Reply to post: Re: 30m quid on removing greenhouse gases?

Not so easy to make a quick getaway when it takes 3 hours to juice up your motor, eh Brits?

Jellied Eel Silver badge

Re: 30m quid on removing greenhouse gases?

Physics tells us a very simple mechanism behind climate (well, temperature) variability and anthropogenic climate change. Looking just at global mean temperatures using a very simple energy balance model is pretty close.

Nope, not at all. You're partly right, ie CO2 dogma is driven by the absorption/emission characteristics of CO2, which is easy to measure via spectroscopy. So that gives it's spectral characteristics and shows it's got 4 peaks, 3 of which overlap with H2O. The remaining 'atmospheric window' is very narrow.

So CO2 alone is a very weak GHG, and the IPCC accepts this. So to bring about Thermageddon, CO2 is reacted with phlogiston, miasma and a pinch of SO2. So the 'forcings' and 'feedbacks' that turn a few photons spat out by excited CO2 molecules into a multi-trillion dollar industry.. Which obviously excites people from Al Gore to Dale Vince.. The latter of which will probably lobby for more cash to supply vegan electrons to Tesla owners.

But there is science. So comp.sci folks plug their theories into climate models, crank the handle and produce various scenarios showing catastrophic warming.. Up to 11C in one noteworthy case. But part of science is also to test theory against observation, like this-

https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/slide11.png

Showing climate models have a tendency to overstate warming. Which is understandable because modelling a planetary atmosphere is hugely complex.. especially if you're trying to project over a century or more. Naturally climate deniers hate those kinds of reanalysis because they've been conditioned to believe GCMs are right, and reality is wrong.

And as reality asserts itself, it explains the increased political/lobbying pressure to committ to spending trillions NOW! before the CO2 sensitivity argument gets really hard to ignore. Like the possibility of a cold spell due to large ocean cycles (AMO/PDO) going out of phase.

And-

What we currently observe is not like "tides", coming and going: while the temperatures rise the solar forcing is currently declining (summer insulation in the northern hemisphere has been decreasing for the last 5000 or 6000 years),

Nope. The IPCC is clear and devotes all of about 1 page to insisting that solar variability is insignificant, and insolation (not insulation) is essentially a constant. That simplifies the pitch that it's all about CO2, especially if you ignore spectral shifts. Or any extended solar minima would allow those theories to be tested, especially if there's another LIA (Little Ice Age). Which of course would be bad, because that would increase energy demand, and cold means more people die.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019