CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY
DELEGATES at the 18th annual UN climate gabfest at the dismal, echoing Doha conference center – one of the least exotic locations chosen for these rebarbatively repetitive exercises in pointlessness – have an Oops! problem.
No, not the sand-flies. Not the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
The equations of classical physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However, observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?
That means They can’t even get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.
Or, rather, one needs not to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that “Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.
IPeCaC is about to churn out yet another futile tome. And how will its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report deal with the absence of global warming since a year after the Second Assessment report? Simple. The global-warming profiteers’ bible won’t mention it.
There will be absolutely nothing about the embarrassing 16-year global-warming stasis in the thousands of pages of the new report. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
Instead, the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.
No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s. Yeah, right.
If you will believe that, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.
The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) are beginning to ask what it was that the much-trumpeted “consensus” got wrong. The answer is that two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models is uneducated guesswork. The computer models assume that any warming causes further warming, by various “temperature feedbacks”.
Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.
IPeCaC’s official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.
But the real-world, measured outturn was 0.14 Cº/decade, and just 0.3 Cº in the quarter of a century since 1990: less than half of what the “consensus” had over-predicted.
In 2008, the world’s “consensus” climate modelers wrote a paper saying ten years without global warming was to be expected (though their billion-dollar brains had somehow failed to predict it). They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.
By the modelers’ own criterion, then, HAL has failed its most basic test – trying to predict how much global warming will happen.
Yet Ms. Christina Figurehead, chief executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says “centralization” of global governing power (in her hands, natch) is the solution. Solution to what?
And what solution? Even if the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today.
It is the do-nothing option that is scientifically sound and economically right. And nothing is precisely what 17 previous annual climate yatteramas have done. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.
Support CFACT’s mission here.
I maybe wrong here but the 16 years without warming is more serious than previously thought. Are we getting near to falsification as projected by the IPCC / Hansen style????? If not then how many years would it take?
References:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/times-up-lack-of-global-warming-has.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/ben-santers-17-year-itch/
Then there is the small matter of the predicted yet still missing hotspot. Or was it never predicted?
Here is the paper for Santer’s 17 years minimum of lack of warming to separate noise.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
Christopher: Once again, thank you. Your posts and presentations are always informative and, at the same time, very entertaining. While I would catagorize mine as informative, I haven’t yet figured out how to make them entertaining. Maybe someday.
Regards
Patricia Ravasio
First, you are welcome here, as an exchange of views and ideas is always beneficial. But please refrain from offensive phrases such as “deniers”, which really does offend. We say “skeptics” because we are indeed, quite skeptical. Study the temperature record of the last fifteen years and see if you detect a warming trend. If you do not, then you might consider whether this panic over global warming is a sensible thing involving sensible people. If you reach that point of thoughtfulness, you are on the verge of achieving independent thought and you will begin to understand why so many persons, formerly having accepted the alarmist point of view, have now rejected that.
Best Regards
With all due respect I must submit a correction: these meetings are not “gabfests”. They are grabfests.
Werner, I must have done something wrong with the graphs. I changed the starting point at 1996 instead of 1997 and all the trend lines went up. What is happening?
Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
What could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy? This activity can help stimulate the economy, and make us all healthier, less polluted people in the long run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Patricia,
You jumped in demanding a discussion of science, insisting on credible facts to refute CAGW. You got a list of them in short order. So, did you learn anything from the facts and science that were offered to you?
Apparently not. Instead you just changed course. Instead of trying to justify your world view on the basis of CAGW, you proceeded to lecture us about justifying your world view on an entirely different set of criteria. Sounds to me like you’ve made up your mind that your world view is correct, and you’ll just keep changing your mind as to why when your reason of the day meets with facts that don’t support it.
What’s wrong with pursuing newer. cleaner forms of energy? Nothing. But that isn’t what the CAGW movement is advocating. They’re advocating anything except fossil fuels no matter the cost, and there IS a cost. Biofuels turn out to produce more CO2 than just using fossil fuels when all the processing factors are included. Al Gore has even reluctantly admitted this. So, what value a fuel supposedly “cleaner” that produces more of what we’re trying to reduce while reducing what is of value, which is food. Or do you consider less food to feed people with a good thing?
