Carryover of "NASA Detects CO2" thread (per staff request)

[Endymio]

Rather than take my word, or the word of some other internet citizen, for it, why not read about it from a recognized source of valid scientific information - https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-media/in-the-news/greenhouse-gases-water-vapor-and-you

The above is an object lesson in the perils of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Despite the MIT address, the link is merely a reprint of an LA Times newspaper article. The article does contain quotes from a professor -- but they are from John Reilly, an "environmental and agricultural economist", who lectures at the Sloan Business School of Management. He neither teaches nor has any advanced degree in science, and is thus no more of an expert on radiative physics than your local Starbucks barista. He also directs the "Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change" -- making him a highly biased and self-interested policy wonk.

Now that we understand his lack of credentials, however, let's see what he has to say. Despite Wiyosaya's false framing, his position actually disagrees little with my earlier statements. From the link:

"Water vapor accounts for about 97 percent of the total (natural plus man-emitted) greenhouse warming of the planet...Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas [writes] John Reilly, professor at MIT...."

Which is as I said. So why do Reilly -- and others -- entirely discount the effects of water vapor? He continues:

Reilly warns [that] " Increasing ghg's [greenhouse gases] through warming will increase water vapor and that is a big positive feedback..."

Again, exactly what I stated earlier. However, to this I added the fact that Hansen's original presumption of a CO2-based positive feedback loop initially fit the data well, but has increasingly diverged since the 1990s. Furthermore, the geologic history of the earth (as well as a simple thought experiment) demonstrates that such a feedback effect, if it exists, must be extremely limited. Positive feedback is unstable -- if warming generates more warming, then that additional warming itself generates further warming, ad infinitum.

Another crucial fact upon which scientists agree -- but the alarmists rarely publicize -- is that GHG forcing (the so-called climate sensitivity) is a logarithmic function. Put simply, if raising CO2 from 300 to 400ppm raises world temperatures by 1C, then raising them another degree would require not a further 100ppm increase but double that, and another 1 degree four times as much.

 

[scavengerspc]

The above is an object lesson in the perils of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Despite the MIT address, the link is merely a reprint of an LA Times newspaper article. The article does contain quotes from a professor -- but they are from John Reilly, an "environmental and agricultural economist", who lectures at the Sloan Business School of Management. He neither teaches nor has any advanced degree in science, and is thus no more of an expert on radiative physics than your local Starbucks barista. He also directs the "Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change" -- making him a highly biased and self-interested policy wonk.

Now that we understand his lack of credentials, however, let's see what he has to say. Despite Wiyosaya's false framing, his position actually disagrees little with my earlier statements. From the link:

"Water vapor accounts for about 97 percent of the total (natural plus man-emitted) greenhouse warming of the planet...Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas [writes] John Reilly, professor at MIT...."

Which is as I said. So why do Reilly -- and others -- entirely discount the effects of water vapor? He continues:

Reilly warns [that] " Increasing ghg's [greenhouse gases] through warming will increase water vapor and that is a big positive feedback..."

Again, exactly what I stated earlier. However, to this I added the fact that Hansen's original presumption of a CO2-based positive feedback loop initially fit the data well, but has increasingly diverged since the 1990s. Furthermore, the geologic history of the earth (as well as a simple thought experiment) demonstrates that such a feedback effect, if it exists, must be extremely limited. Positive feedback is unstable -- if warming generates more warming, then that additional warming itself generates further warming, ad infinitum.

Another crucial fact upon which scientists agree -- but the alarmists rarely publicize -- is that GHG forcing (the so-called climate sensitivity) is a logarithmic function. Put simply, if raising CO2 from 300 to 400ppm raises world temperatures by 1C, then raising them another degree would require not a further 100ppm increase but double that, and another 1 degree four times as much.

I hope he ignores you, just like you have me every time I challenged you to come to general.

 

[wiyosaya]

The above is an object lesson in the perils of the "appeal to authority" fallacy. Despite the MIT address, the link is merely a reprint of an LA Times newspaper article. The article does contain quotes from a professor -- but they are from John Reilly, an "environmental and agricultural economist", who lectures at the Sloan Business School of Management. He neither teaches nor has any advanced degree in science, and is thus no more of an expert on radiative physics than your local Starbucks barista. He also directs the "Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change" -- making him a highly biased and self-interested policy wonk.

Now that we understand his lack of credentials, however, let's see what he has to say. Despite Wiyosaya's false framing, his position actually disagrees little with my earlier statements. From the link:

"Water vapor accounts for about 97 percent of the total (natural plus man-emitted) greenhouse warming of the planet...Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas [writes] John Reilly, professor at MIT...."

Which is as I said. So why do Reilly -- and others -- entirely discount the effects of water vapor? He continues:

Reilly warns [that] " Increasing ghg's [greenhouse gases] through warming will increase water vapor and that is a big positive feedback..."

Again, exactly what I stated earlier. However, to this I added the fact that Hansen's original presumption of a CO2-based positive feedback loop initially fit the data well, but has increasingly diverged since the 1990s. Furthermore, the geologic history of the earth (as well as a simple thought experiment) demonstrates that such a feedback effect, if it exists, must be extremely limited. Positive feedback is unstable -- if warming generates more warming, then that additional warming itself generates further warming, ad infinitum.

Another crucial fact upon which scientists agree -- but the alarmists rarely publicize -- is that GHG forcing (the so-called climate sensitivity) is a logarithmic function. Put simply, if raising CO2 from 300 to 400ppm raises world temperatures by 1C, then raising them another degree would require not a further 100ppm increase but double that, and another 1 degree four times as much.

