Global Green Up Slows Warming

More CO2 in the atmosphere should result in a greening effect, right?

Measurements of warming in these models are controversial. How can they establish that 0,25 increase in the average temperature of the Earth has occurred? How does an average even makes sense, in such discrepancy in temperatures observed worldwide. How can models properly reflect the reality of 0.25c degrees, or whatever low predicted increase, will have on the planet?

Also, how do they account for urbanization effects (which in itself causes warming), and placement of thermometers around these areas.

I have more questions than certainties about this issue.

> main factor which affects Earth's climate

This is such a dubious statement you keep repeating. Is it the main one? No, probably not. If you took out all the Nitrogen, shit would break a lot faster than if you took out all the CO2. You could probably name a few others.

However it is proven that carbon emissions is the main thing affecting the the change we are observing in earth's climate. And I shouldn't have to, because you are who you are, I'm going to staple on "within reasonable amount of certainty"

> How does an average even makes sense, in such discrepancy in temperatures observed worldwide.

> Also, how do they account for urbanization effects (which in itself causes warming), and placement of thermometers around these areas.

Related to your worries, 11 years ago a group of physicists from outside the meteorology and climate science community, had similar worries. Maybe meteorologists and climate scientists haven't done a good analysis of the existing land surface temperature measurements? What about the urban heat island effect, growing cities, and moving measurement locations?

These physicists started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, went back to the original raw data, and reanalyzed everything, developing their own new statistical methods as needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

The result? The same observed warming rate as in the previous studies.

Maybe this kind of reanalysis needs to be done again every 10-20 years? Kind of like rewriting software from scratch.

It would be super awesome to have a fully reproducible version of the IPCC model so that anyone can download it and not only reproduce the original predictions but see what variations it's sensitive to.

In the 01960s and 01970s it seemed like it might sometimes polymerize, which might have implied that it's always somewhat polymerized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater but after 12 years of research this turned out to be wrong. If someone got similar experimental results today, while taking more care to prevent the contamination that gave rise to the original results, and did it under different conditions that hadn't been intensively investigated during the original polywater period, it would definitely merit further investigation.

In 01988 Jacques Benveniste did some experiments which seemed to show some sort of chemical alteration of water in the presence of antibodies, though it didn't show up with the usual spectroscopic techniques: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory which were published in Nature. Replication attempts were made by several teams. They failed, so Benveniste was wrong.

So I wouldn't say it's "settled science" that water is H2O. When contrary evidence pops up, chemists investigate it and find out what's wrong with it; they don't just dismiss it. That would be unscientific.

We could also quibble about the meaning of "H2O", though perhaps this is less interesting. For example, although it's only about 0.1 ppm, a part of any sample of water exists in the form of free hydronium (H3O+) and hydroxyl (OH-) ions, not H2O. Because this is an equilibrium, you can't just remove the ions to get pure H2O; they come right back. This self-ionization is responsible for significant aspects of water's behavior, including the formation of streamers that limit the storage time of water-dielectric capacitors, and the particular way acid-base chemistry works in water.

Natural water also contains about 155 ppm DOH and D2O, though this can be removed, and it's arguable that this is within the meaning of "H2O" anyway.

And the water molecules in liquid water or ice form a continuous hydrogen-bonded network, though this was not known until 01920; to some extent it's just a matter of convention rather than objective fact that we consider those bonds to be "intermolecular", making water H2O rather than an (H2O)n polymer; we consider the weaker hydrogen bonds between DNA strands to make DNA a single molecule rather than two intertwined molecules. (The polywater affair, however, posited the formation of a covalent water polymer.)