If you are going to suggest a questionable number with certain decimal point accuracy, you should be certain that the measurements taken by which said number is derived are all equally precise. Right here, in this forum, maybe you don't have to, but I was using your assumption that something happened not 2 Million, not 3 Million, not 1 Million but 2.5 million years ago to demonstrate the sloppiness of Climate Scientology that makes outlandish decimal point claims in such things as the tides rising or coastlines receding in mm's, temperature risings in 1/10ths of C, when the PPM measurements for CO2 or the temperature measurements at diverse weather stations not only have less than a single decimal level of precision, but that precision has varied wildly over a period of 100+ years upon which data they rely.

If the 1911 thermometer was +/- 1C, then in order to use that data point, you simply can't draw conclusions with greater stated accuracy. Of course removing the data point (what the hell, the climatologists routinely ignore data points that don't fit their models, anyway) that then encumbers the High Priests of Climatology with the problem of extrapolating their results from an even more finite range which is a bad practice at best, but a conversation for another thread. The climatologists should hire themselves some hard core chemical engineers if they wanted to pronounce scientifically convincing results, but they'd likely find their models fit reality even less than the grant monies require.

Aside from the obvious political demagoguery, the hurdles causing Climatology credibility to suffer are precision, accuracy, poor and insufficient data quality, and a dependency upon wild extrapolation thereof. It may be a great political cause, but a poor occupational choice for the serious scientist or the technically inclined.

Are you sure it wasn't 2.6 million years ago? Maybe it was only 2.4 million years ago? The point is, like most conclusions made in the field of climate science, you lose credibility when you conclude precision in your results greater than the precision of your measurements.

Don't sit there wondering, run the calculations. What is the calorimetric capacity of the oceans? What is the absorption rate of UV, the emission rate of black body radiation of the oceans? What is the same for CO2 and other atmospheric gases? I think you will find the answer to your query, Grasshopper.

It can't be just the atmosphere. Whatever heat (energy in the form of specific spectral EMR) is trapped would have been blocked initially, so it's safe to conclude, if not at least hypothecate, that any warming (or cooling) is a complex of atmospheric and surface and even subterranean attributes of the planet. Blaming atmospheric CO2 is far too simplistic and inconclusive, so as to give unintended consequences if we treat it as a root cause. The jury is out and we ought not do anything, especially doing something just for the sake of doing something (a.k.a. "looking busy").

Find an alternative and come back when it's economically feasible and environmentally sound, but until then keep your hands off of my oil! ... and my high volume flush toilets, and my incandescent bulbs,... and my junk!

Climate "Science", so glad there's no political undertones... and that it's kept safe under the guidance of Democrats.

RepubliGOON or DemocRAT, only an idiot would tie up his identity with others simply because of a letter in parentheses.

Whether it's the US and China or the US and Iraq, there is the definition equal partnership. Neither respects the US (Hell, most Americans have no respect for the US) and the feeling is mutual.

Neither, it was a typo. Should have said "Glade Servers", referring to the little room deodorizers you can plug into wall outlets. The BOFH at usajobs.gov rarely bothers to shower and combined with the heat generated from their 2 UNIVACS (on loan from the Census Bureau that no longer computes, just estimates populations) the odor makes almost the entire floor of DOL Computing Services unbearable. I would expect that with the biohazard semi-contained, some other programmers might be able to get on the VT-100s across the hall and fix some bugs. Ain't Gov-ment great!

Or the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes, and apparently the Apollo 14 lunar module. Although we can thank a woeful workplace ethics for the recovery of the Apollo 14 LM camera from one of the aging pilots with strange taste for souvenirs.

I must have misread the article,... are you saying they tried to put two monkeys into orbit?

... and apparently their best candidate for sub-orbital test flights.

This is a case of a headline with a singular punch line trajectory.

They can put a man on the moon but can't succeed in perpetuating a lie? Well, that really helps restore my faith in Social Security, thanks!

What's the big deal!? Some actor carrying a prop off of a sound stage, they do it in Hollywood all the time!

Just can't put a lid on the ad hominem, eh! Reading your response, it makes sense though, because you don't have a fact-based, logical, or substantive argument to offer as an alternative. Nonetheless, I'll respond...

first, skipping the explicatives...

Interesting theory from your own colon... If you've observed equilibrium temperature, then please share the data because the AGW enthusiasts are off their rocker claiming a doomsday scenario and I think your findings will give them a moment of calm until they can conjure a new man-made calamity/fundraising cause. Or, if you accept ancient ice age epics and the demonstrative lack of equilibrium in the climate since mankind began recording the temperature, please provide the causality behind this alleged equilibrium which doesn't seem to exist. Is there a new Fourth* Law of Thermodynamics regarding orbiting bodies that just hasn't made it into print yet? Please explain the cause for this alleged equilibrium.

(* There are four, but the first has the appellation of "Zeroth", so a new law might be called "the Fourth")

Neither my impressions, nor yours, nor those of UN funded climate "scientists" are substantive to the debate. If their calculations and prognosis, or their attempt to predict cause and effect are wrong, irrespective of peer review (or lack thereof as in the case of IPCC's melting glaciers in the Himalayas) and consensus, any "beliefs" are irrelevant. Cite a fact and my impression will change upon verification and synthesis, but give me rhetoric and hyperbole and you've proven nothing. In the mean time, I can only assume from their Anthropogenic theories that even if the high priests of climatology remembered that there's a sun around which we orbit, they forgot that it is through vacuous space which our orbit travels.

I don't recall you making that statement nor myself averring that there was any controversy...? However, would you like to explain how that mitigates a net increase of energy in the Earth's system? Except for inbound meteors, the transference of energy into the planet's ecosphere is through radiation which is kinetic. It is within the (semi) closed system that said energy is converted to potential energy (chemical bonds) via chemical reactions, those processes being terrestrial. You still have a net increase equivalent to the gross amount irradiated minus that reflected or "re-emitted" through infrared or other means. There's no "flow" of heat outside of the system which would occur through some ethereal space "gases" as if the Earth were in a room shared by other bodies with which thermal equilibrium could be reached through Brownian Motion (convection).

If you can demonstrate that the energy naturally emitted is equal to (or greater than) that naturally received, you have a good argument for natural equilibrium (or natural global cooling). Do you have such data or a theory beyond your proprietary "Fourth Law of Thermodynamics" that is based on fact?

How is this relevant? What is the context with which you are referring to the existence of the "biosphere" and how does that relate to the warming or cooling (or alleged thermal "equilibrium") of the planet? Are you suggesting that the net energy of the System is held in equilibrium by the biosphere, but before existence of the biosphere it was gaining heat? You'll have to help me out here.

Or are you suggesting that the biosphere is the means by which the earth captures energy? Short of chrome plating the entire surface for perfect reflectivity, biosphere or no biosphere, the earth would absorb whatever was not reflected back, and if you are going to claim that the difference is made up by natural emission of infrared radiation, you better have an explanation of how that comes to be. Considering that the sun has a fusion chain reaction going off 24/7 on its surface, it's easy to see where it's radiating force arises, but the magnitude of difference between that radiation as received by the earth and any passive radiation emitted is as obvious as night is from day (literally - that's not a metaphor).

Please post your Fourth Law of Thermodynamics (ordinal fourth, quantitative fifth) or your data proving equilibrium as an observed fact.