4 ms·
> We also know that CO2 and temperature in the geological record are linked, with CO2 changes lagging temperature changes, which rules out CO2 as a cause of pas
by AlanSE 8y ago
> We also know that CO2 and temperature in the geological record are linked, with CO2 changes lagging temperature changes, which rules out CO2 as a cause of past temperature changes.
This sentence might have seemed logically sound to you, but it's extremely fallacious.
What this means is that the geological evidence is not sufficient to say that increasing CO2 concentrations increases temperature. Do we have other evidence? Yes, high school physics knowledge.
Radiative physics tells us how much heat an increase in CO2 concentration adds to our biosphere (an increase in another gas could have resulted in a removal of heat, but obviously this is a greenhouse gas). From that, we can very easily calculate the new equilibrium temperature. Then, climate science predicts about a 3-4x feedback almost entirely from water vapor and ice melting. You can argue about the feedback, but pretty much every person I offer this to just shuts down and goes haywire saying something about a "complex system". Yet these same people seem to know how to use a stove - you increase temperature when you add heat to something. The prediction of global warming really is that simple at its core. It's not complex.
- graeme 8y agoDo you know of a good resource with which to explain the high school physics of radiative forcing? I have some smart friends on the fence about the predicted effects of climate change. I don't have the science background to walk through radiative forcing, but could learn it if pointed in the right direction. I've already checked wikipedia, but finding something on this specific point hasn't been fruitful. This bugs me, as I think it is: 1. The decisive point 2. Poorly understood by the public 3. Could be easily explained
- selectodude 8y agohttps://scied.ucar.edu/teaching-box/greenhouse-effect https://scied.ucar.edu/teaching-box/greenhouse-effect There you go.
- vixen99 8y agoDead simple? An eminent atmospheric physicist - Lindzen begs to differ: "Former senator and Secretary of State John F. Kerry is typical when he stated, with reference to greenhouse warming, ‘I know sometimes I can remember from when I was in high school and college, some aspects of chemistry or physics can be tough. But this is not tough. This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this’. As you have seen, the greenhouse effect is not all that simple. Only remarkably brilliant kids would understand it. Given Kerry’s subsequent description of climate and its underlying physics, it was clear that he was not up to the task.". https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/09/richard-lindzen-lecture-at-gwpf-global-warming-for-the-two-cultures/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/09/richard-lindzen-lectu...