Remember many hundreds of thousands of years ago when CO2 concentrations were MUCH higher in the atmosphere and temperatures were much colder..??? CO2 is a weak GHG... http://notrickszone.com/2012/09/19/...-0-58c-warming/#sthash.loOOm2iq.WbDdcwHg.dpbs
lol no trick zone. you are a sheep, say bah, idiot. And we are not talking about hundreds of thousands of years ago or billions years ago, you idiot. Focus. Now. In fact levels of CO2 is principle thing regulating the earth's temperature, according NOAA NASA and every authority on earth. But certainly, a dumb fucking Trumper needs "special" sources for his "facts" so they go to places like the "Koch bros funded special facts for sheep zone" Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO(2)) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. This is because CO(2), like ozone, N(2)O, CH(4), and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO(2) and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20947761 Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
piehole the doubt merchant should be checking in from the think tank soon with a rambling impressive sounding bunch of BS. Get on the waders.
A commenter alerted me to a post by science denier Pierre Gosselin (archived here). He reckons that because there are quite a few climate cranks who run blogs, it disproves the fact that 97% of science papers on the topic find that humans are causing climate change. Or something like that. Which of course it doesn't. Pierre Gosselin, you may recall, back in 2008, two years before the equal hottest year on record so far, said he thought that Earth would become icy cold by 2020, writing (archived here): Pierre Gosselin says: October 23, 2008 at 2:03 am-2.5°C by 2020! Some powerful cycles appear to be aligning to deliver a vicious deep freeze. - Solar cycles - Ocean cycles – PDO, AMO, etc. - and the 100K year ice-age cycle There are some things to keep in mind: 1. Climate does not change gradually. 2. Climate changes abruptly, without warning. 3. Temperatures over the last 2 million years have been colder than today’s 95+% of the time. 4. Warm, like today, is in fact highly unusual. 5. Our current interglacial has been abnormally long. 6. Interglacial are more often much briefer, short-lived spikes. 6. Thus, the climate dice are not in our favour! Ice ages have occurred right ON SCHEDULE for the last 3 million years. And if you examine the interglacial temperature peaks, i.e the brief optimums between the cold intervals, you’ll see our modern optimum is indeed prolonged. More often the interglacials are just brief spikes that suddenly nosedive back into prolonged deep-freezes. Now the sun is going to sleep, and the oceans are reversing to boot! My prediction is we’ve started a nasty cold period that will make the 1960s look balmy. We’re about to get caught with our pants down. And a few molecules of CO2 is not going to change it. Here is what Pierre's prediction looks like. In six years from now, according to Pierre Gosselin, the temperature will drop to 2.5 degrees Celsius below that at the beginning of the 20th century: Data sources: NASA and WUWT Now we've established Pierre's credentials, let's look at how he measures scientific acumen. He was referring to a list of mostly climate disinformers, made up on a blog called "ScottishSceptic" (archived here) and made an odd observation. He wrote at Notrickszone (archived here): Having done a quick count of the warmist sites, I came up with 48 from a total of 137. That’s crunches to be only 35%. That’s a far cry from the 97% the warmists like to try to have the rest of the world believe. He thinks that because ScottishSceptic found a whole bunch of crank climate disinformation blogs that somehow PROVES that only 35% of the scientific literature on the subject finds that humans are causing climate change. Credit: Plognark You think that's weird? He goes even further and writes: That means that almost two thirds of all climate science blogs are very skeptical or somewhat skeptical of the IPCC science (skeptic or luke-warmer). That’s hardly a consensus! Many of the skeptic sites are run by scientists and meteorologists…also showing that that “consensus among experts” is a complete myth.Moreover, the top 20 sites are clearly dominated by skeptics. I'd love to know which "skeptic" sites are run by "scientists and meteorologists". Anyone? The list puts websites like Jeff Masters at Wunderground.com and ClimateProgress, which would both beat WUWT readership by a mile, way down in the rankings. That's because ScottishSceptic used wrong and outdated addresses. The list doesn't rank any of the scienceblog blogs because they aren't shown separately in Alexa. It leaves off the really popular blogs such as the BadAstronomy on Slate.com, and the myriad of general and specialist science websites that post articles on all sorts of topics, not just climate science. All of which, like Carl Zimmer on the Loom and Ed Yong at National Geographic would leave Anthony Watts' pitiful effort at WUWT in the dust. And it doesn't include discussion boards like Reddit, which was the subject of my last article. Thing is, fake sceptics have very little choice when it comes to quack websites. They have blogs run by cranks like Anthony Watts and Pierre Gosselin and that's it. Their choice is very limited. Pseudoscience nutters don't have science blogs or specialist climate science blogs. They don't have quality websites like ArsTechnica.com or Smithsonian.com or Scientific American or National Geographic. They don't have science and environment sections in mainstream media, like at the Guardian or the Sydney Morning Herald. And there is no such thing as in-depth discussion of pseudo-science, which is why they are stuck with the sort of quackery you read at WUWT and notrickszone and similar. There are no equivalents in pseudo-science land of climate websites run by scientific organisations, like NASA, the CSIRO, all the universities and meteorological offices around the world. They would get vastly more web traffic than the piddly little anti-science blogs at which science deniers congregate - and from a much better educated and informed class of visitor, too. Of course, one big information source the fake sceptics lack is pseudo-scientific journals. They is no pseudo-science equivalent of Nature, Science, PNAS, the Journal of Climate or any of the dozens of other high quality scientific journals. Fake sceptics and contrarians have a few, like Energy and Environment and the dog astrology journal. But not many fake sceptics bother with getting their pseudo-science published. Why would they when it's so much more fun to attack scientists personally and make silly "ice age cometh" predictions?
Pierre Gosselin of notrickzone I received an Associate Degree in Civil Engineering at Vermont Technical College and a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Arizona in Tucson. I live in Europe and help my wife, the owner of a small business that provides communication services for business and industry. - This is where the dumb fucking Trumpers go for their "science". In other words, Rick Perry is better qualified to comment on climate science. And he has, admitting that he was wrong and man made climate change is real. Anyone else man enough to admit being wrong?
Read the fucking science from the German, you stupid fucking Maxine Waters clit sucker.. https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2...bhauseffekt-zu-schwach-fuer-klimakatastrophe/
Why did they have to doctor their numbers then, you stupid fucking Pelosi Pussylicker? And 300 scientists told NOAA to go fly a kite? https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/300_signatories.pdf http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/
Lets not forget futurecurrents does not even take this seriously. He sells greenhouse gases for a living. A gas thousands of times more powerful than co2.