You are an ignorant trog... putting people down whom you don't even understand. No care for the real state of the science... just propaganda and ad homs. By the way most of the scientists I have ever read including most you would call agw proponents would agree with what Spencer says here. Few scientists state man made co2 is definitely causing significant and measurable warming. They say it is a possibility or refer to the UN papers. Which when your read the science in them they use projections not models. Only a few lying agw nutters make the strong claims you try to make. I remind you even your fake consensus does not state man made co2 causes warming. There is no peer reviewed science proving that. here is part of a great page on Dr. Spencer'swebsite... you would probably agree with what he is saying... trogcurrents. http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/ 7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can’t cause warming anyway. They claim things like, “the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated”, or something else very technical. [And for those more technically-minded persons, yes, I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesn’t mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere]. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before. 8 ) Is Atmospheric CO2 Increasing? Yes, and most strongly in the last 50 years…which is why “most” climate researchers think the CO2 rise is the cause of the warming. Our site measurements of CO2 increase from around the world are possibly the most accurate long-term, climate-related, measurements in existence. 9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.
There the real scientists at NASA who do experiments are skeptics an there are the quacks at Goodard who write mostly propaganda with little real research.... Together they make NASA look like they have a split personality.
I don't understand posting a fact about a cold city as proof there is no global warming. WHat kind of logic and intelligent argumentation is that? Funny that while LA might have coldest February in 50 years, some countries are having one of the hottest summers on record. So which is right? Neither and you look like an ass. So when you base your argument on that kind of logic you end up looking silly.
It combats a decade of posts and articles about how records highs are indications that man made co2 is causing significant global warming. Its a reverse troll. Its sucks it has to be done...but it does because there a millions of morons who think records highs in a city are proof that man made co2 is causing warming even though there is no peer reviewed science finding that. (accept now failed models which are not scientific proof anyway.(
Volcano in Iceland Is One of the Largest Sources of Volcanic CO2 https://eos.org/research-spotlights/volcano-in-iceland-is-one-of-the-largest-sources-of-volcanic-co2 The results indicate that Katla emits 12–24 kilotons of CO2 per day, which is more than double previous estimates of the emission rate of CO2from all volcanic and geothermal sources in Iceland combined (2.7–5.8 kilotons per day). These findings suggest that subglacial volcanoes—the emissions of which have not been considered in much detail, historically—may be major emitters of carbon dioxide. Because of this, their contributions to the global volcanic CO2 budget may have been underestimated.
https://www.sciencealert.com/chinese-researchers-design-an-artificial-sun-that-mimics-nuclear-fusion Chinese Officials Say Their "Artificial Sun" Will Be Completed This Year In November, Chinese researchers announced that the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor — an "artificial sun" designed to mimic the nuclear fusion process the real Sun uses to generate energy — had hit a milestone by achieving an electron temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius. Now, officials are saying they believe they'll wrap up construction on a new artificial sun this year, and they claim this device will be able to hit a milestone in ion temperature — putting us one step closer to harnessing the power of nuclear fusion. According to Duan, the HL-2M Tokamak will be able to achieve an ion temperature of 100 million degrees Celsius, about seven times hotter than the real Sun's ion temperature. This meets meeting what the Global Times calls "one of the three challenges to reach the goal of harnessing the nuclear fusion." If he's right, the device could serve as a template for future nuclear fusion reactors, bringing the dream of unlimited clean energy one step closer to reality.
You should end each post of yours with the credentials you have earned, too: Futurecurrents, Air Conditioner Repair Man