It’s not AGW, it’s the weather. The weather is controlled primarily by the sun any nitwit who thinks that human beings can affect the weather more than the sun has a degree in sociology, political science or sustainability.
“It’s not AGW, it’s the weather. The weather is controlled primarily by the sun any nitwit who thinks that human beings can affect the weather more than the sun has a degree in sociology, political science or sustainability.”
Their IS a Greenhouse Effect created by Co2. EVERYONE (including skeptics) on this: A doubling of atmospheric Co2 will cause 1C of warming +-.3 of a degree.
There is NO argument from ANYONE (of note) regarding that. And EVERYONE (including warmists) agree, that amount of warming would probably be BENEFICIAL to mankind.
BUT: The warmists have tagged on an additional 3C to that number. Calling this imaginary warming “feedbacks”. They say the AC02 will cause a “net positive feedback of 3C”.
There’s no real evidence this will happen (modeled), there’s little or no evidence the sum of the feedbacks will be positive.
There IS evidence that the feedbacks are, or will be a net negative:
Warmer air over the Antarctic is causing more snowfall, more snowfall is leading to larger Antarctic glaciers (Zwally 2018 Mass Gains of Ant. ice sheet Exceed Losses)
A similar negative feedback exists in the Arctic:
“A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture and as the interior of the NH continents cool in fall, this can lead to increased snowfall... more extensive fall snow cover contributed to the extreme negative AO observed during the winter of 2009–2010.” Cohen 2012
Now the warmists expected the tropical tropopause “hotspot” to negate all these negative feedbacks, but as far as I know, and despite tens of thousands of radiosonde balloons, and all satellite data, no “hotspot” (net positive feedback) has been found.
So yes there’s a GHE from CO2, but the net results probably won’t be “4C of warming by 2100”.