(Part 2) Top products from r/climatechange

> The problem is that CO2 is not the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor is.

True, but irrelevant. Water vapor content in the atmosphere varies by orders of magnitude on both short time and spatial scales. However, in the global average, it doesn't really, because the balance of precipitation versus evaporation fundamentally constrains the movement of energy in the atmosphere (see Oort and Peixoto, 1992).

On the other hand, CO2 steadily rises.

If you add a sine wave and a line together, you got a sine wave tilted upwards.

> As CO2 levels increase it's ability to trap radiation acutally diminishes substantiallly.

Also true but irrelevant; atmospheric levels of CO2 are nowhere near saturating all the modes of absorption. The many overtones of ro-vibrational modes can go a long way before you should expect the simplest estimates of CO2's radiative forcing to break down.

> Water vapor is by far the biggest greenhouse gas and is incredibly poorly modeled, if at all.

Water vapor is modeled by every climate model. It's fundamental. Do you have any citation backing up your assertion that it's "poorly modeled?"

> To answer your question, we don't know and we don't have enough data. Long-term temperature records aren't that reliable, accurate, or global. We've only had satellite records for 35 years and there's been no warming for about half of that record.

Which is why we drive to understand the physics, chemistry, and dynamics of the climate system - to make progress where we're observationally-constrained. We do not have direct evidence of gravitational waves, yet we have the immensely powerful general relativity which predicts them. Until recently, we did not have direct evidence of the Higgs boson, yet we have a powerful and successful Standard Model and related theories which predicted it.

Besides, the existing temperature record unambiguously shows warming. You can do a lot more than just plot global mean temperatures if you wish to understand what caused that warming.

> Man made climate change is a hypothesis which hasn't been proven. There's no smoking gun. The satellite data is showing that there has been no appreciable warming in the last 15-18 years yet we have put 30% more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Internal variability dominates the signal in global temperature on short (less than 30 year) timescales. It's simply wrong to try to extrapolate the tendency in the climate system from such few years of data - particularly when you pin the beginning of that subset of data to a very strong El Nino, which skews any statistical analysis of the trend you might wish to do.

Why don't you use all the satellite data and re-evaluate that paragraph? I can answer for you: because then there is an unambiguous warming trend.

By the way, science doesn't deal in proof. You want /r/mathematics.

> Climate scientists projections have been wildly inaccurate over the years.

Climate scientists have never said that there is high confidence in decadal-scale climate projection. Again - on that timescale, internal variability dominates. So it's a curious benchmark for evaluating the science, kind of like asking a police officer why he failed to put out a house fire.

> The jury is still out for anyone that actually looks at the data. Others buy into it whole-heartedly because that's what they've been taught.

It's not. The science is in - human activity is leading to climate change. What you choose to do with that information is your own prerogative, but don't pretend that reality is something that it isn't.

I'm afraid you will have to take that up with John Houghton who describes the process in his book Global Warming.

https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Sir-John-Houghton/dp/1107463793

​

You say:

> Because temperatures cool as you go higher in the troposphere

Basic thermodynamics, the net flow of enthalpy is from higher temperatures to lower temperatures. The driver for all heat transfer is the delta T. The troposphere has to be cooler than the surface or all net heat transfer would be in the other direction. But I did not say the troposphere is warmer than the surface. The troposphere warms due to the greenhouse effect. This reduces the delta T which slows down the heat transfer from the surface causing the surface to warm. The troposphere becomes less cool before the surface warms. I'm surprised anyone participating in this kind of discussion does not get this. I truly recommend the Houghton book.

​

You say:

> ... warming predicted in the troposphere is a consequence of predicted warming of the surface (by almost any cause e.g. GHGs, solar),

Of course we are only speaking of the enhanced greenhouse effect here.

​

Think about it, if what you are saying is true and CO2 gases heat just the surface air, this means the absorption spectrum is saturated at the surface and any CO2 subsequently added to the atmosphere will have no incremental effect.

​

An IR photon emitted from the surface proceeds up the column of air. The net probability of it interacting with a greenhouse molecule is a function of the emission flux and the number of molecules along the emission pathway (not dissimilar from nuclear physics): the longer the pathway, the greater the probability of an interaction. The absorption of IR photons can occur throughout the column of air which is about 18 km high.

​

Now ask yourself what happens to a CO2 molecule that is heated (becomes energized) by an IR photon. Some of the energy is re-radiated away as a IR photon but some of the energy remains in the molecule as latent heat (2nd Law). This heats the molecule which conducts some of the heat to the cooler molecules surrounding it. This warmer pocket of air will convect upwards.

