A South Korean professor of environmental science speaks out in a country where to do so is rare and takes great courage. As more senior scientists break cover it allows others to question the proposition that the "science is settled".
“The climate-crisis big lie serves to resurrect socialism” - Clintel
[[[[[[[[[“Ninety-five percent of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, and the man-made CO2 input is insignificant. Climate is governed by solar activity, ocean currents, the thermoregulatory function of clouds: anthropogenic CO2 is background noise. The increase in CO2 is a consequence of humanity’s increased prosperity from the use of fossil fuels. In addition, due to increased CO2, the Earth is greener and food production is increasing. CO2 cannot impact Earth’s climate and has beneficial effects on Earth’s biomass. The use of fossil fuels, the growth of human population and the increase of CO2 are divine blessings. I have lived all my life as a scientist, and scientists speak on the basis of established theories and reproducible empirical evidence to support their claims: everything I have said is backed up by solid empirical evidence.”]]]]]]]]
ReplyDeleteMy guess is Dr. Park actually knows the true science of water vapor and co2. Water vapor is a pos. feedback to co2. The more co2, the more temperture increases, the more water vapor increases. Since water vapor is also a GHG, the temperature increases even more.
Also water vapor WV has a very short atmospheric lifetime. From other sources WV only has about a day residency in the atmosphere. While co2 last for centuries in the atmosphere. WV is a significant contribution to global warming. This is the area of climate sensitivity. The agreed on climate sensitivity, for every degree that co2 increases temperature, we are actually getting 3*C. Positive feedback is what drives the dangerous change in our atmosphere for increasing temperatures.
https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&n=345
How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.
The percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere varies all over the world and while warmer air is capable of holding a greater amount of water vapour, that does not mean it actually does. Deserts are very hot, but the air in them is very dry. If the theory of water vapour feedback which you describe were true then the greatest amount of global warming should be found in the troposphere above the tropics. This tropical "hot spot" has never been found in practice, hence this theory is wrong. This is why all the computer climate models, which are programmed with this "positive feedback" give predictions which are too hot.
ReplyDeleteNot all models come out hot. Surprisingly, a lot of the old models got it right for today. Plus, the hot spot issue isn't a failure of the green house gas theory. The warming planet is true with or without the hotspot being clearly found in the data. In the SKS link below, the sun warming the atmosphere, then the stratosphere would warm also. Now GHGs warming the atmosphere, the theory goes that the stratosphere would cool. This has been observed in the data. The co2 in the atmosphere is reflecting some of the infrared energy back to the surface of the earth, where you and I are experiencing a warming atmosphere. All studies data leads to humans warming the earth with our GHGs.
Deletehttps://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-advanced.htm
Part 1: The “Hotspot” as an Alleged Fingerprint of Anthropogenic Warming
A great deal of the confusion surrounding the issue of temperature trends in the upper troposphere comes from the mistaken belief that the presence or lack of amplification of surface warming in the upper troposphere has some bearing on the attribution of global warming to man-made causes.
It does not.
Attribution of anthropogenic origins of the current climatic changes can be tested from many different directions. On of the most clear examples for those with some familiarity with the Earth’s atmosphere is the issue of stratospheric cooling. If the sun were to suddenly increase its output by 2%, we would rightfully expect the atmosphere as well as the surface to warm up in response. This can be examined, for instance, by looking at the response in a GCM like GISS ModelE:
Likewise, if we were to double preindustrial levels of CO2, we would expect the surface and the lower atmosphere to warm. However, unlike the case of increasing solar influence, we would not expect the lower atmosphere to warm through at all levels. Increasing the greenhouse effect should warm the surface and troposphere, but cool the lower stratosphere.
n the doubled CO2 scenario, there is a pronounced cooling of higher altitudes, i.e. the stratosphere, and this feature is entirely absent in the +2% solar scenario.
This stratospheric cooling is a fingerprint of increased greenhouse (as opposed to solar) warming. For a more in depth discussion of why the stratosphere cools under enhanced greenhouse warming, see discussions at Skeptical Science and The Science of Doom. In other words, the difference in the two simulations is not the presence of a "hot spot" in one and its absence in the other, it's the stratospheric cooling apparent in the increased CO2 simulation.