A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington D.C. often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.
Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.
“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.
He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data.
Koonin said the NCA’s assessment was technically incorrect.
“What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said.
The U.N. published reports in 2014 essentially mirroring Koonin’s argument.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported:
…”there is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century” and current data shows “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century.”
Press officers work with scientists within agencies like the National Oceanic Administration (NOAA) and NASA and are responsible for crafting misleading press releases on climate, he added.
Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing.
House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for instance, recently jumpstarted an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
One example of satellite vs. surface data
So of course the warmunists
completely ignore weather satellite data !
The Big Picture:
completely ignore weather satellite data !
The Big Picture:
Silly, wrong 1970 Earth Day forecasts
Fifteen Foolish Forecasts:
How did environmentalists get it so wrong
on Earth Day 1970?
The predictions made at the first Earth Day in 1970 were wrong.
Spectacularly wrong.
Here are some of the hilarious, remarkably wrong predictions made on Earth Day 1970.
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial,
the day after the first Earth Day
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
How did environmentalists get it so wrong
on Earth Day 1970?
The predictions made at the first Earth Day in 1970 were wrong.
Spectacularly wrong.
Here are some of the hilarious, remarkably wrong predictions made on Earth Day 1970.
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”
• Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist
“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University
“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day
“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970
“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist
“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”
• Martin Litton, Sierra Club director
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
• New York Times editorial,
the day after the first Earth Day
“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson
“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist
“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
"Climate Change' is a left-wing secular religion
The claim that we are living in the early stages of what will become runaway global warming has nothing to do with science.
It is a secular religious belief with no evidence to support it at all.
There is some evidence from laboratory experiments that a doubling of CO2 will increase the average temperature +1 degree C. in real life.
If you blame ALL the warming since 1850 on CO2 — and even the IPCC doesn’t do that — you could claim there is sketchy, rough evidence the past doubling of CO2 added +1 degree.
If the lab experiments do apply to real life, which I doubt, and CO2 levels continue to rise about 2ppm per year, then we will have + 1 degree of warming 200 years from now (less warming if negative feedback damps the warming effect of CO2).
The warmists’ claim that some bizarre, huge positive feedback, not apparent in any climate proxy studies, or in any real-time temperature measurements since 1850, will triple the +1 degree direct CO2 warming,
is a complete fabrication intended to scare people,
get attention, and get government funding
for “further studies”.
The claim of a coming climate catastrophe is a left-wing fantasyland – the current climate in 2017 is wonderful, a little warmer at night than 150 years ago, and more CO2 in the air is greening the Earth.
The average temperature has stayed in a harmless 1 degree C. range since 1880 (+1 degree warming with a margin of error of at least +/- 1 degree C.), and has barely changed since the early 2000s, in spite of lots of CO2 added to the air since then.
The current climate is wonderful
for people, animals and plants …
… as government bureaucrats
who call themselves “scientists”
make up scary climate fantasies,
refuse to debate their fantasies,
claim the science is settled,
as if science is EVER settled,
and character attack all doubters,
making themselves look like
the hostile fools they are …
greedy, well paid fools,
but certainly fools.
The coming climate catastrophe is a fantasy, supported ONLY by computer games whose temperature predictions have been grossly inaccurate -- consistently wrong for the past 30 years.
The fact that these unproven ‘climate religion beliefs’ are used to make public policies just shows how dumb American leaders have been.
The claim that humans can predict the future climate is the biggest hoax in human history, and the hoax is very obvious now that we have 30 years of grossly inaccurate computer game temperature predictions to laugh at !
It is a secular religious belief with no evidence to support it at all.
There is some evidence from laboratory experiments that a doubling of CO2 will increase the average temperature +1 degree C. in real life.
If you blame ALL the warming since 1850 on CO2 — and even the IPCC doesn’t do that — you could claim there is sketchy, rough evidence the past doubling of CO2 added +1 degree.
If the lab experiments do apply to real life, which I doubt, and CO2 levels continue to rise about 2ppm per year, then we will have + 1 degree of warming 200 years from now (less warming if negative feedback damps the warming effect of CO2).
