Here’s a typical comment from one blogger that you hear everywhere on both sides of the global-warming argument:
“leebert at 06:41 AM on 1 April 2008
It’s generally agreed that 1° increase would occur from a doubling of CO2 alone.
What most of the best skeptic arguments hinge on is questioning how much additional forcing is caused through feedbacks? If CO2 ppm are 3/4’s of the way to doubling and we haven’t experienced a 2.5° – 3.0° temperature increase then it invites the question as to whether these projected feedback…..”
Here’s the take-home story right here:
“It’s generally agreed that 1° increase would occur from a doubling of CO2 alone.”
Both the skeptics and most of the alarmists make this claim. This claim is going on everywhere. Its coming out of our ears. The neighbours dog just choaked on the pile-up of this relentless claim made by even the staunchest skeptics. But its a totally dubious and unscientific claim for starters.
So for example you’ll read Annan making the claim and saying that it comes from basic radiative physics. Perhaps this is just the mystique of the physicists going on here. Whereas the reasoning of everyone else is open to questions people tend to back away slowly rather than scrutinise the claims of physicists.
The claim that a doubling of CO2 will lead to an initial 1 degree increase in equilibrium temperature appears to assume that the molecules in the air are totally static. It assumes that pockets of molecules won’t move upwards as a result of being warmer than the molecules around them.
This one degree increase is a flat earth calculation. Its as if the sun is twice as far away, the earth is flat, and its always noon and so the whole flat world is the equator at noon-time.
The dubious assumption also takes no account whatsoever of imbedded energy in the oceans or in the entire planet.
Everything is wrong with this assumption. Everything about this assumption is unscientific. So this particular paradigm, which goes in many stages, isn’t getting past its first assumption. The Watts Per Square Metre paradigm manifests as a series of steps. The first step being this radiative-physics assumption.
THE WATTS PER SQUARE METRE PARADIGM.
But it just gets worse from there for the standard watts per square metre paradigm. The doubling of C02 cannot be assumed to increase temperature by 1 degrees because of some sort of IMMUTABLE UNQUESTIONABLE PHYSICS OF SPECTROSCOPY. But at stage two of this paradigm matters get even more dubious.
Because while, on the instantaneous level, water vapour is a greenhouse gas…. What the water vapour is really doing is conveying energy out into space. So anyone not taking a mentally-deranged instantaneous-snapshot, of the matter, will realise that resultant increased water vapour is a NEGATIVE-feedback, rather than a POSITIVE-feedback…….. to whatever the CO2 is going to do initially.
The process of wind whipping along the ocean and creating water vapour is a process of REFRIGERATION.
NO ALTERNATIVE PARADIGMS.
This is why this pandemic of lying continues. Because the skeptical side of the argument knows that the other guys are wrong (since thats what the empirical evidence says)…. But the situation can’t progress, because the political motivation of the committed leftist liars has so “polluted the air” (as it were), that no-one will dare putting up alternative paradigms to the hairbrained standard model.
HOW TO STOP THIS PANDEMIC OF LYING.
Well what can we do?
We can start by emailing the lying institutions. I just emailed the CSIRO. They have an enquiry email. They also have an enquiry phone-line.
My enquiry was whether or not they could stop lying about global warming.
I included a ridiculous amount of swear-words because I was thinking of how these goons are preventing us from getting serious about our energy-production problems, which can only lead to mass-death, if not here than overseas.
The CSIRO thanked my for my enquiry. And they promised they would get back to me in two working days.
Here’s a history of peoples thinking on this matter. Nowhere in this history do we find this fabled initial 1 degrees Fareheit increase for a CO2-doubling. Its just a rumour. Its a myth. And people ought to stop repeating it on both sides of the argument. Nowhere in this history can we even find any indication that such a determination could be made: