You know that I couldn’t resist responding on this topic.
Firstly I’m not a believer in the Christian puppetmaster, invisible sheriff in the sky image of God. I am however quite in awe of the creation. I went into science so that I could get a better understanding of the mystery of creation.
In particular wrt to water as a moderator of climate. It is indeed a huge miracle that the Earth is a habitable place.
Water is a very strong green house gas. At least as strong as CO2 on a molecular basis. Additionally there is so much more of it. For CO2 the concentrations in air are 450-ish ppm. For water, the concentrations in air are 0.2-4% absolute humidity. For every 1F degree in temperature rise the atmosphere can hold about 4% relatively more water.
This facts suggest the possibility of a positive feedback mechanism in climate. That is, green house warming induces increased water evaporation, which further induces increased greenhouse warming.
However, a negative feedback mechanism puts the brakes on this runaway warming; as water rises it condenses, forms clouds, and changes the albedo increasing reflectivity, which results in cooling.
When these processes (as well as the carbon cycle) are in equilibrium, we are lucky that they happen to be in equilibrium in a temperature range that we can survive.
I wish that I could get to the Demetris Koutsoyiannis article. The Cloudflare bot-gate refuses to recognize that I’m a human. (This confirms my wife’s belief as well 🤓)
However, I don’t disagree at first blush with the quoted statement, “Temperature increase causes the biosphere to expand and, in turn, produce more naturally emitted CO₂, which accounts for 96% of total emissions.”
In one sense that is not relevant to the discussion. No one disagrees on this point.
Certainly, CO2 in the biosphere is constantly being recycled; grass/trees/plankton, etc utilize CO2 for growth, then die, decay, and return the carbon back to CO2, all supporting non-photosynthesizing life along the way. An increase in geologically sequestered carbon being put into the atmosphere from burning coal/oil/natural gas provides more CO2 to expand the biosphere. I suspect that this is the 4% of non-biosphere emissions that Koutsoyiannis’ quote refers to.
It is this 4% of non-biosphere carbon that is the focus of climate scientists. 4% is a huge amount of carbon. The strong amplifying effect of carbon as CO2 in the atmosphere is what climate scientists are trying to understand the effects of.
Also BTW, Koutsoyiannis is a star of The Heritage Foundation and Clintel, both well funded climate change denying organizations. This provides him with exposure and potential funding that he might not otherwise get.
I too read the Science article that you referred to regarding the decrease in cloud cover. It gave me immediate pause because of the delicate equilibrium in greenhouse atmospheric water that I referred to above. The authors were careful to point out that the mechanism for this is not yet understood.
I found the article from the Utah Geological Survey quite fascinating. Not by virtue of the fact the short, quick spikes can occur, but that it is possible to discern them as far back as 100,000 years.
That same article points to a 2002 book titled “Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises”. That is 23 year old science at this point, but a quick scan appears to show that the ground work is in place. Certainly, volcanic eruptions have been responsible for quick changes; The Little Ice Age in 1815 from Mt. Tambura (and other eruptions close in time) and more recently but less dramatically, Agung in 1963, El Chichon in 1982, and Pinatubo in 1991.
Lastly, I think you your last sentence conclusion, “Based on the research I’ve seen, carbon dioxide is probably not the problem”, is ill-formed. After reading your arguments, I didn’t see any moderately conclusive proof of CO2 not being the problem.
The overall science certainly points to CO2 as a strong lever affecting climate. How the various positive and negative feedback mechanisms respond and interact is the main question …and whether there is room for humanity to exist going forward.
Thanks for the comment. When we can make each other think, my mission is being accomplished.
Back in the 1970s, I watched a documentary on why we were approaching the next ice age. The idea was that the polar ice caps provide a buffering mechanism. Once they melt, it would trigger a change in sea current. That ultimately would lead to earth cooling.
I can't explain it now but put in your thinking the idea of the polar ice caps as buffers. I think that has some merit.
Look at the charts on the Utah Geological Survey site. The first didn't make sense to me. The second shows that for nearly 150 million years the average temperature was 70-80 F. Could we just be regressing to the mean? BTW, whether CO2 is cause or not, we need to think about how to prepare for that kind of change.
Last summer my wife and I went through the Scab Lands of eastern Washington. They were made by the sudden bursting of an ice dam releasing water from a huge lake. Catastrophe theory.
In The Psychology of Money (of all places) Housel used the repetition of glaciers as an example of compound interest. Some Russian (I think. I could look it up.) came up with the idea that a small change in temperature could result in more snow. If that didn't melt it would resort in more cooling due to the heat being reflected by the snow. You used the idea of positive feedback loop. The end result is global cooling. That would last until there was more melting one year, etc.
My daughter's degree is in some kind of earth science. She brought a textbook home for me to help her with a test. The chapter was on weather. It went through ocean currents, prevailing winds, etc. Nearly everything was based on the Coriolis effect (the rotation of the earth). I was turning my body modeling the earth and trying to figure it out so my daughter could understand. The last paragraph of the chapter said, that is the way it works except in years of El Nino (or La Nina, I don't remember which). What!!! The earth moved the other way?
As to the funding of science, that is another problem. It can be summed up as Group Think.
A physicist told me that his team could prove mathematically that a certain idea in physics was wrong. He said we won't publish it because the physicist who came up with the idea is still editor of a major journal and we would never get funding again.
Healthcare is the same way. Chiropractic would be a waste of money. All researchers know it doesn't work. That has started to change.
How could climate science be any different? You won't get funding to get a PhD without supporting the current belief.
You know that I couldn’t resist responding on this topic.
Firstly I’m not a believer in the Christian puppetmaster, invisible sheriff in the sky image of God. I am however quite in awe of the creation. I went into science so that I could get a better understanding of the mystery of creation.
In particular wrt to water as a moderator of climate. It is indeed a huge miracle that the Earth is a habitable place.
Water is a very strong green house gas. At least as strong as CO2 on a molecular basis. Additionally there is so much more of it. For CO2 the concentrations in air are 450-ish ppm. For water, the concentrations in air are 0.2-4% absolute humidity. For every 1F degree in temperature rise the atmosphere can hold about 4% relatively more water.
This facts suggest the possibility of a positive feedback mechanism in climate. That is, green house warming induces increased water evaporation, which further induces increased greenhouse warming.
However, a negative feedback mechanism puts the brakes on this runaway warming; as water rises it condenses, forms clouds, and changes the albedo increasing reflectivity, which results in cooling.
When these processes (as well as the carbon cycle) are in equilibrium, we are lucky that they happen to be in equilibrium in a temperature range that we can survive.
I wish that I could get to the Demetris Koutsoyiannis article. The Cloudflare bot-gate refuses to recognize that I’m a human. (This confirms my wife’s belief as well 🤓)
However, I don’t disagree at first blush with the quoted statement, “Temperature increase causes the biosphere to expand and, in turn, produce more naturally emitted CO₂, which accounts for 96% of total emissions.”
In one sense that is not relevant to the discussion. No one disagrees on this point.
Certainly, CO2 in the biosphere is constantly being recycled; grass/trees/plankton, etc utilize CO2 for growth, then die, decay, and return the carbon back to CO2, all supporting non-photosynthesizing life along the way. An increase in geologically sequestered carbon being put into the atmosphere from burning coal/oil/natural gas provides more CO2 to expand the biosphere. I suspect that this is the 4% of non-biosphere emissions that Koutsoyiannis’ quote refers to.
It is this 4% of non-biosphere carbon that is the focus of climate scientists. 4% is a huge amount of carbon. The strong amplifying effect of carbon as CO2 in the atmosphere is what climate scientists are trying to understand the effects of.
Also BTW, Koutsoyiannis is a star of The Heritage Foundation and Clintel, both well funded climate change denying organizations. This provides him with exposure and potential funding that he might not otherwise get.
I too read the Science article that you referred to regarding the decrease in cloud cover. It gave me immediate pause because of the delicate equilibrium in greenhouse atmospheric water that I referred to above. The authors were careful to point out that the mechanism for this is not yet understood.
I found the article from the Utah Geological Survey quite fascinating. Not by virtue of the fact the short, quick spikes can occur, but that it is possible to discern them as far back as 100,000 years.
That same article points to a 2002 book titled “Abrupt climate change: inevitable surprises”. That is 23 year old science at this point, but a quick scan appears to show that the ground work is in place. Certainly, volcanic eruptions have been responsible for quick changes; The Little Ice Age in 1815 from Mt. Tambura (and other eruptions close in time) and more recently but less dramatically, Agung in 1963, El Chichon in 1982, and Pinatubo in 1991.
Lastly, I think you your last sentence conclusion, “Based on the research I’ve seen, carbon dioxide is probably not the problem”, is ill-formed. After reading your arguments, I didn’t see any moderately conclusive proof of CO2 not being the problem.
The overall science certainly points to CO2 as a strong lever affecting climate. How the various positive and negative feedback mechanisms respond and interact is the main question …and whether there is room for humanity to exist going forward.
Thanks for the comment. When we can make each other think, my mission is being accomplished.
Back in the 1970s, I watched a documentary on why we were approaching the next ice age. The idea was that the polar ice caps provide a buffering mechanism. Once they melt, it would trigger a change in sea current. That ultimately would lead to earth cooling.
I can't explain it now but put in your thinking the idea of the polar ice caps as buffers. I think that has some merit.
Look at the charts on the Utah Geological Survey site. The first didn't make sense to me. The second shows that for nearly 150 million years the average temperature was 70-80 F. Could we just be regressing to the mean? BTW, whether CO2 is cause or not, we need to think about how to prepare for that kind of change.
Last summer my wife and I went through the Scab Lands of eastern Washington. They were made by the sudden bursting of an ice dam releasing water from a huge lake. Catastrophe theory.
In The Psychology of Money (of all places) Housel used the repetition of glaciers as an example of compound interest. Some Russian (I think. I could look it up.) came up with the idea that a small change in temperature could result in more snow. If that didn't melt it would resort in more cooling due to the heat being reflected by the snow. You used the idea of positive feedback loop. The end result is global cooling. That would last until there was more melting one year, etc.
My daughter's degree is in some kind of earth science. She brought a textbook home for me to help her with a test. The chapter was on weather. It went through ocean currents, prevailing winds, etc. Nearly everything was based on the Coriolis effect (the rotation of the earth). I was turning my body modeling the earth and trying to figure it out so my daughter could understand. The last paragraph of the chapter said, that is the way it works except in years of El Nino (or La Nina, I don't remember which). What!!! The earth moved the other way?
As to the funding of science, that is another problem. It can be summed up as Group Think.
RFK Jr. uses Alzheimer's as an example of limiting research. The idea of amyloid plaques as cause has produced pretty discouraging results. I've heard something may be hopeful. The point is nothing else is funded. Just read this so thought I'd add it. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/radical-study-proposes-a-single-cause-to-explain-alzheimer-s-disease/ar-AA1yINXr?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=082743a24eb440c6bae0ccf38fead040&ei=24
A physicist told me that his team could prove mathematically that a certain idea in physics was wrong. He said we won't publish it because the physicist who came up with the idea is still editor of a major journal and we would never get funding again.
Healthcare is the same way. Chiropractic would be a waste of money. All researchers know it doesn't work. That has started to change.
How could climate science be any different? You won't get funding to get a PhD without supporting the current belief.
Again, thanks for commenting. I appreciate it!!