Jump to content

Climate Change. Threat to the World?


Paul6754
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

HH, I'm absolutely not saying "Outgassing from the oceans does not occur" but you did when you refuted the existence of the carbon cycle and the inflow and outflow of CO2 between the land, oceans and the air which led to my comment, "We'll have to agree to disagree" a few posts ago. 

It's not always clear what you post. Are you asking me, "does the rate of outgassing of CO2 from the oceans increase with increased temperatures", the answer is yes and I posted it earlier.

Since you like to put words into other people's mouths please explain this,  "What is the basic chemistry behind the oceans being basic", try and answer without looking at the internet.

Hansen predicted a rise in temp of 0.45oC between 1988 and 1997, actual ground temp's went up just 0.11oC, his predictions were considered a failure as were/are many other predictions made by may climate scientists using models. Heck man can't predict the weather a few days from now with any certainty let alone climate in 10+ years time.

If only they were, just look at the controversy Michael Mann and his cohorts created with climategate and issuing law suits  to other researchers who requested their original data on the "Hockey Stick graph", science is not settled in a court room. There's much money to be made in this field just ask Al Gore.

It's probably too late for meaningful scientific discussion in this field, the only time any form of common sense may prevail is when the cost of net zero by 2030 starts dropping into people's mail boxes.

There is no climate emergency.

First part - I did no such thing. I was just wondering where all this extra water vapour was coming from. Maybe I wqs being too subtle.

"What is the basic chemistry behind the oceans being basic"

The chemistry behind the ocean's alkalinity is not my thing. But, so what?  You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with scientific consensus (if you start to moan about consensus in science then please lookup Sir Paul Nurse V James Delingpole - I agree with Sir Paul Nurse, btw).

Re:Hansen. They were projections, not predictions. Big difference. Look pretty good to me. 

Michael Mann's paper that you mention came out in 1999. So it's about the same age as Jake Taylor. It's not too late for meaningful scientific discussion, but maybe concentrate on stuff from this millenium.

What is the cost of not moving to net zero?

Hansen1988vsGISSthru2016.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, geosname said:

Here.

What a great solution. Who cares about all future generations and what they have to live through? Who cares about the damage caused to other species and their habitats. Lets just carry on and let "nature reset itself". Hardly going to win a nobel prize for that one aka its not a solution just the ramblings of someone who doesn't know what they are on about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, hillmanhunter said:

Interesting. Talk me through it.

That's difficult and more an epic than a post.

It boils down to this.

When people talk about saving the planet are they really talking about saving humans?

Are humans worth saving?

As a species we don't have a very impressive record.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, WV said:

What a great solution. Who cares about all future generations and what they have to live through? Who cares about the damage caused to other species and their habitats. Lets just carry on and let "nature reset itself". Hardly going to win a nobel prize for that one aka its not a solution just the ramblings of someone who doesn't know what they are on about. 

A prize for peace from the man who gave us dynamite.... ironic.

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Everything eventually succumbs to time. The property of time on matter is that it ages it. With age comes the eventual breakdown of whatever has been assembled. The ingredients will remain but the form that they take will be broken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind the constant questions you put out, I just wish you'd provide us with your own thoughts alongside them.

I think you'd get a lot less flack if you did that.

For my part.

When people talk about saving the planet are they really talking about saving humans?

Saving humans, yes. But also nature in general. I've heard 'sceptics' ask what the optimum temperature of the Earth should be. Like it's some kind of gotcha question.  I think the answer to that is this. We've spent centuries building all this infrastructure. Cities on rivers, cities on or around sea level. Farms where there is plentiful rain, railway tracks that work up to a certain temperature. By saving the planet we should try and keep it in the working window of all that stuff. That's the optimum temperature.

Are humans worth saving?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, hillmanhunter said:

I don't mind the constant questions you put out, I just wish you'd provide us with your own thoughts alongside them.

I think you'd get a lot less flack if you did that.

For my part.

When people talk about saving the planet are they really talking about saving humans?

Saving humans, yes. But also nature in general. I've heard 'sceptics' ask what the optimum temperature of the Earth should be. Like it's some kind of gotcha question.  I think the answer to that is this. We've spent centuries building all this infrastructure. Cities on rivers, cities on or around sea level. Farms where there is plentiful rain, railway tracks that work up to a certain temperature. By saving the planet we should try and keep it in the working window of all that stuff. That's the optimum temperature.

