02-28-2017, 06:37 AM
(01-17-2017, 10:00 AM)hollodero Wrote: So why the fuzz? It's the amplifications that cause the fuzz. The indirect effects of CO2 and temperature change, that's what it seems to come down to. IPCC used to arrive at way higher climate sensitivity, e.g. higher temperature rises, because of additional effects that are caused by a rising temperature (not to forget other greenhouse gasses we release), but not directly by CO2.
And what of amplification? Where is the evidence?
This was first being proposed 20+ years ago...and if it was correct, we should be much warmer than we are now. And that's clearly not the case, not before the latest lowering of past temperatures.
But when you look at the troposphere (or whatever it's called), measurable warming is, at most, no more than on the surface (despite all the faults with surface temperatures). That's a 100% fail for the argument. That's where water vapor or other amplifying effects would be seen - but there's no evidence of it. Nada. Which is a pretty simple explanation of why the catastrophic warming models have failed. Because they're shitty models that don't actually understand that which they pretend to describe.
--------------------------------------------------------
