in Re to
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-819466
Hi Nigel,
Indeed, I have not recognized that “bananas” is a short form of an idiom. Thanks a lot for your kind explanation.
Now, I would like to return to your post of February 20 addressed to me
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-819439 .
Let me shortly comment on your four points.
1) “The science isn’t settled.” In fact its settled enough to know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is at least the main cause of the warming.
TK:
Just to be precise, we speak about our perception of present climate science. I rather tend to understand the word “settled” analogously as Paul Pukite. I tried to explain it with my example of the successful space probe launch. In my opinion, present climate science has not reached this level of reliability and practical applicability yet.
As regards CO2, I fully agree that it is a greenhouse gas, that it surely participates on the greenhouse effect of Earth atmosphere, and that rising CO2 concentration surely must contribute to warming earth climate.
I have, however, still problem with assigning the rising atmospheric CO2 level as “main cause” of the observed climate change. I even afraid that such an assignment might in fact work as a potentially dangerous self-deception. It is because I strongly doubt that various “causes” or “forcings” driving Earh climate and its changes can be treated separately, isolated from each other.
Let me try to explain by following metaphor. You have a square or round table with four legs. You remove one leg, and the table still stays upright. Even if you remove two opposite legs, the table may still stay upright. Then a weak wind blow or any other impuls shakes it, and the table turns over. What was the “main cause” of its fall? Was it the last impuls, your previous actions that destabilized it, or both?
Putting one perpetrator in the jail without captupring his accomplices may not work. IPCC executive summaries, media and politicians portrait our present knowledge about Earth climate and its regulation mechanisms the way that if we return the concentration of atmospheric non-condensing greenhouse gases to the preindustrial level, the observed climate change will decelerate. Furthermore, it seems to be silently assumed that later, the climate should slowly return toward its preindustrial state.
I doubt that any individual climate scientist would honestly say that he or she is sure what will indeeed happen in a such case. Personally, I am somewhat afraid that it is well possible that we may still have something like the turned table with two legs, because I do not believe that just rectifying the supposed “main cause” of a change in a complex system is a guarantee of its return to its initial state.
2)”Political decisions won’t work” (carbon tax, cap and trade, subsidies, etc., etc.), meaning by definition that only individual initiative will work, a typical right wing and libertarian meme. (This also conflicts with your claim that you are not a libertarian.)
TK:
I have not said that. I think that political decisions may work, provided that they are smart. Unfortunately, I do not see much smart political decisions in present climate policies. For example, subsidizing in parallel fossil fuels, renewable energy and nuclear energy can hardly work.
You certainly remember that we spoke about direct CO2 capture from air. I am not alone who thinks it is a total waste of effort and resources. Pushing towards “Hydrogen economy” is, under present economical circumstances, purely a huge success of the powerful lobby lead by fossil fuel industry, and another big deal therefor. In such cases, I would indeed say that an absence of a policy could make less harm than promoting any of such would-be “solutions”.
3) “We must not ‘damage’ the economy!” An emotive statement that could mean anything. The energy transition proposed will cost society money in the short term and will save money in the long term. We are not going to solve the climate problem at no additional cost, but apparently you oppose spending ANY extra money and redirection of resources to mitigate the problem.
TK:
Again, I have not said that. In fact, I am using to say “Economy matters”.
Reasonable investments cost money, however, they bring a benefit in return. I am afraid that above mentioned policy examples will cost lot of money but will not bring any short or long term benefit at all. In some cases, they may rather bring significant damages either indirectly (by consuming resources for other needs that will be neglected due to “climate emergency”) or even directly.
This has been, unfortunately, already the case, see e.g. large deforestation and soil destruction for nonsensical mass production of “biomass” and/or “biofuels”, economically driven solely by the respective subsidies. That is what I would like to avoid.
4) “The water cycle perturbed by humans could be the main cause of the warming” (paraphrasing what you appear to be saying). Typical attempt to blame a scapegoat and create doubt in people’s minds about official explanations without providing any actual analysis and calculations and quantification, despite your many posts on the issue.
TK:
As regards the “main cause” and its “official explanations”, see above.
As regards the support for my view – I indeed think that the water cycle and its anthropogenic perturbations may play an important role in present climate change – I admit that I very appreciated the attempt made by Barton Paul, with the aim to quantify (and eventually disprove) the effect.
Unfortunately, I have not recognized for quite long that the main assumption in his simple model (that latent heat flux can be increased purely on the expenses of the upwelling longwave radiation, without any sensible heat flux decrease) is unrealistic, and recognized it, thank to JCM, only when Barton Paul by his correction seemingly confirmed my assumptions.
Now, the article Lague 2023 cited by JCM seems to me as the most qualified estimation of the effects that anthropogenic changes in land hydrology may have on global climate.
It was the reason why on February 7
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-819062
I tried to explain how I understand the article, why I tried to add an additional explanation to Piotr on February 8
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-819074
and asked him once again on February 12
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-819145
in which aspects he understands this article differently from me.
I have not obtained any reasonable answer yet.
If you would like to show me in which aspect(s) I contradicted myself in my previous posts, I propose that you tell me, first of all, what is incorrect in my understanding to Lague 2023.
This could be a good starting point, I think.
Greetings to New Zealand
Tomáš