the New York Post:

The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.

Warmist claims of a severe increase in hurricane activity go back to 2005 and Hurricane Katrina. The cover of Al Gore’s 2009 book, “Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis,” even features a satellite image of the globe with four major hurricanes superimposed.

Yet the evidence to the contrary was there all along. Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.

And the media play along. For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more. Nor did we see warmists conceding that their explanation is essentially a confession that the previous warming may not have been man-made at all...

http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/69083116585/new-york-post-man-made-global-warming-proof-is

 

[futurecurrents]

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.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

my argument is we have no idea if humans or having any impact at all.

we can't even tell if we are warming outside natural variability.

We cycle.

The onus is on the agw nutters to show it is man made co2 cause warming here on earth.

You have never produced any evidence showing that.

Now if you do examine the recent data and science... you see that rather than co2 affecting temps its looks more and more like the change in ocean temps lead co2 levels.

^ more bullshit.