Are humans worth saving?

Yes.

The flak doesn't worry me in the slightest.

It's my opinions that mostly form the questions. Opening them up for debate.

I think in the main people's concerns are based around themselves. If you tell them the world will end in 10 years they tend to worry about themselves, not the sea life in the Andaman sea.  Which is fair enough.

As to the second question....... im not sure the answer is yes.

As for the physics /mechanics of climate change itself, I don't know, it's not an area that conjures up much interest for me.

The consequences of scrapping coal, oil and gas do raise an interest. I doubt very much we can produce enough electricity/power to replace them without a massive programme of nuclear generators, which we have not embarked upon, and if it's a 10 year deadline I doubt it would have passed the planning stages.

The 25% of power reportedly produced by wind would reduce to 1% (at a guess) when the demand rockets when the big 3 get shut off. The extra demand for electricity would be huge if gas was shut off, and the cost to the consumer immense.

But it's just my opinion.

“Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple.” – Dr. Seuss

Sometimes it's the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/08/2021 at 04:32, hillmanhunter said:

First part - I did no such thing. I was just wondering where all this extra water vapour was coming from. Maybe I wqs being too subtle.

You were just not being clear.

On 17/08/2021 at 04:32, hillmanhunter said:

"What is the basic chemistry behind the oceans being basic"

The chemistry behind the ocean's alkalinity is not my thing. But, so what?  You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with scientific consensus (if you start to moan about consensus in science then please lookup Sir Paul Nurse V James Delingpole - I agree with Sir Paul Nurse, btw).

Well it should be as most things on earth eg life, the climate etc are ultimately explained by basic science, even the climate adheres to the principles of basic science. Trying to understand climate science/change without an understanding of basic science is like building a house on weak foundations. I understand some of your responses now.

The last thing I would argue about is scientific consensus as it is irrelevant in science. Science is based on reproduclble data from which laws/rules have been derived many of which are still being questioned/tested today, questioning is the very essence of science.

These laws form the basis of man's understanding of the world apart from in climate science where politicians, activists and some scientists think the science is settled and CO2 controls the climate when there is no real evidence for i

On 17/08/2021 at 04:32, hillmanhunter said:

Re:Hansen. They were projections, not predictions. Big difference. Look pretty good to me. 

Michael Mann's paper that you mention came out in 1999. So it's about the same age as Jake Taylor. It's not too late for meaningful scientific discussion, but maybe concentrate on stuff from this millenium.

What is the cost of not moving to net zero?

Hansen1988vsGISSthru2016.jpg

Didn't Hansen predict the  temp rise from 1988 to 1997 where he predicted a rise of 0.45oC whereas the actual rise was 0.11oC so he overestimated by 4 times. There have been so many predictions by Hansen and others about the climate that have been plain wrong, heck only in the 1970's the gloom and doom merchants were forecasting a coming ice age. just a few in the links.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

That graph is just typical of a misleading image put out by climate alarmists. The scale on the y-axis is 1.7oC, if that data were shown on a graph with a y-axis scale of say the annual temperature variation ca 20oC it would look almost like a flat line and certainly would not give the impression of a large temperature rise.

What is the cost of moving to net zero, has it been truly costed out. Based on the Paris Accord the West will pay massively, China, India and the developing world will pay nothing, it will become just another scheme to redistribute wealth in the world. 

Edited by Paul6754

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

You were just not being clear.

Well it should be as most things on earth eg life, the climate etc are ultimately explained by basic science, even the climate adheres to the principles of basic science. Trying to understand climate science/change without an understanding of basic science is like building a house on weak foundations. I understand some of your responses now.

The last thing I would argue about is scientific consensus as it is irrelevant in science. Science is based on reproduclble data from which laws/rules have been derived many of which are still being questioned/tested today, questioning is the very essence of science.

