Carbon dating oops
That’s the theoretical direct effect (see Hansen et al 1984). Often when people rave about how much evidence there is, they are only talking about this direct effect and this minor amount of warming*.that humidity will rise, stick around, and that water vapor (which is a more powerful greenhouse gas) will amplify that warming (along with cloud changes and other effects). But, there is no empirical (by observation) evidence that net feedbacks (mostly clouds and humidity) will amplify the warming in the long run.Measurements of satellites, cloud cover changes, 3,000 ocean bouys, 6,000 boreholes, and 28 million weather balloons looking at temperature or humidity can’t find the warming that the models predict.
“Why doesn’t every scientist, every lawyer, and every politican understand what an ad hominem fallacy is?Yes it absorbs infra red and will probably make the air around it warmer.Did you know, even most alarmists will admit that doubling CO2 will only lead to 1.2 C of warming.Few are brave enough to risk being called a “denier”.So the gravy train rolls on, and no one asks the obvious questions. To see the pattern of how results are almost always adjusted in one direction, how the “science” of man-made global warming relies on data that’s hidden, adjusted, and on poor equipment, poor placement, and poor methodology, see Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.