Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑
Thu Aug 22, 2019 11:34 am
DChemTech wrote: ↑
Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:55 am
'1'......Your claim about CO2 release from the ocean is blatantly false.....
'2'.....You say that the effect of water has "been disproved"....
CO2 release from the ocean isn't any kind of false whenever there's ....
warming independent of atmospheric CO2 it causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 by emission from warmed ocean
this is what Gore's plots showed - the exact opposite of what he was proclaiming
initially (30-40 years ago) scientists suggested a range of mechanisms regarding warming and cooling
now, as in Stalinism's case, this history has been erased and a doctrine has emerged by a process of internal self-censorship
nothing has been proven but we must behave as if everything had been proven
you are imagining me to be a denialist ....
this leading you to misread completely what I wrote re '2' (I was giving a home run to warmism)
and you mischaracterised (as denialist) my starting this thread (it was actually an attack on the UK's feeble response)
another thread that I started years before is a particularly consistent attack on the UK position (I write most of the posts)
ie the UK position (until a few weeks ago) was the pretence that the climate problem is solved ....
by eg partly decarbonising electricity (miscategorised as energy) and having EV cars
since then 'May's legacy' laws mandating decarbonisation of everything (eg heating) by 2050 vastly increased the obligation
the UK Govt like others long boosted the climate problem (because this favours the incumbent by justifying the incumbent)
and like others presented as the mountain they would help us climb something that only now they reveal is a foothill
today's news ....
the UK Parliamentary Select Committee says we must give up our cars, to keep our CO2 emissions on target from 2023
ie ban hydrocarbon-only and hybrid cars from 2035 or earlier and ....
ban most personal ownership of all car types (even electric) to reduce emissions from car production
Well, your use of terms such as "warmism", fencing with global cooling, claims on the reverse CO2 flux and use of the medieval warming period do seem to radiate a message of denialism, yes. So if that image is not one you are looking to cultivate, it might perhaps be good to provide some clarification?
As to past global cooling claims... so what?
"Ptolemy's models for the solar system were wrong, so why should I believe Copernic?"
"Aristotle's gravitational model was botched, so why should I believe Newton (or now, Einstein over Newton)?"
The credibility of current claims does not
hinge on that of past claims - they are to be evaluated on their own merit. If anything, the strength of science is its ability to progress and overturn incorrect claims - yet you present it as a weakness (or presented, I see you now made the text a bit milder). In essence, that's all there is to it in the current context, but it might be worthwhile to review the eh, scientific climate, in which those cooling hypotheses came to be. While the warming potential of CO2 was known, the state of climate science (including future predictions and feedback loops) was much more rudimentary. It was also a time where smog was a common issue, and smog, via its albedo effect, could potentially lead to cooling. So yes, scientists posed the hypothesis and speculated about potential cooling. Then the mainstream media picked it up, pulled it out of context, and became alarmist (sounds familiar?*). It wasn't the scientists that were alarmist; they speculated, found some of their initial models overestimated the effect (in which several of the responsible scientists admitted
their errors), and anyway Smog, being a visible problem, was addressed. So the discussion on global cooling simmered out, became irrelevant. The albedo effect of particulate matter is still accounted for and causes some
cooling, but we now know clearly that this is more than offset by the warming effect of other human activities. Already in those days, the majority of climate science aimed at warming, and these insights only cemented that further. And that's that. There's no stalinistic censorship - the papers from that time are still available. We don't talk about global cooling on a daily basis because it became irrelevant - like flogiston theory, bloodletting, and the wellbeing of the pharaos. Or would you regard that as stalinistic censorship, too?
As to the flux of CO2:
CO2 release from the ocean isn't any kind of false whenever there's warming independent of atmospheric CO2 it causes an increase in atmospheric CO2 by emission from warmed ocean.
Yes, I am familiar with the temperature dependence of the Henry coefficient. And the ~1 degree of warming causes a what, 2% decrease in CO2 solubility, all else equal? Thing is, not all else is equal - the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 increased by some 25% in the past century, and consequentially the CO2 flux is from air to atmosphere. I'm not referring to an idealized laboratory situation, but to the actual atmosphere. And so were you in the post I was responding to. Also, I'm not sure which of Gore's many statements you are referring to, but whether or not he was correct has no bearing on the reality of global warming.
*As to media alarmism, I think we agree on this to a degree. I'm not a fan of it. The earth is not due to end, neither is mankind. CC will make lower our living standard, or alternatively framed, will maintaining your current standard of living substantially more expensive - but it will not end life altogether. I also cannot blame people in the 70ies/80ies to be more skeptical towards warming claims, based on the cooling hysteria in the media. But skeptical means "a critical attitude towards", not "in denial of". And when reviewing the evidence, which skeptics ought to do, it would already in those days have been clear that the claims on warming were more credible. No need for alarmism, at that point, but for serious attention and action, yes. Now we are 40 years further, our insights have progressed (AGW has been
proven beyond reasonable doubt - which does not mean there is no room for doubt, but it does mean there is no reason for inaction - and the basic physical mechanism is, once again, well known), yet not much action has been taken. Which, in my view, does justify a somewhat more alarmist tone to messages. Not the degree some media outlets show, but the situation is serious if you care about maintaining your living standard - and that may be stressed. The notion that even scientists take a more and more alarming tone. They generally do not like being alarmist, don't see it as their job to be activists either - but more and more regard it as an inconvenient necessity.