These laws form the basis of man's understanding of the world apart from in climate science where politicians, activists and some scientists think the science is settled and CO2 controls the climate when there is no real evidence for i

Didn't Hansen predict the  temp rise from 1988 to 1997 where he predicted a rise of 0.45oC whereas the actual rise was 0.11oC so he overestimated by 4 times. There have been so many predictions by Hansen and others about the climate that have been plain wrong, heck only in the 1970's the gloom and doom merchants were forecasting a coming ice age. just a few in the links.

https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

That graph is just typical of a misleading image put out by climate alarmists. The scale on the y-axis is 1.7oC, if that data were shown on a graph with a y-axis scale of say the annual temperature variation ca 20oC it would look almost like a flat line and certainly would not give the impression of a large temperature rise.

What is the cost of moving to net zero, has it been truly costed out. Based on the Paris Accord the West will pay massively, China, India and the developing world will pay nothing, it will become just another scheme to redistribute wealth in the world. 

I'm ignoring the ad hominem attack regarding understanding ocean chemistry. Sorry.

I don't know what you're talking about re Hansen. Why does your interest wane after 1997? Funny that. I wonder if something happened around 1998 (this might be a rhetorical question)?  

Anyway, why don't you post me a link. 

Not interested in newspaper cuttings from the 1970s (there's a pattern here) either. Have you got anything peer reviewed that suggests something like a low climate sensitivity?

And then can you demonstrate why this trumps the many papers that suggest a higher climate sensitivity?

That graph is showing global yearly temperature anomaly. You understand that right?

You're making a mistake that many others do. Stating that the temperature varies in a year by around 20 degrees so what harm can an increase of say .5 degrees make?

The .5 degrees (for instance) is referring to mean temperature over a year.

When the average temperature increases, the frequency of extreme heat events increases. Not understanding the significance of mean temperature increases is like building a house on weak foundations. I understand some of your responses now (sorry - couldn't resist 🙂 ).

Maybe this picture helps you to understand.

 

I know all about Steven Milloy and Tony Heller (AKA Steven Goddard). Again, I'm not really interested in the opinions of bloggers. Post some science.

 

IMG_0353.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

I'm ignoring the ad hominem attack regarding understanding ocean chemistry. Sorry.

There was no ad hominem attack just a question after many questions from yourself aimed at trying to find out where you're coming from on this subject. Ocean chemistry is a subject climate scientists take a great interest in.

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

I don't know what you're talking about re Hansen. Why does your interest wane after 1997? Funny that. I wonder if something happened around 1998 (this might be a rhetorical question)?  

Anyway, why don't you post me a link. 

From what I could remember Hansen's original prediction was to 1997, I must have been wrong. Anyway the graph gives no GHG data for the temp senarios A,B,C, so any where in between A and C would have been considered a good prdiction, talk about hedging your bets. There's much data before 1960, did he model that.

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

Not interested in newspaper cuttings from the 1970s (there's a pattern here) either.

Of course you're not 'cause they are actual descriptions and reports of what the weather was like years and years ago or what the climate alarmists were predicting, they keep the climate alarmists honest. Remember the polar bears being extinct prediction, the predictions of an ice age commeth in the 1970's (I remember reading about that one),  Battery Park being under water by 2000 and I've lost count how many times the Maldives have "sunk" over the last 40 years.

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

Have you got anything peer reviewed that suggests something like a low climate sensitivity?

Well that's one out of the blue. I'm more interested in data that ties as definitively as possible man made CO2 to temperature and climate change.

The current estimated climate sensitivity of 3oC +/- 1oC. Given the current data it looks like the climate sensitivity value could be closer to 2oC, hopefully the climate activists will be pleased by that.

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

And then can you demonstrate why this trumps the many papers that suggest a higher climate sensitivity?

What's "This" in the above sentence.

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

That graph is showing global yearly temperature anomaly. You understand that right?

The cynic in me says it's an opportunity to manipulate data, I would prefer direct thermometer or whatever meter readings were used without alteration. Don't you ever question what a global average temperature anomaly actually means, if anything and why the most quoted CO2 levels are measured on the side of a volcano in Hawaii. Yep it's said they're measured elsewhere and the trends are the same but what about absolute values of CO2 levels, are they the same? as volcanoes are known to emit CO2.

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

You're making a mistake that many others do. Stating that the temperature varies in a year by around 20 degrees so what harm can an increase of say .5 degrees make?

Not at all, I'm saying plotting a 1oC rise in data on a y-axis scale of ca 1oC over a 50 year time frame gives the impression of a large temp increase when in fact the temp. increase is just a small one of 1oC, it's very misleading to the casual reader.

