Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

But with such a short timeline, you can't say C02 has anything to do with it. At least, not with just that graph. You're showing correlation, not causation.

But CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it's levels have gone up 40% over the last two hundred years mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. These are indisputable facts.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Oops.

Yes oops is right.

 

[jem]

Science also says many greenhouse gases act as coolants in the earth's atmosphere.

Quote from futurecurrents:

But CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it's levels have gone up 40% over the last two hundred years mostly from the burning of fossil fuels. These are indisputable facts.

 

[jem]

no you are just making shit up. you apparently mis understood or misrepresented what boundry layer means and you have no idea how they create the noaa CO2 data set.

you misrepresent first and ask questions later.

Quote from futurecurrents:

No it is you who lie.

They were measuring CO2 at the ocean's surface. It says so right in the study you fucking dipwad. I have never lied about AGW. You certainly have. All you do is peddle in lies from propaganda websites. So Fuck You.

But yes, atmospheric CO2, as opposed to that at the ocean's surface acts as a greenhouse gas. As man has increased it's levels by 40% indeed temps have and are rapidly rising. God to know you are finally learning something.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from futurecurrents:

But CO2 is a greenhouse gas and it's levels have gone up 40%...

And yet is still makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere.

 

[jem]

they studied atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Quote from jem:

Here is a great review...

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/11414-co2-follows-temperature-rises.html

In a study recently published in Global and Planetary Change, Humlum et al. (2013) introduce their analysis of the phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and mean global air temperature by noting that over the last 420 thousand years, "variations in atmospheric CO2 broadly followed temperature according to ice cores, with a typical delay of several centuries to more than a millennium," citing Lorius et al. (1990), Mudelsee (2001) and Caillon et al. (2003).

And they explain this relationship by stating it "is thought to be caused by the slow vertical mixing that occurs in the oceans, in association with the decrease in the solubility of CO2 in ocean water, as its temperature slowly increases at the end of glacial periods (Martin et al., 2005), leading to subsequent net out-gassing of CO2 from the oceans (Togweiler, 1999)."

So if this be true for glacial cycles, should it not also be true for seasonal cycles?

Feeling that such might indeed be the case, the three Norwegian researchers intensively studied the phase relations (leads/lags) between atmospheric CO2 concentration data and several global temperature data series - including HadCRUT, GISS and NCDC surface air data, as well as UAH lower troposphere data and HadSST2 sea surface data - for the period January 1980 to December 2011. And what did they find?

Humlum et al. report that annual cycles were present in all of the several data sets they studied and that there was "a high degree of co-variation between all data series ... but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature." More specifically, they state that "the maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11-12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months [in relation] to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months [in relation] to global lower troposphere temperature," so that "the overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from the ocean surface to the land surface to the lower troposphere."
...

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

Science also says many greenhouse gases act as coolants in the earth's atmosphere.

Good to know that you finally admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and acts to warm the earth's troposphere. Where we live. That's progress.

And yes, I am glad you understand that it cools the stratosphere because it reduces outgoing radiation from the troposphere. That effect can be seen in these charts. Note the stratosphere temps going down.

Do you now understand the essential science? Not the irrelevant red herring stuff?

 

[jem]

water vapor, the biggest greenhouse gas, can also cool because the clouds reflect the suns energy back into space.

aerosols both man made and natural are being found, in the recent studies, to have significant cooling effect.

CO2 blocks the suns energy from warming the earth as well. ( i have showed you the NASA science study many times.)

But hey you go ahead and keep on misrepresenting science even though I have linked to the science in this thread.

Quote from futurecurrents:

Good to know that you finally admit that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and acts to warm the earth's troposphere. Where we live. That's progress.

And yes, I am glad you understand that it cools the stratosphere because it reduces outgoing radiation from the troposphere. That effect can be seen in these charts. Note the stratosphere temps going down.

Do you now understand the essential science? Not the irrelevant red herring stuff?

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

water vapor, the biggest greenhouse gas, can also cool because the clouds reflect the suns energy back into space.

aerosols both man made and natural are being found, in the recent studies, to have significant cooling effect.

CO2 blocks the suns energy from warming the earth as well. ( i have showed you the NASA science study many times.)

But hey you go ahead and keep on misrepresenting science even though I have linked to the science in this thread.

Except for the last sentence, you are right. So what?

Why do you search for the thing least likely and ignore that most obvious?

Could it be because you are a Libtardarian?

Of course it could.

 

[Mercor]

Quote from futurecurrents:

Except for the last sentence, you are right. So what?

Why do you search for the thing least likely and ignore that most obvious?

Could it be because you are a Libtardarian?

Of course it could.

What if we do nothing?

Let evolution run its course. CO2 kills off most of the human race. Floods the Democrats out of the coastal regions they hoard at.

Less population reduces CO2, life is restored.