Reply To: Remnant heat of Focus Fusion

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:
1) Not so. The “humans” issue begs the question (circular reasoning). The question is how the planet deals with wide ranges of CO2 concentration. BTW, that CO2 plot doesn’t show the really interesting sequence info: temperature rise precedes CO2 rise. Oops!
2) The point is that the error bars, especially on the potential upside, are much larger than previously assumed. And it’s still “peak”, not “peek”.
3) Water vapour and the atmospheric hydrological cycle are VASTLY more potent and important than the narrow-band “sympathetic” CO2 IR effects. High cloud blocks heat escape with full-band black-body reflection, and has far more feedback potency than any other mechanism.
4) What would interfere with photosynthesis? It’s been going on since algae and fungus got together in lichens and in the seas in blue-green algae for at least 3 billion years.

1) The issue is how planet deals with co2 concentrations in human lifetime within current parameters (not parameters that were millions years ago, or maybe immediately after BB (anyone believe in BB?)). “temperature rise precedes CO2 rise” was refuted long time ago, please move on, to other non-widely-refuted arguments. Why not just try to claim that all the historical Co2 data was faked instead?
2) So basically all the recent (thousand years) data is bogus and there is a natural process which causes natural co2 peeks (sorry about this), which is:…. . And the data actually looks like this: …. . Well if you don’t know how the data looks like how can you claim the current data does not represent a peek (sorry about this)? Has the “potential upside” been demonstrated by a credible scientist in a non-biased study funded by not current-oil-ex-tobacco-fake-grassroots-organization?
3)I assume vapor? Yes, vapor is more important. What about the other less-important green-house-gasses? Compound interest on 100$ 10% vs 11% for 100 years is 1,378,061.23$ vs 3,406,417.53$ . Somehow it seems to me that when stuff accumulates small differences are important. I am not a physicists, but as far as I can tell when you build a greenhouse, it does not become hot because there is more sun inside, just because the heat accumulates. Care to show a model that disproves this?
4) How much atmospheric co2 is too much for you? If you mean 100% is not too much, then you can do photosynthesis. Hopeful genetic modifications will allow the rest of us to adapt as well.

Unfortunately I fail to see anything in your tactics that would seem you are trying to find out the truth. I guess you just are afraid of loosing control to the green illuminates too much, to look at the forest, instead of the trees. My own mission is to actually learn something new. For now I believe I can trust that data methodology and scientific integrity supports GW theory as much as reasonably possible. As far as I see the people that support GW are doing work without adequate compensation and while they are making some mistakes they admit and correct them. I wish I could follow at least one GW critic with high integrity. The only people I see against GW are denialists (not critics). They are trying to distort the truth as much as possible and are getting well documented compensations from shady business. Some biographies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Climate_change
Not on Wikipedia (probably hiding from the web)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano#Climate_change_skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute#Positions