Scientists have determined the error in calculating effects of shortwave cloud forcing on climate spans 82-132 W/m² since the mid-1990s. Total clear-sky climate forcing linked to CO2 since 1750 is 1.8 W/m². Therefore, there is no way to accurately determine anthropogenic CO2’s capacity to influence climate.
Even NASA acknowledges that for climate models to be capable of detecting an anthropogenic impact on climate – indeed, for the models to even be useful in long-term projections – their capacity to accurately measure radiation from clouds must be improved “about a hundredfold.”
The more we learn, the more we realise that we need to understand the climate much better.
There is very sound science showing the link of co2 to warming on earth. The link labeled advanced seems to answer your question the best.
ReplyDeletehttps://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet's surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm
The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
But you should address the point in the article, which was that our understanding of the effect of clouds is still so poor that it makes it impossible to quantify the CO2 warming accurately. Yes we know there is an effect but it is swamped by the behaviour of clouds.
ReplyDeleteCloud feedback does lean positive. We aren't going to be rescued by a negative feedback like our stories on TV.
DeleteThere is a saying you don't bet the farm on risky things. Science is showing us that cloud feedback gets quite strong at really high levels of co2. Don't want to go there. We are taught not to put our hands in the fire and we really should get out of carbon based energy as soon as we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_feedback#Cloud_feedback
Cloud feedback
Main article: Cloud feedback
Warming is expected to change the distribution and type of clouds. Seen from below, clouds emit infrared radiation back to the surface, and so exert a warming effect; seen from above, clouds reflect sunlight and emit infrared radiation to space, and so exert a cooling effect. Whether the net effect is warming or cooling depends on details such as the type and altitude of the cloud. Low clouds tend to trap more heat at the surface and therefore have a positive feedback, while high clouds normally reflect more sunlight from the top so they have a negative feedback. These details were poorly observed before the advent of satellite data and are difficult to represent in climate models.[70] Global climate models were showing a near-zero to moderately strong positive net cloud feedback, but the effective climate sensitivity has increased substantially in the latest generation of global climate models. Differences in the physical representation of clouds in models drive this enhanced climate sensitivity relative to the previous generation of models.[71][72][73]
A 2019 simulation predicts that if greenhouse gases reach three times the current level of atmospheric carbon dioxide that stratocumulus clouds could abruptly disperse, contributing to additional global warming.[74][11]