64luke

63 340HP

Yes, the model reference points to 20% of recent measured warming to be caused by recent increases in CO2 by natural and human sources, a far different conclusion than the IPPC based models that claim a 60%+ magnitude caused by only human CO2 (a prior inflation error of over 200%). Natural CO2 increases are routinely discounted, and the reduction of methane hydrates from melting permafrost into atmospheric CO2 over time is just one large scale overlooked natural source.

As the CO2 heat transfer influence is adjusted downward in significance, that leaves the missing 40% to account for, in addition to the excess capacity of changing water vapor and cloud tops, and most of all the unstudied variables of decreased dimming aerosols and particulates since the globe's energy use transitioned from the 1880's. The dependence in 1880 on particulate heavy atmospheric pressure wood to atmospheric coal combustion, until the first cleaner petroleum energy impacts to the record hot 1930's occurred, is an overlooked factor (and surprising for a field that claims to be related to pollution identification and mediation science that finds California's current minimal atmospheric wood energy the #1 dimming particulate cause). Mainstream climate science also ignores the WW2 debris dimming and the subsequent explosive growth of smog pollution dimming and cooling that influenced the climate up until the mid-1970's, until effective pollution controls began to clean up the atmosphere to contribute to the warm 1980's and early 1990's, the accelerated warming rate of change that motivated the fears of catastrophic global warming (that continue to appear to be more of a rapid return to normal cyclical warming, without mankind's pollution and particulate debris artificially cooling the climate).

When an unbiased Scientist is asked if the atmospheric CO2 concentration has an impact on climate, an honest one says yes, but the same Scientist is ignored when they question the magnitude of CO2's influence. The same editorial by omission occurs when a Scientist is asked if mankind's activities influence the climate, with an affirmative answer, and ignored when they want to clarify that mankind has practiced both cooling and warming influences throughout history. This exposes the inherent flaw in the UN IPCC where the politicized focus is only on research supporting CO2's assumed warming influence, and mandated to ignore all of the valid science trying to properly account for all climate change influences.

Unfortunately CO2 based climate science is at a stage in understanding similar to geography before men sailed across the Atlantic, where CO2 fear is on everyone's mind just like the pre-Columbus horizon was considered flat and feared, because that was the comfortable prevailing settled science. Until climate science can rule out the magnitudes of alternate climate influences, all of the current climate models predict doom like the predictions of ships sailing off the edge of the earth.

We know the climate cannot warm forever because of the past 40 million years of climate history of cyclical ice ages with higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations, without knowing why, but catastrophic doom is much easier to exploit to generate social oppression rather than promote rational conservation of resources to prepare for global warming or cooling (and patience to assure mankind does not make mistakes that are more grave than premature reactions to immature climate science).

1969RAY

If only California politics were as clear and reasoned as the discussion between SDVette and 63 340. Thank you both.

Drothgeb

AZDoug

tuxnharley

Drothgeb