We must also consider cost effectiveness. You ask “what harm” but there is plenty of harm if the alternatives are not cost effective. Do you think there will be any harm to a family on a fixed income if their heating costs triple? Do you understand that forcing the use of alternative energies affects the economics of everything from harvesting to transporting to processing to storing and preparing for use every single thing we take for granted? A 10% increase in fuel cost might show up as a 50% increase in a loaf of bread by the time it gets to your table. Is there any harm to a family on a fixed income of food prices rising by 50%?
Our entire western economy functions on cheap energy. Mess with it in any large way and the economy will collapse, and the suffering will be measured in tens of millions, perhaps billions, of lives.
But most importantly Patricia, we HAVE cleaned up the energy we use, big time. Coal fueled plants have scrubbers on them that remove all the aerosol pollutants that we used to allow them to spew into the atmosphere. The same goes for heavy industry such as chemical processing plants. The entire auto industry is subject to emission controls, and if you haven’t noticed, the fuel economy of most vehicles has risen 40% in the last few years. There was a time when stand up comics made fun of smog in cities with lines like “I shot an arrow into the sky…. and it stuck there”. Not funny today because the problem is gone. We cleaned it up.
So yes Patricia, there is harm if you ignore the big picture, and lot’s of it. And yes Patricia, we ARE pursuing new and cleaner ways of doing things. What we are not doing is assuming that one particular energy source is inherently evil and hence should be eliminated, and changing our minds as to why each time someone explains an important fact that we hadn’t previously considered.
Pat Ravasio
I am sorry I did not got into this debate any earlier. I appreciate your point about the environment, but I would like to make the following points:
1) Mankind has been “abusing”( I cannot think of a better term!) for thousands of years, the planet recovers. We have large numbers of abandoned coal mines here in the UK, they were eyesores when they were being worked, now the spoil heaps have been grassed and they attract wildlife and are pleasant to look at. Quarries and tin mines are the same.
2) I was speaking with someone who erects these wind turbines. They have to be built in the middle of nowhere (usually in an area of outstanding beauty) because the noise they make is damaging to humans. Each turbine needs 700 tons of concrete in its foundations, roads have to be built over unspoiled land to buiild and service them. The roads need very deep foundations because the traffic using them is by noty stretch of the imagination “light” Finally they need a network of pylons all needing wiring up and foundations to connect them to the National Grid. Gas powered power stations need to be on stand by for when the wind doesn’t blow or blows too fast. They have a life of 25 years but if one of the blades has the slightest damage it has to be discarded due to the imbalance it would create in the bearings. The amount of CO2 created by making, placing, servicing and connecting these things does not bear thinking about! They then only produce about 25% of their claimed output, also they decimate the bird and bat populations, so they are not in the slightest bit environmentally friendly.
3) There has been no global warming for 16 years we sceptics know this as do the warmists. If CO2 was causing GW then the planet should have warmed, it hasn’t, leading to two conclusions:
a) CO2 is not causing GW, in which case the theory is flawed.
b) Other factors many times more influential on the climate are involved, in which case the theory is flawed.
4) Science on the hoof seems to be the mainstay of theory of AGW. Earth having a climate like the planet Venus if we don’t curtail CO2 emissions was one, Arctic ice melting and causing the sea levels to rise was another. Both scientifically impossible.
Dear Pat Ravisio,
Being an avid user of this Blog, even on a sunday afternoon without a scotch, I find the reactions to your contribution very interesting and enlightning. As you expressed views relating to the stance that the climate has become an excuse and a bugbear, while its future behaviour seems to be set in stone (based on what I believe is very sloppy “science”: the physics do not fit) you may consider the following.
The workings of our (including mine of course) brain (from Daniël Kahnemann: Thinking fast and slow, Penguin pockets 2011) can be explained by two systems. One, say the automatic or in other words intuïtion, the fast and easy one. The second one may be called “the rater” capable of thinking, defining, evaluating; in need of more effort to be kick-started. When placed in a position of fear, as is obvious from your contribution”: I paraphrase: “we are difiling our earth, the fertile topsoil is disappearing, we are paving our wilderness, fouling the biosphere and will end up killing ourselves in the process” we are limiting ourselves to the use of system one: intuïtion. We unfortunately limit our ability to transcend beyond pre-conceived ideas. Intuïtion may be right but more often it is not. The business of a precautionary approach is such a fear driven mechanism on which politics and other questionable businesses thrive.
Are you saying there are only 2 CAGW sceptics on Earth? You may want to re-think you statement in light of this and this.
But before you do calm down and read WUWT site policy and you will see that your comment was lucky to have got through – hint “last deniers”.