​

So, not only should the troposphere warm due to the radiative heat transfer from greenhouse effect it should also be warmed from below by other gases bringing heat upwards through convective heat transfer resulting from radiative heat transfer. The cumulative effect of this is a warmer less cool troposphere which slows down all other heat transfer from the surface causing the surface to warm.

​

​

Here are some books by William D Nordhaus who won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his writing on the topic ...

https://www.amazon.com/Managing-Global-Commons-Economics-Climate/dp/026253746X/

https://www.amazon.com/Question-Balance-Weighing-Options-Policies/dp/0300137486

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Casino-Uncertainty-Economics-Warming/dp/030021264X

> You keep twisting my comments and putting words in my mouth to suite your needs. XD

"You made me look bad"

> how is saying more climate change research is needed
>
> putting words in my mouth

You said just a tad more than " more climate change research is needed"

> We have evidence to suggest that rates of CO2 emissions experienced today have, in the past, led to massive mass extinction events

Massive extinction events? But you just inferred that all you had said was we need more research. How could anyone complain about that.

> When did I ever say we're going to denude the terrestrial biosphere?

Your comment was deliberately vague.

> Also, FYI methane hydrates in the deep oceans are being affected by oceanic heatwaves / climate change as well so you're wrong there in a way.

Ok you are NOT getting away with this. I am stopping all responses till you support this:

Show me one shred of evidence that deep ocean hydrates are being affected by current human activity.

I know all about Shakhova\Semiletov\methane claims from the shallow East Siberian Ice Shelf and its very controversial status. Deep Ocean Clathrates are something all together different.

This was what the buffoon Lovelock was raising hysteria over a decade and a half ago.

This is a very bold claim you have made. Lets see the evidence.

I’m currently reading this one and it’s really good. Can be read in short bursts but is still thoroughly sourced.

Climate Change: What Everyone... https://www.amazon.com/dp/0190866101?ref=yo_pop_ma_swf

How about this?

https://www.amazon.com/Natural-Climate-Variability-Decade-Century/dp/0309054494

Caveat: I haven't read it, but it looked relevant from a google search I did for you. (Also... it says "current" but published 1996 so some could be outdated by more recent studies)

Try this: https://www.amazon.com/Hockey-Stick-Illusion-W-Montford/dp/0957313527

And 97% of the scientists once believed that the sun revolved around the earth too. Even the academy of sciences at the time.

Read this one: https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-2014-Mitigation-Contribution/dp/1107654815/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1549046959&sr=8-1&keywords=ipcc

Apologies for getting your citizenship wrong.

> but come on Barack Obama is worse then Osama bin Laden

No, I said nothing about Obama. I said American foreign policy is abhorrent.

> The only reason the U.S. killed more people then the terrorists was because they were better equipped and more competent then a defunct terrorist group

1950 invasion of North Korea. 1961 invasion of Cuba. 1965 invasion of Dominican Republic. 1970 invasion of Cambodia. 1971 invasion of Laos. 1983 invasion of Grenada. 1989 invasion of Panama. 1991 invasion of Iraq. 1994 invasion of Haiti. 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. 2003 invasion of Iraq...

These are just invasions (America has acted first). Not necessarily wars (like Vietnam etc). You seem to think I'm referring only to the USA vs Al-Q. I am not. I'm not simply referring to one incident, I'm talking of the whole picture. The US has caused significantly more civilian bloodshed than any terrorist organisation. It's not up for debate.

> but Osama the calm brilliant man did want to kill all the unbelievers

OBL was a Wahabbist. Perhaps even Salafi. Of course he wanted to kill non believers. Please note I am not defending his actions, merely pointing out that he was not entirely to blame. He did not attack the US specifically because it was full of non believers but because the USA as a non Islamic nation was occupying close the holiest of Islamic lands (Mecca). Furthermore, I'd not describe him as brilliant either. He was quiet, calm, a strong listener and delegator, extremely focussed and a relatively smart guy. This made him an excellent leader by all accounts.

> But hey you know he was still at fault because hey bin Laden according to international law you cant just attack another country because you disagree with how its run.

You're forgetting the reason for his attack. Infidel forces on Al Jazeera. That is not 'attacking a country because you disagree with how it is run'. And even if he did just attack... I'm not defending him and saying that's fine. I'm saying there are two sides to every story. The side you get all too often depends on which media you absorb.

Honestly, I recommend Osama Bin Laden by Michael Scheuer. It will cover the basics for you.