Replies

“1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet. “

They don’t know. But they’ll often say it’s not the change in temperature but the “rate” of accelerating change that’s the catastrophe. However Karl 2015 put that to bed. Rate of warming is NOT accelerating.

“2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.”

Again crickets, however they’ll dazzle you with lapse rate data for “trapped” LWIR, but ignore increase convection heat losses at lower emissivity levels.

“3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet’ “

Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years, again that’s not the problem it’s the “rate” that’s going to kill us all. But the rate isn’t accelerating the only thing that’s accelerating is the amount of ‘adjustmentst’ to the sea-level graphs, the latest being the GIA. A complete joke. Zwally 2015 shows that in Antarctic Ice gains in the interior exceed losses on the coast. So guess what? That slows sea-level rise considerably, and I don’t think they’ve adjusted current data or graphs for that.

“4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.”

Increased polar precipitation due to global warming was predicted by Hansen (criminal) however the observations are just the opposite of what was predicted. Precipitation as snow in western Asia is causeing “long-term, large scale cooling” in winter months (Cohen 2014). And as Zwally noted causing land ice gains in Antarctic. So far the predicted “hotspot” in the tropical tropopause, that was the signature of AGW, is MIA. All this means is that “warming is causing cooling”. In other words: a negative feedback.

“5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.”

We’re at 400ppm, we were at 250ppm during the LIA, at 150ppm all plant life on earth dies.

CO2, in past was 5 time it’s current levels, on a geological scale we’re bouncing off an all-time low. Meanwhile, despite all predictions to the contrary, Global crop yields continue to set records every year.

“6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles. “

Zwally “Ice gains exceed losses” on land in Antarctica, this is contrary to all predictions.

Antarctic SEA ice is also setting new annual records every year, why? Global warming of course, warmer air causes more precipitation which causes desalinization of the ocean raising the temperature sea ice can form (fresh water freezes at higher temp than salt).

However it’s all self-correcting: More sea causes more reflection of sunlight (albedo) causing cooling.

Artic ice is melting. Lowering albedo causing oceans to absorb more heat...so the theory says. However the ice sheet also acts as a blanket “trapping” ocean heat.

Warm tropical waters pouring into an ice-free Arctic causes massive heat losses into the atmosphere, leading to more precipitation, leading to more snow cover in Asia, leading to more albedo, leading to colder regional winters there (Cohen 2014).

Again, self-correcting.

“7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans. “

The typical explanation is milankovich, with natural CO2 enhancement. But now Anthro CO2 is “accelerating” the warming towards catastrophe. This theory conveniently ignores that the Eemian was still warmer than the Holocene.

The hole in the AGW theory is their insistence on a positive CO2 feedback.

EVERYONE agrees that a doubling of CO2 will cause about 1C of warming, EVERYONE.

The “climate-scientist” then add an additions 3C as “positive water vapor (WV) feedback” to all their models.

There’s no evidence to support it, in fact the net feedback as I’ve shown with polar ice and precipitation may indeed be negative.

Bottom line we’ve had 0.8C warming since the Industrial revolution, Karl 2015 tells us that the warming is NOT accelerating, and to get another 0.8 warming we’d need to double our CO2 levels from 400 to 800pp.

That’ll take at least two hundred years, assuming no feedbacks.

Everyone can relax.