Secondly, read my comment here and give me an honest assessment of what YOUR climate scientists said about 15 years and 17 years being the minimum to discern the anthropogenic signal? Do you agree with 17 years? If not, how many years is the minimum? Simple questions that don’t require name calling. If you fail to answer then you may have embarrassed yourself.
EU carbon price down the gurgler : best news yet : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/30/us-carbon-price-idUSBRE8AT0U020121130
I quote:
Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.
Even the IPCC acknowledge that CO2 causes cooling of the stratosphere. The Lapse Rate Law then requires that the lower troposphere cools also.
What is very interesting about the whole scam is that the warmists concentrate on radiation outgoing from the Earth’s surface being (partially) absorbed by GHGs and then half of this being back radiated back to Earth. In fact on a molecule for molecule basis by far the majority of “back radiation” comes from energy that left the Earth’s surface via “thermal pick-up” mechanisms i.e latent heat of evaporation, conduction and convection. All energy picked up by atmospheric gasses must eventually be radiated into space and half of all emission events produce radiation in the downwards direction. We can see therefore that the warmist mechanism for producing back radiation is far less efficient than the back radiation resulting from thermal pick ups from the Earth’s surface via the above mechanisms. This is mainly because only part of the outgoing radiation spectrum can be absorbed by CO2 whereas all thermal pick up is picked up (obviously)!
It is absolutely the case that if more CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere then the amount of “back radiation” will increase (as CO2 is a better radiator than O2, N2 etc) but this increase will mostly originate from energy that left the Earth’s surface via thermal pick-up. In fact if we could somehow turn off the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface and rely on thermal pick-ups only then the amount of “back radiation” would increase! We seem to have a contradiction: The more energy that leaves the Earth’s surface via radiation (and can thus be re-radiated by GHGs) the less can leave via the thermal pick ups and so less total back radiation can result.
There are two types of back radiation. The most significant one seems to have been forgotten. Neither of course warms the planet as the back radiation mechanisms are the same as the forward radiation (I.e. out into space) mechanism. Increase back = increase forward. Increased forward = global cooling via the first law, the gas laws and from them the lapse rate law.
More greenhouse mechanism therefore = global cooling.
Stay coo!
Give it to them at Doha, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.
You da man!
Jimbo ‘Are we getting near to falsification as projected by the IPCC / Hansen style????? If not then how many years would it take?’
Good question to which the answer is simply , AGW can never be disproved in relational to time scale becasue the ‘right ‘ time scale is constantly flexibly in nature depending on what time scale suits ‘the cause’ so a requirement for 15 years of data becomes a requirement for 20 years data if 15 years fails to support ‘the cause. Even better its two way process , so you can claim you need say 30 years of data but they say 10 years is more than enough to ‘prove ‘ AGW when it suits .
Bottom line , there is no known time scale its ‘length’ its a function of undefined but well established ‘usefulness ‘ ratio.
Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?
___________________________________
Most of us here have no problem with that. I, like others here, was a member of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy…. I am also a scientist.
If you actually look at the facts instead of the hype, CAGW is not about cleaning up the environment, it is about diverting large sums of money into the pockets of large corporations and political cronies.
Then you have WHO funded the CRU (Climate Research Group) of East Anglia. This time it is BP, Shell, Rockefeller foundations (Standard Oil) and some nuclear interests. The climategate e-mails show discussions about getting funding from BP and Shell too. On top of that you have Maurice Strong chair of Kyoto and the First Earth Summit (1972) who is a “Big Oil” CEO. That is why “Deniers” roll on the floor laughing every time they are accused of being in the “Pay of Big Oil”
Then we come to the environmental consequences of shifting to Wind and Solar.
It is the raptors that are normally killed because they use the same wind currents to glide on as windmills are designed to capture.
And then there is solar panels.
In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale
So I am afraid the “Environmental Card” backfires badly if you actually look into the environmental consequences of “Clean Energy” It is not clean it is a disaster for the environment.
Thanks to RossP comment which led me to this.
Are they now saying there could be a problem with the models? The likely “causes of these biases” could be co2 bias itself.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109
http://landshape.org/enm/santer-climate-models-are-exaggerating-warming-we-dont-know-why/
Thanks for the mention of “The Arrow of Time” as I will use it as inspiration to re-read E. T. Jaynes’ Probability Theory: The Logic of Science for his mention that the ‘arrow of logic’ is not so constrained in the application of Bayesian inference to forecasting.
