Here's how to think about climate change

[Street Juice]

At the core of the human-caused climate change dogma is the idea of the carbon footprint--the amount of "greenhouse gas" each of us produces and emits into the atmosphere.

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.​

Ask any climate change activist what should be done to counter the dire effects of man-made climate change and the answer will include the need for humanity to reduce its "carbon footprint". NASA puts it this way:

Responding to climate change involves two possible approaches: reducing and stabilizing the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (“mitigation”) and/or adapting to the climate change already in the pipeline (“adaptation”).

"Mitigation – reducing climate change – involves reducing the flow of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere", the goal of which is "to avoid significant human interference with the climate system". Mitigation and Adaptation | Solutions – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
​

And how do we reduce humanity's carbon footprint? All sides agree that the only practical way to reduce per capita carbon consumption worldwide is through supranational efforts empowered to enforce practices that would lower emissions globally. So, whatever its merits, fighting climate change involves augmenting globalism at the expense of nationalism.

But climate change is so important, who cares if the globalists gain more power, right?

One of the first things Trump did when he got into office was pull us out of the Paris Climate Accord. In response, if you'll remember, the New York Times, et al., went into a total meltdown over the Orange Man Bad's unsurpassed hatred of the planet. So, having learned long ago that the New York Times is the least trustworthy major paper in the country, I decided to see for myself if all the apoplexy was warranted. I looked at the numbers using carbon emissions data by country from this Yale study, per capita energy consumption data from Wikipedia and population data from the CIA's World Fact Book.

Here's what I found:

As you can see, poverty and proximity to the equator seem to be the two factors most favorable to sustainable living. People in these countries are too poor to do much consuming, but, since it's always warm outside, they don't really need to.

Such countries are also, by and large, where the world's population growth is occurring. The UN expects Africa to have more than four billion people by the end of this century. That's not helpful in terms of reducing humanity's overall carbon footprint, but it's not politically feasible right now to do anything about it.

But the real back-breaker for the climate is that there is a mass movement of people from the low carbon-consuming countries to the high carbon-consuming countries. And that's something we COULD do something about.

The impact is stark. The difference in the year at which I was looking between the amount of carbon consumed by migrants in their new countries and the amount they consumed in the old was 19,062,351,983 tons--as much as the entire country of Morocco consumes in a year.

Worse, while climate change activists are insisting each human must reduce their individual carbon footprint, high rates of immigration appear to increase even the per capita consumption of carbon in the receiving country on top of the net increase of consumption on the part of the migrants themselves.

As it turns out, it doesn't matter what characteristic you choose to compare to a country's carbon footprint, nothing correlates with a growing carbon footprint like high immigration. Look at this table:

Remember, the correlation coefficient is always between -1 and 1. A correlation of 1 is perfect correlation, for example the correlation between the number of times Rep. Schiff opens his mouth and the amount of political trash coming from his office is a perfect 1. A correlation of 0 means there is no correlation at all.

1. total population -0.08 virtually no correlation
   
   
2. population growth rate -0.15 very small negative correlation
   
   
3. population density 0.13 very small positive correlation
   
   
4. size of country's land area 0.02 no correlation
   
   
5. fertility rate -0.02 no correlation
   
   
6. median age 0.05 some slight correlation with an aging population perhaps (higher consumption)
   
   
7. percent population is urban 0.28 some positive correlation with the level of urbanization
   
   
8. tough environmental laws 0.00 interestingly, no impact whatsoever one way or the other
   
   
9. migrants as a percent of population 0.54 very strong correlation--no other characteristic comes close--between immigration and growing per capita carbon footprint

So, what about those climate warriors demanding we nationalists turn over a bunch of power to the globalists "to save the planet". Don't buy it. It's a naked power grab and nothing more. The New York Times has been flacking for mass immigration since it helped spread the lies that gave us the nation-destroying 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. And the globalists on West 43rd St aren't about to quit.

Want to save the planet? End immigration.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL And mice cause moose. LOL About as dumb an argument as I have seen for not taking action on a clear and present danger.

 

[Street Juice]

LOL And mice cause moose. LOL About as dumb an argument as I have seen for not taking action on a clear and present danger.

No, idiot, the only rreal action to take is plainly stated. TYou are just too dumb to grasp it, apparently

 

[Old Rocks]

What I see is an asshole trying to blame the increase in the use of fossil fuels on immigrants.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

At the core of the human-caused climate change dogma is the idea of the carbon footprint--the amount of "greenhouse gas" each of us produces and emits into the atmosphere.

