Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[Dubya]

No one, neither you or anyone else, has posted data giving the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the years that I requested. Because it does not exist. You are either ignorant to that fact or you are lying about it---which is it?

Accurate atmospheric CO2 levels exist as far back as ice core records exist, because the snow that makes ice sheets traps the atmosphere. There are also various other proxy measurements that aren't as accurate. Good samples of ancient atmospheres from Greenland and Antarctica match and measurements of atmospheric CO2 up to around 800,000 years, the extent of the ice core record, are considered accurate.

You made the statement that CO2 levels haven't changed and we all know you didn't get that statement from any scientific study or even a Denialista site. You just made it up and it proves you're a liar. You aren't going to be able to post a source of how you obtained that information, because you're the source.

So all you have to do is produce these records. Seems pretty simple, yet you just drone on without showing them to us. Wonder why?

How do you have accurate ice core samples when there have been periods of thawing and glacial drift?

They have been produced, you fucking fool!

How can you know if the samples of ancient atmospheres is accurate? You take enough samples and get the same results. If the ancient atmosphere wasn't there, you wouldn't be able to measure it, fool! When ice is over a mile thick, it has to be from accumulated snow or the glacier wouldn't exist.

Why do you ask such stupid questions and make such stupid statements and then try to debate with people who have studied the subject?

 

[Redfish]

Accurate atmospheric CO2 levels exist as far back as ice core records exist, because the snow that makes ice sheets traps the atmosphere. There are also various other proxy measurements that aren't as accurate. Good samples of ancient atmospheres from Greenland and Antarctica match and measurements of atmospheric CO2 up to around 800,000 years, the extent of the ice core record, are considered accurate.

You made the statement that CO2 levels haven't changed and we all know you didn't get that statement from any scientific study or even a Denialista site. You just made it up and it proves you're a liar. You aren't going to be able to post a source of how you obtained that information, because you're the source.

So all you have to do is produce these records. Seems pretty simple, yet you just drone on without showing them to us. Wonder why?

How do you have accurate ice core samples when there have been periods of thawing and glacial drift?

They have been produced, you fucking fool!

How can you know if the samples of ancient atmospheres is accurate? You take enough samples and get the same results. If the ancient atmosphere wasn't there, you wouldn't be able to measure it, fool! When ice is over a mile thick, it has to be from accumulated snow or the glacier wouldn't exist.

Why do you ask such stupid questions and make such stupid statements and then try to debate with people who have studied the subject?

What??? glaciers??? but I thought that they were all melted. you mean glaciers still exist and they are over a mile thick? how can that be? the oceans are almost to the boiling point because soccer moms insist on SUVs and the evil chinese are buring coal.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Accurate atmospheric CO2 levels exist as far back as ice core records exist, because the snow that makes ice sheets traps the atmosphere. There are also various other proxy measurements that aren't as accurate. Good samples of ancient atmospheres from Greenland and Antarctica match and measurements of atmospheric CO2 up to around 800,000 years, the extent of the ice core record, are considered accurate.

You made the statement that CO2 levels haven't changed and we all know you didn't get that statement from any scientific study or even a Denialista site. You just made it up and it proves you're a liar. You aren't going to be able to post a source of how you obtained that information, because you're the source.

So all you have to do is produce these records. Seems pretty simple, yet you just drone on without showing them to us. Wonder why?

How do you have accurate ice core samples when there have been periods of thawing and glacial drift?

They have been produced, you fucking fool!

How can you know if the samples of ancient atmospheres is accurate? You take enough samples and get the same results. If the ancient atmosphere wasn't there, you wouldn't be able to measure it, fool! When ice is over a mile thick, it has to be from accumulated snow or the glacier wouldn't exist.

Why do you ask such stupid questions and make such stupid statements and then try to debate with people who have studied the subject?

ice core samples have shown that co2 lagged temperature....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-data-help-solve
The 800 year lag ? graphed « JoNova

 

[Dubya]

So all you have to do is produce these records. Seems pretty simple, yet you just drone on without showing them to us. Wonder why?

How do you have accurate ice core samples when there have been periods of thawing and glacial drift?

They have been produced, you fucking fool!

How can you know if the samples of ancient atmospheres is accurate? You take enough samples and get the same results. If the ancient atmosphere wasn't there, you wouldn't be able to measure it, fool! When ice is over a mile thick, it has to be from accumulated snow or the glacier wouldn't exist.

Why do you ask such stupid questions and make such stupid statements and then try to debate with people who have studied the subject?