Paul Homewood:
You conclude your very good post at December 2, 2012 at 3:17 am by saying and asking?
It is not “a small matter” and – before explaining it for the likes of Pat Ravasio – I point out its relevance to an important point made by the noble Lord but ignored in comments posted so far. He writes;
It is certainly not “an oversight”
The Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) have relied on the pseudoscientists who select the “scientific” information published in the IPeCaC Reports. This so-called “scientific” information was supposed to justify a successor to the Kyoto Protocol at the Conference of the Parties (COP) at Copenhagen in 2009. People may remember the fanfare and “X days to Save The Planet” prior to that COP. But the “scientific” information was insufficient propaganda to obtain a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and the COP in Copenhagen was a failure so no successor to the Kyoto Protocol would ever be achieved.
The AGW-scare was killed at the failed 2009 IPeCaC Conference in Copenhagen. I said then that the scare would continue to move as though alive in similar manner to a beheaded chicken running around a farmyard. It continues to provide the movements of life but it is already dead. And its deathly movements provide an especial problem.
Nobody will declare the AGW-scare dead: it will slowly fade away. This is similar to the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s. Few remember that scare unless reminded of it but its effects still have effects; e.g. the Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) exists. Importantly, the bureaucracy which the EU established to operate the LCPD still exists. And those bureaucrats justify their jobs by imposing ever more stringent, always more pointless, and extremely expensive emission limits which are causing enforced closure of UK power stations.
Bureaucracies are difficult to eradicate and impossible to nullify.
As the AGW-scare fades away those promoting the FCCC will attempt to establish rules and bureaucracies to impose those rules which provide immortality to their objectives. Guarding against those attempts now needs to be a serious activity. And the present COP in Doha is part of the process which attempts to establish similar bureaucracies to those which enforce the LCPD in the EU.
That process has dropped the so-called “science” which failed to deliver the justification for the bureaucracies. Hence, IPeCaC was not invited to the COP in Doha.
And that brings us to the missing ‘hot spot’ which demonstrates the complete failure of the AGW-hypothesis to provide “science” which demonstrates a need for the bureaucracies.
The ‘hot spot’ is seen in Figure 9.1. of the IPeCaC AR4 soicalled Scientific Report at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html
The figure is titled
Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from
(a) solar forcing,
(b) volcanoes,
(c) well-mixed greenhouse gases,
(d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes,
(e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and
(f) the sum of all forcings.
Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a).
The big red blob in (c) and (f) is the so-called ‘hot spot’. It shows that the models predict that in the tropics the warming rate from “well-mixed greenhouse gases “ at altitude is between 2 and 3 times the rate at the surface.
Only plot (c) for ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ and (f) for ‘the sum of all forcings’ show the ‘hot spot’. And the reason (f) shows it is because the effect of ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is so great that it overwhelms the effects of all the other forcings.
The modelled period is for 1890 to 1999 but the increase to ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ is greatest near the end of the period. Hence, radiosonde data from weather balloons (from 1958) and MSU data from satellites (from 1979) should show the ‘hot spot’ more clearly than the plot if the model is correct. And please note the severity of the ‘hot spot’: it is a factor of between 2 and 3 times the warming at altitude as is observed at the surface. This should be very clearly observed in both the radiosonde and the satellite data. It is not seen in either data set.
In other words, either there has been no global warming from ‘wellmixed greenhouse gases’ or there has been no global warming of the kind modeled and reported by the IPCC AR4.
That effectively destroys all projections of global warming according to the models. The models do not project warming of the past so they can’t project warming of the future.
Richard
The computer boxes the warmists use remind me of a TARDIS: warmer on the inside than on the outside.
Cue the FX.
Gail Combs says:
December 2, 2012 at 4:15 am
“So I am afraid the “Environmental Card” backfires badly if you actually look into the environmental consequences of “Clean Energy” It is not clean it is a disaster for the environment.”
Thomas Jefferson said “only dumb ideas need the support of government”. My simple rule is: If something needs subsidies, it increases the inefficiency of an economy. If inefficiency is increased, we get a less efficient usage of resource, meaning more waste.
One can then look into the details and see how this plays out, but inevitably one finds more material is moved around, more stuff is produced (solar panels and wind turbines in this case, and the hulking concrete foundations for those wind turbines), more pointless activity happens to achieve not very much at all at a pretty high price.