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

The .5 degrees (for instance) is referring to mean temperature over a year.

When the average temperature increases, the frequency of extreme heat events increases. Not understanding the significance of mean temperature increases is like building a house on weak foundations. I understand some of your responses now (sorry - couldn't resist 🙂 ).

Maybe this picture helps you to understand.

Again you bring something out of the blue and make stuff up, as far as I'm aware there has been no discussion/posts about "Mean temperature increase" of anything. what are you on about?

On 19/08/2021 at 03:30, hillmanhunter said:

 

I know all about Steven Milloy and Tony Heller (AKA Steven Goddard). Again, I'm not really interested in the opinions of bloggers. Post some science.

Again, who is Steven Milloy, I've heard of the other guy but little beyond that. 

I sense you and I come at this subject from different sides, you as an environmentalist and I from the basic principles of science/chemistry.

Why don't you give an explanation and provide data/evidence for why man made CO2 is the control knob for the earth's climate, a central theme for climate activists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My replies in bold.

There was no ad hominem attack just a question after many questions from yourself aimed at trying to find out where you're coming from on this subject. Ocean chemistry is a subject climate scientists take a great interest in.

I k now that increased CO2 in oceans increases acidity. Is that not enough? I know that time slows at higher velocities but I couldn't really say I understand general relativity. Not sure why you see such things as a point to attack. 

From what I could remember Hansen's original prediction was to 1997, I must have been wrong. Anyway the graph gives no GHG data for the temp senarios A,B,C, so any where in between A and C would have been considered a good prdiction, talk about hedging your bets. There's much data before 1960, did he model that.

Yes, you were wrong. I've got a good guess at what you've seen. Some blogger has cherry picked Hansen's projections but stopped at 1997 as 1998 was the year of a super el nino and that would be inconvenient if you've got an agenda. You've seen this, and as it is a source you like you've turned off your scepticism and taken it at face value. I'll go further. They've probably used Hansen's scenario A (exponential growth of GHG usage) and compared it to the global temperature dataset that runs cooler than all the others (UAH). 

The scenarios are well explained in the paper, btw.

Of course you're not 'cause they are actual descriptions and reports of what the weather was like years and years ago or what the climate alarmists were predicting, they keep the climate alarmists honest. Remember the polar bears being extinct prediction, the predictions of an ice age commeth in the 1970's (I remember reading about that one),  Battery Park being under water by 2000 and I've lost count how many times the Maldives have "sunk" over the last 40 years.

 

They're newspaper reports. They're often wrong or they give extra weight to niche opinions. There's a website somewhere that tracks all the things that The Daily Mail claim can give you cancer or can prevent cancer. Same thing.

Well that's one out of the blue. I'm more interested in data that ties as definitively as possible man made CO2 to temperature and climate change.

The current estimated climate sensitivity of 3oC +/- 1oC. Given the current data it looks like the climate sensitivity value could be closer to 2oC, hopefully the climate activists will be pleased by that.

You're out of date.  Probable range is 2.5oC to 4oC. In fact, the latest high quality estimates are coming up with values closer to 4oC.

Not at all, I'm saying plotting a 1oC rise in data on a y-axis scale of ca 1oC over a 50 year time frame gives the impression of a large temp increase when in fact the temp. increase is just a small one of 1oC, it's very misleading to the casual reader.

You still don't understand the significance of mean temperature. Have another look at the temp distribution chart I posted. This is basic statistics, Paul.  It's like someone saying "don't worry, the dice are only slightly loaded".

Again you bring something out of the blue and make stuff up, as far as I'm aware there has been no discussion/posts about "Mean temperature increase" of anything. what are you on about?

On Sunday you posted that many climate models are inaccurate. Well, what do you think the output of these models are, if not mean temperature? Cheese consumption? 

 

Again, who is Steven Milloy, I've heard of the other guy but little beyond that. 

I sense you and I come at this subject from different sides, you as an environmentalist and I from the basic principles of science/chemistry.

Why don't you give an explanation and provide data/evidence for why man made CO2 is the control knob for the earth's climate, a central theme for climate activists.

It's quite telling that I know more about the climate change 'sceptics' you're quoting than you do.

