What has gone on it the distant past isn't really the issue. The issue is "do anthropogenic increases of CO2 create a problem?". As I wrote in a previous post, if anthrogogenic increases in CO2 are a problem then the mechanism is that it produces some degree of warming which then positively feedbacks to create additional warming. Yes, water vapor is a more important than CO2 (and clouds are even more important) but CO2 caused warming can increase the amount of water vapor in the air. That is how it is theorized to work. This is what numerical models are showing. The models are not what you think. They solve the Navier-Stokes fluid equations on a rotating sphere while incorporating the physics of radiative transfer, water phase change, and turbulence, also while interacting with an ocean circulation model. The models are dynamical. The scientists working in this area are pretty clear about their results and the uncertainties in the models. The accuracy of the models can certainly be questioned but suggesting that scientists are essentially fudging the results is not reasonable. The real problem, that doesn't appear to get much attention, is that the various models used in the IPCC reports are not independent of each other and therefore all show the same trends. The reason they are not independent of each other is that the various models solve essentially the same equations. The models do have some "knobs to turn" and the developers do "turn those knobs" to understand how sensitive the models are. Do we have a problem? I am not sure anybody really knows. Also, if there is a problem, there isn't much anyone can do about it with the possible exception of starting to build CO2 sequestering machines at a very rapid rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfing eagles
In which case I know you are aware that the most important "greenhouse" gas is not CO2, but water vapor. Hence, after the rise of the Himalayan and Rocky plateaus about 60 million years ago which act as heat sinks by catching atmospheric moisture and creating rain, the planet is about 10 degrees cooler'
And yes, while paleoclimatologists study the past, we don't have any psychic climate experts to predict the future, so to a certain extent we look at the past to create future "models". And yes, these models do vary. I am not "disparaging" those scientists as much as I am concerned that the grant and political climate (pardon the pun) may bias them. Let's face it, when you know that if you conclude and then publicize your model that shows anthropogenic climate change is a myth, you are done receiving any federal grant money, there might be some bias.
If I am way off base on this, let me know, since you clearly have more expertise on this subject than I----as you know, I don't care for amateurs meddling in my field of expertise either.
|