Ah yes, "The CO2 thermostat," that's an idea that has a certain appeal. I've seen it is papers written for the popular press. The thermostat doesn't seem to work so well over the Gobi desert. Or over the ocean where clouds form and are part of a major negative feed back mechanism which includes rain and the huge heat of vaporization of water.. But it seems that one of the very important negative feed back mechanisms is vertical convection. That may prove to be the most important short term negative feed back mechanism. Did you know that the early climate models completely ignored vertical convection, and of of course cloud formation. No one quite knows how to model clouds well yet. That's coming, stay tuned for a few decades. Have you considered that rather than coming from CO2, the initial heating that supplies more water vapor might even come from day as opposed to night, from seasons, and latitude. Just a thought. Had you considered that convection, i.e., "wind", might have something to do with the amount of water vapor in the air at various places on Earth. Just another thought. I know it's crazy. Obviously CO2 through its heating and "thermostat" effect is responsible for wind, the seasons, but maybe not latitude. Did you ever take a look at Ferenc Miskolczi papers. (if you search his name under piezoe, you'll turn them up.) An entirely new, energy balance approach to the problem, which if it is correct would greatly simplify getting to the bottom of the Hansen hypothesis question.. Very controversial results. I don't know what to think about it because I am not sure his assumptions are valid. I have been meaning to talk it over with a physicist colleague. The first paper was eventually published in a peer reviewed journal, but when Miskolczi worked for NASA, NASA suppressed it. Not what I would call the proper thing to do. He quit over it of course, which was the proper thing to do.
If the drumstick doesn't work try the pie. Stuff it way down into the piehole. Don't forget to choke. Liar.
Politicians, businessmen, engineers, and scores of self-proclaimed researchers also raised strong objections, made controversial comments and produced many absurd reasons against Einstein's Relativity, and it's just the same with AGW. But none of it has changed or made false the fundamental underlying science that supports both of them respectively.
you seem to have trouble comprehending the subject. I am not talking the difference between satellite data and land temps. I was referencing the NASA study which confirmed that co2 also cools the planet by sending some warming energy out into space.
your critique also applies to the claim that man made co2 causes warming. there is no peer reviewed science saying man made co2 causes warming. so this talk of co2 causing warming in the talk of some of the crowd. the science shows that atmospheric co2 levels trail change in ocean warming and cooling.
your article 100% confirms what I have been saying. no one here has been saying co2 only cools. I have been saying co2 warms and co2 cools... just like the NASA guys who are quoted as saying it acts like a thermostat. you have been misrepresenting this article trying to pretend it has been correcting the NASA scientists when it is really just correcting some slayer argument. here is the point from your article... plain as day. "NASA’s Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun."
You are simply lying again. There is tons of science. To say there is not is fucking absurd. Just shut up you deranged troll.
Okay... give us link to the peer reviewed science stating man made co2 causes warming... you ignorant troll. You at best may find a few older articles based on failed computer models... (if you actually had the integrity to do the search before you lied again). You will find no science. If you did the authors who proved man made co2 causes warming would have nobel prizes and be household names. so grow up and stop lying and being a troll. (this is where in the past fraud boy would give a link to website sponsored by al gore which is filled with speculation and guesses or some generic google search...or a list of organizations... but he never ever provides a link to peer reviewed science because there is none.) If there were peer reviewed science showing man made co2 is causing warming I would cease to make my statement and if the evidence were convincing I would be on your side.
Google "global warming science". Liar/lawyer. Same thing. Did you ever find a single expert that denies man made global warming? No? Not surprised.