then... show them to be dickheads by showing us peer reviewed science stating man made co2 is causing warming. (not based on models) no one here is arguing with basic scientific principles. Science shows us co2 can warm and co2 can cool. We are talking about how man made co2 performs in a complex environment with changing levels of natural co2, negative feedbacks, positive feedbacks and sinks and probably off gassing. 2. to your second post... CO2 is not leading any next cycle... warming leads atmospheric co2 levels up and cooling leads atmospheric levels of co2 down.
I want to remind all the trolls of a post earlier in this thread... that when you find some agw whores acting like it could not be the sun... or cosmic rays Talk to CERN. this is why its so hard to say its CO2. Water Vapor and Clouds are hard to model and they may cause a great deal or all of the warming and cooling. And cosmic rays... may have a great deal to do with cloud formation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...obal-warming-its-the-sun-stupid/#13c10e5266c2 Sorry, But With Global Warming It's The Sun, Stupid .... Failing to raise any significant research support, Svensmark managed to conduct a boot-strap-funded experiment in 2007 at the Danish National Space Center that yielded convincing validation. Using a particle accelerator, he demonstrated that cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the atmosphere can, in fact, cause gaseous water vapor to condense into cloud-forming droplets. Again, he received little scientific applause for this accomplishment. But fortunately, at least one person took the Danes' early observations seriously. Following their presentation at the Birmingham conference, CERN scientist Jasper Kirkby*, a British experimental physicist, told the scientific press in 1998 that the theory "will probably be able to account for somewhere between half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century." Furthermore, he too, set out to obtain more proof. But his plan to do so wasn't an easy sell. It took Kirkby nearly 10 years to convince the CERN bureaucracy to create a stainless steel cloud chamber to precisely replicate the Earth's atmosphere and conduct independent experiments. It worked! As reported in the Aug. 25 issue of the journal Nature, Jasper Kirkby and his 62 co-authors from 17 institutes in Europe and the U.S. announced that the sun indeed has a significant influence on our planet's temperature. Their "Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets" (CLOUD) experiment proved that its magnetic field does, in fact, act as a gateway for cosmic rays that play a large role in cloud formation. The report stated "Ion-induced nucleation [cosmic ray action] will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles [molecular clusters] that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large globally over the troposphere [the lower atmosphere]." In other words, the big influence exists, yet hasn't been factored into climate models.
There are several moving parts that could be more significant than human induced impact to the change of climate, but we cannot weight each one of them easily nor control any one of them precisely. It appears our earth is gradually cooling down every year. The sun is also cooling down gradually. Humans cannot even manage to counter these natural changes (cooling) by carrying out any projects scientifically in order to keep our climate being always a constant. Fluctuations and volatility could be actually a norm. That can never be changed. Climate change or not - Perhaps a never-ending argument! Better find an alternative constructive and positive direction/topic to spend our time, energy and efforts! : " Men and women evolved differently but it doesn't justify gender inequality " http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-...erently-but-doesnt-justify-inequality/9273624
Jerm, you deranged maniacal ideologue, ever find that one publishing climate scientist denying man made global warming? There are none so don't bother looking. Makes you look foolish. We know that when asked over 97% say it's true. Google it. Let us know when you become a publishing climate scientist. Until then STFU already.
Just curious / unsure whether the measure is related to water surface or else? Whether the problem of plastic micro-particles would be a more meaningful/important factor affecting the ocean temperature? Everyday day the earth temperature would become cooler, and the sun would die and become darker? Basically? That's what I learned before. Is there any scientific research papers to analyse either the plastic micro-particles, or the CO2, or both affect sea surface temperature more than anything else? Personally I don't think it would be easy to measure them or isolate each of them about impact of sea temperature? My gut feeling is perhaps plastic micro-plastics would have much more weighting? Or the combination of them? Rather than the CO2 alone? Just 2 cents! LOL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_component_analysis
Furthermore, maybe the whole earth is Already surrounded by air with plastic microbeads? That would easily cause raising temperature higher everywhere? Not cooler, I guess? LOL