Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
deeen said:
Well I got bored of repeating the science, because nothing has changed. For the benefit of Gavsdavs, here it is again.
1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
Ok lets stop the quoting at point number 2, because i think that's quite clearly b1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
ks. There's endless amount of evidence that human activity has strongly influenced the rate of change of the climate (whether the earths climate goes hot and cold is not in question, what IS in question is the rate of that change and the cause of it).The real reason for posting is to link to this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...
The point about this is that the climate change deniers are quite happy attacking and debunking demonstrable facts about the use of renewables to suit their political point. The point to which most deniers seem to subscribe, that human activity isn't really causing this and "the earth warms and cools anyway" and we're back to not really believing that we are at fault and/or can make choices to improve the situation.
Separately:
Toltec said:
There was a certain amount of irony in my post, I was comparing the term denier with heretic not calling you a heretic btw.
That there appears to be an unusually rapid change in global temperature that correlates with the rise in human population then I'm more convinced than not at the moment. I also think that the rate of change is likely to be more of a problem than the amount of change, particularly for wildlife, humans are adaptable so it will be more of an inconvenience to us as a species. Quite whether it is driven entirely by human release of CO2 or not is less clear and to some extent does not matter. That we can control the climate in any predictable way I sincerely doubt.
I completely believe that humans need to stop stting on their own doorstep, I just don't think the Climate Change followers methods and message are the right way to do it, far too small a viewpoint. If anything I see most CC supporters to be the ones denying reality and their responsibility for what is happening, granted there are some that truely try to practice a lower impact lifestyle, but most want something to be done without affecting their foreign holidays, new leased cars, shiny electronic gadgets and coffee shop lifestyle.
Things change, adapt and improve or die.
Good post btw.That there appears to be an unusually rapid change in global temperature that correlates with the rise in human population then I'm more convinced than not at the moment. I also think that the rate of change is likely to be more of a problem than the amount of change, particularly for wildlife, humans are adaptable so it will be more of an inconvenience to us as a species. Quite whether it is driven entirely by human release of CO2 or not is less clear and to some extent does not matter. That we can control the climate in any predictable way I sincerely doubt.
I completely believe that humans need to stop s
tting on their own doorstep, I just don't think the Climate Change followers methods and message are the right way to do it, far too small a viewpoint. If anything I see most CC supporters to be the ones denying reality and their responsibility for what is happening, granted there are some that truely try to practice a lower impact lifestyle, but most want something to be done without affecting their foreign holidays, new leased cars, shiny electronic gadgets and coffee shop lifestyle. Things change, adapt and improve or die.
gavsdavs said:
deeen said:
Well I got bored of repeating the science, because nothing has changed. For the benefit of Gavsdavs, here it is again.
1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
Ok lets stop the quoting at point number 2, because i think that's quite clearly b1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
ks. There's endless amount of evidence that human activity has strongly influenced the rate of change of the climate (whether the earths climate goes hot and cold is not in question, what IS in question is the rate of that change and the cause of it).The real reason for posting is to link to this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...
The point about this is that the climate change deniers are quite happy attacking and debunking demonstrable facts about the use of renewables to suit their political point. The point to which most deniers seem to subscribe, that human activity isn't really causing this and "the earth warms and cools anyway" and we're back to not really believing that we are at fault and/or can make choices to improve the situation.
Separately:
Toltec said:
There was a certain amount of irony in my post, I was comparing the term denier with heretic not calling you a heretic btw.
That there appears to be an unusually rapid change in global temperature that correlates with the rise in human population then I'm more convinced than not at the moment. I also think that the rate of change is likely to be more of a problem than the amount of change, particularly for wildlife, humans are adaptable so it will be more of an inconvenience to us as a species. Quite whether it is driven entirely by human release of CO2 or not is less clear and to some extent does not matter. That we can control the climate in any predictable way I sincerely doubt.
I completely believe that humans need to stop stting on their own doorstep, I just don't think the Climate Change followers methods and message are the right way to do it, far too small a viewpoint. If anything I see most CC supporters to be the ones denying reality and their responsibility for what is happening, granted there are some that truely try to practice a lower impact lifestyle, but most want something to be done without affecting their foreign holidays, new leased cars, shiny electronic gadgets and coffee shop lifestyle.
Things change, adapt and improve or die.
