AGW

I want to discuss this seriously. Everyone seems to be joking or proving they have not read any literature on the subject. I neeed literature

I'm not a robot (ignore this, it's for captcha verification)

You're welcome to write some

>The data does not show this to be happening
Could you provide some literature about to this?

More like global swarming, am I right my fellow Carlyleans?

The climate models. If the CO2 level doubles (as it is on course to do by about 2070 to 2100), the climate models estimate the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1oC x 3 = 3.3oC.1

The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century.2

Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2. The threefold amplification by feedbacks is based on the assumption, or guess, made around 1980, that more warming due to CO2 will cause more evaporation from the oceans and that this extra water vapor will in turn lead to even more heat trapping because water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. And extra heat will cause even more evaporation, and so on. This amplification is built into all the climate models.3 The amount of amplification is estimated by assuming that nearly all the industrial-age warming is due to our CO2.

The government climate scientists and the media often tell us about the direct effect of the CO2, but rarely admit that two-thirds of their projected temperature increases are due to amplification by feedbacks.

The skeptic's view. If the CO2 level doubles, skeptics estimates that the temperature increase due to that extra CO2 will be about 1.1°C × 0.5 ≈ 0.6°C.4

The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.

The feedbacks dampen or reduce the direct effect of the extra CO2, cutting it roughly in half.5 The main feedbacks involve evaporation, water vapor, and clouds. In particular, water vapor condenses into clouds, so extra water vapor due to the direct warming effect of extra CO2 will cause extra clouds, which reflect sunlight back out to space and cool the earth, thereby reducing the overall warming.

There are literally thousands of feedbacks, each of which either reinforces or opposes the direct-warming effect of the extra CO2. Almost every long-lived system is governed by net feedback that dampens its response to a perturbation. If a system instead reacts to a perturbation by amplifying it, the system is likely to reach a tipping point and become unstable (like the electronic squeal that erupts when a microphone gets too close to its speakers). The earth's climate is long-lived and stable — it has never gone into runaway greenhouse, unlike Venus — which strongly suggests that the feedbacks dampen temperature perturbations such as that from extra CO2.
What the Data Says

The climate models have been essentially the same for 30 years now, maintaining roughly the same sensitivity to extra CO2 even while they got more detailed with more computer power.

How well have the climate models predicted the temperature?
Does the data better support the climate models or the skeptic's view?

I'm not a robot (ignore this, it's just for captcha verification)

The climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming; the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the "hotspot."

The hotspot is the sign of the amplification in their theory (see figure 1). The theory says the hotspot is caused by extra evaporation, and by extra water vapor pushing the warmer, wetter lower troposphere up into volume previously occupied by cool dry air. The presence of a hotspot would indicate amplification is occurring, and vice versa.

We have been measuring atmospheric temperatures with weather balloons since the 1960s. Millions of weather balloons have built up a good picture of atmospheric temperatures over the last few decades, including the warming period from the late 1970s to the late '90s. This important and pivotal data was not released publicly by the climate establishment until 2006, and then in an obscure place.

Figure 6: On the left is the data collected by millions of weather balloons.14 On the right is what the climate models say was happening.15 The theory (as per the climate models) is incompatible with the observations. In both diagrams the horizontal axis shows latitude, and the right vertical axis shows height in kilometers.

In reality there was no hotspot, not even a small one. So in reality there is no amplification — the amplification shown in figure 1 does not exist.16

I'm not a robot (ignore this, it's just for captcha verification)

...

ok dokey Mister I-know-more-than-scientists-that-spent-their-whole-lifes. Well, like aways, no reference, nothing. Just proto-conspiratory massive syncronicity of a badly defined mistake. And why? Because you fucker won't be alive to see its disgrace.

lmao. Your post is a bunch of garbled nothing. These are models based on data gathered by NOAA and similar organizations.

tell me where the water vapor feedback is you fuckin moron
I'm not a robot (ignore this, it's for captcha verification)

I'm not a robot (ignore this, it's for captcha verification)

The fact that there is no working model that ties global warming to human influence isn't much of a secret and is common knowledge amongst climatologists. I don't know almost anything about this subject, except that this is what they teach here, where my brother studied.

So explain me the social dynamic whithin scientific circles that gives the normativeness gainst CO2 emissions near total agreement.
-Spirals of silence against any publishing against?
-Variety of will-to-power in order to get some agenda going, okay, what agenda? Some pseudo conspiratory pro green-Keynesianism? New Holy Grail of the global left, even knowing that any renewables and green technology were total absorbed whitin the system (which won't help shit against GW by being productivist)?
-Even small chance to massive effect is still, only maybe, enough to hold a normative power?

The 97% figure is a total lie. I can show you why if you'd like.

Furthermore: forbes.com/sites/jamesta...sts-are-global-warming-skeptics/#2d355ac67336

A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.

>For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.

>In another line of survey questions, 53% of respondents believe there is conflict among AMS members regarding the topic of global warming. Only 33% believe there is no conflict. Another 15% were not sure. These results provide strong refutation to the assertion that “the debate is over.”

>Interestingly, only 26% of respondents said the conflict among AMS members is unproductive.

>Scientists who have attended the Heartland Institute’s annual International Conference on Climate Change report the same disconnect throughout their various science organizations; only a minority of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis, yet the non-scientist bureaucracies publish position statements that contradict what the scientists themselves believe. Few, if any, of these organizations actually poll their members before publishing a position statement. Within this context of few actual scientist surveys, the AMS survey results are very powerful.

>In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.
IM NOT A ROBOT (ignore this, it's just for captcha verification)

>What agenda
It's usually always there with population control.

no such thing, faglord. go jerk off to Crowder and Molyneux.

I've read your post, even knowing that it does put some pressure against alarm if It corresponds to the present state of research, I got a little retracted with the source - knowing that you probably has more - being exactly Forbes, ultra-directly interested in the agenda of the ideology of free markets and anti-state. The guy, James Taylor, Spark Of Freedom Foundation founder, is clearly a shill for nuclear and natural, just see the post history is Forbes or his news on his meme site; exactly the kind that would benefit from it.

Who???

I'm not a robot (ignore this, it's for captcha verification)

I enjoy this post :)

Not a bot here.

Bullshit. LIAR.