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.​

Ask any climate change activist what should be done to counter the dire effects of man-made climate change and the answer will include the need for humanity to reduce its "carbon footprint". NASA puts it this way:

Responding to climate change involves two possible approaches: reducing and stabilizing the levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (“mitigation”) and/or adapting to the climate change already in the pipeline (“adaptation”).

"Mitigation – reducing climate change – involves reducing the flow of heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere", the goal of which is "to avoid significant human interference with the climate system". Mitigation and Adaptation | Solutions – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
​

And how do we reduce humanity's carbon footprint? All sides agree that the only practical way to reduce per capita carbon consumption worldwide is through supranational efforts empowered to enforce practices that would lower emissions globally. So, whatever its merits, fighting climate change involves augmenting globalism at the expense of nationalism.

But climate change is so important, who cares if the globalists gain more power, right?

One of the first things Trump did when he got into office was pull us out of the Paris Climate Accord. In response, if you'll remember, the New York Times, et al., went into a total meltdown over the Orange Man Bad's unsurpassed hatred of the planet. So, having learned long ago that the New York Times is the least trustworthy major paper in the country, I decided to see for myself if all the apoplexy was warranted. I looked at the numbers using carbon emissions data by country from this Yale study, per capita energy consumption data from Wikipedia and population data from the CIA's World Fact Book.

Here's what I found:

View attachment 292408

As you can see, poverty and proximity to the equator seem to be the two factors most favorable to sustainable living. People in these countries are too poor to do much consuming, but, since it's always warm outside, they don't really need to.

Such countries are also, by and large, where the world's population growth is occurring. The UN expects Africa to have more than four billion people by the end of this century. That's not helpful in terms of reducing humanity's overall carbon footprint, but it's not politically feasible right now to do anything about it.

But the real back-breaker for the climate is that there is a mass movement of people from the low carbon-consuming countries to the high carbon-consuming countries. And that's something we COULD do something about.

The impact is stark. The difference in the year at which I was looking between the amount of carbon consumed by migrants in their new countries and the amount they consumed in the old was 19,062,351,983 tons--as much as the entire country of Morocco consumes in a year.

Worse, while climate change activists are insisting each human must reduce their individual carbon footprint, high rates of immigration appear to increase even the per capita consumption of carbon in the receiving country on top of the net increase of consumption on the part of the migrants themselves.

As it turns out, it doesn't matter what characteristic you choose to compare to a country's carbon footprint, nothing correlates with a growing carbon footprint like high immigration. Look at this table:

Remember, the correlation coefficient is always between -1 and 1. A correlation of 1 is perfect correlation, for example the correlation between the number of times Rep. Schiff opens his mouth and the amount of political trash coming from his office is a perfect 1. A correlation of 0 means there is no correlation at all.

1. total population -0.08 virtually no correlation
   
   
2. population growth rate -0.15 very small negative correlation
   
   
3. population density 0.13 very small positive correlation
   
   
4. size of country's land area 0.02 no correlation
   
   
5. fertility rate -0.02 no correlation
   
   
6. median age 0.05 some slight correlation with an aging population perhaps (higher consumption)
   
   
7. percent population is urban 0.28 some positive correlation with the level of urbanization
   
   
8. tough environmental laws 0.00 interestingly, no impact whatsoever one way or the other
   
   
9. migrants as a percent of population 0.54 very strong correlation--no other characteristic comes close--between immigration and growing per capita carbon footprint

So, what about those climate warriors demanding we nationalists turn over a bunch of power to the globalists "to save the planet". Don't buy it. It's a naked power grab and nothing more. The New York Times has been flacking for mass immigration since it helped spread the lies that gave us the nation-destroying 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. And the globalists on West 43rd St aren't about to quit.

Want to save the planet? End immigration.

IPCC 5 was a joke! I laughed when it first came out. In a futile effort to "hide the decline" they reported that 90% of the "excess heat" was "trapped" be the ocean. No, that's not a joke. They didn't think about how 10% of the heat was supposed to melt the ice caps and make snow a thing of the past. They tried to cram the missing "warming" into a new data set

 

[Street Juice]

What I see is an asshole trying to blame the increase in the use of fossil fuels on immigrants.

Great argument, turd. Let me straighten you out. What you see is your better successfully showing immigration to be a primary contributor to climate change--a contributor we can actually do something about. Think you can remember that, Shlomo?