Good post btw.That there appears to be an unusually rapid change in global temperature that correlates with the rise in human population then I'm more convinced than not at the moment. I also think that the rate of change is likely to be more of a problem than the amount of change, particularly for wildlife, humans are adaptable so it will be more of an inconvenience to us as a species. Quite whether it is driven entirely by human release of CO2 or not is less clear and to some extent does not matter. That we can control the climate in any predictable way I sincerely doubt.
I completely believe that humans need to stop s
tting on their own doorstep, I just don't think the Climate Change followers methods and message are the right way to do it, far too small a viewpoint. If anything I see most CC supporters to be the ones denying reality and their responsibility for what is happening, granted there are some that truely try to practice a lower impact lifestyle, but most want something to be done without affecting their foreign holidays, new leased cars, shiny electronic gadgets and coffee shop lifestyle. Things change, adapt and improve or die.
gavsdavs said:
deeen said:
Well I got bored of repeating the science, because nothing has changed. For the benefit of Gavsdavs, here it is again.
1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
Ok lets stop the quoting at point number 2, because i think that's quite clearly b1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
ks. There's endless amount of evidence that human activity has strongly influenced the rate of change of the climate (whether the earths climate goes hot and cold is not in question, what IS in question is the rate of that change and the cause of it).The real reason for posting is to link to this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...
The point about this is that the climate change deniers are quite happy attacking and debunking demonstrable facts about the use of renewables to suit their political point. The point to which most deniers seem to subscribe, that human activity isn't really causing this and "the earth warms and cools anyway" and we're back to not really believing that we are at fault and/or can make choices to improve the situation.
Point 2 - if the evidence for MMGW is "endless", can you provide a link to some? And further to the points you ignored, why do detailed predictions made from this theory turn out to be wrong? In any other branch of science, this would be considered to disprove the theory.
deeen said:
gavsdavs said:
deeen said:
Well I got bored of repeating the science, because nothing has changed. For the benefit of Gavsdavs, here it is again.
1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
Ok lets stop the quoting at point number 2, because i think that's quite clearly b1. The Earth's climate was changing for millions of years before humans existed, and will continue to change for millions of years after we have gone. Therefore, there is no scientific need to use humans in explaining climate change.
2. There is no credible evidence that mankind has had a significant impact on this process.
ks. There's endless amount of evidence that human activity has strongly influenced the rate of change of the climate (whether the earths climate goes hot and cold is not in question, what IS in question is the rate of that change and the cause of it).The real reason for posting is to link to this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...
The point about this is that the climate change deniers are quite happy attacking and debunking demonstrable facts about the use of renewables to suit their political point. The point to which most deniers seem to subscribe, that human activity isn't really causing this and "the earth warms and cools anyway" and we're back to not really believing that we are at fault and/or can make choices to improve the situation.
Point 2 - if the evidence for MMGW is "endless", can you provide a link to some? And further to the points you ignored, why do detailed predictions made from this theory turn out to be wrong? In any other branch of science, this would be considered to disprove the theory.
The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
kerplunk said:
Why would anyone bother supplying evidence to someone who has declared their scientific incuriosity (your point 1)?
The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
Love the slight of hand KP - Greenhouse gases yes (well H2O) CO2 not even a player until the upper atmosphere where it assists in cooling.....The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Why would anyone bother supplying evidence to someone who has declared their scientific incuriosity (your point 1)?
The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
Love the slight of hand KP - Greenhouse gases yes (well H2O) CO2 not even a player until the upper atmosphere where it assists in cooling.....The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
hairykrishna said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Why would anyone bother supplying evidence to someone who has declared their scientific incuriosity (your point 1)?
The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
Love the slight of hand KP - Greenhouse gases yes (well H2O) CO2 not even a player until the upper atmosphere where it assists in cooling.....The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
LongQ said:
hairykrishna said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Why would anyone bother supplying evidence to someone who has declared their scientific incuriosity (your point 1)?
The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
Love the slight of hand KP - Greenhouse gases yes (well H2O) CO2 not even a player until the upper atmosphere where it assists in cooling.....The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
hairykrishna said:
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Why would anyone bother supplying evidence to someone who has declared their scientific incuriosity (your point 1)?
The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
Love the slight of hand KP - Greenhouse gases yes (well H2O) CO2 not even a player until the upper atmosphere where it assists in cooling.....The climate has always changed and variation in greenhouse gases is an important factor in that changing climatic history back through time. If you don't think that's a real factor in earth's climate then you're denying established scientific understanding of how the earth's climate system works (so you are a climate change science denier actually). The evidence for it is easily found and trivial - it's for you to demonstrate it ain't so if that's what you're claiming (non-trivial).