The warmists’ claim that some bizarre, huge positive feedback, not apparent in any climate proxy studies, or in any real-time temperature measurements since 1850, will triple the +1 degree direct CO2 warming,
is a complete fabrication intended to scare people,
get attention, and get government funding
for “further studies”.
The claim of a coming climate catastrophe is a left-wing fantasyland – the current climate in 2017 is wonderful, a little warmer at night than 150 years ago, and more CO2 in the air is greening the Earth.
The average temperature has stayed in a harmless 1 degree C. range since 1880 (+1 degree warming with a margin of error of at least +/- 1 degree C.), and has barely changed since the early 2000s, in spite of lots of CO2 added to the air since then.
The current climate is wonderful
for people, animals and plants …
… as government bureaucrats
who call themselves “scientists”
make up scary climate fantasies,
refuse to debate their fantasies,
claim the science is settled,
as if science is EVER settled,
and character attack all doubters,
making themselves look like
the hostile fools they are …
greedy, well paid fools,
but certainly fools.
The coming climate catastrophe is a fantasy, supported ONLY by computer games whose temperature predictions have been grossly inaccurate -- consistently wrong for the past 30 years.
The fact that these unproven ‘climate religion beliefs’ are used to make public policies just shows how dumb American leaders have been.
The claim that humans can predict the future climate is the biggest hoax in human history, and the hoax is very obvious now that we have 30 years of grossly inaccurate computer game temperature predictions to laugh at !
What if the warmists are right?
Mainstream climate scientists -- those on government payrolls -- are hired only if they believe in runaway global warming caused by humans burning fossil fuels.
When these scientists talk or write about global warming, I have to ignore a lot of climate facts, data that contradict their claims, and the many unanswered questions about climate change.
I have to keep telling myself
"Forget about that for now",
and try to keep reading,
without laughing at how a college
degree in science does not teach
common sense. I earned a BS degree,
and an MBA, so have some experience
with that!
The 'warmists' one claim I can never forget about is the biggest claim of all, one that they refuse to debate -- the (false) claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) controls the climate (average temperature of our planet).
There is strong evidence that Earth's climate has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years, with no influence from humans, and no evidence CO2 ever controlled the climate in those billions of years.
In fact, there is evidence from ice core studies that natural causes of global warming cause oceans to release dissolved CO2 with a lag of hundreds of years -- that means we have evidence natural warming causes CO2 levels to increase.
'Global warmists' claim that natural causes of climate change suddenly stopped in 1975, and man made CO2 took over as the 'climate controller'.
They don't say that directly, because if they did a lot more people would question their climate beliefs, but that is exactly what they believe.
They offer no explanation of how that happened, or why it allegedly happened.
They refuse to debate their claim that CO2 controls the average temperature of our planet.
There is no evidence mainstream scientists are right about a coming climate catastrophe ... but there are laboratory experiments that demonstrate CO2 has a mild, harmless greenhouse effect.
Laboratory experiments show a doubling of the CO2 level in the air should cause +1 degree C. of "greenhouse warming".
For now, let's assume the laboratory experiment results apply to real life on Earth.
"Greenhouse warming", by the way, has nothing to do with what happens with real greenhouses, but forget about that misnomer for now.
There is no scientific proof CO2 controls the climate in real life.
Forget about that for now!
CO2 levels have been increasing for hundreds of years, especially after 1940 ... yet the average temperature of our planet has been steady or declining most of the time since 1940.
Forget about that for now!
There was global cooling from 1940 to 1975.
Forget about that for now!
There was a flat average temperature trend from the early 2000's to 2015.
Forget about that for now!
Most of the warming after 1940 was between the early 1990's and early 2000's -- a rapid step up in average temperature that could be said to account for all the warming after 1975.
Forget about that for now!
Consider the average temperature of our planet over time -- a very rough estimate is +1 degree of warming since 1880.
Thermometers in the 1800s tended to read low, exaggerating the measured warming since then.
Forget about that for now!
