Quote:
Originally Posted by svguy
This may be semantics, but it still would be a driver. It will still absorb longwave, and it will still re-emit. I have no idea what you consider to be a de facto driver. A driver is a driver is a driver, I have no idea what arbitrary line delineates a de facto driver from a de jure driver from a sunday driver.....
|
I mean that CO2 is not a [idriver[/i] of "global warming" in the sense that it is decoupled from the temperature curves that we have extrapolated throughout paleohistory. Sometimes CO2 rises ahead of temp, sometimes it trails, sometimes it does nothing related. So it's clear that CO2 isn't
driving global temp.
Quote:
|
The question is not whether that happens or not, but to the extent it does.
|
Again, you don't understand how climate
works. No one does yet. So you don't know "whether it happens or not" either.
Quote:
A "driver" (even if it has signal on the order of 10-9 thingamebobbies) is still a driver. The function does not change; it still acts to re-emit incident longwave; to act as a thermal re-source.
Even the staunchest skeptics typically do not take the stance that CO2 is not a driver; they will say that, due to absorption overlap (or whatever attenuation aspect they believe in), then the full driver "effect" is not met to the level that the proponents state.
If you want to say that the contribution of CO2 is not on the order of the IPCC estimates; nor on the order of the Arhenius estimates; nor for that matter on the order of the Lindzen estimates, that is one thing, and is the subject of a different line of science. It is quite another to say that it doesn't exist in our atmosphere.
|
You assume an automatic "I add a million tons of free CO2 into the atmosphere and the global temperature WILL increase by some amount."
You can't prove that. Maybe someday, with enough climatological study, you will, but not right now.
-dale