What??? glaciers??? but I thought that they were all melted. you mean glaciers still exist and they are over a mile thick? how can that be? the oceans are almost to the boiling point because soccer moms insist on SUVs and the evil chinese are buring coal.

Show the world what a fool you are and why a fool claims CO2 levels haven't changed! You know none of those right-wing idiots will say anything about your stupidity, because stupidity is all they to offer too.

 

[Dubya]

So all you have to do is produce these records. Seems pretty simple, yet you just drone on without showing them to us. Wonder why?

How do you have accurate ice core samples when there have been periods of thawing and glacial drift?

They have been produced, you fucking fool!

How can you know if the samples of ancient atmospheres is accurate? You take enough samples and get the same results. If the ancient atmosphere wasn't there, you wouldn't be able to measure it, fool! When ice is over a mile thick, it has to be from accumulated snow or the glacier wouldn't exist.

Why do you ask such stupid questions and make such stupid statements and then try to debate with people who have studied the subject?

ice core samples have shown that co2 lagged temperature....

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery: Scientific American
The 800 year lag ? graphed « JoNova

Temperature is just an approximate reading of the amount heat. Temperature isn't a radiative force and things like greenhouse gases and sunlight are. There is no lag, fool! Greenhouse gases are warming the Earth every second. Even when the sunlight isn't absorbed by the surface of the Earth, the Earth's surface is still absorbing back radiation from it's greenhouse gases.

When there are glaciers, where does the CO2 go? Don't you know glaciers cover up carbon and colder water can dissolve more gases, like CO2?

Only an idiot would believe adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere doesn't cause more back radiation from the atmosphere. You are an idiot!

 

[JoeNormal]

This is one of the reasons why reaching world consensus among gov'ts is so difficult. England, the US, and Australia are historically some of the worst offenders, and other countries expect US to pave the way as far a cost is concerned. Meanwhile, countries like China are NOW the biggest offenders, and we expect THEM to take a leading role in cutting back their emissions. I've only mentioned 4 countries out of about 192 countries in the world, and each country will have a unique perspective.

And then, of course, there's the problem that it's nothing but a huge con.

Tens of thousands of people involved in a con? What are the odds (the statistical odds) of thousands of scientists, most of whom value their professional reputations beyond all other things, engaging in widespread fraud in order to further someone else's agenda? Billions to one, perhaps?

But I can understand something about that view. When people immerse themselves in the dirty, nasty world of politics on a daily basis where ridiculous arguments are routinely trotted out to justify policies that are almost certainly supported due to hidden agendas and motivations, then it's not difficult to understand that these people are the first to suspect the same in other people regardless of the topic. Put simply, they see hidden motivations in all things, even when they're simply not there.

Conservatives can't imagine anyone having higher ethics or aspirations than jumping on the fucking gravy train. That's why they see nothing but a big con in all of this.

 

[Mustang]

Someone who understood something about science....?

If you had researched this, you would know why it's located where it is.

I know volcanoes outgas CO2 among other gases. That would make the concentrations of CO2 higher. You of course, had no clue.

How many times have you been told the amount of CO2 from volcanos isn't significant? Volcanos are in balance with the amount of CO2 sequestered by the oceans, just like the amount of CO2 used by plants and put back by into the atmosphere by respiration of animals and decay are in balance. We all know man is the source of the extra CO2, because we are using carbon sinks as fuel.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. When people dig up carbon that's been buried underground for a few million years and put it back into the air, humans are essentially interfering in the natural carbon cycle. Now, that wouldn't be such a big deal if we were doing the reverse, as well. If we somehow had the technology available to collect carbon from the air and put it back into the ground, then human activity would have no net affect on the natural environment's carbon cycle. But we're not doing that.

 

[Mustang]

CO2 does not retain heat nearly as much as water vapor or methane. That is science fact. I understand you have to keep pounding the CO2 thing, because you haven't figured out how to blame methane or water vapor on man.

You don't read what's posted, do you? This is from post #375.

Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature
10.14.10


› View larger
A new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. Credit: NASA GISS/ Lilly Del Valle

› View larger
Various atmospheric components differ in their contributions to the greenhouse effect, some through feedbacks and some through forcings. Without carbon dioxide and other non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. Credit: NASA GISS Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

The study, conducted by Andrew Lacis and colleagues at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, examined the nature of Earth's greenhouse effect and clarified the role that greenhouse gases and clouds play in absorbing outgoing infrared radiation. Notably, the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

Without non-condensing greenhouse gases, water vapor and clouds would be unable to provide the feedback mechanisms that amplify the greenhouse effect. The study's results will be published Friday, Oct. 15 in Science.

