Reply to post: Re: 30m quid on removing greenhouse gases?

Re: 30m quid on removing greenhouse gases?

It only needs to be narrow to keep enough extra heat in the atmosphere to cause climate issues.

Perhaps time for you to have some remedial basic physics lessons.

Not me guv, but then a lot of climate modellers aren't physicists, so GIGO. But that's been the problem.

So CO2 sensitivity might be 2-3W/m^2 and has generally been revised downwards over time. Simple reason being that at higher sensitivity, there should have been a greater effect.. Which hasn't been observed.

But the physics is simple. Photon hits a CO2 molecule, excites it briefly and gets spat out again in a random direction. That's also measurable, ie what OCCO-2 and other carbon observatories look for. Missing part seems to be surface measurements, so satellites can look at radiation at TOA, but at surface, proxies are relied on (thermometers, trees etc). But the whole argument is about any potential energy 'imbalance', and that's what has been driving the trillions wasted by the Green Blob.

Then there are other assumptions, so sensitivity per doubling of CO2. So that's assumed to be logarithmic, but also assumes atmospheric CO2 could be doubled. But if CO2 sensitivity is low, then the dire predictions from the cAGW won't happen, and can't happen.

So then it's just politics. So look at the cost of mitigation vs adaptation vs cost of inaction. If there are benefits from higher CO2 (like crop yields) then it makes little sense to waste trillions doing something that will have no measurable effect on the 'climate'.. Which is what the UK's been doing, so our efforts to committ economic suicide by decarbonising the UK. Which will kill people, but have a tiny effect on the global climate.