I ask again. What do you expect to happen when levels of the dominant greenhouse gas goes up 35% from the burning of fossil fuels? It's that simple. Even a ten year old can figure it out. But you moron deniers can't. Amazing.
At least you admit that you've lost the argument and the debate. That is a start. Y'know, if you go around angry like that it is going to affect your health eventually.
fc some of us put 2 and 2 together before all this came out... but it is time for you to put 2 plus 2 together. The draft of a U.N. climate change report due to be published in 2014 has been leaked, and it shows that the four temperature models the U.N. used from 1990 to 2012 vastly overestimated the warming of the earth during that time. The report from the U.N.âs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had a graph that showed how four temperature models predicted the earthâs temperature was rising, but the midpoints of the rise the models predicted varied between 0.5 and 0.9 degrees, while the actual midpoints in the 1990-2012 era was only 0.28 degrees Fahrenheit. Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, commented on the evidence: Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted. Their predictions have largely failed, four times in a row... what that means is that it's time for them to re-evaluate. It is evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/...al-Warming-Predictions-Overstated-The-Problem Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions. Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at Americaâs prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were âdeeply flawedâ. Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ânatural variabilityâ â factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...y-released--chart-prove-it.html#ixzz2K44BCeD6 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans." In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted. The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate. Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted. http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
I suppose you are missing the point. They don't "figure it out" because they don't believe that burning fossil fuels has increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 35%. What I've read here is that the current CO2 content is well within the standard deviation from the mean historic CO2 content. They don't believe the premise that you build into your question so they aren't able to supply an answer that pleases you. Even if they do answer you will likely categorize them as liars, deceivers, morons etc. I'm always fascinated by the single-issue personalities. FreeThinker was obsessed with religion. Mgrund is obsessed with the UK. RCG has a single-minded hatred for white people. You are the half-wit who obsesses on a trading site about man-caused global warming. Congratulations, you qualify as a nut.
I'll address this part of your post only because the rest is just ad hominem attack which you are famous for but of course has no relevance to the science of AGW. So to address the above....yes I am sure that that is true. In the computer climate models, only by including the GH effect of C02 does the model work. Solar irradiation does not account for the rise.
I hate racist AOWM. If you are so deluded as to think you represent the majority of white people, then the elections taught you nothing.
and still, 97% of all the world's climatologists believe in the basics of AGW. Strangely, the moron deniers don't. I wonder why? I guess those climatologists are not getting their info from the right (wing) sources like Fox News. You deniers are a joke.
Well then they and you are fucking WRONG! It's simple solid science in multiple ways that PROVES the extra CO2 is from man. You can ignore or dispute the basic scientific fact that this is true but you look foolish doing so in public. So. I ask again. What do you expect to happen when levels of the dominant greenhouse gas goes up 35% from the burning of fossil fuels? It's that simple. Even a ten year old can figure it out. But you moron deniers can't. Amazing.
I hate retarded Africans Only the majority of productive tax paying white people. But then you wouldn't know anything about that would you?
Recent scientific assessments find that most of the warming of the Earthâs surface over the past 50 years has been caused by human activities (see also the section on scientific literature and opinion). This conclusion rests on multiple lines of evidence. Like the warming "signal" that has gradually emerged from the "noise" of natural climate variability, the scientific evidence for a human influence on global climate has accumulated over the past several decades, from many hundreds of studies. No single study is a "smoking gun." Nor has any single study or combination of studies undermined the large body of evidence supporting the conclusion that human activity is the primary driver of recent warming. For Northern Hemisphere temperature, recent decades appear to be the warmest since at least about 1000AD, and the warming since the late 19th century is unprecedented over the last 1000 years.[32] Older data are insufficient to provide reliable hemispheric temperature estimates.[32] [7] The first line of evidence is based on a physical understanding of how greenhouse gases trap heat, how the climate system responds to increases in greenhouse gases, and how other human and natural factors influence climate. The second line of evidence is from indirect estimates of climate changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years. These records are obtained from living things and their remains (like tree rings and corals) and from physical quantities (like the ratio between lighter and heavier isotopes of oxygen in ice cores) which change in measurable ways as climate changes. The lesson from these data is that global surface temperatures over the last several decades are clearly unusual, in that they were higher than at any time during at least the past 400 years. For the Northern Hemisphere, the recent temperature rise is clearly unusual in at least the last 1,000 years (see graph opposite). [7] The third line of evidence is based on the broad, qualitative consistency between observed changes in climate and the computer model simulations of how climate would be expected to change in response to human activities. For example, when climate models are run with historical increases in greenhouse gases, they show gradual warming of the Earth and ocean surface, increases in ocean heat content and the temperature of the lower atmosphere, a rise in global sea level, retreat of sea ice and snow cover, cooling of the stratosphere, an increase in the amount of atmospheric water vapor, and changes in large-scale precipitation and pressure patterns. These and other aspects of modelled climate change are in agreement with observations.