Ratty, << CO2 is only a very small part of the equation >>

Of the 33 K ‘greenhouse effect’, about 20% of the infrared opacity is due to CO2. Roughly 75% of the infrared opacity is due to water vapour and clouds. This ‘water’ is condensable and is responsive to temperature (falling out as rain or snow in a matter of days). Greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, ozone, etc) on the other hand do not condense, remaining in the atmosphere for decades, and provide the supporting framework for the 'atmospheric greenhouse effect'. Removing all of the CO2 and other non-condensable GHG’s would result in most of the water vapour and clouds precipitating, and a consequent collapse of the 'terrestrial greenhouse effect'. The corresponding change in surface albedo would likely make the planet much more reflective and thus colder than the 255 K baseline temperature.

However, specific humidity climbs in a warmer world (essentially following the Clausius-Clapeyron equation) which forces a strong positive water vapour feedback, predominant in the tropics and higher altitudes. Most of the water vapour feedback is caused by enhanced infrared opacity (although water vapour also absorbs solar radiation which becomes important at the polar areas, where it can absorb upwelling photons in the visible spectrum). Decreases in ice cover lower the surface albedo, and thus provide a mechanism to enhance warming. Decreases in the vertical temperature gradient in the atmosphere (following a moist adiabat) essentially reduces the strength of the greenhouse effect, providing a partial negative feedback.

Much of this was known a century ago, with many of the key developments happening earlier in the century (mainly in the form of observational evidence of climate change e.g. rising CO2 levels from Keeling, better radiation experiments, and carbon cycle understanding). The key uncertainties now do not relate to the reality of AGW, but in the general response to the terrestrial biosphere and climate system (including the ice sheets, sea ice, and possible thresholds for “tipping points” within the system - not least the ecosystem).

Cont’d

Ratty,

Any objections to the above should take the form of a real, competing synthesis which better describes not only the 20th century warming, but the basic structure of the entire climate record – this has not been done, and certainly not by you. Ergo, if you remove CO2 as a major driver, then total solar irradiance, sun spots, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions, galactic cosmic rays, etc. cannot explain this latest episode of global warming.

Can you now understand the difference between a “greenhouse” and the “greenhouse effect”? Many people don’t.

“The final two paragraphs are all my own work and follow logically from the paragraph I quoted from”

Hardly logical Ratty (or proper) since you misled us into believing the following quote was attributed to someone else:

‘The IPCC is a political organization. It was told "this is the argument we need to make, so find something to support it. "’

“It was told” Ratty?

No further correspondence entered into.

I am sure Protogas and Q&A think they are very smart. However history is littered with nonsensical statements. The Patents Chief in the 1800's who said anything that could be discovered has been discovered. IBM saying who would want a home computer?
Furthermore the UN is easily the most corrupt organisation on the planet. It is filled with bodies spending millions of dollars on self serving agrandisement and looting of the monies from us ordinary Joes. See the UN Food programe? A total balls up from start to finish run by a parade of idiots who are not only paid ludicrous amounts of money but also pensions beyond the reach of the rest of us.
You think you are smart. You and your blah blah blah will be shown to be the next Y2000 bug but by then you will be riding another silly hobby horse.Get a life!

Q&A said: [Quote] ....Ergo, if you remove CO2 as a major driver, then total solar irradiance, sun spots, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic eruptions, galactic cosmic rays, etc. cannot explain this latest episode of global warming. [EndQuote]

Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail but I still don't think CO2 is the culprit.

Are you aware of the work of Scotese & Berner?
. palaeontologist C.R. Scotese (Temp - http://www.scotese.com/ScoteseCV.htm) and
. geophysicist R.A. Berner (CO2 - http://love.geology.yale.edu/people/moreinfo.cgi?netid=berner)
... and this graph:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

In their graph, over the past 120 million years or so, temperatures remain high while CO2 steadily plunges. It appears to me that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is tenuous. I would appreciate your comments.

Q&A said: [Quote] Can you now understand the difference between a “greenhouse” and the “greenhouse effect”? Many people don’t. [EndQuote]

I do understand the difference.

Protagoras said: [Quote] No further correspondence entered into. [EndQuote]

Are you a moderator of this forum?

Ratty

This is not a game where you show me yours and I show you mine. Otherwise, I would be able to outnumber you 99 to 1, seriously.

You should realise that humanity is conducting an experiment that the planet has never before been subjected to (we have only one test-tube, we don’t have a control). Yes, the planet has in the distant geological past experienced warmer and colder times (we should be heading towards another glacial – in say 30,000 yrs). However, this current epoch (now widely known as the anthropocene) is only a mere 200 years old. We are having an impact, Ratty.

Your understanding of the IPCC (and the UNFCCC) process is not correct.
“Review by experts and governments is an essential part of the IPCC process” ... yes, but you don’t appear to grasp that governments/politicians cannot change or alter the science. Translating a lot of immensely technical stuff into a Summary for Policy Makers (for people from diverse cultural, linguistic and ideological backgrounds) is no mean feat. Whilst the SPM’s are more ‘conservative’ than what the scientists would prefer to see, the science is unchanged. Have you actually read the technical papers?

You also don’t seem to appreciate that all member states of the UNFCCC have accepted the ‘science’, or that the IPCC only evaluate the ‘science’ that has been already scientifically critiqued – they don’t carry out the research themselves.

What the UNFCCC do haggle about is how to adapt to climate change, and how to address the challenges in ‘developing’ in a more sustainable way. You know, things like; ‘you go first ... I will if you do ... why should we pay for your pollution ... you caused it ... ETS/tax ... etc’. These are issues people should be jumping-up-and-down-about, because these issues will have to be addressed.

The UNFCCC meet in Denmark later this year. The nuances of the science are ongoing; including much research into climate sensitivity (the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature) and attribution (how much is due to human activity/natural variability).