No, you're completely wrong. I'm just following the science. You're following bloggers. 

I've already given what you ask for. In that video of Richard Alley he talks about rock weathering rates and the link to CO2 and temperature, and if I remember correctly, he mentions some papers that cover that work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

They're newspaper reports. They're often wrong or they give extra weight to niche opinions. There's a website somewhere that tracks all the things that The Daily Mail claim can give you cancer or can prevent cancer. Same thing.

 

There were several reports in the newspapers about the upcoming ice age in the 70's because I can remember reading them. Are you saying the climate activists didn't claim the arctic polar bears would be extinct by a certain date etc and that the Maldives would soon be under water as these reports were in the newspapers and both outcomes were wrong. Climate activists made many more predictions like these and most if not all have been wrong. 

This article by two climatologists from The University of Alabama, Huntsville climate unit (Which is well know and considered a quality facility) describe climate forecasting as having gross deficiencies.

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8034/full/

Their statements about climate models parallel what I've read: Instruments aboard NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association satellites put the Mid-Tropospheric warming rate since late 1978 at about 0.7 degrees Celsius, or 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years. For the same period, the models on average give 2.1 degrees Celsius, or 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

23 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

You're out of date.  Probable range is 2.5oC to 4oC. In fact, the latest high quality estimates are coming up with values closer to 4oC.

 

Ca 2oC was my own calculation from often quoted data, plz show the calc. or your ref. for the ca 4oC value.

23 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

You still don't understand the significance of mean temperature. Have another look at the temp distribution chart I posted. This is basic statistics, Paul.  It's like someone saying "don't worry, the dice are only slightly loaded".

 

I'm not making any point whatsoever about or alluding to "mean temperature" and there has been no discussion whatsoever about it. My point is simply to only use a scale of 1oC on the y-axis to show data that only varies by ca 1oC gives a misleading representation/impression of the increase in the data.

HH, plz bring up a topic containing "Mean temperature" and I will tell you whether I understand it or not.

23 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

On Sunday you posted that many climate models are inaccurate. Well, what do you think the output of these models are, if not mean temperature? Cheese consumption?

Hansen's model is one model containing a limited and selective amount of climate data and it's vague what the 3 senarios are based on. Cherry picking which data to include in an analysis is a no no, why doesn't he go back to the 1800's or even further.  My views are similar  to the guys in the link above and from what I've read the main reasons given why the climate is difficult to model is it's so complex, contains many feedback mechanisms and water vapor and clouds are tough tto model.

23 hours ago, hillmanhunter said:

It's quite telling that I know more about the climate change 'sceptics' you're quoting than you do.

No, you're completely wrong. I'm just following the science. You're following bloggers. 

I've already given what you ask for. In that video of Richard Alley he talks about rock weathering rates and the link to CO2 and temperature, and if I remember correctly, he mentions some papers that cover that work.

I don't have any control and neither would I want to on who you follow on this subject. The likes of Happer, Lindzen, Curry, Salby and others aren't bloggers, I  don't clam to be a climate scientist, my views are based on a  knowledge of chemistry and chemistry underpins climate science. My explaining what a potent GHG is and why water vapor is a more potent GHG  than CO2 using Infrared spectroscopy is just an example.

HH, I'm only interested in an exchange of thoughts/ideas on this subject not confrontation as a way to test my and see other peoples views/thoughts. 

One fundamental, simple question I have is how can CO2, a GHG gas present in tiny amounts in the atmosphere (ca 4 CO2 molecules per 10,000 air molecules) and not a very potent GHG be the control knob of the Earth's climate. To me it just doesn't add up.

There's no more simple relationship in science than dose/response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I did a little research into your newspaper cuttings and it's just as I thought.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

"This article by two climatologists from The University of Alabama, Huntsville climate unit (Which is well know and considered a quality facility) describe climate forecasting as having gross deficiencies."

Really? There are 6 global temperature datasets, 5 of them match and 1 (UAH) gives different results. Their methods have been checked and found wanting.  On what basis are you calling them a quality facility?

Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies

Their statements about climate models parallel what I've read: Instruments aboard NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association satellites put the Mid-Tropospheric warming rate since late 1978 at about 0.7 degrees Celsius, or 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years. For the same period, the models on average give 2.1 degrees Celsius, or 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit, per 100 years. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

There are a few problems with what you wrote.

