> However, it thereby neglects the role of CO2 as a primary mechanism of global temperature.
From the book desription[1]:
> For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could be missing from the models?
It does not neglect, but disputes. Whether that disputation is successful is above my pay-grade.
That book can claim what it wants. I am waiting for the science to back up those claims.
Physical evidence of CO2 causing global warming has been presented for over 120 years. Arrhenius was the first to propose that such a mechanism can cause global warming [1]. Please wake up to the 20th century. Snooze, and wake up to the 21st. Global warming due to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is real.
If you have any peer-reviewed science contradicting my claims, please present them.
There's no difference here between arguing against CO2 warming and the Earth being a sphere(oid). Anybody that's still publishing material arguing that the science on this point is in any way unsettled is intentionally ignoring results from the field that disagrees with their ideology.
I don't think the book is arguing that CO2 rich atmosphere don't retain more heat. Factors like these don't exist in isolation though. And he seems to be arguing that variations in natural factors explain the global climate history better than CO2 levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but that seems to be the point that needs debunking, if it isn't.
I don't want to feed a troll here, but I'll debunk the arguments laid out in the first Chapter of the book [1]:
> The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts.
Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure?
> Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure
No, they haven't. Hansen (1988!) has been extremely accurate [2].
> No global warming occurred for 18 years and 8 months through December 2015.
Total meme-argument. There is no denying the temperature increase [3]. Debunked time and time again.
> NOAA and NASA have corrupted surface temperature records.
Evidence? This is completely unsubstantiated.
> Only satellite temperature measurements are reliable.
I don't agree, but there are multiple satellite datasets that indicate global warming is real.
> The past is the key to the future.
ok?
> Cyclic climatic patterns in the geologic past provide a basis for predicting future climate changes.
Cyclic, I'm not sure of. But "climatic patterns in the geologic past" have been studied extensively and DO provide a basis for "predicting future climate changes". Key among them: CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
At this point I'm not sure you're not a troll ; or do you hope noone will actually click your links and check facts stated there ?
I will quote here:
'The take-home message should not be "Hansen was wrong therefore climate models and the anthropogenic global warming theory are wrong;" the correct conclusion is that Hansen's study is another piece of evidence that climate sensitivity is in the IPCC stated range of 2-4.5°C for 2xCO2.'
I'm not sure how this correlates with your 'Hansen has been extremely accurate' claim, but you're clearly not helping with your references
Okay, you made me actually click through the link, and I can find:
> As noted above, Hansen's model overpredicted the ensuing global warming thus far by approximately 15 to 25%. Thus if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 15 to 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a reasonably accurate back-of-the-envelope estimate), ...
Predicting global warming for ~30 years within 25% in 1988 seems "pretty accurate" to me, isn't it? Surely it's a far cry from the skeptical position that models are so wrong that we can gain nothing from them.
Could farmers in cold climate pump CO2 into a greenhouse, raising it to ~1000ppm, to meaningfully reduce the need to heat during the winter? Is the heat trapping effect of CO2 measurable at building scale?
Would double paned windows containing pure CO2 between the panes function as measurably better insulators?
> The term "greenhouse effect" continues to see use in scientific circles and the media despite being a slight misnomer, as an atmosphere reduces radiative heat loss[8] while a greenhouse blocks convective heat loss.
A simplified model is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealized_greenhouse_model . A quick look suggests ε - the emissivity of the atmosphere - is the key parameter answering your question. The Δε must be high enough to affect the calculation. Simply filling a greenhouse with CO2 isn't enough to get there. (Plus, greenhouses aren't primarily cooled by radiative heat loss.)
> Air as a fill wasn't effective in providing insulation, so some manufacturers started looking for alternatives. The 1970s saw the use of carbon dioxide and Freon. Although they helped increase the insulation value of windows, they were proven to be sensitive to seal failure and cause discoloration.
Argon and krypton are more effective than CO2, but they are not greenhouse gasses because convective heat loss is different from radiative heat loss.
From the book desription[1]:
> For example, there is an absence of any physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, so the only argument for CO2 as the cause of warming rests entirely in computer modeling. Thus, the question becomes, how accurate are the computer models in predicting climate? What other variables could be missing from the models?
It does not neglect, but disputes. Whether that disputation is successful is above my pay-grade.
[1]https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128045886/evidence-ba...