here is the science from NASA... Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASAâs TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earthâs upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planetâs surface. âCarbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,â explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABERâs principal investigator. âWhen the upper atmosphere (or âthermosphereâ) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.â http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ so when you add 40% more co2... you might be increasing the cooling on net. When science figures it out... we might be calling for an decrease in co2 to stop the cooling. And the current agw nutter scientists and drones and their spin will have sucked away all the govt money and the public's good will.
Umm well yes there is SOME science from NASA there. The rest is wild conjecture by an idiot. You. and when pigs get wings they can fly. Who's to say? What do you think? The scientists are as stupid and crazy as you are and just guess? FWIW.....here's some stuff about the science of how we know CO2 is causing warming. I don't expect it to matter to you but others might find it interesting. http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
1. skeptical science is well funded agw propaganda site. 2. the less speculative info in your link (same link 2 x) is not inconsistent with the idea more CO2 could cause cooling. Lets grant that greenhouse gases hold some heat in. Lets grant that greenhouse gases keep sun heat out. The rest of your links are just speculative garbage. How can your recognize the junk in your links... by this sentence which precedes it.... "Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values" Lets go back to what we do know... The NASA scientist told you greenhouse gases act as a thermostat moderating temps. Sun warms oceans... oceans release co2. More c02 blocks energy from sun. ( it may also conduct more heat up from troposphere... but that is more speculative.)
Hey jerm. Here's what NASA says.... Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2 AAAS emblem American Association for the Advancement of Science "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3 ACS emblem American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 AGU emblem American Geophysical Union "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system â including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons â are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007)5 AMA emblem American Medical Association "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeâs fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6 AMS emblem American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 APS emblem American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earthâs physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 GSA emblem The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9 SCIENCE ACADEMIES International academies: Joint statement "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the worldâs climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10 USNAS emblem U.S. National Academy of Sciences "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11 http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
your b.s. returns - fraudulent debunked studies. But even examining the point... I would have no problem believing cutting down rain forests and urbanization contribute to warming. The problem for you is... you have no science showing co2 causes warming... man made co2 is only a tiny sliver of 1% of greenhouse gases. and greenhouse gases.... here is the science from NASA... Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASAâs TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earthâs upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planetâs surface. âCarbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,â explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABERâs principal investigator. âWhen the upper atmosphere (or âthermosphereâ) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.â http://science.nasa.gov/science-new...12/22mar_saber/
The surverys conducted in 2013 show that a majority of scientists do not support AGW. So much for this 5% nonsense.
Sometimes <iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/D-y_N4u0uRQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
My counter arguments come from the recent papers and NASA. If the scientists produced studies showing co2 leads warming instead of the studies showing co2 trails warming... you could perhaps associate science with the IPCC spin. However since the very recent peer reviewed study shows only .3 percent of the research papers in the area support the IPCCs conclusion... you can be (99.7 %) sure the IPCC is not relying on science and hence their should be considered a scam.