3 ms·

Let me make it clear upfront: I'm responding to the issue of emotional talk about this issue, not trying to debate the science with you. --- The IR absorption

by nirvana 14y ago

Let me make it clear upfront: I'm responding to the issue of emotional talk about this issue, not trying to debate the science with you. --- The IR absorption of CO2 is less than that of water vapor, is it not? CO2 is rising while the planet is getting colder. The models have never shown to be predictive. Shouldn't a "solid science" be able to make even short term predictions? You say it is "essentially solid science" you do this instead of making an argument, or citing evidence to indicate that it is settled. I gave three quick ones above to indicate it isn't. But right after you say it is solid, you talk about the "wellbeing of humanity (not to mention other species) is put at serious risk". Is this not an appeal to emotionalism? ("You're going to die" is pretty emotional, isn't it?) You spent more words on that than you did even referencing a scientific argument. The thing I find perplexing-- and I'm not trying to argue the science here, merely pointing out the issue of emotionalism-- is that the first, and often, only, defense for AGW that I see from proponents is the claim that the science was settled (or "essentially solid" as you put it.) This was the claim 6 years ago. This was the claim 12 years ago. This was the claim the first time I'd ever heard the phrase "global warming". When did the debate happen that settled it, so that proponents of this scientific theory never seem to feel that they need to justify their belief in it, and can move right onto the "we're all in trouble" claims?

gmac 14y ago
This isn't the place, and I'm also not the person, to summarise the whole of climate science for you. That's why I provided a link to more information. Here's another: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide "You're going to die" -- or "you or your descendants stand a decent chance of living less happily and/or less long" -- is indeed pretty emotional. I'm afraid that's inevitable, and was part of the point I was making.
saalweachter 14y ago
Honestly, climate change was a bad way to go on the "we're all going to die" front. Ocean acidification is a much juicier target. As carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, more of it is dissolved in the oceans. As more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans, the pH of the oceans drops and the acidity increases. And then everything in the ocean dies and then we all die. Well, the last couple of parts are extrapolation and up for argument, but the great thing about ocean acidification (so to speak) is that it's indisputable up to a point. We know we're increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and from there it is high school chemistry that the pH of the ocean will decrease by a certain amount. Granted, most of us didn't pay enough attention to high school chemistry to do the maths ourselves, but it's like two equations. From there the only question is how bad the rapid acidification of the oceans actually is. We know that corals are probably screwed, because the calcium carbonate reacts poorly to the acidification, but on the other hand the single-celled organisms are probably fine, just because they have tens of thousands of generations to react to the change. Everything in the middle is fair game. Oh, and ocean acidification is a much more rapid process than climate change, because it takes much less time for the ocean to reach a new equilibrium with the carbon in the atmosphere than the atmosphere to reach a new temperature equilibrium. (Recall that CO2 isn't supposed to increase temperatures directly, it increases the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere from year to year.) In my opinion, ocean acidification is a much better reason to worry about atmospheric CO2 than climate change
- jonhendry 14y ago
  "but on the other hand the single-celled organisms are probably fine, just because they have tens of thousands of generations to react to the change. Everything in the middle is fair game." Maybe not the single-celled organisms that build shells out of acid-sensitive materials like calcium carbonate.
jonhendry 14y ago
"The IR absorption of CO2 is less than that of water vapor, is it not?" CO2 doesn't condense and fall as rain, so this is a red herring. "CO2 is rising while the planet is getting colder." The planet is not getting colder.

by nirvana 14y ago

gmac 14y ago

This isn't the place, and I'm also not the person, to summarise the whole of climate science for you. That's why I provided a link to more information. Here's another: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide "You're going to die" -- or "you or your descendants stand a decent chance of living less happily and/or less long" -- is indeed pretty emotional. I'm afraid that's inevitable, and was part of the point I was making.

saalweachter 14y ago

Honestly, climate change was a bad way to go on the "we're all going to die" front. Ocean acidification is a much juicier target. As carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, more of it is dissolved in the oceans. As more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans, the pH of the oceans drops and the acidity increases. And then everything in the ocean dies and then we all die. Well, the last couple of parts are extrapolation and up for argument, but the great thing about ocean acidification (so to speak) is that it's indisputable up to a point. We know we're increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and from there it is high school chemistry that the pH of the ocean will decrease by a certain amount. Granted, most of us didn't pay enough attention to high school chemistry to do the maths ourselves, but it's like two equations. From there the only question is how bad the rapid acidification of the oceans actually is. We know that corals are probably screwed, because the calcium carbonate reacts poorly to the acidification, but on the other hand the single-celled organisms are probably fine, just because they have tens of thousands of generations to react to the change. Everything in the middle is fair game. Oh, and ocean acidification is a much more rapid process than climate change, because it takes much less time for the ocean to reach a new equilibrium with the carbon in the atmosphere than the atmosphere to reach a new temperature equilibrium. (Recall that CO2 isn't supposed to increase temperatures directly, it increases the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere from year to year.) In my opinion, ocean acidification is a much better reason to worry about atmospheric CO2 than climate change

jonhendry 14y ago
"but on the other hand the single-celled organisms are probably fine, just because they have tens of thousands of generations to react to the change. Everything in the middle is fair game." Maybe not the single-celled organisms that build shells out of acid-sensitive materials like calcium carbonate.

jonhendry 14y ago

"The IR absorption of CO2 is less than that of water vapor, is it not?" CO2 doesn't condense and fall as rain, so this is a red herring. "CO2 is rising while the planet is getting colder." The planet is not getting colder.