Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

I think its a good question.
the answer is maybe... its cyclical, it is within expected ranges, or it could be something natural changed, it could be man made co2 rather that being off gassed or absorbed is accumulating.


None of the above means that man made co2 is warming the earth.
Nor does it mean the co2 is blocking out solar energy and cooling.

The fact is science does not yet know enough about our very complex system to know.

 

The fact is that you're an intentional idiot and science knows manmade CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is responsible for almost all of the warming over the last forty years. They are as sure of that as they are that cigarettes cause cancer. The fact that you are a Republican partisan fanatic effects none of this.

 

Solar input to earth has been going down over the last fifty years as temps continue to go up. The reason temps are going up is man-made greenhouse gasses. Not natural CO2, not Rush Limbaugh's hot air.

 

accept the fact that co2 acts as a thermostat and you can cleanse yourself of your stupidity... and realize the changing one of many inputs does not wind up with a linear output. the atmosphere is complex and dynamic and the inputs are always changing.

understanding systems is not for simple minded drones like yourself..

let NASA get you started.....
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_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.”

 

Didn't you understand the first time that we showed that CO2 is warming the earth? The troposphere (lower atmosphere) is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, showing empirically that CO2 acts like a blanket preventing heat from escaping.

Yes, understanding systems is not for the simple minded or the intentionally blind as you are. Do you think all the world's climate scientists have not thought about this stuff? Because over 97% of them know CO2 is causing global warming.

Your grasping at straws, intentional ignorance and pulling quotes out of context to prove a point is sad.

 

And he got the term "thermostat" wrong. That would assume that CO2 increased it's rejection of heat as the thermosphere heated up and then reduced it's rejection of incoming solar as the temps go down. It doesn't act that way. There is no feedback system at play. He simply used the wrong term. It's more like just a blanket. Unless there is more to it than is explained in the article. Besides the thermosphere is way above the stratosphere and is not the troposphere layer of atmosphere. It is the lowest layer - the troposphere - that is involved with the greenhouse effect that we are concerned about.

But all this is silly. To think that as laymen we can out-think the professional scientists in an area of their expertise is ridiculous.

97% of the world's climatologists agree that man's greenhouse gasses (mostly CO2) are causing the spike in warming we are seeing over the last 40 - 50 years.

 

Still on the debunked, fabricated 97% figure I see...

Until you admit that under 50% of scientists in 2013 support AGW as demonstrated by all the recent surveys then there really is no hope for you.

 

Why don't all these greedy, dishonest scientists tell the world that an asteroid will hit the Earth in 50 years and that we need to spend mightily now to prevent it? I mean, if they don't care that in 50 years they'll be proved wrong...

 

LoL.

No, not anyone can create that kind of survey. Surveying cereal boxes for climate change requires the particular sort of idiocy AGW deniers like to embrace, rather than anything scientific.

The survey is proceedings in the National Academy of Sciences and defined as the specific dataset of 1,372 climate researchers' publications and citation data. It's not Cooks survey anyway.
But it is a survey however much you refuse the fact.

A significant survey too, showing 97% those scientists devoted to doing climate research, support the tenets of anthropic climate change (ACC).

 

You will have to pass that along to them.... they will probably take it up to keep the research grant gravy train flowing when 'global warming' is revealed as a total hoax in ten years and they all need to move on to some 'new urgent problem'.