What 95% certainty of warming means to scientists

[jem]

ricter the ocean has been warming for 100 years.

there is no way you tell us that it is warming outside natural variability because the scientists can not tell us that.

yes greenhouse gasses seem to keep the energy out at high altitude and energy or warmth in at low altitudes.

so... you tell me... based on the science we have... does adding man made co2 to the atmosphere causes more warming or cooling..

please take note of the recent science including...

1. the nasa study
2. the studies which show as you add co2 its effectiveness diminishes rapidly because on the initial layer does the lionshare of the work.
3. other studies which suggest co2 also carries some warmth up the column to where it can be shed off.


Note... I am not saying science shows man made co2 has no impact..(it may have a small one).

I am saying agw nutters have no science showing adding man made co2 to our atmosphere causes net warming.

as far as friendly to man... I prefer warming to cooling but if we have to go one way or the other... I suspect a tiny bit of warming is superior to cooling.

We have a lot of people to feed and the romans always look so nice and warm in 90% of their movies.

Quote from Ricter:

NASA reported that high-altitude CO2 acts as a thermostat. But clearly (the ice is melting) it's an imperfect one. And why believe the new equilibrium will be friendly to Man?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

...And why believe the new equilibrium will be friendly to Man?

1) Why not?
2) It already is friendly to man.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

ricter the ocean has been warming for 100 years.

there is no way you tell us that it is warming outside natural variability because the scientists can not tell us that.

yes greenhouse gasses seem to keep the energy out at high altitude and energy or warmth in at low altitudes.

so... you tell me... based on the science we have... does adding man made co2 to the atmosphere causes more warming or cooling..

please take note of the recent science including...

1. the nasa study
2. the studies which show as you add co2 its effectiveness diminishes rapidly because on the initial layer does the lionshare of the work.
3. other studies which suggest co2 also carries some warmth up the column to where it can be shed off.


Note... I am not saying science shows man made co2 has no impact..(it may have a small one).

I am saying agw nutters have no science showing adding man made co2 to our atmosphere causes net warming.

as far as friendly to man... I prefer warming to cooling but if we have to go one way or the other... I suspect a tiny bit of warming is superior to cooling.

We have a lot of people to feed and the romans always look so nice and warm in 90% of their movies.

"so... you tell me... based on the science we have... does adding man made co2 to the atmosphere causes more warming or cooling.."

 

[gwb-trading]

BINGO

I win. Yet another example of FC re-cycling the same old fabricated diagrams.

Quote from futurecurrents:

"so... you tell me... based on the science we have... does adding man made co2 to the atmosphere causes more warming or cooling.."

What an ignorant douchebag you are.

 

[jem]

Quote from futurecurrents:

"so... you tell me... based on the science we have... does adding man made co2 to the atmosphere causes more warming or cooling.."

What an ignorant douchebag you are.

you have no science just a chart showing temperature leading co2 using scary scaling.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

BINGO

I win. Yet another example of FC re-cycling the same old fabricated diagrams.

So what? Some people (not you ) can learn from facts.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

you have no science just a chart showing temperature leading co2 using scary scaling.

What a coincidence. You common sense or ability to see the obvious. Or should I say, like the good slimey lawyer you are, you only see evidence that supports your side.

That's why slimy lawyers make bad scientists.

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

So what? Some people (not you ) can learn from facts.

Yes, I have learned from facts and data that AGW is a complete farce. Apparently you are cognitively impaired and still clinging to the global warming fantasy.

 

[jem]

you have made the full on conversion to a ignorant big govt lying leftist drone.

you do not even have the balls to try and attach some science to your chart.

your chart does not show man made co2 causes warming... if it is accurate using accurate data your chart shows co2 can double and temps do not increase.

Therefore if you had to pick you would use it to show man made co2 is not correlated to warming or lags warming.

Quote from futurecurrents:

What a coincidence. You common sense or ability to see the obvious. Or should I say, like the good slimey lawyer you are, you only see evidence that supports your side.

That's why slimy lawyers make bad scientists.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from jem:

you have made the full on conversion to a ignorant big govt lying leftist drone.

you do not even have the balls to try and attach some science to your chart.

your chart does not show man made co2 causes warming... if it is accurate using accurate data your chart shows co2 can double and temps do not increase.

Therefore if you had to pick you would use it to show man made co2 is not correlated to warming or lags warming.

You need no conversion. You are already a fanatical right-wing nutjob who is not really interested in the truth at all. Fuck you.