Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

hey fraudcurrents... only 41 papers out of 11000 support your agw nutter position.

its not 97% its less than one percent.

see the first page of this thread.

 

here is the first post of this thread

 

yes jerm, sure. All the science orgs agree but only 0.03% of the climatologists. You crack me up.

Are you off your meds again? LOL

 

Oh yeah, and they surveyed the scientists and they concurred with the assumption of AGW agreement by the researchers. 97% said they believed. 97.


Because you see. You don't understand this but....CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

The only real 97% in this discussion.

 

hey fraudcurrents until you post some real science... I will repeat...



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/0...r-math-errors/


“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

 

On the other thread I wrote this in response to the fraudcurrents ignorant statement about greenhouse gases.

1. You are so ignorant and such a liar I have shown you this quote from the recent nasa experiment a dozen times... where recently NASA has stated that CO2 is a coolant and that it repels the suns energy... (which is a cooling effect on the planet) And don't give that crap about you don't care about what happens in the upper atmosphere because the scientist making the climate budgets certainly do... and blocking the suns energy is a cooling effect.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...2/22mar_saber/

“Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe.
“The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.”
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.

2. Clouds closely related to water vapor... both reflect some heat down and reflect sun light back out. NASA is studying their overall net effect in our current environment. Recent studies have shown they have big cooling effect in the tropics. Which makes sense to anyone ever under clouds in the tropics. here is more info...
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm

J.R. Houghton expressed the situation as follows:

Clouds are, in fact, probably the dominant influence in the radiative budget of the lower atmosphere but adequately taking them into account raises many problems […]
The Physics of Atmospheres, p. 41.

Note that recent studies claim that CO2 increases its impact by increasing clouds.
So right their you agw nutter bozos should understand... CO2 can also cool by making more clouds.



3. Water Vapor can have a significant cooling effect through evaporation. Some studies show the effect is larger than its warming effect.

summary...
Scientist are working on improving their radiative budgets right now. Its all guess work... because clouds and other effects have so far proven impossible to model.

So... agw drone trolls ... let me know when you have a radiation budget that can account for all these variables and more... maybe then you will develop a working climate model.

Til then you can't tell me whether adding a greenhouse gas warms or cools.

 

Yes, that's right. 97% of climate scientists agree on the basics of man made global warming, essentially all the world's science organizations, and CO2 warms the atmosphere because it is a greenhouse gas. It does not cool. And only one paper out of thousands rejected AGW. When directly surveyed the scientists agreed. 97% agreed.


Now jerm, go take your meds and find a murderer to defend.

 

another fraudulent debunked claim... made by fraudcurrents.