So, a reneable energy crazy society like Germany for instance is squandering lots of stuff to get something they could have gotten much cheaper and with less fuel and resource usage – a little bit of electricity in this case.
I own stocks of a German concrete maker. They’re doing well.
Wind turbines need a lot of concrete.
Oh did I mention that making concrete produces loads of CO2?
Oops.
Lord Christopher Monckton once again perfectly demonstrating why every mainstream media outlet is running scared – terrified – of him. Being the ‘common purpose’ cowards that they are, they dare not let this erudite, informed man speak on air about the folly of CAGW for fear of opening the climate-indoctrinated eyes of a wider viewing public (and this absolutely cannot be allowed to happen or the whole risible house of cards will swiftly come crashing down).
I once again tip my hat to Lord Monckton. Thank god this man speaks for the skeptic cause – along with the likes of Marc Morano and Jo Nova – and, of course, our own Anthony Watts – we have some very capable speakers and advocates. All are, of course, considered highly dangerous (possibly even fatal) by CAGW zealots who will never dare face them in open debate.
You know, because the science is so…settled. Or something.
LetsBeReasonable:
At December 2, 2012 at 3:35 am you ask
Allow me to answer for Werner: your brains are dropping out.
1.
The warming prior to 1997 has stopped so the trend lines do not “go up” for the period since 1997.
2.
If you include some of the period of the warming which was prior to 1997 then the new total period contains some warming so the trend lines go up.
What else would you expect?
Richard
Patricia Ravasio (@patravasio) says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:19 am
Thank you all for clarifying your positions. I guess it’s hard to know which temperature charts to believe. What I do know is that regardless of the position you want to substantiate you can find the numbers to do just that. But to me, I guess it all comes down to this. What’s the harm in trying to clean up the environment?
_____________________________________
Then there is the second set of consequences. The human cost. Of course if you believe that humans (except for the privileged few) should be exterminated from the face of the earth or if you agree with Fabian George Bernard Shaw that useless eaters should be killed then this will not bother you until you are affected.
So what do we find in Fabian run UK?
And since that is not killing off old age pensioners fast enough for the government we also have the Liverpool Care Pathway. (I wish I could use a /sarc)
From Pat’s site:
“Does anyone really believe that fracking, or deep water drilling, or dirty-no-matter-what-you-call-it coal, or high risk nuclear power is a better way to answer our energy needs than solar, or wind, or other readily tappable, natural forces of nature? We know the technology to do this now exists, that it’s all just a matter of scaling it up. So what could possibly be the harm in pursuing newer, cleaner forms of energy, except that there would be a loss in profits for the fossil fuel industry? ”
—————————-
Let me answer your first question:
Yes!
You seem to think we’re digging our heels because of our love for Exxon and our desire to prevent Al Gore from getting richer (although an excellent reason) but, I believe the world has been working on alternative power have we not?
Batteries and electric generators since the 19th century.
Solar power, Bell Labs since the mid 1940s.
Wind mills since, forever.
My daddy had a saying whenever I would offer my sage advise of how to fix a problem. He’s say, “It’s like overdrive on a jackass. It’s a good idea it just doesn’t work.”
Unless you plan on giving up steel, you can’t run a steel mill off a solar panel.
So now I ask you.
Would you agree, all thing being equal, more people means more activity and more CO2 and therefore some degree of warming? More CO2 means better plant growth? Also, does it not make sense that more people will need more land and fresh water? Please remember, if the AGW theory is correct, we get a different coast line plus more usable land in North America and Asia. You don’t lose a coast line unless you lose the water.
It sounds to me like the system is working.
So, What’s wrong with global warming.
BTW. You’re not one of those people who ‘hates people and believe the earth will be a better place once the people are gone’, are you?
IMO these people are a problem.
cn
eco-geek;
In fact if we could somehow turn off the outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface and rely on thermal pick-ups only then the amount of “back radiation” would increase! We seem to have a contradiction: The more energy that leaves the Earth’s surface via radiation (and can thus be re-radiated by GHGs) the less can leave via the thermal pick ups and so less total back radiation can result.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Patricia;
We skeptics have our share of uninformed and/or confused who rant on about things just like the warmist side dies. There are several threads on this site by Ira Glickstein and Robert Brown that go into this issue in detail and deal with it properly. There are also threads specific to the logarithmic nature of CO2’s effects. Search for these and read through the articles is what I’d encourage you to d