3 ms·
>> We are nowhere near exaggerating it. If you want to talk about the "climate crisis", I'm going to keep pointing to the lack of good modeling in regard to wa
by phkahler 5y ago
>> We are nowhere near exaggerating it.
If you want to talk about the "climate crisis", I'm going to keep pointing to the lack of good modeling in regard to water vapor and air travel (which has a specific phase relationship with sunshine that must be taken into account). I'll also try to dig up that graph correlating the rise in air travel with temperatures. I'll insist that even if I accept human cause of these changes (which I'm willing to do), it is reasonably likely due to air travel and you can't show otherwise without those models.
- ShamelessC 5y agoIn general, when you think you have evidence supporting your case it's a good idea to go ahead and just use it rather than talking about how you plan to use it.
- phkahler 5y agoIt comes across as less adversarial this way. Here's a fluff piece: https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set-the-stage-for-an-unlikely-climate-change-experiment/ https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set... Something better, but need to follow references: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201... The jury is still out on this and it seems to have a large effect and can do so in a very short time (on the order of days).
- adrianN 5y agoThe lack of good modelling is no reason to do less to reduce emissions. Poor modelling can mean that the problem is worse than the models predict. Every time we improve our models the predictions seem to get worse.