Hamilton, you got a couple of things right: Water is a more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide. Climate models predict warming based on carbon dioxide increases, but no one has done an actual controlled experiment with a population of planets to test those models in the classical manner.
But you don't know what you are talking about. Overall, we are not causing a change in atmospheric water vapor, therefore any greenhouse effect due to water vapor is a wash, and the models properly include water vapor in their extrapolations. The models are robust, and we only have one planet. No experiment is possible, but none is needed. The forcing is there. Ecologists have long known how to analyze natural experiments. I think the climatologists know what they are doing. Another thing you got right is that politics has sure messed up the public response to science, to the detriment of the public, scientists and science, and politicians. But what is new about that? David McNeely ---- Robert Hamilton <[email protected]> wrote: > Actually this climate debate is more about hocus pocus than anything else. at > least a it is. That climate change is occurring is undeniable, and the oddity > would be no climate change occurring. The climate is going to change > regardless. The issue of why is where the hocus pocus comes in. There is no > evidence that changes in CO2 levels have caused any sort of atmospheric > warming; none. It is a predicted outcome of climate models designed to show > that CO2 can affect atmospheric temperatures. We know for a fact that > atmospheric warming would cause CO2 levels to increase because all the > various organisms would increase respiration rates. It is dubious to suggest > that CO2 levels that we observe could have any influence on the greenhouse > effect on earth given the overwhelming effect of water vapour, and the flux > of water vapour, which in itself is substantially greater than the total > effect of CO2, let alone the difference in CO2 past and present. > > Many of the things we do could cause climate change. The massive increase in > runoff of freshwater from terrestrial systems; various drainings and fillings > in of wetlands and floodplains, channeling if rivers along with rapid runoff > through sewers and other means. A lot less standing water in the spring to > ameliorate continental warming through the summer. Conversion of heat sinks > like say Manhattan Island (via urbanization) into heat sources, possibly > radiating more energy back than is input from the sun due to additional heat > from things like air conditioners and automobiles, and this sort of thing > occurs on a massive scale (like say Germany, which used to be a very moist > deciduous forest) in the northern hemisphere. But such issues are not allowed > to be investigated for the sake of the political hacks with their CO2 > argument. There is no science to this process, and amazingly the public in > general sees the weakness of the science. > > The thing of it is that what goes around comes around, and the truth will out > in the end. If we are wrong about CO2 but right about human impacts the > political hacks will blame us for being unscientific even though it is they > that force us this way via the way they dispense power in the form of > academic appointments and funding. A bit like CFCs causing the ozone hole. > They could cause the ozone hole for sure, but do they actually cause it? > Never seen any evidence of that. Could be that flying jet aircraft is causing > the ozone hole, but political hacks don't want to go there! If it isn't CFCs, > they will blame us for sure, because we are supposed to know for sure in > their eyes in such situations. We are the scapegoat if they (we) are wrong). > > I suppose I am a "denier" because I reject politically motivated science, and > that sort would shout me down, pull my hair and throw things at me if I were > ever to present such heretical arguments to the public. But I don't need to. > As the consequences of the CO2 based policies sink in, they will be revisited > with a more skeptical eye. We move forward, but do bumble along, and that > seems to work in general, although there are casualties along the way, and > the way it looks now is Ecology will be one of those casualties, which is the > real crime here IMHO. > > Rob Hamilton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of malcolm > McCallum > Sent: Tue 7/3/2012 10:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Confronting climate deniers on college campuses - EOS > Forum > > society has never been trusting of scientists. > However, the same could be said of business with identical survey mechanisms. > So what. > > This isn't about a bunch of hocus pocus and its not about baseless opinions. > ITs about the facts that exist. > Period. > > As for track records of academics, virtually all of our discoveries > were by academics. > Very few were made by others. > Do your homework. > > Malcolm > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Paul Cherubini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:31 AM, Jerome Joseph Howard wrote: > > > >> See the Goddard site at > >> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/. > > > > > > Those graphs also show a flattening of global mean temperatures > > over the past decade or so. Therefore the flattening trend > > could conceivably continue for another 20-25 years, just > > like the 30-35 year flattening trends of 1880-1910 and 1940-1975. > > IF the anthropogenic factors that contribute to warming are > > relatively minor or moderate in relation to the natural factors > > which may well turn out to be the case. > > > > In view of these uncertainties it is understandable why > > industry and agriculture appear to be taking a wait and > > see approach instead of making plans for a much warmer > > world. > > > > The track record of academia is not stellar in the minds > > of conservatives that run industry and agriculture. > > Surveys indicate educated conservatives have grown > > increasingly distrustful of scientists (but not science) > > http://tinyurl.com/7dkgolp > > > > > > Paul Cherubini > > El Dorado, Calif. > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry > School of Biological Sciences > University of Missouri at Kansas City > > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > Allan Nation > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > Wealth w/o work > Pleasure w/o conscience > Knowledge w/o character > Commerce w/o morality > Science w/o humanity > Worship w/o sacrifice > Politics w/o principle > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. -- David McNeely
