Comment: Thnx for the focused reply

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Your headline is as confusing (see in situ)

Thnx for the focused reply

My apologies for the confusing headline. I now see what you're referring to because it doesn't show the comma everywhere. Didn't notice that before. Pretty significant change for such an insignificant punctuation mark!

I agree with your assessment. He definitely isn't perfect but he is probably the best overall 'voice of reason' I've seen on the subject. I get the Jonestown analogy (will never listen to that idiot Rush again tho) and it would be relevant but I believe there are good correlations between more than just a couple temperature records. Also, I don't understand those people who lump 1000 separate temp stations into one 'source'. They're clearly independent of each other. So it may not be a perfect analogy.

Regarding his one-sidedness, my take on that is that the scientific papers that are peer-reviewed have already been critiqued. If no other researcher, reporter or otherwise expert can find an error in it, I doubt that David Rose, Rush Limbaugh or any of us here will. I'm not saying it couldn't happen but rather that it's lower odds.

I think everyone would agree that there's way too many factors affecting global temp, climate change and the interaction between the two for us to model them all with certainty. But at some point, don't we have to say this is X%, those are Y% & Z% and together, they make up 99.x% so that's good enough to get a picture of what's going on? I mean, we confidently know that natural factors cause a certain amount and that our effect on other natural factors (like deforestation and urban heat islands) cause another amount and then that anthropocentric factors cause a third amount. At that point, can't we make evaluations on our activity enough to agree that it's a problem?

The surface impacts you cite do have a role to play but all the studies I've read show it to be quite a bit less than the CO2 increase. Search for GW forcings to see this. You'll probably even find that the results from those are pretty fast acting while CO2 response is cumulative over many centuries.

In short, CO2 not only blocks IR from leaving to space but it indirectly causes increases in other factors that also enhance GW. Our planet is 33 degC warmer than it would be without an atmosphere and all by itself, CO2 accounts for 10-25% of that total temperature rise. Without this warming, the Earth would be about -16 degC. That's a pretty strong factor and we've almost doubled the CO2 concentration in a very short time. It's for this reason that such an emphasis is placed on it.

So what do you think? Can we separate the issues of GW=True? and AG21=True? apart from each other? As I see it, we've got work to do either way.