 

[toobfreak]

Here's how to think about climate change

Climate is really an easy thing to understand: it CHANGES. Always has, always will. Your chart makes one thing obvious though: the Left's goal to reduce everyone's carbon footprint will make us all more like Angola, not Angola more like us! And doesn't that really say everything you need to know about environmentalists?

 

[ViewFromAbove]

Really want to save the planet?
LOWER HUMAN POPULATION, especially among INDUSTRIALIZED countries.
One less child will reduce carbon emmision more than any other family lifestyle change, by far!

 

[ViewFromAbove]

In addition to lowering population in industrialized countries, where carbon emissions are the highest per capita, we need to REDUCE PLASTIC DISPOSAL, especially in the oceans!

 

[Street Juice]

Really want to save the planet?
LOWER HUMAN POPULATION, especially among INDUSTRIALIZED countries.
One less child will reduce carbon emmision more than any other family lifestyle change, by far!

We would have stabilized our population at about 230 million were it not for the nation-killing 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. As a direct result of that law, we are now at 340 million and barreling forward with no end in sight and not even a conversation about it that rises above the level of "children in cages" , you racist.

 

[fncceo]

Really want to save the planet?
LOWER HUMAN POPULATION, especially among INDUSTRIALIZED countries.
One less child will reduce carbon emmision more than any other family lifestyle change, by far!

Your kids first.

 

[ReinyDays]

An interesting thought experiment ... but it sounds like Street Juice set the conclusion and worked backwards from there ... just cherry picking statistics to fit the conclusion ... and ignoring any others ... I would have looked at average per capita income, to see how well this correlates to CO2 output and immigration ... wealthy countries produce CO2 like it's good for the environment plus wealthy countries attract poor and hungry folks like flies to a dead horse ...

Ultimately ... following Street Juice's logic ... the wealthy country that fully opens her borders to immigrants will see an increase in the average per capita income, which in turn drives up the carbon dioxide emissions ... making said wealthy country even wealthier ...

 

[basquebromance]

Fossil fuels are literally choking the life from us

That action must be powerful and wide-ranging. After all, the climate crisis is not just about the environment. It is a crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will. Colonial, racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and fueled it. We need to dismantle them all. Our political leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities

 

[SSDD]

Really want to save the planet?
LOWER HUMAN POPULATION, especially among INDUSTRIALIZED countries.
One less child will reduce carbon emmision more than any other family lifestyle change, by far!

Population growth in industrialized countries is already falling through the floor. What are you suggesting? That government perhaps simply go and collect one child and take them off to the soylent green factory?

 

[SSDD]

Fossil fuels are literally choking the life from us

Fossil fuels are the reason you can reasonably expect to live well into your 70's or older rather than dying broken and old at 35....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL And mice cause moose. LOL About as dumb an argument as I have seen for not taking action on a clear and present danger.

CO2 generator -- for growing plants? WTF! How are these legal? How does these even work when we know that CO2 will either flood the plants or cause them to scorch depending on which variety of CO2 is generated, the one that causes floods or fires

CO2 Generator for Plants: Amazon.com

 

[sparky]

All sides agree that the only practical way to reduce per capita carbon consumption worldwide is through supranational efforts empowered to enforce practices that would lower emissions globally

The 'fix' in Paris included coming down on developing countries ,where we are already developed....

So, what about those climate warriors demanding we nationalists turn over a bunch of power to the globalists "to save the planet". Don't buy it. It's a naked power grab and nothing more

globalists are a CC win/win, hailing to no country ,cause or king

their only goal is $$$

~S~

 

[mamooth]

At the core of the human-caused climate change dogma is the idea of the carbon footprint-

Don't be absurd.The heart of the science is that all of the hard data that shows how human emissions of CO2 are causing strong global warming.

You're trying to deflect from that simple fact with weird political conspiracy theories.

If all the data didn't say you were babbling nonsense, you could address the scientific facts instead of deflecting with conspiracy theories. But the data does say that, leaving conspiracy theories as the only option you see as viable.

 

[ReinyDays]

Don't be absurd.The heart of the science is that all of the hard data that shows how human emissions of CO2 are causing strong global warming.

You're trying to deflect from that simple fact with weird political conspiracy theories.

If all the data didn't say you were babbling nonsense, you could address the scientific facts instead of deflecting with conspiracy theories. But the data does say that, leaving conspiracy theories as the only option you see as viable.

