Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
The most compelling evidence for AGW ironically is not what is happening in the troposphere but in the lower stratosphere.
Steven
|
How does this constitute "compelling" evidence?
There is simply no evidence that CO2 is anything but a minor climate forcer. In fact, the proposition that a minor trace gas in the atmosphere can influence climate is absurd, if you care to think about it.
That atmospheric CO2 is rising is not in doubt - but historically it has been far higher without any emissions from industrial society. This should tell us that other factors govern the atmospheric concentration of CO2, and that absolutely no-one understands the carbon cycle. In fact, the balance between known sources of emissions and absorptions are way out.
If you bother to look at the evidence, rather than quote the narrative, you will find that average global temperatures are falling whilst atmospheric CO2 is rising - there is clearly much more important factors influencing "climate".
The global circulation models on which AGW is based, and assume CO2 forcing, have failed to predict the temperature decreases over the last 10 years, they have failed to predict the lack of increase in temperatures in the Antarctica (according to the models, the poles should be heating) and the stratospheric hot spot is missing from the data.
AGW is a falsified hypothesis, and does not justify a massive transfer of wealth from the household sector of the economy to carbon traders, governments and investors in marginal technologies like wind and solar power generation.