The day it rained forever.

No, what is stated is so many degrees for each DOUBLING of CO2,. The science, what little there is, suggests around 0.9°C. If you consider that the water vapours and heat circulation of the planet constitute a negative feedbacks system that could actually result on as little as half that.

So by the end of the century, maybe half a degree of warming. Barely detectable and nothing like the periods of warming and cooling we have had with completely stable CO2, post the Younger Dryas.

What the climate modellers did was to attempt to erase those periods from the record, and introduce *positive* feedback to make CO2 accountable for *all * otherwise unexplained global warming since 1970 or thereabouts. And it is that *positive* feedback, placed in the *models* (that has no evidence to support it at all), that causes the scary predictions we are bombarded with, of 1.5°C or 2.0°C or 3.5°C per each doubling. Plus the introduction of totally implausible catastrophic 'tipping points' .

This is all simply fantasy. There is no evidence for *any* of it. Not today, not in the past.

In one breath they say 'the world has never warmed faster than this ever' and in the next they say 'tipping points' Well if there are tipping points, why didn't the earth warm faster in the past when CO2 was at far higher concentarions? None of it adds up., Its all carefully crafted *bullshit*.

We might ask them about well preserved mammoth carcases who appear to have frozen to death with grass in their mouths. And been buried in permafrist ever since. Rapid cooling it seems is another matter...

There is science, and there is 'climate science' and there is religion, and there is a political narrative.

Don't confuse them

Well said.

Ta.

None of which affects the assertion that the fundamental scientific basis of CO2-driven climate change rests on an assertion that was published in a paper that is proving hard to find, and was only mentioned once in an addendum to an IPCC report that was not included in documents produced for either governments or the public. And which, when real data is plugged into it, doesn’t account for the transitions between ice ages and interglacials. Something Really Big is driving the climate, and it ain’t CO2.

See mine. No one actually *does*, it's always per DOUBLING of CO2. Which if we stick to the science means that we could burn all the economically viable fossil fuel there is, pop the CO2 up to 600 ppm and still stay under two degrees rise.

And probably a lot less.

As you can see if you read even part of it, the science is very far from settled.

And in one part of it, that relating to clouds, they claim a 'strongly positive' feedback from clouds, as they keep you warm at night.

They also reflect back huge amounts of daytime radiation, just like ice and snow. This is ignored even in this well written summary.

Conclusion ? There is no f****ng consensus among climate scientists about anything, and claims range from 'mostly harmless' to 'end of life as we know it' depending more on the personal political hue than their ability to Do Sums.

Climate models are like sewers, what you get out depends on what you put in, and you can get any kind of answer you want depending on what assumptions you make in a space that is utterly devoid of *real factual data*.

Less than 1% of it goes into trying to give some statistical weight to the likelihood that any of the assumptions made in predictions have *any validity whatsoever*!

I recall one paper where a researcher calculated as best he could the impact on the lowering of temperature caused by a dust cloud emitted by a volcano. His results matched actual cooling pretty exactly. He applied no positive feedback whatsoever.

THEN he *applied* positive feedback to show what the same loss or increase would do in terms of climate! So his results matched the 'consensus' among climate alarmists.

Peer reviewed and ticked.

For an exponent of 2, yes, but other exponents are available.

So how do they know what the rest of the ocean is like, and at depth? They dont. They fill in with 'interpolations' and call that 'fact'.

point is that you assume they have some magic formula for validating extremely sparse and inaccurate data to come up with something immaterial called 'global *averge*sea temperature'. They don't and they cant. They feed what data they have into a model, and turn the handle and out pops a number, but what the model is actually assuming to get that number is never revealed.

No. it isnt.

Not true. Satellites confirm that there is little troposphere warming, but not surface temperatures, which are in line with direct measurements.

Yes it is. I guess art students wouldn't have a clue what positive feedback is:

Well said.

This might be Wigley’s paper, but they want me to pony up several hundred dollars or apply through my institution to get the full article. I have the one, but am not willing to risk it, and I don’t have the other:

Published: 20 June 1985 Analytical solution for the effect of increasing CO2 on global mean temperature

T. M. L. Wigley & M. E. Schlesinger Nature volume 315, pages 649–652 (1985) Cite this article

The IPCC doesn't do *any* science, it reviews other people's, and generates an executive summary for political purposes.

Neither is it within it's written terms of reference to question whether human generated climate change *actually exists*, or at what level . It exists to (allegedly) analyse the impact of its *assumed * existence and generate political recommendations.

Which are things the mainstream media always seems to forget to mention.

y=x to the power infinity, is a step function. its zero for values of x below 1, and infinite for values above...

PLEASE dont quote 'skeptical scieince', its isn't skeptical and it certainly isn't science, and its the most discredited site on the internet. It is full on Marxist agitProp.

The satellites cannot measure what they cannot see or sense, and there's 20 miles of atmosphere between them and the ground, so whilst someone may have produced a model that makes it seem like they have measured ground temps, that's a model output, not a fact.

Water vaporises,rises by convection, above any greenhouse gases, transfers heat to space, and thereby lowers the earths temperature, and it also becomes a cloud and reflects heat back to space.

Now you may consider that water in a cloud is not vapour and therefore 'water vapour' is a greenhouse gas and makes things warmer is strictly true, but its role in the huge negative feedback loop that is absorbing heat via the latent heat of evaporation, rising in incomputable ways way beyond the bulk of the CO2, radiating like f*ck and turning into sunlight-opaque clouds of ice, is most certainly not. Overall the *water* cycle is massive negative feedback, taking tropical maritime heat and transferring it both directly to space and also towards the temperate and polar latitudes as warmer wet air that turns to clouds and rain and cools stuff down.

Even an ArtStudent should be able to grasp that. water makes clouds and ice, how? by losing heat. Where does the heat go? Space. What is the effect of the water and ice in clouds? overall cooling

Water * vapour* may be a potent greenhouse gas but we are 100% saturated with it in tropical regions anyway. As any ArtStudent who has been there knows. It cant make things any warmer than they already are.