Are you going to answer his questions Ian?
I'm not really interested in answering questions any more. People seldom answer mine, you being a prime example.
He's an ally Ian. He could certainly use the enlightenment. And speaking of enlightenment, you seem to have lost track of the Golden Rule somewhere along the line.
But to make you happy, and to reiterate my past statements, I will repeat that I think most of the extra atmospheric CO2 is man made.
Shouldn't you explain how that can be when such a small percentage in any given year is anthropogenic? That's a commonly recurring objection. How can it build up so Ian?
I do not think CO2 controls the climate
What does that mean: "controls the climate"? Is that actually a claim made by the IPCC or the world's climate scientists on whose work they're based? All I had ever heard was that CO2 was the primary cause of warming.
but I do think it adds a push towards warming of roughly 1C per doubling.
Wouldn't 1C sensitivity still make it the primary cause of warming? Do you know of some other factor with a greater effect (actual now, not potential).
Of that 1C, I think at least some of the forcing is shunted into other pathways and will result in less than 1C of actual warming.
Shunted how? To where?
The hydrological system is poorly understood
And... so what? What is the connection you apparently believe exists between the hydrological cycle, CO2 and warming?
and the hotspot which is a necessary attribute of CO2 theory is simply not there. No feedback.
That is simply incorrect Ian. A hotspot will be produced by
any increase in radiative forcing. The signature of GHG warming is not a tropospheric hotspot, but stratospheric cooling. See Figure 9.1 in the "Working Group I - The Physical Science Basis" in AR4.
Can we slow CO2 emissions? Imperceptably at large expense. The technology is not here yet. Perhaps one day but not now.
So we should not try?
I had to laugh when I heard that more than a third of the power generated in solar thermal power plants is from fossil fuel 'assist'.
You think a 2/3rds decrease in emissions is insignificant?
If the weaknesses of CAGW and renewable power were talked about rather than hidden behind unbelievable rhetoric and prophesies I would be more on side with the effort. As it is I am being lied to, and that pisses me off and makes me uncooperative.
What do the characteristics of renewable power technologies have to do with the validity of AGW? Nothing, Ian, absolutely nothing. And, specifically, what lies do you believe you've been told? Lies like the lack of a tropospheric hotspot falsifies the greenhouse effect? Lies like the world's climate scientists are making false reports to get rich from research grants? Lies like the IPCC is run by socialist liberals intent on world domination and the oppression of human freedoms? Lies like the world has not warmed since 1998?
I really don't know why climate science has tolerated shoddy work in the name of The Noble Cause. The trust in science but especially scientists involved has plummeted and will take a long time to earn back.
The
apparent shoddiness has two causes: 1) the climate is complex, chaotic and cannot be accurately simulated in a laboratory setting and 2) An extremely well funded group is doing everything they can to make you believe the work is shoddy because the results of that work threaten their very profitable existence.
