I really appreciate this nuanced presentation! (Not to mention the many other nuanced presentations in One Percent Brighter.) In the interest of complicating the "this shit is complicated" narrative, however, the precautionary principle makes sense in such a situation. Decreasing CO2 emissions makes sense in all three scenarios, and we have existing technology that can achieve this: wind and solar with nuclear baseline generation. (I get that this is easier said than done, but I'm just making the point that unlike other such wicked problems, there is a potential solution.)
I agree. If the worst case scenario is supported by sound science than the risk of it materializing is real. If on the other hand the cost associated with this scenario is close to infinite. On the other hand, growth doesn't have to be carbon based as insinuated in the article. From the point of view of sound decision making taking action to replace carbon based energy sources stays rational.
The problem is poorly framed from the outset because the first question to ask is whether it is scientifically possible to find a single cause for current global warming.
The second question to ask is whether the concept of the greenhouse effect is scientifically sound.
There are several ways to show that the greenhouse effect concept is flawed, all based on thermodynamics, whose first three principles explain the behavior of the atmosphere.
To keep it simple, I will mention two:
1. IR radiation heats CO2, which heats the Earth's surface, which in turn heats CO2: this violates the first principle of thermodynamics;
2. The atmosphere is divided into successive thin layers that are heated by their CO2 content. The lower layers are heated by the upper layers down to the ground (this is Manabe's theory): this is inept because everywhere in the atmosphere the temperature decreases with altitude up to the tropopause, which is the coldest surface of the troposphere, and IR radiation does not go from cold to hot, but only from hot to cold (these are Maxwell's laws of heat).
The third question to ask is “who benefits from the crime?”.
As Roger Pielke Jr., among others, says, current global warming is real and must be taken into account.
Whatever path we are on, thermodynamics tells us that what warms the atmosphere is energy consumption, regardless of its origin.
For example, when you drive a car on the highway, when you brake, you convert kinetic energy into heat. This warms the atmosphere and is irreversible. The car's energy source does not change anything.
In conclusion, I would say that the best thing to do would be to reduce our overall energy consumption and maintain a diverse range of energy sources.
I’m comfortable with the assumption that if all atmospheric science for the last sixty years turns out to be fundamentally wrong, I won’t find out about it from a blog comment.
The origin of the error lies in the dating of gases in ice cores.
You will agree that if the global temperature increase in the atmosphere always precedes that of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it is difficult to explain that it is this increase in CO2 that is the cause of global warming.
The increase in temperatures observed in ice cores always precedes that of CO2 levels by tens or hundreds of years. Studies have been conducted to show that, due to the porosity or permeability of the compression layer on the surface of ice caps, CO2 could be younger than the ice.
Corrections have been made, but none show that the increase in CO2 may have preceded that of temperature.
In a recent publication entitled “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature,” Humlum et al. demonstrated, using all available data, that CO2 and temperature are indeed correlated, but that CO2 always lags behind temperature and not the reverse.
HI Paul Pettre. I agree that the solar cycle will direct temperature change within the stable system and therefore precede the normal situation of temperature increase which can then through feed back loops create co2 increases through ocean outgassing etc., But the notion that our increase in co2 are increasing the magnitude and therefore the intensity of the reabsorption and reradiation of outgoing lw radiation which is leading to the increased containment time of reradiation hence warming is the issue we face currently. This is heating from the ground up and many factors influence this especially the changes in the natural biosphere which in my view are amplifying this situation. Water is the great temperature shock absorber and its interaction across all areas of the natural biosphere help create evolutionary possibility, possibility we are currently interfering with.
Isn't anthrogenic global carbon emission, regardless of the mode of generation, essentially a positive function of the size of the Earth's human population? (Maybe I'm not using the term "positive function" in a technically proper sense here, but surely you know what I mean.) If so, shouldn't reducing the incidence of child-bearing in societies where it has persistently exceeded replacement level be a high priority for global-warming alarmists? Who among them has proposed any means of achieving that end that's likely to prove effective?
This is an excellent summary. I don’t know if history is a useful guide to how climate will change in the future but I would really like to read a good history of climate. Can you recommend any titles? Thanks!!!
I really appreciate this nuanced presentation! (Not to mention the many other nuanced presentations in One Percent Brighter.) In the interest of complicating the "this shit is complicated" narrative, however, the precautionary principle makes sense in such a situation. Decreasing CO2 emissions makes sense in all three scenarios, and we have existing technology that can achieve this: wind and solar with nuclear baseline generation. (I get that this is easier said than done, but I'm just making the point that unlike other such wicked problems, there is a potential solution.)
