I am not surprised. Of course the president never said to drink bleach, but if you are one that gets all your news from CNN. I heard CNN repeat over and over that the president said to drink bleach
Show everyone where I said Trump said to drink bleach. If you spend your time circle jerking with 9 bullshitters, you're bond to become the 10th one. Find new friends.
Perhaps the conclusion is correct, perhaps not, but god help us if this sort of lame reasoning is representative of that that goes into making policy decisions. The Northern Hemisphere is warming, particularly in the northern most part. The Southern Hemisphere is not warming significantly and net sea ice is increasing. Satellite temperature readings over the entire planet show no significant mean temperature change since they began being acquired, whereas land and sea based data from the Northern Hemisphere show warming. Temperature change over time estimated from landbased monitoring stations is subject to huge errors which it is claimed are corrected. The satellite data also has errors associated with it but would seem to be a more reliable measure of global mean change. As yet, no climate models show any temperature effect of doubling the trace concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere without assuming, a priori, positive feedback. The very few detailed studies of feedback published so far ,however, have concluded that the feedback response to temperature perturbation is negative. Positive feedback systems are unstable. Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas.
Antartic Ice seems fairly flat: https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...nderstanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent Water vapor is self balancing, there's no increase of vapor concentration in the atmosphere as this precipitates so in effect the water vapor greenhouse effect is a wash. Now, how rising temperature affects the water vapor concentration year to year is another matter, as one would expect rising temperatures to increase the vaporization rate until atmospheric pressure raises the vaporization temperature. Carbon in the atmosphere is also self-regulating to an extent, but no one talks about the carbon cycle and the biological carbon pump. We know carbon is an issue due to this carbon pump having changed due to increased carbonic acid in the oceans (if you don't trust surface temperature readings for some reason). The carbon cycle takes years unlike the water cycle. The oceans aren't going to absorb the 400 billion tons of c02 released into the troposphere since the industrial revolution if it's not in contact with it, especially if the Ph remains out of balance. https://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news/1/th...-in-earths-mid-troposphere-from-2002-to-2013/ https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts/ocean-acidification
Thank you for an intelligent post. I won't argue with any of this because it's reasonable. You stated, "The carbon cycle takes years unlike the water cycle." Although this statement, so far as I know, is correct, it should not be taken as an endorsement of the original guesses as to the dwell time of CO2 in the atmosphere. We now know from the 1950s atmospheric, nuclear bomb tests what the actual half life of atmospheric CO2 is within a satisfactory error. It is far less, at minimum an order of magnitude less, than what was originally assumed. I read half life estimates years ago of 100 to 1000 years. CO2 turnover turns out to be surprisingly rapid. What is not reasonable in my opinion is to assume a positive feedback in models despite theoretical considerations that argue strongly against this. Without that assumption, of course, 200 additional ppm CO2 causes no significant warming according to the models. I am a scientist. I don't think science should depend on highly questionable assumptions, instead it must be based on observations and experiments. I am also concerned that what is being called global warming is not global but somewhat more focused on the Northern Hemisphere, at least according to satellite remote sensing. I think physicist Nir Shaviv's* remarks are among the most reasonable being put forth by experts who have weighed in on this issue. I also believe physicist Ferenc Miscolski's papers are easy to ignore, as is being done, but quite hard to argue against, as is not being done . His work seems sound to me. I am firmly convinced that our atmosphere responds to perturbations with negative feedback rather than positive. The parameters in the models used by the IPCC are tweaked about every 6-years to keep them from temperature predictions that are too far from observation to be acceptable. When a model is developed that does not have to be tweaked to predict future temperature beyond 6-years within reasonable error I will take notice. Until then, anyone drawing conclusions from these digital models is taking a risk that I do not want to take. Science is about making educated guesses based on observations, and then testing one's guesses; it is not about risk taking. By the way direct measurement of ocean pH data, which would seem to be rather straight forward to collect, is actually fraught with difficulties and uncertainties when one tries to go beyond two significant figures. In the laboratory, under controlled conditions one gets pH to three figures with the third figure uncertain. This is because the pH scale is a log base 10 scale and thus the third digit is effected by a 1 millivolt signal change. Stirring noise is an order of magnitude greater, as is the electric background noise in a typical laboratory. And of course trying to make the measurement directly in the ocean to three figures is virtually impossible. I have seen laboratory pH values published to 4 figures before, but everyone familiar with these measurements knows the fourth figure is nonsense. And of course the ocean pH varies from one location to another, so to say, "the Ocean pH," is going up or down, based on sampling ocean water, is always pointless unless the location and standard error is also given. And we simply do not have the data that would as yet allow us to say it is going up or down everywhere. I can't off hand think of any area of scientific interest right now where some of the the conclusions being drawn are more suspect then in climate science. This 20th, and now, 21st Century attempt to understand our planets climate in detail is laudable, and I hope over time it improves in scientific integrity. Sadly such hopes were dealt a huge blow when James Hansen took to the Streets and the Public Media long before any of the scientific work was ready for prime time. That drew in financial stake holders and the result was science corrupted by politics to an extent that hasn't been experienced since the Lysenko affair in the Soviet Union, or before that the Eugenics movement of the 1920s. History may not repeat, but it certainly rhymes. _______________ *see https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2015/shaviv-milky-way
I'm also in the sciences, and admittedly don't care or am interested enough to become an expert on climate science, so I take the same approach as I did with COVID. It's undeniable CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It's undeniable Carbon is trapped in fossil fuel deposits, it's undeniable combusting said hydrocarbons releases it into the atmosphere mostly in the form of CO2. It's undeniable it takes years to sink it into wood, peat, limestone, etc... So as with a pandemic, I defer to the experts, sure the death rate was relatively small on the onset, so we attempted to do the best we could. Let's do some hygiene and some level of quarantining as we don't have the tools to fight this disease yet, and we understand virus mutate if we let them run rampant. We understood doing so would take a toll on the economy and some people's psyche so you weigh your options. Was it the best strategy? Hindsight may show perhaps masking while remaining open was the best approach, who knows at this point. Consensus was at least, let's prevent the spread by putting on a mask. Now, you've got a few scientist skeptics. That's good, if we can include their input to improve a climate model (say by including more accurate solar influence) than it helps us understand how dangerous this is. What I don't accept is ignoring the bulk of the scientists being dismissed over a few skeptics and accusing them of being driven by agenda. Sure, it's happened before (Darwin, Einstein, Galileo breaking away from consensus). So me and the public are faced w/a choice. We've got thousands of papers showing rising temperature, and we've got a guy on a forum saying it's not accurate, so you infer what's likely right, as one would w/vaccine/COVID skeptics pushing rational arguments with some science backing. It really doesn't help if the skeptic scientists take the conscious choice to join/speak for public policy think tanks pushing clear agendas. One may say, "well, that's the only place they can speak their mind" but I would counter that it pollutes the validity of their argument if they accuse other scientists being driven by politics when they themselves are involved in it. I for instance, feel less compelled to entertain their arguments. https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/nir-shaviv https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/ferenc-miskolczi
I have seen no evidence to suggest that Shaviv would fall into that category. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nir_Shaviv And thanks for correcting my butchering of Miskolczi's last name spelling. I am rotten at Anglicizing Hungarian.
I don't have access to the full paper at home, but I note their attribution in the abstract is to greenhouse gases rather than CO2. That would be a reference mainly to water vapor.