Can you please clarify all the weasel words in your post ... the heart of science is empirical data, and we won't have empirical data for 100 years from now until a 100 years have pasted ... so what does "hard data" mean exactly? ... strong global warming is defined how? ... the latest IPCC report gives 2ºC in 100 years assuming climate forcing triples ... empirical data doesn't ever rely on assumptions ... if 0.02ºC per year is "strong", what do we define as "moderate" or "weak" global warming ... and please link to the math, I'm curious about which "facts" connect CO2 concentrations to climate forcing, in a quantitative way ...

Remember, we're using ∆t here, not dt ... so what does ∆T equal? ...

 

[SSDD]

Don't be absurd.The heart of the science is that all of the hard data that shows how human emissions of CO2 are causing strong global warming.

Really? Lets see some of this "hard" data.

The peer reviewed, published science says that our contributions to the total atmospheric CO2 is minuscule to the point that it is practically undetectable.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period 1959-2011 were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.”

If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP: “The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

“Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature

CLIP"
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction [ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”

Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

So first, lets see some hard science, supported by empirical data which says that we are a significant contributor to the total atmospheric CO2...and then lets see some hard, empirical data which confirms your claim that our CO2 is causing strong global warming...

The most recent papers have the amount of warming due to a doubling of CO2 trending ever closer to zero where it will eventually end up...

Greenhouse Effect in Atmospheres of Earth and Venus

“The greenhouse phenomenon in the atmosphere that results from emission of its molecules and particles in the infrared spectrum range is determined by atmospheric water in the form of molecules and microdrops and by carbon dioxide molecules for the Earth atmosphere and by carbon dioxide molecules and dust for the Venus atmosphere. The line-by-line method used the frequency dependent radiative temperature for atmospheric air with a large optical thickness in the infrared spectral range, allows one to separate emission of various components in atmospheric emission. This method demonstrates that the removal of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere leads to a decrease of the average temperature of the Earth’s surface by 4 K; however, doubling of the carbon dioxide amount causes an increase of the Earth’s temperature by 0.4 K from the total 2 K at CO2 doubling in the real atmosphere, as it follows from the NASA measurements. The contribution to this temperature change due to injections of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to combustion of fossil fuel, and it is 0.02 K. The infrared radiative flux to the Venus surface due to CO2 is about 30% of the total flux, and the other part is determined by a dust.”


Ollila, 2019


Challenging the Greenhouse Effect Specification and the Climate Sensitivity of the IPCC

“If a climate model using the positive water feedback were applied to the GH effect magnitude of this study, it would fail worse than a model showing a TCS value of 1.2°C. If there were a positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere, there is no scientific grounding to assume that this mechanism would start to work only if the CO2 concentration exceeds 280 ppm, and actually, the IPCC does not claim so. The absolute humidity and temperature observations show that there is no positive water feedback mechanism in the atmosphere during the longer time periods. … The contribution of CO2 in the GH effect is 7.3% corresponding to 2.4°C in temperature. The reproduction of CO2 radiative forcing (RF) showed the climate sensitivity RF value to be 2.16 Wm-2, which is 41.6% smaller than the 3.7 Wm-2 used by the IPCC. A climate model showing a climate sensitivity (CS) of 0.6°C matches the CO2 contribution in the GH effect, but the IPCC’s climate model showing a CS of 1.8°C or 1.2°C does not.”



Has global warming already arrived? - ScienceDirect

“The enhancement of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to the increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gases is often considered as responsible for global warming (known as greenhouse hypothesis of global warming). In this context, the temperature field of global troposphere and lower stratosphere over the period 12/1978–07/2018 is explored using the recent Version 6 of the UAH MSU/AMSU global satellite temperature dataset. Our analysis did not show a consistent warming with gradual increase from low to high latitudes in both hemispheres, as it should be from the global warming theory. … Based on these results and bearing in mind that the climate system is complicated and complex with the existing uncertainties in the climate predictions, it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities.”

If all the data didn't say you were babbling nonsense, you could address the scientific facts instead of deflecting with conspiracy theories. But the data does say that, leaving conspiracy theories as the only option you see as viable.

What data hairball? You alarmists are always going on about the "data" that you so fervently believe exists, but you don't ever seem to be able to provide any of it....

You can't provide a single published paper in which the warming we are supposed to be causing with our CO2 emissions has been empirically quantified, and measured and blamed on our greenhouse gasses...

You can't provide a single paper which provides observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent relationship between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere...

Nor can you provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability..

The best you seem to be able to do is tell lies claiming such evidence has been produced, or give some weak excuse for not being able to provide it.....all you have is fiction....and a bitter hatred for anyone who won't join you in admiring the emperor's new clothes...