My thinking on global warming is that the main issue always seems to be the role that humans are assumed to have in affecting it. So I think things like:
- If we assume that the greenhouse effect is a scientifically proven fact.
- And humans have increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by some percentage
- Then how does that not increase the greenhouse effect?
- Or in layman's terms, why would adding some extra percentage of insulation to your attic have no effect?
That's just one example. The other one is knowing whether or not human influence alone is the primary concern, and if it's not, what can we do ( if anything ) to make a meaningful difference — not just shuffle responsibilities around like commodities for the sake of power and profit.
Also like to hear your thoughts on
Bjørn Lomborg's perspective.
It isn't quite that simple as the 4-steps above.
1. Earth absorbs heat during the day from high frequency light from the sun and re-radiates it to space at night with low frequency infrared. CO2 absorbs only a small band of low frequency (low temperature) infrared radiation.
2. Once there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmosphere becomes opaque up to a certain altitude - depending on CO2 density - for that frequency (temperature)
3. When the atmosphere is already opaque to the CO2 absorption frequency, then increasing CO2 has a logarithmically declining effect on nightly heat transfer to space down to almost nothing.
4. At this point, adding more CO2 to an atmosphere that is mostly opaque (except at the poles) theoretically (yet to be observed) increases (slightly) the altitude at which the heat is re-radiated to space. Increasing the temperature in the upper troposphere increases the efficiency at which heat is re-radiated to space (greater temperature differential means greater heat transfer).
5. The heat absorbed by CO2 is re-radiated to space in the troposphere which experiences daily temperature inversions so is very turbulent and mixing. In this complex atmospheric system it is unclear what this slight theoretical CO2 temperature increase in the upper troposphere does to the overall heat transfer. You have water vapor, dew points, and temperature and pressure differentials to consider.
6. More CO2 means more food for plants and plants help cool the planet.
7. To get the disastrous climate models, the IPCC has to assume positive feedback loops which don't really seem to be there.
Other things to address...
The climate undergoes periodic temperature swings ice ages and interglacial warming periods. We have been in such a warming period for millennia. The North American plate is still rumbling and rising from relatively recently (in geological terms) taking the ice load off of it.
We will very likely have another ice age at some point soon and more CO2 wont stop that.
You can't lie with rocket science. If you lie, the rocket blows up.
But when effect sizes are very very small and the effect must be teased out with a lot of complex statistics and correction factors (How To Lie With Statistics anyone?), and there is no immediately obvious indication your science is wrong (like a rocket blowing up), and there are billions of dollars floating around available only to those who agree upon this very tiny effect size and its cause, then you have a recipe for corruption of "the science".
