Andy Lacis Meets the Train Wreck

Rattus points to a post by Andy Lacis at Curry's Train Wreck Shed, which has tied the usual suspects up in fluff and spawned 650 sputters and a second thread. The post itself is both sharp and informative reprise of Lacis, Schmidt, Rind and Ruedy's year old Science article on the greenhouse effect and climate change. Eli recommends reading both. Look for La Curry to try and bury this one. While the bunnies are about it, stirring up the natives might be enjoyable. They are rather off balance.

Lacis, is particularly fond of Bishop Hill's attempt to paint him as an IPCC critic of the good clergy's church, whereas Andy

. . .was irked by the persistent use of wishy-washy terminology such as ‘likely’ and ‘very likely’ that was totally uncalled for. One example: “It is likely that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases in every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20^th century.”

Such ‘social sciences’ terminology might be allowable if there was no other available evidence for global warming except for the statistical analysis of a relatively short global temperature time-series (on which there is superimposed a substantial natural variability component). But the physical evidence for global warming is quite overwhelming, and it is downright irresponsible (and stupid) not to make use of it.

More specifically: (1) precise measurements show atmospheric CO₂ has increased from its 280 ppm pre-industrial value to the current ~390 ppm; (2) there is available an accurate HITRAN tabulation of line absorption coefficients for all of the atmospheric absorbing gases; (3) we have available accurate radiation modeling techniques as well as capable global climate models; and (4) that 9 Gigatons of carbon (coal, gas, oil) are being burned each year (by us humans).

Based on this basic input data, the relevant physics is inescapably clear that the increase in atmospheric CO₂ is indeed enhancing the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and thus causing global warming to happen – all directly attributable to human industrial activity. To characterize this fully documented global warming only as being ‘likely’ a ’substantial’ anthropogenic contribution is clearly resorting to unscientific understatement that does nothing to clarify or accurately portray our understanding of global climate change. Rather, using such under-whelming weasel words only adds to the deliberate public confusion regarding climate change. Unfortunately, such subtle misinformation is being actively promoted by the fossil fuel lobbyists and their growing multitude of dupes and minions.

Perhaps the only thing that Eli would emphasize more, is that given our continuing perturbation of the atmosphere, oceans and land, natural variation will be insignificant in the not too far away future.

And for those of you in Pielkesport, sKs has something