Experiments since
the late 1800s
clearly show that CO2
acts as a greenhouse gas
in laboratory closed system
experiments.
As a result,
it is a reasonable assumption
that adding CO2 to the air,
as humans have been doing,
could cause warming.
The amount of warming
is unknown.
is unknown.
But, if we assume that
ALL the warming since 1950
was caused ONLY by CO2,
that worst case assumption
tells us one thing:
- That rate of warming
extrapolates to only about
+1.0 degree C. of warming
from a doubling
of the CO2 level,
currently about 400 ppm,
to 800 ppm.
Using what has actually happened
so far, as a worst case estimate,
rather than using wild guess
confuser models,
the global warming from
a doubling of the CO2 level,
or TCS, would only be
about +1.0 degrees C.,
( TCS is Transient Climate Sensitivity, to a CO2 doubling ).
And in plain English,
that means
CO2 is harmless.
The actual amount
of global warming
from CO2 is unknown,
because there have been
no observable changes
to the average temperature
in the past century,
that could not be
easily explained by
natural climate change.
That suggests,
but does not prove,
but does not prove,
that the actual effect
of CO2 is small.
There is some evidence of
greenhouse gas warming —
much of the warming
has been in the northern half
of the Northern Hemisphere,
at night, in the winter
– those would all be “signatures”
of greenhouse warming.
However,
the lack of warming in
Antarctica since the 1960s
is contrary evidence.
I think it is a mistake
for any skeptics
to dismiss the little real science
that backs the climate change
fairy tale ( the laboratory
Infrared spectroscopy ).
Of course a closed system
laboratory experiment
does not mean an open system
planet, with unknown feedback
effects, will work the same way.
I ask skeptics
to not attack
the little real science,
by claiming CO2 is not
a greenhouse gas,
and can not warm
the atmosphere.
I know "greenhouse gas"
is not an accurate name
-- a real greenhouse
does not operate like that
... but
I find it amusing that
smart greenhouse owners
use CO2 enrichment
to accelerate plant growth,
and thats exactly what
adding CO2 to the air does
... meaning that
more CO2 in the air
is beneficial,
if the fossil fuels
are burned cleanly
... because burning
fossil fuels
can release dangerous
real pollution too --
it's just that CO2
is not real pollution,
I believe skeptics
will be most effective
by attacking
climate change
issues that are real,
and science-free:
(1)
The lack of any real science,
beyond the in-lab spectroscopy,
(2)
The 30+ years of very wrong
confuser model average
temperature predictions,
(3)
The ridiculous water vapor
positive feedback theory,
and the related “missing”
tropical hot spot,
and most of all:
(4)
Slight warming
mainly at night,
mainly in the winter,
mainly in higher latitudes,
is GOOD NEWS,
for the few people
who live there,
not bad news.
I am posting this only to promote
better climate change skepticism,
that is not easily refuted !
Infrared spectroscopy
experiments are real science.
They are the only real science
behind "global warming",
now known as "climate change".
We should not attack
the real science !
Everything else
about climate change,
is one assumption
on top of another,
and then the unproven
CO2 warming claim
is tripled with an
unbelievable water vapor
positive feedback theory !
The assumptions,
unproven theories,
and wild guesses
of the future climate
are EASY to attack
and refute.
They are junk science
piled on to a very
small amount
of real science
done in a laboratory,
with the first experiments
dating back to
the late 1800s !
dating back to
the late 1800s !
Why not attack
only the weakest links
of modern climate science,
that can not be defended ?
I don't consider
the leftists'
character attacks,
and refusals to debate,
to be a defense
of their unbelievable,
( if you have any intelligence )
coming climate change
catastrophe fairy tale.