Piezoe said above.... "When their models showed that within a decade we would experience damaging high temperature, exactly as GISS Director James Hansen, within earshot of science hobbyist Al Gore, had predicted could happen, they alerted the media, and the rest as we say, "is history". Where did they go wrong? Horribly wrong as it turns out. Because of the beautiful correlation of temperature with CO2 concentration, when they correctly determined that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was far too low to cause much of a temperature rise by its own greenhouse effect, they assumedthat there must be some positive feedback mechanism that would allow a tiny amount of CO2 to produce a large increase in temperature. They gave far too little consideration to the possibility of being wrong ! This was their fatal error. They failed utterly to allow for human fallibility in what has turned out to be one of the worst mistakes in the history of modern science." One problem. They weren't wrong. The models and predictions were generally correct. This is simply a fact. "Damaging high temps"? Sounds like fuzzy-speak to me. There was feed back and it IS water vapor among other things. And it wasn't just Hansen as much as a think tank would want to ad hom the argument. So the rest that follows from that flawed statement is simply more flawed bullshit. Some great propaganda though.
Well since you are NOT a publishing climate scientist or any kind of scientist at all and you are most definitely a partisan in the extreme.......your theory is worth doo doo. Plus, above all, it makes no sense.
I always find HVAC repair guys to be such wonderful experts on global warming. <--- eXGOPer this is an example of sarcasm. Just so you begin to obtain an understanding of the basics.
Good, so remember the science we have agreed "is accepted as true", and "no one questions it", not only states CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but by the same basic principles of physical chemistry, shows atmospheric CO2 will increase Earth's surface temperature through the radiative effects of CO2 and water vapor by the greenhouse effect. Your bumble bee analogy piezoe is not only too simplistic , it's incomplete. But let's try and follow it through. What you have not taken into account is the way in which the bumble bee(CO2) moving its wings, has effect - not on the movement of air the fan (Water Vapor) you have limited yoursef with - but on the fan's sensitive control switch which increases how much air the fan moves. The thing you are ignoring is, higher water vapor increases the effect of CO2 warming. So the warming can be considered comparatively small to water vapor, but greenhouse gas(Co2) causes more water vapor, which increases the effect of warming. The more gas the more taht warming gets exaggerated. The bumble bee interferes with the fan. Your next paragraph is so full of errors and assumption about how cloud and water vapor have and are considered along with yet more Hansen trolling , it is just not worth going over it yet again. Instead of trying to besmirch everything that doesn't agree with the assertion that anthropogenic CO2 can't or doesn't or isn't causing any, some, enough global warming, 'cause all of science has gotten it wrong', I refer you to the closing comments from that Committee video you linked. "... in the face of thousands upon thousands of scientists who are independent , who are spread throughout academic institutions across the world and who answer and overwhelm the points made here with devastating consensus, with devastating credence.... It isn't just the IPPC ....this is independent scientists literally all over the world. So in a way, to believe these[anti-AGW] arguments, is to believe some kind of strange conspiracy theory that all of these independent scientists, somehow..... we have to question their integrity, their motivation, and assume an ability to conspire across the world ...." what you are saying then basically is, poof to Jem's "Theory".
Turns out the net is a decrease in warming not an increase. (Not meaning there is not a net warming, but rather that the warming is less, not, more than would be expected were their no feedback mechanism. I.e., a certis paribis situation. By the way, negative feedback is entirely consistent with predictions of all models incorporating positive feedback. These models all predicted temperature anomalies higher than observed!!!) Observation of "anomalies"* much less than predicted are the result of the Error Hansen's lab made when they assumed, a priori, the net feedback was positive. They made a mistake. They ignored clouds which form when warm water vapor rises to high altitude. The early models all ignored vertical convection which is nearly instantaneous and some are now saying it is the single most important negative feedback mechanism. There are many fatal errors in the models , but the main one was the a priori assumption of positive feedback! I'll be pleased to list quite a few more if you want me to. I'm certain I don't know about all of them. __________ * we shouldn't be using that term anomaly, but it seems we are stuck with it.
in other words you could not identify any specific error, so you took refuge in the "not worth mentioning" excuse. I'd be happy to discuss specific errors, if you care to mention one and explain why it is in error. You haven't done that. I'm waiting patiently. As you know I am not one of those that subscribes to the idea that "thousands upon thousands" of scientists can prove the validity of an hypothesis by voting. But I have observed that once an hypothesis becomes generally accepted as correct that their will be virtual unanimity among those familiar with the hypothesis, the overwhelming vote of the American Medical Association members not withstanding. . So for example, were specialists in thermodynamics to vote tomorrow on the validity of the second law of thermodynamics, I should expect a unanimous vote. If and when the atmospheric physicists get together and vote on the validity of Hansen's Hypothesis, and the result is unanimous, I'll take note. That hasn't happened yet!, or was I out of town and had no opportunity to listen to the evening news?
Jem, I believe you have mentioned elsewhere that there is a diminishing radiative effect of CO2 with increasing concentration. This seems to be consistent certainly with theory but also now with observation. It is one of those things we do seem to have a very good handle on. I'm going to try and find one of the more recent Salby presentations and get you the link because Salby has beautifully illustrated exactly what you are referring to. I'll return to this post when I locate the link. here it is : go to 56.00 (infrared opacity) This is a presentation in London in 2015. The entire presentation is fascinating as is the question and answering period led by Lord Monckton.
I didn't, but these guys did. Maybe you think that jem's opinion is as good as theirs? LOL American Chemical Society "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4 American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5 American Meteorological Society "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7 American Physical Society "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8 The Geological Society of America "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9