Re: Any laws being broken?
Hey memester:
The atmosphere's carbon dioxide proportion crashed from 330ppm to 260ppm from 1900 to 1960.
The bulk of that period was subject to a global warming (up) cycle just as strong as, but longer than, the subsequent upcycle from 1975-2000 which forms the basis of your own received-hysteria.
Interestingly, as the carbon dioxide proportion started to increase again, the earth stayed in the grip of the down cycle (roughly 30-40yrs, typically) that formed the basis of a previous generation's received-hysteria about the new ice age etc.
Long-term data demonstrates at a glance to an experienced quant, and after running time-series calcs for a slower quant, that while in the long-term carbon dioxide and global average temperatures are closely associated, carbon dioxide lags heat. To be clear: heat causes carbon dioxide, not the other way round.
This is verified by the whole-meme falsifying we accidentally underwent during the '75-'00 upcycle, when for the first time we had atmospheric temps. They went up at a third of the rate of surface temps.
For the greenhouse effect to be driving surface temps, it HAS to be the other way round. By definition. That's what the greenhouse effect IS: an insulating atmosphere heating up the surface.
Boom -- instant falsification of the proposition that the greenhouse effect is controlling global climate etc.
As Popper points out, it's not science if it's not falsifiable. And if it's then falsified in fact, it's quite simply not real.
.
Also, the entire modelling effort can be blown out of the water by 2 simple observations (the most important model factor is tautological ; the figure used for the heat absorption of carbon dioxide is wrong (and by more than an order of magnitude)).
But it's a bit pointless going through it:
The entire meme is moot.
It has been proven false by data (not models).
Biting the hand that feeds IT