Still appealing to yourself as the authority? Perhaps you should review the "appeal to authority": fallacy yourself because even though you claim the authors lack of credentials, it is supported by others. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/
And I'll save you the time of looking up his credentials - https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~kushnir/

How about you post your credentials and state what makes you the ultimate authority? All I see coming from you is "Here's the answer for you" even though your opinions are not supported by consensus.

Honestly, I already know I am wasting my time.

My apologies for bursting your bubble and hurting your beautiful boy myth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endymion_(mythology)

 

[Endymio]

Still appealing to yourself as the authority? Perhaps you should review the "appeal to authority": fallacy

You're so accustomed to blindly accepting authority that you're unable to recognize the alternative. Let's recap the difference, shall we:

Logical Argument::"Here are some facts, and this is a conclusion to be drawn from them."
Appeal to Authority: "My statement is correct because a professor at Columbia says so. Click this link and be impressed with his credentials!"

See the difference?

In this case, the distinction is even more stark because I merely presented facts, without drawing conclusions from them. Facts upon which both sides agree. I'm attempting to get you to take that first lonely step down the dark and unfamiliar road of critical thinking. Why not at least attempt it?

 

[wiyosaya]

You're so accustomed to blindly accepting authority that you're unable to recognize the alternative. Let's recap the difference, shall we:

Logical Argument::"Here are some facts, and this is a conclusion to be drawn from them."
Appeal to Authority: "My statement is correct because a professor at Columbia says so. Click this link and be impressed with his credentials!"

See the difference?

In this case, the distinction is even more stark because I merely presented facts, without drawing conclusions from them. Facts upon which both sides agree. I'm attempting to get you to take that first lonely step down the dark and unfamiliar road of critical thinking. Why not at least attempt it?

Right. I have. To me, you need to follow your facts to conclusions that are supported by others. Where's your evidence in what you've stated regarding "what climate scientists won't tell you"? How convenient, wouldn't you say, especially since, as you imply, that evidence is not clearly stated by climate scientists? So, you've backed yourself into a corner, as I see it, because there is nothing there for you to refute - again, making yourself the expert in the matter even though you cannot back yourself up with evidence of a critical piece of your argument. Haven't you ever heard that it's impossible to prove a negative such as, to border on the absurd, Aliens Don't exist? Evidence that climate scientists will not tell you?

If you are so right about your conclusions, then why don't you publish in a peer reviewed journal, and teach the rest of the climates scientists "critical thinking"?

I'm not the one with the axe to grind. Every chance you get, you turn a thread into a discussion of one of your pet peeves.

What happened to you? You seem like a well-educated person. Did academia scorn you for some reason? Or are you a scorned research scientist with an axe to grind?

Why are you here spouting to people who have less critical thinking capabilities than I do? Is it for the likes?

You are going to have to find those reasons for yourself. Not everyone is going to buy your BS.

 

[Endymio]

Where's your evidence in what you've stated

I'd prefer you to research such easily-confirmable facts yourself, rather than blindly bow to the mystical authority of "a link". But some minds, it seems, will only accept authority, so here you go:

"One of our basic assumptions about global warming is that the radiative forcing by CO2 -- the outgoing longwave radiation absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is a logarithmic function of the atmospheric CO2 concentration: if the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 is 1F, then the radiative forcing of quadrupling CO2 is 2F"

Nick Lutso, Associate Professor of Climate Science, Scripps: http://nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2018/08/26/Why-CO2-Forcing-Is-Logarithmic

He demonstrates this fac with a very basic radiative physics calculation; nothing more than high school calculus required.

What other links would you wish? One demonstrating that water is wet? Or perhaps a refutal of the theory the earth is supported in space on the back of a giant turtle?

.

 

[wiyosaya]

I'd prefer you to research such easily-confirmable facts yourself, rather than blindly bow to the mystical authority of "a link". But some minds, it seems, will only accept authority, so here you go:

"One of our basic assumptions about global warming is that the radiative forcing by CO2 -- the outgoing longwave radiation absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is a logarithmic function of the atmospheric CO2 concentration: if the radiative forcing of doubling CO2 is 1F, then the radiative forcing of quadrupling CO2 is 2F"

Nick Lutso, Associate Professor of Climate Science, Scripps: http://nicklutsko.github.io/blog/2018/08/26/Why-CO2-Forcing-Is-Logarithmic

He demonstrates this fac with a very basic radiative physics calculation; nothing more than high school calculus required.

What other links would you wish? One demonstrating that water is wet? Or perhaps a refutal of the theory the earth is supported in space on the back of a giant turtle?

.

Yes, we've all known about the "Hockey Stick" since "An Inconvenient Truth"

Again, exactly what I stated earlier. However, to this I added the fact that Hansen's original presumption of a CO2-based positive feedback loop initially fit the data well, but has increasingly diverged since the 1990s. Furthermore, the geologic history of the earth (as well as a simple thought experiment) demonstrates that such a feedback effect, if it exists, must be extremely limited. Positive feedback is unstable -- if warming generates more warming, then that additional warming itself generates further warming, ad infinitum.

Endymio's "ad infinitum" assertion is interesting. I do not think that in either reference, "ad infinitum" was either explicitly stated or an implication of the assertion.

Anyone who took high school Earth science knows that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is dependent on the temperature of the atmosphere, and when the water vapor reaches its saturation point for a particular temperature, the water vapor will tend to condense and it will thus rain, obviously leading to a reduction in the concentration of water vapor in the atmosphere - which supports the assertion that water vapor content in the atmosphere is variable.

It follows that the effect is limited, and it cannot be stated that water vapor will "ad infinitum" drive the atmosphere to ever warmer temperatures.

Further, more water vapor will not lead to more CO2 in the atmosphere; however, more CO2 in the atmosphere as a driver of a warming atmosphere, will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere as warmer air will hold more water vapor.