  1. We don't live in the Mid-Troposhere. We live on the surface.
  2. RSS  (another satellite  dataset) disagrees with UAH about Mid-Troposhere temperatures, RSS matches the Mid-Troposhere models more closely.
  3. The Surface (where we live) models match reality very well.
  4. You've previously stated that you prefer "direct thermometer or whatever meter readings were used without alteration". UAH doesn't use thermometers and they are currently on version 6 of their analysis.

Apart from that you make some valid points.

Ca 2oC was my own calculation from often quoted data, plz show the calc. or your ref. for the ca 4oC value.

In the IPCC 6 report 35 percent of the 40 models used move the sensitivity from 3oC to 4.5oC and even above. This is an upward shift from previous IPCC reports. This is mainly due to incorporating a better understanding of cloud physics. This is a concern. These developments are still in the early stages and they have some critics but there doesn't seem to be much movement towards a lowering of sensitivity.

The models that are showing an increased number for sensitivity are The UK's Hadley model, The EC model, The French model, The EU Earth 3 model. These are not fringe models.

 

I'm not making any point whatsoever about or alluding to "mean temperature" and there has been no discussion whatsoever about it. My point is simply to only use a scale of 1oC on the y-axis to show data that only varies by ca 1oC gives a misleading representation/impression of the increase in the data.

HH, plz bring up a topic containing "Mean temperature" and I will tell you whether I understand it or not.

First bit. No it's not misleading. Most people get it, especially when made aware of the change to the distribution curve. 

If we're talking about climate models we're implicitly talking about mean temperature, as mean temperature is an emergent property of the climate models and is how we calculate sensitivity.

Hansen's model is one model containing a limited and selective amount of climate data and it's vague what the 3 senarios are based on. Cherry picking which data to include in an analysis is a no no, why doesn't he go back to the 1800's or even further.  My views are similar  to the guys in the link above and from what I've read the main reasons given why the climate is difficult to model is it's so complex, contains many feedback mechanisms and water vapor and clouds are tough tto model.

If you're going to criticise something you should make an effort to understand it. He explains the scenarios quite clearly. Google is your friend. 

Also, James Hansen has modelled the changes from glacial to inter-glacial over the past 3 million years. So I don't know what you're on about there.

 

I don't have any control and neither would I want to on who you follow on this subject. The likes of Happer, Lindzen, Curry, Salby and others aren't bloggers, I  don't clam to be a climate scientist, my views are based on a  knowledge of chemistry and chemistry underpins climate science. My explaining what a potent GHG is and why water vapor is a more potent GHG  than CO2 using Infrared spectroscopy is just an example.

HH, I'm only interested in an exchange of thoughts/ideas on this subject not confrontation as a way to test my and see other peoples views/thoughts. 

There's no more simple relationship in science than dose/response.

Curry has her own blog. The others are probably too old to know what a blog is, I'll give you that.

Increased water vapour is a feedback from increased co2. If that, and others, weren't positive feedbacks then climate sensitivity would be about 1oc.  

One fundamental, simple question I have is how can CO2, a GHG gas present in tiny amounts in the atmosphere (ca 4 CO2 molecules per 10,000 air molecules) and not a very potent GHG be the control knob of the Earth's climate. To me it just doesn't add up.

First thing I'd say is that's just an argument from incredulity. Secondly, to actually address your problem. Increasing co2 creates an energy imbalance and introduces stronger positive feedbacks. Increased water vapour, melting ice, lowering of albedo, release of methane etc etc.  If you don't think co2 is the control knob then rock weathering rates don't make sense any more. How do you explain that? Also, if co2 is not the control knob then why would you think that sensitivity is above 1oc?

I'm just interested in the science and would actually prefer it if the scientific literature said that everything is going to be fine, nothing to worry about. The fact that it doesn't say that doesn't mean that we should ignore it.

Edited by hillmanhunter
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Reporting Posts and Ignoring Users

    Admin don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking. Please report posts and we'll act on ASAP. If you're logged in use the orange report post button. If you're not logged in, please use the contact form

    If you can't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Follow the link, type in their username and save - Click here

    Check with admin if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first - Contact us here

  • Friends of OVF

×
×
  • Create New...