A companion study led by GISS co-author Gavin Schmidt that has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research shows that carbon dioxide accounts for about 20 percent of the greenhouse effect, water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, and minor gases and aerosols make up the remaining five percent. However, it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth’s greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The climate forcing experiment described in Science was simple in design and concept -- all of the non-condensing greenhouse gases and aerosols were zeroed out, and the global climate model was run forward in time to see what would happen to the greenhouse effect. Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth’s greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.


NASA - Carbon Dioxide Controls Earth's Temperature

 

[ScreamingEagle]

They have been produced, you fucking fool!

How can you know if the samples of ancient atmospheres is accurate? You take enough samples and get the same results. If the ancient atmosphere wasn't there, you wouldn't be able to measure it, fool! When ice is over a mile thick, it has to be from accumulated snow or the glacier wouldn't exist.

Why do you ask such stupid questions and make such stupid statements and then try to debate with people who have studied the subject?

ice core samples have shown that co2 lagged temperature....

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery: Scientific American
The 800 year lag ? graphed « JoNova

Temperature is just an approximate reading of the amount heat. Temperature isn't a radiative force and things like greenhouse gases and sunlight are. There is no lag, fool! Greenhouse gases are warming the Earth every second. Even when the sunlight isn't absorbed by the surface of the Earth, the Earth's surface is still absorbing back radiation from it's greenhouse gases.

When there are glaciers, where does the CO2 go? Don't you know glaciers cover up carbon and colder water can dissolve more gases, like CO2?

Only an idiot would believe adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere doesn't cause more back radiation from the atmosphere. You are an idiot!

no lag....? well i guess all those ice cores and scientists are wrong and you are right.....

global temperature has risen many times over thousands of years and there was no known greenhouse cause...or can you prove otherwise....?

all you are really saying is that co2 makes it hotter during the day.....that's a far cry from proving that co2 is the main cause of global warming....

for all we know it could be due to solar activity.....ocean climate cycles.....cloud cover.....underground nuke blasting......and the list goes on....

however BIG G wants you to believe the world is doomed unless you pay 'carbon taxes'....and far too many have jumped on the gravy train....

 

[Dubya]

ice core samples have shown that co2 lagged temperature....

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery: Scientific American
The 800 year lag ? graphed « JoNova

Temperature is just an approximate reading of the amount heat. Temperature isn't a radiative force and things like greenhouse gases and sunlight are. There is no lag, fool! Greenhouse gases are warming the Earth every second. Even when the sunlight isn't absorbed by the surface of the Earth, the Earth's surface is still absorbing back radiation from it's greenhouse gases.

When there are glaciers, where does the CO2 go? Don't you know glaciers cover up carbon and colder water can dissolve more gases, like CO2?

Only an idiot would believe adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere doesn't cause more back radiation from the atmosphere. You are an idiot!

no lag....? well i guess all those ice cores and scientists are wrong and you are right.....

global temperature has risen many times over thousands of years and there was no known greenhouse cause...or can you prove otherwise....?

all you are really saying is that co2 makes it hotter during the day.....that's a far cry from proving that co2 is the main cause of global warming....

for all we know it could be due to solar activity.....ocean climate cycles.....cloud cover.....underground nuke blasting......and the list goes on....

however BIG G wants you to believe the world is doomed unless you pay 'carbon taxes'....and far too many have jumped on the gravy train....

Your brain is just too small to get it. Temperature isn't radiative forcing and all greenhouse gases are. That means they are just like the sun or lack of sun, aeorsols or lack of aerosols, clouds or lack of clouds and albedo changes that reflect or absorb sunlight. The sun is measured in solar irradiance and they average the measurements for different areas, because the sunlight hits at different angles and for day and night, because all the Earth isn't getting sunlight. The amount of sunlight entering the planet has a certain amount of radiative forcing as it changes with Milankovitch Cycles.

Temperature rises comes from anything that increases radiative forcing. If you clean the aerosols from the atmosphere, the temperature of the Earth's surface will rise. If the Earth reflects less sunlight, the temperature will rise. If you increase greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will give off more back radiation and the temperature will rise. If you do the opposite, the temperature will decline. There is nothing complicated about that and it isn't theory. There is no theory adding greenhouse gases will cause a planet to warm or decreasing them will cause a planet to cool. It isn't a theory, because it's a fact, you fucking fool! Scientists can put the gases in a container, shine light through them and measure the results, which are the same everytime for the same atmospheric conditions. The background radiation from greenhouse gases is nearly twice the direct sunlight, so it's like having a planet with three suns and no greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases Earth would be a very cold place. The heat from just our sun would quickly escape into space. It isn't just climate science that believes that, all science does, such as astrophysics. Your bullshit claims against greenhouse gases have no place in science, it's like claiming the Earth is flat.

While you are on the internet playing bullshit games, there are obvious signs of a planet warming. The days are ticking away for the arctic sea ice, so who is going to believe your bullshit once it's gone and Greenland is rapidly melting? There is so much evidence of warming that the only logical conclusion is deniers are liars.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Temperature is just an approximate reading of the amount heat. Temperature isn't a radiative force and things like greenhouse gases and sunlight are. There is no lag, fool! Greenhouse gases are warming the Earth every second. Even when the sunlight isn't absorbed by the surface of the Earth, the Earth's surface is still absorbing back radiation from it's greenhouse gases.

When there are glaciers, where does the CO2 go? Don't you know glaciers cover up carbon and colder water can dissolve more gases, like CO2?

Only an idiot would believe adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere doesn't cause more back radiation from the atmosphere. You are an idiot!

no lag....? well i guess all those ice cores and scientists are wrong and you are right.....

global temperature has risen many times over thousands of years and there was no known greenhouse cause...or can you prove otherwise....?

all you are really saying is that co2 makes it hotter during the day.....that's a far cry from proving that co2 is the main cause of global warming....

for all we know it could be due to solar activity.....ocean climate cycles.....cloud cover.....underground nuke blasting......and the list goes on....

however BIG G wants you to believe the world is doomed unless you pay 'carbon taxes'....and far too many have jumped on the gravy train....

Your brain is just too small to get it. Temperature isn't radiative forcing and all greenhouse gases are. That means they are just like the sun or lack of sun, aeorsols or lack of aerosols, clouds or lack of clouds and albedo changes that reflect or absorb sunlight. The sun is measured in solar irradiance and they average the measurements for different areas, because the sunlight hits at different angles and for day and night, because all the Earth isn't getting sunlight. The amount of sunlight entering the planet has a certain amount of radiative forcing as it changes with Milankovitch Cycles.

Temperature rises comes from anything that increases radiative forcing. If you clean the aerosols from the atmosphere, the temperature of the Earth's surface will rise. If the Earth reflects less sunlight, the temperature will rise. If you increase greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will give off more back radiation and the temperature will rise. If you do the opposite, the temperature will decline. There is nothing complicated about that and it isn't theory. There is no theory adding greenhouse gases will cause a planet to warm or decreasing them will cause a planet to cool. It isn't a theory, because it's a fact, you fucking fool! Scientists can put the gases in a container, shine light through them and measure the results, which are the same everytime for the same atmospheric conditions. The background radiation from greenhouse gases is nearly twice the direct sunlight, so it's like having a planet with three suns and no greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases Earth would be a very cold place. The heat from just our sun would quickly escape into space. It isn't just climate science that believes that, all science does, such as astrophysics. Your bullshit claims against greenhouse gases have no place in science, it's like claiming the Earth is flat.

While you are on the internet playing bullshit games, there are obvious signs of a planet warming. The days are ticking away for the arctic sea ice, so who is going to believe your bullshit once it's gone and Greenland is rapidly melting? There is so much evidence of warming that the only logical conclusion is deniers are liars.

blah blah...greenhouse effect.....blah blah....

...but you are still not proving that man-made GH gases are responsible for increased global surface temperature.....

 

[Mustang]

no lag....? well i guess all those ice cores and scientists are wrong and you are right.....

global temperature has risen many times over thousands of years and there was no known greenhouse cause...or can you prove otherwise....?

all you are really saying is that co2 makes it hotter during the day.....that's a far cry from proving that co2 is the main cause of global warming....

for all we know it could be due to solar activity.....ocean climate cycles.....cloud cover.....underground nuke blasting......and the list goes on....

however BIG G wants you to believe the world is doomed unless you pay 'carbon taxes'....and far too many have jumped on the gravy train....

Your brain is just too small to get it. Temperature isn't radiative forcing and all greenhouse gases are. That means they are just like the sun or lack of sun, aeorsols or lack of aerosols, clouds or lack of clouds and albedo changes that reflect or absorb sunlight. The sun is measured in solar irradiance and they average the measurements for different areas, because the sunlight hits at different angles and for day and night, because all the Earth isn't getting sunlight. The amount of sunlight entering the planet has a certain amount of radiative forcing as it changes with Milankovitch Cycles.

Temperature rises comes from anything that increases radiative forcing. If you clean the aerosols from the atmosphere, the temperature of the Earth's surface will rise. If the Earth reflects less sunlight, the temperature will rise. If you increase greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will give off more back radiation and the temperature will rise. If you do the opposite, the temperature will decline. There is nothing complicated about that and it isn't theory. There is no theory adding greenhouse gases will cause a planet to warm or decreasing them will cause a planet to cool. It isn't a theory, because it's a fact, you fucking fool! Scientists can put the gases in a container, shine light through them and measure the results, which are the same everytime for the same atmospheric conditions. The background radiation from greenhouse gases is nearly twice the direct sunlight, so it's like having a planet with three suns and no greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases Earth would be a very cold place. The heat from just our sun would quickly escape into space. It isn't just climate science that believes that, all science does, such as astrophysics. Your bullshit claims against greenhouse gases have no place in science, it's like claiming the Earth is flat.

While you are on the internet playing bullshit games, there are obvious signs of a planet warming. The days are ticking away for the arctic sea ice, so who is going to believe your bullshit once it's gone and Greenland is rapidly melting? There is so much evidence of warming that the only logical conclusion is deniers are liars.

blah blah...greenhouse effect.....blah blah....

...but you are still not proving that man-made GH gases are responsible for increased global surface temperature.....

Unfortunately, CO2 molecules don't come with any identifying codes regarding their origin.

 

[Redfish]

CO2 has fluctuated over thousands of years and has varied a couple hundredths of a % up or down----according to ice core data which is questionable.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it. man is a microbe on a gnat on an elephants ass when it comes to the climate of the earth

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives can't imagine anyone having higher ethics or aspirations than jumping on the fucking gravy train. That's why they see nothing but a big con in all of this.

Unlike left-wing turds, conservatives don't assume people suddenly turn into angels the minute they start getting checks from the government.

 

[bripat9643]

This is one of the reasons why reaching world consensus among gov'ts is so difficult. England, the US, and Australia are historically some of the worst offenders, and other countries expect US to pave the way as far a cost is concerned. Meanwhile, countries like China are NOW the biggest offenders, and we expect THEM to take a leading role in cutting back their emissions. I've only mentioned 4 countries out of about 192 countries in the world, and each country will have a unique perspective.

And then, of course, there's the problem that it's nothing but a huge con.

Tens of thousands of people involved in a con? What are the odds (the statistical odds) of thousands of scientists, most of whom value their professional reputations beyond all other things, engaging in widespread fraud in order to further someone else's agenda? Billions to one, perhaps?

You mean like Phil Jones and Michael Mann? When their bogus work was exposed, the academic establishment circled the wagons to protect them. It's obvious that government and public universities all have a vested interest in promoting the anthropogenic global warming scam.

But I can understand something about that view. When people immerse themselves in the dirty, nasty world of politics on a daily basis where ridiculous arguments are routinely trotted out to justify policies that are almost certainly supported due to hidden agendas and motivations, then it's not difficult to understand that these people are the first to suspect the same in other people regardless of the topic. Put simply, they see hidden motivations in all things, even when they're simply not there.

Oh, you mean the way turds like you accuse any skeptical scientist of being a tool of the energy companies?

Liberals are such a hoot!

 

[Mustang]

CO2 has fluctuated over thousands of years and has varied a couple hundredths of a % up or down----according to ice core data which is questionable.

the point is that man has never had anything to do with it. man is a microbe on a gnat on an elephants ass when it comes to the climate of the earth

Even when humans didn't have machines, they managed to build the great pyramids which are visible from outer space. In fact, a great number of human construction projects are visible from space, including airports, cities, dams, etc. The astronauts can see the lights of the cities from space too.

But nowadays, we have HUGE land moving machines which dig and haul coal out of incredibly large open pit mines in order to feed the industries that create our power and build even more machines, all of which churns out increasing amounts of CO2 as our population grows ever larger with a corresponding greater need for food, and housing, and consumer goods, and transportation...all of which pumps out even MORE CO2. You get the point, don't you?

Pretty impressive for 'gnats.'

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you can't keep up in this thread, just go to another one. Perhaps a birther thread is more your speed.

You're the one who can't distinguish between climate and an ecosystem moron.

I hate having to spell out the obvious.

