Salby is a proven fraud and a fool. We went through this already. Multiple times. His defrauding of his employers is only half of it. He is also the laughing stock of the climate science community and his "science" to do with GW is a joke. This is obvious to anyone with more than half a brain and is honest. Leave you out piehole.
Hansen is of course right because CO2 is greenhouse gas, piehole. It's bedrock fundamental climate science. You need to do some reading about how levels of CO2 are what control the earth's temps. Aside from mere terminology confusion, you are also confused about some very basic things. Or you are just full of shit. I'm going with the latter. Wow you are full of shit. CO2: The Thermostat that Controls Earth's Temperature By Andrew Lacis — October 2010 A study by GISS climate scientists recently published in the journal Science shows that atmospheric CO2 operates as a thermostat to control the temperature of Earth. There is a close analogy to be drawn between the way an ordinary thermostat maintains the temperature of a house, and the way that atmospheric carbon dioxide (and the other minor non-condensing greenhouse gases) control the global temperature of Earth. The ordinary thermostat produces no heat of its own. Its role is to switch the furnace on and off, depending on whether the house temperature is lower or higher than the thermostat setting. If we were to carefully monitor the temperature of the house, we would see that the temperature does not stay constant at the set value, but rather exhibits a "natural variability" as the house temperature slips below the set value and then overshoots the mark with a time constant of minutes to tens of minutes, because of the thermal inertia of the house and because heating by the furnace (when it is on) is more powerful than the steady heat loss to the outdoors. If the thermostat is suddenly turned to a very high setting, the temperature will begin to rise at a rate dictated by the inertia of the house and strength of the furnace. Turning the thermostat back to normal will stop the heating. Figure 1. Attribution of individual atmospheric component contributions to the terrestrial greenhouse effect, separated into feedback and forcing categories. Dotted and dashed lines depict the fractional response for single-addition and single-subtraction of individual gases to either an empty or full-component reference atmosphere, respectively. Solid black lines are the scaled averages of the dashed and dotted line fractional response results. The sum of the fractional responses must add up to the total greenhouse effect. The reference model atmosphere is for 1980 conditions. + View larger image or PDF Atmospheric carbon dioxide performs a role similar to that of the house thermostat in setting the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. It differs from the house thermostat in that carbon dioxide itself is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) warming the ground surface by means of the greenhouse effect. It is this sustained warming that enables water vapor and clouds to maintain their atmospheric distributions as the so-called feedback effects that amplify the initial warming provided by the non-condensing GHGs, and in the process, account for the bulk of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect. Since the radiative effects associated with the buildup of water vapor to near-saturation levels and the subsequent condensation into clouds are far stronger than the equilibrium level of radiative forcing by the non-condensing GHGs, this results in large local fluctuations in temperature about the global equilibrium value. Together with the similar non-linear responses involving the ocean heat capacity, the net effect is the "natural variability" that the climate system exhibits regionally, and on inter-annual and decadal timescales, whether the global equilibrium temperature of the Earth is being kept fixed, or is being forced to re-adjust in response to changes in the level of atmospheric GHGs. This assessment comes about as the result of climate modeling experiments which show that it is the non-condensing greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons that provide the necessary atmospheric temperature structure that ultimately determines the sustainable range for atmospheric water vapor and cloud amounts, and thus controls their radiative contribution to the terrestrial greenhouse effect. From this it follows that these non-condensing greenhouse gases provide the temperature environment that is necessary for water vapor and cloud feedback effects to operate, without which the water vapor dominated greenhouse effect would inevitably collapse and plunge the global climate into an icebound Earth state. Within only the past century, the CO2 control knob has been turned sharply upward toward a much hotter global climate. The pre-industrial level of atmospheric carbon dioxide was about 280 ppm, which is representative of the interglacial maximum level of atmospheric CO2. During ice age extremes, the level of atmospheric CO2 drops to near 180 ppm, for which the global temperature is about 5 °C colder. The rapid recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has been attributed to human industrial activity, primarily the burning of fossil fuels. This has pushed atmospheric CO2 toward the 400 ppm level, far beyond the interglacial maximum. The climate system is trying to respond to the new setting of the global temperature thermostat, and this response has been the rise in global surface temperature by about 0.2 °C per decade for the past three decades. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
if this grade school explanation is true how would you explain temperature rising before a detectable rise in co2? Apparently something other than co2 drives up temperature. that's what the record shows. how do you explain that, if as you say co2 is responsible for rising temperature?. If man is responsible for co2 rising then why does co2 track temperature much better than it does man's co2 emissions? That's what the more recent research shows. The GISS explanation is consistent with Hansens hypothesis, but inconsistent with the data record? How do you explain that, if the hypothesis is correct? If the data record is correct and the GISS explanation was based on the incorrect assumption that Hansen's hypothesis is correct, everything would fall into place and be explained. The GISS explanation and the observations cannot both be correct. Are you saying that the observations are wrong? If so, why are they wrong?
It is chromopore, not "chromatophore", a chromatophore is a pigmented organelle found in certain cells. The idea of a very small amount of additional CO2 having a relatively large effect because of positive feed back is another interesting hypothesis, but in light of all the evidence indicating that heat sources other then the greenhouse effect from CO2 are much more important, it's an hypothesis with not much to back it up. There are undoubtedly feedback mechanisms, both negative and positive, but CO2's greenhouse effect is probably not the driver as suggested in the GISS Science article. On a short time scale, CO2 does not vary enough to cause weather variability, and on a longer time scale its effect on weather (or climate) must surely be swamped by other sources of global heating and cooling.
1. fraudcurrents I have gone over this with you before... this article has been overwhelmed by most of the recent papers and this subject. watervapor since this paper was published numerous papers on water vapor have been published. the recent papers conclude that either we don't know if more water vapor creates or more warming or more water vapor and clouds create more cooling because they show up in the tropics. 2. since this paper we have learned co2 follows temperature... you have even admitted that yourself. so as a thermostat co2 would cool when we warm and warm when we cool. Something I have speculated myself for a few years hear. At first out of the ice age... more co2 warms the earth through the greenhouse idea... but as we increase co2 it starts into a negative feedback mode... by making the atmosphere more of a blanket... and making the earth greener... (see the recent 2 nasa studies I quote freqently)
Oh and in case anyone forgot to keep in mind when looking at the above chart. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
" Research funding is a term generally covering any funding for scientific research, in the areas of both "hard" science and technology and social science. The term often connotes funding obtained through a competitive process, in which potential research projects are evaluated and only the most promising receive funding. Such processes, which are run by government, corporations or foundations, allocate scarce funds. Most research funding comes from two major sources, corporations (through research and development departments) and government (primarily carried out through universities and specialized government agencies). Some small amounts of scientific research are carried out (or funded) by charitable foundations, especially in relation to developing cures for diseases such as cancer, malaria and AIDS.[citation needed] According to OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industries, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government."