I am a believer that if the public at large truly understood the enhanced global warming theory that this narrative of nonsense is built upon they not only would be more skeptical than they are already, they would be belly laughing at the absurdity of this sham. If people truly understood the thin thread of logic on which this climate change juggernaut of misdirection was built, the public would demand that these people be marched out of their ivory towers and and locked up for either fraud or reckless incompetence. Because despite attempts by dishonest scientist, a complicit media and power grabbing politicians to portray global warming as a reality it is in fact just a theory which is supposed to be based upon a rational scientific principles.
Let's review a bit. As I have often pointed out the entire global warming/climate change theory is based on a very simple and in some ways logical premise.
To summarize, a doubling of CO2 will cause the temperature to increase by 1.2 degC, this increased temperature will then cause more evaporation of water vapor (the primary greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere which will amplify the effect of the CO2 caused warming, got it? This is known as the "enhanced greenhouse effect".
Although that is my summary, it actually is just a layman's synopsis of this from the IPCC :
Which brings us back to hot creates cold. If in any way for any reason the heating of the atmosphere causes it to get cold, that would negate at least some portion of the heating necessary to amplify the initial temperature increase which the theory depends on. Got it?If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changesSo as you can see a doubling of CO2 would only account for a 1.2 C of warming-period. This is not in dispute. So why do you hear all these claims that increased CO2 is going to warm the Earth by anywhere from 2-6 degC? The IPCC explains:
In reality, due to feedback, the response of the climate system is much more complex. It is believed that the overall effect of the feedback amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5°C. A significant part of this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation.
So in order to keep the ball rolling they postulate feedback, in this case positive feedback which amplifies the heating caused by the initial heating of increased CO2.
Since this hot creating cold has never been postulated by these masters of modeling mayhem, there is no way they could possibly have accounted for it in all their ridiculous theories of what the future will bring. All that they can say is that the heating effect caused by CO2 will overwhelm these negative feedbacks, negative feedbacks which they neither forecast or figured into the calculations of their theory to begin with.
The warming caused by increased CO2 is a known and little disputed factor in the entire theory: the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 ...the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C , however what occurs as the result of this minor heating caused by CO2 (the amplification factor) is the very basis for the alarmist view of global warming. If this is not well understood, or misunderstood then the the entire theory is nothing more than conjecture which rather than being scientifically proven is in fact being disproved.
Yet we are now being lectured that for whatever reason whether it be snow in the Himalayas or lack of ice in the Hudson Bay, that which was hypothesized to amplify heat in the atmosphere is now in some cases cooling it. Even if these explanations are based on some scientific foundation, which they may be, the very fact that hot may cause cold blows the long term implications of the theory completely out of the water. Where is the tipping point setting off this chain reaction of positive feedbacks when in fact the very catalyst for a runaway climate (warmer temperatures caused by CO2) is instead causing the opposite affect in some cases?
Consider that while I point to a similar development which has sprung its nasty head into the climate change wacko world of voodoo science. I came upon this little article which is based on what seems to be sound theoretical science but again is a case of hot creating cold and they even quantify it. With computer modeling of course.
Greener climate prediction shows plants slow warming
NASA computer modeling shows plants could create a cooling effect
A new NASA computer model has found that the additional growth of plants and trees in a world with doubled carbon dioxide levels would create a cooling effect in the Earth’s climate working to reduce future global warming. The cooling effect would be -0.5°F globally and -1.1°F over land.
Lahouari at Goddard Space Flight Center stressed that while the model’s results showed a cooling effect, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. Bounouao is lead author of a paper, “Quantifying the negative feedback of vegetation to greenhouse warming: A modeling approach”, detailing the results in Geophysical Research Letters.
The modeling approach also investigated how stimulation of plant growth in a world with doubled carbon dioxide levels would be fueled by warmer temperatures, increased precipitation in some regions and plants’ more efficient use of water due to carbon dioxide being more readily available in the atmosphere.So again we have Global Warming conspiring to cool the Earth. Common sense and real science points to this as being true, increased CO2 , heat and moisture would obviously increase plant growth which would have an overall cooling affect. Another of those negative feedbacks which the warmist fail to account for in all their hyperbole of global doom. OMG more plant life we are doomed!
By: David Kuack
All of this does not even take into account the one giant potential negative feedback from global warming which even the IPCC admits it does not have a handle on-clouds. So as we are prodded by the best and the brightest to forsake economic growth for holy Gaia, Gaia is conspiring to make fools of a generation of scientist many of whom, I am convinced, actually have no idea of the theory which they so pathetically defend and foist upon an increasingly skeptical public. Because it doesn't take a climate scientist to conclude that if hot causes cold eventually it is not going to be all that hot.