Scientific foundation of climate knowledge

I DON’T know what physics specialism Dr Phillip Bratby has, but his view that CO2 is saturated as a greenhouse gas is not shared by the vast majority of climate and weather scientists who specialise in atmospheric radiative transfer.

In case he is interested in an explanation, he can read it here: https://bit.ly/3g4IWKt. That paper says, the “saturated” argument is flawed because, although some absorption wavelengths are saturated, others aren’t and CO2 continues to act as a greenhouse gas. Our premier science institution, the Royal Society, confirms this very point saying this is backed by laboratory measurements and detailed observations.

As to the claim that Dr Bratby makes about water vapour, climate scientists agree that it plays a very important and complex role in global warming. Again, the Royal Society succinctly explains that “water vapour is treated as an amplifier, and not a driver, of climate change” because it cycles through the atmosphere in days and not decades, like CO2. It would not be causing a problem without the warming effect of carbon dioxide and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases.

I remain totally confident that

CO2 and methane are the driving force behind global warming because even the scientists working for fossil fuel companies and the scientific advisors in countries with economies far more linked to oil and gas accept this. I am further reassured that the Nobel Prize selection committee gave the physics award in 2021 to three scientists for showing that ‘our knowledge about the climate rests on a solid scientific foundation’.

Michael Carter Exeter, Devon