4 ms·

The reference I offered summarizes the current state of knowledge about the linkages between climate change due to globally-rising CO2, and drought. The quote

The reference I offered summarizes the current state of knowledge about the linkages between climate change due to globally-rising CO2, and drought. The quote I gave tells a couple of specific links. The report itself offers plentiful analysis to back the conclusions up. You can't just dismiss this evidence by asserting "zero causal linkage" and then referring to a single paper that is not about climate at all. * I was trying to raise another general point. It's actually not surprising, due to the centrality of water in the Earth system, that global increases in CO2 (and hence, radiative forcing) would influence the distribution of water. That's partly why the section on water and climate is chapter 3 of the report I linked instead of chapter 12.

chrisco255 7y ago
Could you quantify the effect of CO2 on water distribution? How about other factors, such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? We still do not even have predictable models for these natural oceanic patterns. The quantity of H2O on this planet VASTLY outweighs the quantity of CO2. Oceans cover 70% of the Earth's surface and are deep. The marginal difference in CO2 is not enough to move ocean currents. It is a trace gas that has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. The heat capacity of water is very high and far more than what a few CO2 molecules can absorb or re-emit. The oceans store massive quantities of heat and move it around in cycles that sometimes last hundreds of years. In addition, CO2 has a thinner radiative band that it can block than water vapor. And when water takes the form of clouds it can influence temperature in dramatic ways. Cosmic rays have a strong influence on global cloudiness, known as the Svensmark effect, and this influences precipitation patterns. We are also having near record levels of snow across the Northern Hemisphere, which according to your world view, shouldn't be happening: https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe...
- mturmon 7y ago
  You seem to be arguing that, because the planetary mass of CO2 is smaller than that of water, CO2 changes cannot substantively affect water transport. So, I’d strongly suggest you should just read the NCA, because this argument is both ridiculous and false according to known science.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Yes I am arguing that point precisely because that's what thermodynamics dictates.
    - mturmon 7y ago
      Because of solar insolation, the system is not closed. In particular, we have a valve (CO2) controlling insolation and reflection. You would not argue that the effect of a Mylar sheet placed above a sunny swimming pool has to do with the mass of the Mylar. Incidentally, it’s worth mentioning that, while I’m not an expert, I have several recent publications in hydrology, and I talk regularly with climate scientists and hydrologists about drought, including coauthors of the report I linked. The lines of argument you stated above are nonsense, I’m afraid. If you care about this subject, please do yourself the favor of reading some high-quality research summaries. It’s actually quite striking how much we do know about the Earth system.
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        Mylar is a non porous material. The actual greenhouse effect is caused by trapping warm air in as it is warmed from the water itself. The solar energy first enters the pool through the transparent material, warms the water, and then the warm water warms the air. The mylar traps the warm air from rising as it naturally would, where it would mix with colder air and cause another thermodynamic exchange. CO2 does not act literally like a blanket over the earth, that's not how radiation works. If CO2 cannot retain the heat then it will be lost to space at night. The closest thing to a true blanket effect would be clouds, although they have complex shapes and depending on where they are located in the atmosphere can have either a cooling or warming effect. They are made up of mostly liquid water and do vary according to solar activity through cosmic ray flux as shown in Svensmark's work. Link above.

chrisco255 7y ago

Could you quantify the effect of CO2 on water distribution? How about other factors, such as the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? We still do not even have predictable models for these natural oceanic patterns. The quantity of H2O on this planet VASTLY outweighs the quantity of CO2. Oceans cover 70% of the Earth's surface and are deep. The marginal difference in CO2 is not enough to move ocean currents. It is a trace gas that has gone from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. The heat capacity of water is very high and far more than what a few CO2 molecules can absorb or re-emit. The oceans store massive quantities of heat and move it around in cycles that sometimes last hundreds of years. In addition, CO2 has a thinner radiative band that it can block than water vapor. And when water takes the form of clouds it can influence temperature in dramatic ways. Cosmic rays have a strong influence on global cloudiness, known as the Svensmark effect, and this influences precipitation patterns. We are also having near record levels of snow across the Northern Hemisphere, which according to your world view, shouldn't be happening: https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe...

mturmon 7y ago
You seem to be arguing that, because the planetary mass of CO2 is smaller than that of water, CO2 changes cannot substantively affect water transport. So, I’d strongly suggest you should just read the NCA, because this argument is both ridiculous and false according to known science.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Yes I am arguing that point precisely because that's what thermodynamics dictates.
  - mturmon 7y ago
    Because of solar insolation, the system is not closed. In particular, we have a valve (CO2) controlling insolation and reflection. You would not argue that the effect of a Mylar sheet placed above a sunny swimming pool has to do with the mass of the Mylar. Incidentally, it’s worth mentioning that, while I’m not an expert, I have several recent publications in hydrology, and I talk regularly with climate scientists and hydrologists about drought, including coauthors of the report I linked. The lines of argument you stated above are nonsense, I’m afraid. If you care about this subject, please do yourself the favor of reading some high-quality research summaries. It’s actually quite striking how much we do know about the Earth system.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      Mylar is a non porous material. The actual greenhouse effect is caused by trapping warm air in as it is warmed from the water itself. The solar energy first enters the pool through the transparent material, warms the water, and then the warm water warms the air. The mylar traps the warm air from rising as it naturally would, where it would mix with colder air and cause another thermodynamic exchange. CO2 does not act literally like a blanket over the earth, that's not how radiation works. If CO2 cannot retain the heat then it will be lost to space at night. The closest thing to a true blanket effect would be clouds, although they have complex shapes and depending on where they are located in the atmosphere can have either a cooling or warming effect. They are made up of mostly liquid water and do vary according to solar activity through cosmic ray flux as shown in Svensmark's work. Link above.