mozzaok wrote on Nov 11^th, 2009 at 8:59pm:

I am not surprised at all by the contempt. But it matters to a man's pride who holds him in contempt. Being held in contempt by, say, Clive Hamilton is an honourable thing. A proud thing.

lol, that is funny.
Do not misunderstand me, I like you, and respect your intellect, and most of your opinions, Soren, but when you engage in a debate, such as you did with Muso, and do so under the guise of it being honest questioning, in search of facts, but then willfully ignore facts that are presented, and just jump to a totally different subject, when the facts do not suit your argument, then the question of just how honest, or open, you really are being, arises.

As far as the issue being politicised, well that is not in question, it has become totally politicised, and many will use it for their own political goals.
You also see a pretty clear divide between old left/right attitudes as well, with the denialists predominantly right, and the alarmists predominantly left, and the majority take up those positions wiyth little thought, or care, about the actual science involved.

The fact that we are fortunate enough to have someone of Muso's calibre, willing to patiently inform us of scientific aspects we do not follow, is one that I appreciate greatly, and I have learned a lot from hearing his arguments.

Ultimately it all boils down to trust, for laymen like myself, and while I have a profound mistrust of all politicians, I do trust the opinions of the plethora of independent, reputable scientists, who put the case that Global Warming is very much an issue that man must address, if we wish to mitigate the worst case scenarios as much as we can.

If we don't do anything we will still adapt to whatever outcomes arise, but if we can reduce the amount of suffering, by precipitous action now, then we are obliged as caring people, to make that our goal.

muso wrote on Nov 12^th, 2009 at 9:28am:


I appreciate the preambe and I am willing to listen as long as it is all leading up to the heart of th matter: do you think the causal relationship between human carbon emission and global climate warming/change/justice has ben established?

The causal relationship between human carbon emission and whatever climate phenomenon we are supposed to fight must be established befor any scheme or tax is introduced. Without causal relationhip it is all just fluff. And I know that you will not be able to establish a causal relationship. Nobody has ever done that.

muso wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 8:01am:


I have never seen it and I doubt that you have.  It may have been skirted endlessly but never demonstrated.

muso wrote on Nov 13^th, 2009 at 9:34am:



With the greatest respect, Muso, this is bvllsh!t and you know it.

The causal relationship between human CO2 and climate change has never been established, mostly because there are very simple and transparent examples of why there is NO causal relationship between warming and CO2. Everybody can easily undetrstand them. Even the correlation between CO2 and warming is unproven.

If governments want to impose a multi-billion dollar burden on their people, it is their duty to explain the reasons. To say it is too technical for most people to understand is not on.
I know you are not the government and it is not your duty to explain it all. Your efforts are appreciated.


If the absence of correlation between CO2 levels and warming is not enough proof that there is no causal realtionship, I ask you a simple scientific (not political) question: what would you take as a falsification of the hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 causes warming?

The way I see it is that it is settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - but it is a minor one. It absorbs a certain narrow band of IR wavelength, but the effect is logarithmic. Ie it's ability to absorb IR becomes saturated. I'm sure Muso has admitted that this effect by itself would only lead to a small, harmless increase in the Earth's temperature. The alarm comes from assumptions that most of the Earth's climate systems (clouds etc) have an amplifying effect and this is fed into the computer models to give the alarming predictions. However these systems and feedbacks are fully understood. So the science is not 'settled'.

pjb05 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 6:05am:


Well, I think you have a partial understanding there, pjb.

CO2 is the second biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect.  In order of importance (a combination of abundance plus greenhouse gas potential), the main greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. Water vapour has slightly more that twice the warming effect of CO2 alone.  

Tropospheric Water vapour has increased consistently with warmer temperatures because warmer air holds more vapour.

Satellite observations show that globally, water vapour has increased by 2.4% during the last 20 years. All this is confirmation of the generally accepted climate sensitivity of 3.

The satellites indicate the troposphere has warmed by 0.4 C during the last 20 years, which agrees with surface thermometer readings across the world.

Thus the water vapour has increased at a rate of 6% per degree of global warming. We can use this measurement as a guide to the climate sensitivity. Most researchers agree on a climate sensitivity of around 3. IPCC AR4 put it thus

Quote:


What this means is that for every doubling of CO2 concentration, the global temperature will rise by about 3 degrees.

Another way of putting this is that in terms of the most important greenhouse gases, water vapour accounts for 60% of the warming, while CO2 accounts for 25%, but the warming produced by the CO2 component directly results in the 60% warming caused by the water vapour component.

The causal relationship looks like this:

CO2 induced warming > Warmer oceans> More water vapour in atmosphere> larger Greehouse effect> warmer oceans> etc

You are right in saying that the radiative forcing due to CO2 is a logarithmic relationship (that's why we talk in terms of a fixed temperature rise for every doubling in concentration of CO2), but your concept of saturation is simplistic.



Incidentally, both the temperature and water vapour concentration of the stratosphere**  have decreased over that same 20 year study period. This is a direct consequence of the enhanced greenhouse effect, and is a confirmation of the cause of the observed temperature rise in the troposphere.

**As an illustration , commercial aircraft normally fly in the lower reaches of the stratosphere.

Soren wrote on Nov 14^th, 2009 at 1:29pm:


From Muso's recent posts I take it he doesn't deny that the warming effect of CO2 is small, but he is saying this will be amplified to dangerous levels by positive feed back effects - notably from water vapour. If so where is the evidence for this in the past? When in our geological history has a small rise in global temperature lead to a runaway greenhouse effect?