Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The atmosphere is a whole, CO2 and water vapor make up a part of the whole. If you manipulate one component of the whole it affects the other components assuming those components are not constants. So, unless there is evidence that water vapor is a constant, which I have not seen any evidence of, a manipulation of CO2 can impact the amount water vapor in the atmosphere. So, in theory if you can control one you can control other variables. A reduction in CO2 with an increase in other green house gases may off-set each other in terms of climate change or they may interact in a pendulum fashion when one component goes to far to one extreme it swings back seeking equilibrium. When science knows the answer to these questions then we can properly conclude if our quest for CO2 reductions is a worthy goal. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to withhold or to manipulate data, without honest and open disclosures.
And again for the record, I support efforts to reduce environmental pollution and for humans being responsible stewards of this planet. I think we have learned a lot since the beginning of the industrial revolution and I think continued innovation and incremental approaches to controlling pollution is our best choice at this point in human history.
|
Talk about faulty logic. You don't need evidence that water vapor is a constant. You just need evidence that it is independent from CO2. As long as reducing CO2 doesn't directly lead to an increase in the other gases, a reduction in CO2 will reduce temperatures relative to that which would have been in case the reduction didn't take place.
And so far, there is absolutely no evidence that a reduction in CO2 actually increases water vapor. Quite the opposite. Which is in fact where part of the feedback loop comes in.