The author posits that we may be worse off because deforestation. Yet forest cover is increasing from when models variables were set due to increased CO2 so perhaps the higher bounds won't be reached.
> Water also will heat up the earth too, because it is a greenhouse gas. So when water evapotranspires it is both heating up the earth and also cooling it. Its a competition. So we have to do the calculations to see which wins out, to see if the water greenhouse warms more or the latent heat infrared radiation cools more. My guess is that when they take the nonlinear dynamics of convection more into account, they will find the latent heat infrared radiation wins out. The biotic effect may also come into play here, as it can cause more convection upwards.
To me, this article classifies as FUD, even though the non-linear heat transfer of water vapor could be a significant factor, one should wait and compare the parameterized static models and non-parameterized dynamic ones in conjunction with land mass changes to call it news. As the auther notes it above themself. At most, this is a valuable contribution to the unsettled scientific discourse but not as a pop-sci article.
And even then ... wether the water dynamics beeing a net cooler or heater is insignificant for the past observation of global warming. And also insignificant to the fact that CO2 is an accumulating greenhouse gas.
Also a good indicator of FUD is, how the other commentators jump on "the climate scientist got it wrong!"
What bothers me especially about this, is that the uncertainty is targeted towards "should we even care about CO2?".
Yes we should. We _have to_ take care long term of all our waste products to achieve sustainability! You can tackle climate change and many other of our problems _without even mentioning them_ simply with the logic of sustainability. But people get hooked else where...
I went to a talk by forest ecologist Suzanna Simard last year. One interesting point she made is that the carbon sequestration abilities of a woodland depends on more variables than simply the coverage. If I remember rightly, mature woodlands with a diverse ecology and rich soil environment (with plenty of fungal matter) are much better at capturing CO2. Chopping down an ancient forest cannot simply be compenstated by a huge monoculture plantation somewhere else.
