Eric Sullenberger > Recent Status Updates

Chapter 7 spent too long on the square cube mlaw. It also focused mostly on refuting the literature, rather than showing the harmony between maths and art.

I give up. I cannot give any credence to the trees & plants need the CO2 we're burning argument. We've not been burning fossil fuels long enough, and yet plants seem to do just fine previously. What's more deforestation is undeniable and so if anything the plants need less not more CO2.

I give up. An introduction into facts in and I can't even continue the book. It's not that it challenges me, it's just wrong.

One part in 2000 is a really convenient way to restate 500 parts per million. He also started that stopping burning fossil fuels won't cool the climate. Most experts agree that CO2 we'll have to be removed from the atmosphere. It does not mean that adding CO2 to the atmosphere isn't going to cause a warming. Also, I've never understood the desire to stay on fossil fuels even if climate change isn't a thing.

Fact 2 - he's essentially talking about reaction kinetics. As the concentration of CO2 increases it's not that it stops absorbing heat it's that the additional little bits don't contribute a lot more. You had a lot of red dye to a pool of water, at some point additional amounts of dye have less and less of effect.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-polic...

At the tail end of the introduction, he mentions correctly that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. However, the concern is about how we are changing the atmosphere and not about what naturally occurs. Also the burning of fossil fuels does produce additional water vapor. He also missed the shift in infrared wavelengths that occurs, implying that he only came from the gases in the air.

In the introduction he just said "our changing climate" from his own perspective. That is, he's talking about Earth's climate and not something like political climate and he was not quoting someone else or summarizing the other side's beliefs.