All animals interact with the ecosystem. The question is whether or not humans can alter the climate. Conservatives state that it's not possible. The contention of climate change scientists is that humans are, in fact, altering the natural environment (and hence, our ecosystem) by introducing extremely large quantities of greenhouse gases into the air which would otherwise still be buried in what are commonly referred to as sinks. To continue, these greenhouse gases are interacting with solar radiation to increase the temperature of the planet, thereby changing the climate in the process as more heat is generated than is allowed to escape into space. Climate scientists believe that the human-driven process of burning fossil fuels changes the previous balance of the ecosystem.

Where do you get this garbage?
Yes, human beings are the problem. Why don't you pick up the first weapon to start the slaughter. You can come here and try first. Note....Bring friends. Lots of friends.
You lefties are so stupid it is beyond belief.
Your liberal politicians started this crap because they wanted to implement new taxes and more restrictions on commerce. You bought right into this nonsense.
Your side could not even hang on to the term ( GLobal warming) that represented your cause. You people attempted to re write the narrative by applying "climate change" to your cause. Al Gore is a mere flyspeck now after making as much money as he could from the cause. And YOU people paid him.
Suckers...
And now Obama wants to spend $200 million of our hard earned money for what amounts to an ad campaign to convince us to ween ourselves off fossil fuels. Another lib failure.
And this genius is whining about having to close down the White House to tours.
What hypocrisy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're the one who can't distinguish between climate and an ecosystem moron.

I hate having to spell out the obvious.

All animals interact with the ecosystem. The question is whether or not humans can alter the climate. Conservatives state that it's not possible. The contention of climate change scientists is that humans are, in fact, altering the natural environment (and hence, our ecosystem) by introducing extremely large quantities of greenhouse gases into the air which would otherwise still be buried in what are commonly referred to as sinks. To continue, these greenhouse gases are interacting with solar radiation to increase the temperature of the planet, thereby changing the climate in the process as more heat is generated than is allowed to escape into space. Climate scientists believe that the human-driven process of burning fossil fuels changes the previous balance of the ecosystem.

The surface of the Earth absorbs radiation from direct sunlight and back radiation from the atmosphere. The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere change the back radiation, which is nearly twice as much as radiation from direct sunlight. The amount of back radiation is going to raise and fall with the changes in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Well you're wrong, but an infinitesimal increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has resulted in an increase in average temp of 1.8C in the last 100 years.
For example, since weather records have been kept in Charlotte, NC( about 1890) the average max temp during the hottest week of the year(Climate recognized as during the last week of July) has been adjusted upward and downward several times. During this week the average high temp is 90.3...In the 1970's it was 91.6...
The National Climatic Data Center gathers data and makes adjustments based on 20 year data.
You can use buzz terms such as 'radiation' to further your agenda. Your call.
The fact is until a viable alternative to gasoline and diesel that performs as good or better, is as widely available, costs at or below and is free of the gargantuan and wasteful federal subsidies is discovered, all of your side's whining and moaning isn't going to result in anything except a whole bunch of wasted time and energy.
Drill baby drill!!!!!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Water vapor and methane change temperatures more than CO2.

An ecosystem is not climate, climate is not an ecosystem. Learn terms moron.

You are talking about the amount of temperature that can be changed and not the amount that is changed. There isn't enough methane in the atmosphere to change temperatures more than the amount of CO2 does. This is the second time you have posted this nonsense that I recall. If the amount of methane starts increasing due to global warming, it could become a significant contributor to global warming. Here are the contributions of greenhouse gases to radiative forcing and the range of that contribution is rather narrow:

CO2 is giving a value of 1.66 and methane is given a value of 0.48. You will also notice aerosols have a very wide range of values, so cleaning up the air could produce unexpected results. It doesn't take long for aerosols to leave the atmosphere, if they aren't being continually replaced. You will also notice there is no value included for increases in water vapor which would accompany warming. It's hard to say how much contribution all those cooling towers have added to warming.

Immaterial in light of the FACT that there is no such thing as man made global warming or climate change. Unless of course you must believe junk science because it acknowledges your high tax agenda.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Mustang's confusion is a perfect example of how climate change doesn't belong in the classroom. Just more terms for the left to get wrong.

One's political views are irrelevant to whether some aspect of scientific work is valid or not. To say the least.

Oh but they are. In the climate issue, it's nothing but politics.
Look at the proposals elicited by those supporting the theory of man made climate change.
All proposals contain some sort of penalty. Whether they be additional taxation, more government oversight on the business of individuals, more draconian regulations on commerce.