In post #1539 I said :
...
The energy has to go out as radiation, surely? Not necessarily in a blackbody spectrum, of course. As I understand it, "blackbody" refers to solids, not gases.
[... and then ....]
I don't agree that climate is a very complex system to model. Weather is far more complex, as is ice-dynamics (a real bitch from what I've heard).
OK - then let's see the exposition of your simple climate calculation rather than all your verbiage. My point remains that there is absolutely nothing simple about it, and the radiation model. {no blackbody is not a gas vs solid matter}.
On the issue of many theories that fit the data ....
One can, but most are likely to be unskilful in prediction. The thing about, say, Hansen's 1988 model is that it not only fits observations up to that time but also observations made subsequently. Which is quite robust support, to my mind.
Nonsense - all models that fit the data are equally 'skillful' (what a nonsense concept). Just because one was proposes prior to the presentation of the most recent data has no bearing on the validity of it's assumptions beyond the fact that it has not been eliminated as invalid/incorrect. This problem is very similar to 'models' that attempt to predict fluctuations in the stock market based on various factors. Success of a short period is not supportive of the model in preference to new models which also match the same data.
I find enjoyment in science for its own sake. There's no practicable solution to what cosmology tells us, but it's still way cool.
Same here - but this issue is primarily political, not scientific, as the great vehemence on this forum and elsewhere indicate. Good choice of analogy, as cosmologists and climatologists are almost equally incapable of creating any useful experiment, so the validation of these sciences are equally weak and feeble.
The thing that most concerns me is the assault on science per se, of which climate-change denialism is one example.
Here we agree. There is a good bit of know-nothing-ism in climate change denial, but I don't see a lot of denial on this forum or the others I read. The question of the cause of the admitted change is instead the primary topic. The AGW side is IMO overly dismissive of the opponents arguments, and overly confident in their weak underpinnings of their conclusions. This does not mean they are ultimately wrong.
The other offense by some on the AGW side is the claim that 'the debate is over'. That is the most anti-science, anti-reason argument that has been made in my lifetime of a topic of fact. If we adhered to that logic then we would also should throw out the einstein-lorentz eqn since clearly newtonian mechanics and 2 centuries of experimental observation ended that debate.
Relatively uncontested? Heliocentrism is relatively uncontested.
CO2-load is not difficult to measure {...}
Actually it is quite difficult to get a good survey of the entire atmosphere and your dismisal stating it was possible to get a good single point reading in a near sea level lab in Western Europe on the late 1800s is not a valid argument that atmospheric CO2 was well known at that time.
My point was that not everyone agrees on the precise level of anthropomorphic CO2 in the atmosphere. I've read recent articles suggesting the current measurements overstate the the anthropomorphic CO2 component by ~25%. I do not necessarily agree with those articles, but there is a question as to the precise figure.
Yes - it is contested in the detail, and no your comparison to heliocentrism is a ridiculous strawman. Please stop obfuscating.
It surely can't be reasonably contested that we've jacked-up atmospheric CO2-load by about a third.
Yes. My point remains that despite niggling about the precise amount it is almost universally admitted that humans have significantly increase atmospheric CO2 levels. The CO2 increase should, due to many separate reasons, have an impact on the biosphere beyond climate, and that we should have some agreement that reducing atmospheric CO2 is a good idea, despite disagreement about the extent of climatic impact.
When it's not their own kids that are cold and hungry most people won't sacrifice anything significant for them. When a Louisiana politico loses one of his homes to a hurricane it's not exactly a rocket up his fundament. And it's the politicians that have the power to make a difference. Which they won't exercise.
You subscribe to a theory of government entirely different from mine. 'Leaders' IMO only can lead within limits based on the extent that the 'followers' agree to follow. Having an informed public debate on CO2, ozone climate and other issues is ideally a prerequisite to a political solution. We are instead having an uninformed debate in which authorities dictate the solution and announce that all discussion is over before the facts have been presented and discussed. As you may recall 'argument from authority' is an invalid form of argument, but it is what most of the sheeple accept these days on any technical topic.
My argument goes farther. Will China idle the massive coal power infrastructure and thus destroy the economy they are rapidly creating ? Will those who mine coal cease because they know it is harmful. No - I don't see that happening now or ever. Perhaps (and I doubt it) your children in N.America and Western Europe won't go to bed cold if we invest in enough nuclear power fast enough, but someone else will still be burning the same fossil fuels, polluting the one atmosphere and perhaps changing the one planetary climate. I don't think a substantial fossil fuel reduction program is enforcable no matter how many politicians agree.
Let's face it, we could - in global terms - lose the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa without even noticing the bump.
Right, but population decrease was not the problem (more of a solution actually). What if, for example the Chinese set up coal fired plants and coal mines in SS.Africa (I've no idea what their coal reserves are like) and that this somehow befitted the local population. The population would be drawn to using these despite envronmental damage and the impact would be planetary. What force of politics would stop this sort of event ? None that I can imagine.
. The change still produces the feedback effects that are being observed. (No need for models to let us see that).
) just like that ... ain't gonna happen.