Still, that would be one way to solve the "human problem".
kerplunk said:
Well the big picture is that without CO2 in the atmosphere there would be no H2O either and no greenhouse effect - earth would be a frozen snow ball.
Which is a totally incorrect assumption. The main problem with lack of CO2 would be the lack of life on earth not that the earth would be a snowball. grumbledoak said:
kerplunk said:
Well the big picture is that without CO2 in the atmosphere there would be no H2O either and no greenhouse effect - earth would be a frozen snow ball.
How do you figure that first bit?Here's a paper about it:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al....
abstract
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
kerplunk said:
Because without CO2's contribution to the GHE it would be too cold for the atmosphere to hold significant water vapour.
Here's a paper about it:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al....
abstract
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
Here's a paper about it:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al....
abstract
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
Uses models. Edited to add - uses models based on the assumption CO2 (and other non-condensing GHG) is the "control knob" to prove CO2 is the control knob.
Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 2nd January 09:28
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
Because without CO2's contribution to the GHE it would be too cold for the atmosphere to hold significant water vapour.
Here's a paper about it:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al....
abstract
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
Here's a paper about it:
https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al....
abstract
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4, and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases, which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.
Uses models. Edited to add - uses models based on the assumption CO2 (and other non-condensing GHG) is the "control knob" to prove CO2 is the control knob.
Edited by Jinx on Tuesday 2nd January 09:28
I think it's actually a politcally motivated paper, made necessary to counter politically motivated attempts to trivialize and dismiss CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, as it says in the paper:
Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere “would lead to a 1°C decrease in global warming” (7), or “by 3.53°C when 40% cloud cover is assumed” (8) are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs.
But as Roger Pielke Snr says it doesn't actually bring anything new to the table, it's just an interesting demonstration of what was already known:
The paper is an interesting model experiment, but it really does not present any new insight beyond what we already know. Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback.
kerplunk said:
I'll take that over your vacuous assertions any day.
I think it's actually a politcally motivated paper, made necessary to counter politically motivated attempts to trivialize and dismiss CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, as it says in the paper:
Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere “would lead to a 1°C decrease in global warming” (7), or “by 3.53°C when 40% cloud cover is assumed” (8) are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs.
But as Roger Pielke Snr says it doesn't actually bring anything new to the table, it's just an interesting demonstration of what was already known:
The paper is an interesting model experiment, but it really does not present any new insight beyond what we already know. Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback.
But it doesn't show anything. It is a circular argument posted as a paper. By using a model that assumes CO2 controls the temperature and then removing the CO2 from the model and showing it controls the temperature in that model- how does this show that CO2 is the control knob outside of that model? It is not an interesting model experiment it is a convoluted act of deception pretending to be science. I think it's actually a politcally motivated paper, made necessary to counter politically motivated attempts to trivialize and dismiss CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, as it says in the paper:
Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere “would lead to a 1°C decrease in global warming” (7), or “by 3.53°C when 40% cloud cover is assumed” (8) are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs.
But as Roger Pielke Snr says it doesn't actually bring anything new to the table, it's just an interesting demonstration of what was already known:
The paper is an interesting model experiment, but it really does not present any new insight beyond what we already know. Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback.
The energy balance equations even at TOA are approximations with wide enough error bars to drive the entire CO2 "feedback" bus through with room to spare - so how can the assumption that CO2 is required to keep the earth out of snowball state stand? CO2 was higher in the past and the earth still fell into an ice age. CO2 will not save us from one anytime soon.
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
I'll take that over your vacuous assertions any day.
I think it's actually a politcally motivated paper, made necessary to counter politically motivated attempts to trivialize and dismiss CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, as it says in the paper:
Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere “would lead to a 1°C decrease in global warming” (7), or “by 3.53°C when 40% cloud cover is assumed” (8) are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs.
But as Roger Pielke Snr says it doesn't actually bring anything new to the table, it's just an interesting demonstration of what was already known:
The paper is an interesting model experiment, but it really does not present any new insight beyond what we already know. Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback.
But it doesn't show anything. It is a circular argument posted as a paper. By using a model that assumes CO2 controls the temperature and then removing the CO2 from the model and showing it controls the temperature in that modelI think it's actually a politcally motivated paper, made necessary to counter politically motivated attempts to trivialize and dismiss CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, as it says in the paper:
Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere “would lead to a 1°C decrease in global warming” (7), or “by 3.53°C when 40% cloud cover is assumed” (8) are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs.