Surface temperature measurements since 1979 have reflected more warming than weather satellite measurements in the troposphere, even though greenhouse warming should affect the troposphere more than the surface of our planet.
Forget about that for now!
Weather satellites cover almost all the Earth, while surface thermometers cover less than half -- data for the rest of Earth's surface is wild guessing by the climate modelers (they call it 'infilling the blank grids', but it is certainly guessing!).
Forget about that for now!
Weather satellites, with almost full global coverage, and in a consistent environment not affected by economic growth near the (land-based) thermometers should be more accurate than surface thermometers ... but are ignored by the 'warmists' because the surface thermometers show more warming.
Forget about that for now!
A reasonable margin of error for surface measurements would be +/- 1 degree C.
Forget about that for now!
The warming since 1880 was not slow, steady and mainly at the poles, as would be expected from greenhouse warming.
Warming was not steady -- warming was mainly from 1910 to 1940, and from 1975 to 2005.
Forget about that for now!
Warming was not global -- the north pole has significantly warmed, but the south pole has not.
Forget about that for now!
Even the UN's IPCC, whose summary report is the "bible" of global warming, does not blame the 1910 to 1940 warming on fossil fuels.
Forget about that for now!
Let's assume ALL the warming since 1880 is due to humans burning fossil fuels.
If all the warming since 1880 was caused by man made CO2, then the observed sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 would be about +1 degree C.
I've had to "forget about" many facts to assume that man made CO2 controls the climate, and a doubling of CO2 will increase the average temperature by +1 degree C.
It's not good science to "forget about" facts before coming to a conclusion.
Forget about that for now!
Unfortunately, climate modelers (aka "climate scientists") on government payrolls do more than forgetting facts and ignoring contrary data -- they make up "new facts" out of thin air!
They make up "new facts" because a +1 degree warming from a doubling of CO2 is not very scary ... and smarmy climate modelers love to make scary climate change forecasts.
Their global climate model forecasts have been consistently wrong for the past 30 years, but scary forecasts get a lot of attention, and lots of attention lead to lots of money for 'further study'.
Forget about that for now!
The laboratory theory is that doubling of CO2 has a direct effect equivalent to 3.7 watts per square meter (w/m2).
This translates into about +1 degree of warming, excluding any feedbacks.
Earth's atmosphere is currently at ~ 400 parts per million (ppm) of CO2.
CO2 concentration is increasing at ~ 2 ppm per year.
That means +1 degree C. of direct CO2 warming would take 200 years (for CO2 to double from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, when increasing at 2 ppm per year!)
That means +2 degrees C. of direct CO2 warming would 600 years (for CO2 to quadruple from 400 ppm to 1,600 ppm, when increasing at 2 ppm per year!).
For greenhouse effect, the average temperature rise would be mainly at night, per the theory that CO2 slows nighttime cooling, and of course a slightly warmer night would be harmless.
Forget about that for now!
All global climate models project triple the warming that CO2 actually causes in laboratory experiments!
The global climate models triple the laboratory warming by inventing positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds.
Positive feedbacks are controversial, because we would be not be here today to debate climate change if rising CO2 levels really caused positive feedbacks.
CO2 levels were much higher than today for most of Earth's 4.5 billion year life!
So why is there no evidence of runaway warming in climate proxy studies investigating the climate in the past 4.5 billion years?
Forget about that for now!
A system with positive feedbacks is not likely to be stable, and long lasting.
Forget about that for now!
If there were large positive feedbacks, tripling the claimed laboratory effects of rising CO2 alone, then why were they not observable in the real-time data since 1880?
Global warming from CO2 is a theory.
The observable real-time temperature data since 1880 reflects a stable climate -- the average temperature of our planet remained in a mere 1 degree C. range from 1880 to 2015.
If it is correct that a doubling of today's CO2 level will increase the average temperature +1 degree, that would take centuries to happen.
Meanwhile, more CO2 in the air does accelerate green plant growth -- greening the Earth -- there are hundreds of scientific studies, and satellite photographs, to demonstrate that.
Greening of the Earth is real science -- the good news that global warming 'greens' the Earth is something that warmists are desperate to hide ... while they publicly accuse everyone else of being anti-science!
Forget about that for now!
There are many environmental problems in our world.
Most important is the gross pollution in China, India and other Asian nations.
Pollution in Asia is practically ignored while environmentalists attack the beneficial increase of CO2 that is greening our planet.
Environmentalists must not care about the environment, becuse they ignore real pollution in Asia, and focus on beneficial carbon dioxide, a chemical that accelerates plant growth and greens the Earth.
And maybe, if the CO2 laboratory experiments apply to real life, in 200 years the average temperature of our planet will increase by another +1 degree C. (assuming we are still burning fossil fuels the whole time).
And that greenhouse gas warming will be at night in the cold, dry parts of our planet -- not an increase of daytime highs in the hot, humid tropics.
But forget about that
When these scientists talk or write about global warming, I have to ignore a lot of climate facts, data that contradict their claims, and the many unanswered questions about climate change.
I have to keep telling myself
"Forget about that for now",
and try to keep reading,
without laughing at how a college
degree in science does not teach
common sense. I earned a BS degree,
and an MBA, so have some experience
with that!
The 'warmists' one claim I can never forget about is the biggest claim of all, one that they refuse to debate -- the (false) claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) controls the climate (average temperature of our planet).
There is strong evidence that Earth's climate has been constantly changing for 4.5 billion years, with no influence from humans, and no evidence CO2 ever controlled the climate in those billions of years.
In fact, there is evidence from ice core studies that natural causes of global warming cause oceans to release dissolved CO2 with a lag of hundreds of years -- that means we have evidence natural warming causes CO2 levels to increase.
'Global warmists' claim that natural causes of climate change suddenly stopped in 1975, and man made CO2 took over as the 'climate controller'.
They don't say that directly, because if they did a lot more people would question their climate beliefs, but that is exactly what they believe.
They offer no explanation of how that happened, or why it allegedly happened.
They refuse to debate their claim that CO2 controls the average temperature of our planet.
There is no evidence mainstream scientists are right about a coming climate catastrophe ... but there are laboratory experiments that demonstrate CO2 has a mild, harmless greenhouse effect.
Laboratory experiments show a doubling of the CO2 level in the air should cause +1 degree C. of "greenhouse warming".
For now, let's assume the laboratory experiment results apply to real life on Earth.
"Greenhouse warming", by the way, has nothing to do with what happens with real greenhouses, but forget about that misnomer for now.
There is no scientific proof CO2 controls the climate in real life.
Forget about that for now!
CO2 levels have been increasing for hundreds of years, especially after 1940 ... yet the average temperature of our planet has been steady or declining most of the time since 1940.
Forget about that for now!
There was global cooling from 1940 to 1975.
Forget about that for now!
There was a flat average temperature trend from the early 2000's to 2015.
Forget about that for now!
Most of the warming after 1940 was between the early 1990's and early 2000's -- a rapid step up in average temperature that could be said to account for all the warming after 1975.
Forget about that for now!
Consider the average temperature of our planet over time -- a very rough estimate is +1 degree of warming since 1880.
Thermometers in the 1800s tended to read low, exaggerating the measured warming since then.
Forget about that for now!
Surface temperature measurements since 1979 have reflected more warming than weather satellite measurements in the troposphere, even though greenhouse warming should affect the troposphere more than the surface of our planet.
Forget about that for now!
Weather satellites cover almost all the Earth, while surface thermometers cover less than half -- data for the rest of Earth's surface is wild guessing by the climate modelers (they call it 'infilling the blank grids', but it is certainly guessing!).
Forget about that for now!
Weather satellites, with almost full global coverage, and in a consistent environment not affected by economic growth near the (land-based) thermometers should be more accurate than surface thermometers ... but are ignored by the 'warmists' because the surface thermometers show more warming.
Forget about that for now!
A reasonable margin of error for surface measurements would be +/- 1 degree C.
Forget about that for now!
The warming since 1880 was not slow, steady and mainly at the poles, as would be expected from greenhouse warming.
Warming was not steady -- warming was mainly from 1910 to 1940, and from 1975 to 2005.
Forget about that for now!
Warming was not global -- the north pole has significantly warmed, but the south pole has not.
Forget about that for now!
Even the UN's IPCC, whose summary report is the "bible" of global warming, does not blame the 1910 to 1940 warming on fossil fuels.
Forget about that for now!
Let's assume ALL the warming since 1880 is due to humans burning fossil fuels.
If all the warming since 1880 was caused by man made CO2, then the observed sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 would be about +1 degree C.
I've had to "forget about" many facts to assume that man made CO2 controls the climate, and a doubling of CO2 will increase the average temperature by +1 degree C.
It's not good science to "forget about" facts before coming to a conclusion.
Forget about that for now!
Unfortunately, climate modelers (aka "climate scientists") on government payrolls do more than forgetting facts and ignoring contrary data -- they make up "new facts" out of thin air!
They make up "new facts" because a +1 degree warming from a doubling of CO2 is not very scary ... and smarmy climate modelers love to make scary climate change forecasts.
Their global climate model forecasts have been consistently wrong for the past 30 years, but scary forecasts get a lot of attention, and lots of attention lead to lots of money for 'further study'.
Forget about that for now!
The laboratory theory is that doubling of CO2 has a direct effect equivalent to 3.7 watts per square meter (w/m2).
This translates into about +1 degree of warming, excluding any feedbacks.
Earth's atmosphere is currently at ~ 400 parts per million (ppm) of CO2.
CO2 concentration is increasing at ~ 2 ppm per year.
That means +1 degree C. of direct CO2 warming would take 200 years (for CO2 to double from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, when increasing at 2 ppm per year!)
That means +2 degrees C. of direct CO2 warming would 600 years (for CO2 to quadruple from 400 ppm to 1,600 ppm, when increasing at 2 ppm per year!).
For greenhouse effect, the average temperature rise would be mainly at night, per the theory that CO2 slows nighttime cooling, and of course a slightly warmer night would be harmless.
Forget about that for now!
All global climate models project triple the warming that CO2 actually causes in laboratory experiments!
The global climate models triple the laboratory warming by inventing positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds.
Positive feedbacks are controversial, because we would be not be here today to debate climate change if rising CO2 levels really caused positive feedbacks.
CO2 levels were much higher than today for most of Earth's 4.5 billion year life!
So why is there no evidence of runaway warming in climate proxy studies investigating the climate in the past 4.5 billion years?
Forget about that for now!
A system with positive feedbacks is not likely to be stable, and long lasting.
Forget about that for now!
If there were large positive feedbacks, tripling the claimed laboratory effects of rising CO2 alone, then why were they not observable in the real-time data since 1880?
Global warming from CO2 is a theory.
The observable real-time temperature data since 1880 reflects a stable climate -- the average temperature of our planet remained in a mere 1 degree C. range from 1880 to 2015.
If it is correct that a doubling of today's CO2 level will increase the average temperature +1 degree, that would take centuries to happen.
Meanwhile, more CO2 in the air does accelerate green plant growth -- greening the Earth -- there are hundreds of scientific studies, and satellite photographs, to demonstrate that.
Greening of the Earth is real science -- the good news that global warming 'greens' the Earth is something that warmists are desperate to hide ... while they publicly accuse everyone else of being anti-science!
Forget about that for now!
There are many environmental problems in our world.
Most important is the gross pollution in China, India and other Asian nations.
Pollution in Asia is practically ignored while environmentalists attack the beneficial increase of CO2 that is greening our planet.
Environmentalists must not care about the environment, becuse they ignore real pollution in Asia, and focus on beneficial carbon dioxide, a chemical that accelerates plant growth and greens the Earth.
And maybe, if the CO2 laboratory experiments apply to real life, in 200 years the average temperature of our planet will increase by another +1 degree C. (assuming we are still burning fossil fuels the whole time).
And that greenhouse gas warming will be at night in the cold, dry parts of our planet -- not an increase of daytime highs in the hot, humid tropics.
But forget about that