I agree. If the worst case scenario is supported by sound science than the risk of it materializing is real. If on the other hand the cost associated with this scenario is close to infinite. On the other hand, growth doesn't have to be carbon based as insinuated in the article. From the point of view of sound decision making taking action to replace carbon based energy sources stays rational.
The problem is poorly framed from the outset because the first question to ask is whether it is scientifically possible to find a single cause for current global warming.
The second question to ask is whether the concept of the greenhouse effect is scientifically sound.
There are several ways to show that the greenhouse effect concept is flawed, all based on thermodynamics, whose first three principles explain the behavior of the atmosphere.
To keep it simple, I will mention two:
1. IR radiation heats CO2, which heats the Earth's surface, which in turn heats CO2: this violates the first principle of thermodynamics;
2. The atmosphere is divided into successive thin layers that are heated by their CO2 content. The lower layers are heated by the upper layers down to the ground (this is Manabe's theory): this is inept because everywhere in the atmosphere the temperature decreases with altitude up to the tropopause, which is the coldest surface of the troposphere, and IR radiation does not go from cold to hot, but only from hot to cold (these are Maxwell's laws of heat).
The third question to ask is “who benefits from the crime?”.
As Roger Pielke Jr., among others, says, current global warming is real and must be taken into account.
Whatever path we are on, thermodynamics tells us that what warms the atmosphere is energy consumption, regardless of its origin.
For example, when you drive a car on the highway, when you brake, you convert kinetic energy into heat. This warms the atmosphere and is irreversible. The car's energy source does not change anything.
In conclusion, I would say that the best thing to do would be to reduce our overall energy consumption and maintain a diverse range of energy sources.
I’m comfortable with the assumption that if all atmospheric science for the last sixty years turns out to be fundamentally wrong, I won’t find out about it from a blog comment.
The origin of the error lies in the dating of gases in ice cores.
You will agree that if the global temperature increase in the atmosphere always precedes that of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it is difficult to explain that it is this increase in CO2 that is the cause of global warming.
The increase in temperatures observed in ice cores always precedes that of CO2 levels by tens or hundreds of years. Studies have been conducted to show that, due to the porosity or permeability of the compression layer on the surface of ice caps, CO2 could be younger than the ice.
Corrections have been made, but none show that the increase in CO2 may have preceded that of temperature.
In a recent publication entitled “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature,” Humlum et al. demonstrated, using all available data, that CO2 and temperature are indeed correlated, but that CO2 always lags behind temperature and not the reverse.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257343053_The_phase_relation_between_atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature
This result is simply consistent with what we know about the carbon dioxide cycle.
I published an article on Academia entitled “Objective Critique of the Greenhouse Effect,” but it is in French.
https://www.academia.edu/108794624/Critique_objective_du_concept_deffet_de_serre
I understand your reaction, and I have no explanation for how a scientific consensus could have been reached on such a concept.
I still recommend that you consult CLINTEL because today, I think there are more scientists who think like me than the opposite.
HI Paul Pettre. I agree that the solar cycle will direct temperature change within the stable system and therefore precede the normal situation of temperature increase which can then through feed back loops create co2 increases through ocean outgassing etc., But the notion that our increase in co2 are increasing the magnitude and therefore the intensity of the reabsorption and reradiation of outgoing lw radiation which is leading to the increased containment time of reradiation hence warming is the issue we face currently. This is heating from the ground up and many factors influence this especially the changes in the natural biosphere which in my view are amplifying this situation. Water is the great temperature shock absorber and its interaction across all areas of the natural biosphere help create evolutionary possibility, possibility we are currently interfering with.
Isn't anthrogenic global carbon emission, regardless of the mode of generation, essentially a positive function of the size of the Earth's human population? (Maybe I'm not using the term "positive function" in a technically proper sense here, but surely you know what I mean.) If so, shouldn't reducing the incidence of child-bearing in societies where it has persistently exceeded replacement level be a high priority for global-warming alarmists? Who among them has proposed any means of achieving that end that's likely to prove effective?
This is an excellent summary. I don’t know if history is a useful guide to how climate will change in the future but I would really like to read a good history of climate. Can you recommend any titles? Thanks!!!