But as Roger Pielke Snr says it doesn't actually bring anything new to the table, it's just an interesting demonstration of what was already known:
The paper is an interesting model experiment, but it really does not present any new insight beyond what we already know. Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback.
kerplunk said:
I'll take that over your vacuous assertions any day.
I think it's actually a politcally motivated paper, made necessary to counter politically motivated attempts to trivialize and dismiss CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, as it says in the paper:
Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere “would lead to a 1°C decrease in global warming” (7), or “by 3.53°C when 40% cloud cover is assumed” (8) are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs.
But as Roger Pielke Snr says it doesn't actually bring anything new to the table, it's just an interesting demonstration of what was already known:
The paper is an interesting model experiment, but it really does not present any new insight beyond what we already know. Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback.
I would agree that it looks like a politically motivated paper. Whether such a thing is ever "made necessary" is less clear, even in political circles.I think it's actually a politcally motivated paper, made necessary to counter politically motivated attempts to trivialize and dismiss CO2 as an important greenhouse gas, as it says in the paper:
Claims that removing all CO2 from the atmosphere “would lead to a 1°C decrease in global warming” (7), or “by 3.53°C when 40% cloud cover is assumed” (8) are still being heard. A clear demonstration is needed to show that water vapor and clouds do indeed behave as fast feedback processes and that their atmospheric distributions are regulated by the sustained radiative forcing due to the noncondensing GHGs.
But as Roger Pielke Snr says it doesn't actually bring anything new to the table, it's just an interesting demonstration of what was already known:
The paper is an interesting model experiment, but it really does not present any new insight beyond what we already know. Quite frankly, this would be a good Master’s thesis study to show why CO2 is an important climate forcing as well as provide insight into the water cycle feedback.
I note the second name on the list of Authors.
But this is now "old news" as some would say.
It would not surprise me if humanity finds itself in far more significant trouble economically well before any putative effects of Climate Change could induce effects that were truly worthy of concern.
Whether science, through technology, could find enough advances to mitigate the effects is another matter but practical technology might be the only way to keep the global economics model moving long enough to discover what might really happen with Climate in the next century and what effects it might have.
As a discussion that's one for the Politics thread ... or maybe even a philosophy and economics thread.
LongQ said:
As a discussion that's one for the Politics thread ... or maybe even a philosophy and economics thread.
Indeed most of your comments here are loaded with political rhetoric and policy agenda - you complain when the politics thread gets too sciencey but you can't help yourself here apparently Well, you mentioned "politically motivated paper".
I agreed.
Meanwhile there does not seem to be much truly new happening in CC research. If there is it's not seeing much discussion here.
I postulated that where Science might come into its own with something in the short term and meaningful to some time closer to "now" could be in technology of some sort. Maybe batteries, perhaps materials that are lower cost, lighter and don't require mining? Who knows - but science and engineering will be required.
I then suggested that Politics should be discussed in the politics thread and suggested some other possibilities for separating some other aspects of what we might be discussing - entirely consistent, in my opinion, with my very occasional attempts to point out the benefits of discussing Science in the Science thread rather than the politics thread.
For some reason you then feel it necessary to have some sort of a paddy slightly tempered by a smiley.
At this rate I'll have to resort to disagreeing with you on principle alone!
I agreed.
Meanwhile there does not seem to be much truly new happening in CC research. If there is it's not seeing much discussion here.
I postulated that where Science might come into its own with something in the short term and meaningful to some time closer to "now" could be in technology of some sort. Maybe batteries, perhaps materials that are lower cost, lighter and don't require mining? Who knows - but science and engineering will be required.
I then suggested that Politics should be discussed in the politics thread and suggested some other possibilities for separating some other aspects of what we might be discussing - entirely consistent, in my opinion, with my very occasional attempts to point out the benefits of discussing Science in the Science thread rather than the politics thread.
For some reason you then feel it necessary to have some sort of a paddy slightly tempered by a smiley.
At this rate I'll have to resort to disagreeing with you on principle alone!
kerplunk said:
This I don't accept. AFAIK the GHE contribution supplied by CO2 is an emergent property from the radiative physics in the model not just an assumed value that's punched in like you're implying.
Nope. Forcing datasets for ModelE are programmed in https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff