Global warming/climate change discussion

[Josh]

Media may colour my experience somewhat. I will grant you that. But I would add that my experience is as much coloured by my day to day talk with those I come in contact with.

My experience in Australia was similar to appleman's, and as far as media goes, I consumed almost no media at all when I lived there. I was relatively ignorant of world events when I returned to America.

[PeterG]

If you disagree with Christy, what flaws do you find in his argument?

If you disagree with Emanuel, what flaws do you find in his argument?

Since I posted the above, Bootstrap has pointed out a weakness in Christy's argument. If anybody's identified a flaw in Emanuel's argument, it slipped by me. So I guess Emanuel's winning.

I'll ask again:

If you disagree with Christy, what flaws do you find in his argument?

If you disagree with Emanuel, what flaws do you find in his argument?

[Robert]

If you disagree with Christy, what flaws do you find in his argument?

If you disagree with Emanuel, what flaws do you find in his argument?

It is not an agree or disagree to me. Both say there is a chance it could be and a chance it could not be happening. One fears if it is, what should happen to help offset it. The other fears what might be done that will really have little affect.

Both agree that there is some man made affect. They just disagree on amount and solutions.

I think Emanuel, like many others, think we can actually affect things. I think he has a lot higher opinion of human ability then is realistic.

[Bootstrap]

Both agree that there is some man made affect. They just disagree on amount and solutions.

They agree that in the next 100 years, warming will be somewhere between 2.5 degrees and 9 degrees Celsius - that's between 4.5 degrees and 16.2 degrees Fahrenheit. They agree that the low range of that is not too scary, but the high range is.

They also agree substantially on solutions, and that going too crazy is not a good thing.

Emanuel, like most scientists, thinks that the fingerprints on global warming are clear, and we can say that at least 50% of this is man-made. Christy disagrees, but did not say why. I think the fingerprints discussion is important - does anyone know of good papers or articles where Christy explains why he rejects the IPCC report's conclusions on the fingerprints of man-made global warming?

I think Emanuel, like many others, think we can actually affect things. I think he has a lot higher opinion of human ability then is realistic.

Of course we can affect things. We could cause a nuclear catastrophe if we wanted to. We can do many things that have an effect on the environment. The question is whether the data indicates we are doing that with global warming. That's why the fingerprints discussion is important.

[PeterG]

I think Emanuel, like many others, think we can actually affect things. I think he has a lot higher opinion of human ability then is realistic.

Emanuel gives reasons for this thinking in his opening remarks. From the transcript, towards the beginning:

In the middle of the 19th century, the gifted Irish physicist, John Tyndall, made a remarkable discovery using a laboratory apparatus--it was [?]--that is that all of the absorption of infrared radiation that takes place in our atmosphere is done by a tiny amount of gas that makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere. That was quite a shocking revelation at the time. And not long after that, the Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, found out that the climate is heavily regulated by one of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, whose mass represents four ten-thousands of our atmosphere--a tiny trace. And calculated that without that four ten-thousands part of our atmosphere that is carbon dioxide, the earth would be a snowball. We wouldn't be here. We couldn't survive. This is not in dispute, this finding of the scientific community. It was not made with supercomputers. It was made with pencil and paper, and it can be replicated today. If that tiny amount of greenhouse gas is what is making our planet habitable, then there would be no surprise that if we double or triple it, we are taking a risk with the climate system.

What is incorrect in what Emanuel says here?

[Robert]

What is incorrect in what Emanuel says here?

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also and makes up a much higher percent. As h2o vapor increases, so does cloud cover which reflects back much of the sunlight hitting earth, thus creates a self regulating system.

[Robert]

They agree that in the next 100 years, warming will be somewhere between 2.5 degrees and 9 degrees Celsius - that's between 4.5 degrees and 16.2 degrees Fahrenheit. They agree that the low range of that is not too scary, but the high range is.

The high side would still just bring us in line with normal highs of the planet historically. How is this any worse than the other times the planet has warmed after ice ages?

[PeterG]

What is incorrect in what Emanuel says here?

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also and makes up a much higher percent. As h2o vapor increases, so does cloud cover which reflects back much of the sunlight hitting earth, thus creates a self regulating system.

That in no way refutes what Emanuel says about CO2.

The Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, found out that the climate is heavily regulated by one of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, whose mass represents four ten-thousands of our atmosphere--a tiny trace. And calculated that without that four ten-thousands part of our atmosphere that is carbon dioxide, the earth would be a snowball. We wouldn't be here. We couldn't survive. This is not in dispute, this finding of the scientific community. It was not made with supercomputers. It was made with pencil and paper, and it can be replicated today. If that tiny amount of greenhouse gas is what is making our planet habitable, then there would be no surprise that if we double or triple it, we are taking a risk with the climate system.

[Bootstrap]

What is incorrect in what Emanuel says here?

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also and makes up a much higher percent. As h2o vapor increases, so does cloud cover which reflects back much of the sunlight hitting earth, thus creates a self regulating system.

OK, that's a scientific hypothesis. Has it been tested? Where can I find a scientific account of this that tells me what most scientists don't manage to understand?

Did either Christy or Emanuel mention this?

[PeterG]

What is incorrect in what Emanuel says here?

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas also and makes up a much higher percent. As h2o vapor increases, so does cloud cover which reflects back much of the sunlight hitting earth, thus creates a self regulating system.

OK, that's a scientific hypothesis. Has it been tested? Where can I find a scientific account of this that tells me what most scientists don't manage to understand?

Did either Christy or Emanuel mention this?

It makes no difference in determining whether or not Emanuel was right about the effect of CO2. The effect of water vapor is another matter entirely.